[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17212-17226]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed is agreed to and the clerk will report the bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3081) making appropriations for the Department 
     of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today is September 29, which means that 
fiscal year 2010 will come to an end tomorrow at midnight. We should 
all keep that in mind because in order to avoid a government shutdown, 
the Senate must act now to send this essential legislation to the House 
of Representatives.
  I do not believe any of my colleagues wish the Government of the 
United States to be shut down on Friday, so I am hopeful we can avoid 
unnecessary amendments and work in a bipartisan fashion to pass this CR 
and send it to the House.
  This is a clean continuing resolution that includes only those 
exceptions that are critical to allow the government to carry out its 
responsibilities. I would note that according to the CBO scoring of 
this bill, this resolution will fund the government through December 3, 
2010, at a rate that is approximately $8.2 billion below fiscal year 
2010 enacted levels.
  Vice Chairman Cochran and I have done our best to ensure that this CR 
includes only the bare minimum of what is necessary to continue 
government operations until Members on both sides of the aisle are able 
to work out their differences and complete action on this year's 
appropriations bills.
  In addition, the CR extends the temporary assistance for the Needy 
Families block grant program, which provides necessities such as food 
and clothing for those hardest hit by the struggling economy. This 
resolution also extends the current GSE loan limits, to prevent a 
disruption of the home mortgage market. Finally, this measure will fund 
current military operations for the next 2 months, ensuring that our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will have what they need to 
carry out their missions.
  While I know there are many additional matters which the 
administration and other Members of the Senate wish to have included, 
we have been unable to reach a bipartisan agreement to do so. But I can 
assure my colleagues that everything essential to continue government 
services has been included.
  Time is short, and we have before us a clean CR that has the bare 
minimum of exceptions necessary to avoid disruptions to government 
services that is approximately $8.2 billion below fiscal year 2010 
levels, and that has the approval of both the majority and minority 
leaders.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to support this CR and to send it to the 
House as quickly as possible.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, 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. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
expended during the quorum call be equally divided on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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. CORKER. 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. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes. My 
understanding is that Senator Thune is coming to the floor in a moment 
to offer an amendment to the continuing resolution that would reduce 
spending in the continuing resolution by 5 percent on

[[Page 17213]]

discretionary items that are nondefense oriented.
  I want to say that I just came from a meeting with Chairman Bernanke 
talking about our debt situation. I know we have a Deficit Reduction 
Commission right now that is working on that and will have a report due 
on December 1. But I think everyone in this body understands it is a 
huge issue for our country and that right now the markets have allowed 
us to have lower interest rates because we are considered to be a safe 
haven. But the fact is, at some point in time we all understand this is 
going to disconnect and, in fact, we will pay higher interest rates 
because of our lack of ability to control our spending.
  I think a great first step for us to be able to walk into--hopefully, 
something constructed by the Deficit Reduction Commission and, if not, 
by our own actions this next year, where we know the No. 1 issue that 
threatens our economic security in this country--and by virtue of 
threatening our economic security, it threatens our national security--
is the huge amount of spending that is taking place. I think we have 
all seen throughout the country what I would say is a very centered and 
deep concern about the amount of money we spend here in Washington.
  I want to say, anybody who thought last year's appropriations bills 
were far higher than they should have been should support the Thune 
amendment. The fact is, what we are actually doing by virtue of the CR 
that has been offered is we are actually continuing spending at 25 
percent of our gross domestic product, which is a full 5 percentage 
points above our historic 50-year average of 20.3 percent.
  I think the Thune amendment is an appropriate first step. I think all 
of us in this body know that over the course of the next couple years 
we are going to have to take Draconian steps to rein in spending, which 
has been out of control. We are operating this year without even a 
budget.
  I do not cast blame. I just want to focus on solutions. The very best 
way we can start walking toward a solution that ensures continued 
economic security in this country is to support the Thune amendment.
  I am here to talk for a few minutes. I know the Senator from Arizona 
has just stepped on the floor. I think the Thune amendment is 
thoughtful. I hope all of us on both sides of the aisle will consider 
it thoughtful, and that we will get behind it.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, obviously we are 1 day away from the end 
of the fiscal year. We have before us a continuing resolution, better 
known as a CR. It totals over $1.1 trillion to fund the operations of 
the Federal Government through December 3, after the elections.
  In addition to continuing appropriations, this measure also includes 
numerous authorizing provisions from the fiscal year 2011 Defense 
authorization bill. We shouldn't have to selectively tack important, 
defense-related provisions on to appropriations bills in order to meet 
the pressing needs of the Armed Forces.
  The majority has decided to wait until the very last minute to bring 
this stopgap measure to the floor with the hope that Members will 
simply vote yes so that we can all go home and focus on the upcoming 
elections. I will not be voting yes. I will be voting no. If we pass 
this resolution, we can be assured that we will be considering yet 
another massive omnibus spending bill in December. The simple fact that 
we are considering this continuing resolution is evidence of the 
majority's inability to lead effectively and do the people's business.
  As I said, we are 1 day from the end of the fiscal year. This body 
has not considered a single one of the annual appropriations bills on 
the floor. We have a $13.5 trillion debt and a deficit of nearly $1.4 
trillion. Yet we have not debated a single spending bill or considered 
any amendments that would cut costs or get our debt under control.
  Furthermore, the majority decided they just didn't feel like doing a 
budget this year, so we didn't do a budget this year.
  On top of all of this, the majorities in both Houses have decided 
there will be no debate, no vote on extending the tax cuts that are due 
to expire at the end of this year. On Monday of this week, the New York 
Times published an editorial called ``Profiles in Timidity.'' The 
editorial stated, in part:

       We are starting to wonder whether Congressional Democrats 
     lack the courage of their convictions, or simply lack 
     convictions.
       Last week, Senate Democrats did not even bother to schedule 
     a debate, let alone a vote, on the expiring Bush tax cuts. 
     This week, House Democrats appeared poised to follow suit.

  The New York Times goes on to say:

       This particular failure to act was not about Republican 
     obstructionism . . . This was about Democrats failing to 
     seize an opportunity to do the right thing and at the same 
     time draw a sharp distinction between themselves and the 
     Republicans.

  Those are not my words; those are the words of the New York Times.
  Anyone who converses with people in the business community around 
this country, whether it be small businesspeople or whether it be the 
largest, all of them will say the same thing: We have no certainty 
about what the financial future will hold, whether we will see tax 
increases or whether we will see tax cuts. What about the estate tax? 
What about all of these other ``tax cuts'' that will or will not be 
extended?
  So rather than act one way or the other, we have now punted the ball 
down the field until after the election. At least we should have taken 
it up and debated and voted. I will stand by my vote to extend all the 
tax cuts because I don't believe we should increase anybody's taxes in 
tough economic times. But instead we will punt, go home, campaign, and 
then sometimes be curious why the approval rating of Congress is 
somewhere in the teens.
  We have no business at the eleventh hour considering a continuing 
resolution so we can pack up and go home. We should stay here, in 
session, and consider each and every appropriations bill in regular 
order and give Members ample opportunity to offer amendments. Following 
that, we should debate the Defense authorization bill and consider all 
amendments by Members, not just those the majority deems necessary to 
please their base.
  When the authorization bill was proposed to be brought up on the 
floor of the Senate, on this side, we said: Let's have 10 amendments on 
either side--10 amendments on each side--and we will move forward with 
regular debate and votes. The majority leader didn't want that to 
happen. The majority leader only wanted to consider don't ask, don't 
tell, secret holds, and the DREAM Act, and then take the bill off the 
floor and wait until--guess what--after the elections. That is not how 
this body should operate. We should consider all amendments. We would 
agree to time agreements. And if there are tough votes to be taken, 
that is why we are sent here--to take tough votes.
  We should debate and vote on whether to extend the tax cuts, as I 
said. Each day this issue is left unresolved, millions of American 
taxpayers and small business owners are left without the ability to 
properly budget for the next year.
  At a townhall meeting, a guy stands up and says: I am a CPA. I make a 
living advising people how they should adjust their estates and their 
expenses and their investments based on, at least in part, what kinds 
of tax liabilities they will be facing. I can't do my job because we 
don't know.
  The environment of uncertainty is holding back investment and job 
creation in this country, and at least the people of this country 
should have the right to know what their taxes are going to be next 
year. That won't be the case.
  Let me return for a minute to the continuing resolution and the very 
serious concerns I have about one of its provisions. According to the 
Appropriations Committee and press reports, section 146 of this bill 
would authorize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue buying and 
guaranteeing mortgages up to $730,000 in expensive housing markets 
through September of next

[[Page 17214]]

year. Under current law, that amount was scheduled to drop to $625,000 
at the end of this year. One would think that by now we would all be 
sensitive to the disastrous fiscal implications of Fannie's and 
Freddie's performance and find ways to rein them in rather than 
maintain or expand their operations. Fannie and Freddie are synonymous 
with mismanagement and waste and have become the face of too big to 
fail.
  Congress had the responsibility to ensure that Fannie and Freddie 
were properly supervised and adequately regulated. Congress failed, and 
the devastation caused by that failure continues to reverberate across 
the Nation every day.
  A recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News said:

       They--Fannie and Freddie--had long ago evolved from the 
     modest backer of loans that met high underwriting standards 
     into full-scale casino players in high-risk mortgages. By 
     purchasing or backing the loans of mortgage companies and 
     banks, Fannie and Freddie made it possible for lenders to 
     create more money for new loans to new homeowners.
       But Fannie and Freddie also conveniently benefited from 
     their hybrid status: They could make loans at advantageous 
     rates and run to Washington at the first sign of trouble. As 
     a major political donor, they seldom heard the word ``no'' 
     anywhere inside the Beltway.

