[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17640-17648]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2012

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2354, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 957, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 958 (to amendment No. 957), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 959 (to amendment No. 958), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 960 (to language proposed to be stricken 
     by amendment No. 957), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 961 (to amendment No. 960), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, with instructions, Reid amendment No. 962, to 
     change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 963 (to (the instructions) amendment No. 
     962), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 964 (to amendment No. 963), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Bingaman would like to speak on an amendment he has filed and Senator 
Murkowski may well come down to speak on that, which is fine.
  I will yield to Senator Bingaman to do that now.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
briefly about an amendment Senator Murkowski and I have filed.
  There is a provision in the Energy and Water appropriations bill, 
which we are considering in the Senate, that we would like to see 
stricken or deleted from the bill. It is a provision in the legislation 
that mandates the sale of $500 million worth of oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, as it is called. The bill also ends the 
Royalty-in-Kind Program. That part I am not disputing at this point.
  The language in the bill that we are concerned about is on page 41. 
It says in that part of the bill:

       Notwithstanding various other provisions, the Secretary of 
     Energy shall sell $500 million in petroleum product from the 
     reserve not later than March 1 of 2012, and shall deposit any 
     proceeds from such sales in the general fund of the Treasury.

  In the words of the Department of Energy:

       The Strategic Petroleum Reserve exists, first and foremost, 
     as an emergency response tool the President can use should 
     the United States be confronted with an economically 
     threatening disruption in oil supplies.


[[Page 17641]]


  The SPR is our Nation's insurance policy against oil supply 
disruptions, and keeping it well stocked and operational is important 
to our energy security. I believe that is a view shared by Democrats 
and Republicans.
  The SPR became filled to its maximum capacity of roughly 727 million 
barrels for the first time in its history in the year 2009.
  The President, in the budget he submitted--the 2012 budget--proposed 
a sale of oil from the SPR that would generate $500 million in revenue 
for the Federal Treasury. The administration explained that because the 
SPR was at maximum capacity, it needed to sell off some oil for 
operational purposes. They needed extra space in the SPR in order to 
move oil around within the system and to refurbish some of the 
underground salt caverns in which the oil is stored.
  However, this past June, there was an emergency drawdown, and there 
was a sale of 30 million barrels of SPR oil. I understand that the 
emergency sale generated more than $3 billion. This indicates to me 
that more than six times the amount of oil that the President thought 
was necessary to be sold for operational reasons has now been sold.
  Clearly, the President's proposal from February to create a little 
free space in the SPR is no longer necessary. The concern we have is 
that the SPR sale provision in this legislation remains part of an 
appropriations bill, and the sale is no longer necessary for 
operational purposes; it is simply a way of generating revenue.
  I hope my colleagues will consider the long-term implications of 
using our strategic oil stocks just to generate revenue for the 
operation of government on a weekly and monthly basis. I believe this 
is a bad precedent. I believe we should reject this part of the 
legislation, and if the opportunity presents itself to offer the 
amendment, I will urge our colleagues to join us in deleting this 
provision and ensuring that future revenue-generating sales of SPR oil 
not be accomplished or proposed simply to pay the ordinary operating 
bills of the various agencies covered by the legislation.
  I know my colleague from Alaska is expected to come to the floor in 
the next few minutes and give her views on this same legislation that 
she and I are cosponsoring, the amendment I have just spoken about. 
Until then, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Bingaman for his 
comments. He has been an excellent chair of the committee.
  It is our understanding that these points were never brought to the 
committee. However, I am told the Energy Department has told my staff 
that the budget request is valid due to the Department's need for 
operational flexibility.
  I want everybody to know that the floor is open. If you filed an 
amendment, please come down to speak on it. If you want to file one, 
please do so as quickly as possible. The floor is open for amendments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have come to the floor this morning 
to discuss a provision in the Energy and Water appropriations bill that 
apparently Senator Bingaman has just spoken to. This would require the 
sale of $500 million worth of oil from our Nation's Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve or we call it the SPR. I do believe this is an inappropriate 
use of our limited emergency stockpiles, and I think it would also set 
a dangerous and an unsustainable precedent for the future.
  As I understand it, the administration first requested this sale in 
its fiscal year 2012 budget proposal and justified it by asserting 
there was an integrity issue in one of the caverns where the SPR oil 
was stored. We heard this discussion before the Energy Committee some 
months ago. He asserted the sale was necessary because DOE had to drain 
the oil in that cavern to perform some repairs that were apparently 
necessary.
  The House Appropriations Committee subsequently authorized the sale 
in its version of the bill which was then released in June. At that 
point in time, based upon DOE's representation, I guess it was kind of 
hard not to argue the sale was not justified. But then events took a 
different course. Several weeks later, as part of a coordinated effort 
with the IEA to increase global supplies, the President chose to sell 
about six times more crude from the SPR than the House had originally 
contemplated.
  Whether one supported that sale or not, I think it would have been 
reasonable to assume or to expect the administration would sell the 
crude from the cavern that needed the repairs. They needed to get that 
out so they could do the necessary repairs. So when an unannounced sale 
comes along, one would think they would take the oil from that cavern, 
thereby solving at least one of the problems and obviating the need of 
a future maintenance-related sale. Enough oil has now been sold from 
our emergency reserves to fill not one but six troubled caverns.
  The only justification that can remain now is the need for more cash. 
We need more money. Given that background, I would encourage the Senate 
to consider that selling $500 million worth of our emergency oil 
reserves right now simply to help offset other appropriations is akin 
to cashing out our insurance policy in order to cover the cost of a 
mortgage we can't afford in the first place.
  The SPR was designed to be that emergency safety net, if you will, or 
like an insurance policy. Remember, there is a very good reason why we 
have this insurance policy in the first place. Congress created the SPR 
in the aftermath of the oil embargo back in the 1970s to serve as a 
safety net in the event we were to see a major supply disruption. Given 
the volatility that continues to churn the global markets, our 
strategic stockpile is arguably more important today than ever before. 
As long as we maintain a large volume of oil within the SPR, we will 
ensure Americans have some level of protection against future 
disruptions. If we decide not to take the long view, we face the very 
real risk of being forced to spend more tomorrow to repurchase the oil 
that is being sold today.
  One may ask: How likely is any kind of a future disruption? I would 
say the odds are still higher than we would like. Our Nation remains 
roughly 50 percent dependent on foreign oil, importing close to 9 
million barrels a day at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars a 
year. The world, as we know, is not exactly stable. Large volumes of 
Libyan oil remain offline. Iran continues to provoke its neighbors, 
raising the specter of future attacks. Saudi Arabia's leadership is 
aging rapidly, leaving the door open to perhaps future unrest and 
upheaval. China, India, and many of the other countries are rapidly 
expanding their oil consumption and, in the meantime, forging close 
relationships with major suppliers that can be leveraged in times of 
emergency.
  Here at home, the Federal Government continues to hinder the 
development of new supplies that would improve our energy security and 
reduce the need for a strategic reserve. We have seen development 
halted or delayed in Alaska in the northern part of the State, in the 
Rocky Mountain West, and a number of other areas. The new 5-year 
leasing plan for offshore development does take a few small steps, but 
it keeps both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts under a de facto 
moratorium through at least 2017. The administration has also delayed 
its decision

