[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11101-11130]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2055, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2055) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations, with an amendment to strike all 
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                      Military Construction, Army

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as 
     currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army 
     Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for 
     the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and 
     operation of facilities in support of the functions of the 
     Commander in Chief, $3,066,891,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2016:  Provided, That of this amount, not to 
     exceed $255,241,000 shall be available for study, planning, 
     design, architect and engineer services, and host nation 
     support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of 
     Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary 
     for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

              Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations, 
     facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps 
     as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the 
     Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal 
     services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation, 
     $2,187,622,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016: 
      Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $84,362,000 
     shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect 
     and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the 
     Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations 
     are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, military 
     installations, facilities, and real property for the Air 
     Force as currently authorized by law, $1,227,058,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2016:  Provided, That of 
     this amount, not to exceed $81,913,000 shall be available for 
     study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services, 
     as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that additional obligations are necessary for such 
     purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons 
     therefor.

                  Military Construction, Defense-Wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment 
     of temporary or permanent public works, installations, 
     facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of 
     the Department of Defense (other than the military 
     departments), as currently authorized by law, $3,380,917,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2016:  Provided, That 
     such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such 
     appropriations of the Department of Defense available for 
     military construction or family housing as the Secretary may 
     designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same 
     purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation 
     or fund to which transferred:  Provided further, That of the 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $439,602,000 shall be 
     available for study, planning, design, and architect and 
     engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary 
     of Defense determines that additional obligations are 
     necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor:  Provided further, 
     That of the amount appropriated, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, $24,118,000 shall be available for payments 
     to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for the planning, 
     design, and construction of a new North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization headquarters.

               Military Construction, Army National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts, 
     $773,592,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016:  
     Provided, That of the amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $20,671,000 shall be available for study, planning, design,

[[Page 11102]]

     and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law, 
     unless the Director of the Army National Guard determines 
     that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes 
     and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.

               Military Construction, Air National Guard

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions 
     therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts, 
     $116,246,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016:  
     Provided, That of the amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $9,000,000 shall be available for study, planning, design, 
     and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law, 
     unless the Director of the Air National Guard determines that 
     additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and 
     notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.

                  Military Construction, Army Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter 
     1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military 
     Construction Authorization Acts, $280,549,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2016:  Provided, That of the 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $28,924,000 shall be 
     available for study, planning, design, and architect and 
     engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary 
     of the Army determines that additional obligations are 
     necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

                  Military Construction, Navy Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the reserve components of the Navy and 
     Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization 
     Acts, $26,299,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2016:  Provided, That of the amount appropriated, not to 
     exceed $2,591,000 shall be available for study, planning, 
     design, and architect and engineer services, as authorized by 
     law, unless the Secretary of the Navy determines that 
     additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and 
     notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.

                Military Construction, Air Force Reserve

       For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, 
     and conversion of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by 
     chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military 
     Construction Authorization Acts, $33,620,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2016:  Provided, That of the 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $2,200,000 shall be 
     available for study, planning, design, and architect and 
     engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary 
     of the Air Force determines that additional obligations are 
     necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the 
     determination and the reasons therefor.

                   North Atlantic Treaty Organization

                      Security Investment Program

       For the United States share of the cost of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for 
     the acquisition and construction of military facilities and 
     installations (including international military headquarters) 
     and for related expenses for the collective defense of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of 
     title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction 
     Authorization Acts, $272,611,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   Family Housing Construction, Army

       For expenses of family housing for the Army for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law, 
     $186,897,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016.

             Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation 
     and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor 
     construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance 
     premiums, as authorized by law, $494,858,000.

           Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

       For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement, 
     addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized 
     by law, $100,972,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2016.

    Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps

       For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine 
     Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment, 
     leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges, 
     and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $367,863,000.

                 Family Housing Construction, Air Force

       For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for 
     construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition, 
     expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law, 
     $84,804,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016.

          Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for 
     operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, 
     minor construction, principal and interest charges, and 
     insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $404,761,000.

         Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of family housing for the activities and 
     agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the 
     military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing, 
     and minor construction, as authorized by law, $50,723,000.

         Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund

       For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement 
     Fund, $2,184,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     family housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to section 
     2883 of title 10, United States Code, providing alternative 
     means of acquiring and improving military family housing and 
     supporting facilities.

                       Homeowners Assistance Fund

       For the Homeowners Assistance Fund established by section 
     1013 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development 
     Act of 1966, (42 U.S.C. 3374), as amended by section 1001 of 
     division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 194), $1,284,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

          Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of construction, not otherwise provided for, 
     necessary for the destruction of the United States stockpile 
     of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with 
     section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 
     1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other 
     chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical 
     weapon stockpile, as currently authorized by law, 
     $75,312,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016, 
     which shall be only for the Assembled Chemical Weapons 
     Alternatives program.

            Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 1990, established by section 2906(a)(1) of the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 
     2687 note), $323,543,000, to remain available until expended.

            Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005

       For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
     Account 2005, established by section 2906A(a)(1) of the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 
     2687 note), $258,776,000, to remain available until expended: 
      Provided, That the Department of Defense shall notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 14 
     days prior to obligating an amount for a construction project 
     that exceeds or reduces the amount identified for that 
     project in the most recently submitted budget request for 
     this account by 20 percent or $2,000,000, whichever is less:  
     Provided further, That the previous proviso shall not apply 
     to projects costing less than $5,000,000, except for those 
     projects not previously identified in any budget submission 
     for this account and exceeding the minor construction 
     threshold under section 2805 of title 10, United States Code.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee 
     contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed 
     $25,000, to be performed within the United States, except 
     Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the 
     Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
       Sec. 102.  Funds made available in this title for 
     construction shall be available for hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles.
       Sec. 103.  Funds made available in this title for 
     construction may be used for advances to the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Department of Transportation, for the 
     construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of 
     title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized 
     therein are certified as important to the national defense by 
     the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 104.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to begin construction of new bases in the United 
     States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
       Sec. 105.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in 
     excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army 
     Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering 
     Command, except:
       (1) where there is a determination of value by a Federal 
     court;
       (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney General or the 
     designee of the Attorney General;
       (3) where the estimated value is less than $25,000; or
       (4) as otherwise determined by the Secretary of Defense to 
     be in the public interest.
       Sec. 106.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used to:
       (1) acquire land;
       (2) provide for site preparation; or
       (3) install utilities for any family housing, except 
     housing for which funds have been made available in annual 
     Acts making appropriations for military construction.

[[Page 11103]]

       Sec. 107.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     for minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate 
     any activity from one base or installation to another, 
     without prior notification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 108.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used for the procurement of steel for any construction 
     project or activity for which American steel producers, 
     fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the 
     opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
       Sec. 109.  None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense for military construction or family housing during 
     the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property 
     taxes in any foreign nation.
       Sec. 110.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without 
     prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 111.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be obligated for architect and engineer contracts 
     estimated by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects 
     to be accomplished in Japan, in any North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization member country, or in countries bordering the 
     Arabian Sea, unless such contracts are awarded to United 
     States firms or United States firms in joint venture with 
     host nation firms.
       Sec. 112.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     for military construction in the United States territories 
     and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in 
     countries bordering the Arabian Sea, may be used to award any 
     contract estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to 
     a foreign contractor:  Provided, That this section shall not 
     be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest 
     responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor 
     exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a 
     foreign contractor by greater than 20 percent:  Provided 
     further, That this section shall not apply to contract awards 
     for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the 
     lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a 
     Marshallese contractor.
       Sec. 113.  The Secretary of Defense is to inform the 
     appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress, including 
     the Committees on Appropriations, of the plans and scope of 
     any proposed military exercise involving United States 
     personnel 30 days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended 
     for construction, either temporary or permanent, are 
     anticipated to exceed $100,000.
       Sec. 114.  Not more than 20 percent of the funds made 
     available in this title which are limited for obligation 
     during the current fiscal year shall be obligated during the 
     last 2 months of the fiscal year.
       Sec. 115.  Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for construction in prior years shall be available for 
     construction authorized for each such military department by 
     the authorizations enacted into law during the current 
     session of Congress.
       Sec. 116.  For military construction or family housing 
     projects that are being completed with funds otherwise 
     expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may 
     be used to pay the cost of associated supervision, 
     inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those 
     projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
       Sec. 117.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds made available to a military department or defense 
     agency for the construction of military projects may be 
     obligated for a military construction project or contract, or 
     for any portion of such a project or contract, at any time 
     before the end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal 
     year for which funds for such project were made available, if 
     the funds obligated for such project:
       (1) are obligated from funds available for military 
     construction projects; and
       (2) do not exceed the amount appropriated for such project, 
     plus any amount by which the cost of such project is 
     increased pursuant to law.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 118.  In addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense, proceeds deposited to 
     the Department of Defense Base Closure Account established by 
     section 207(a)(1) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act (10 U.S.C. 2687 note) 
     pursuant to section 207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be 
     transferred to the account established by section 2906(a)(1) 
     of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 
     U.S.C. 2687 note), to be merged with, and to be available for 
     the same purposes and the same time period as that account.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 119.  Subject to 30 days prior notification, or 14 
     days for a notification provided in an electronic medium 
     pursuant to sections 480 and 2883, of title 10, United States 
     Code, to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress, such additional amounts as may be determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense may be transferred to:
       (1) the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement 
     Fund from amounts appropriated for construction in ``Family 
     Housing'' accounts, to be merged with and to be available for 
     the same purposes and for the same period of time as amounts 
     appropriated directly to the Fund; or
       (2) the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied 
     Housing Improvement Fund from amounts appropriated for 
     construction of military unaccompanied housing in ``Military 
     Construction'' accounts, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same period of 
     time as amounts appropriated directly to the Fund:  Provided, 
     That appropriations made available to the Funds shall be 
     available to cover the costs, as defined in section 502(5) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct loans or loan 
     guarantees issued by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, 
     United States Code, pertaining to alternative means of 
     acquiring and improving military family housing, military 
     unaccompanied housing, and supporting facilities.
       Sec. 120. (a) Not later than 60 days before issuing any 
     solicitation for a contract with the private sector for 
     military family housing the Secretary of the military 
     department concerned shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the notice 
     described in subsection (b).
       (b)(1) A notice referred to in subsection (a) is a notice 
     of any guarantee (including the making of mortgage or rental 
     payments) proposed to be made by the Secretary to the private 
     party under the contract involved in the event of--
       (A) the closure or realignment of the installation for 
     which housing is provided under the contract;
       (B) a reduction in force of units stationed at such 
     installation; or
       (C) the extended deployment overseas of units stationed at 
     such installation.
       (2) Each notice under this subsection shall specify the 
     nature of the guarantee involved and assess the extent and 
     likelihood, if any, of the liability of the Federal 
     Government with respect to the guarantee.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 121.  In addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be 
     transferred from the accounts established by sections 
     2906(a)(1) and 2906A(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund 
     established by section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities 
     and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to 
     pay for expenses associated with the Homeowners Assistance 
     Program incurred under 42 U.S.C. 3374(a)(1)(A). Any amounts 
     transferred shall be merged with and be available for the 
     same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to 
     which transferred.
       Sec. 122.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this title for operation and 
     maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source 
     of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing 
     units, including general or flag officer quarters:  Provided, 
     That not more than $35,000 per unit may be spent annually for 
     the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer 
     quarters without 30 days prior notification, or 14 days for a 
     notification provided in an electronic medium pursuant to 
     sections 480 and 2883 of title 10, United States Code, to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, 
     except that an after-the-fact notification shall be submitted 
     if the limitation is exceeded solely due to costs associated 
     with environmental remediation that could not be reasonably 
     anticipated at the time of the budget submission:  Provided 
     further, That the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is 
     to report annually to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     both Houses of Congress all operation and maintenance 
     expenditures for each individual general or flag officer 
     quarters for the prior fiscal year.
       Sec. 123.  Amounts contained in the Ford Island Improvement 
     Account established by subsection (h) of section 2814 of 
     title 10, United States Code, are appropriated and shall be 
     available until expended for the purposes specified in 
     subsection (i)(1) of such section or until transferred 
     pursuant to subsection (i)(3) of such section.
       Sec. 124.  None of the funds made available in this title, 
     or in any Act making appropriations for military construction 
     which remain available for obligation, may be obligated or 
     expended to carry out a military construction, land 
     acquisition, or family housing project at or for a military 
     installation approved for closure, or at a military 
     installation for the purposes of supporting a function that 
     has been approved for realignment to another installation, in 
     2005 under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
     1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 
     2687 note), unless such a project at a military installation 
     approved for realignment will support a continuing mission or 
     function at that installation or a new mission or function 
     that is planned for that installation, or unless the 
     Secretary of Defense certifies that the cost to the United 
     States of carrying out such project would be less than the 
     cost to the United States of cancelling such project, or if 
     the project is at an active component base that shall be 
     established as an enclave or in the case of projects having 
     multi-agency use, that another Government agency has 
     indicated it will assume ownership of the completed project. 
     The Secretary of Defense may not transfer funds made 
     available as a result of this limitation from any military 
     construction project, land acquisition, or family housing 
     project to another account or use such funds for another 
     purpose or project without the prior approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. This 
     section shall not apply to military construction projects, 
     land acquisition, or family housing projects for which the 
     project is vital to the national security or the protection 
     of health, safety, or environmental quality:  Provided, That 
     the Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional 
     defense committees within

[[Page 11104]]

     seven days of a decision to carry out such a military 
     construction project.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 125.  During the 5-year period after appropriations 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military construction and family housing operation and 
     maintenance and construction have expired for obligation, 
     upon a determination that such appropriations will not be 
     necessary for the liquidation of obligations or for making 
     authorized adjustments to such appropriations for obligations 
     incurred during the period of availability of such 
     appropriations, unobligated balances of such appropriations 
     may be transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'', to be merged with and 
     to be available for the same time period and for the same 
     purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 126.  Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available 
     in an account funded under the headings in this title may be 
     transferred among projects and activities within the account 
     in accordance with the reprogramming guidelines for military 
     construction and family housing construction contained in 
     Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 
     7000.14-R, Volume 3, Chapter 7, of February 2009, as in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

                                TITLE II

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as 
     authorized by section 107 and chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 53, 
     55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; pension benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 15, 51, 
     53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; and burial 
     benefits, the Reinstated Entitlement Program for Survivors, 
     emergency and other officers' retirement pay, adjusted-
     service credits and certificates, payment of premiums due on 
     commercial life insurance policies guaranteed under the 
     provisions of title IV of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 541 et seq.) and for other benefits as 
     authorized by sections 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, and 
     chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States 
     Code, $58,067,319,000, to remain available until expended:  
     Provided, That not to exceed $32,187,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading shall be reimbursed to 
     ``General operating expenses, Veterans Benefits 
     Administration'', ``Medical support and compliance'', and 
     ``Information technology systems'' for necessary expenses in 
     implementing the provisions of chapters 51, 53, and 55 of 
     title 38, United States Code, the funding source for which is 
     specifically provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' 
     appropriation:  Provided further, That such sums as may be 
     earned on an actual qualifying patient basis, shall be 
     reimbursed to ``Medical care collections fund'' to augment 
     the funding of individual medical facilities for nursing home 
     care provided to pensioners as authorized.

                         readjustment benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 21, 30, 
     31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, 
     United States Code, $11,011,086,000, to remain available 
     until expended:  Provided, That expenses for rehabilitation 
     program services and assistance which the Secretary is 
     authorized to provide under subsection (a) of section 3104 of 
     title 38, United States Code, other than under paragraphs 
     (1), (2), (5), and (11) of that subsection, shall be charged 
     to this account.

                   veterans insurance and indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by title 38, United States Code, chapters 19 and 
     21, $100,252,000, to remain available until expended.

                 veterans housing benefit program fund

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by 
     subchapters I through III of chapter 37 of title 38, United 
     States Code:  Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:  Provided further, 
     That during fiscal year 2012, within the resources available, 
     not to exceed $500,000 in gross obligations for direct loans 
     are authorized for specially adapted housing loans.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $154,698,000.

            vocational rehabilitation loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $19,000, as authorized by 
     chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code:  Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974:  Provided further, That funds made available under 
     this heading are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $3,019,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $343,000, which may be paid to 
     the appropriation for ``General operating expenses, Veterans 
     Benefits Administration''.

          native american veteran housing loan program account

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, 
     United States Code, $1,116,000.

                     Veterans Health Administration

                            medical services

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by 
     law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to 
     beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
     veterans described in section 1705(a) of title 38, United 
     States Code, including care and treatment in facilities not 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department, and including 
     medical supplies and equipment, food services, and salaries 
     and expenses of health care employees hired under title 38, 
     United States Code, aid to State homes as authorized by 
     section 1741 of title 38, United States Code, assistance and 
     support services for caregivers as authorized by section 
     1720G of title 38, United States Code, and loan repayments 
     authorized by section 604 of Public Law 111-163; 
     $41,354,000,000, plus reimbursements, shall become available 
     on October 1, 2012, and shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2013:  Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     establish a priority for the provision of medical treatment 
     for veterans who have service-connected disabilities, lower 
     income, or have special needs:  Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall give priority funding for the 
     provision of basic medical benefits to veterans in enrollment 
     priority groups 1 through 6:  Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs may authorize the dispensing of prescription 
     drugs from Veterans Health Administration facilities to 
     enrolled veterans with privately written prescriptions based 
     on requirements established by the Secretary:  Provided 
     further, That the implementation of the program described in 
     the previous proviso shall incur no additional cost to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.

                     medical support and compliance

       For necessary expenses in the administration of the 
     medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction, 
     supply, and research activities, as authorized by law; 
     administrative expenses in support of capital policy 
     activities; and administrative and legal expenses of the 
     Department for collecting and recovering amounts owed the 
     Department as authorized under chapter 17 of title 38, United 
     States Code, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2651 et seq.); $5,746,000,000, plus reimbursements, 
     shall become available on October 1, 2012, and shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2013.