  That is right. They seldom heard the word ``no'' anywhere inside the 
beltway. Some suggest that because of their deep pockets and generous 
campaign contributions, Congress routinely overlooked the growing 
problems at Fannie and Freddie and allowed them to continue operating 
in the most obscene, corrupt fashion.
  So where are we now? To date, the American taxpayer has spent $160 
billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and experts estimate 
those costs could rise to over $1 trillion. Isn't it time we phase them 
out of being a government-supported enterprise? So why in the world 
would we provide these failing institutions with authority to continue 
to buy these high-dollar mortgages? It makes no sense.
  My colleagues might recall that in May I offered an amendment to the 
financial regulatory reform bill to address the serious problems 
surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The amendment was designed to 
end the taxpayer-backed conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
by putting in place an orderly transition period and eventually require 
them to operate without government subsidies on a level playing field 
with their private sector competitors. Unfortunately, but not 
surprisingly, that amendment failed.
  The time has come to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's taxpayer-backed 
free ride and require them to operate on a level playing field. Fannie 
and Freddie continue to post loss after loss and are failing right in 
front of our eyes. For Congress to yet again allow them to continue 
business as usual is the height of irresponsibility.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, a cursory review of the record will 
indicate that the Appropriations Committee has 12 subcommittees. Eleven 
of these subcommittees have reported their bills to the full committee, 
and they have all passed. They are on the desk, ready to go. But 
something has happened in the interim.
  I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the bulk of them--by that, I 
mean nine of the subcommittee bills--were passed by the middle of July. 
That is a long time ago. We have had hearings with not one or two 
witnesses but hundreds of witnesses. We have discussed and debated all 
of the items in the measure, and we present that to the floor and we 
try to schedule them, but there are holds and threats of filibuster and 
such. Therefore, I want the Senate to know that the Appropriations 
Committee has done its utmost to make certain that these measures are 
passed in the regular order.
  One subcommittee has not been able to conclude its resolution because 
a new budget agreement just came in--a budget amendment which the 
committee has to consider, and therefore they have to look it over. We 
are not just cursorily rubberstamping every budget amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4674

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4674.

  Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion for a 
quorum call.
  Mr. INOUYE. I will. I did not see the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes talking 
about where we are. There is no question the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee has finished his bills, and they have not come 
up. But the quality of the work doesn't meet with the depth of the 
problem we have today, No. 1; No. 2, it doesn't address the concerns of 
the American public.
  So we are going to have a continuing resolution that we are going to 
pass through this body tonight, probably by a vote of about 80 to 20 or 
75 to 25. But the signal we are sending is based on our tin ear. We are 
going to continue spending at the same rate we have been spending. We 
are borrowing $4.2 billion a day under this continuing resolution. The 
government now is twice as big, in terms of expenditures, not including 
the war, as it was in 1999. We are not addressing what the American 
people want us to address; that is, that we ought to start living 
within our means.
  I will not offer an amendment to the bill. There are several 
amendments. My colleague from South Dakota offered one that will bring 
us back to 2008 levels, but that is not enough. The fact is, we have to 
engage the American public in what is rightfully a cogent criticism of 
the Congress; that is, that we are allowing wasteful Washington 
spending to go on, not by intent--and I am not questioning anybody's 
motives--but the fact is, we have not done our job in terms of 
oversight.
  We heard Senator McCain talk about the tax cuts and raising taxes 
during a very soft economic time. The vast majority of the Americans 
don't want us to do that. I don't know why we are not discussing it, 
and I don't know why we are leaving town before we send that signal, 
but that is way above my pay grade.
  What I will tell you is, I can take any group of Americans and sit 
down and go through this with them and show them, without question, 
$350 billion worth of waste every year in the Federal Government. The 
amendment of my colleague from South Dakota is cutting less than $50 
billion from what we are going to spend--in fact, we did it in 2008, 
other than for homeland security, defense, and veterans. So even though 
I love what my colleague is doing, it doesn't go nearly far enough 
compared to what the real need is for us.
  There are two real needs. One, if we are going to finance the debt we 
have today, we have to send a message and signal to the world that we 
are interested in getting our house back in order, that we are 
interested in becoming efficient, and interested in becoming austere 
with our taxpayers' money. The second message we need to send is to 
those who have capital in this country; that they, in fact, can have 
confidence that we are going to right this ship, and we will start 
seeing them deploy some of those assets to create the very jobs we so 
desperately want for the American people who do not have them today.
  I have been here long enough to know what is going to happen. But 
what I

[[Page 17215]]

wish to do is register my dissatisfaction that we are not addressing 
the real problems in front of our country today. Instead, we are 
ducking out on tough decisions so we can go home--and I am up for 
reelection as well--and get to the voters. My question is a much more 
powerful message than going to the voters; it is us making hard choices 
that the American people want us to make.
  This week, the 2010 fiscal year is coming to a close. On October 1, 
2010, it will become the new budget year. Here is what we failed to do 
as a body--our fault just as much as yours. We didn't pass a budget. We 
didn't set priorities. We didn't decide where to spend and where to 
save. We didn't pay for new spending--$266 billion in the last 6 months 
in this Congress on new spending that we waived pay-go on and borrowed 
it against our children. We didn't pass any appropriations bills. We 
didn't make any tough choices. We didn't conduct any significant 
oversight on the waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government or 
the duplication in the Federal Government. We didn't eliminate any 
duplicative or ineffective programs--not one. We didn't do our job. No 
wonder America is disgusted with us.
  What did we do? We increased the debt limit to more than $14 
trillion. We added more than $1.4 trillion to the deficit and charged 
it to our grandchildren. We ignored the Constitution and expanded 
Washington's reach into our private lives, shrinking freedom and 
growing government. We put ourselves first and the country second. 
Despite promises from us that government programs can solve every 
challenge, taxpayers are getting ripped off. We sent $1 trillion of 
their income to the Treasury this year just to watch it waste $350 
billion. At the same time, we created a lot of new programs, and some 
people are very proud of them. I am very worried about them. But I give 
you the credit that you went down the road you thought was right and 
did it.
  The real problem is, we are continuing the same old habits. The real 
issue is, until we truly understand the severity of the difficulty we 
are in and start acting like we understand it, this ship is going to 
continue to sink. We are not going to create the confidence in the 
American public or the $2 trillion that is sitting on the sidelines 
right now if, in fact, they had a clear signal it would start flowing 
into investment and capital that would create jobs.
  Last December, my office spent 3 weeks just looking at duplicative 
programs. When we passed the debt limit, we agreed with an amendment I 
inserted that the GAO would give us a list of those. They are starting 
that work, and this February we will see the first large tranche of 
that. It is going to take 3 years to compile that because the 
government is so big.
  We ought to have a little taste, and the American people ought to 
have a little taste, of what we didn't get rid of and didn't fix. We 
have 1,399 Federal programs that serve rural America; 337 of them are 
considered key. One thousand of them aren't considered key. They are 
not considered substantive. That is before you even take the test of 
saying whether they are authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
  The Federal Government operates 70 programs costing tens of billions 
of dollars that provide domestic food assistance--70 different 
programs--and many of them overlap or are inefficient. Most of them 
cannot demonstrate they are effective. That is according to a recent 
review by the Government Accounting Office. We didn't fix it. We could 
have saved taxpayers some of that money. There are 14 programs 
administered by the U.S. Department of Education related to foreign 
exchanges and designed to increase opportunities for students to study 
abroad. Why do we have 14 programs? Why not have one good one that 
meets the needs of Americans?
  We fund 44 job training programs, administered by 9 Federal agencies 
across the bureaucracy. The cost is $30 billion a year, and we don't 
know what the overhead is because we have 44 programs instead of 2 or 
3. We didn't address any of that. There are 17 offender reentry 
programs across 5 Federal agencies, costing $\1/4\ billion. There has 
been no oversight. In other words, we have not looked where the 
problems are. We have not looked to say: How do we make this government 
more efficient?
  What we have done is to say we are going to raise taxes--or at least 
we are not going to vote on raising taxes until after the election. No 
matter whether you are middle income, lower income, or upper income, it 
makes no sense for us to say we need more money here, when we will not 
do the very simple job of eliminating the waste.
  I don't question the motivation for job training programs; I think 
they are necessary. I don't question the motivation for food programs; 
I think they are necessary. But 44 and 70 different programs, with 70 
sets of bureaucracies and 44 sets of bureaucracies? Then we are going 
to tell Americans they should pay more tax, when we will not even do 
the simple thing to save $100 million here or there. With a $30 billion 
program, if you save 10 percent, that is $3 billion. So all you have to 
save is one-tenth of 1 percent or three-tenths of 1 percent. We will 
not even do that.
  I have a book full of duplicative programs. It is available to 
anybody who wants it. We ought to ask what kind of rating or grade 
would the American people give us--Republicans and Democrats alike--in 
terms of running the government, funding the government, and working to 
make the government efficient and effective. I don't think we have any 
good defense. I think people's intentions around here are excellent, 
but we never get around to the hard work of holding the bureaucracies 
accountable.
  Senator Carper had a great hearing today on the Defense Department 
and the fact that the Defense Department is trying to get where they 
can manage what they are doing by measuring it with a significant 
system, in terms of IT. It is just $6.9 billion over budget. Where is 
the oversight on that procurement? What the GAO said is the following: 
The management was ineffective at looking at those programs. The 
management was ineffective in the testing of those programs during 
their development. The management was ineffective in terms of the 
procurement of those programs. When I asked the heads of every branch 
in the military whether they agreed with that, they said, yes, they 
agreed they were ineffective.
  We don't have anything in the appropriations bills to change that 
effectiveness. We didn't have anything in the Defense authorization 
bill to change that effectiveness. We are just going to let it go on, 
and next year it will be $7.9 billion or $8.9 billion over. So we are 
not doing our job.
  That is not to question my colleagues' motive; it is to raise the 
awareness that the jig is up. The American people know we are not doing 
our job. They want us to start doing our job--both Republicans and 
Democrats.
  We have several colleagues on the floor. Rather than take more time, 
I just note that I am consistent in terms of coming down here and 
worrying about our future. I have done so for 5\1/2\ years--much to the 
chagrin of a lot of my colleagues. I wish to leave you with one 
statement.
  Our children deserve to have the same opportunities in this country 
that we have experienced. By us failing to do the very duties that are 
called upon us in a rational, straightforward basis, of doing oversight 
of the Federal Government and making the hard choices, we abandon our 
oath, but, more importantly, we steal the heritage that was given to 
us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                Amendment No. 4676 to Amendment No. 4674

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my 
amendment No. 4676 and ask that it be made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4676 to amendment No. 4674.