[[Page 17642]]

on the Keystone XL pipeline. We just saw that news this week. This 
would have carried significant volumes of Canadian oil. Again, that is 
oil from an ally, from a neighbor, that would have brought that into 
this country.
  The result is, we are not doing, in my opinion, nearly enough to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, so we still need a Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, and we cannot treat it as a national ATM that can be 
tapped when the money is tight. That is not the reason we should have 
or the way to utilize the SPR.
  I wish to share a quote from a witness who testified before the 
Energy Committee earlier this year. His name is Kevin Book. He is a 
real expert on energy policy, and I think he made quite an impression 
on our committee. He encouraged us to seek alternatives to petroleum, 
but he also said:

       Selling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay 
     for efficiency gains and alternative fuels could seriously 
     diminish U.S. energy security without necessarily delivering 
     financial benefits.

  For anybody who might be interested, I am happy to provide a copy of 
his testimony. I think it was quite useful in understanding why this 
approach is not appropriate at this point in time.
  As we seek to pay for legislation that comes before us--whether it is 
this appropriations bill or something else--I continue to believe one 
of our best paths forward is to produce more of our own abundant 
resources and then put the resulting Federal revenues to good use. 
Instead of selling our emergency oil and risking future dilemmas, we 
should, instead, put policies in place that expand and that accelerate 
the pace at which we develop our immense natural resources.
  Right now, Alaska has about 40 billion barrels of oil that are just 
waiting to be tapped for the good of the Nation. I keep saying we have 
money that is buried in the ground up there. If we harness those 
resources and more of the resources in the Gulf of Mexico and the Rocky 
Mountain West, we would be dramatically increasing our energy security, 
we would create tens of thousands of new jobs, and generate billions 
and billions of dollars year after year that could be applied to both 
deficit reduction and the development of new energy technologies.
  I would encourage the Senate to support any amendment that strikes 
the SPR provision in this bill and encourage us, instead, to focus on 
the development of a more viable long-term energy policy.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           THE SUPERCOMMITTEE

  Mr. SESSIONS. During the summer, Democrats and Republicans in 
Congress, as Americans well remember, had a big fight over trying to 
reduce spending as we approached the Nation's debt limit.
  As we know, the product of that fight was a leadership-brokered deal 
that promised long-term savings in discretionary spending of around 
$900 billion over 10 years, not just in 1 year. It also created the 
Supercommittee, which has been meeting in secret to find another $1.2 
trillion in possible savings. We hope they do and they should, frankly, 
find more in savings. Whatever they come up with must be voted on in 
the Senate without any amendment and cannot be altered in any way. This 
is concerning to me. Virtually every deal we have seen this year has 
been filled with promises of savings, but when we analyze them, the 
savings are not nearly as real as promised. So we do not need another 
plan with tax hikes that never go away and promises of spending cuts 
that do not materialize or are not continued.
  Indeed, the debt limit deal, which produced the Budget Control Act 
this summer, claims to contain a spending cap, but that is not 
accurate. It is a phony cap. The cuts that matter most are, in many 
respects, those that of course take place right away. But, after all of 
the bickering and drama, we ended up with a deal that cut discretionary 
spending by only a paltry $7 billion from the fiscal year 2011 
discretionary budget. To put this number in perspective, the total 
outlays for 2011 are $145 billion greater than 2010, and our deficit is 
nearly $1.3 trillion--$1,300 billion deficit. We are talking about 
promising a $7 billion reduction in spending. Nevertheless, $7 billion 
in discretionary cuts, at least, is real and a small step, in the right 
direction; right?
  We are supposed to spend $1,043 billion this year. That is $7 billion 
less from the $1,050 billion in discretionary spending from last year. 
Unfortunately, this is one more empty promise, because the legislation 
was rushed through--this Budget Control Act--in the eleventh hour at 
the fifty-ninth minute. Nobody, at that time, knew there was a gimmick 
in it.
  Here is how it worked: The Budget Control Act created a cap 
adjustment for disaster relief funding. It took a 10-year average for 
emergency spending and estimated that to be $11.3 billion for 2012. 
But, this $11.3 billion in the Budget Control Act is a new fund, and it 
is spent by regular appropriations, not by 60 votes--as in the past for 
emergency spending--and it is above the $1,043 billion figure. So the 
truth is, the bill is not and never was $1,043 billion, as promised, a 
limit on spending to that amount, but $1,054 billion. Therefore, 
spending for discretionary accounts this year will be larger than last 
year.
  The writers of the Budget Control Act went even further. They changed 
the Senate rule in this bill that was passed at the fifty-ninth minute 
of the eleventh hour to eliminate the 60-vote rule even for emergency 
spending, creating another loophole. So a 60-vote point of order--which 
has been used here over the years to challenge a designation as 
emergency spending--has been stripped as part of a bill denominated as 
a Budget Control Act, so the new fund can be spent--this $11.3 
billion--at any time as a normal appropriation, as if it were within 
the budget and without a 60-vote requirement. This eliminates the 
pressure to stay within the budget to offset annual disaster spending 
as a number of us have been attempting to do in recent years.
  For instance, if you have $2 billion in disaster spending as part of 
a specific appropriation, instead of eliminating $2 billion in waste 
somewhere else in order to keep your total spending within the budget, 
you have free access to the $11 billion fund and do not have to worry 
about offsetting a penny. You also do not need a vote for disaster 
funding approval. As a result, this little offset issue has grown as a 
tribute to the effectiveness of Senator Tom Coburn, who has been 
fighting to offset so-called emergency spending designations. The 60-
vote requirement to pass the emergency bill gave him some leverage and 
ability to challenge the spending and challenge the appropriators in 
order to find offsets for the new spending. Instead of calling this the 
Budget Control Act, we should call it the Coburn control act. This is 
not a step forward for us.
  The real spending cap now is $1,054 billion, $4 billion more than we 
spent last year. You only need to go through an emergency designation 
process if you want to spend even more than that, but you do not need 
60 votes even for that. The irony here is that there was widespread 
belief, in this Chamber, that we needed to tighten the emergency 
spending designation, because it was being abused.
  To give one unbelievable example, the Senate counted $210 million in 
the routine funding for the census as emergency spending. The census is 
in the Constitution and is required to be conducted every 10 years. How 
in the world can we say this is unexpected emergency spending? It is as 
routine as anything can possibly be. It was done because otherwise 
spending would be needed to have been cut by $200 million somewhere 
else. The Budget Control Act has succeeded in actually weakening the 
standard for emergency spending and creates one more loophole for the 
spender.