                           medical facilities

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities and 
     other necessary facilities of the Veterans Health 
     Administration; for administrative expenses in support of 
     planning, design, project management, real property 
     acquisition and disposition, construction, and renovation of 
     any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department; for oversight, engineering, and architectural 
     activities not charged to project costs; for repairing, 
     altering, improving, or providing facilities in the several 
     hospitals and homes under the jurisdiction of the Department, 
     not otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire 
     of temporary employees and purchase of materials; for leases 
     of facilities; and for laundry services, $5,441,000,000, plus 
     reimbursements, shall become available on October 1, 2012, 
     and shall remain available until September 30, 2013.

                    medical and prosthetic research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 
     chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, $581,000,000, 
     plus reimbursements, shall remain available until September 
     30, 2013.

                    National Cemetery Administration

       For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery 
     Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise 
     provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor; 
     cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one 
     passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and repair, alteration or 
     improvement of facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
     National Cemetery Administration, $250,934,000, of which not 
     to exceed $25,100,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2013.

                      Departmental Administration

                         general administration

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary operating expenses of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including 
     administrative expenses in support of Department-Wide capital 
     planning, management and policy activities, uniforms, or 
     allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services, $431,257,000, of 
     which not to exceed $21,562,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2013:  Provided, That $15,000,000 shall be to 
     increase the Department's acquisition workforce capacity and 
     capabilities and may be transferred by the Secretary to any 
     other account in the Department to carry out

[[Page 11105]]

     the purposes provided therein:  Provided further, That funds 
     provided under this heading may be transferred to ``General 
     operating expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration''.

      general operating expenses, veterans benefits administration

       For necessary operating expenses of the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and reimbursement of the Department 
     of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail, 
     $2,018,764,000:  Provided, That expenses for services and 
     assistance authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and 
     (11) of section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, that 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines are necessary to 
     enable entitled veterans: (1) to the maximum extent feasible, 
     to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable 
     employment; or (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily 
     living, shall be charged to this account:  Provided further, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading, not to 
     exceed $105,000,000 shall remain available until September 
     20, 2013:  Provided further, That from the funds made 
     available under this heading, the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration may purchase (on a one-for-one replacement 
     basis only) up to two passenger motor vehicles for use in 
     operations of that Administration in Manila, Philippines.

                     information technology systems

       For necessary expenses for information technology systems 
     and telecommunications support, including developmental 
     information systems and operational information systems; for 
     pay and associated costs; and for the capital asset 
     acquisition of information technology systems, including 
     management and related contractual costs of said 
     acquisitions, including contractual costs associated with 
     operations authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United 
     States Code, $3,161,376,000, plus reimbursements:  Provided, 
     That $915,000,000 shall be for pay and associated costs, of 
     which not to exceed $25,000,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2013:  Provided further, That $1,709,953,000 
     shall be for operations and maintenance as designated in the 
     President's 2012 budget justification, of which not to exceed 
     $110,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2013: 
      Provided further, That $536,423,000 shall be for information 
     technology systems development, modernization, and 
     enhancement as designated in the President's 2012 budget 
     justification, and shall remain available until September 30, 
     2013:  Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available under this heading may be obligated until the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs submits to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, and such 
     Committees approve, a plan for expenditure that:
       (1) meets the capital planning and investment control 
     review requirements established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget;
       (2) complies with the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     enterprise architecture;
       (3) conforms with an established enterprise life cycle 
     methodology; and
       (4) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements, 
     guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of 
     the Federal Government:  Provided further, That amounts made 
     available for information technology systems development, 
     modernization, and enhancement may not be obligated or 
     expended until the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Chief 
     Information Officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     submits to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress a certification of the amounts, in parts or in full, 
     to be obligated and expended for each development project:  
     Provided further, That amounts made available for salaries 
     and expenses, operations and maintenance, and information 
     technology systems development, modernization, and 
     enhancement may be transferred among the three subaccounts 
     after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs requests from the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the 
     authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued:  
     Provided further, That the funds made available under this 
     heading for information technology systems development, 
     modernization, and enhancement, shall be for the projects and 
     in the amounts, specified under this heading in the report 
     accompanying this Act.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     to include information technology, in carrying out the 
     provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App.), $112,391,000, of which $6,600,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2013.

                      construction, major projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities, including parking projects, under the 
     jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth in sections 
     316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 
     of title 38, United States Code, including planning, 
     architectural and engineering services, construction 
     management services, maintenance or guarantee period services 
     costs associated with equipment guarantees provided under the 
     project, services of claims analysts, offsite utility and 
     storm drainage system construction costs, and site 
     acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is more 
     than the amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 
     38, United States Code, or where funds for a project were 
     made available in a previous major project appropriation, 
     $589,604,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be to make reimbursements as provided in 
     section 13 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     612) for claims paid for contract disputes:  Provided, That 
     except for advance planning activities, including needs 
     assessments which may or may not lead to capital investments, 
     and other capital asset management related activities, 
     including portfolio development and management activities, 
     and investment strategy studies funded through the advance 
     planning fund and the planning and design activities funded 
     through the design fund, including needs assessments which 
     may or may not lead to capital investments, and salaries and 
     associated costs of the resident engineers who oversee those 
     capital investments funded through this account, and funds 
     provided for the purchase of land for the National Cemetery 
     Administration through the land acquisition line item, none 
     of the funds made available under this heading shall be used 
     for any project which has not been approved by the Congress 
     in the budgetary process:  Provided further, That funds made 
     available under this heading for fiscal year 2012, for each 
     approved project shall be obligated:
       (1) by the awarding of a construction documents contract by 
     September 30, 2012; and
       (2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September 
     30, 2013:  Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall promptly submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a written report on 
     any approved major construction project for which obligations 
     are not incurred within the time limitations established 
     above.

                      construction, minor projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities, including parking projects, under the 
     jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, including planning and assessments of needs which 
     may lead to capital investments, architectural and 
     engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period 
     services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided 
     under the project, services of claims analysts, offsite 
     utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and 
     site acquisition, or for any of the purposes set forth in 
     sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, 
     8122, and 8162 of title 38, United States Code, where the 
     estimated cost of a project is equal to or less than the 
     amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United 
     States Code, $550,091,000, to remain available until 
     expended, along with unobligated balances of previous 
     ``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are 
     hereby made available for any project where the estimated 
     cost is equal to or less than the amount set forth in such 
     section:  Provided, That funds made available under this 
     heading shall be for:
       (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical facilities under the 
     jurisdiction or for the use of the Department which are 
     necessary because of loss or damage caused by any natural 
     disaster or catastrophe; and
       (2) temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize 
     further loss by such causes.

       grants for construction of state extended care facilities

       For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State 
     nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel, 
     modify, or alter existing hospital, nursing home, and 
     domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to 
     veterans as authorized by sections 8131 through 8137 of title 
     38, United States Code, $85,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

             grants for construction of veterans cemeteries

       For grants to assist States and tribal governments in 
     establishing, expanding, or improving veterans cemeteries as 
     authorized by section 2408 of title 38, United States Code, 
     $46,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Administrative Provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 201.  Any appropriation for fiscal year 2012 for 
     ``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and 
     ``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred as 
     necessary to any other of the mentioned appropriations:  
     Provided, That before a transfer may take place, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the 
     authority to make the transfer and such Committees issue an 
     approval, or absent a response, a period of 30 days has 
     elapsed.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 202.  Amounts made available for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2012, in this Act or any 
     other Act, under the ``Medical services'', ``Medical support 
     and compliance'', and ``Medical facilities'' accounts may be 
     transferred among the accounts:  Provided, That any transfers 
     between the ``Medical services'' and ``Medical support and 
     compliance'' accounts of 1 percent or less of the total 
     amount appropriated to the account in this or any other Act 
     may take place subject to notification from the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress of the amount and purpose of the transfer: 
      Provided further, That any transfers between the ``Medical 
     services'' and ``Medical support and compliance'' accounts in 
     excess of 1 percent, or exceeding the cumulative 1 percent 
     for the fiscal year, may take place only after the Secretary 
     requests from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress the authority to make the transfer and an 
     approval is issued:  Provided further, That any transfers to 
     or from the ``Medical facilities'' account may

[[Page 11106]]

     take place only after the Secretary requests from the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the 
     authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued.
       Sec. 203.  Appropriations available in this title for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for services 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; lease of a facility or land 
     or both; and uniforms or allowances therefore, as authorized 
     by sections 5901 through 5902 of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 204.  No appropriations in this title (except the 
     appropriations for ``Construction, major projects'', and 
     ``Construction, minor projects'') shall be available for the 
     purchase of any site for or toward the construction of any 
     new hospital or home.
       Sec. 205.  No appropriations in this title shall be 
     available for hospitalization or examination of any persons 
     (except beneficiaries entitled to such hospitalization or 
     examination under the laws providing such benefits to 
     veterans, and persons receiving such treatment under sections 
     7901 through 7904 of title 5, United States Code, or the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)), unless reimbursement of the 
     cost of such hospitalization or examination is made to the 
     ``Medical services'' account at such rates as may be fixed by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       Sec. 206.  Appropriations available in this title for 
     ``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and 
     ``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for 
     payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be 
     recorded by law against the corresponding prior year accounts 
     within the last quarter of fiscal year 2011.
       Sec. 207.  Appropriations available in this title shall be 
     available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding 
     prior year appropriations accounts resulting from sections 
     3328(a), 3334, and 3712(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
     except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts 
     they shall be payable only from ``Compensation and 
     pensions''.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 208.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2012, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund under 
     section 1920 of title 38, United States Code, the Veterans' 
     Special Life Insurance Fund under section 1923 of title 38, 
     United States Code, and the United States Government Life 
     Insurance Fund under section 1955 of title 38, United States 
     Code, reimburse the ``General operating expenses, Veterans 
     Benefits Administration'' and ``Information technology 
     systems'' accounts for the cost of administration of the 
     insurance programs financed through those accounts:  
     Provided, That reimbursement shall be made only from the 
     surplus earnings accumulated in such an insurance program 
     during fiscal year 2012 that are available for dividends in 
     that program after claims have been paid and actuarially 
     determined reserves have been set aside:  Provided further, 
     That if the cost of administration of such an insurance 
     program exceeds the amount of surplus earnings accumulated in 
     that program, reimbursement shall be made only to the extent 
     of such surplus earnings:  Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall determine the cost of administration for 
     fiscal year 2012 which is properly allocable to the provision 
     of each such insurance program and to the provision of any 
     total disability income insurance included in that insurance 
     program.
       Sec. 209.  Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease 
     proceeds to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by 
     that account during a prior fiscal year for providing 
     enhanced-use lease services, may be obligated during the 
     fiscal year in which the proceeds are received.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 210.  Funds available in this title or funds for 
     salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be 
     available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of 
     Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication under 
     section 319 of title 38, United States Code, for all services 
     provided at rates which will recover actual costs but not 
     exceed $42,904,000 for the Office of Resolution Management 
     and $3,360,000 for the Office of Employment and 
     Discrimination Complaint Adjudication:  Provided, That 
     payments may be made in advance for services to be furnished 
     based on estimated costs:  Provided further, That amounts 
     received shall be credited to the ``General administration'' 
     and ``Information technology systems'' accounts for use by 
     the office that provided the service.
       Sec. 211.  No appropriations in this title shall be 
     available to enter into any new lease of real property if the 
     estimated annual rental cost is more than $1,000,000, unless 
     the Secretary submits a report which the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress approve within 30 
     days following the date on which the report is received.
       Sec. 212.  No funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     shall be available for hospital care, nursing home care, or 
     medical services provided to any person under chapter 17 of 
     title 38, United States Code, for a non-service-connected 
     disability described in section 1729(a)(2) of such title, 
     unless that person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs, in such form as the Secretary may require, current, 
     accurate third-party reimbursement information for purposes 
     of section 1729 of such title:  Provided, That the Secretary 
     may recover, in the same manner as any other debt due the 
     United States, the reasonable charges for such care or 
     services from any person who does not make such disclosure as 
     required:  Provided further, That any amounts so recovered 
     for care or services provided in a prior fiscal year may be 
     obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in which 
     amounts are received.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 213.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     proceeds or revenues derived from enhanced-use leasing 
     activities (including disposal) may be deposited into the 
     ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor 
     projects'' accounts and be used for construction (including 
     site acquisition and disposition), alterations, and 
     improvements of any medical facility under the jurisdiction 
     or for the use of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such 
     sums as realized are in addition to the amount provided for 
     in ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor 
     projects''.
       Sec. 214.  Amounts made available under ``Medical 
     services'' are available--
       (1) for furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and 
     equipment; and
       (2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses, and other 
     expenses incidental to funerals and burials for beneficiaries 
     receiving care in the Department.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 215.  Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical 
     Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38, 
     United States Code, may be transferred to ``Medical 
     services'', to remain available until expended for the 
     purposes of that account.
       Sec. 216.  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may enter into 
     agreements with Indian tribes and tribal organizations which 
     are party to the Alaska Native Health Compact with the Indian 
     Health Service, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations 
     serving rural Alaska which have entered into contracts with 
     the Indian Health Service under the Indian Self Determination 
     and Educational Assistance Act, to provide healthcare, 
     including behavioral health and dental care. The Secretary 
     shall require participating veterans and facilities to comply 
     with all appropriate rules and regulations, as established by 
     the Secretary. The term ``rural Alaska'' shall mean those 
     lands sited within the external boundaries of the Alaska 
     Native regions specified in sections 7(a)(1)-(4) and (7)-(12) 
     of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 1606), and those lands within the Alaska Native 
     regions specified in sections 7(a)(5) and 7(a)(6) of the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 
     1606), which are not within the boundaries of the 
     Municipality of Anchorage, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, 
     the Kenai Peninsula Borough or the Matanuska Susitna Borough.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 217.  Such sums as may be deposited to the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Fund pursuant to section 
     8118 of title 38, United States Code, may be transferred to 
     the ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, 
     minor projects'' accounts, to remain available until expended 
     for the purposes of these accounts.
       Sec. 218.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors 
     of the Veterans Integrated Services Networks from conducting 
     outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their 
     respective Networks.
       Sec. 219.  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress a quarterly report on the financial status of the 
     Veterans Health Administration.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 220.  Amounts made available under the ``Medical 
     services'', ``Medical support and compliance'', ``Medical 
     facilities'', ``General operating expenses, Veterans Benefits 
     Administration'', ``General administration'', and ``National 
     cemetery administration'' accounts for fiscal year 2012, may 
     be transferred to or from the ``Information technology 
     systems'' account:  Provided, That before a transfer may take 
     place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from 
     the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 
     the authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 221.  Amounts made available for the ``Information 
     technology systems'' account for development, modernization, 
     and enhancement may be transferred between projects or to 
     newly defined projects:  Provided, That no project may be 
     increased or decreased by more than $1,000,000 of cost prior 
     to submitting a request to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of both Houses of Congress to make the transfer and an 
     approval is issued, or absent a response, a period of 30 days 
     has elapsed.
       Sec. 222.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act or any other Act for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs may be used in a manner that is inconsistent 
     with--
       (1) section 842 of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing 
     and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of 
     Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-115; 119 Stat. 2506); or
       (2) section 8110(a)(5) of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 223.  Of the amounts made available to the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2012, in this Act or any 
     other Act, under

[[Page 11107]]

     the ``Medical facilities'' account for nonrecurring 
     maintenance, not more than 20 percent of the funds made 
     available shall be obligated during the last 2 months of that 
     fiscal year:  Provided, That the Secretary may waive this 
     requirement after providing written notice to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 224.  Of the amounts appropriated to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2011 for ``Medical 
     services'', ``Medical support and compliance'', ``Medical 
     facilities'', ``Construction, minor projects'', and 
     ``Information technology systems'', up to $241,666,000, plus 
     reimbursements, may be transferred to the Joint Department of 
     Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
     Demonstration Fund, established by section 1704 of title XVII 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be used for 
     operation of the facilities designated as combined Federal 
     medical facilities as described by section 706 of the Duncan 
     Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4500):  Provided, That 
     additional funds may be transferred from accounts designated 
     in this section to the Joint Department of Defense-Department 
     of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund upon 
     written notification by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 225.  Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical 
     Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38, 
     United States Code, for healthcare provided at facilities 
     designated as combined Federal medical facilities as 
     described by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 
     110-417; 122 Stat. 4500) shall also be available:
       (1) for transfer to the Joint Department of Defense-
     Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
     Fund, established by section 1704 of title XVII of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
     (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 3571); and
       (2) for operations of the facilities designated as combined 
     Federal medical facilities as described by section 706 of the 
     Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4500).

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 226.  Of the amounts available in this title for 
     ``Medical services'', ``Medical support and compliance'', and 
     ``Medical facilities'', a minimum of $15,000,000, shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Defense/Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund, as 
     authorized by section 8111(d) of title 38, United States 
     Code, to remain available until expended, for any purpose 
     authorized by section 8111 of title 38, United States Code.

                    (including rescission of funds)

       Sec. 227. (a) Of the funds appropriated in title X of 
     division B of Public Law 112-10, the following amounts which 
     will become available on October 1, 2011, are hereby 
     rescinded from the following accounts in the amounts 
     specified:
       (1) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical services'', 
     $1,400,000,000.
       (2) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical support and 
     compliance'', $100,000,000.
       (3) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical facilities'', 
     $250,000,000.
       (b) In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act, 
     an additional amount is appropriated to the following 
     accounts in the amounts specified, to become available on 
     October 1, 2011, and to remain available until September 30, 
     2013:
       (1) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical services'', 
     $1,400,000,000.
       (2) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical support and 
     compliance'', $100,000,000.
       (3) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical facilities'', 
     $250,000,000.
       Sec. 228.  The Secretary of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress of all bid savings in major construction 
     projects that total at least $5,000,000, or 5 percent of the 
     programmed amount of the project, whichever is less:  
     Provided, That such notification shall occur within 14 days 
     of a contract identifying the programmed amount:  Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall notify the committees 14 
     days prior to the obligation of such bid savings and shall 
     describe the anticipated use of such savings.
       Sec. 229.  The scope of work for a project included in 
     ``Construction, major projects'' may not be increased above 
     the scope specified for that project in the original 
     justification data provided to the Congress as part of the 
     request for appropriations.