[[Page 17216]]

  Mr. THUNE. 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To reduce spending other than national security spending by 5 
                                percent)

       Strike section 101 and insert the following:
       Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate 
     for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations 
     Acts for fiscal year 2010 and under the authority and 
     conditions provided in such Acts, for continuing projects or 
     activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan 
     guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically provided for 
     in this Act, that were conducted in fiscal year 2010, and for 
     which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made 
     available in the following appropriations Acts:
       (1) Division A of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 2010 (division A of Public Law 111-118).
       (2) The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 
     2010 (Public Law 111-83) and section 601 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-212).
       (3) The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, division E of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-117).
       (4) Chapter 3 of title I of the Supplemental Appropriations 
     Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-212), except for appropriations 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' relating to 
     Haiti following the earthquake of January 12, 2010, or the 
     Port of Guam: Provided, That the amount provided for the 
     Department of Defense pursuant to this paragraph shall not 
     exceed a rate for operations of $29,387,401,000: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense shall allocate such 
     amount to each appropriation account, budget activity, 
     activity group, and subactivity group, and to each program, 
     project, and activity within each appropriation account, in 
     the same proportions as such appropriations for fiscal year 
     2010.
       (5) Section 102(c) of chapter 1 of title I of the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-212) 
     that addresses guaranteed loans in the rural housing 
     insurance fund.
       (6) The appropriation under the heading ``Department of 
     Commerce--United States Patent and Trademark Office'' in the 
     United States Patent and Trademark Office Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-224).
       (b) Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate for 
     operations 5 percent less than the applicable appropriations 
     Acts for fiscal year 2010 and under the authority and 
     conditions provided in such Acts, for continuing projects or 
     activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan 
     guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically provided for 
     in this Act, that were conducted in fiscal year 2010, and for 
     which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made 
     available in the following appropriations Acts:
       (1) The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 
     (Public Law 111-80).
       (2) The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-85).
       (3) The Department of the Interior, Environment, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (division A of 
     Public Law 111-88).
       (4) The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010 
     (division A of Public Law 111-68).
       (5) The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 
     111-117), except for division E.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as you know, the budget-appropriations 
process has broken down. Neither the House nor the Senate passed a 
budget resolution which provides a basic roadmap for our spending 
decisions for the next fiscal year.
  As a result of not having a budget, not a single appropriations bill 
has been signed into law for the new fiscal year that starts tomorrow 
at midnight. The House has passed only 2 of its 12 appropriations 
bills. Unfortunately, this 17-percent batting average, 17-percent 
success rate surpasses the Senate which has failed to pass any of the 
12 appropriations bills.
  Because of this, we find ourselves considering a measure to provide 
stopgap funding through December 3 to provide more time for completion 
of our annual appropriations bills.
  This delay and lack of floor debate on any of the annual 
appropriations bills has prevented us from having a much needed debate 
on the size of government and the amount of money we should be 
spending.
  Keep in mind, the overall growth in nondefense spending since 2008 
has amounted to roughly 21 percent at a time when inflation has 
amounted to only 3.5 percent. This excludes any mention of the $814 
billion stimulus bill.
  The continuing resolution before us today seeks to provide funding at 
the same rate as fiscal year 2010. I will say that I am somewhat 
pleased to see that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
not attempted to add other funding measures to this measure. That is 
commendable that we at least are going to do a continuing resolution 
that is relatively speaking clean. It would be my preference to dial 
back the overall spending level to the fiscal year 2008 levels.
  I have introduced legislation that will do just that, as have some of 
my colleagues. Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma has a bill that will do 
that. Some of my House colleagues have come up with a similar proposal 
that will do that. I guess I would say to my colleague from Oklahoma 
who just got up and spoke and mentioned this amendment probably does 
not go far enough that I do not disagree. Frankly, I would like to see 
us go back to the 2008 levels.
  What I am trying to do today is seek the support of my colleagues to 
at least take a measured step in reducing discretionary spending. My 
amendment simply seeks to reduce by 5 percent accounts not related to 
defense, homeland security, or veterans. This would not affect funding 
for the START treaty or any of the other new provisions in this 
continuing resolution.
  On an annualized rate, it would, however, save us about $22 billion 
compared to the $1.25 trillion score that CBO has provided for the 
proposed continuing resolution before us today.
  While this is a modest number and it is not going to solve our debt 
problems overnight, it is a necessary first step to reduce spending. 
Since nondefense discretionary spending has grown over 21 percent in 
the last 2 years--again, at a time when inflation was only 3.5 
percent--I think the least we can do is support this reasonable 
reduction until we return after the election to decide what the 
remaining funding level should be for the fiscal year 2011 spending 
bills.
  To put things into context as my colleague from Oklahoma, who just 
finished speaking, has done, we are looking at a $13.4 trillion debt. 
Our deficit for 2010 is estimated to be $1.3 trillion. About 40 cents 
out of every dollar that is spent in Washington, DC, by the Federal 
Government now is borrowed.
  If we look at the last 34 years, there have only been four times--4 
years--where all the appropriations bills have been passed on schedule.
  If we actually did go to a freeze at 2008 spending levels and index 
it for inflation, it would save $450 billion over 10 years. That makes 
a lot of sense.
  As I said, that is legislation I introduced earlier. At a minimum, 
what we ought to be able to do is say to the American people, at a time 
when many of their family budgets are shrinking, at a time when they 
are trying to make ends meet, that we get it. In Washington, DC, we 
understand: You want our Federal Government to do with a little bit 
less.
  What I am proposing is a 5-percent haircut; that is all, 5 percent. 
That is the least we can do for the American people at a time when, as 
I said, we are running these $1.3 trillion deficits and have future 
generations of Americans faced with a massive amount of debt that will 
be on their backs for generations to come.
  I hope today we can find the political will in the Senate to take 
what I think is a very modest, a very measured approach to reduce 
spending in this continuing resolution by 5 percent. When we come back 
in December, we can have a full-blown debate about what the size of 
government should be, which we should be having now and should have 
been having throughout the course of these last few months when these 
appropriations bills should have been debated and should have passed a 
budget.
  That being said, we do not have a budget. We have not passed 
appropriations bills. We are where we are. The least we can do, in 
fairness to the American people, the taxpayers of this country, is send 
a clear message to them that we are going to do a modest amount, at 
least a 5-percent reduction

[[Page 17217]]

over last year's level in this continuing resolution and try in a very 
small way to get some of the overspending that is occurring in 
Washington, DC, under control.
  Mr. President, 21 percent over the past 2 years at a time when the 
inflation rate was 3.5 percent, meaning that we are spending at the 
Federal level five to six times the rate of inflation, what the rate of 
price increases are across this country for most Americans. That is not 
fair to the American taxpayers. I hope my colleagues will support this 
amendment.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is here. I believe he wants to speak 
as well to this issue and to this amendment. I yield as much time to 
him as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for 
yielding. I stand here in support of the Thune amendment and thank him 
for his leadership on this good first step.
  To me, it is pure common sense. I agree with everything he has said 
in terms of we have overspent. It is time to draw a line in the sand, 
lead by example, and show the American people that they are doing 
without, and we can do without.
  We are only talking about 5 percent. It is $22 billion. I remember--
it seems like 10 years ago I got here. I remember being in the 
Massachusetts Legislature, and we were throwing around millions. Here 
they throw around trillions like it is nothing. I know it is only $22 
billion we can save, which is still real money where I come from, and 
so over $300 billion potentially over a 10-year period.
  It is time. It is time to start leading by example. It is time to 
show we can also make some cuts. Quite frankly, I do not think they 
will hurt. We need to send a signal to our constituents and to the rest 
of the world that we are trying to finally get our fiscal house in 
order.
  I just met with representatives from Great Britain. They are doing 
across the board a 25-percent cut. They recognize they do not want to 
be in a similar financial predicament as other countries in that part 
of the world. They are sending a very powerful bipartisan message to 
the people in that country that they have to get their fiscal house in 
order. We need to start sending that very same powerful fiscal message 
to do the same thing.
  I remember when I got here back in the beginning of January, the 
national debt was about $11.95 trillion. As Senator Thune just pointed 
out, it is almost $13.3 trillion or $13.4 trillion right now. That is 
less than 7 months. Our deficit is over $1 trillion.
  At what point do we eliminate the inefficiencies and duplications 
throughout our Federal Government, as Senator Coburn has identified 
cuts in many wasteful programs? I agree with him. We have to start 
somewhere. Can we not do just one thing--just one, that is it--to show 
the American people that, yes, we get it, we feel your pain, we get it. 
It is time. They are sending a very powerful message. They sent it in 
January and they are sending it again that they are tired of 
overspending, they are tired of deficit spending, they are tired of 
overtaxing. We have to get our fiscal house in order.
  I thank Senator Thune for his leadership and Senator Coburn for 
taking the time to find all these duplicate programs.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Massachusetts 
yields the floor, will he yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Yes.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he is hearing from 
his constituents back in his State the same message I hear from my 
constituents in South Dakota; that is, we are experiencing economic 
difficulties. In this economic downturn, many people lost jobs, many 
had a loss of income, many family budgets are being squeezed.
  Does not the Senator from Massachusetts hear the same thing from his 
constituents I hear from South Dakotans; that is, we want the Federal 
Government to lead by example, and rather than growing at four, five, 
six times the rate of inflation, actually take some steps to get its 
spending under control in the same fashion, the same way we are having 
to do it?
  That is what I hear from people in South Dakota. They are tired. They 
think the Federal Government is growing too fast, has gotten too big. 
They think it is a runaway train, especially when it is running $1.3 
trillion annual deficits.
  I think 5 percent on this particular continuing resolution, this 
funding bill is a modest amount that at least most of my constituents 
would think is reasonable.
  I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he thinks his constituents 
believe this Federal Government could live with 5 percent less at a 
time when they are living with a lot less in many circumstances?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for 
his question. I commend his constituents on having the foresight to 
instruct him and let him know they are hurting. The people in my State 
are hurting also. They are absolutely concerned about the disconnect 
between Washington and the State I represent.
  What I notice not only in Massachusetts but my travels throughout the 
country is that they believe the people in Washington go around saying: 
You are great, you are great, everything is wonderful, there is no 
recession in Washington. All the restaurants are full. The housing 
market is great. Everything is great around here. But outside that, 
they say: He doesn't get it; she doesn't get it; we are going to make a 
statement pretty darn soon.
  They are absolutely looking for fiscal leadership. Listen, there is 
absolutely a role for government. Government needs to know when to get 
out of the way also. It needs to know when to get out of the way and 
let free enterprise and the free market take shape and let us get the 
economy going through something besides government-created jobs.
  I thank the Senator for his question. I agree wholeheartedly, yes, 
there is a great concern that we are overspending, we are overtaxing, 
we are overregulating, and we need to make sure this gesture, this 5 
percent--I do not want to throw billions around like it is not money, 
but compared to the trillions we are all used to dealing with here, it 
is not big money. But I tell you what, it is a very good start. It 
sends a very powerful message to the people in Massachusetts and 
throughout the rest of this country and the world that a group of 
Senators have finally gotten together and have sent a message to the 
rest of the administration and to the folks that we are going to start 
to do one thing--just one thing: to start to get our fiscal house in 
order.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might just say to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, again, I appreciate his willingness to come down here 
and express his support for this amendment. The Senator from South 
Carolina is here. I expect he will speak too. He has an amendment he 
would like to offer as well.
  Most Americans believe government spends too much, especially at a 
time when their budgets, as I said, have been shrinking.
  This is the kind of amendment that ought to attract broad bipartisan 
support. We are going to fund the government with this continuing 
resolution until December 3 because, again, we have not passed any 
appropriations bills or a budget--which, by the way is a discussion, 
perhaps, for another day but one that I think needs to be joined, a 
debate that needs to be joined, and that is, what are we going to do to 
fix this broken-down budget process that year after year puts us in a 
position where, at the very end of the fiscal year, we have to pass a 
continuing resolution because we have not gotten our work done? That is 
an incredibly strange way to run a $3.5 trillion enterprise like the 
Federal Government.
  I think the American people deserve better. They need a budget 
process that has some teeth in it, that is binding, that makes sense, 
where there is an appropriate role for oversight, as the Senator from 
Oklahoma pointed out--all the agencies where there is duplication