[[Page 17643]]

  Again, the effect of the $11 billion fund is that it effectively 
nullifies the cap we were promised. The appropriating committee will 
have no incentive to achieve savings when they can spend every penny of 
the $1,043 billion base budget all while knowing there is still another 
$11 billion to be spent when they exhaust the first allotment. The 
evidence of this is before our very eyes. To date, in one form or 
another, seven appropriations bills have come before the Senate floor. 
Four of them have been voted on and passed. The Energy and Water bill 
is before us this week. We should have been considering each of these 
bills individually and doing our due diligence, but we haven't. They 
have been moved through in groups. But, I am glad this legislation, the 
Energy and Water bill, will be considered on its own, and not bundled 
with others as a mini-bus or omnibus as the Washington parlance goes. 
The bad news is that the seven bills we have seen on the floor have 
already increased spending by $9 billion. We are well on our way to 
using every cent of the $11 billion fund, with no effort to achieving 
savings elsewhere to stay under budget.
  The Energy and Water bill on the floor now increases spending by $1 
billion. That may seem small in Washington terms, but it is the reason 
we are going broke. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it is 
a great deal of money. If we can't, honestly, even reach the paltry 
goal of $7 billion in savings, how on Earth can we tackle our $15 
trillion debt?
  Or consider food stamps. Federal welfare spending is now about $700 
billion a year. It is more than $900 billion a year when you count 
state obligations or contributions to the same programs. Food stamps 
are the fastest growing major item in the welfare budget. They have 
quadrupled in 10 years. The Food Stamp Program is one of 18 federal 
nutritional support programs in the budget--1 of 18. The number of 
people receiving food stamps has climbed from about 1 in 50, when the 
program went national, to almost 1 in 7 today.
  Some of the more than 45 million people receiving food stamps exceed 
the program's eligibility requirements. They have higher income or 
higher assets than you are supposed to have to qualify. But, they 
received the benefits because they get them as a reciprocal benefit for 
other Federal benefits they get. If they qualify for one program, they 
are then categorically entitled to the Food Stamp Program even though 
they do not meet the basic requirements. And reports of fraud and abuse 
are widespread.
  We were promised recommendations by the chairwoman of the Agriculture 
Committee, Senator Stabenow, for how the supercommittee could achieve 
savings in the agriculture budget of which food stamps is the largest 
component of the entire agriculture budget, by far, dwarfing other 
expenditures, such as aid to farmers. They were supposed to arrive, the 
Senator promised, by November 1, but as of now, we are still waiting.
  The sad truth is our Democratic-led Senate has not met its 
responsibility to help this Nation confront its most serious threat, 
and that is the debt we have. It is the greatest economic danger of our 
time, as we have repeatedly been warned. If we ultimately fail to 
control Federal spending, which has nearly doubled in 10 years, we will 
experience a debt crisis that leads to loss of jobs, loss of growth, 
and loss of economic opportunity. Such a crisis will hurt those with 
less income the most. It is our duty to stop the occurrence of this 
very preventible tragedy.
  Instead of the irresponsible spending favored by the political class, 
it is time for Washington to be more accountable, to focus on the 
middle class. That means creating jobs through the private sector, 
producing more American energy, keeping our wealth at home, making the 
government lean and productive, a servant of the American people, 
confronting our dangerously rising debt, which threatens our economy 
and jobs, adopting a globally competitive tax code, upholding the rule 
of law and trade, eliminating unwise, damaging regulation, and finally, 
delivering the good people of this country the honest and responsible 
budget they deserve.
  We have a long way to go. I am disappointed we cannot even comply 
with the intent of the Budget Control Act passed this summer.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. 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. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Chained CPI