                               TITLE III

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, including the 
     acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; 
     purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national 
     cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its 
     territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space 
     in foreign countries; purchase (one-for-one replacement basis 
     only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed 
     $7,500 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign 
     countries, when required by law of such countries, 
     $61,100,000, to remain available until expended.

                 foreign currency fluctuations account

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended, for purposes 
     authorized by section 2109 of title 36, United States Code.

           United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation of the United 
     States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by 
     sections 7251 through 7298 of title 38, United States Code, 
     $30,770,000:  Provided, That $2,726,323 shall be available 
     for the purpose of providing financial assistance as 
     described, and in accordance with the process and reporting 
     procedures set forth, under this heading in Public Law 102-
     229.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for 
     maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National 
     Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, 
     including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $45,800,000, to remain 
     available until expended:  Provided, That none of the funds 
     available under this heading shall be for construction of a 
     perimeter wall at Arlington National Cemetery. In addition, 
     such sums as may be necessary for parking maintenance, 
     repairs and replacement, to be derived from the Lease of 
     Department of Defense Real Property for Defense Agencies 
     account.
       Funds appropriated under this Act may be provided to 
     Arlington County, Virginia, for the relocation of the 
     federally owned water main at Arlington National Cemetery 
     making additional land available for ground burials.

                      Armed Forces Retirement Home

                               trust fund

       For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
     Washington, District of Columbia, and the Armed Forces 
     Retirement Home--Gulfport, Mississippi, to be paid from funds 
     available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund, 
     $67,700,000, of which $2,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for construction and renovation of the physical 
     plants at the Armed Forces Retirement Home--Washington, 
     District of Columbia, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
     Gulfport, Mississippi.

                                TITLE IV

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 402.  Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2012 for pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 403.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the program, project, or 
     activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating 
     to risk assessment, the protection of private property 
     rights, or unfunded mandates.
       Sec. 404.  No part of any funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other 
     than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television, or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before 
     Congress, except in presentation to Congress itself.
       Sec. 405.  All departments and agencies funded under this 
     Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing 
     statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of 
     ``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of 
     their business practices and public service activities.
       Sec. 406.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer 
     made by, or transfer authority provided in, this or any other 
     appropriations Act.
       Sec. 407.  Unless stated otherwise, all reports and 
     notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the 
     Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, 
     and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Military 
     Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
       Sec. 408. (a) Any agency receiving funds made available in 
     this Act, shall, subject to subsections (b) and (c), post on 
     the public website of that agency any report required to be 
     submitted by the Congress in this or any other Act, upon the 
     determination by the head of the agency that it shall serve 
     the national interest.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
       (1) the public posting of the report compromises national 
     security; or

[[Page 11108]]

       (2) the report contains confidential or proprietary 
     information.
       (c) The head of the agency posting such report shall do so 
     only after such report has been made available to the 
     requesting Committee or Committees of Congress for no less 
     than 45 days.
       Sec. 409. (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense in 
     this Act may be used to construct, renovate, or expand any 
     facility in the United States, its territories, or 
     possessions to house any individual detained at United States 
     Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of 
     detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control 
     of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.
       (b) Exception.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to any modification of facilities at United States 
     Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
        This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction and 
     Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2012''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam 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. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam President, I am pleased to present 
the fiscal year 2012 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and 
related agencies appropriations bill to the Senate. The bill was 
unanimously reported out of the committee on June 30. It is a fiscally 
disciplined and bipartisan measure, and I hope all Senators will 
support it.
  I thank my ranking member, Senator Kirk, for his contributions in 
crafting this bill. He has taken a very active role on the 
subcommittee, and it has been a pleasure to work with him. I also thank 
Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, as well as Leader Reid and 
Minority Leader McConnell for their support and assistance in moving 
this bill forward.
  The MILCON-VA appropriations bill provides crucial investments in 
infrastructure for our military, including barracks and family housing, 
mission critical training and operational facilities, schools and 
hospitals, and childcare and family support centers. It also fulfills 
the Nation's promise to our vets by providing the resources needed for 
their medical care and benefits.
  Madam President, the bill before the Senate today totals $142 
billion, of which $72.5 billion is discretionary funding. We are all 
mindful of the severe economic problems facing this Nation, and this 
bill reflects that reality. It is $1.25 billion below the budget 
request and $618 million below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. I 
can assure my colleagues there are no congressional earmarks in the 
bill.
  As always, protecting essential benefits and health care for veterans 
tops my list of priorities. With an aging population of veterans 
requiring increased services, and a surge of combat veterans from the 
Iraq and Afghanistan wars entering the system, the demand for VA health 
care services has increased dramatically in recent years. The number of 
Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in the VA health care system will exceed 
half a million in 2012, a 106-percent increase since 2008.
  The sluggish economy is exacerbating the pressure on the VA as more 
and more out of work or underemployed veterans turn to the VA for their 
health care.
  This bill provides $58.6 billion for VA discretionary funding, $2.3 
billion over current funding. Nearly 90 percent of the funding--$50.6 
billion--is for veterans health care. The bill also includes $52.5 
billion in fiscal year 2013 advance appropriations for veterans medical 
care.
  The bill includes $2.9 billion, as requested, to meet the health care 
needs of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, a $594 
million increase over the current funding. This funding includes 
research and treatment programs for mental health issues, including 
traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.
  One of the very few areas in which the bill provides an increase in 
funding is VA medical research, which is funded at $581 million, $72 
million over the budget request, to restore funding to the current 
level. This program funds a broad array of vital research efforts 
including mental health, spinal cord injury, burn treatment, polytrauma 
injuries, and sensory loss.
  The bill includes $4.9 billion for health care and support services 
for homeless veterans. Ending homelessness among veterans is a top 
priority of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, and it is a goal fully 
supported by the committee. As a result of programs the Secretary has 
instituted, and the robust funding provided in recent MilCon/VA bills 
to implement them, the average number of homeless veterans on any given 
night has dropped from 195,000 6 years ago to 75,600 this year. The 
funding in this bill provides the resources to continue to make headway 
on this very important initiative.
  As a Senator from a rural State, I am pleased to report that the bill 
also includes $250 million for programs, such as mobile clinics and 
telemedicine services, to support rural and Native American veterans. 
This continues the rural health initiative that I initiated in the 
fiscal year 2009 MilCon/VA bill, and reflects the importance that both 
Congress and the VA place on meeting the needs of veterans who live in 
rural areas and must often travel hundreds of miles for treatment at a 
VA facility.
  The bill also includes $52 million for collaborative efforts with the 
Indian Health Service to ensure that Native American veterans receive 
the care that they have earned. I am encouraged by this funding and by 
the fact that the VA created an Office of Tribal Government Relations 
earlier this year to expand outreach to American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Access to health care among Native 
Americans is a major problem in South Dakota and other rural States, 
and I believe that collaboration between the VA and the Indian Health 
Service is essential to leverage the resources and services of both 
agencies.
  Information technology, or IT, represents another important 
investment in this bill. The bill provides the full $3.2 billion as 
requested in the budget to develop electronic health care records, 
paperless claims systems, and seamless integration of medical and 
service records with the Defense Department. Secretary Shinseki and 
former Defense Secretary Robert Gates worked very closely over the past 
year to develop a framework for implementing a joint VA-DOD electronic 
health care record system. Their leadership and determination to 
overcome bureaucratic hurdles to a find a joint electronic solution to 
the current maze of paperwork involved in transferring health records 
from DOD to VA was key to making progress on this long-stalled effort.
  The Secretaries have announced that the Departments have agreed to 
pursue a number of integrated development approaches including the 
decision to share common data centers and to utilize open source 
software development. I hope that implementing a joint electronic 
health record system remains a top priority for Secretary Panetta as he 
assumes the leadership of the Defense Department.
  There are several other notable VA programs funded in this bill, 
including $270 million for women's veterans programs, $6.9 billion for 
long term care for veterans, and $112 million for the VA Inspector 
General's Office. Each of these programs meets an emerging requirement 
for the VA.
  As more and more women join the ranks of America's veterans entitled 
to VA health care, their unique needs require a reevaluation and 
reemphasis of services offered in VA clinics and hospitals.
  Long-term care for veterans is also emerging as a mounting need for 
veterans, including both the growing population of aging veterans as 
well as severely wounded veterans from the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  With the growth and complexity of VA services, it is essential to 
maintain vigilant oversight of VA programs. The committee, therefore, 
has provided $112 million for the Office of Inspector General, $3 
million over the budget request, to support robust oversight by the 
inspector general.

[[Page 11109]]

  The bill also provides the full budget request for both major and 
minor construction as well as the full advance appropriation request 
for medical facilities. However, I have deep concerns about the VA's 
budget request in all three areas. With this year's budget submission, 
the Department also transmitted its 10-year Strategic Capital 
Investment Plan. The plan identifies a requirement of between $53 
billion and $65 billion over the next decade to address critical 
infrastructure needs. Yet, the combined request for both major and 
minor construction is $400.8 million below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level. Additionally, the advance request for medical facilities 
includes $600.2 million for nonrecurring maintenance at existing 
clinics and hospitals, a $510 million decrease from what is being spent 
this year.
  While I understand that the budget crisis facing the country requires 
sacrifice and belt tightening from all sectors, funding decreases of 
this magnitude given the requirements and the age of VA facilities is 
alarming. I urge the Department to develop and submit a comprehensive 
plan with next year's budget submission identifying specific ways in 
which to adequately finance VA's infrastructure needs.
  In addition to the above mentioned items, the budget submission 
included a request to establish a $953 million contingency fund to be 
available for medical care if a larger than expected number of veterans 
turns to the VA for health care as a result of the lagging economy. The 
contingency fund was to be composed of carryover funds already 
available to the VA as a result of the Federal pay freeze plus $240 
million in fiscal year 12 funding.
  Instead of creating a loosely defined contingency fund based on an 
untested projection of the VA's standard modeling formula, the 
committee has directed the Department to use $664 million in carryover 
funds made available by the Federal pay freeze, as well as additional 
carryover funds projected to reach $500 million by the end of fiscal 
year 12, to address this contingency, should it arise.
  With little room to maneuver on the VA side of the ledger, the vast 
majority of the savings in the bill comes from incrementing or 
deferring funding for certain military construction projects. The bill 
provides $13.7 billion for military construction, $1 billion below the 
request. The MilCon reductions in the bill are restricted to the active 
duty components. The Guard and Reserve components, Family Housing, BRAC 
and other accounts are fully funded at the President's request.
  The MilCon portion of this bill mirrors the Senate Defense 
authorization bill, which was unanimously reported out of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee on June 16. Every military construction 
project funded in this bill is authorized in the authorization bill. In 
fact, if you do the math, 52 Senators in this Chamber have already 
voted in favor of the MilCon portion of this bill.
  Because of the constrained budget environment, the bill does not 
provide any increase in funding for military construction projects. 
Several Senators urged the committee to provide additional funding for 
such things as Army Guard readiness centers or various unfunded 
requirements of the services. In normal times, the committee would 
wholeheartedly support these efforts, but given the austere budget 
circumstances, there was simply no money to fund these initiatives.
  In addition to MilCon and VA, the bill includes $221 million for 
several related agencies, including $77 million for the American Battle 
Monuments Commission as requested; $45.8 million for Arlington National 
Cemetery as requested, and $67.7 million for the Armed Forces 
Retirement Home as requested. The bill also provides $30.8 million for 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which is $25 million 
below the request. The reduction reflects the committee's decision to 
defer funding for a proposed courthouse for the Court until 
uncertainties surrounding the cost and location of the project can be 
resolved.
  Madam President, I again thank my ranking member for his support in 
crafting this bill. I also thank the staff of the subcommittee--
Christina Evans, Chad Schulken and Andy Vanlandingham of my staff; 
Dennis Balkham and D'Ann Letteri of the minority staff, and former 
minority staffer Ben Hammond--for their months of hard work and 
cooperative effort to produce this bill.
  Again, this is a well-balanced and bipartisan bill. It provides 
resources vital to the well being of our troops and their families, and 
to the millions of veterans who have served and sacrificed for their 
Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield the 
Floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I first came to Capitol Hill in 1984 
during Ronald Reagan's first term. I believe it was Chairman Hatfield 
running the committee on the Senate side and Jamie Whitten on the House 
side. I care very much about the appropriations process and the 
Appropriations Committee because I think we spend less with a higher 
degree of transparency when we consider appropriations bills in regular 
order, as this one now is.
  This bill funds our veterans programs and our military construction 
needs mainly for the Active-Duty and Reserve Americans who wear the 
uniform--or wore the uniform--upon which all of our freedoms and the 
independence of our country depends. Today, there are over 20 million 
veterans, and this bill cares for them in a bipartisan way. We owe 
these veterans just about everything--for our independence and 
freedom--and this bill cares for them.
  Now, why, in this difficult and partisan time, is this bill coming up 
in this way? Why is it that we have every Republican on the 
subcommittee and the full committee in favor of this legislation? It is 
because the chairman made the decision, that I strongly supported, to 
mark to the House level. When we marked to the House level, we opened 
the door for full bipartisan support for this needed bill.
  We present to the Senate this bill for full consideration, taking 
into account all of the requests of Members in their budget submission. 
But let me emphasize that not only are we slightly below the House 
spending level in discretionary budget authority, there are no earmarks 
in this bill, reflecting the new wave of reform that has come to the 
Appropriations Committee--both the House and the Senate.
  We have made a tough set of spending decisions in this bill. We have 
come in $1.2 billion below President Obama's spending request. We came 
in $620 million below last year's level. I was a bit surprised we were 
able to do this--and that we did--but we are even $2.6 million below 
the House Republican-approved level in the bill put together by 
Chairman Culberson.
  This bill spends in discretionary budget authority less than the 
House of Representatives, and I will just point out that when the House 
took up this legislation, over 400 Members of the House of 
Representatives--Republicans and Democrats--supported this legislation, 
and only five Members of the House voted against this legislation. That 
is why this legislation enjoys such tremendous bipartisan support on 
our side.
  This bill would not be possible without the outstanding work of 
Chairman Johnson and his staff, his military experience and, most 
importantly, his son's military experience. On behalf of the veterans 
of his State, he has done a very good job, with my full support. We 
take care of our veterans and their benefits, their health care, and 
the construction of medical facilities in this legislation.
  Madam President, many veterans live in urban areas, but also a great 
many live in rural and even highly rural areas. This bill pays 
attention to their needs thanks to the chairman, and also I want to 
highlight the work of the Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, in the 
decisions we made in this bill to make sure veterans who live in the 
State of Alaska will not, in many cases now, need to leave the State 
for their veterans care.
  We have also worked diligently with our veterans service 
organizations, and

[[Page 11110]]

I would highlight this bill has now been endorsed by the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, by AMVETS, by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the 
Disabled American Veterans, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 
America. I take the last endorsement very seriously, having, as a 
reservist, served in Afghanistan myself.
  Chairman Johnson highlighted the funding levels in this bill, which I 
think are quite important, but I would also like to highlight several 
policy issues in this bill. No. 1, originally, the administration--our 
commander in South Korea--put forward an idea to bring almost 50,000 
American dependents to South Korea to build homes and hospitals and 
schools. But the cost could be upwards of over $20 billion to transfer 
that many Americans to the Korean peninsula.
  Given this time of deficits and debt, and given this enormous bill, I 
think DOD is rethinking this proposal, as they wisely should. I think 
this bill lays out a set of concerns over where we go with such a 
spending decision.
  With regard to Guantanamo--very important to me--originally there was 
a proposal to transfer the al-Qaida core of terrorists to my State, to 
Thompson, IL. This bill wisely concludes the overwhelming bipartisan 
provision prohibiting the construction or renovation of any facility in 
the United States or its territories for individuals detained at 
Guantanamo Bay.
  With regard to Guam, while the Navy is attempting to move more than 
17,000 marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam, the plan that 
Chairman Johnson and I have seen has serious problems. Therefore, there 
are no projects in this bill associated with this very complicated 
move.
  We did fund the Air Force request for projects related to the Strike 
capability for the bed down of Strike and intelligence capabilities, 
but the rest we are looking for further information.
  Also, with regard to our military infrastructure in Germany, we 
believe there is a better need for accounting of funds that we provide 
for facilities, and, as a result, we cut about $37 million from the 
requested projects.
  With regard to charter schools and improving education for our 
military families, we think the children of servicemembers have a 
unique situation and fewer choices when choosing schools. So we have 
asked the Department of Defense to conduct a study and tell this 
committee where charter schools could make a positive difference.
  I will highlight here my work with my fellow Senator, Mr. Durbin, on 
potential charter school operations serving the men and women and the 
families of the Great Lakes community in northern Illinois.
  I raise the one particular issue important to me, which is that over 
time we are planning on spending upwards of $20 billion, as we should, 
on the new facilities for Guam. But I think if we are going to make 
that kind of investment in Guam, we need to make sure those facilities 
are there when the United States needs them most in a military 
capacity, which is during combat. That is why it is so essential to 
provide also for the missile defense of Guam, and, I would say, for the 
missile defense of Guam on platforms that cannot be sunk. That is why 
we are calling on the Department of Defense not to ignore plans to 
provide for the missile defense of Guam, and, I would say to emphasize, 
a land-based solution that is more survivable.
  We also highlighted more scrutiny on the budget request, especially 
with regard to funding for general officers quarters. I will say that 
in my review, along with the chairman, we saw a disciplined budget 
request largely by the Air Force and the Navy to house our Air Force 
generals and admirals; but I have been disappointed with the Army, 
which originally came forward with a request for $1.4 million to 
upgrade a general's garden in Germany. Luckily, the Army has pulled 
back that request, and we are looking for further scrutiny to make sure 
that general officer quarters budget requests are in line with the 
practice of the sister services of the Air Force and the Navy.
  This bill also handles issues with regard to the VA, especially on 
information technology. This bill fully funds the account and 
encourages the Department to pursue open-source, off-the-shelf 
technology for electronic health records, and I think that is critical 
to maintaining cost containment as we go forward.
  I will also say we have been urging the Department of Defense and 
Veterans Affairs to come up with one common electronic medical record. 
The vision here is that when an American joins the U.S. military, that 
record then follows that servicemember through, at minimum, for 
example, a 3-year enlistment, and then a 60-year to 90-year time as a 
veteran. It should be a common record. I hope the two Secretaries, 
Panetta and Shinseki, move to finally make sure that becomes a reality.
  With regard to the contingency fund in this bill, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs requested a contingency fund in the event they needed 
additional funds. We do not support establishing this fund but did 
allow the Department to keep $664 million it received last year in 
advance appropriations for the now-prohibited pay raises. This should 
be adequate to ensure our veterans are not only cared for but will give 
the VA some flexibility during the period of conflict in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  This bill also emphasizes caregivers who give care to our wounded 
veterans, veterans who live in rural areas, and veterans who are sent 
to facilities a long distance from their home, as I mentioned, in the 
State of Alaska. We also highlighted the issue of claims processing so 
our veterans could finally receive the compensation they deserve in a 
reasonable amount of time.
  I want to echo the chairman's thanks to the staff, especially led by 
Tina Evans on the Democratic side and Dennis Balkham on the Republican 
side.
  In short, this is a very good bill. It represents the Senate moving 
forward under regular order. It represents greater transparency to the 
appropriations process.
  I would highlight, we have cut or reduced funding in 24 separate 
major areas, and these were hard choices to make. We did them in line 
with the decisions made by the authorizing committee under Chairmen 
Levin and McCain's leadership. We also completely denied funding for a 
proposed brandnew building to house the Court of Veterans Appeals. In 
this time of deficit and debt, I think we should hold off.
  In sum, this bill represents cooperation between Republicans and 
Democrats. This bill represents budget control and cooperation between 
House and Senate. This bill represents cooperation and coordination 
between the authorizing Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee, and this bill, underlined with the endorsement of major 
veterans service organizations, represents a commitment to our 
veterans.
  I think we should move forward. I know later we will consider a point 
of order with regard to not taking up a bill prior to the adoption of a 
formal budget. I would hope that common sense would prevail here; that 
because this is one of those rare measures where we are marking up to 
the House level that only five Members of the House voted against at 
that level, that all of the Republicans and all of the Democrats on the 
subcommittee voted for this legislation, and yesterday 89 Members voted 
in overwhelming bipartisan fashion for cloture to bring this bill up so 
we can get the Senate moving again, that we can get the appropriations 
process moving again, that we can stand by our men and women in uniform 
who need these facilities, and our veterans, and that, yes, we can 
control spending in full agreement with the House of Representatives 
but still move the Senate forward.
  Madam President, with that, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their 
excellent presentation. They are excellent Senators. And, from all that 
appears, they produced a piece of legislation that will be positive for 
our country. But

