[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 29 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S961-S970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             SEQUESTRATION

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Democrats who 
run Washington promised America things would be different under a 
reelected President Obama. Instead of politics, they would focus on 
policy. Instead of leaving everything until the last minute, they would 
get the people's work done ahead of time for a change--and through the 
regular order. Well, those promises didn't last very long.
  Later this afternoon, less than 24 hours before the President's 
sequester proposal takes effect, we will vote on a Senate Democrat plan 
that does more to perpetuate the culture of irresponsibility around 
here than it does to fix the culture of spending that Washington 
Democrats claim to be concerned about.
  Point of fact: Not only would their legislation fail to fix the 
spending problem facing our country, it would actually add billions 
more to the deficit. In other words, it isn't a plan at all. It is a 
gimmick.
  Top Democrats already concede it will never garner enough votes to 
pass the very legislative body they control, much less the House. But 
let's be very clear: For the President and for his allies, that is 
really the whole point. They want it to fail so they can go around the 
country blaming Republicans for a sequester the President himself 
proposed. In fact, they are so concerned about preventing anything from 
actually passing the Congress they have limited the ability of Senators 
on both sides to debate the issue openly and to offer different ideas.
  For instance, Senators Ayotte and Paul have introduced bills that 
deserve our consideration. And there are others too. Senator Collins 
has been working on a proposal, and Senator Whitehouse has a plan that 
would replace the sequester with a series of huge tax hikes. I don't 
support that approach, but his legislation at least merits a vote.
  Republicans will get just one chance to offer a bill, and I will 
discuss that legislation a little later in my remarks. But if the 
President's sequester is going to be as horrible as Washington 
Democrats have proposed, shouldn't we spend more than just a few hours 
debating it? Is this really the best Senate Democrats can do?
  As for the President, he too has yet to put forward a serious plan 
that could pass either the House or the Democrat-controlled Senate, and 
he has refused to engage in substantive discussions with congressional 
leaders. Now, this week, he finally invited Speaker Boehner and me to 
discuss the sequester; that is, tomorrow, the day it takes effect. In 
short, instead of changing as they promised, Washington Democrats are 
just turning back to the same old campaign-first strategy they have 
employed literally now for years.

  Now, after thwarting every bipartisan attempt to avert the sequester, 
the President is ready to make it bite as hard as possible--all to send 
a simple message to the public: Do you want to control Washington 
spending, America? Fine. Let me show you how much I can make it hurt. 
That is the President's strategy: Let me show you how much I can make 
it hurt.
  Instead of directing his Cabinet Secretaries to trim waste in their 
departments, he is going after first responders and teachers and almost 
any other sympathetic constituency you can think of. He will 
arbitrarily close parks and monuments too, all to force Americans to 
accept higher taxes.
  He will claim his hands are tied. He will say he has no choice but to 
release criminals into the streets and withhold vaccinations from poor 
children. Somehow it will be everybody's fault but his. Nonsense.
  Look, our country has a spending problem--a pretty massive one. Most 
of us in the Chamber at least acknowledge that fact. But we can either 
address the problem in a smart way or we can do it in the way he has 
proposed. That is what the Toomey-Inhofe legislation we will vote on 
this afternoon is all about. It is about giving agency heads greater 
flexibility to ensure the sequester cuts are implemented in a smarter 
way.
  Some have raised concerns that this would give the administration too 
much power; that the President would just use the authority to punish 
his critics. I certainly understand those concerns. But the goal here 
is twofold: One, to make sure the American people get the same amount 
of spending cuts that were promised to them in 2011; and, two, to 
guarantee some accountability on the President's part so those cuts are 
administered in a more intelligent way.
  You would think the President would welcome a proposal such as ours. 
Given his complaints and those of his Cabinet Secretaries about their 
hands being tied on cuts, you would think he would be banging on our 
doors demanding flexibility. But now--get this--he is complaining that 
having extra authority might mean he would actually have to choose 
which programs to preserve and which ones to cut; that he would have to 
prioritize spending within the Federal Government.
  Well, with due respect, Mr. President, I think a lot of people who 
voted for you think that is your job, to make those tough decisions--
especially tough decisions to implement the plan you, yourself, 
proposed and insisted upon. Surely, you can find a little more than 2 
percent to cut from the Federal budget, and surely you can do it 
without raining down a phony Armageddon on American families. They had 
to find ways to cope with the 2 percent less in their paychecks just 
last month after the payroll tax went back up. Why in the world can't 
Washington?
  Look, the American people will simply not accept replacing spending 
cuts agreed to by both parties with tax hikes, and I plan to make all 
of this clear to the President when I meet with him tomorrow. He 
already got hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue earlier this 
year when the tax law expired. Now it is time for the balanced part of 
the equation, and that means keeping our promise to reduce spending.
  So the time for games is over. No more protecting waste and broken 
promises at the expense of those who actually need government help. The 
American people were promised more spending control, and Republicans 
are going to help them see that promise is fulfilled in the smartest 
way possible.

[[Page S962]]

  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a disappointing 
milestone that we passed yesterday.
  Yesterday was the 1,400th day since the Senate passed a Federal 
budget--1,400 days. So I guess today is the first day moving toward 
1,500 days, but yesterday was the 1,400th day.
  It has been said--and I know I have said it on this floor--that 
failing to plan is planning to fail. If you don't have any idea where 
you are going, you are not likely to get where you would like to be.
  When it comes to our budgetary future, the strategy of the majority 
has been just not to deal with it.
  Last summer Vice President Joe Biden challenged and said: Show me 
your budget and I will tell you what you value. Why the Vice President 
would have said that I really don't know. The President's budget that 
has arrived late and has been dead on arrival, apparently, every time 
it has arrived in the last 4 years and a Senate majority of the Vice 
President's party that has not passed a budget--why the Vice President 
would have said: Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you 
value, I don't know.

  I like the Vice President personally a lot. I often don't know 
exactly why he said what he said. But this comment really does raise a 
question about why we are not willing to talk about the things we want 
to achieve as a government.
  Nearly 4 years have passed since we had any kind of blueprint. I am 
told when we talk about a budget in Washington that apparently there 
were no political consequences because the majority was rewarded with 
the majority again even though if there was one comment made over and 
over again in that campaign, it is, it has been 3 years since there has 
been a budget, and now we are saying it has been 4 years since there 
has been a budget, and we have seen the government lurch from crisis to 
crisis. Frankly, most of these crises have been created by the people 
who say they are trying to deal with them.
  I could not imagine, in November and December, why we would want to 
start a new year with the issues before us that were before us then. 
This could have been handled at that time as easily as it could be 
handled now. Part of it is the failure to plan.
  Since the Senate, controlled for some time now by Democrats, passed a 
budget in April of 2009, lots of things have happened. Four years ago 
nobody in America had an iPad yet because iPads had not yet been 
invented. Nobody in America now doesn't know somebody who has an iPad 
if they don't have one themselves. Instagram, which our conference just 
added to one of these tools this week, didn't even exist 4 years ago. 
The Federal debt 4 years ago was less than $12 trillion. Now it is 
$16.6 trillion. LeBron James was still a Cleveland Cavalier the last 
time the Senate passed a budget. ObamaCare--and the President, in the 
Presidential campaign, said he now liked that term. I think he may not 
like it as well as he does now when people find out more about it--was 
not even the law yet. It was not the law. The ``Oprah'' show was still 
on the air. NASA had not announced yet that we were done with the space 
shuttle missions. Prince William and Kate Middleton were not engaged, 
and Brett Favre still played for the NFL. Lots of things have happened 
in the last 4 years, but one thing that has not happened is the Senate 
has not passed a budget.
  Republicans in the House have drawn up and voted for budgets. We 
figured out ways occasionally to have a budget vote. But the 
President's budget would get no vote. There was no Senate majority 
budget on which to vote. I look forward to seeing that budget on the 
floor.
  I was glad to vote just a few weeks ago on the bill that said that if 
we do not have a budget, we do not get paid, because if we do not have 
a budget, we do not have the fundamental tool it takes to have the 
other debates on the appropriations bills. People deserve a Senate that 
has a budget, is willing to put it out there, and that then is willing 
to have the debates on appropriations bills we need to have. It has 
been 15 months since we had an appropriations bill on the Senate floor. 
We have failed to do the work, and that leads us from one needless 
crisis to another.
  Now the crisis, of course, is the sequestration deadline. If you 
listen to the administration, you would assume that this is the last 
day it is safe to go outside; that starting tomorrow terrible things 
are going to happen. I just heard our leader, the Republican leader, 
talk about our willingness to give the President of the other party 
more ability to direct these cuts in specific ways--but not forever. We 
need to take that responsibility back ourselves and appropriate the 
money that is going to be spent October 1. But between now and 
September 30, we need to make these reductions in the best way rather 
than the worst way.
  The Appropriations Committee, on which I am the ranking Republican, 
has Agriculture in it. One thing I am going to ask the Department is, 
Which employees are supposed to show up on those days that are so 
dangerous that you say only the critical employees need to be here? And 
if they are supposed to be here in bad weather, why wouldn't they be 
here now? Why would you cut the Federal employee who has to show up at 
a food-processing facility for anybody else to work and have somebody 
in an office somewhere doing something that could be done the next day 
that is just dependent on them? If I were the President, I wouldn't 
want to be answering, why did you cut this and not cut that?
  Recently the President had a series of press conferences. He embarked 
on a 100-city tour to warn about the sequester. He showed up in Newport 
News in Virginia almost exactly 1 year after three of my colleagues 
went there--Senator Graham, Senator Ayotte, and Senator McCain--saying: 
In a year this is going to be a big problem. A year later the President 
shows up and says: This is going to be a big problem.
  The President proposed the sequester in 2011. He insisted that it 
become law. He even threatened to veto a bill. He said: I will veto any 
bill to replace the sequester--late last year. Suddenly, now he has 
changed his mind and all these terrible things are going to happen and 
it is unavoidable. It is only unavoidable if we refuse to cut things 
that can be cut.
  The Federal Government has grown 19 percent in its spending in the 
last 4 years. The sequester would cut 2.4 or 2.5 percent. Anybody in 
America whose budget has grown 19 percent in the last 2 years can go 
back, not to where they were the last 4 years--rather, not to where 
they were 3 years or 4 years ago but just to where they were a few 
months ago and get their spending level back to that. This is a budget 
which has grown in a tremendous way, but now it is suddenly uncuttable. 
We cannot begin to get by with the money we were spending 6 or 9 or 12 
months ago? Nobody believes that.
  If we want to have this discussion, that is fine with me. These 
spending cuts need to happen. They should happen, and they should 
happen in the right way. This is not going to be solved by campaign 
appearances all over the country. It is going to be solved by good 
management to reach reasonable goals. The accounting office has 
identified 51 areas where programs are inefficient, ineffective, and 
overlapping--51 areas. Why don't we deal with that? That is the 
Executive's responsibility, to say: Here is how we are going to 
eliminate these programs the Government Accountability Office has said 
are inefficient, ineffective, and overlapping. Otherwise, I guess we 
are committed to keep the programs that are inefficient, ineffective, 
and overlapping and spend billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money.