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, the supercommittee we all talk 
about--and it meets mostly in secret--is putting out plans and ideas to 
deal with the deficit--some, I am sure, good; some a little less good. 
I am concerned about one thing the supercommittee has been talking 
about--the stories that have come out that I know about, and that is 
something called the chained Consumer Price Index.
  I know that many conservative politicians in this body and down the 
hall in the House of Representatives have advocated that we change the 
Consumer Price Index to something called the chained Consumer Price 
Index.
  The way the Consumer Price Index is calculated is especially 
important for senior citizens because their Social Security cost-of-
living adjustment--called the COLA--is predicated on how the cost of 
living is calculated.
  Right now, the cost-of-living adjustment is based on the Consumer 
Price Index-W, which means it is determined by wages, the cost of 
living for people in the workplace. It is not determined by the cost of 
living for retirees even though it affects what retirees get in their 
cost-of-living adjustment.
  That sounds like a lot of words, but here is what that means. It 
means that when you figure the average increase in the cost of living 
for the American people--and you are only looking at those who are 
employed, so they are more likely to be in their twenties, their 
thirties, their forties, their fifties, maybe in their early sixties or 
a little older. So if you are only looking at that, the cost of health 
care is a less significant cost for them in their daily expenses and 
their monthly expenses and their annual expenses than for someone who 
is retired.
  So I am going to introduce legislation soon that will change the 
Consumer Price Index-W--wages--to the Consumer Price Index-E, for 
elderly. The reason is because if you are 70 years old, your cost of 
living is much more fueled by the cost of health care than if you are 
30 years old.
  I know Senator Mikulski has been a real leader in this, and she is 
one of the immediate prime cosponsors of our legislation. She has had a 
terrific record here in the Senate, the senior Senator from Maryland, 
in fighting for fair play, a fair, strong Social Security and Medicare 
system, against these plans from conservatives around here to take 
Social Security and turn it over to Wall Street, to take Medicare and 
turn it over to the insurance companies.
  But our legislation would make it fairer so that seniors would 
actually have a cost-of-living adjustment based on their cost of 
living. What is wrong with that? Instead, conservatives around here 
want to go the other direction, which would reduce the cost-of-living 
adjustment by this thing called a chained CPI.
  The way this chained CPI works in a nutshell is this: If your cost of 
living is $100 a week, and the chained--instead of eating beef, you 
could save money by changing to chicken. So they are saying, under this 
chained CPI, that you should change to chicken and save X number of 
dollars so your costs would be less.
  What this would mean--and I want to read you some statistics--if they 
get their way, if anti-Social Security conservatives around here get 
their way, it will mean that senior citizens will get significantly 
less than they would

[[Page 17644]]

under the way it works now, let alone the way that we want to change it 
to, that Senator Mikulski and I want to change it to, this CPI-E. It 
would mean that seniors, by the age of 85, would be getting about 
$1,000 less in their Social Security. That is just not something we can 
do.
  Here are the exact numbers. Under the chained CPI, a typical 65-year-
old would get $136 less today than they would get under the CPI as 
calculated today. A typical 75-year-old--this is calculated each year, 
so it is a little bit like the reverse of compounding interest--a 
typical 75-year-old would get $560 less a year. A typical 80-year-old 
would get $984 less per year. A typical 95-year-old would get $1,392 
less a year.
  So what conservative politicians around here want to do--I know you 
have been on the right side of this, Mr. President, from Minnesota your 
whole career and before you came to the Senate too--what the 
conservatives want to do is cut the cost-of-living adjustment even 
more.
  The last 2 years, there was no COLA, there was no cost-of-living 
adjustment for seniors. What conservative politicians--the ones on the 
supercommittee who want to do the chained CPI--what they are arguing is 
that you should have gotten a cut; that instead of no COLA, you should 
have gotten even less; that this way we do the COLA now is too much 
money for seniors.
  Social Security is not part of the budget deficit. It is not the 
problem. It does not need fixing. Of course, we always need to make 
sure Social Security is viable, and it will be for decades in the 
future. We can make some minor adjustments. But in the name of cutting 
the budget, cutting Social Security cost-of-living adjustments really 
affects poor seniors and middle-income seniors. We know that in my 
State of Ohio and the Presiding Officer's State of Minnesota, Social 
Security--more than half of the people in my State get more than half 
of their income from Social Security. So we have no business cutting 
Social Security.
  My legislation would actually be a fairer reflection of the cost of 
living and is preferable to what some people in this body and some 
people in the House of Representatives and in the supercommittee want 
to do--the so-called chained CPI. It is a terrible idea, the chained 
CPI. It is not fair to our seniors. It is not fair to our country. It 
is something that should be rejected out of hand.
  Then, as we figure this out and move forward, we should think about, 
do we want to do the CPI-E based on the elderly cost of living, not the 
CPI-W, based on a 35-year-old's cost of living and how that is 
reflected.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Remembering Lloyd G. Jackson

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an honorable, 
dedicated public servant and a good friend from West Virginia whom we 
lost last month on October 29.
  Lloyd G. Jackson was a true West Virginian, born in our southern 
coalfields in a small town in Lincoln County on May 30, 1918. 
Throughout his 93 years, Lloyd Jackson always answered the call of 
service--whether it was for our great Nation or for the beautiful 
people of West Virginia.
  Lloyd is the type of person who was well thought of by everyone who 
met him. From my own personal experience with Lloyd, I can say that I 
had the utmost respect for his humanitarian approach to every problem, 
most importantly for his professionalism.
  Lloyd's love for country and deep commitment to public service 
started when he was a young man and enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1941, 
during World War II. Before he left the military, Lloyd rose to the 
rank of master sergeant.
  After returning from war, Lloyd's commitment to his beloved family 
and public service continued. He pursued and expanded his family's oil 
and gas business, and through his business he created good-paying jobs 
and touched the lives of countless West Virginians.
  In 1946, he was elected to serve in the West Virginia State Senate, 
representing his home region of Bonne, Lincoln, and Logan Counties. 
That same year a man well known to this body, Senator Robert C. Byrd, 
was elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates, and joined Lloyd 
Jackson in the West Virginia Senate in 1950. The two became lifelong 
friends. For nearly 25 years, Lloyd Jackson represented the people of 
the southern part of our State with the utmost distinction. Lloyd was 
known for his leadership qualities as a State senator, and he took an 
active role in national legislative organizations, such as the National 
Council of State Legislatures and the Council of State Government.
  His peers recognized his leadership abilities and made him president 
of the West Virginia Senate. As Senate president, Lloyd demonstrated 
true characteristics of a dedicated public servant--leadership, 
passion, commitment, and persistence.
  Lloyd G. Jackson will forever be remembered for his many years of 
unwavering service to the Mountain State and its people. However, Lloyd 
will also be remembered for his passion and dedication to his community 
and for touching the lives of so many. He was a faithful member of the 
Central United Methodist Church in Hamlin. Lloyd was a loving husband 
of nearly 63 years to Pauline and a caring father of two children, 
Suzanne Rabin of Eugene, OR, and Lloyd II of Hamlin, WV, and a proud 
grandfather of Lloyd III of Hamlin and Ryan of Palo Alto, CA.
  Gayle and I are keeping his wife Pauline and the entire Jackson 
family in our hearts and prayers. While we know that Lloyd Jackson is 
gone, his legacy of public service and compassion for the people of 
West Virginia will live in our hearts forever.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendments Nos. 973 through 976