[[Page 11111]]

the pending measure, H.R. 2055, An Act Making Appropriations for 
Military Construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs and related 
Agencies, offered by the Senators, would appropriate Federal funds for 
the year 2012. However, the Senate has not yet adopted a concurrent 
budget resolution for 2012, and there is no 302(a) allocation in place 
for that fiscal year.
  Section 303(c) of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits 
consideration of any appropriation bill until a concurrent resolution 
on the budget has been agreed to and an allocation has been made to the 
Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2012, or any subsequent 
year.
  Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to 
section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the point of 
order under section 303 of that act for H.R. 2055, and any amendments 
thereto and motions thereon.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I object and would debate the issue.
  I make this motion for a very important reason, not directly related 
to the quality of the work of Senator Johnson and Senator Kirk in 
producing this bill, but a very important question concerning the 
budget of the United States.
  We have in the United States Code a budget act. The budget act says 
you shouldn't be bringing forth appropriating bills until you have a 
budget. That is pretty simple, that is pretty commonsensical, and it is 
the correct way to do business. We haven't had a budget for 806 days 
now. The reason we are spending this country into bankruptcy is we have 
had no budget. This year, the majority has not even sought to bring one 
to committee, and certainly not brought one on the floor.
  The Democratic leadership said it would be foolish to pass a budget. 
Well, I don't think it is foolish to pass a budget. I think our lack of 
budget is the reason we have gotten out of control in what we are 
doing. So that is the reason why I made the objection.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to enter into 
a colloquy with my Republican colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would say this is a very important 
matter, and I don't like to have to take this action, but I believe it 
is the right action.
  I see on the floor Senator Corker from Tennessee. He was mayor of the 
city of Chattanooga and as mayor he produced budgets and actually did 
one of the greatest jobs of any mayor of the United States, the truth 
be known, in making that city the fabulous place it is today. He is a 
businessman also.
  I ask Senator Corker, what are his thoughts at this point in time 
about the state of the financial management of the taxpayers' money 
being handled by the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Madam President.
  I thank the Senator from Alabama for his comments and leadership on 
the Budget Committee.
  To the two gentlemen, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from 
South Dakota, I thank them for their work in appropriations. This 
discussion on the floor has absolutely nothing to do with work they 
have done. I understand actually the top line they are using is within 
the budget that was passed through the House.
  The reason I am here today, though, is for this reason: There aren't 
many Senators on either side of the aisle who believe the Senate is 
functioning in an appropriate manner. I can't go to the dining room or 
any other place, walk down the hall, get on the subway, without some 
Senator saying, Can you believe how this place is operating? Our 
allowing spending bills to come to the floor and to be voted upon 
without having budgets basically makes us an accomplice in allowing 
this place to continue to be dysfunctional.
  We are having a showdown over the debt ceiling because there isn't 
any other place to have a showdown. I realize many people have decided 
that is not the appropriate place, and there has been a scheme 
concocted to sort of allow both sides to have it as they may and try to 
fight this out in the electoral process down the road instead of 
dealing with some of the tough issues we ought to deal with now.
  But it seems to me that what we do by going on about our business in 
this way is we act as accomplices to the dysfunctionality of the 
Senate. It is my belief this Senate, by virtue of the way we are 
acting, is making this great Nation weaker. That is what we are doing. 
This Chamber we are standing in right now is causing this great Nation 
to decline because we are unwilling to come down here. I would say, 
candidly, leadership on both sides of the aisle doesn't want us to come 
down and make tough decisions. Either side wants it 100 percent their 
way. But we realize that to move things ahead, you have got to 
skirmish, you have got to fight, you have got to debate. Sometimes you 
have to do some things you don't want to do to move the country ahead. 
But we are avoiding that, and what we are doing today is moving 
possibly to an appropriations bill, a spending bill, without a budget.
  I can't imagine in a country spending $3.7 trillion, 40 percent of it 
that we don't have, that we are going to move to spending bills without 
resolving these particular issues. So I am extremely disappointed.
  I know I have been saying some pretty strong things on the floor, but 
it is because I am concerned about this country. I know everybody here 
is concerned about this country. It is not as if those of us who have 
been talking about this issue are the only ones. That is not the image 
or perception I am trying to project. I think sometimes we go to sleep 
at the switch. We go about our business almost as zombies down here, 
continuing to allow this dysfunctionality to occur.
  I am all in support of the movement put in place here to basically 
not allow this to go forward because we don't have a budget. That is 
the appropriate place for us to be.
  I hope the Senate, in spite of the fact this appropriations bill 
funds some things that candidly we all support--we want to see veterans 
get benefits. But those veterans, many of them, lost limbs doing tough 
things for our country, and they are watching potentially us not having 
the courage to do tough things on the floor that might flesh this out, 
that might cause us to actually take a tough position on the floor. 
But, oh, that might affect electoral politics down the road, so instead 
of doing that, we will go 806 days without a budget.
  Look, I am disappointed. I am disappointed in all of us on both sides 
of the aisle. I do not think we should be going to a spending bill 
until we do the tough business that we were sent here to do as 
Senators.
  With that, I yield to my friend from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Before recognizing other Senators, I briefly ask 
Senator Corker, having been a businessman and a mayor and having 
observed the political scene in the country, is the Senator aware of 
any government entity--city, county or State--that systemically, almost 
structural, is borrowing 40 cents out of every $1 they spend? Can he 
remember any time in Tennessee, in any city or State, that ever ran 
such a deficit?
  Mr. CORKER. No, I cannot. The fact is, that is why recent polls show 
Americans have about a 20-percent approval rating of Congress. What I 
would say, based on what I know, based on what we are getting ready to 
do on the floor today, 20 percent is way too high. The fact is we do 
everything we can to avoid tough decisions in public, tough decisions 
in public where we have to take a stand.
  That is what we were elected to do. That is what the veterans who 
receive benefits, if this bill passes, did. That is what we are not 
doing. My guess is they will be willing to wait until this bill 
passes--it doesn't fund things until next year--and allow us to make 
the

[[Page 11112]]

tough decisions we need to make as we flesh out a budget, as we work 
out among ourselves to finally come to a place we agree upon in funding 
this government.
  I certainly appreciate the leadership of the Senator. I know others 
want to speak at this moment and I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Corker. I just would say the spasm that 
is occurring in the Senate, the frustration that is boiling up, is not 
for light or transient reasons. It is a big deal when the U.S. 
Government has been for months and will continue to be borrowing about 
40 percent of every $1 we spend, running up the largest deficits the 
Nation has ever seen. The law says, the United States Code says you 
should have a budget.
  When you set a budget, you take all the bills that are out there and 
tell them how much money they have to spend so the total amount of 
money at the end does not exceed a dangerous level for the country. 
That is what a budget does.
  We are going to seek and repeatedly call to the attention of this 
Senate that we have the cart before the horse. We are spending money 
without a budget and we are going to have to have a budget or else we 
are not in control of our spending. Once you have a budget, it takes 60 
votes to violate the budget. You can stick to it if you make up your 
mind to do so. We do not have to violate it and burst the budget. That 
is what we are talking about today. It is a matter of great 
seriousness. I am pleased my colleague, Senator Rand Paul from 
Kentucky, who was elected last fall to this body, is here. I know he 
talked about the State of the American economy and our debt during that 
campaign.
  I ask the Senator, what are his thoughts as we approach this moment?
  Mr. PAUL. I wish to join in the sort of the outrage that we would 
consider spending money without having a plan. Who spends money with no 
plan as to how much you are going to spend or a plan as to what the 
repercussions are for spending money you do not have? We are spending 
$100,000 a second. By the time I finish this sentence, we will have 
spent $\1/2\ million.
  Of that $100,000 a second, we are borrowing $40,000 a second. The 
President is asking us now--you all heard about it, the debate is on--
the President is asking us to add $2 trillion of spending and 
borrowing, of borrowing and spending--$2 trillion. How long will it 
last? We do not know because there is not a budget, but there is going 
to be an estimated $2 trillion that will be spent in the next year that 
we do not have.
  What does that mean to a country? There are estimates that our 
deficit now, which approaches the size of our economy, is costing us 1 
million jobs a year. What does that mean? That also means less revenue, 
which means worse deficits. It is all compounding upon itself.
  We have a rule and a law within the Senate--is it called the budget 
resolution from 1974?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Budget Act.
  Mr. PAUL. In this, it had some rules. Right now we are discussing: Do 
we need new rules to do something about the deficit? This was a rule 
they thought about back in 1974. It was supposed to make things better. 
But it shows the rules only work if we obey them. We will be in 
defiance of this rule. That is the question I have for Senator 
Sessions: Will we be in defiance of our own rules if we go forward with 
an appropriation without a budget?
  Mr. SESSIONS. It absolutely will. It sets forth precisely the 
language. It requires this. It is pretty clear. I don't think there is 
any doubt about it: Until the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year has been agreed to and an allocation has been made to the 
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate under section 302(a) for that 
year, it shall not be in order for the Senate to consider any 
appropriations bill.
  That is pretty clear. I am pleased to see the Senator is a doctor, 
not a lawyer, but I believe almost anybody could understand that point.
  Mr. PAUL. What was the intention, though? What was the intention that 
rule would do? By having a budget was it supposed to limit, then, what 
each appropriations bill for each subject would be allowed to spend?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. I am sure in 1974 they were concerned 
about the process in the Senate. They decided to try to bring order to 
it. They decided to require the budget be passed which sends a message 
over to the Appropriations Committee. This is a subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee producing their MILCON proposal.
  They then give them numbers which they are supposed to stay within. 
If they do not, it requires a 60-vote total to proceed above the budget 
number. It is a way to bring integrity to the system.
  Mr. PAUL. So by invoking this rule from the 1974 Budget Act, the 
Senator's intention has nothing to do with the bill presented before 
us, it has to do with whether we should be responsible as a government, 
have a budgetary plan, know how much money comes in, know how much 
money is being spent, and do the responsible things the American people 
expect of us.
  I am concerned what happens if we keep on this path. If we keep 
spending money at the rate we are spending it, within about a decade 
entitlements and interest consume the whole budget, that is, if 
interest rates do not go up. As you noticed the other day when Larry 
Lindsey wrote about it in the Wall Street Journal, he said if interest 
rates go up to where they have historically been, we will add another 
$5 trillion. My fear is the economy will not withstand it, our country 
will not withstand it, and we need to have somebody to say enough is 
enough.
  The country needs to have a plan. We need to budget how much money 
comes in and how much we can spend. I think this is a good first step.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. I cannot think of a more important 
time in history for us to return to the tried and true budgetary 
process than at a time in which we are spending to a degree that is 
irresponsible, above anything we have ever done before. It is 
threatening the American economy. It is not a light, little problem. It 
is a serious problem. We are going now 805, 806 days without a budget. 
That is part of the problem.
  We are going to continue to work to insist that we proceed in the 
regular order under a budget. The House has passed a budget. The 
Republican House passed one by April 15, as the law requires. We have 
not even had a markup in the Budget Committee because the Democratic 
leadership has decided it is not fun to vote on a budget. You have to 
show your cards. You have to show where you are going to raise taxes, 
where you are going to cut spending, and how much the deficit is going 
to be after it is all over.
  President Obama's budget received such a poor reception because it 
was so unbalanced and irresponsible that, I guess, maybe they decided 
it would be foolish, as the leader said, for the Senate to even produce 
one. That is not a good reason.
  I know it might be appropriate that we yield at this point to our 
colleagues and let them share any remarks they have.
  Mr. PAUL. I have a question before we finish. The question I have is: 
We have not had a budget in 2 years. When is the last time we had 
appropriations bills and are we working in the committees? See, the 
people expect us to come up here and do our jobs and I think our job is 
in committee. We deliberate over a budget in your Budget Committee. 
Over appropriations, are we deliberating over appropriations or have we 
had any committee hearings over the debt ceiling or how we could cut 
spending in order to spend so much money we do not have? Are we in the 
process of doing what we are supposed to be doing in committee?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I don't believe we are, but I have to give this 
subcommittee credit. I am told that the appropriations bill now before 
the Senate is the first stand-alone appropriations bill brought to the 
floor of the Senate since 2008.
  When I came here, we would try to pass all our appropriations bills, 
at

[[Page 11113]]

least a number of them, before the August recess and all by September 
30. When we did not, we were embarrassed. In the last several years, 
everything has been cobbled into one big continuing resolution and 
moved in a block.
  I guess I say to my colleagues as I yield the floor, thank you for 
proceeding at a pace to get a bill forward. It is not your fault that 
we have not had a budget at this point in time.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I believe Senator Kirk 
would like to speak in favor of the motion to waive and I yield him as 
much time as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I thank our ranking Republican member on the 
Budget Committee because in normal circumstances I would be strongly 
supporting him and agree with him. The irony is, this legislation 
conforms to a budget, it conforms to the Paul Ryan House budget and 
fits under the 302(b) allocation; that is, the amount of money the 
House granted to the House Appropriations Subcommittee that wrote this 
bill. When this bill passed our very conservative House of 
Representatives, only five Members of the House voted against it. All 
the leading Members of the House voted for it.
  We talk about needing to make tough decisions. I appreciate the 
Members and their praise for the underlying legislation because we made 
some tough decisions. We looked at the President's request and we made 
a number of cuts.
  In Alaska, at Fort Wainwright, we cut $57 million from their aviation 
complex; in Germany, at Gemersheim Central Distribution Facility we cut 
$21 million; also, at that same facility, their infrastructure we cut 
by $16 million; at Fort Bliss, for the maintenance facility, we 
terminated funding for that, also for their infrastructure proposal; at 
Fort Belvoir, road and infrastructure projects, we terminated that 
project. In Honduras, at Soto Cano, we made a $5 million reduction; in 
California, the Coronado Fitness Center for North Island, we made a $14 
million reduction; in California, at Bridgeport, for a multipurpose 
building, an addition, we made a $3 million reduction; in the Persian 
Gulf, in Bahrain, for the bachelors' enlisted quarters, we terminated 
funding for that for this fiscal year; also, in Bahrain, a waterfront 
development, also terminated that; in the Marianas, at the North Ramp 
utilities, we also terminated that. That was a $78 million reduction. 
In Marianas, at the north ramp facility, we also terminated with a $78 
million reduction; also in the Finnegan Water Utilities, ended funding 
for that project. In Guam, at the Guam Strike Fuel Systems Maintenance 
Handler, we cut funding in half, saving $64 million. In Nebraska, at 
Offutt, we made a $30 million reduction for their replacement facility 
No. 1. In Al Udeid in Qatar, we terminated funding for the Blatchford-
Preston Complex. In Utah, at Hill Air Force Base, we terminated funding 
for the F-35 ADAL Hangar. In Colorado, at Buckley, we made a $70 
million reduction in their Mountainview Operations Facility. In 
Maryland, at their joint base Andrews, their ambulatory care center 
suffered a 150-percent reduction. In Maryland, at Fort Meade, the high-
performance computing factory, we terminated funding for that facility. 
In Texas, joint base San Antonio, the ambulatory care center, we cut 
funding in half, saving $80 million. In Texas, at Fort Bliss, at the 
hospital replacement facility, we reduced funding by $27 million. In 
Utah, Camp Williams, the data center, we cut that funding in half, 
saving $123 million.
  In total, we made the reductions in 24 separate programs including 
canceling the building I talked about, a whole new court for the Court 
of Veterans Appeals. That is why this legislation came in $2.6 million 
even below the House, why it is $1.2 billion in budget authority below 
the President and $620 million below last year's budget authority, 
reminding Members there are no earmarks in this legislation.
  Eighty-nine Members voted for cloture on this legislation yesterday, 
which is why we brought it up. My hope is those 89 Members vote for 
cloture again on this underlying motion. I think most of our Members on 
my side, the Republican side, are going to vote for this budget point 
of order once we get to that, and I completely understand. I will 
probably be supporting him on other bills. The only commonsense point I 
will make here is that because we are at the House budget level and 
because the House has adopted them, this conforms to the Paul Ryan 
budget, I think we should move forward, especially as our ranking 
member wisely said, this is the first appropriations bill coming up 
separately since 2008, and I will say you make specific reductions to 
real spending when you actually bring up a bill, as Chairman Johnson 
has decided to do with my backing.
  I yield to Chairman Johnson and thank him for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I see Senator Lee from Utah. Senator Lee is a new 
Senator. He campaigned throughout his State and talked about the kind 
of issues we are dealing with today. I would yield to him at this time.
  Mr. LEE. We have now been operating for more than 800 days without a 
budget having been passed. We are operating at the direction of the 
party in control of this body on autopilot. It is easy to operate on 
autopilot. In many ways it is far easier than operating not on 
autopilot, especially when we are spending more than $1.5 trillion a 
year more than we are bringing in, more than $1.5 trillion every year 
more than we have, continuing to bury our children under a mountain of 
debt. When you are on autopilot, you don't have the same constraints, 
the same hard choices, the same prioritization demands that need to be 
made that Americans make every single day as they manage their homes, 
their lives, their families, their businesses--and State and local 
governments. This is unfortunate. It is unnecessary, and it is 
shameful. It should not continue to operate this way. An enterprise as 
large as the Federal Government, which brings in $2.2 trillion every 
single year, having access to more money than perhaps any other 
institution on Earth, ought to be able to operate with a budget. It 
ought to be able to pass a budget. It ought not be operating on 
autopilot so as to insulate itself from critiques justifiable and 
unjustifiable alike, from those who would say: Why are you doing it 
this way? Why are you doing it that way? To have a debate, a 
discussion, that is necessary. It necessarily surrounds the budgeting 
process in any legislative body, in any republic around the world.
  In the process of operating on autopilot, we are severely 
exacerbating our deficit problem with our national debt now totaling 
nearly $15 trillion. What then is the solution? I believe the solution 
to our current problem, especially as we approach the debt limit, 
involves the cut, cap, and balance approach, including passage by both 
Houses of Congress of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, one that would 
require, in addition to our making immediate short-term cuts and 
adopting statutory spending caps designed to put us on a firm, smooth 
glidepath toward a balanced budget, that we also pass a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. All of these would be passed as 
conditions precedent to our raising the debt limit, which many of us 
are willing to do, if necessary, to get those measures passed. We are 
not willing to raise it without those measures first being passed 
because we cannot continue to perpetuate this problem, one which we 
operate on autopilot while burning $1.5 trillion a year that we do not 
have.
  This is crowding out other priorities. It is crowding out other 
investment in our economy. It is killing jobs. It is jobs we need to be 
focused on because that is what the American people are focused on. 
They are worried about