  That would include things such as 180 economic development programs 
operating in five different Cabinet agencies. I am for economic 
development. I am for opportunity and jobs. But do we need 180 
different programs in 5 different agencies? Divide 180 by 5--does each 
of those agencies need an average of that many programs?
  There are 173 programs across 13 agencies to promote science, 
technology, engineering, and math education. That is not a bad goal, 
but does it take 173 programs in 13 agencies to do it?
  Twenty agencies oversee more than 50 financial literacy programs. 
More than 50 programs across 4 departments are there to support 
entrepreneurs. Private sector job creation should be the No. 1 domestic 
goal of the country

[[Page S963]]

today, but do you need 50 programs in four departments to encourage 
entrepreneurial skills? Probably not.
  Why don't we hear about that instead of the air traffic controllers 
and the highway engineers and the meat plant inspectors and the Head 
Start teachers? Why don't we hear about these programs that we all know 
are ready to be made more efficient--or in some cases just simply the 
way to make them more effective is to eliminate those programs.
  There are 47 job training programs in 9 agencies that cost $18 
billion in fiscal year 2009. I do not have a number newer than that. We 
actually don't have a budget much newer than that. But $18 billion for 
47 programs in 9 agencies? I am sure we can do better.
  The Government Accountability Office found at least 37 duplicative 
investments in information technology--that was $1.2 billion over 5 
years--and 14 programs to administer grants to reduce diesel emissions 
across 3 departments. This is not 14 programs to administer grants and 
loans, this is 14 programs to administer grants and loans to reduce 
diesel emissions. I am for reducing diesel emissions. I am even for the 
Federal Government paying some attention to whether that is being done. 
But do we need 14 programs in 3 different agencies to do it?
  Across-the-board cutting, which is what sequester really means--that 
means we couldn't get to the number because, by the way, we didn't have 
any budget, we didn't pass any budget, so of course we couldn't get to 
the number. We couldn't get to the number the law requires us not to 
exceed in our spending, so the cure for that is to cut every line item 
in the discretionary spending part of the budget--the part that defends 
the country, the part that builds highways, the part that administers 
most educational needs in which the Federal Government is involved? 
That is what sequester is. We can do better.
  The Department of Defense has spent more than $67 billion in the last 
10 years on nondefense spending. Probably somebody better than the 
Department of Defense could do the nondefense work. The Department of 
Energy weatherization program, which has received $5 billion in 
stimulus funds, exhibited a failure rate of 80 percent. The stimulus 
program really worked out well. Here is an 80-percent failure rate in 
energy weatherization.
  The FAA--the Federal Aviation Administration, the one about which my 
friend the Secretary of Transportation, with whom I served in the 
House, said we would have to eliminate air traffic controllers--they 
spend $500 million each year on consultants. It could be that it is 
more important that the air traffic controllers show up than that the 
consultants show up.
  I have a list here I am going to submit because the list literally 
goes on and on.
  The Internal Revenue Service stored 22,486 items of unused furniture 
in a warehouse, at an annual cost of $862,000.
  We will have this discussion of ``why cut that instead of this'' if 
we want to. But my side is willing to give the President authority 
between now and the end of this haphazardly put together appropriating 
year to target cuts so that those of us in the Senate can appropriate 
the money for next year's spending.
  We ought to be moving right now. We should not be having this debate 
at all today. We should be having a debate on the budget to have it 
done by April 15 so the Appropriations Committee can begin to do its 
work and we can find out what needs to happen here.
  This is a good time to ask the question, Is this a job for the 
government? If the answer is yes, the second question is, Is the 
Federal Government the best of all governments to solve this problem or 
is there some government closer to the people and closer to the problem 
that can solve it in a better way?
  There are two things I wish to submit and ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record as I close my remarks. One is a July 31, 
2012, memo to agencies from the Office of Management and Budget that 
says, ``Agencies should continue normal spending and operations since 
there are more than 5 months that remain for Congress to act.''
  On September 28 the same management organization, the Office of 
Management and Budget, under the Executive Office of the President, 
sent another memo out that says, ``Agencies should continue normal 
spending and operations, as instructed in the July 31 memo from the 
Office of Management and Budget to executive departments and agencies 
which addresses operational and other issues raised by the potential of 
January 2 sequestration.''
  So the new spending year is about to begin in 2 days--2 days after 
this goes out--and the direction from the White House is business as 
usual, full-speed ahead, spend money just like you are. Don't bother 
with that law which says that beginning on January 1, we have to spend 
less money.
  Well, I am convinced we are going to spend less money. I am prepared 
to work with the President to see that we do that in the smartest 
possible way, but we have to get our spending under control, and I look 
forward to seeing the Senate do its job first with the budget and then 
with bills that debate our money and what we spend our money on.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2012.

     Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

     From Jeffrey D. Zients, Acting Director.

     Subject Issues Raised by Potential Sequestration Pursuant To 
         Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
         Control Act of 1985.