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to talk about the four amendments I 
filed on this bill. I will say right upfront, all four are supported by 
my Missouri colleague, Senator McCaskill, so they are bipartisan 
amendments. Two of them would deal with a property ownership issue 
created by an infringement by Federal regulators, by FERC. They both 
deal with a private power generating dam that was built in 1931. It 
created a lake called Lake of the Ozarks, and over the years private 
property owners have constructed literally thousands of homes that on 
this map beside me are impacted. The houses are the red dots. The other 
areas in there are thousands of buildings of one kind or another on a 
lake that is one of the most used lakes in the country. Some people go 
to those houses on the weekend and a lot of people live there all the 
time. This is their home.
  Since the 1950s, the Lake of the Ozarks has been the most visited 
lake by boaters in the Midwest. It is a lake that is not owned by the 
Federal Government. Tourism at this lake totals about $200 million 
annually. Because of this tourist industry there is lots of private 
investment.
  In 2004, Ameren Electric, the current owner of the lake--it was 
built, again, in the 1930s by Union Electric, which later became Ameren 
Electric--applied to FERC to renew their license to generate power at 
Bagnell Dam, which is the dam that was built to impound the water that 
created the Lake of the Ozarks. This application also made sure that 
virtually all of the homes and structures would no longer be subject to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but FERC rejected this 
request. The result has been a back and forth between Ameren and FERC 
and the property owners for the past 7 years.

[[Page 17645]]

  This finger-pointing by everybody involved--except the property 
owners, who simply think they own the property--has been nothing short 
of outrageous and it has left property values, businesses, tourism, tax 
revenues, and jobs in question. FERC has taken its role too far. FERC 
is acting as though they are the Corps of Engineers and somehow the 
taxpayers of America own this property instead of the taxpayers who 
actually are the individual taxpayers who own the property.
  On every acre of land covered by water, taxes have been paid. 
Property taxes have been paid on that land since the first dream that 
this lake would be created--so 80 years of taxpayer money. This is not 
a Corps of Engineers work where the Corps of Engineers can say we own 
the lake, we own the shoreland, we are going to decide what you are 
going to do. FERC has taken its role too far and it is engaging in a 
pattern of enforcing shoreline management rules.
  My first amendment would simply modify the Federal Power Act by 
changing the definition of what could be considered a ``project 
purpose.'' Currently, FERC recognizes public recreational use of land 
but not private ownership. We would not say they could no longer 
recognize public recreational use of land, but we would say that they 
have to recognize private ownership. If FERC, at a lake such as this, 
can decide access to the land, why can't FERC or some other Federal 
agency drive by a farmer's farm and say: That is a nice pond out there. 
I will bet it has some fish in it. Why don't we ensure that everybody 
who wants to have access to that farmer's pond has access to that 
farmer's pond?
  Maybe I should not suggest that. Maybe some Federal agency would hear 
that and say: It is water, it is pleasant, people ought to be able to 
enjoy it; everybody ought to be able to enjoy it just like the people 
who own the property and build the property and do their work.
  My amendment would stop FERC from putting the commission's policy 
preferences above those of ratepayers and private landowners in 
licensing this dam.
  My second amendment would simply redraw the boundaries of the Lake of 
the Ozarks to reflect the 662-foot contour as necessitated by changing 
water levels over the past 80 years. It would limit FERC's ability to 
issue an order to remove structures in what they now consider a project 
boundary until that boundary has been more finally settled. It would 
limit FERC's ability to reject applications as long as power generation 
is still preserved.
  The purpose of FERC is to see that a power generating dam generates 
power. It is not to control everything that is behind that dam. That is 
not the job of FERC. In fact, let me leave those two amendments with a 
few stories of Missouri homeowners who shared their stories with me 
about how FERC and FERC's actions affected their lives.
  This is a 30-year-old house that these homeowners have paid property 
taxes on for 30 years. In fact, you can see this large pine tree in 
front of this house. It was a seedling when they started paying 
property taxes, and that is a big tree. They paid property taxes the 
whole time. It is their first home. It is their only home. They have 
been informed that they are within the Bagnell Dam boundary, meaning 
they risk losing their house. In fact, it is one of 17 homes in this 
subdivision facing the same problem.
  In another home, Fred and Barbara Lowtharp purchased this home 15 
years ago. It was built 35 years ago. These are not new homes that 
somebody has just put on this property in the last couple of years and 
FERC has come in and said you made a mistake. This is a 35-year-old 
home that the current owners have lived in for 5 years. Barbara shared 
this with me on Facebook. She said:

       We have been paying taxes and upkeep on our homes and new 
     homes have been built around us within the last 2 years with 
     permits and titles. These homes are not cabins. The majority 
     of us live here year round.

  This is according to the owner:

       We have our money invested in these properties in good 
     faith when we bought them, going through the right procedures 
     and thinking you are a property owner for over 16 years, then 
     being told your deed isn't worth the paper it is written on 
     is something that you cannot understand how this can happen 
     in the U.S.A.