[[Page 17218]]

and redundancy where we can find savings. We don't do a lot of that 
around here because we have a budget process that has broken down.
  I have a bill to reform the budget process which, again, I hope is 
something we can undertake. It is not going to happen now because we 
are going to wrap things up here this week, it seems. I would be happy 
to stay around and talk about budget reform, but I think a lot of my 
colleagues have other things and other places they want to go.
  In the meantime, let's at least do something here that will rein in 
Federal spending and send a very important message and signal to the 
American people, who have been hurting: The Federal Government here in 
Washington doesn't live in a bubble, we actually get it, we are 
listening to the voices of the American people, and we can find a mere 
5 percent in our Federal budget, this massive Federal budget, and 
demonstrate we are willing to tighten our belt a little bit, consistent 
with what is happening to the American people and the experience they 
are having in this economic downturn.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I do not know how much time I 
have left, but I reserve the remainder of my time on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed all of his time on 
the amendment.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I commend Senator Thune for, again, a very 
small request of the Senate to continue to fund the government at a 5-
percent reduction. It is hardly a radical idea--except in Washington. I 
hope my colleagues will support that.
  I would like to talk about another amendment for a minute, but first 
I think we need to address what I think has been the most irresponsible 
Congress I have seen in my time here.
  Over the last 4 years, the majority has almost doubled the national 
debt of all previous Presidents in 4 years. We are on that track to do 
it. This year, things are so bad that we didn't even bother to do a 
budget. We are not going to show the American people what we plan to 
spend, what things are costing.
  We are trying to get out of town today without passing funding bills 
to keep the government operating. We have to do a little makeshift 
continuing resolution. But we are getting out of town without 
addressing the fact that we are getting ready to stick the American 
people with one of the largest tax increases in history. By not doing 
anything, we are voting with our feet to raise taxes on everyone from 
the lowest income to the largest corporation, to tax dividends at a 
higher level, to tax death at a higher level. We are just leaving town.
  In the meantime, as people are getting ready to leave town, there are 
20 or 30 bills that folks here would like to pass in secret, by 
unanimous consent, without a vote, without any debate. Some of them 
have some pretty big price tags. And they are squealing like someone is 
doing them wrong if we ask for a day or two to read these bills, to see 
what they cost, to see what they would do to our country.
  There is a sense of entitlement here that we have to pass their bill; 
it is some kind of emergency. But their bills have been hanging around 
here for months. One of them I just saw was from December of 2009. They 
are not emergencies, but we have to pass them but we are not going to 
do the business of the American people. We are not going to carry out 
our constitutional responsibility to set a budget, to appropriate money 
for the operation of our government, but we want to get our bills 
passed and we want to go home.
  What we are doing is we are going to pass a continuing resolution 
tonight to fund the government until December. But the only reason to 
fund it until December is so we have to come back after the election in 
a lameduck Congress and pass another spending bill to keep our 
government going until the new Congress comes in. I think the only 
reason to do that is so Senators who are not coming back can come here 
and pass an omnibus spending bill with thousands of earmarks that 
people have come to expect, so they can take home the bacon to their 
States one last time.
  There is no reason for us to have a continuing resolution that ends 
in December. We are going to have to come back and use the threat of a 
government shutdown to force through a bigger spending bill. We should 
not do that in the chaos after the election.
  My amendment would take the exact same continuing resolution that 
everyone is going to agree on tonight and have it expire on February 4, 
after we have sworn in a new Congress, after the dust has settled. Then 
we can make a good decision with people who maybe represent the voices 
of the American people a little better because they have just come in 
off of the campaign trail. Instead of passing something in the chaos of 
November and December, let's do something that is more responsible and 
more focused.
  My amendment is the exact same as the amendment tonight. The only 
thing it does is it strikes December 3, 2010, and inserts February 4, 
2011, so it does not end, there is no emergency, there is no crisis, 
and there is no threat of a government shutdown. We come back in 
November and hopefully stop the tax increases and then go home and 
start over with the new Congress, with folks who are representing the 
voices of the American people.
  My hope is that my colleagues will support this amendment. There is 
no reason not to support it unless you want to come back here in 
November and increase spending, pass an omnibus and pass all of these 
porkbarrel earmarks to take home one last time.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. I understand we 
will have a vote on it later this evening, and I will reserve the 
remainder of my time.


                Amendment No. 4677 to Amendment No. 4674

  Mr. President, I understand I need to offer the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
Senator's amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMINT] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4677 to amendment No. 4674: Section 106(3) 
     of the bill is amended by striking ``December 3, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``February 4, 2011''.

  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you. I didn't think it would be too painful to read 
that whole thing at this time. This is one I can guarantee I read.
  Do I need to ask for a recorded vote at this time?
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may again repeat, in June of this 
year, 9 of the 11 subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee passed 
their bills in the full committee and reported to the desk. They are 
all at the desk. But somebody held it up, and I can assure you none of 
us held it up.
  I rise to speak against the amendment just submitted by Senator 
DeMint, which would extend the CR from the current expiration date of 
December 3 to February 4 of next year.
  I am certain most of my colleagues are aware that the government 
frequently operates under a short-term continuing resolution, not 
because they like to do it but because it takes time. It is not the 
most efficient way to operate. I agree with that. But it is frequently 
necessary as we resolve the differences over spending levels.
  While our agencies decry living under the CR--and I have said many 
times that this is not the way to run our government--I believe these 
agencies have learned to operate in the short term, and I emphasize the 
two words ``short term.'' This CR was crafted with a very narrow focus 
in the expectation that it would only last 2 months. It was agreed upon 
by both leaders, the majority and minority leaders.
  The minimal authorization extensions were included in a bipartisan 
attempt to keep this bill as clean as possible. Many requested 
anomalies were excluded because it was clear the CR would expire on 
December 3. Hopefully, the Congress will have concluded its work by 
that date. If not, a new CR will be required, and I can assure my 
colleagues that it will be significantly

[[Page 17219]]