       Passed by bipartisan majorities in both houses of the 
     Congress, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; Public Law 
     112-25) amended the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA) to put into place an automatic 
     process of across-the-board reductions in budgetary 
     resources, known as a sequestration, specified in an order to 
     be issued on January 2, 2013, if the Joint Select Committee 
     on Deficit Reduction failed to propose, and the Congress 
     failed to enact, a bill containing at least $1.2 trillion in 
     deficit reduction.
       The President has made clear that the Congress should act 
     to avoid such a sequestration. If allowed to occur, the 
     sequestration would be highly destructive to national 
     security and domestic priorities, as well as to core 
     government functions. To avoid this, the President submitted 
     a budget for 2013 that includes a comprehensive and balanced 
     set of proposals that contain greater deficit reduction than 
     the Congress was charged with achieving. The Administration 
     believes the Congress should redouble its efforts to reduce 
     the deficit in a bipartisan, balanced, and fiscally 
     responsible manner and avoid the sequestration.
       If Congress were to enact the requisite deficit reduction 
     measures and avoid the sequestration, there would be no need 
     to take steps to issue the sequestration order, and then to 
     develop plans for agency operations for the remainder of FY 
     2013 within the constraints of that order. These 
     sequestration planning and implementation activities, once 
     undertaken, will necessarily divert scarce resources from 
     other important agency activities and priorities. The 
     President remains confident that Congress will act, but 
     because it has not yet made progress towards enacting 
     sufficient deficit reduction, the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB) will work with agencies, as necessary, on issues 
     raised by a sequestration of this magnitude.
       To that end, OMB will be holding discussions on these 
     issues with you and your staff over the coming months. In the 
     near term, OMB will consult with you on such topics as the 
     application to your agency's accounts and programs of the 
     exemptions from sequestration contained in section 255 of 
     BBEDCA and the applicable sequestration rules specified in 
     section 256 of BBEDCA. These discussions should be informed 
     by your General Counsel's analysis of how the requirements of 
     BBEDCA, as amended by the BCA, and other statutory 
     authorities apply to a particular issue involving your 
     agency. OMB will also engage with agencies on anticipated 
     reporting requirements established by Congress that are 
     related to, but separate from, planning for or implementing a 
     sequestration order under the BCA.
       Over the longer term, in the absence of Congressional 
     action on a balanced deficit reduction plan in advance of 
     January 2, 2013, OMB will undertake additional activities 
     related to the implementation of the BCA. OMB will work with 
     agencies, as necessary, on issues surrounding the 
     sequestration order and its implementation. For example, 
     sequestrable amounts can only be calculated once FY 2013 
     funding levels are known; therefore, shortly before any 
     sequestration order is issued, OMB will collect information

[[Page S964]]

     from agencies on sequestrable amounts and, where applicable, 
     unobligated balances, and calculate the percentage reductions 
     necessary to implement the sequestration. In the meantime, 
     agencies should continue normal spending and operations since 
     more than 5 months remain for Congress to act.
       The steps described above are necessary to prepare for the 
     contingency of having to issue a sequestration order, but 
     they do not change the fact that sequestration is bad policy, 
     was never meant to be implemented, and should be avoided 
     through the enactment of bipartisan, balanced deficit 
     legislation. The Administration urges the Congress to take 
     this course.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                               Washington, DC, September 28, 2012.

   OMB Bulletin No. 12-02--To the Heads of Executive Departments and 
                             Establishments

     Subject Apportionment of the Continuing Resolution(s) for 
         Fiscal Year 2013
       1. Purpose and Background. H.J. Res. 117 will provide 
     continuing appropriations for the period October 1, 2012 
     through March 27, 2013. Section 110 of H.J. 117 requires that 
     the joint resolution be implemented so that only the most 
     limited funding actions shall be taken in order to provide 
     for continuation of projects and activities, and section 109 
     requires that programs restrict funding actions so as not to 
     impinge on the final funding prerogatives of the Congress. I 
     am automatically apportioning amounts provided by sections 
     101(a) and 101(b) of this continuing resolution (CR) as 
     specified in section 3. The amounts provided by the 0.612 
     percent across-the-board (ATB) increase in section 101(c) 
     will be subject to the procedures for apportioning that 
     funding as outlined in section 4. This Bulletin supplements 
     instructions for apportionment of CRs in OMB Circular No. A-
     11, sections 120 and 123.
       The Administration continues to urge Congress to pass a 
     balanced package of deficit reduction that would replace the 
     potential sequestration on January 2, 2013, under section 
     251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985, as amended (BBEDCA). If necessary, the Bulletin will 
     be amended to address that sequestration. Unless and until 
     the Bulletin is amended, however, agencies should continue 
     normal spending and operations, as instructed in the July 31 
     memo from OMB to executive departments and agencies which 
     addressed operational and other issues raised by the 
     potential January 2 sequestration. Unless the Bulletin is 
     subsequently amended, it should be assumed to apply to both 
     this CR and any extensions of this CR.
       Note: Although the CR Bulletin does not automatically or 
     otherwise apportion budgetary resources for accounts that are 
     not determined by current appropriation action of the 
     Congress (such as mandatory funding and balances of prior 
     year budget authority), those apportionments will also be 
     amended if necessary, to reapportion sequestrable resources 
     to account for the potential January 2 sequestration. The 
     guidance above to spend and operate normally until further 
     notice also applies to these other resources.
       2. Amounts Provided. Section 101(a) of H.J. Res. 117 
     provides such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate for 
     operations as provided in the applicable appropriations Acts 
     for fiscal year (FY) 2012 and under the authority and 
     conditions provided in such stated Acts, for continuing 
     projects or activities (including the costs of direct loans 
     and loan guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically 
     provided for in H.J. Res. 117, that were conducted in FY 
     2012, and for Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-55), 
     except for appropriations in that Act designated by the 
     Congress as being for disaster relief, the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74), and the 
     Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-77), 
     except for appropriations in that Act under the heading 
     ``Corps of Engineers-Civil''.
       Section 101(b) provides that notwithstanding section 101 
     whenever an amount designated for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations (OCO)/Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of BBEDCA in either the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 2012 (division A of Public Law 
     112-74) or in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (division H of 
     Public Law 112-74) that would be made available for a project 
     or activity is different from the amount requested in the 
     President's FY 2013 Budget request, the project or activity 
     shall be continued at a rate for operations that would be 
     permitted by, and such designation shall be applied to, the 
     amount in the President's FY 2013 Budget request. For 
     purposes of calculating the rate for operations, the 
     reference to ``amount'' in section 101(b) is assumed to mean 
     the budget account total.
       Section 101(c) increases the rate for operations provided 
     by subsection (a) by 0.612 percent. Such increase does not 
     apply to OCO/GWOT amounts or to amounts incorporated in the 
     joint resolution by reference to the Disaster Relief 
     Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-77).
       3. Automatic Apportionments. Attachment A contains more 
     detailed instructions on calculating the annualized amount 
     provided by the CR. In order to calculate the amount 
     automatically apportioned through the period ending March 27, 
     2013 (and any extensions thereof) multiply the annualized 
     amount provided by the CR in sections 101(a) and 101(b) by 
     the lower of:
       The percentage of the year (pro-rata) covered by the CR 
     (e.g., for H.J. Res. 117 use 48.77 percent), or
       The historical seasonal rate of obligations for the period 
     of the year covered by the CR.
       Unless determined otherwise by your RMO, all automatically 
     apportioned CR funds are apportioned as Category B (lump 
     sum), regardless of quarterly restrictions (i.e., amounts on 
     Category A) imposed in last year's apportionments. 
     Limitations on programs (i.e., other Category Bs) and 
     footnotes included in last year's apportionments remain in 
     effect under the CR.
       Apportionment of the 0.612 percent ATB 
     increase in section 101(c) is discussed in 
     section 4.
       4. Amounts Provided by Section 101(c) Excluded from 
     Automatic Apportionment. This automatic apportionment does 
     not apply to amounts provided by the 0.612 percent ATB 
     increase in section 101(c) of H.J. Res. 117. The agency may 
     submit a written apportionment to OMB to request these funds 
     during the period of the CR.
       5. Accounts with Zero Funding Excluded from Automatic 
     Apportionment. As has been the case in recent CR Bulletins, 
     including FY 2012, if either the House or Senate has reported 
     or passed a bill that provides no funding for an account at 
     the time the CR is enacted or extended, this automatic 
     apportionment does not apply to that account. (Reported bills 
     are those that have been filed by the full House or Senate 
     Appropriations Committee for floor action.) The agency may 
     filed by the full House or Senate Appropriations Committee 
     for floor action.) The agency may submit a written 
     apportionment to OMB to request funds for the account during 
     the period of the CR, if needed.
       6. Programs under Section 111. Funds for appropriated 
     entitlements and other mandatory payments, and activities 
     under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, are automatically 
     apportioned amounts as needed to carry out programs at a rate 
     to maintain program levels under current law, i.e., at the FY 
     2013 level. However, this automatic apportionment does not 
     apply to programs with more complex funding structures. 
     Agencies should contact their RMO representatives to 
     determine if their account is automatically apportioned or if 
     a written apportionment is required.
       With regard to the associated administrative expenses for 
     those programs, section 111 does not apply. The associated 
     administrative expenses are automatically apportioned at the 
     pro-rata level based on FY 2012 annualized levels in section 
     101(a).
       As noted in section 1, this automatic apportionment will be 
     amended, if necessary, to reapportion sequestrable resources 
     to account for the sequestration order that the President may 
     be required to issue on January 2, 2013, under section 251A 
     of BBEDCA. Until such time as the Bulletin is amended, 
     agencies should continue normal spending and operations, as 
     instructed in the July 31 memo from OMB to executive 
     departments and agencies which addressed operational and 
     other issues raised by the potential January 2 sequestration.
       7. Credit Limitations. If there is an enacted credit 
     limitation (i.e., a limitation on loan principal or 
     commitment level) in FY 2012, then the automatic 
     apportionment is the pro-rata share of the credit limitation 
     or the budget authority (i.e., for subsidy cost), whichever 
     is less. To calculate amounts available, see exhibit 123B of 
     OMB Circular No. A-11.
       8. Written Apportionments for Amounts Provided by Sections 
     101(a) and 101(b). If an agency seeks an amount for a program 
     that is more than the amount automatically apportioned under 
     sections 101(a) and 101(b), a written apportionment must be 
     requested from OMB. OMB expects to grant only a very limited 
     number of these written apportionment requests. Each of these 
     requests must be accompanied by a written justification that 
     includes the legal basis for the exception apportionment. 
     Similarly, an RMO or an agency may determine that an amount 
     for a program should be less than the amount automatically 
     apportioned by sections 101(a) and 101(b) in order to ensure 
     that an agency does not impinge on the final funding 
     prerogatives of the Congress. In these cases, a written 
     apportionment will also be required.
       Agencies do not need to request a new written apportionment 
     for each extension of the CR (unless otherwise required by 
     your RMO). Instead, in the case of accounts that receive a 
     written apportionment at any time during the CR period, the 
     automatic apportionment will apply to such accounts under any 
     subsequent extensions of the CR, provided that the total 
     amount apportioned during the CR period does not exceed the 
     total annualized level of the CR. However, any footnotes on 
     the written apportionment continue to apply to the accounts, 
     when subsequently operating under the automatic 
     apportionment.
       The written apportionments described in this section are 
     not intended to address the written apportionment 
     requirements for amounts provided by section 101(c) or 
     accounts with zero funding. Those requirements are described 
     in sections 4 and 5 above, respectively.
                                                Jeffrey D. Zients,
                                   Deputy Director for Management.