  This is the Facebook note continued: ``Really feel bullied by the 
FERC agency and Ameren.''
  We owe it to the citizens involved to see that the Federal Government 
doesn't come in and just simply take their property. It is not fair. 
Imagine, you get a new job somewhere, this is your home, you cannot 
sell your home and buy a new home because FERC suddenly decided, after 
16 years of paying taxes, that your land is not owned by you even 
though the county tax collectors thought it had been owned by you the 
whole time.
  Let me discuss quickly the other two amendments that deal with flood 
control. The Missouri and Mississippi Rivers have both been impacted 
dramatically by flooding this year. In Holt County alone, there was an 
astonishing 165,000 acres under water, most of it for 3 and 4 months. 
In Birds Point in the boot heel of Missouri, another 130,000 additional 
acres of farmland is under water. In total, we had over 400,000 acres, 
600 square miles--something about the size of the entire State of Rhode 
Island--under water during parts of this year. Vital transportation 
corridors have been closed, highways washed out, businesses shut down 
and people have been dealing with this now for months.
  My first amendment, amendment No. 976, cuts the bureaucratic redtape 
if all you are doing is putting back something that was there before 
the flood. If you are rebuilding a levee, if you are putting back 
things that were there before the flood, to rebuild levees or locks or 
dams that were damaged by the flood, you should be able to do it. You 
should not have to go through all kinds of studies to decide if the 
levee that you are putting back as it was and where it was can be there 
again. This is the only chance we have to get these structures back in 
place before the 2012 flooding season starts.
  Of course, in 2012 it would not have to be a flood of this size to 
create great problems if the levee is already gone. That is what that 
amendment would do. It gives the Corps the tools they need to restore 
flood protection to the 2011 levels, hopefully before the 2012 runoff 
season begins.
  I want to talk about amendment No. 975, which restricts funding of 
the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program to $22 million. 
This still leaves a lot of money for that program, but it takes the 
other money that has been available for that program all year and makes 
it available to meet the critical flood control crisis.
  We have already spent more than $616 million on that program. This is 
essentially a program that is one of the big projects where the 
government buys land from willing sellers who want to let it become 
more of a wetland or a wildlife reserve, something such as that. I am 
not saying that willing sellers should not be able to do that, but I am 
saying for right now $22 million--not something more like $72 million--
is enough.
  In fact, we have had citizens in some of these counties call the 
Corps to be told truthfully: No, we don't have sufficient funds to 
restore the flood protection you are eligible for, but we could buy 
your farm. Imagine if you are on the other end of that call and you 
have a family farm and you are calling to find out what you can do 
about the levee or what you can do to get flood protection back, and 
they say: We cannot do anything about the levee, but we could buy your 
farm. If you want to go back to the kitchen table and decide if you 
want to sell out, the taxpayers of America have plenty of money to buy 
your farm, but, no, we don't have money to restore the levee that was 
protecting your farm just a few days ago. That is not acceptable.
  That is why Senator McCaskill and I are cosponsoring all four of 
these amendments. We recognize that these issues are critically 
important in our State. In fact, the last two amendments are critically 
important in the seven States that start in Montana and end in St. 
Louis, MO, that are impacted by flooding in all seven of those States 
this year.

[[Page 17646]]

  I hope we are able to consider these amendments, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in trying to do what is right for the people we 
were sent here to work for.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch and Mr. Barrasso pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1880 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. 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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment 
No. 1045 to H.R. 2354, which is the Energy and Water appropriations 
legislation. This amendment rebalances funding for the fossil energy 
research and development account in the U.S. Department of Energy from 
within the existing budget. I want to point out that this action 
results in no additional spending. It is simply an adjustment within 
the existing budget.
  You may have heard recently about the tremendous progress we are 
making in the State of North Dakota when it comes to oil and gas 
development. We are also developing many of our other energy resources 
as well. Over the past decade, through a comprehensive energy plan 
called Empower North Dakota that we have put together, we have advanced 
all of our energy resources in tandem, and we have done it with good 
environmental stewardship. That includes coal, wind, biofuels and, of 
course, oil and gas.
  In a little more than a decade, North Dakota has grown from the ninth 
to the fourth largest oil and gas-producing State in the country, 
having surpassed oil-producing States such as Oklahoma and Louisiana. 
If our current estimates are on target, we will soon pass California 
and become the third largest oil-producing State in the Nation. That 
growth is the product of a progrowth legal, tax, and regulatory 
environment that we have built with the right kind of pro-business 
policies. At the same time we have, as I said, developed a 
comprehensive approach and a comprehensive energy policy called Empower 
North Dakota. In addition, we have put in place cutting-edge research, 
which has also been a very important part of our energy strategy for 
the State. It was new technologies and methods such as directional 
drilling that brought the innovative research over the past decade to 
tap the abundant petroleum reserves of the Bakken formation and other 
shale formations in North Dakota's oil patch. Directional drilling has 
not only enabled the recovery of oil in hard-to-reach vertical layers 
of shale, but it has also enabled multiple well bores to be drilled 
from a single pad. The result is more oil but also a much smaller 
environmental footprint. That is good for the energy industry, that is 
good for the environment, and that is good for American workers, with 
tremendous job creation, and, of course, for our consumers.
  My amendment would redirect research dollars within the budget of the 
fossil energy research and development provision in this appropriations 
bill, and that would include $5 million that would be provided for in 
the natural gas technologies research and development, and also $10 
million would be provided for unconventional oil or fossil energy 
technology development. Both of these research and development areas 
are very critically important, not only for more energy development but 
again for doing it in an environmentally sound way.
  Because this $15 million is offset with funds from within the fossil 
energy research and development budget, it results in no additional 
expenditure to the account. Obviously with our deficit and our debt, 
that is very important. What the amendment will do is empower research 
into the next generation of petroleum and natural gas technologies to 
produce more energy, again, with better environmental stewardship.
  This amendment will fund research in a range of important areas, 
including using carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery in mature 
oilfields and reducing the environmental impact of natural gas and oil 
development. Notably, this research will continue to drive and develop 
new technologies for gas purification to achieve near zero atmospheric 
emissions, an economic as well as an environmental goal.
  In short, this is the kind of research that will help to increase our 
supplies of domestic energy, reduce our reliance on foreign energy and 
foreign sources, and hold down the cost of foreign energy for American 
consumers and American businesses--all with better environmental 
stewardship.
  This amendment will help us do all of these things and much more, and 
I ask for my colleagues' support.
  Also, while I have the floor, I wish to express my support for two 
other amendments to H.R. 2354. These include amendment No. 975 and also 
amendment No. 976. I am pleased to have cosponsored both of these 
amendments with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri.
  As you are well aware, there has been extensive flooding along the 
Missouri River over the course of this past year, all the way from 
Montana and North Dakota and the upper basin, down through the State of 
Missouri and the other lower basin States. As a result, we have been 
working hard with our citizens to recover from that flooding.
  One of the things we have pressed the Corps of Engineers to do as 
aggressively as they can is to provide more flood protection so we not 
only help our citizens recover from the flooding this year, but so we 
can do all that we can to prevent flooding next year. At the same time 
we are pressing them to take all of the preventive measures they can to 
reduce lake levels, reduce reservoir levels so we have adequate room 
and protection to prevent flooding next year, we are also working 
within their budget to make sure they have the resources to address 
these needs.
  Amendment No. 975 essentially takes $50 million that is within the 
Corps of Engineers' budget that is now used for the Missouri River 
recovery program--meaning things such as building sandbars and some of 
the riparian areas along the river. Currently there is a total of $72 
million in that Corps of Engineers account. What we are doing is saying 
that $50 million of that should be made available so they can utilize 
it to enhance flood protection. This is a critical need right now. They 
are working diligently to repair dams, dikes, and levees.
  We are pressing for them to do more in terms of preparing as far as 
water levels throughout the upper and lower basin, and at the same time 
we are providing assistance in their budget by giving them the 
flexibility to use dollars where they need them to enhance flood 
protection. This is $50 million within their budget that can now be 
used to enhance flood protection, and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support amendment No. 975 to H.R. 2354, again, giving the Corps of 
Engineers needed flexibility to provide flood protection that is so 
important to the people along the Missouri River in the upper basin and 
lower basin.
  Amendment No. 976 essentially provides that same flexibility and 
assistance. Essentially it eliminates the redtape. It prevents the 
Corps from having to get new permits, new licenses, or new approvals as 
they work to repair and restore levees, locks, and dams. So as they 
work along the Missouri River--the entire length of the Missouri 
River--to restore those flood protection measures--whether it is a 
levee, a lock, dike, or dam, whatever it