[[Page 11114]]

their ability and the ability of their friends and family members, many 
of whom are unemployed, to be able to provide for their children, to 
pay their rent, to buy their groceries. These are things every American 
ought to be able to have access to and would have access to if only 
they had access to jobs. But at a time when we are spending at such a 
rate as we are, when we borrowed to such a degree that we have that our 
debt-to-GDP ratio is at about 95 percent, we are killing as many as 1 
million jobs every year in America as long as we remain in that danger 
zone. This simply cannot continue.
  Another thing we face right now that is something I find completely 
unacceptable is the fact that amidst all of this debate and discussion 
we have had in recent weeks about the debt limit, amidst the offer on 
the part of what are now most of the Republicans in the Senate to raise 
the debt limit under the circumstances I have outlined, the President 
of the United States responded to those offers by threatening--
promising, perhaps--to cut Social Security to current retirees if the 
debt limit is not immediately raised and raised only consistent with 
the conditions that he is demanding right now. I fail to understand why 
the President of the United States would prefer to make so hasty, so 
cruel, and so reckless a threat as withholding Social Security checks 
for current retirees before looking at any other Federal program.
  Look, we borrow at a rate of about $125 billion a month. That is a 
lot of money. A lot of people don't make that much money in a whole 
year. As we are borrowing at that rate, we have to take into account 
the fact that Social Security benefits cost the U.S. Treasury about $50 
billion a month. It is $50 billion out of $125 billion each month that 
we borrow, assuming that is the portion we borrow. Meanwhile, we are 
bringing in $200 billion a month in tax revenue. So there is more than 
enough tax revenue there to cover not only Social Security benefits but 
also interest on debt and a number of other things as well. That begs 
the question: Why are Social Security beneficiaries the first to be 
threatened? Why is it their checks that the President is threatening to 
withhold first? There is no explanation to this that he has offered, 
and I hereby demand one.
  I think our current retirees deserve more than to be used as pawns in 
a high-stakes political game, one that uses fear and uncertainty and 
doubt rather than reason and discussion and debate and willingness to 
compromise. The need for this has never been greater. The consequences 
for disregarding the need for debate and discussion have never been 
higher. I urge my colleagues and I urge all Americans to work together 
to find a solution to this, a solution that need not involve and should 
not involve threatening America's most vulnerable, including retirees, 
who rely each month on Social Security, withholding those benefits 
simply because the President of the United States is unwilling to 
compromise, is unwilling to meet the conditions many Republicans in 
this body have acknowledged are their conditions precedent for raising 
the debt limit.
  There is a way forward. There is a road that will take us home, and 
the road home can be found in the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. This is not 
just the best proposal, this is the only proposal that currently has 
significant public support from a substantial number of Members of this 
body. Sometime today or tomorrow, companion legislation will be 
introduced in the House of Representatives, and we will be moving 
forward. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this, and I urge my 
fellow Americans to carefully consider these and to urge their 
representatives and their Senators to embrace them and to adopt them.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Lee for his leadership on this cut, 
cap, and balance plan. I think it would change the debt trajectory of 
our country and put us on a path to prosperity rather than a path to 
decline and deficit and maybe financial crisis.
  Indeed, Mr. Erskine Bowles and Mr. Alan Simpson, the co-chairmen of 
the debt deficit commission appointed by President Obama, told us 
earlier this year in the Budget Committee that this Nation has never 
faced a more predictable economic crisis. What he is saying was the 
spending course we are on is so out of sync with reality, it is 
inevitable we will pay a price economically for that. So part of the 
reason we are where is because we have not had a budget in over 2 
years. If you don't have a budget, it makes it harder for the American 
people to ascertain whether you are spending more than you ought to be 
spending, and the whole process is able to be pursued without public 
knowledge and full disclosure when you don't have a budget.
  Every President is required by the same Budget Act to submit a 
budget. I think there is no President who has failed to comply with the 
Budget Act and does not require that you go to jail if you violate it. 
It would probably be better off if that had been the case. But the 
President submitted a budget earlier this year in February. It was, I 
believe, the most irresponsible budget ever presented to Congress at a 
time when systemic, structural deficits of trillions of dollars, the 
likes of which we have never, ever had before--at a time when we needed 
to confront that and discuss it as a people, as a nation, he submitted 
a budget that increased taxes significantly, increased spending even 
more, and increased the deficit, not reduced it.
  Eventually it came up for a vote. I brought it up for a vote since my 
colleagues wanted to vote down the House budget that was a responsible 
budget. It would actually change our debt course, reduce spending by $6 
trillion. They brought that up and it got 40 or so votes, but it did 
not pass. I then brought up President Obama's budget, in a Senate with 
a majority of Democratic Members, and it failed 0 to 97. Mr. President, 
97 to 0, because it didn't deserve a single vote, but it had one 
characteristic about it that was important. It actually had numbers in 
it. I guess the budget staff--they always produced a budget--before the 
spin doctors at the White House realized it, they sent out a budget 
projecting the President's future plans for America. For example, at a 
time when we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, the President 
proposed next year to increase the Education Department. Ninety percent 
of our education funds are from the States, and they always take care 
of that, and we provide certain Federal funds that can be an asset to 
them sometimes. Sometimes it is a liability, frankly. But at any rate, 
he asked for a 10.5-percent increase in Education, a 9.5-percent 
increase to the Energy Department, which spends most of its time 
blocking the production of energy rather than producing more lower 
cost, cleaner energy for the country. It proposed a 10.5-percent 
increase in the State Department budget, and it proposed--hold your 
hats--a 60-percent increase in transportation. Much of that was for 
high-speed rail so everybody can walk--80 percent of Americans, 
apparently, can walk to a train station and travel on the high-speed 
rail. We don't have the money for that. States are rejecting the money. 
They run the numbers. They know it is not going to be feasible and that 
it is just an overreach.
  I guess what I am saying is that somebody in this country does not 
get it. I thought the American people sent a message loud and clear 
last year when they sent a lot of new Members to Congress, such as 
Senator Paul and Senator Lee, who were shocked at it and talked to 
their constituents and came to Congress to do something about it.
  We haven't even brought up a budget. Why didn't Senator Reid and the 
Democratic leadership decide to bring up a budget? Well, if they bring 
a budget, then they have to show what they believe. They have to 
propose a solution to the problem. Well, what was their plan? Because 
they called up the House budget and voted it down--every Democrat voted 
it down--and they never produced one of their own. When I brought up 
President Obama's budget, they voted it down. So we have not seen one 
real solution.

[[Page 11115]]

  They have been talking about, oh, they will do this and that. Senator 
Durbin said we can change Social Security some--we can do something 
about Medicare. Let's see your plan. Let's see it. The chairman of the 
Budget Committee says he has a budget. He has a budget, and he leaks 
out portions of it, but nobody sees the real budget. There are certain 
numbers and visions and ideas, and he claims they have a budget. But if 
a person is unwilling to produce the budget and have a hearing in the 
Budget Committee, then I think they don't have one. It is not a budget. 
I don't know what it is, but it is not a budget.
  I see my colleague, Senator Cornyn, who has been a member of the 
Budget Committee. I know he is knowledgeable about these issues, and I 
am pleased to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to express my 
appreciation for the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Sessions, and to express many of the same concerns I know he has 
articulated.
  One of the most basic responsibilities of any business or family or, 
frankly, of Congress itself is to pass a budget. But, as the Senator 
from Alabama pointed out--and it has been pointed out time and time 
again--Congress has failed for more than 800 days--800 days--to perform 
one of its most basic and fundamental responsibilities, and that is to 
take up and pass a budget.
  Even though we haven't passed a budget and taken up a budget, that 
doesn't mean the spending has stopped. Indeed, the spending goes on in 
a reckless sort of way. We have spent $7.3 trillion since the last 
budget was passed, and we have increased the national debt by $3.2 
trillion.
  Now the Senate is considering a spending bill, an appropriations 
bill, before we have even passed a budget. It strikes me that is 
exactly backward. We should be passing and debating a budget first 
before we then take up appropriations bills. This is not the way 
Congress should operate.
  Now, taxpayers who might be watching this on C-SPAN or elsewhere or 
in the gallery may be asking themselves, well, how can Congress spend 
money without having a budget in place, because we know a budget is a 
very important form of self-discipline. It requires us to identify what 
our priorities are. What are the things we have to spend money on? What 
are things we would like but we can put off until tomorrow or next 
year? What are the things we would like to have but we really can't 
afford? The fact is, Congress has been operating in an undisciplined 
and extravagant sort of way not with our money but with the taxpayers' 
money and, even worse, with the money these young men and women who are 
sitting in front of me are going to have to pay because our legacy to 
them will be a burden of debt which will limit their opportunity and 
their prosperity.
  As Senator Sessions, our ranking member, has pointed out, this is not 
only a bad idea, this is not only bad policy, this is not only a breach 
with our precedent and policies, there is, in fact, a Budget Act rule 
that prohibits what is going on; that is, spending money without a 
budget in place. It violates the Senate rules.
  Everybody knows spending money without a budget in place is not 
fiscally responsible. Of course, I would say to the distinguished 
Senator from South Dakota, we all support our military and our 
veterans, and there is no greater responsibility of the Federal 
Government than to defend our citizens and to make sure the needs of 
our troops and veterans are met. But Congress should not, in the 
interest of doing something that is important, circumvent its own 
rules.
  Taxpayers deserve transparency. With transparency comes 
accountability. And without a budget, taxpayers get neither.
  We know what has been going on in the absence of Congress doing its 
job. Indeed, the President's own proposed budget would have vastly 
expanded the debt and the deficits, and that is why it lost when we 
brought it to the floor and said we want to vote on it. It lost 97 to 
0. No member of the opposing party, the President's own party, voted 
for the President's proposed budget because it was irresponsible. It 
did nothing to solve the problem of reckless spending, deficits, and 
unsustainable debt.
  So what are we left with? Well, we are told that on August 2 the 
Secretary of the Treasury says we will run out of money. Rather than 
having a budget debated and voted on in front of the American people 
where every American citizen could watch it and see what is going on 
and call our offices and express their concerns either supporting that 
budget or saying, no, Members of Congress ought to change it by 
offering an amendment, what we are given now by the President is secret 
negotiations behind closed doors. I assume it will be rolled out at 
some point, and we will be told: Take it or leave it. August 2, we are 
out of money. And Mr. Senator, Madam Senator, Madam Congressperson, you 
can't do your most fundamental job; that is, have a debate in the light 
of day in front of the American people.
  Now, does this ring a bell? It seems to me this is starting to be a 
habit--a bad habit. It started with the health care bill. It was rammed 
through Congress. It was a product of secret negotiations. All sorts of 
special deals were cut behind closed doors. Only now are we really 
beginning to see what the consequences of those special deals were and 
the costs that were vastly underestimated in the health care bill.
  I hate to say this, but President Obama has failed to lead on the 
debt ceiling. First, we know he called for a clean up-or-down vote 
without any cuts or any entitlement reform. That is the first thing he 
called for. Thank goodness he has moved away from that position, but 
there are problems yet. But when he was a Senator in 2006, he said, 
``Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and 
internationally.'' At the time, he also said, ``It is a sign that we 
now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to 
finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.'' That was back in 
2006 when then-Senator Obama made those statements. So today we are 
presented with a much different officeholder--the President of the 
United States--who is now demagoging those who hold the same truths he 
espoused himself in 2006, back when our debt and our deficits were much 
smaller than they are today.
  This isn't a matter of the President not understanding the problem we 
find ourselves in because he appointed a bipartisan commission, the 
Simpson-Bowles commission, that reported back in December in a report 
called ``A Moment of Truth'' which laid out in sobering detail the 
unsustainability of our national debt, the reckless spending that had 
gone on, and the borrowing from the Chinese and other governments. But 
rather than the President taking up the report of his own fiscal 
commission, he simply ignored it. He ignored it in the State of the 
Union Message. He certainly ignored it in his proposed budget, which 
was dead on arrival over here, without a single Democrat voting for it.
  In essence, the President has outsourced his leadership 
responsibilities to others. We know the President's current proposal, 
if one can call it that--and, frankly, the devil is in the details, and 
while the House has passed a budget, while the Simpson-Bowles 
commission has made a recommendation, as well as the Domenici-Rivlin 
bipartisan recommendation, we have yet to see the President's plan. 
Yes, he has held press conferences, he has bashed those rhetorically 
who have held the very same position he held in 2006, but he has failed 
to lead and offer a plan to deal with this impending crisis.
  In fact, the President's current rhetoric--I don't think we can 
dignify it by calling it a plan--is significantly to the left of his 
own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles recommendations. He is certainly to the 
left of Simpson-Bowles when it comes to spending--calling for much more 
spending, no cuts but continued spending. He is to the left of Simpson-
Bowles when it comes to taxes, when ``more'' is the only word he

[[Page 11116]]

seems to know when it comes to taxes--more taxes. In fact, when the 
President says we are going to cut $1 trillion, let's say, or $2 
trillion, but we are going to raise taxes $$2 trillion, what does that 
net? That means no net change in the size of the Federal Government, 
and that means no real downpayment on our national debt or deficit. It 
is a sleight of hand. It is phony. It is designed to give the 
appearance of doing something serious while doing nothing serious at 
all.
  We know the President has failed to lead in other ways. He has 
delegated or outsourced his responsibility to the Vice President. It 
took only a few weeks ago for the President to finally step up and 
engage personally, and we find that more often than not he proposed 
phony solutions such as changing the depreciation schedule for 
corporate jet owners, dealing with the tax treatment of oil and gas 
companies, and changing an accounting rule called ``last in, first 
out.'' But the facts are that those changes, even if adopted, would be 
a drop in the bucket. They would do nothing significant or serious to 
deal with our huge deficits and our unsustainable debt.
  Unfortunately, the President's own personal engagement is frequently 
nothing more than personal attacks. His recent press conferences have 
been full of name-calling and straw man attacks that are, frankly, 
beneath the dignity of the office of President of the United States. 
Instead of being a Commander in Chief, it is more like he has decided: 
I am going to be campaigner in chief. I am not going to deal with the 
problem. I am going to just look at winning the next election. Then we 
read yesterday that even in private the President is throwing temper 
tantrums like he did yesterday and stomping out of the meeting at the 
White House--again, failing to show leadership.
  But the most cynical thing the President has done, the most cynical 
abdication of leadership he has displayed so far is his new threat to 
hold seniors, our veterans, and our troops hostage unless Congress will 
agree to job-killing tax increases immediately. This is shameful 
behavior.
  We all know that even if the August 2 deadline passes without a deal, 
according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. Treasury will still 
have enough revenue--about $172 billion--to pay for Social Security 
benefits, to pay for Medicaid and Medicare, to pay Active-Duty 
military, and other national priorities. Let me repeat: The only reason 
seniors and our troops will see their checks stop coming is if the 
Obama administration decides to make other spending a priority, if the 
Obama administration chooses to hold our troops and seniors hostage 
just so they can raise taxes.
  This is another amazing display of cynicism, or I guess the most 
charitable way I can say it: short term memory. The President himself 
said last December the reason we should not raise taxes in a fragile 
economic recovery is because it would be bad for job creation. It would 
further discourage job creation at a time when we need jobs badly.
  Well, let me say just a word about tax increases and why this side of 
the aisle believes so strongly that tax increases are not the answer to 
our debt crisis.
  As one President famously said:

       The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the 
     middle of a recession because that would just suck up--take 
     more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a 
     further hole.