       Attachment(s):

[[Page S965]]

       Attachment B: Non-CHIMP Cancellations Recurring in a 2013 
     Continuing Resolution.
       Attachment C: Changes in Mandatory Programs Recurring in a 
     2013 Continuing Resolution.

ATTACHMENT B: NON-CHIMP \1\ CANCELLATIONS RECURRING IN A 2013 CONTINUING
                               RESOLUTION
                [budget authority in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appropriations Subcommittee        2012 Enacted         2013 CR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancellations of Unobligated
 Balances:
    Agriculture and Rural
     Development:
        USDA, The Office of                        -4                  -
         Advocacy and Outreach....
        USDA, Buildings and                        -2                  -
         Facilities [National
         Institute of Food and
         Agriculture].............
        USDA, Public Law 480 Title                 -3                  -
         I Ocean Freight
         Differential Grants......
        USDA, Public Law 480 Title                 -2                  -
         I Direct Credit and Food
         for Progress Program.....
        USDA, Salaries and                         -1                 --
         Expenses [Foreign
         Agricultural Service]....
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Agriculture and                  -12                  -
           Rural Development......
    Commerce, Justice, Science:
        DOC, Emergency Steel, Oil,                 -1                  -
         and Gas Loan Program
         Account..................
        DOC, Coastal Zone                         -18                  -
         Management Fund..........
        DOC, Public                                -3                 -3
         Telecommunications
         Facilities, Planning and
         Construction.............
        DOC, Information                           -2                 -1
         Infrastructure Grants....
        DOJ, Working Capital Fund.                -40                -40
        DOJ, Salaries and                          -2                 -2
         Expenses, United States
         Marshals Service.........
        DOJ, Salaries and Expenses                -10                -10
         [Drug Enforcement
         Administration]..........
        DOJ, Buildings and                        -45                -45
         Facilities...............
        DOJ, Justice Assistance...                 -4                 -4
        DOJ, State and Local Law                  -42                -42
         Enforcement Assistance...
        DOJ, Juvenile Justice                      -9                 -9
         Programs.................
        DOJ, Community Oriented                   -24                -24
         Policing Services........
        DOJ, Violence against                     -15                -15
         Women Prevention and
         Prosecution Programs.....
        NASA, Mission Support.....                 -1                  -
        NASA, Space Operations....                -12                -13
        NASA, Science.............                 -5                 -5
        NASA, Exploration.........                 -4                 -4
        NASA, Aeronautics.........                 -1                 -1
        NASA, Education...........                 -2                 -2
        NASA, Construction,                        -5                 -5
         Environmental Compliance,
         and Remediation..........
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Commerce,                       -245               -225
           Justice, Science.......
    Defense:
        DOD, Procurement, Defense-                 -5                 -4
         wide.....................
        DOD, Aircraft Procurement,               -168                -78
         Navy.....................
        DOD, Weapons Procurement,                 -34                -34
         Navy.....................
        DOD, Procurement of                       -28                -28
         Ammunition, Navy and
         Marine Corps.............
        DOD, Shipbuilding and                    -110                  -
         Conversion, Navy.........
        DOD, Other Procurement,                   -60                -60
         Navy.....................
        DOD, Aircraft Procurement,                -27                -22
         Army.....................
        DOD, Missile Procurement,                -100                -30
         Army.....................
        DOD, Procurement of                       -23                -19
         Weapons and Tracked
         Combat Vehicles, Army....
        DOD, Procurement of                       -37                -15
         Ammunition, Army.........
        DOD, Other Procurement,                  -497               -438
         Army.....................
        DOD, Aircraft Procurement,               -253               -220
         Air Force................
        DOD, Missile Procurement,                -198               -194
         Air Force................
        DOD, Other Procurement,                   -65                -53
         Air Force................
        DOD, Research,                           -254                  -
         Development, Test, and
         Evaluation, Defense-wide.
        DOD, Research,                            -66                  -
         Development, Test, and
         Evaluation, Navy.........
        DOD, Research,                           -357                  -
         Development, Test and
         Evaluation, Army.........
        DOD, Research,                           -258                  -
         Development, Test, and
         Evaluation, Air Force....
        DOD, National Defense                     -34                  -
         Sealift Fund.............
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Defense..........             -2,574             -1,195
    Energy and Water Development:
        DOE-NNSA, Defense Nuclear                 -21                -21
         Nonproliferation.........
        DOE, Fossil Energy                       -187                -42
         Research and Development.
        DOE, Energy Efficiency and                -10                -10
         Renewable Energy.........
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Energy and Water                -218                -73
           Development............
    Financial Services and General
     Government:
        GSA, Operating Expenses...                 -5                  -
        EXOP, Partnership Fund for                -10                  -
         Program Integrity
         Innovation...............
        Drug Control Programs,                     -5                  -
         Counterdrug Technology
         Assessment Center........
        Drug Control Programs,                     -6                 -6
         Other Federal Drug
         Control Programs.........
        Salaries and Expenses                      -1                 -1
         [Privacy and Civil
         Liberties Oversight
         Board]...................
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Financial                        -27                 -7
           Services and General
           Government.............
    Homeland Security:
        DHS, Office of the Chief                   -5                 -5
         Information Officer......
        DHS, Working Capital Fund.                 -5                 -1
        DHS, Citizenship and                       -1                  -
         Immigration Services.....
        DHS, Salaries and Expenses                 -1                 -1
         [United States Secret
         Service].................
        DHS, Aviation Security....                -71                  -
        DHS, Immigration and                      -13                -10
         Customs Enforcement......
        DHS, Automation                           -10                -10
         Modernization
         [Immigration and Customs
         Enforcement].............
        DHS, Customs and Border                    -5                 -5
         Protection...............
        DHS, Automation                            -5                 -5
         Modernization, Customs
         and Border Protection....
        DHS, Border Security                       -3                 -3
         Fencing, Infrastructure,
         and Technology...........
        DHS, Operating Expenses                   -38                -38
         [United States Coast
         Guard]...................
        DHS, Acquisition,                          -4                 -1
         Construction, and
         Improvements (U.S. Coast
         Guard)...................
        DHS, United States Visitor                -27                -27
         and Immigrant Status
         Indicator Technology.....
        DHS, State and Local                       -3                 -3
         Programs.................
        DHS, National Pre-disaster                 -1                 -1
         Mitigation Fund..........
        DHS, Management and                        -1                  -
         Administration...........
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Homeland Security               -193               -110
    Interior and Environment:
        DOI, NPS, Construction                     -4                 -4
         (and Major Maintenance)..
        DOI, Wildland Fire                        -82                  -
         Management...............
        EPA, State and Tribal                     -45                -45
         Assistance Grants........
        EPA, Hazardous Substance                   -5                 -5
         Superfund................
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Interior and                    -136                -54
           Environment............
    Military Construction and
     Veterans Affairs:
        DOD, Military                            -131               -131
         Construction, Defense-
         wide.....................
        DOD, Base Closure Account                -259               -259
         2005.....................
        DOD, Military                             -25                -25
         Construction, Navy and
         Marine Corps.............
        DOD, Military                            -100               -100
         Construction, Army.......
        DOD, Military                             -32                -32
         Construction, Air Force..
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Military                        -547               -547
           Construction, Veterans
           Affairs................
    State and Foreign Operations:
        State, Diplomatic and                     -14                -14
         Consular Programs........
        State, Economic Support                  -100               -100
         Fund.....................
        Export-Import Bank Loans                 -400               -400
         Program Account..........
                                   -------------------------------------