[[Page 17647]]

might be--we are waiving those requirements to get new permits and new 
licenses and new approvals so they can get that work done now, this 
year, and be prepared for next year.
  Again, the flooding has been devastating and extensive along the 
Missouri River. In my home State, it is not just the Missouri River but 
along the Souris River, as well as other areas. The Red River and 
Cheyenne had a terrible time with flooding. We need to take the kind of 
steps that will help our people recover but will also help us prepare 
for the future so we don't face these types of floods next year or any 
other year in the future.
  Again, I encourage support from my colleagues on these very important 
amendments.
  I thank the Chair for this time.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Washington's Spending Addiction

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I was just listening to the news in my 
office, and I heard the report that the United States has gone over $15 
trillion in debt. Of course, that is just our short-term debt. It 
doesn't really include our unfunded liabilities, which some estimate to 
be $100 trillion. But, nonetheless, $15 trillion is the size of our 
total economy--a condition that would mean certain bankruptcy for 
almost any business.
  All of us in these Chambers have stood in awe, I guess, looking 
across the Atlantic at Greece and Italy and some of our European 
trading partners, and it seems amazing to us that despite their 
terrible fiscal condition, the politicians in Greece cannot even cut 
spending. They talk about cutting it, but the government employees are 
out in the street demonstrating, and one just has to think, can't they 
see what is happening? Why do they want to keep spending? It is like 
there is an addiction.
  But here we are in the land of the free, the city on the hill for the 
world as far as the country that sets the example for free markets and 
free enterprise--a country that has fought wars to keep the rest of the 
world free--and here we are in a situation where we have to borrow well 
over $100 billion every month just to keep the lights on in this place, 
just to keep our country going.
  All year long, we have been having these public showdowns about how 
we need to cut spending. We have threatened government shutdowns over 
the continuing resolutions and over increasing the debt limit. One 
would think that by this point we would be cutting spending to some 
degree. We have established this supercommittee, supposedly to deal 
with our huge deficits. Yet we are passing spending bills this week--
today--that increase spending versus last year. Last year, we spent 5 
percent more than the year before.
  In reality, in some ways, our country is worse off than Europe 
because we have Federal debt, we have State debt, we have municipal 
debt, we have counties declaring bankruptcy, we have States approaching 
bankruptcy, and yet we continue to spend more now than we did last 
year. After all of the fuss and fighting and brinkmanship and 
supercommittees, we can't seem to cut anything here. In fact, we are 
increasing spending.
  The goal of the supercommittee is not to cut spending; it is not to 
cut our debt at all. The goal of the supercommittee is to reduce the 
amount we are going to borrow over 10 years--maybe reduce it from $10 
trillion to $8 trillion or $9 trillion.
  We are not even on the same page with reality right now. We have 
increased spending so dramatically over the last few years--we have 
added $4 trillion to our debt since President Obama came into office, 
we passed a $1 trillion stimulus, and we passed ObamaCare, adding 
trillions of dollars in spending.
  Instead of talking about cutting, the debate now seems to be, how can 
we take more from the American people in taxes to feed our addiction? 
We have focused our guns on those very people who create our jobs and 
create most of the opportunity in our country, people who are already 
paying the largest portion of national taxes of any country in the 
world because we have shifted so much of the tax burden onto the top 
income earners. We are blaming them for the wealth gap when, in fact, 
the real blame for the wealth gap comes from the government taking so 
much out of the private sector, regulating with such a heavy hand, and 
having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
  The problem with the middle class is not those who are making too 
much money; it is a Federal Government that doesn't understand that the 
more we spend and borrow, the fewer jobs there are going to be in our 
country today. Yet that is the big argument here. Instead of cutting 
spending, we are actually talking about taking more from hard-working 
American taxpayers and bringing it in here and giving it to the people 
who have created that $15 trillion in debt. How could anyone make sense 
of that?
  It is really pretty amazing, after all the promises we have made to 
the American people, that we are watching our debt go up like this--
passing $15 trillion--and we still can't talk about any substantive 
cuts.
  Let me give one example of something that makes so much sense. Over 
the last two decades, we have seen welfare spending increase nearly 300 
percent. There are 77 means-tested welfare programs, and over the last 
couple of decades, since welfare reform, the spending has increased 
nearly 300 percent. That is more than the combined increase of Social 
Security and Medicare. It is more than the increases in education or in 
defense. Are we helping people? Not at all. We have more people in 
poverty than we ever have had, and we are discouraging self-sufficiency 
while encouraging dependency on government.
  In the last 4 years alone, we have nearly doubled what we are paying 
for food stamps, from $40 billion to $80 billion in this year's budget. 
If all we did was return welfare spending to 2007 levels, we could save 
almost $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. That is twice the goal of 
the supercommittee in cuts. But are we even thinking about it? Is it 
even on the table? Absolutely not, because the one thing I have seen 
with this place is we are very good at getting bipartisan agreement on 
increasing spending in areas of need, but we seldom see bipartisan 
agreement on any cuts. Would we look at responsible caps on welfare 
spending? Not even a chance. It is not even on the table with the 
supercommittee discussions.
  With Medicaid alone, if we return spending to 2007 levels, we could 
save more than the goal of the supercommittee of $1.2 trillion, but we 
are not willing to discuss cuts.
  I think it is a sad day for America that we are plowing past $15 
trillion, pretending to be responsible to the American people, while 
last week and this week and on into the rest of the year, we are going 
to be passing spending bills that spend more than we spent last year. 
At the same time, we are supposedly in a recession, Americans are 
tightening their belts, many are out of work, and what we are talking 
about here is, let's continue to spend and take more from hard-working, 
tax-paying Americans so we can keep our spending addiction going here 
in Washington.
  It is utterly irresponsible, what we are doing. All the President can 
do is point at those whom he calls millionaires, who are generally the 
people who are creating the jobs, running the small businesses, and 
having the most to do with creating the investment that makes our 
economy grow, and try to blame them for the problems we create here in 
Washington.
  It is time we keep our promises to the American people. I know it is 
hard for some in these Chambers to cut spending because dependency on 
government often means a dependable vote for many politicians. It is 
time we look