longer than this bill, with many more anomalies to cover exceptions 
that must be continued if this CR is extended.
  A short-term CR is not efficient, as I have said before, but it is 
manageable. However, each week we go beyond that period, we further 
damage the ability of the government to function effectively. For 
example, contract awards can be delayed a month or two but not for 4 
months.
  The Appropriations Committee has worked very hard. We have held many 
hearings, heard from hundreds of witnesses--not just the administration 
but opposition witnesses--and in a truly bipartisan fashion come to an 
agreement on the CR we have before us. A large part of that effort was 
based on the good-faith assumption that once we agreed on an end date--
in this case, December 3--Members and staff would use that date to 
properly identify programs that needed adjustments in order to function 
as they were intended.
  If we accept this amendment and arbitrarily change the end date to 
February 4 of next year, we will ensure that the exact opposite will 
happen: The Government will not function as it should. Let me offer a 
few specific examples.
  As chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, I know there are programs 
essential to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be disrupted 
if the Senate were to arbitrarily change the end date of the CR. To say 
that our troops deserve better is an understatement of the highest 
order. As a specific example, the Defense Subcommittee carefully 
reviewed the plans of the Department of Defense and the Department of 
State for the authorities under the Pakistan counterinsurgency fund. 
This authority allows the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of 
the Secretary of State, to provide funding for initiatives to reduce 
the terrorist presence in Pakistan. The subcommittee concluded that a 
2-month delay would have minimal negative impact. However, stretching 
beyond 2 months could seriously erode our counterinsurgency efforts in 
Pakistan.
  As my colleagues know, new starts are prohibited under CRs, so a CR 
through February 4 would restrict the DOD from proceeding with any new 
military construction projects during the first third of the fiscal 
year. Losing 4 months of the year before DOD can begin to implement its 
2011 construction program puts the timely execution of the entire 
program at risk. Fifty percent of the requested funding is anticipated 
to be awarded by the end of February 2011.
  A longer term CR would result in untimely delays for implementing 
certain farm bill programs, as requested by the Office of Management 
and Budget. The delay would present shortfalls in funding for food and 
drug safety approval programs at the Food Safety and Inspection Service 
and the Food and Drug Administration due to a shortfall in the budget 
authority.
  A longer term CR would result in untimely delays for implementing 
certain farm bill programs, as requested by OMB. The delay would 
present shortfalls in funding for food and drug safety and approval 
programs at the Food Safety and Inspection Service and Food and Drug 
Administration due to a shortfall in new budget authority. In addition, 
if the child nutrition reauthorization is not approved, a further 
delayed CR will result in reduced food services for children.
  As another example, the administration sought to extend a highway 
provision of interest to Maine and Vermont but since it does not expire 
until December 17, it was not necessary to include in this CR. But if 
the CR does not expire until February, that provision is needed.
  A final example. The delays that would result from this amendment 
would stall the implementation of all planned new law enforcement 
initiatives at the Justice Department, including $366 million in new 
national security spending intended to improve the FBI's cyber 
security, WMD and counterterrorism capabilities and to assist in the 
litigation of intelligence and terrorism cases.
  This CR was negotiated in good faith, it has bipartisan support, and 
it ensures the government will continue to operate in good order until 
December 3. This amendment violates all three of those tenets. 
Arbitrarily changing the end date violates our good faith, is highly 
partisan, and ensures that the government will not function as it 
should.
  For all of these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the 
time be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Franken pertaining to the introduction of S. 3888 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum and ask that the time be divided equally between both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, in a moment I will request unanimous 
consent to address an issue important to the people of Florida having 
to do with the EPA and a mandate set to go into effect next month. The 
timing of this effort is critical. That is why I take the extraordinary 
measure of bringing it to the Senate floor today. I wish to make it 
clear that this effort is bipartisan. I am joined by the senior Senator 
from my State, Mr. Nelson, in this request. If we don't act, something 
is going to happen to Florida that will have a grave impact upon our 
economy. Although this is a Florida-specific issue now, it will have an 
impact on other States and set a precedent as time goes by.
  Let me describe my amendment. Then I will talk about the issue. The 
amendment would prohibit the EPA from using any of the funds in the 
continuing resolution to implement or enforce the water standard rules 
that it is working on for Florida. Due to a consent decree between a 
group in the EPA which is part of a lawsuit, the rule setting water 
quality standards for inland waters in Florida is set to be finalized 
on October 15. It singles out Florida and only Florida for these new 
water standards. However, how this rule is promulgated will serve as a 
template for how rules are promulgated against other States. For 
example, EPA is already looking into an effort to promulgate these 
standards for the Chesapeake Bay area.
  We are not against clean water. In fact, Florida has been working on 
clean water issues for some time and has made remarkable progress. 
However, this proposal is going to have a dramatic impact on the State 
of Florida without peer-reviewed science as the basis of this rule.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an Article from 
the Jacksonville Business Journal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Business Journal, Sept. 24, 2010]

                Jacksonville Sewer Charges Could Double

       JEA CEO Jim Dickenson said the utility's sewer rates could 
     nearly double by 2014 if new federal regulations require JEA 
     to spend $1.3 billion to remove more nitrogen from its sewage 
     plant discharges.
       Companies and hospitals--including Anheuser-Busch InBev, 
     Southeast Atlantic Beverage Co., St. Vincent's Medical Center 
     and Mayo Clinic Florida--are expected to be hit the hardest 
     if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toughens its 
     pollution standards in 2012. The new rules, which will also

[[Page 17220]]

     make new development projects costlier, make Florida less 
     competitive with its less regulated Southeast competitors, 
     said Keyna Corey, spokeswoman for Associated Industries of 
     Florida, a business lobbying group with about 8,000 members.
       ``We're not against keeping the water clean,'' she said. 
     ``I can't recruit a company to a dirty state, but we are 
     going to lose jobs because Florida is the only one doing 
     it.''
       The EPA's nutrient-criteria mandate is expected to deal an 
     annual $1.1 billion blow to the state's agriculture industry, 
     costing about 14,500 jobs, Corey said. The new rules are 
     expected to cost the pulp and paper industry more than $169 
     million annually. The EPA's push for more stringent water 
     pollution rules came after environmental groups, including 
     the St. Johns Riverkeeper and the Sierra Club, sued the 
     agency in 2008, alleging the agency wasn't enforcing the 
     federal Clean Water Act strongly enough in Florida. Under the 
     settlement, tougher criteria will come in mid-October 
     regarding nutrient levels in the state's rivers, streams, 
     springs and lakes.
       Nitrogen is the main type of nutrient the EPA wants to 
     reduce in water bodies, because in high concentrations, it 
     can create algae blooms, which can cause fish kills, a 
     localized die-off of the fish population. The St. Johns River 
     was plagued by algae blooms and fish kills this summer.
       Dickenson is worried that the $400 million the utility has 
     already spent to reduce nutrient discharges won't satisfy the 
     EPA when it applies the new criteria to the state's 
     estuaries, canals and coastal waters in 2012. If these past 
     projects--aimed at meeting the federal total maximum daily 
     limits rule--don't meet EPA's new mandate, JEA would have to 
     spend $1.3 billion or more to meet the higher standards, 
     since the majority of its wastewater discharges are in the 
     coastal region. The utility has 44 sewage plants.
       To pay for the required upgrades, sewer rates would nearly 
     double, causing the average residential sewer rate to 
     increase annually to about $1,400, Dickenson said. The 
     average sewer rate for commercial and industrial JEA 
     customers isn't known, but the rates are expected to be 
     affected similarly.
       If the EPA mandate ``would actually help the environment, 
     there would be no objection,'' said Paul Steinbrecher, JEA's 
     director of environmental services, permitting and 
     assessments.
       He said JEA's past work to accommodate the TMDL limits 
     brings nutrient levels to the natural level and he is unsure 
     how levels could be further reduced under the new criteria.
       The amount of nitrogen discharged annually by the average 
     JEA residential user has decreased from 13 pounds in 1975 to 
     about 2.2 pounds, Dickenson said.
       ``If we'd known the EPA would change the rules midstream, 
     we'd have done our TMDL projects differently,'' Dickenson 
     said.
       The EPA projects the annual cost of meeting the new 
     criteria to be $130 million for all utilities in Florida. 
     Darryll Joyner, chief of the Florida Department of 
     Environmental Protection's bureau of assessment and 
     restoration support, said that's not nearly enough. He 
     projected the actual cost at between $5 billion and $8 
     billion. The EPA was not available for comment.
       Joyner said JEA's $1.3 billion estimate on how much it 
     would have to pay to meet the criteria is correct. He is 
     optimistic that the DEP will be able to make the case to the 
     EPA that improvement gained through meeting the less-
     stringent TMDL requirements will satisfy the new criteria.
       Steinbrecher said he hopes Joyner is right, but the EPA's 
     decision to allow it to enter a ``legal no-man's-land law'' 
     doesn't instill him with confidence.

  Mr. LeMIEUX. This rule is going to deal a $1.1 billion blow to the 
State's agricultural industry. A joint study by the Florida Department 
of Agriculture and Consumer Services in the University of Florida 
projects that it could cost in total up to $1.6 billion a year and 
eliminate 14,500 jobs. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates it 
to cost more than between $5 and $8 billion. Water utilities in Florida 
have estimated that sewer rates would increase by $62 per month or more 
than $700 per year.
  This article from the Jacksonville Business Journal talks about sewer 
charges doubling in Jacksonville because of the water standard that has 
not been peer reviewed and does not have the scientific basis it 
should.
  Today, because I was coming to offer this unanimous consent proposal, 
the EPA has issued a 30-day stay of execution on the implementation of 
this rule. It was supposed to be October 15. Now it will be November 
14. Conveniently, that is the day before we are likely to come back in 
November and bring Congress back into session. So we will be unable to 
continue this during our recess. This will most likely go into effect 
and do damage to Florida.
  This is a bipartisan effort. In fact, on the House side, members of 
our delegation, some 20 of the 25--I believe it is 21, actually--have 
come together to support not letting this rule go into effect. Senator 
Nelson and I make this request.
  I ask unanimous consent that the LeMieux-Nelson amendment be 
considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cardin, chairman of 
the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this measure, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. If I may, that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because 
this is a bipartisan agreement. This damage is going to be done to 
Florida, a State that is suffering from the worst unemployment that 
anyone can remember, nearly 12 percent, and the worst economy that 
anyone can remember. Now these ill-conceived rules that don't have a 
peer-reviewed scientific basis will go into effect and impact our 
economy to the tune of billions of dollars, hurting our workforce and 
doubling people's sewer rates at a time when they least can afford it. 
It is unfortunate we have an objection when we have both Senators from 
Florida, Democratic and Republican, supporting this; when we have the 
vast majority of the Florida delegation in the House asking for this 
measure to be stated. It is not saying it would not go into effect. It 
is asking for more time so there would not be a rush to judgment and it 
would not be brought into effect in a hurried manner.
  It is unfortunate we have an objection when we have such bipartisan 
support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am concerned about the problem in 
Florida. I am well aware there may be some consternation. But I must 
once again remind the Senate that we are now considering the continuing 
resolution as a result of a bipartisan agreement reached by the 
majority leader and the minority leader. That agreement calls for a 
clean CR. There are many amendments that my colleagues would like to 
submit, but we have had to say, reluctantly, no. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Thune 
amendment. There are a number of reasons the Thune amendment is a bad 
idea. A 5-percent cut across the board may seem reasonable, small, and 
not a big cut. But it is a devastating cut when Members understand the 
specific programmatic impact. A 5-percent cut against non-national 
security accounts would be about $20 billion below the current fiscal 
year spending level. This cut would be in addition to the current CR 
level which is $18 billion below the Sessions amendments offered 
earlier this year.
  I remind my colleagues that we have a $5 billion problem outside of 
all this cutting in terms of addressing the Pell grants shortfall. I 
believe the vast majority of my colleagues are in favor of the Pell 
grants. I can assure them that the Pell grant problem is not going to 
magically cure itself.
  Members may try and hide from taking responsibility for the 
devastating impacts of a generic across-the-board cut of this 
magnitude, but I am standing before my colleagues now and putting 
everyone in this Chamber on notice for what the actual impact of 
passing this amendment will be.
  For starters, let me discuss America's security outside of the 
Department of Homeland Security and outside of the department that 
handles the southwest border. Cutting funding by 5 percent would mean a 
loss of $1.5 billion for the Department of Justice. It