[[Page S966]]

 
          Total, State and Foreign               -514               -514
           Operations.............
    Transportation and Housing and
     Urban Development:
        Transportation,                            -3                  -
         Compensation for General
         Aviation Operations......
        Transportation, Capital                   -58                -44
         Investment Grants........
        Transportation, Operations                 -1                  -
         and Training.............
        Transportation, Maritime                  -35                  -
         Guaranteed Loan (Title
         XI) Program Account......
        HUD, Housing Certificate                 -200                -20
         Fund.....................
        HUD, Other Assisted                      -232                -15
         Housing Programs.........
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Transportation                  -529                -79
           and Housing and Urban
           Development............
          Subtotal, Cancellations              -4,995             -2,804
           of Unobligated Balances
                                   =====================================
Cancellations of Advance
 Appropriations:
    Military Construction and
     Veterans Affairs:
        VA, Medical Support and                  -100                  -
         Compliance
         (reappropriation) \2\....
        VA, Medical Services                   -1,400                  -
         (reappropriation) \2\....
        VA, Medical Facilities                   -250                  -
         (reappropriation) \2\....
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Military                      -1,750                  -
           Construction, Veterans
           Affairs................
    Transportation and Housing and
     Urban Development:
        HUD, Tenant Based Rental                 -650                  -
         Assistance...............
          Subtotal, Cancellations              -2,400                  -
           of Advance
           Appropriations.........
                                   =====================================
          TOTAL, Cancellations of              -7,395             -2,804
           Balances & Advance
           Appropriations.........
Cancellations of Overseas
 Contingency Operations Funding:
 \3\
    Defense:
        DOD, Overseas Contingency                -357                  -
         Operations Transfer Fund.
        DOD, Procurement of                       -21                  -
         Ammunition, Army.........
        DOD, Other Procurement,                    -2                  -
         Air Force................
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Defense..........               -380                  -
    Military Construction and
     Veterans Affairs:
        DOD, Military                            -235                  -
         Construction, Army.......
        DOD, Military                             -35                  -
         Construction, Air Force..
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Military                        -270                  -
           Construction, Veterans
           Affairs................
          Subtotal, Rescissions/                 -650                  -
           Cancellations of
           Overseas Contingency
           Operations Funding.....
                                   =====================================
Cancellations of Congressionally-
 Designated Emergency Funding: \4\
    Homeland Security:
        DHS, Immigration and                       -2                  -
         Customs Enforcement......
        DHS, Aviation Security....                  -                -16
        DHS, Border Security                       -4                  -
         Fencing, Infrastructure,
         and Technology...........
        DHS, Acquisition,                          -2                 -2
         Construction, and
         Improvements (U.S. Coast
         Guard)...................
                                   -------------------------------------
          Total, Homeland Security                 -8                -18
          Subtotal, Cancellations                  -8                -18
           of Congressionally-
           Designated Emergency
           Funding................
                                   =====================================
          Grand Total, All                     -8,053            -2,822
           Cancellations..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes offsets that are the result of cancelling or blocking
  spending from mandatory programs. See Attachment C on CHIMPs for this
  information.
\2\ These funds were technically rescinded in the appropriations bills
  but they were immediately reappropriated. This rescission-
  reappropriation mechanism is to simply to extend the availability for
  two years.
\3\ These enacted rescissions of funding were designated as Overseas
  Contingency Operations pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of BBEDCA, as
  amended.
\4\ Funding is not designated ``Emergency'' pursuant to Section
  251(b)(2)(A) of BBEDCA, as amended. These amounts are counted outside
  of the discretionary caps.


     ATTACHMENT C: CHANGES IN MANDATORY PROGRAMS RECURRING IN A 2013
                          CONTINUING RESOLUTION
                [Budget authority in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appropriations Subcommittee      2012 Enacted \1\       2013 CR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture and Rural Development:
    USDA, Funds for Strengthening                -150               -300
     Markets, Income, and Supply
     (Section 32).................
    USDA, Federal Crop Insurance                  -75                -75
     Corporation Fund.............
    USDA, Commodity Credit                        -20                 --
     Corporation Export Loans
     Program Account..............
    USDA, Commodity Credit                       -184                 --
     Corporation Fund (Biomass
     Crop Assistance Program).....
    USDA, Commodity Credit                        -17                 --
     Corporation Fund (Voluntary
     Public Access)...............
    USDA, Watershed Rehabilitation               -165               -165
     Program......................
    USDA, Rural Energy for America                -51                -29
     Program......................
    USDA, Rural Microenterprise                    -4                 -4
     Investment Program Account...
    USDA, Energy Assistance                       -80                -28
     Payments.....................
    USDA, Farm Security and Rural              -1,225               -657
     Investment Programs..........
        Conservation Stewardship                (-33)             (-217)
         Program..................
        Environmental Quality                  (-350)             (-350)
         Incentives Program.......
        Farmland Protection                     (-50)              (-50)
         Program..................
        Grassland Reserve Program.              (-81)               (--)
        Wetlands Reserve Program..             (-671)               (--)
        Wildlife Habitat                        (-35)              (-35)
         Incentives Program.......
        Agriculture Management                   (-5)               (-5)
         Assistance Program.......
    USDA, Rural Economic                         -155               -155
     Development Grants (Cushion
     of Credit)...................
    USDA, Trade Adjustment                        -90                 --
     Assistance for Farmers.......
    USDA, Supplemental Nutrition                  -11                -11
     Assistance Program...........
    USDA, Child Nutrition Programs               -133                 --
     (Obligation Delay)...........
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, Agriculture and Rural             -2,360             -1,424
       Development................
Commerce, Justice, Science:
    DOC, NOAA, Promote and Develop               -109               -109
     Fishery Products Transfer....
    DOC, NOAA Fisheries
     Enforcement and Sanctuaries
     Enforcement Asset Forfeiture
     Funds:
        Operations, Research, and                  +6                 --
         Facilities (ORF)
         Reduction in Collections.
        ORF Reduction in Spending                  -6                 --
         Authority from
         Collections..............
        Transfer out of                            -3                 --
         Unobligated Spending
         Authority from ORF.......
        Collections Deposited as                   -6                 --
         Receipts in Asset
         Forfeiture Funds.........
        Spending of Receipts in                    +6                 --
         Asset Forfeiture Funds...
        Transfer in of Unobligated                 +3                 --
         Spending Authority to the
         Asset Forfeiture Fund....
    DOC, Digital Television                        -4                 -4
     Transition and Public Safety
     Fund.........................
    DOJ, Assets Forfeiture Fund...               -675               -675
    DOJ, Crime Victims Fund                    -7,113             -9,511
     (Obligation Delay)...........
    DHS, Citizenship and                           -4                 -4
     Immigration Services Transfer
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, Commerce, Justice,                -7,905            -10,303
       Science....................
Energy and Water Development:
    DOE, SPR Petroleum Account....               -500               -500
    DOE, Northeast Home Heating                  -100                 --
     Oil Reserve..................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, Energy and Water                    -600               -500
       Development................
Financial Services and General
 Government:
    Treasury, Forfeiture Fund.....               -950               -950
    FDIC, Deposit Insurance Fund                  -45                -45
     Transfer to the OIG..........
    Postal Service, Transfers to                 -255               -255
     the OIG & Postal Regulatory
     Commission (PRC).............