  Well, the President who said that was President Barack Obama back in 
2009. The President makes our case for us.
  Another President said low taxes help ``millions of entrepreneurs . . 
. hire new workers.'' Oh, yes, that was again President Barack Obama 
when he signed the extension of tax relief last December.
  Then there was another President, somebody our Nation holds in high 
regard, who happens to have been a Member of the other political party, 
who said:

       The final and best means of strengthening demand among 
     consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private 
     income and the deterrents to private initiative which are 
     imposed by our present tax system. . . .

  That was President John F. Kennedy in 1962. President Kennedy also 
said:

       In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too 
     high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way 
     to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates 
     now. . . .

  He said--and he was exactly right:

       Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax 
     reduction can pave the way to that employment.
       The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget 
     deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding 
     economy which can bring a budget surplus.

  He had it exactly right. We need to not only cut spending, but we 
need to grow revenue. The best way to grow revenue is to get more 
taxpayers, to get more people back to work. The reason Federal revenue 
is so low is not because tax rates are too low or people are not taxed 
enough, it is because too many people are out of work.
  When people do not have a job, they do not pay taxes, they do not pay 
their home mortgages, and they lose their homes. We are for more people 
getting back to work. We have tried the failed stimulus, the goal of 
which was to keep unemployment below 8 percent. We know that failed. 
Yet we racked up another $800 billion in debt.
  So why don't we try the old-fashioned way: take our boot off the 
necks of the job creators in America to make it easier, not harder, to 
create jobs, to provide incentives for entrepreneurs to start new 
businesses, to help existing small businesses expand their business. 
But they cannot do it, and they will not do it with uncertainty about 
their taxes, with the regulatory overreaching and other policies coming 
out of Washington, DC.
  Republicans are holding the line against the President's demand for 
higher taxes for a very simple reason. President Kennedy was right 
about taxes back in 1962, and President Barack Obama was right about 
taxes as recently as last December. Unfortunately, he has changed his 
mind, or he has forgotten the position he took just last December.
  Republicans do not want tax increases, and we do not want to see the 
Federal Government default on its obligations. So we have an obligation 
to come up with an affirmative plan, a positive plan to solve the 
problem. I believe we have done so.
  The first is a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution 
that is cosponsored by every Republican on this side of the aisle. The 
last time we voted on a balanced budget amendment in the Senate was 
1997--before I got here--where 11 Democrats voted to support that 
constitutional amendment. I hope our Democratic colleagues will join us 
in doing not an extraordinary thing, not a heroic thing--it is a very 
ordinary but a very commonsense thing--and that is to make sure the 
Federal Government learns to live within its means and not spend money 
it does not have. We hope they will join us.
  Part of that plan is also the cut, cap, and balance legislation I 
have cosponsored and that I hope the House of Representatives will take 
up and send over here soon. This legislation is a plan that avoids 
defaulting on our obligations. It prevents more taxes, particularly 
during a fragile economic recovery. It cuts reckless spending, and it 
gets our fiscal house in order.
  What is painfully apparent is we are running out of time, and I am 
not just talking about the August 2 deadline. Yesterday, Moody's 
Investors Services said it was reviewing the Nation's top-notch, AAA 
credit rating for a potential downgrade.
  If credit agencies downgrade our debt, it will cost more for us to 
borrow from the Chinese and our other creditors. As we know, because of 
Federal Reserve policies, the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates 
below historic norms. If those were to grow to historic norms because 
our debt has been downgraded by the credit agencies--or for any other 
reason--the interest on our national debt alone will crowd out other 
priorities for our Nation. It will make it less likely we can afford to 
do what we need to do to defend our national security or to provide the 
very safety net that our Democratic colleagues claim to care so much 
about.

[[Page 11117]]

We will not have the money to do it because we will not have acted 
responsibly in dealing with the deficit and the debt today.
  I urge my colleagues to heed these warnings and to join us in cutting 
spending and to get our debt under control. In the end, everyone will 
come out a winner if we accomplish that goal. This is not a Republican 
plan. This is not a Democratic plan. This is what is right and good and 
necessary for the United States of America, and so that generations in 
the future can enjoy the same opportunity and prosperity we ourselves 
have enjoyed. Heaven help us--Heaven help us--if we fail to take 
advantage of this opportunity and to deal responsibly with this 
impending crisis.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. This is 
very serious business we are engaged in. The strength of his comments, 
the method of delivery, and the content are indicative of the serious 
challenges we are facing.
  For example, under the budget that was submitted to us, the only 
budget we have seen so far from the President, the interest on our 
debt, according to the Congressional Budget Office--that used their 10-
Year budget and calculated we are paying about $214 billion in interest 
today on our debt--in the 10th year of President Obama's budget, as 
Senator Cornyn said, the interest would crowd out other things. It 
would be $940 billion--1 year's interest.
  When we borrow money, we pay interest just like individuals do when 
they borrow money. We are borrowing so much money that we are doubling 
the debt again in our country in 10 years. The interest on it will 
crowd out other things. For example, it would be more than Social 
Security, more than our Medicare, more than our Defense Department 
spending in that year.
  So I thank the Senator for sharing that.
  I see Senator Johnson, and I would be pleased to yield at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for 
his courtesy and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will just wrap up and close at 2 
o'clock. I understand under our agreement that 2 o'clock will start the 
time allocated for the Democratic speakers as they may appear, and 
there would be time at 3 o'clock under my control for Republican 
speakers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding, although the Chair 
is told the agreement has not been formalized as yet. But the Chair 
understands that is the agreement. The Senator from Alabama is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. That is all right.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Very good.
  So I will wrap up and ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes 
under my control at 3 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  Well, the fundamental problem is that our Democratic leadership has 
decided it would be foolish to have a budget, even though it is 
required by law. They have refused to produce a budget now for 806 
days--over 2 years. Last year, Senator Conrad produced a budget in 
committee, and it was voted on and brought to the floor, but the 
majority leader refused to even bring it up for debate and vote.
  This year I suppose it was that the majority leader decided we would 
not even have one in committee. So we have not commenced any action to 
pass a budget. But now we are proceeding to spend money. We are 
proceeding to pass legislation that would expend taxpayers' money 
without a budget. That is not good policy by any standards, whether we 
have a law or not. But we actually have a law that requires us to have 
a budget first. That is why I found myself having to raise a budget 
point of order.
  We were not elected to shut down the committees, to violate the 
congressional process of deciding how money should be spent, to cede 
our constitutional responsibility to some secret meeting somewhere so 
they can produce some sort of bill and drop it in the Senate on August 
1, presumably, and then demand that we pay for it.
  Because, look, you have to look behind the numbers. Just because the 
President says his budget does one thing, his plan does another thing, 
don't you think we ought to check it out?
  One of the most stunning statements I have ever heard from a 
President and from the Budget Director was heard earlier this year 
after the President presented his budget. He and the Budget Director 
publicly--and the Budget Director in committee--said: Our budget will 
have us live within our means and pay down the debt.
  They used those words. So anybody hearing that thinks: Gosh, I am 
glad the President prepared a budget that will have us live within our 
means and pay down our debt. We have been spending too much money.
  What is the truth? The truth is, the lowest single annual deficit in 
10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysts, would 
be $740 billion.
  The highest President Bush ever had was $450 billion. That was too 
high. This year it will be $1,500 billion, and I would point out that 
in the outyears $740 billion was about year 6. The 7, 8, 9, 10 numbers 
are going up again, and CBO says in the 10th year, the deficit under 
the President's budget will be $1.2 trillion. So this is not good. We 
need to get our house in order.
  We are going to insist that we do it in the right way. That is why I 
have objected to proceeding to spending bills without a budget. It is 
time for the majority leader to bring us into session. Let's have a 
budget. Let's see where people stand. Let's make the tough decisions. 
Let's vote on it. Let's allow ourselves to be held accountable by the 
people who sent us here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the media has been focused on our 
differences. But I think there is one thing that every single member of 
this body agrees on, we have to address the long-term debt and 
deficits.
  Like many Members of this Chamber, I have repeatedly called for a 
bipartisan package that includes reforms to everything deficit related. 
That means cuts to spending, domestic, defense, and mandatory, as well 
as increased revenues. I have supported attaching deficit reduction 
measures to the vote on the debt limit. And I believe reducing the 
deficit is critical to strengthening the long-term health of the 
economy.
  But I also believe that everyone--everyone--has to come to the table 
to find a compromise solution that will get this done. Democrats know 
this, that is why time and again we have offered compromise plans, 
including more than a trillion dollars in spending cuts. It is 
disappointing that politics are keeping some from negotiating in good 
faith. That is a disservice to the American people.
  I have spoken before about what some people are trying to a protect, 
tax breaks for big oil, for hedge fund operators and for yacht owners. 
I would like to speak now about what some are willing to risk to 
protect those tax giveaways. What happens if we do not increase the 
debt limit and meet the United States' financial obligations.
  First of all, raising the debt limit does not mean spending more. Our 
spending is set by Congress's annual budget process.
  Raising the debt limit means paying our government's bills. Our 
government. It is not the Democrats' government, it is not President 
Obama's government. It belongs to all of us. We are talking about 
servicing savings bonds issued under President Reagan. Supporting an 
Army first sent to Afghanistan under President Bush.
  Paying Social Security checks, food inspectors, and air traffic 
controllers. This is about the full faith and credit of our government.

[[Page 11118]]

  Failure to raise the debt limit means default. It means the United 
States would not meet its obligations. What would happen?
  Warren Buffett said it would be Congress's ``most asinine act ever.''
  Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said it would lead to ``a huge financial 
calamity.''
  Economist and former Reagan adviser Larry Kudlow said default would 
be ``catastrophe.''
  The biggest concern these experts name is the potential for a global 
financial crisis. Companies, pension funds, and governments across the 
world hold U.S. savings bonds. A default could trigger a crisis worse 
than the one in 2008, which itself triggered the worst recession since 
the Great Depression.
  We are just now climbing out of the hole caused by the last financial 
crisis. We cannot risk another one.
  Let me read from a letter sent to Congress earlier this week by 
hundreds of America's top businesses and business organizations, 
including the Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable, 
and great New Hampshire companies like Cirtronics and Control Air:

       We believe it is vitally important for the U.S. government 
     to make good on its financial obligations. . . .
       It is critical that the U.S. government not default in any 
     way on its fiscal obligations. A great nation--like a great 
     company--has to be relied upon to pay its debts when they 
     become due. This is a Main Street not Wall Street issue. 
     Treasury securities influence the cost of financing not just 
     for companies but more importantly for mortgages, auto loans, 
     credit cards and student debt. A default would risk both 
     disarray in those markets and a host of unintended 
     consequences. The debt ceiling trigger does offer a needed 
     catalyst for serious negotiations on budget discipline but 
     avoiding even a technical default is essential. This is a 
     risk our country must not take.

  Again, this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of business 
leaders. We should listen to them.
  In a recent op-ed in USA Today, the Chamber and the Financial 
Services Forum spelled out why they believe a default would result in 
``hundreds of thousands of lost jobs every year.''
  First, they point out that a default would halt critical government 
operations, far more abruptly than we have seen in past standoffs over 
the budget. They say:

       The U.S. Treasury is expected to take in about $170 billion 
     in tax revenue in August, but needs to pay $300 billion in 
     expenses. The resulting $130 billion deficit would require 
     the government to pick which programs--Medicare, Medicaid 
     stamps, unemployment insurance--to pay for and which not to 
     fund. And there would be little money left to pay our troops 
     or to run the courts, the prison system, the FBI, or other 
     essential operations.

  They go on to note that default would make our government debt and 
deficit problem worse.
  Yesterday, Moody's, the credit rating agency, put the United States 
governments' credit rating under review. If Moody's were to downgrade 
our credit rating, investor confidence in U.S. bonds would be shaken, 
and it would be more expensive for our government to borrow money.
  This is something that I understand viscerally because, as Governor 
of New Hampshire, we worked closely to try to avoid the rating agencies 
downgrading the State's borrowing so that we would not have to pay more 
money. JP Morgan estimates that the higher interest rates caused by 
default could increase our annual deficits by a staggering $75 billion 
every year. Just from higher interest rates. If we are serious about 
reducing the deficit, this is the wrong way to go.
  That is why we need to find a compromise solution. We have in the 
past. The debt limit has gone up under every President in modern times. 
President Nixon raised it nine times. President Clinton raised it four 
times. Since President Kennedy, the most frequent and largest increases 
came under President Reagan. He raised the debt limit 18 times, by a 
total of 199 percent. I don't think anyone here thinks President Reagan 
was a champion of big government.
  I believe that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
understand the importance of getting this done. I believe many of them 
believe in the value of compromise. We all have to be at the table. We 
all have to be ready to compromise to reach a solution.
  I ask my colleagues to do what is right and put politics aside, for 
the good of the economy and of the country.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to follow up a little bit on 
what the Senator from New Hampshire just spoke about; that is, the 
absurdity, the absolute absurdity of what is going on in Washington 
today.
  Our Nation used to have a two-party system in this country, but it is 
increasingly apparent that one of our two parties has morphed--has 
morphed--into some kind of a quasi-religion driven by one ideology: 
preserving and expanding tax breaks for the wealthy and for big 
corporations.
  To that end, many Republicans in Congress are perfectly willing to 
push the United States of America into defaulting on its debt 
obligations with dire economic consequences. This is a very dangerous 
detour in our Nation's political and economic life. But just as 
dangerous, just as dangerous as the prospect of a default on our debt 
obligations is the Republican's determination to defund and dismantle 
as much of the Federal Government as possible. To that end, they are 
demanding deep, Draconian cuts to Federal funding and investment at a 
time when unemployment is already sky high and rising, and when our 
economy remains fragile.
  To justify these deep cuts, Republicans with this new ideology have 
articulated an absurd economic theory--absolutely absurd. They claim 
slashing Federal funding and investments by trillions of dollars will 
somehow magically create jobs.
  I don't know of any Main Street economist, or anybody with an ounce 
of common sense, who agrees with this bizarre theory. To the contrary, 
economists warn us that this is absolutely the wrong time to be 
slashing Federal investments. Why? For the obvious reason that deep, 
short-term cuts to Federal spending will dramatically reduce demand in 
the economy, thus reducing employment even further.
  Already this year, cuts to government spending at the State and local 
levels have destroyed an estimated 500,000 public sector jobs, and that 
goes along with an undetermined number of private-sector jobs. 
Economists understand that terminating the jobs of teachers, police 
officers, and other essential public employees has a negative impact on 
the economy just as eliminating private-sector jobs do. Nonetheless, as 
if they live in kind of a parallel, upside down universe, Republicans 
insist that slashing Federal funding and investment will create jobs. 
Let's test that theory in one area of Federal investment. Let's take 
transportation funding. Everybody understands that our transportation 
infrastructure is woefully inadequate. It is in a state of increasing 
overload and disrepair. Most people understand that ramping up 
investments in modernizing our highways, bridges, and public transit 
systems would strengthen our economy and create millions of jobs. These 
are the veins and arteries of our commerce.
  What have the Republicans in the House proposed? Last week, the 
Republican leader put forward a new transportation authorization bill 
that would slash current investments in transportation by more than 
one-third--a one-third cut in transportation. Will this create jobs, as 
the Republicans claim? Of course not. The Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee estimates that the House bill would destroy more than 
490,000 highway construction jobs and close to 100,000 transit-related 
jobs--mass transit.
  This is pure folly. This is a classic example of what happens when 
ideological obsessions cause Members of Congress to be blind to 
practical, commonsense realities.
  I have repeatedly come to the floor to advocate for a balanced 
approach to bringing deficits under control, one that includes some 
spending cuts and revenue increases. At the same time, economists warn 
us that we need a deficit reduction plan that defers the lion's share 
of spending cuts and tax increases for several years, allowing our 
economy to recover before the negative impacts are felt.