[[Page 17221]]

is not part of Homeland Security and not part of the Defense 
Department. The FBI's uniform crime report that was just released tells 
us that violent crime is down 5.3 percent, a decrease for the third 
year in a row, and a total 9 percent drop since 2006. Now is not the 
time to cut resources for Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
partners. We depend on Federal law enforcement to protect Americans 
from terrorism and violent crime and uphold the rule of law.
  Cutting Federal law enforcement by 5 percent across the board would 
mean 1,650 fewer FBI agents to combat terrorist threats, 420 fewer DEA 
agents to reduce the flow of drugs across the U.S.-Mexican border, and 
over 2,000 fewer Federal correctional officers to safeguard our 
prisons.
  In addition to the cuts to the Department of Justice, this amendment 
would reduce funding for the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism 
and Financial Intelligence and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by 
$8.8 billion. Cuts of this magnitude would cripple the Treasury 
Department's unique efforts to keep our country safe.
  Specifically, the Office of Foreign Assets Control would be forced to 
cut staff who enforce the Iran and North Korea sanctions programs and 
sanctions efforts aimed at al-Qaida and its affiliates, terrorist 
groups in Afghanistan, international drug traffickers, and other 
national security threats.
  The Treasury Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis would 
be forced to cut staff who work to locate hidden funding sources of 
terrorist networks. Finally, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 
would significantly reduce overseas staff who work with foreign 
government counterparts in support of law enforcement efforts, 
investigations that protect Americans.
  In terms of our consumers and our small business owners, cutting the 
budget of the CFTC and the SEC by 5 percent would erode their ability 
to conduct necessary oversight of the futures and securities markets, 
respectively, at a time when such scrutiny is paramount. Such a move is 
simply irresponsible, given the Wall Street scandals that led to the 
financial meltdown and economic strife plaguing so many American 
households.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected to funding any 
anomalies that would have allowed these agencies to increase staffing 
during the pendency of the continuing resolution to implement the Dodd-
Frank requirements. To insist on a further cut in light of these new 
requirements is not responsible. For the CFTC, a rollback would 
diminish aggressive efforts in the past 18 months to enhance previously 
decimated staffing levels which would not have been adequate to keep 
pace with the growing markets the agency oversees.
  The SEC would suffer similar erosion of critical seasoned 
professionals. During the past 2 years, efforts have been made to 
restore staffing shortages. This amendment will force these staff to be 
furloughed, which would undermine the significant strides to become a 
more aggressive and vigilant protector of American investors.
  Funding for the Small Business Administration would be cut at a 
critical point in the Nation's economic recovery, severely diminishing 
the agency's ability to implement the Small Business Jobs and Credit 
Act recently signed into law. Such a cut would hamper the ability of 
the Small Business Administration to provide counseling services to 
small businesses at a time when they need it most.
  Cuts to Small Business Development Centers, microloan technical 
assistance, SCORE, and the Women's Business Centers would be a blow to 
SBA's ability to assist citizens trying to start, sustain, or grow 
their small businesses.
  In terms of public safety, the FAA faces challenges in maintaining an 
adequate workforce of trained air traffic controllers. Funding the FAA 
at 5 percent below the fiscal year 2010 level would force it to absorb 
almost $500 million in cost-of-living and inflation expenses. Since 75 
percent of the FAA's operation budget is payroll, the FAA would need to 
implement a hiring freeze, thereby reducing its air traffic controller 
and inspector workforces, increasing flight delays, and curbing air 
travel at many airports.
  When it comes to NASA, this amendment would require $936 million less 
in funding. I have heard from many Members concerned about job losses 
at NASA facilities in their States. I can assure you, the level of 
funding that will result from this amendment will only expedite these 
losses.
  Specifically, this random across-the-board cut will jeopardize 
scientific discovery as well as the development of a new heavy-lift 
launch vehicle and space capsule, costing thousands of high-tech, high-
skill jobs in States such as Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Colorado. The 
United States would abandon the high ground of space to Russia, China, 
and Europe, sacrificing our leadership.
  In terms of environmental funding, this amendment would require a 
$174 million cut to EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State 
Revolving Funds. That means 58 fewer sewer and water projects in our 
communities to ensure clean and safe water.
  It would also require a $302 million cut to the basic operating 
accounts at the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish & 
Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. That means 
approximately 2,000 fewer Park Rangers, Forest Rangers, refuge 
managers, and BLM managers.
  The 5-percent cut proposed in this amendment would require the 
National Park Service to furlough virtually all of the seasonal 
employees that would result in the closing of many National Park 
facilities. Further, it would cut energy efficiency and renewable 
energy programs by over $145 million, stopping in its tracks evolving 
R&D on solar energy and electric vehicles. That is what we have been 
talking about here: alternative energy sources. It would cut the 
nuclear energy R&D program by $51 million, hampering the nuclear 
renaissance, and simultaneously it would hamper the cleanup of our 
nuclear weapon and civilian nuclear sites by cutting $366 million from 
those programs. This action calls into question our ability to 
undertake new weapon and civilian nuclear activities if we cannot deal 
with the back end of the programs.
  In terms of our senior citizens, the most vulnerable in our society, 
this amendment requires a cut of $40 million to senior nutrition 
services at the Administration on Aging, which translates into a 
reduction of 13 million senior meals.
  It also requires a cut of $922 million from the fiscal year 2010 
operating level for the Social Security Administration. This would 
force the Social Security Administration to furlough employees and 
severely increase the waiting times for everyone with a disability 
claim, retirement claim, or disability appeal.
  In the last 3 years, the number of disability claims SSA has received 
has increased 30 percent, the number of disability hearings has 
increased 20 percent, and the number of retirement claims has increased 
13 percent. By the end of the year, this cut would leave 900,000 more 
Americans waiting on a determination of their disability claim, almost 
doubling the current backlog, and 150,000 more waiting on an appeal of 
their disability case. This would also drastically limit program 
integrity efforts that save $7 for every $1 spent.
  Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance, which helps the Nation's 
most vulnerable individuals and families find and maintain safe and 
affordable housing in the private market, would be cut by $816 million, 
which would put as many as 85,000 of our country's low-income families, 
elderly, and disabled at risk of losing their housing.
  Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a more 
comprehensive list of programs that will be severely impacted by this 
amendment. There are too many important programs being impacted by this 
amendment and not enough time to discuss them all.
  I ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 17222]]