[[Page S967]]

 
    Postal Service, Discretionary                +255               +257
     Offsetting Collections for
     Transfers to the OIG & PRC...
    Securities and Exchange                       -25                -25
     Commission Reserve Fund......
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, Financial Services                -1,020             -1,018
       and General Government.....
Interior and Environment:
    USDA, Forest Service Permanent                -12                -12
     Appropriations...............
    DOI, Mineral Leasing and                      -42                -40
     Associated Payments..........
    DOI, NPS, Land Acquisition and                -30                -30
     State Assistance.............
    DOI, Assistance to Territories                +14                +13
    DOI, Office of Surface Mining                   *                 --
     Fee Reclassification.........
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, Interior and                         -70                -69
       Environment................
Labor, HHS, and Education:
    Labor, MSHA Approval and                       --                 +1
     Certification Fee to be
     Deposited in Expenditure
     Account......................
    HHS, Consumer Operated and                   -400               -400
     Oriented Plan Program Account
    HHS, Children's Health                     -6,368             -6,368
     Insurance Fund...............
    HHS, CMS Program Management,                  +44                +44
     High Risk Pools..............
    Education, Student Financial                 -124                 --
     Assistance (including Pell
     Grants)......................
    Independent Payment Advisory                  -10                -10
     Board........................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, Labor, HHS, and                   -6,858             -6,733
       Education..................
State and Foreign Operations:
    State, Foreign Military Sales                -100                 --
     Trust Fund--Block mandatory
     spending.....................
    State, Foreign Military Sales                +100                 --
     Trust Fund--Payout to Special
     Defense Acquisition Fund.....
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, State and Foreign                     --                 --
       Operations.................
Transportation and Housing and
 Urban Development:
    Transportation, FMCSA Motor                    -1                 -1
     Carrier Safety Grants........
                                   -------------------------------------
      TOTAL, Changes in Mandatory             -18,814           -20,048
       Programs (CHIMPs)..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes a number less than $500K.
\1\ All FY 2012 CHIMPs have been rebased as mandatory and are not
  included in any FY 2012 Enacted levels. They are only displayed for
  comparison purposes.


  Mr. BLUNT. I yield back whatever time I might have.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time is yielded back.
  The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. We will have a vote on the floor of the Senate. It is an 
important vote because tomorrow is the day of sequestration. The 
American people are learning new terminology. The fiscal cliff meant 
nothing to most Americans 6 months ago, but by New Year's Eve many 
understood that something serious was about to occur. Laws had been 
passed which meant that taxes would go up on virtually every taxpaying 
American on January 1 if Congress failed to act. That was the fiscal 
cliff.
  We reached a last-minute agreement on ways to avert that from 
happening and to make sure any tax increases on the income tax side 
were going to be exclusively applied to those in the highest income 
categories. Well, the Americans breathed a sigh of relief and said 
thank goodness that emergency is over.
  We are good in Washington at manufacturing crises, and now we are in 
a new crisis of our own creation. This is not some act of God, some 
natural event, some occurrence we have no control over. We created 
this. We created something called sequestration, and here is what it 
was all about.
  The President sat down with the leaders in Congress--this goes back 
over a year now--and said: Listen, we need to do something about our 
deficit, but let's do it in a bipartisan way and a balanced way. Let's 
put together a supercommittee--an equal number of Democrats and 
Republicans--and let's reach an agreement once and for all. Stop 
bickering and reach an agreement. Let's reduce the deficit as a result 
of that agreement. But, he said, to make sure you take it seriously, if 
you don't reach an agreement, then as of this year, 2013, we are going 
to have automatic spending cuts called sequestration, and the 
sequestration cuts are not going to be very kind. They are going to be 
across-the-board cuts by each line item of the budget. So to avoid 
that, do the right thing and reach a bipartisan agreement in the 
supercommittee.
  We failed. We failed when the Republicans of the committee said no 
revenue, no taxes. Sorry. We will just talk about spending cuts and 
cutting Medicare. That is all we are interested in talking about.
  End of story; end of supercommittee; welcome to the world of 
sequestration. The threat that was supposed to make the supercommittee 
act is now about to become the reality. The reality means that in the 
remainder of this year--we do fiscal years, not calendar years--between 
now and September 30, we need to cut $85 billion in spending. Half of 
it will be on the defense side, and half of it will be on the 
nondefense side. Some might say: Come on, this is a big government and 
this is a big budget, and you are telling me $85 billion is a big 
problem?
  I happen to agree with the Senator from Missouri--Republican Senator 
Blunt who was here a moment ago--that there are plenty of areas to save 
in the Federal Government. I will speak to a few in a moment. We don't 
create an opportunity for that kind of thoughtful discussion and 
decisionmaking. Instead, it is automatic. It just happens.
  What is wrong with cutting every line of the budget by a certain 
percentage? Well, let's take it home. Let's talk about an American 
family. Let's assume that family has just learned that next year, due 
to circumstances beyond their control, they are going to be making $500 
less each month; somebody lost a job in the family or something like 
that. They look at the family budget and they say: We are going to have 
to tighten things up and make some hard choices. Someone else at the 
family table says: Wait a minute, We don't have to do it that way. What 
we should do since $500 is maybe 5 percent of what we take home in pay, 
let's cut everything we spend by 5 percent. If we do that, we will be 
able to reach that $500 mark.
  When they stop and think about it for a minute, they realize that 
doesn't make any sense at all. We are going to cut our mortgage payment 
by 5 percent? We cannot do that; we will default on our mortgage, and 
we will lose our home. We will cut our utility payment by 5 percent? 
They will cut off the lights. We cannot cut the prescription drugs by 5 
percent. We need that medicine to keep our children healthy. No, we 
have to look at a more thoughtful way. Let's look at parts where we 
spend money that we can afford to cut.
  That is how families budget, that is how the government should 
budget, but sequestration doesn't cut budgets that way. It cuts it by 
each line item--the mortgage, the utility bill, the prescription drugs 
are all cut the same. That is what we face starting tomorrow. Well, 
there are ways to avoid that. The most important opportunity will come 
tomorrow afternoon. President Obama is bringing the congressional 
leaders--the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, all four--
together for a meeting in the White House. Let's hope cooler heads 
prevail. Once again, we are at the deadline. Once again, the American 
people are looking to us and wondering what is going to happen.
  What is at stake here? There are several things at stake. One of the 
things that is at stake is that the cuts for many agencies are going to 
be unreasonable. It will be unreasonable because they have to be done 
in a matter of 5 or 6 months. I am now chair of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee. It means that most of the civilian 
employees who work for the Department of Defense are going to lose 1 
day's pay

[[Page S968]]

each week. It will result in a 20-percent cut in pay between now and 
the end of the year and will be a hardship on some families.
  Don't believe these are fat-cat Federal employees. Many of them are 
struggling families doing jobs in our Department of Defense which are 
critical for our Nation's security. They range across the board from 
some of the most sophisticated decisionmaking to keep us safe as a 
Nation to the very basics of keeping the lights on in the buildings 
where these decisions are made. They are going to see this kind of 
furlough, reduction in pay and, unfortunately, reduction in 
productivity because of it. That is not good.
  Other things are going to happen because of it. When workers are laid 
off at a depot where they repair a ship, it means the ship that was in 
for repairs has to stay there longer. It cannot go out and protect 
America.
  Last week I was in a place called Bahrain. Bahrain, an island in the 
Persian Gulf, is a critical front in America's national defense. The 
5th Fleet is there. What a magnificent group of individuals. ADM John 
Miller took me around on the ships and introduced me to the men and 
women in uniform. I could not have been prouder as an American to say 
hello to these people who are literally giving and risking their lives 
for our country. How are they protected while they are out there? Well, 
we have a great aircraft carrier out there. It is there if needed. I 
hope it is never needed. It is only one of two carriers that is 
supposed to be there.
  The USS Truman was supposed to join the other carrier to protect our 
troops and our interests in the Persian Gulf, but it will not be there. 
Why? Because the Navy had to hold the Truman in reserve to save money. 
This is just one example of how you can't contain the effects of 
sequestration. And our sailors--our men and women in uniform--are out 
in the Persian Gulf, literally in a much riskier situation because of 
it. When we talk about how easy it is to cut spending in the 
government, it can be easy if we do it in a thoughtful way.