[[Page 17648]]

at the future and the debt that we are loading onto ourselves, our 
children, and our grandchildren. This country will not survive the 
types of policies we are producing here in Washington today.
  This supercommittee should look at real cuts in spending. If our 
Democratic colleagues are not willing to go along with responsible 
spending caps on programs such as welfare, then we need to walk away 
from the table and take our case to the American people and tell them 
what is really the truth, which is that the elections in 2012 may be 
our last chance to turn this around. We cannot keep spending at this 
level and keep taking more and more from the private sector, from the 
job producers in our country, bringing it here to Washington, and 
spending it on wasteful programs that are fraught with fraud and 
duplication and not even ever consider cutting any of them.
  Last week, Dr. Coburn had a couple of amendments to an appropriations 
bill that had some very small cuts to what had been deemed wasteful, 
ineffective programs. On one of his amendments, he only got 13 votes. 
So this is clearly a bipartisan problem.
  We need to cut spending. Washington has a spending problem, it does 
not have a low-tax problem. It is time we focus our attention on 
reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government and having it 
live within constitutional boundaries. We need to eliminate programs 
that are wasteful, return others to the States, and trim our budget to 
the point where we can pay for what we are spending so that we will not 
keep adding trillions and trillions of dollars of debt on to our 
country and our citizens and our next generation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. AKAKA. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). 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, we started out this week hoping we could 
complete a minibus--that means to do what we did a couple weeks ago and 
complete three appropriations bills at the same time. We had three good 
subjects. We had the underlying bill, Energy and Water. We moved from 
that and added to that Financial Services and Foreign Operations. We 
were unable to get a consent agreement that we could treat the package 
of bills the same way we treat other appropriations bills; that is, you 
cannot legislate on an appropriations bill and there have to be germane 
amendments offered. I was disappointed that we didn't get that 
agreement. I accept that.
  The best news out of this is that, with the underlying bill, we have 
two of the finest Senators the Senate has ever had, Senators Feinstein 
and Alexander. They are knowledgeable, easy to work with, and they 
understand that legislation is the art of compromise. They have done a 
wonderful job in the last 24 hours, working down the amendments. We 
have a number of amendments on the Republican side--a finite list--and 
we should have a Democratic list very quickly. We need to work it down 
a little more.
  I appreciate very much the good work of Senator Alexander and Senator 
Feinstein. The normal process would be to pull the bill. We are not 
going to do that. We are going to leave the bill on the calendar so we 
can move to it in a minute's notice, really. We will keep it around, 
and we hope to be able to move to that soon. We are going to have some 
down time, and anytime we do that, we should be able to finish this 
bill in a day or day and a half once we get the amendments worked out.
  This will give us the opportunity to move to the Defense 
authorization bill. I indicated to Senators Levin and McCain well over 
a month ago that I would move to this bill. Not everything is worked 
out in it, but that is nothing unusual. It is a huge bill. Senators 
Levin, McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others have worked hard to try to 
work out one of the problem areas we have had, and significant progress 
has been made. It really doesn't matter.
  I have spoken to one Democratic Senator, and he still isn't very 
happy about some information that is in that bill. I told him he could 
offer an amendment quickly and try to assert his position.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 1867

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
morning business tomorrow, Thursday, November 17, 2011, the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 230, S. 1867, which is the 
Defense authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________