  List of Programs Impacted by the Thune Amendment and Level of Impact

       The Thune amendment would require:
       A $148 million cut to the clinical health services provided 
     by the Indian Health Service. For some of our most vulnerable 
     citizens, that means at least 1,000 fewer inpatient 
     admissions; approximately 200 fewer direct outpatient visits; 
     and 200 fewer doctors and nurses that are required to staff 
     the 4 new health care facilities scheduled to open next year.
       A $169 million cut to the Forest Service and Interior 
     Department wildland fire accounts. That could mean as many as 
     2,560 fewer firefighters next year.
       A $22 million cut to the Interior Department's Outer 
     Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing and inspection 
     programs. That means a halt to many ongoing reform efforts, 
     increasing the likelihood of environmental disasters like the 
     BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and delaying the timeline for 
     resumption of drilling in Gulf of Mexico deep water.
       A $38 million cut to the Smithsonian Institution. That 
     means rolling closures of museums on the Mall and stopping 
     construction of the African American Museum of History and 
     Culture.
       The Thune amendment would cut $1.16 billion in 
     discretionary spending for agricultural programs which will 
     result in cuts to nutrition programs, food safety, rural 
     housing, conservation, drug inspection, and farm service 
     programs among others.
       Specifically, cuts to the Food Safety program would reduce 
     current levels for meat and poultry inspections, and cuts to 
     FDA would reduce current levels for drug and food safety 
     inspections (including imports) and drug approvals.
       Both the Bush and Obama administrations have pushed the 
     goal to double funding for science programs over 10 years--
     this amendment would put that initiative in reverse by 
     cutting over $300 million from DOE's Office of Science 
     program. This will severely impact the United States ability 
     to compete internationally.
       The nuclear non-proliferation program would lose $139 
     million. This would be lunacy in the face of bi-partisan 
     acknowledgement of the threat posed to the United States by 
     unsecured nuclear material in the world.
       The Naval Reactors program, which must design a new reactor 
     core for the new Ohio class submarine and refuel its test 
     reactor, would be cut by $61 million.
       Finally, the Corps would be cut by $270 million and the 
     Bureau of Reclamation by $56 million. As we struggle to 
     maintain and build our infrastructure in this country these 
     cuts would have significant implications to on-going 
     projects.
       Internationally, the Thune amendment will require a cut of 
     $388 million for global health programs to combat HIV/AIDS, 
     malaria, Swine Flu, and many other deadly diseases that claim 
     millions of lives annually.
       The amendment will require an additional cut of $87 million 
     beyond the $165 million supplemental funding not counted as 
     part of the CR for aid for refugees. This translates into 
     millions of lives lost.
       The amendment will require a cut of $42 million for 
     international disaster relief. This cut along with the 
     reduction of $460 million that was included in the FY 10 
     Supplemental that is not counted in the CR would severely 
     limit our ability to aid victims of earthquakes, floods, 
     hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters.
       $16.5 million reduction to U.S. Capitol Police would result 
     in the loss of approximately 90 officers. Capitol Police are 
     already dealing with a $10 million shortfall going into FY11. 
     This would further decrease their mission of protecting the 
     Capitol Complex.
       The GAO would be reduced by $28 million, which would be 
     devastating to GAO's operations, staff, and ability to 
     provide timely service to the Congress. To absorb a reduction 
     of this magnitude in a labor intensive budget would require a 
     reduction of almost 200 employees.
       A cut of $18 million to the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration. The tragic loss of 29 lives at the Upper Big 
     Branch mine and other mine accidents this year were tragic 
     reminders of what can happen when workplaces are not safe. 
     This funding level will prevent MSHA from adequately 
     enforcing the law which protects mineworkers.
       This amendment would reduce funding for lifesaving 
     medications by $43 million, including the $25 million 
     recently allocated to 11 States to get 2,100 people off the 
     waiting lists in Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, 
     Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, South 
     Dakota and Utah. The drugs cost an average of $12,000 a year 
     a person, meaning that this cut would eliminate access to 
     care for over 3,500 people.
       This amendment would reduce funding for health professions 
     training by $35.5 million.
       A reduction of five percent below the FY 2010 funding level 
     would cut approximately $163 million that is necessary for 
     States to administer unemployment benefits. Under current 
     economic conditions, an estimated 14 million unemployed 
     individuals will be served in FY 2011, an increase of 
     approximately 60 percent, or 5.2 million individuals, since 
     2008. The proposed cut in funding would result in long wait 
     times for claimants, increased erroneous payments, and 
     continued neglect of aging infrastructure.
       A reduction of 5 percent below the FY 2010 funding level 
     for NIH would result in a cut of $1.6 billion. This reduction 
     is roughly equivalent to the total cost of all FY 2010 NIH 
     funded research on asthma, Parkinson's disease, lung cancer, 
     ovarian cancer, childhood leukemia, infant mortality, 
     lymphoma, multiple sclerosis and sickle cell disease 
     combined.
       A cut of $30 million for purchasing the medications and 
     supplies needed in case of a bioterrorism attack or a 
     pandemic illness.
       This cut would prevent the implementation of all planned 
     new law enforcement initiatives at DOJ, including $366 
     million in new national security spending intended to improve 
     the FBI's cyber security, WMD and counterterrorism 
     capabilities and to assist in the litigation of intelligence 
     and terrorism cases; $153 million in new funding intended to 
     strengthen DEA and ATF investigative activity focused on the 
     activities of Mexican drug cartels; $97 million intended to 
     increase the number of FBI agents and US Attorneys working 
     corporate, mortgage and government fraud cases.
       For the U.S. Marshals Service, $1.3 million would be cut 
     from its construction resources bringing to a complete halt 
     the Marshals' courthouse security improvement program, which 
     funds the installation of security equipment in Federal 
     courthouses and the construction of secure space for holding 
     and processing Federal prisoners in courthouse facilities. 
     Currently, less than a third of Federal courthouses meet 
     established security standards; this percentage will further 
     decrease if the Marshals do not continue to make necessary 
     upgrades and improvements.
       Without these funds, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would have 
     to reduce staff by over 2,000, leaving prison staffing at 
     less than 89 percent of the level identified by BOP as 
     necessary to ensure prison security.
       Grants to state and local law enforcement and community 
     safety groups would be decimated by nearly $200 million. We 
     would be taking resources from law enforcement to fight 
     violent crime, drug trafficking, terrorism and child 
     predators. This cut would slash funding for the State 
     Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). We need to make 
     sure police have every tool available to fight violent crime 
     and drug trafficking, and keep our families and communities 
     safe.
       Further, NIST is responsible for creating standards that 
     keep consumers safe and test new technology to advance 
     America innovation. Cutting NIST's research funding by 5 
     percent would end the multi-year effort to double funding for 
     investments in scientific research through the agency. 
     Hardest hit would be American manufacturers who would lose 
     over $10 million in competitive grants that are designed to 
     send new technology out to the workplace, improving 
     efficiency and making American business more globally 
     competitive.
       This amendment would also put communities at risk for 
     pipeline explosions. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
     Administration (PHMSA) ensures the safety of the interstate 
     pipeline system and monitors State oversight of intrastate 
     pipelines. In the wake of the San Bruno, California, pipeline 
     explosion that killed 8 people and destroyed more than 50 
     homes, it is not the time to be cutting funding for pipeline 
     safety. Rather, Congress needs to ensure PHMSA is adequately 
     staffed to ensure companies are maintaining their pipelines 
     to prevent senseless tragedies such as San Bruno from 
     reoccurring. This reduction would do the opposite, curtailing 
     safety oversight of the nation's 2.5 million miles of 
     pipeline.
       An across the board cut would impact NOAA and the National 
     Weather Service which is standing watch over our communities 
     to keep us safe. NOAA has made improvements to better warn 
     American's about dangerous tornadoes, hurricanes, and other 
     storms, but a spending cut would send NOAA's forecasting 
     capabilities backwards and eliminate 40 forecasting jobs. 
     Further, a 5 percent cut would harm NOAA weather satellite 
     program resulting in gaps in weather data, forcing the United 
     States to rely on foreign countries to supply weather data, 
     or worse, leaving Americas completely blind to severe weather 
     events.

  Mr. INOUYE. In closing, I would like to note that the CR that is 
being considered by the Senate this afternoon is at a rate that is $18 
billion below the Sessions amendment. The amendment being proposed by 
the Senator from South Dakota proposes a rate that is an additional $23 
billion below the Sessions amendment.
  To ask our agencies to continue to operate for the next 2 months at a 
rate that is $41 billion below the Sessions amendment will be 
devastating and is simply unacceptable. Under this scenario, every 
single program gets cut.
  I believe what I have provided my colleagues is a thorough analysis 
of exactly what you are cutting. Make no mistake, a vote for this 
amendment is a vote for cutting these programs. It is that simple. I, 
for one, do not believe this is the way Congress should be

[[Page 17223]]

doing business, and I will oppose this amendment. I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding the time on our 
side is controlled by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is right.
  Mr. DURBIN. Can I ask, Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the majority, there is 40 minutes 
remaining for general debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could have the chairman's consent to speak for 5 
minutes?
  Mr. INOUYE. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for that time.
  One of the first amendments we will consider is a 5-percent across-
the-board cut. There is some surface appeal to this because it is 
almost like taking money and not leaving any fingerprints because you 
do not have to pick the different agencies that are going to be reduced 
in spending. You just say generically cut 5 percent and call us back 
when it is all over. It sounds like an easy assignment, but it 
overlooks the obvious.
  Senator Inouye, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is 
already preparing for next year's spending by reducing the spending 
level suggested by the President of the United States--if I am not 
mistaken, some $16 billion below President Obama's budget request.
  So the Senator, as chairman of this important committee, is acting in 
good faith to bring down spending. It is my understanding this 
continuing resolution, at least for the next few months, cuts even more 
deeply in terms of the money that will be allowed.
  So if there is some argument being made on the Senate floor that we 
are not sensitive to the deficit needs of America and we have not 
already accepted responsibility to cut spending, they are ignoring 
Senator Inouye's leadership on the Senate Appropriations Committee and 
the fact that this bipartisan compromise cuts even more deeply.
  Now comes the Senator from South Dakota who says: Well, let's cut 
some more. Let's cut 5 percent across the board. Then you take a look 
at the various programs, and you say to the Senator from South Dakota: 
Well, let's get down to specifics. Do you think we should cut 5 percent 
of the spending at the National Institutes of Health where they are 
engaged in medical research to find cures for the diseases which are 
afflicting and threatening people across America? Well, I bet he would 
say: No, we don't want to cut there. Yet when you do an across-the-
board cut and you are not specific, unfortunately, you run the risk of 
cutting a critical program like that.
  Would you go to northern California and say to the people living 
there: Now is the time to cut the inspections of natural gas pipelines 
in the United States of America, after the terrible tragedy which 
occurred there just a few weeks ago, claiming innocent lives? No. Would 
you argue that now is the time to take away inspections for oil rigs 
across America? I think we are trying to move to the point where we 
resume drilling but with some confidence that we have inspected all 
these rigs and they are safe and we can move forward. Senator Thune is 
saying, Well, let's cut across the board. That is going to take money 
away from that timely inspection which we want to get completed so we 
can put people back to work in that region of the country and around 
the United States.
  How about the Centers for Disease Control? Do we take money out of 
the Centers for Disease Control at this moment in history? I think not. 
They are doing important work to try to protect us against the next 
influenza epidemic and whatever else might challenge us. Do we want to 
take money away from food safety and inspection? How many of us read 
newspaper stories on a daily basis about innocent people who ate 
spinach or peppers or peanut butter and ended up with salmonella or E. 
coli, in the hospital, and their health compromised for months, if not 
years? So do we want to reduce the inspections on food? How about the 
inspections on imported food? Does the Senator from South Dakota 
believe we should cut back on inspecting the food coming into our 
markets, being served on the tables of families across America? I think 
not.
  Does he want to cut back on the COPS Program at a time when States 
and local cities are running out of money and laying off policemen? Do 
we want to cut back on the Federal funds we are sending so that there 
are cops on the beat to keep our neighborhoods safe?
  Does he want to cut back on education? Does he believe that now is 
the time, when we are seeing layoffs of teachers, even though we have 
made some efforts here to try to reduce that? Does he want to cut more 
money from education when school districts across America are 
suffering? That is what he is proposing.
  If he were standing here with the only proposals or cuts that the 
Congress is considering, we might say, Well, we have to face up to it, 
but he comes late to the party. The chairman of this committee has 
already taken this through the exercise of bringing down the spending 
for next year that starts on October 1, and this continuing resolution 
cuts even more deeply.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against this 5-percent 
across-the-board cut. The Senator from South Dakota has exempted a few 
agencies, but there are a lot that he hasn't. As a consequence, we are 
in a position where many of these agencies and the critical programs 
that are important for the health and safety of Americans are literally 
at risk because of this amendment.
  Let's do this in a sensible, honest way. Let's not send a general 
letter. Let's use the appropriations process to bring down spending. 
The Congress cannot and should not abdicate its responsibility to 
review individual programs and make individual spending recommendations 
based on that review. The desire to hold spending in check should be 
based on congressional oversight of specific programs. We shouldn't 
take a meat ax, across-the-board, call-me-when-you-are-done approach. 
We should not yield our power to the President. We have our own special 
responsibility here on Capitol Hill.
  Senator Coburn has been a strong proponent of oversight of spending. 
I support that oversight. He has come to this floor and advocated for 
the committees to look closely at spending and authorizations for 
scores of Federal programs. I think they should; I agree with him. This 
is exactly what the Appropriations Committee did last year in crafting 
bipartisan bills that garnered vast majorities of congressional 
support. The continuing resolution before us continues those levels for 
a short time at last year's spending levels while we work at crafting a 
responsible spending bill for the remainder of this fiscal year. I am 
committed as a member of that committee, working with Chairman Inouye, 
to meeting that challenge to reduce our deficit, but I am just as 
committed to doing it in an appropriate, responsible, and effective 
way. This amendment that is being offered for a 5-percent, across-the-
board cut is not such an amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment. I urge them to support 
the passage of this continuing resolution so that the important 
business of our Federal Government and keeping American families safe 
and healthy can continue and not be interrupted.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee has described in detail the severe consequences for domestic 
programs and personnel of the amendment offered by Senator Thune. I 
want to mention three examples of what the Thune amendment would do to 
critical international programs that mean the difference between life 
and death for the world's poorest people.
  It would cut $388 million for global health programs to combat HIV/
AIDS, malaria, Swine Flu, and many other deadly diseases that claim 
millions of lives annually.