  The second point I wish to make is that it is not just a matter of 
where we cut or how we cut, it is a matter of this process. We have 
been told by the people who give a credit rating to the United States 
of America that what has been happening for the last 2 years has not 
gone unnoticed. Think about your own family situation again. If a 
family is late in paying bills, what happens? Their credit rating goes 
down, and then when they turn around to borrow some money--whether it 
is an installment loan for a car or a home--they look at their credit 
rating, don't they? They say: You are not the most reliable person in 
paying your bills. Your credit rating is lower; therefore, the interest 
rate you pay will be higher.
  The same thing applies to the government. Over the last 2 years this 
strategy that has been hitting us and says we have to lurch from one 
threatened government shutdown, to a shutdown of the economy over the 
debt ceiling, to the fiscal cliff, to the sequestration, is taking a 
toll on America's credit rating. So the ratings agencies are saying: 
Don't get me wrong, it is a great Nation and a great economy, but there 
are not a great bunch of politicians in Washington when it comes to 
making decisions; therefore, we are going to have an uptick in the 
interest rate paid by America to borrow money. What that means is we 
will be paying more of the taxpayers' dollars in interest to those who 
loan us money, such as China, and less in goods and services to serve 
America.
  Now they are telling us again: If you go to sequestration and you get 
into another hopeless political tangle, as you have over the last 2 
years, you run the risk that America's credit rating is going to be 
downgraded, interest rates are going to go up, and your kids are going 
to owe more on the national debt. That is what is at stake here.
  What are we going to do about it? This afternoon we will make a 
proposal that not a single Republican will vote for. I will make that 
prediction on the floor. It is a proposal where we take a look at one 
of the most wasteful areas of spending and eliminate it. It applies to 
my State of Illinois, and here is what it is: direct payments to 
farmers. I don't know why we did this, but in the last farm bill we 
said we will give direct support payments to farmers whether they make 
money or lose money. Sometimes we will give them the direct payments 
whether they grow a crop or don't grow it. Does that make sense? I 
don't think it does.
  We said for a long time, 70-years plus, the U.S. Government will be 
there when the farmers need it--when they need a helping hand. I 
understand that. Farming is a risky business, but direct support 
payments don't work on that principle. They make a payment regardless.
  When Senator Stabenow of Michigan wrote the new farm bill, she said: 
I am eliminating direct payments. It saves $25 billion over 5 years. We 
had 64 Senators, which is about a dozen Republicans, to join us in 
passing the farm bill. They agreed and the farm groups agreed that they 
could no longer defend direct support payments. They could not defend 
it in a time when we have so many deficits.
  The farm bill could not pass in the House. They were unable to pass a 
farm bill. I don't know why, but they couldn't. So what we will do this 
afternoon is take that savings from the direct support payments and use 
that to defer some of the cuts that would otherwise occur in 
sequestration. I think it is pretty sensible.
  We will find out that not a single Republican will vote for it. They 
can come to the floor and list where they will save money, and they 
will have a chance on the floor this afternoon to actually save $25 
billion on something the farmers agree with and farm organization 
support--and many of them voted for--but not one will vote for it. Not 
one. It is a sad situation.
  Let me tell one other thing they ought to think about: for-profit 
schools. Does anyone know what they are? Well, if you have a child--a 
son or daughter in high school--you will know them soon because they 
are inundating your son or daughter with invitations to come join their 
university. Let me give some of the biggest names of the for-profit 
school industry: University of Phoenix. Ever heard of it? The combined 
enrollment of the University of Phoenix is more than the combined 
enrollment of the Big Ten. The second largest one, I believe, is DeVry, 
which is out of Chicago, and then Kaplan, which is a career education 
corporation. These are private companies that purportedly educate 
students. Some do, most don't.
  If anyone wants to know about the for-profit colleges in America, 
they should remember three numbers. The first number is 12; 12 percent 
of all the high school graduates in America go to for-profit schools, 
such as the ones I mentioned, and others. The next number, 25; 25 
percent of all the Federal aid to education goes to these schools. So 
they have 12 percent of the students and 25 percent of the Federal aid 
to education. Well, how much is that? About $32 billion a year goes to 
these schools, and it is Federal taxpayer dollars.
  If we took the $32 billion that is going to for-profit schools and 
translated it into a Federal agency, it would be the ninth largest 
Federal agency in Washington--$32 billion to these schools. Hang on for 
the third number. The third number is 47--12, 25, 47. Forty-seven 
percent of all the student loan defaults occur among students who are 
going to these for-profit schools.
  What does that tell you? They are getting too deeply in debt, they 
cannot finish school, and they cannot find a job. What a waste. They 
end up with debt and nothing to show for it. The schools end up with 
the money; the students and their families end up with the debt.
  Let me recite one of these stories. I have invited students to tell 
me their stories at my Web site, and many of them have. Tabitha Hewitt, 
who is a first-generation college student, was aggressively recruited 
by for-profit colleges. They promised her a great future with a paying 
job. What she ended up with was a student debt of $162,000. She 
attended the International Academy of Design and Technology, which is a 
for-profit college owned by Career Education Corporation.
  Tabitha is a veteran of the Air Force. She thought her education 
would give her the skills she needed to be successful in the civilian 
workplace. It turns out she does the same job as her colleagues who 
didn't attend any of these

[[Page S969]]

for-profit schools. She didn't pick up any advantage; she just picked 
up a debt. The GI bill didn't cover the tuition because it was too 
high, so she took out student loans.
  Paying her loans is a daily struggle. For Tabitha, it consumes her 
life. She sometimes has to walk away from other bills just to pay her 
student loans. She is constantly in battle with the lenders, trying to 
negotiate a reasonable payment plan, and they refuse. She says she 
can't save for anything. She can't pay for her own health insurance. 
She probably can't get married and have children. She just can't afford 
it. She wants to go back to a real school for a real education, but 
guess what. This deeply in debt, she can't borrow any money to go to 
school--to a real college instead of a for-profit school.
  For-profit colleges prey on veterans such as Tabitha. They use 
deceptive marketing and aggressive tactics. They tell the veterans 
everything is going to be great and everything is going to be paid for. 
It is simply not true.
  The 90-10 rule permits for-profit colleges to receive up to 90 
percent of their total revenue from the Federal Government. These for-
profit colleges are 10 percent away from being Federal agencies. But 
here is the thing: The 90 percent only includes Federal student aid 
programs such as Pell grants or student loans. GI and Department of 
Defense tuition assistance are counted as private revenue, giving the 
schools a huge incentive to recruit and target servicemembers and 
veterans such as Tabitha. Veterans and servicemembers help the schools 
meet the 90-10 rule and then end up with a worthless education.
  Congress needs to stop this bloated industry from continuing to prey 
on veterans such as Tabitha Hewitt. Congress needs to make sure 
servicemembers and veterans have all the information they need about a 
school before they choose to enroll. We need to also make sure these 
schools are providing servicemembers the skills they need to succeed in 
the workforce. Schools with awful outcomes should not be participating 
in the Department of Defense Tuition Assistance Program and they should 
not be eligible for the GI bill.
  Do my colleagues want to know where to save money without going into 
a sequestration that lays off a lot of important people across America 
and, in some ways, compromises our national security and the protection 
of our men and women overseas? Start with the for-profit schools. These 
folks have tapped into the Federal Treasury to the tune of $32 billion 
a year.
  People say to themselves: Why do we let them get away with it? They 
have friends in high places. They are participants in our political 
processes. They can be found at many of the great parties and 
receptions across the city of Washington and around the country. They 
are doing what they can legally do as citizens. They are finding 
friends in high places and protecting the $32 billion a year that goes 
to these worthless schools, many of which are a complete waste of time 
and money for the students who end up there.
  It would be bad enough if it was just a bad education or a waste of 
time. Tabitha is stuck with a $162,000 student debt.
  There is one last kicker. The student debt is different than the 
other debt a person has. If a person borrows money for a home or a car 
or a boat or to buy a washer and dryer and they go broke and go to 
bankruptcy court, those debts are going to be swept away--not student 
loans. Student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Tabitha, the 
bad news is this is a debt that will be with you for a lifetime. 
Student debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. That is where we are 
today.
  So when my friends come to the floor and talk about all the ways to 
save money in Federal spending, I will give them two to start with, one 
they can vote for this afternoon: end the direct payments in 
agriculture and save $25 billion. Secondly, reform this for-profit 
school scam that costs us $32 billion a year. They are easy places to 
start, perhaps even on a bipartisan basis.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, what has become painfully clear to me this 
week is that folks in the Congress, folks in the Senate aren't 
listening to each other anymore. As we lurch toward our latest fiscal 
crisis--the looming sequester that takes effect tomorrow--I rise to 
speak directly to the folks I work for--my constituents, my fellow 
Delawareans.
  I wish to continue a conversation I have been having with my 
neighbors at the train station, in the Acme, outside church, on the 
sidelines of my kids' sporting events, consistently since coming here 
to serve you as Delaware's junior Senator.
  I am focused a bit by a Facebook message I got from Sandi, a 
neighbor, this morning. It is fairly poignant. She writes: In 2011, 
when we spoke, you assured me the sequester was so Draconian it would 
never happen. I feel betrayed by Congress, the Senate, and all of 
Washington.
  She writes further: I trusted you to hold up our end of this deal and 
now we are going to sequestration. Disappointed is an understatement 
for how I feel. Why can't you get anything done down there?
  To Sandi, to the nonprofits in Delaware whose funding is about to get 
cut, to the civilian workers at Dover Air Force Base who are facing 
furlough, to the educators throughout the State who may be laid off and 
the students who may well be crammed into more crowded classrooms, to 
the parents whose children will not receive the vaccines they need, and 
to all my neighbors who will be abruptly impacted by what Washington 
has failed to do this week to deal with the sequester, on behalf of the 
Senate, I am frustrated. I am at my wit's end. I am embarrassed by our 
dysfunction. I am sorry. This is simply not how your government is 
supposed to work.
  Our country, as we all know, has a real long-term problem--a national 
debt now approaching $17 trillion, annual deficits for years of $1 
trillion, literally adding to the problem each day we don't act 
together. While the solution to this problem is not easy, it is 
relatively obvious.
  I wish to say this at the outset: Including interest savings, we have 
already saved a little less than $2.5 trillion since 2010. But it is 
easy to miss since we have done it piecemeal, through reductions in 
continuing resolutions, through the Budget Control Act, through the 
recent fiscal cliff deal. I know the general impression all of us get 
at home is we lurch from crisis to crisis and it is unclear that we 
have made any progress at all. But we have already locked in nearly 
$2.5 trillion in savings.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, we got to hear from the Bowles-
Simpson Commission, the Domenici-Rivlin Commission, a whole series of 
prominent economists who broadly agreed we needed $4 trillion in 
savings to get our deficits under control and to stabilize our debt as 
a percentage of our economy.
  We have made about $2.5 trillion in progress and that leaves us about 
$1.5 trillion, maybe even $2 trillion left to go to achieve that 
target, depending on how we count. More than 70 percent of the savings 
we have already enacted have come from cuts, overwhelmingly cuts to 
domestic spending that are critical to the future of our economy. I 
think it is important as we go forward that we achieve some balance in 
the remaining component.
  This Chamber will have to pass a budget resolution this year. That is 
what we are already working toward in the Budget Committee, a meeting 
from which I just came. We must cut spending, we must, in my view, 
raise revenue, and we must reform our entitlement programs. All of 
these have some role to play in dealing with these long-term issues. 
None of them though can solve the problem on their own, and this has 
been clear for the 3 years I have been serving here.
  Our problem has been that we have a vocal part of one party who 
largely would not entertain raising any revenue and a vocal part of 
another party who largely would not consider reforming our entitlement 
programs, so we have lurched from crisis to crises. We