[[Page 11119]]

  I must also ask: Why are we proposing to slash all this funding for 
highways, schools, and infrastructure here at home, while we continue 
to spend untold billions of dollars to build highways, schools, and 
infrastructure in Afghanistan? A lot of people ask me: Senator Harkin, 
you say you are willing to cut spending. Where? Let's start here, with 
Afghanistan and Iraq. We are spending $168 billion in Iraq and 
Afghanistan this year alone. This year--fiscal year 2011--we are 
spending more than $13 billion to train the Iraqi and Afghan security 
forces--$13 billion. OK. What did we spend in America to retrain our 
workers so they can get new jobs? Less than $10 billion. We are 
spending more money to train Afghan and Iraqi security forces than we 
are to retrain our own workers all over America, at a time when 24 
million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Yet we are spending 
$168 billion a year on Afghanistan and Iraq. I applaud the President 
for his actions, but quite frankly, they don't go far enough. The 
President should have a faster timeframe for our troops to get out of 
Afghanistan. I have said that publicly many times. If we want to save 
some money, save that $1 million it costs to keep one soldier in 
Afghanistan, get them back here. We went to Afghanistan to get the 
Taliban out, get al-Qaida out, and get Osama bin Laden. We got Osama 
bin Laden, Al-Qaida is no longer in Afghanistan, and the Taliban is 
gone. Why are we still there? Why are we still spending about $14 
billion a month in Afghanistan?
  Again, we need a balanced approach. Spending cuts alone won't do the 
job. I think the Republicans have just proved this. The Republicans 
have proved that spending cuts alone will not get the job done. Why do 
I say that? Look at the so-called Ryan budget. It dismantles Medicare, 
guts Medicaid, and makes severe cuts across the Federal budget. Yet it 
still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit for years to come--
largely because it refuses to touch tax breaks for the well-to-do or to 
raise other revenues from corporations.
  The Republicans have said they don't want to raise taxes on the so-
called job creators. They don't want to raise taxes on job creators. To 
call trust fund millionaires and Wall Street money manipulators ``job 
creators'' is laughable. Meanwhile, to call many large corporations in 
the United States ``job creators'' is increasingly questionable.
  Actually, in one respect, you can indeed argue that America's big 
brandname corporations--GE, Microsoft, and so on--are ``job creators.'' 
The problem is that they are not creating many jobs here in the United 
States. They are creating jobs overseas and eliminating them here. The 
U.S. Commerce Department data shows that during the 2000s, U.S. 
companies--multinational companies--cut their workforce here at home by 
2.9 million, and they increased their workforce overseas by 2.4 
million. They are creating jobs, all right--just not here in America. 
To add insult to injury, there are provisions in the United States Tax 
Code that promote this kind of behavior--the kinds of tax breaks that 
Republicans insist on preserving.
  They don't want to tax job creators. Yet we have shown that these big 
multinationals are creating jobs overseas. I wish to--and I am sure the 
occupant of the chair would also--close some of those loopholes so 
there is not a tax benefit to shipping jobs overseas. The Republicans 
say, no, they don't want to do that.
  In the month of May, U.S. trade deficit soared to more than $50 
billion--the highest level in nearly 3 years--in 1 month. In May, our 
trade deficit--out of that $50 billion--for one country, China, was a 
staggering $25 billion. You might say, what does that mean? Those 
figures represent a transfer of millions of jobs and billions in wages 
from the United States to China or other countries abroad. We need to 
seriously examine our trade and tax policies, which continually send 
our jobs and wages overseas. We need to stop bowing before the 
sacrosanct altar of ``free trade'' as if it doesn't even warrant our 
examination. Instead, we need to ask how we can make our trade policy 
work for the middle class--for instance, by defending America's right 
to oppose currency manipulation and abusive trade practices.
  We ought to talk about fair trade, fair trade, fair trade, not free 
trade, free trade, free trade. You see where free trade gets us if we 
don't stand up to other countries that manipulate their currencies, 
such as China, where we are shipping all our jobs and money.
  As I have said, our fragile economy is at the point of maximum 
danger. This Congress is at a historic decision point with regard to 
raising the debt ceiling and bringing deficits under control. However, 
as we have seen played out in the press, in the media, standing in the 
way of a rational, reasonable compromise is congressional Republicans' 
ideological obsession with preserving tax cuts for millionaires and 
billionaires at any and all costs. They are threatening to force us to 
default on the national debt.
  I will close with this. I heard our distinguished minority leader, 
the Senator from Kentucky, say this was now Obama's economy and the 
problems we have are because of Obama. He has been President for almost 
3 years--about 2\1/2\ years now. Therefore, he says he owns that. You 
know, this is kind of an interesting world we are living in. We have a 
debt ceiling, and why has the debt gone up? Because we borrowed money--
a lot of money. The Congressional Budget Office says the debt we have 
today comes from. Remember, 10 years ago, we had a surplus, a budget 
surplus, one of the largest in our Nation's history left after 
President Clinton. Then President Bush comes into office, the 
Republicans take over the House and Senate, and they ram through a 
massive tax cut, which takes the surpluses and gives them mostly to the 
wealthy in our country. Then 9/11 happened and we entered into two 
wars--totally unpaid for--and we borrow it from China, or wherever, to 
pay for two wars.
  Then we had a Medicare drug prescription benefit--most of which 
benefits go to the drug companies, by the way--and we didn't pay for 
that. We borrowed money for that also. So the debt we are grappling 
with today is because of policies enacted by a Republican President and 
a Republican Congress. They ran up the debt. Now they don't want to pay 
for it. This is not President Obama's debt at all. This is what happens 
when you have almost 8 or 9 years of uninterrupted borrowing and 
spending by President Bush and the Republican Congress. This is their 
debt.
  Again, I call upon reasonable, responsible Republicans to come 
forward and give up on this ideological obsession, this new theology 
that says: no tax reform, no raising of revenues from anyone, even 
those who can afford it the most.
  I remain an optimist. It is not too late for reason to prevail. We 
have heard loudly and clearly from the extremists and ideologs, who 
would bring down our economic house rather than agree to any 
compromise. Now it is time for decent, patriotic Americans to speak up 
and say enough. We can and must come together around a balanced plan to 
bring our deficits under control, and we must uphold the full faith and 
credit of the United States of America.
  With that, I yield the floor and 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. COONS. 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. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today, as have so many other 
Senators, because I am concerned about what I have been hearing about 
the threat of default that is now just over 3 weeks away--what I have 
heard both here in Washington and in Delaware.
  This looming default crisis is one of the most grave and predictable 
threats to our economy and our country I have ever seen. It is no 
longer floating at a distance just over the horizon, or something we 
can debate academically, the impact of which we may yet avert. It is

[[Page 11120]]

here now. We are on the edge. Given the difficulties this body can have 
in moving something through in a matter of days, we are very close to 
the absolute last day when we can consider options and a path forward. 
Default is right before us and it must be dealt with.
  I rise not to add to the political rhetoric--there has been plenty of 
that--nor do I rise to try and elicit panic or fear in the broader 
public.
  I rise because the folks of Delaware--the people from whom I have 
been hearing--just don't know what to believe. They know our deficit 
spending and our national debt are out of control, and they are deeply 
concerned. That is good. I share that concern. I share that commitment 
to making certain we reduce our spending and we deal with our deficit 
because deficit and debt at the size we have today can harm our economy 
fundamentally. They are a basic challenge to our national security, to 
our success, and to our growth going forward. But I also rise because 
there is no faster way to ensure that our economy will never get back 
on track, that our country will never reach its full potential than to 
let our Nation default on its financial obligations.
  We need to deal with this default crisis in a responsible and 
pragmatic way to create a real and lasting solution. We must restore 
certainty to our markets to help get our economy going again. And what 
do we hear from business, businessmen large and small all over the 
country? Certainty. We need predictability and certainty in the 
markets. Well, nothing is creating uncertainty more than this grinding 
lack of resolution to the vote to raise our Nation's debt ceiling.
  I wish to take a few moments, if I could, to talk about the reality 
of this impending crisis, and I would like to look at a few of the 
myths I hear at home that need to be cleared up.
  First, some Members of this body and the other House of Congress, 
some folks running for President, and some people in the press have 
suggested that a default will cause only minor economic disruption, if 
any at all. Economist after economist, think tank after think tank, 
study after study has shown in the last few weeks that nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  There are predictable consequences of default that will affect every 
American--Americans in every State, at every income level. More than 
any, I worry about the working families or those currently out of work 
who are already struggling through the greatest recession we have known 
in my lifetime. One report suggests 640,000 people will lose their jobs 
in the months after default. Economists confirm that the cost of home 
mortgages, car loans, and interest rates will go up for everything. The 
cost of food, gas, and everyday items for families all over this 
country will go up in real and concrete ways.
  More importantly, if we default on America's mortgage, the impact in 
terms of the increased cost of borrowing for our whole country and for 
all of our families won't just be brief, it will be lasting because it 
will hang with us on our credit score as a nation for years. To the 
folks watching, if you think it is difficult to find a job or to help 
grow a business to help deal with the daily cost of living now, just 
wait until we default on America's mortgage and the cost of borrowing 
funds to do anything--to create new jobs or to help pay your bills as a 
family--goes up.
  Default will have real and lasting economic consequences that will 
haunt this economy and haunt the working families of this Nation for 
years.
  The second myth is that we can just stop spending money without real 
consequences. Some in this very Chamber have suggested that when we get 
to August, there will still be plenty of money coming in to service the 
debt, so there is no real threat of default, and that what we need to 
do is a relatively simple exercise of just deciding which things we 
will stop paying.
  This second myth goes that the Treasury Department will just start 
picking winners and losers: They will pay Social Security but forgo 
Medicare; they will pay our troops but pink-slip our Federal civilians; 
they will fund the Pentagon but forget the Department of Education--
never mind the ethical quandaries, the long-term disservice such action 
would have on our economy and our country. Frankly, the truth is that 
it is not even clear they have the legal authority to do so in the 
Treasury Department, to pick these winners and losers on a week-by-week 
basis.
  Let's just choose one example of the studies done on this myth that 
we can simply pay the debt service and a few big things and the 
consequences of the rest would be fine. According to the Bipartisan 
Policy Center, beginning in August, if we continue to make payments, 
obviously on interest on the debt but also on Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, all defense contractors, and unemployment 
insurance--so the really important things--and we just stop paying the 
rest, our troops on Active Duty; all of our veterans programs; all of 
law enforcement, including, for example, the FBI; the whole Federal 
court system; the FAA, which monitors air traffic; the FDA, which 
inspects food quality and safety; and a host of dozens of other Federal 
programs would come to a halt within days.
  The consequences to the safety of our families, to the strength of 
our economy, to the confidence of our country, and to our role at home 
and abroad would, in my view, be tragic--almost catastrophic. So even 
if we could avoid technically defaulting for a few days or weeks by 
continuing to service our debt, the costs and consequences of these 
other ``easy choices'' would be dramatic, difficult, and lasting.
  According to Steve McMillin, who was the former Deputy Director of 
OMB under President Bush--he was recently quoted on this topic:

       I would say the options Treasury has if the debt limit is 
     not raised are all very ugly.

  Let me give a third myth. As I was talking with some small business 
owners in Delaware over the past week, some suggested they really felt 
we needed to go ahead and take the tough medicine of defaulting and cut 
up the President's credit card, stop the President from spending.
  While I share their concerns about the very real and very significant 
threat posed by our deep deficits and share the view that we must cut 
spending--as all of us who are Democrats on the Budget Committee have 
said now publicly, we are committed to a balanced approach that 
significantly cuts Federal spending--the metaphor of cutting up the 
credit cards is wrong. It is not just wrong, it is desperately wrong 
and misleading. Our Nation defaulting on its debt is not like cutting 
up a credit card and stopping the future spending; it is much more like 
defaulting on a mortgage; it hurts our credit rating and hinders our 
ability to borrow. As we have been told before, every 1 percent 
increase in interest rates will cause our national debt to go up $1.3 
trillion over 10 years. According to some economists, increased 
interest rates could last for a decade or more.
  No, the obligations that come due August 2 are the obligations that 
have already been undertaken. As Senator Harkin said before me, it is 
Republicans, both President and Congress, and Democrats, both President 
and Congress, over the last decade who have moved us into a bigger 
house as a country. It is the cost of two wars, the cost of an expanded 
Medicare Part D, the cost of expanding investment in our country--the 
cost of this bigger house that is now coming due. For us to stop paying 
that mortgage would have the same consequences for our country as it 
would for any family because when you default on your mortgage, it is 
not like cutting up a credit card, it affects your credit rating, and 
it affects your ability to borrow and your ability to do anything more 
for your family for years to come. So, too, would the consequences be 
for this country, and we cannot afford to let our country become a bad 
investment.
  Lastly, some have suggested that August 2 is not a serious deadline, 
that somehow Secretary Geithner must have some other rabbit in the hat 
or some escape hatch.
  Back in January, Secretary Geithner sent a letter to all in Congress 
suggesting that we would, in fact, run out

[[Page 11121]]

of money on May 16, and the government--the Treasury Department--would 
then have to start taking extraordinary measures to avoid default. In 
fact, he detailed in six pages all the extraordinary measures that 
would be required. And he was right almost literally to the day about 
when that transition occurred and when those extraordinary measures 
needed to be deployed.
  The time runs out August 2, but if for some reason you don't believe 
the deadline presented to us by our very own Secretary of the Treasury 
and the Treasury Department, look at what the three bond rating 
agencies are already saying about the impending default. Moody's, S&P, 
and Fitch have all threatened to downgrade America's rating from AAA--
the most secure, most stable in the world. S&P suggested last week a 
downgrade to D, to junk bond status. I suggest America is not a junk 
bond nation. It puts us at risk as a nation, as a people, and as an 
economy when we are mentioned in the same sentences as Ireland, as 
Greece, as Italy--countries currently wrestling with fundamental 
failures to meet their obligations as a country. We are better than 
that.
  All of us in this Chamber--all of us--are challenged to come together 
to put our economy and our country back on solid footing, to restore 
certainty to the markets, and to give confidence to retirees, to 
families, to parents raising children, and to small businesses by 
getting serious about putting a plan on this floor next week and 
passing it because, frankly, if we allow this country to default on its 
sovereign debts, to fail to meet its moral commitments, both financial 
and to the people of the United States, the consequences will be 
desperate and lasting.
  I suggested a few weeks ago that we should consider seriously the 
Bipartisan Policy Center's proposal--the so-called SAVEGO--which would 
pick up where the pay-as-you-go discipline of the 1990s started and 
modernize it for our current situation. If we cannot get a 
comprehensive $4 trillion balanced deal together on this floor and 
passed, let's at least get a downpayment and enforce a budget mechanism 
that would ensure that a comprehensive deal is accomplished over the 
next decade. SAVEGO, which I recommend to everyone in this body, would 
lock in savings over the next decade, force both parties to stay at the 
table, and urge us to meet the targets we all know we need to meet: to 
reduce our deficits, to stabilize our debts, to strengthen our country, 
and to move past this tragic narrow debate over August 2 and our 
Nation's mortgage.
  We need to focus not on the next election cycle, not on the partisan 
back-and-forth that might win an advantage for one party over another 
or one person over another in this Chamber for 2012, but we need 
instead to focus on the next generation, on the future.
  The only way forward, in my view, is to honor our moral commitments 
as a nation to the men and women who rely on Medicare and Medicaid and 
Social Security, on the safety of our troops, and on the investments we 
make in the future, and to continue to honor our obligations as a 
nation. To do anything less is to dishonor the sacrifice of those who 
have served us in the past and to ignore the very real needs of the 
working families all over this country who look to us for leadership 
and sacrifice to put us on a sustainable path forward.
  Mr. President, with that, 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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we are at a pivotal moment in American 
history, and I think many Americans are confused and perplexed and 
angry and frustrated as to where we are today and how we got to where 
we are and what the consequences of decisions made in the past and that 
are being made right now will mean to their families. Let me just take 
a minute and try to give my view as to how we got to where we are and 
what our options are.
  As you have just stated, Mr. President, and Senator Harkin before 
you, anyone who talks blithely about defaults and saying it is not a 
big deal for this country clearly does not understand what he or she is 
talking about.
  This is the greatest Nation in the history of the world. This is a 
nation whose faith and credit has been the gold standard of countries 
throughout the world. This is a nation, since George Washington, which 
has paid out every nickel it has borrowed, which is, in fact, why it is 
the great Nation it is and why we have the strongest economy in the 
world today, troubled though it may be.
  The idea for some people to simply say: Oh, not a big deal; we are 
not going to pay our debt, nothing to worry about, those are people who 
are wishing our economy harm for political reasons, and those are 
people whose attitudes will have terrible consequences for virtually 
every working family in this country in terms of higher interest rates, 
in terms of significant job loss, in terms of making a very unstable 
global economy even more unstable.
  This country, which has paid its debts from day one, must pay its 
debts. I can't say it any more clearly than that.
  Our Republican friends, especially our rightwing friends who now 
control the House of Representatives, have given us an option and here 
is their option. What they have said is: We want to do deficit 
reduction, and this is how we are going to do it. We are going to end 
Medicare as we know it and force elderly people, many of whom don't 
have the money, to pay substantially more for their health care. So 
under their plan, when a person is 70 and they get sick and they don't 
have a whole lot of income, they don't know what happens to them. They 
forgot to tell us. But what they did tell us is Medicare is not going 
to be there for them. They told us that tomorrow, if their plan was 
passed, they are going to have to pay a heck of a lot more for the 
prescription drugs than they are paying today. Oh, you don't have the 
money? Hey, that is not our problem.
  They told us we are going to make savage cuts in Medicaid, throw 
millions of kids off health insurance, when 50 million Americans have 
no health insurance today. They want millions more without any health 
insurance.
  If your mom or dad is in a nursing home and that nursing home bill is 
paid significantly by Medicaid and Medicaid isn't paying anymore, they 
forgot to tell us what happens to your mom or dad in that nursing home. 
What happens? What happens today if one is unemployed and not able to 
get an unemployment extension? What happens to the middle-class family, 
desperately trying to send their kids to college and we make savage 
cuts in Pell grants and they can't go to college? What does it mean for 
the Nation if we are not bringing forth young people who have the 
education they need? They forgot to tell us that. If you are one of the 
growing numbers of senior citizens in this country who are going 
hungry, they want to cut nutrition programs.
  On and on it goes. Every program that has any significance to working 
families, the sick, the elderly, children, the poor, they are going to 
cut, and they are going to cut in a savage way. They are going to do 
that in the midst of a recession, where real unemployment is already at 
15 percent and the middle class is disappearing and poverty is 
increasing. That is their idea.
  When we say to them: Well, hey, the very rich are doing phenomenally 
well; the top 1 percent now earns more income than the bottom 50 
percent; the top 400 wealthiest families in this country have more 
wealth than the 150 million Americans--don't you think maybe it is 
appropriate that when the rich are getting richer and their tax rates 
have gone down, their effective tax rates are the lowest in modern 
history, when major corporations are making billions of profits and in 
some cases not paying a nickel in taxes, don't you think maybe it is 
fair that