[[Page 17224]]

  It would cut $87 million for aid for refugees, the world's most 
vulnerable people.
  Funding for refugees will already be well below the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2010 because an additional $165 million was included in 
the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental that is not counted in the CR, so the 
actual cut for refugee aid including this amendment would be $252 
million below the fiscal year 2010 total level. This translates into 
millions of lives lost.
  It would cut $42 million for international disaster relief. Funding 
for this account will already be reduced by $460 million that was 
included in the fiscal year 2010 supplemental that is not counted in 
the CR.
  The total amount under this amendment for disaster relief would 
therefore be $502 million below the fiscal year 2010 total level. This 
would severely limit our ability to aid victims of earthquakes, floods, 
hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters.
  These are not theoretical examples. They are real. This amendment is 
not just about dollars and cents. It is about human lives. It is a 
moral issue. A 5-percent cut may not sound like a lot. The sponsor of 
the amendment says it is only 5 percent. What he does not say is that 
the consequences of this amendment would be devastating for millions of 
people around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask that the time be divided equally 
between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of H.R. 3081, as amended, the Senate then proceed to the 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 321 and the Senate then proceed to vote 
on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. All time has been yielded back, Senator Inouye and Senator 
Cochran so advise me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the Thune amendment.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennet
     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
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Murkowski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 4677

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the DeMint amendment.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my amendment only makes one change to the 
underlying continuing resolution. It changes the date from January 3 to 
February 4. There is no reason we should fund the government only to 
the lameduck. We need to wait until we have a new Congress and the dust 
settles after the election. We don't need to be passing another 
continuing resolution or an omnibus spending bill with the pressure of 
a government shutdown before Christmas. So the amendment is just a 
couple of lines that change the date. Everything else in the continuing 
resolution is the same. Let's push the operation of the government all 
the way through January to a new Congress.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee worked in a 
bipartisan fashion on this bill. It was crafted with a very narrow 
focus and the expectation that it will last only 2 months. As we all 
know, the short-term CR is not efficient, but it is manageable. For the 
many reasons I enumerated earlier, we know that if we accept this 
amendment, the government will not be able to function as it should. I 
urge that we vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4677.
  Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 246 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--60

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Murkowski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of the amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The substitute amendment (No. 4674) is agreed to.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?

[[Page 17225]]


  Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the rol1.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     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--30

     Barrasso
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Murkowski
       
  The bill (H.R. 3081), as amended, was passed.
  The amendment (No. 4682) was agreed to, as follows:

       Amend the title so as to read: ``Making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other 
     purposes''.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, Congress has acted to improve our 
Nation's intelligence community--and therefore our national security--
by passing an intelligence authorization bill and will be sending it to 
the President.
  The President's signature will enact this bill into law and will 
implement several common sense solutions to problems in our large and 
unwieldy intelligence community that we have recognized for years. I 
believe the new Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, is the 
right leader at the right time, and this timely bill will provide him 
the authorities he needs to do this job well.
  The bill provides the DNI streamlined personnel management 
authorities throughout the intelligence community, including the 
authority to convert contractor positions to government jobs, move 
personnel from one agency to another, provide annual assessments of 
personnel levels for each agency, harmonize language training in 
different agencies, and conduct performance evaluations of personnel 
throughout the intelligence community.
  It provides the DNI streamlined oversight for major acquisitions--
perhaps most critically, to provide for interoperable information 
technology systems in different intelligence agencies--and strengthened 
budget authorities for his management of the intelligence community.
  Beyond these improved DNI authorities, which I believe will 
significantly improve intelligence integration among the 16 agencies of 
the intelligence community, this bill also makes three substantial 
improvements in the independent oversight of intelligence. This 
constructive oversight is necessary to ensure that secret intelligence 
activities are legal, effective, and serve the national security 
interests of the United States.
  First, the bill establishes a Senate-confirmed inspector general for 
the intelligence community who will have the authority to inspect any 
element or activity in any intelligence agency. Inspectors general play 
an important troubleshooting role in all agencies of our government, 
but nowhere is this role more important than in the intelligence 
community, where--unlike in government agencies whose activities are 
public--problems can often escape scrutiny.
  For instance, in 2004 the CIA inspector general's report on the CIA 
detention and interrogation program played a significant role in 
alerting the executive branch and the congressional Intelligence 
Committees to significant problems with the program.
  The new intelligence community inspector general that this bill 
establishes will complement and supplement the important work of the 
inspectors general of individual intelligence agencies.
  Second, the bill provides for access by the Comptroller General and 
the Government Accountability Office to information regarding 
intelligence activities. This access will be similar to the GAO's 
access to the Department of Defense's Special Access Programs. I 
believe that this agreement between Congress and the administration on 
this GAO provision bodes well for future cooperation on intelligence 
issues.
  On that note, the third--and, I believe, most important--improvement 
this bill makes to the independent oversight of intelligence activities 
pertains to congressional oversight.
  Constructive congressional oversight of intelligence activities is 
crucially important--both for our national security and our national 
identity. We are a transparent democracy, and there is a natural 
tension between transparent democracy and secret intelligence 
activities.
  The Congressional Select Intelligence Committees--which consist of 
representatives of the American people, selected from other specific 
congressional committees with jurisdiction over foreign policy, defense 
and judiciary issues--are vital to resolving that tension between 
democracy and secrecy.
  Simply put, these committees act as a board of directors who verify 
that secret executive actions serve the interests of the shareholders--
the American people.
  That is why title V of the National Security Act of 1947 requires the 
President to keep the congressional Intelligence Committees ``fully and 
currently informed'' on all intelligence activities.
  However, during the time that I was chairman and vice chairman of the 
committee from 2003 through 2009, I became very concerned about the way 
in which the executive branch interpreted this obligation. Rather than 
briefing the full committee, the executive branch restricted briefings 
about certain classified programs to the chairman and vice chairman 
only.
  These restrictions impeded our oversight of these programs. This is 
not an academic issue; it is crucial to how our democracy makes secret 
national security decisions. Without the intelligence committees' 
meaningful independent review and oversight--the very reason for the 
committees' existence--intelligence programs are more susceptible to 
both mistakes and illegitimacy. This is the case regardless of which 
party is in the White House or which party has a majority in Congress.
  With this in mind, last year I offered an amendment to this 
authorization bill that will establish in statute new requirements 
regarding congressional notification. My intent was to strengthen the 
committees' constructive oversight relationship with the executive 
branch and the intelligence community.
  A bipartisan majority of the committee approved my amendment. While 
this provision has undergone some changes in the process of Congress's 
consideration of this bill over the past year, the key elements of 
these new notification requirements remain. The bill that the President 
will soon sign into law requires that:
  (1) the congressional Intelligence Committees and the President must 
establish written procedures regarding the details of notification 
processes and expectations;
  (2) the President must provide the committees written notice about 
intelligence activities and covert actions, including changes in covert 
action

[[Page 17226]]

findings and the legal authority under which an intelligence activity 
or a covert action is or will be conducted;
  (3) the President must provide written reasons for limiting access to 
notifications to less than the full committee, and in such cases, 
provide the full committee a general description of the covert action 
in question; and
  (4) the President must maintain records of all notifications, 
including names of Members briefed and dates of the briefings.
  I strongly believe that congressional oversight of the executive 
branch's intelligence activities should not be adversarial; it should 
be a true, trusted and confidential partnership aimed exclusively at 
improving our Nation's collection and analysis capabilities, and 
ensuring the effectiveness and legitimacy of our covert action 
programs.
  I think these new requirements for congressional notification are an 
important step toward such a partnership.
  These new requirements--and this authorization bill as a whole--are 
the result of hard work and difficult negotiations after years of 
partisan divisions on intelligence issues.
  The President has not signed an authorization bill into law since 
December 2004, and the last time Congress passed an intelligence 
authorization bill was February 2008, when I was chairman of the 
committee. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush vetoed that bill 
because it banned the use of coercive interrogation methods by any 
agency of our government, and the bipartisan majorities that passed the 
bill were not large enough to overcome the President's veto.
  After all these difficult years, the bill that we are sending to the 
President today is exemplary of the bipartisan cooperation that is 
absolutely necessary for our intelligence community to perform as well 
as we need it to perform.
  I want to commend my Intelligence Committee colleagues, particularly 
Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and Vice Chairman Kit Bond and their staff, 
for sticking to it and completing the difficult negotiations with the 
administration and the House that brought this bill across the finish 
line.
  This law will make our country more secure. Let us continue to build 
on this effort in the months and years to come.

                          ____________________