[[Page S970]]

try to force each other to do it on the backs of one piece of our large 
Federal budget.
  So to my conservative neighbors or those in the other party, I am 
sorry, we just cannot do this through cuts to discretionary, nondefense 
programs alone or through entitlement reforms alone. We cannot 
responsibly deal with this deficit and debt just within those two 
areas.
  In the last 2 years we already made more than $1.5 trillion in 
discretionary spending cuts. On the trajectory we are on now, in the 
next decade the percentage these programs make of our total Federal 
Government will drop to levels not seen since Dwight Eisenhower was 
President, even as our revenues today are at their lowest as a 
percentage of our economy in 50 years.
  Federal spending, done right, in the right sectors, fuels our long-
term competitiveness. I am talking about investments in education, in 
infrastructure, in R&D, and basic science and curing diseases, and in 
speeding commerce. They are key to our future.
  One of our core areas of focus here ought to be on how do we create 
jobs in a progrowth agenda for our country? By simply focusing on 
hacking off the domestic, discretionary piece of our Federal budget, it 
is like an airplane that is trying to get lift but one of its engines 
is being cut off. We need to sustain investment in some of these 
critical areas of the Federal budget. But equally, I will say to my 
liberal neighbors, to folks in my party, we cannot solve this budget 
problem just by raising taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. The 
math just does not work. There is not enough we can raise there to deal 
with the whole challenge.
  Remember, the fiscal cliff deal we just passed in the last few weeks 
will bring in another $600 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. 
So we are making progress.
  We also cannot do it if we simply ignore the poor fiscal health of 
our long-term entitlement programs either. Last year Medicare and 
Medicaid Programs--plus interest on the debt--made up almost 30 cents 
of every $1 the Federal Government spent. In two decades, on our 
current trajectory, it may be 50 cents of every $1.
  Demographics, steadily rising costs of health care will keep driving 
this, and we must deal with it. Unless we change course, putting all 
these things together, productive expenditures that grow our economy--
medical research, R&D--will be crowded out. Progressive priorities such 
as Head Start, low-income housing assistance, breast and cervical 
cancer screenings--the things that help care for the least among us or 
that help make us healthier will be gone.
  So in my view, why not take this moment when we still have a Democrat 
in the White House and Democrats in control of this Chamber to make 
tough choices while we have historically low interest rates and fight 
to preserve the legacy of the earned benefits--Medicare, Medicaid, and 
the vital entitlement programs we treasure. In my view, we cannot 
simply hope that the cost of our entitlement programs comes down and we 
cannot simply tax our way to economic health. Anyone who tells you that 
either of these is enough is wrong. Spending has to be cut. 
Entitlements have to be reformed. Revenue needs to be raised. They are 
all part of the problem, and they should all be part of the solution.
  Somehow, though, when we actually do manage briefly to have a 
substantive debate on these questions, we tend to spend all of our time 
focusing on the smallest facet of the Federal budget--discretionary 
spending--but almost no time discussing these others, the rest of the 
equation, the big drivers.
  This place has become somewhat of an alternative reality where, if we 
dig in real hard and people get really scared and we use fancy words 
such as ``sequester'' or ``fiscal cliff,'' we can ignore the facts. 
There is no question that we do have to reduce spending, but the 
sequester is the worst way to do it. When conceived, the sequester was 
such a bad idea that both sides were supposed to be motivated to move 
Heaven and Earth to prevent it from taking effect. That is how terrible 
it is as policy. Yet here we are.
  I am dumbfounded. It is not as though we have not had plenty of time 
to make this better--18 months, by my count. Why are people talking now 
in the press here on Capitol Hill about whether Boehner will lose his 
speakership or whether the first person to suggest the sequester worked 
in the White House or in the Capitol, whether Republicans have more to 
gain by the sequester kicking in or Democrats? How much time have we 
been spending trying to fix blame rather than fix the problem? Who owns 
the sequester seems to be the fight of the day here. Who cares is my 
question. There are no winners in this fight.
  I think the question of how we reduce our deficits, stabilize our 
economy, prioritize spending that will grow jobs--this debate can 
either dominate the next 10 years, as we lurch every 3 months from 
crisis to crisis, or we can address the broader, bigger question and 
fix it and lay a groundwork for health, for growth, for recovery. 
Again, the math is not that hard; the politics are.
  We here in Congress, with the executive branch, have largely created 
this problem, and now we need to solve it. Tomorrow, leaders from this 
Chamber and the House will go to the White House to meet with President 
Obama about how to address the sequester on the very day it takes 
effect. On behalf of my constituents, on behalf of the teachers, the 
police officers, the nonprofits, the personnel at Dover Air Force Base, 
the kids, their parents, my neighbors, on behalf of my State, I urge 
our leaders to embrace this moment and to work not only to avert this 
short-term sequester--not just this $85 billion in cuts--but to resume 
their work on the grand bargain. We need a big deal. We need it to be 
balanced. We need it to be fair. Spending, entitlements, revenue--they 
all need to be on the table, and they all have to be part of the 
equation.
  My question for everyone in that meeting tomorrow----
  Mr. McCAIN. I have to ask for regular order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority time has expired.
  Mr. COONS. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to conclude my 
remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COONS. My question for everyone--everyone--in both parties, both 
Chambers who goes to this important meeting at the White House tomorrow 
is, How much more time do we have to fight and not to act, to attack 
and not compromise, to spin rather than solve? Based on the e-mails, 
the calls, the contacts I have gotten from my constituents, from my 
neighbors, the time to step up and address this larger problem is now. 
The sequester, while savage, is not the underlying problem. It is our 
unwillingness to come together across parties and Chambers to deal with 
the underlying challenges of our budget. It is my hope, my prayer, that 
we will take this moment and act.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________