[[Page 11122]]

they contribute to deficit reduction rather than just the elderly and 
the sick and working families, they say: No. We have a line in the 
sand, and if it means this country will default on its debt for the 
first time in history, that is OK. But we are absolutely going to 
defend the richest people in this country, millionaires and 
billionaires, and make sure they don't pay a nickel more in taxes. We 
are going to make sure there is no tax reform so we can continue to 
lose $100 billion every single year because wealthy people and 
corporations stash their money in tax havens in the Cayman Islands or 
Bermuda, and that is just fine. We will protect those tax breaks while 
we savage programs for working families.
  Those are the choices our rightwinged Republican friends are giving 
us: defaults with horrendous economic consequences for working families 
in this country and, in fact, for the entire global economy or massive 
cuts to programs working families desperately need.
  Neither of those options is acceptable to me, and neither are those 
options acceptable to the vast majority of the people in this country. 
Every single poll I have seen says that the American people want shared 
sacrifice. They don't want or believe that deficit reduction can simply 
come down on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable, the elderly, the 
children, and the poor; that the wealthy and large corporations also 
have to participate.
  I must, also, in all honesty, tell you I have been disappointed by 
the President's role in these discussions and some of his ideas. He has 
brought forth an idea which I categorically reject, that we should make 
significant cuts in Social Security; that when someone reaches the age 
of 85, they would lose $1,000 as opposed to what they would otherwise 
have gotten. This Senator is not going to balance our budget on the 
backs of an 85-year-old person who is earning $14,000 a year--not with 
my vote.
  This Senator does not agree with the President that we raise the 
eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67 because I don't know what 
happens to millions of people who work their whole lives, finally reach 
65 anticipating Medicare, but it is not going to be there for them. So 
I very strongly disagree with the President on those initiatives.
  Let me tell you that elections have consequences, and I think many 
people now are beginning to catch on to that. It is no secret our 
rightwinged Republican colleagues did very well in November 2010. They 
captured the House of Representatives, and now, 1 year-plus later, for 
the first time in the history of this country, we are on the verge of a 
default.
  I would close by saying to people all over this country, if you 
believe we have to start investing in America and creating the millions 
of jobs this country desperately needs, elections have consequences.
  If you believe we have to address the deficit crisis in a way that is 
responsible, in a way that asks the wealthy and large corporations also 
to play a role, in a way, as Senator Harkin mentioned a moment ago, 
that calls for cuts in defense spending and bringing our troops home as 
soon as possible from Afghanistan and Iraq, you have to be involved in 
the political process, in my view.
  A group of people in the House whose views represent a small minority 
of the American people are holding this Congress hostage, and it is 
time for the American people to stand and say enough is enough. The 
function of the Congress is to represent all our people and not just 
the wealthiest and most powerful.
  With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask that the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor as someone who is 
back in my home State every weekend. As I talk to people and say: What 
is on your mind, they say what is on their mind are jobs, the economy, 
the Nation's debt, and the Nation's spending. I say: What do you think 
about things going on in Washington? They say the problem with 
Washington is it taxes too much, borrows too much, and the government 
grows bigger every day, and they say: What are we going to do about it? 
When we talk about the debt, the people of Wyoming have a clear 
understanding that the number is very large.
  They say: What about the budget? As we get into the discussion, it 
comes down to: What budget? Where is the budget? It has been 800 days 
since a budget has gone through this body--over 800 days. You are 
talking more than 2 years. Why is that?
  There was a vote on the budget earlier this year. There was the 
President's so-called budget, lost 97 to 0. Not even one Democrat voted 
for what the President had proposed. The news magazine The Economist 
called it a dishonest budget. In Wyoming, we balance our budget every 
year. We do not have a debt like the country has, the country with its 
$14 trillion debt. In Wyoming, the debt is zero because year after year 
we balance our budget, live within our means, spend only what comes in, 
and actually have money left over that we can invest in the people of 
our State. That is because from the beginning, when the constitution of 
our State was written, included right there in the constitution was a 
component saying: You shall balance the budget every year. Do not spend 
more than you have coming in.
  To do that, one of the most useful things is that there actually be a 
budget, something to live within, something to look to as a guidepost, 
as a roadmap. I am still looking for one in this body. Where is it? Why 
have we not seen one? That is why I am coming to the floor today with a 
number of my colleagues to say: What is going on that it has been over 
800 days with no budget, no opportunity to have the American people 
look to a roadmap to see where the country is headed?
  We hear all the discussion about, are we headed to a default? What 
about the debt limit? What about the ceiling--is that going to be 
raised? The people say: What is the plan? What is the spending plan? 
What is the savings plan? I do not hear one coming for the majority 
party. I do not see one from the majority leader. I do not see one from 
the Budget Committee. I do not see one from the President. They are 
having discussions at the White House about how to try to get spending 
under control. Where is the President's plan?
  What I hear from the President is that he wants to raise taxes. The 
people of Wyoming would say the best way for more revenue to come in is 
not to raise taxes on the people who are working, it is to put some of 
those 9.2 percent of Americans who are looking for work, put them to 
work, and then that money will come in as they pay taxes.
  I come today to the floor with a number of my colleagues--Senator 
Sessions, the Senator from Alabama has arrived--and we are going to be 
engaged in a colloquy to discuss some of these issues.
  We ought to be focusing on these 9.2 percent of Americans who cannot 
find work, millions of Americans who cannot find jobs. When I talk to 
the job creators, they are saying it is the President's position and 
his policies that have made matters worse--made matters worse with 
increasing health care costs as a result of the health care law, made 
matters worse as a result of the regulations that came out of 
Washington that add costs onto businesses, and making it worse in 
increased energy costs as the President continues to send energy jobs 
overseas, as he makes it harder and harder to explore for American 
energy.
  I ask my colleague, Senator Sessions, to give us his thoughts, if I 
could, on the concerns we face as a nation without a budget, without a 
plan, without a roadmap, at a time of astronomical deficits, huge 
numbers, numbers that are too high for people even to understand and 
comprehend.
  (Mrs. McCASKILL assumed the chair.)

[[Page 11123]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Barrasso and his 
leadership on so many issues in this Senate.
  It is a sad event that we are now filing an objection to the movement 
of an appropriations bill because it violates the Budget Act contained 
in the United States Code. The Budget Act says you shall not move 
forward with an appropriations bill if you have not first passed the 
budget.
  I ask my friend from Wyoming, as an accomplished orthopedic surgeon 
and physician and from his personal experience in the legislature in 
his State, does it strike him that when you are in the most serious 
debt crisis that perhaps the Nation has ever had from a structural, 
systemic point of view, that we ought to follow the law, we ought to 
first decide how much money we can afford to spend next year and then 
allocate that money to the various spending appropriations committees 
so they can produce a plan that would live within that budget? Is that 
the commonsense way we should proceed?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would say absolutely yes. If you are 
a family in Wyoming, I don't care if you are living in Casper or living 
in Kemmerer, either way you know you need to live within some construct 
of how much is coming in, how much you can spend--live within a budget. 
Families have budgets. They live within their budgets. The State of 
Wyoming has a budget. We have a balanced budget component of our 
constitution. It not only says we have to have a budget, it says we 
have to balance it. If you do not have a budget to begin with, I cannot 
understand how you can balance it.
  Is it any surprise that we are $14 trillion in debt and we are 
borrowing $4 billion a day, $2 million a minute in this country, and we 
are borrowing a lot of it from China? It would seem we ought to be 
following the law--have a budget and then live within the budget, and 
it needs to be a responsible budget consistent with what is coming in.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We appreciate our colleagues who worked on this bill, 
but there are more appropriations that should be done this year. How 
can they be continued without a budget? You say we spent within the 
President's numbers or the House numbers, but those have not been 
approved in the Senate. We have no votes in the Senate. It is not a 
binding number.
  The truth is, what we need to do is what the House did, I believe. I 
ask Senator Barrasso, isn't it true that the Republican House, with a 
new leadership, came in, they faced up to the 10-year budget window we 
have, they laid out a plan for 10 years, and it cut spending by $6 
trillion? It actually simplified our Tax Code substantially and reduced 
certain taxes, focusing on tax reductions that create growth so we 
could have more income generated. And, whether you agree with it or 
not, by April 15 they did all this, which is what this code says. 
Doesn't the Senator think they have done their duty? What would he say 
about the failure of the Senate to even attempt to present a budget?
  Mr. BARRASSO. The House has approved a budget. They presented a 
budget, debated a budget, discussed a budget, and passed a budget. 
There has been nothing in the Senate for over 800 days.
  On the weekends, people at home tell me: We have to stop spending 
money we do not have. We expect better. We expect better of those who 
are elected to go to Washington and represent us. We expect better.
  They also believe that the money they are sending to Washington--it 
is their money, not Washington's money--the money they are sending to 
Washington, people do not believe they are getting value for their 
dollar. If you asked ``Of every dollar you are sending in, how much 
value are you getting back,'' it is an alltime low--50 cents on the 
dollar. People don't think they are getting value.
  People want an efficient government. That is not what they are 
finding today. They are finding amazing amounts of waste, fraud, and 
abuse. Fundamentally, they are not finding a budget, a roadmap, a plan, 
and then life within that. That is why I come to the Senate floor with 
my colleague from Alabama today to say the law is specific--not just in 
the State of Wyoming but also in the United States--that we need to 
have a budget.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The law is specific, and the need is there whether we 
had a law or not. The law doesn't require families to have budgets, but 
families who are smartly managing their money have budgets. Businesses 
have budgets. No law requires them to have budgets, but it is because 
it is the only way to manage your money. It is an unacceptable 
situation in which we find ourselves.
  Let me ask the Senator, I want to try to boil it down to the nub, why 
we have not done it, why the majority in the Senate has not proceeded 
with a budget.
  Let me just say that a budget is considered so important that, unlike 
other legislation, it can be passed with a simple majority. It cannot 
be filibustered. It has priority process to be moved rapidly on the 
floor. It cannot be blocked. The goal is that you could pass a budget. 
Even a party, if they wanted to do it on a straight party-line basis, 
with over 50 votes could pass a budget.
  I am trying to focus on whether there is something broken about the 
Senate. Is there something broken that causes us not to be effective? 
Is there something broken in the way we operate that would have kept 
the Budget Committee from bringing a budget forward and voting on it in 
committee and passing it out of committee? They did that last year. Is 
there any reason the Senator can think of, of a substantive nature, 
that would have blocked that?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I would say the only reason I know is someone 
intentionally does not want to bring a budget to the floor of the 
Senate. If a budget were on the floor of the Senate, then we could look 
through it, read it, people at home could look through it, have some 
input, call, write, talk to us at townhall meetings, and say we ought 
to try to amend this proposal to spend less money over here, more money 
over there, and try to decide the best way to work together as a nation 
to improve opportunities for people in this country.
  That is what a family budget does. They don't have to by law, but 
smart families do that. They make plans, they think ahead, and not just 
3 months or 6 months, families look ahead and put money aside for 
college opportunities. They think about whether they will need a new 
car, a roof sometime down the line--what will they need? That is what a 
budget is all about.
  I see no reason fundamentally why there is no budget proposed by the 
majority party here on the floor for all of the country to take a look 
at, all of the country to say: Yes, change this, more here, less there, 
prioritize, and let the country work.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, unless you are unwilling to 
tell the American people where you stand, unwilling to put real numbers 
on paper--you prefer to say: American people, don't worry about it; we 
are meeting in secret over here. Don't worry about it; we have the Vice 
President, and he called some Senators together, and he is going to fix 
it. You guys who serve on committees and the Finance Committee where 
taxes have to be voted on, should be voted on are no longer relevant. 
The system is broken.
  They are saying: We are not going to go along with this, and it is 
not because it will not work, it is because the budget presented by the 
President, the only budget we have seen here increased taxes 
substantially, it increased spending even more than that, and it 
increased the debt more than if we had done nothing over the 10 years.
  I see our colleague, Senator Toomey, a new Senator but not new to the 
budget process because he was a member of the Budget Committee in the 
House.
  What I am frustrated about, and I believe people should be frustrated 
about, is this policy decision by the leadership in the Senate that it 
was foolish to produce a budget. That is not a sign that the Senate is 
broken; it is a sign that the leadership is broken. It is a sign the 
leadership does not have the courage to actually stand before the

[[Page 11124]]

American people and produce a plan, because it either would raise taxes 
too much, not cut spending enough, or raise the debt too much. I think 
that is irresponsible, but I have to say, Senator Toomey, a new member 
of our Senate, has produced a budget. He laid it out right at our 
committee, and he was prepared, as a member of our committee, to 
produce his budget and advocate for it. You know what happened? We did 
not meet. I cannot call the committee into session. I am the ranking 
Republican. Senator Toomey cannot call the committee into session and 
have a vote. They decided not to meet, not to do their duty. They are 
going to meet in secret somewhere and have their little discussions 
about what they want to do, and the people who are elected to be 
accountable to the American people for what we do with their money are 
standing around wondering what is happening. Forgive me if I am not 
happy. I do not think it is right. I think it is weakening the Senate. 
I believe our constitutional responsibility is not being fulfilled if 
we end up with some big deal bill on August 1, and we are told it has 
to be passed by August 2, and you can find out what is in it after we 
pass it. I am not there. Count me out.
  We had more people wanting to get on the Budget Committee this year. 
They were so excited. It was the most wanted committee to be on in the 
entire Senate, and we have not done anything. The Senator was selected 
to be on the committee, which is a tribute to his experience, and I 
guess I would ask, how does the Senator feel about where we are?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the Senator for raising this issue because I do 
think this is a very important issue. Many of us wanted to be on the 
Budget Committee because we see what a critical moment our country is 
in. We see the very dire straits we have put ourselves in because of 
the fiscal irresponsibility of Washington, and some of us believe we do 
not have a lot of time to get this in order. So I was looking forward 
to the opportunity to serve on the committee that would design the 
blueprint for our entire fiscal policy for this year and hopefully 
beyond.
  I think this is a fundamental responsibility, frankly, of any 
responsible organization, to have a budget. I ran a small business for 
years, my own little business. We always had a budget. The corner pizza 
shop has a budget. We are the biggest enterprise in the world, the U.S. 
Government. We spend $3.6 trillion, and for the majority party to 
choose--I have to say cynically--not to even write a budget, to 
abdicate that fundamental responsibility to lay out for the American 
people how much money they want to spend, on what they want to spend 
it, where the money is going to come from, to abdicate that 
responsibility is shocking.
  To make matters worse, they have a statutory obligation to do this, 
so it is actually also illegal, and here we are without a budget. We 
are about to run out of this year's funding. When we come back from the 
August break, we are going to be passing some huge omnibus. Who knows 
what is in that. We have a broken-down process. I believe it has 
contributed to where we are today with this debt limit.
  By the way, a brief aside, if I could, about this debt limit issue. 
We had a discussion today in the Banking Committee--Federal Reserve 
Board Chairman Bernanke was there to testify--and it was a useful 
discussion. Unfortunately, after I left the committee, I learned later 
Senator Schumer began to discuss some of my remarks with Chairman 
Bernanke, and in the process he grossly mischaracterized what I said. I 
am quite sure Senator Schumer would never intentionally mischaracterize 
the remarks of one of his colleagues. So what I wish to do is clarify 
what was actually said so that in the future it won't be 
mischaracterized. I had observed that the Treasury will have more than 
enough cash coming in in the form of tax receipts to pay the interest 
on our debt in the event that we didn't raise the debt ceiling on 
August 2. I immediately went on to say, and I will now quote myself, if 
you will allow. I said:

       Now, I don't know of anybody that suggests that we can or 
     should go indefinitely without raising the debt ceiling, and 
     I have argued that we would certainly be much better off 
     reaching an agreement and raising the debt ceiling prior to 
     August 2.

  That was characterized by Senator Schumer as follows and I will quote 
him. He said:

       For a smart guy--

  He was referring to me, believe it or not.

       I mean, to say we can pay the obligations and not pay the 
     rest and that that is just fine. Wow, I'm sort of surprised 
     at it.

  Well, obviously I never said it was fine. What I have said is we have 
a dire crisis on our hands and we need to do something about it, and I 
don't know we are going to get another opportunity than the opportunity 
over this question of whether and when and by how much we will raise 
the debt limit, but I am not going to sit by idly, and I am not going 
to go along with some deal that raises the debt limit without making 
the real cuts in spending we need and the real process reform.
  As Senator Sessions knows, some of us have advocated that there be a 
simple deal, if you will, preferably one that we would discuss in 
public, one we would have a debate over, one we would have a vote on. 
The deal is simply this: We will agree to raise the debt limit by the 
full amount the President has requested, provided only that the 
President agree to put us on a path to a balanced budget. That is it. 
We call it cut, cap, and balance. It has some immediate cuts. It has 
spending caps that put us on the path to a balanced budget, and it 
calls for the adoption of a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.
  We had a Democratic President named William Clinton who, together 
with the Republican Congress in the 1990s, acknowledged the importance 
of reaching a balanced budget. None of us think we can do it overnight. 
None of us are calling for that. But back then in the 1990s they 
decided they would strive for it and, in fact, they achieved it. We 
reached a balanced budget and ran a modest surplus.
  All I am asking today as we confront this issue and as we contemplate 
saddling ourselves and our kids and grandkids with a debt more than we 
have now, what I am suggesting is at the same time we take the measures 
necessary to get us out of this mess, to prevent us from going further 
down this unsustainable path and to get to the point where we don't 
continue running deficits, a path to a balanced budget. Cut spending 
now, statutory spending caps, and a balanced budget amendment. We now 
have a big majority of Republican Senators who cosponsored this bill 
that would raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, provided we get 
these changes. I am increasingly optimistic the House might very well 
pass a bill that would raise the debt limit contingent only on this 
path to a balanced budget.
  While we are down here today, I think this is what we ought to be 
talking about. We should not go on to an appropriations bill that has 
no context because there has been no budget. We ought to be focused on 
getting this problem solved and then get back to the regular order of 
having a budget that defines the level of spending and where that money 
is going to come from and allows us to pursue the ordinary 
appropriation process so we can exercise our constitutional 
responsibility to control the purse strings of this Federal Government.
  I thank Senator Sessions for raising this issue. This is a very 
important issue, and I agree with the Senator wholeheartedly that it is 
a travesty that we don't have a budget in this body. I certainly hope 
we don't go further down this path.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. He has been such 
a fabulous addition to the committee, talented and experienced and 
worked so hard that he has actually laid out a budget himself. The 
President has 500 people. The Congress here has a lot of staffers. 
Senator Toomey has produced a budget. The House has produced a budget, 
but we have not seen one here.
  I am pleased my colleague, another member of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Ron Johnson, is here. He is a business person who traveled his 
state and

[[Page 11125]]

talked with his constituents about his concerns about the debt this 
country faces.
  I am pleased to hear Senator Johnson's thoughts at this time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I thank the Senator. First of all, I thank 
the Senator for his leadership on this issue. I share your concern 
about the dysfunction of not only this body, our Budget Committee, but 
Washington in general. I mean, Washington is broken. We are currently 
conducting business as usual here in Washington, and it is bankrupting 
our Nation.
  Certainly having spent 34 years as a manufacturer, I recognize you 
have to have a good process if you are going to have a good product. 
And because our process here is so broken, that is one of the reasons 
we are bankrupting this Nation--because we don't have a good process. 
It is, to me, unbelievable that in the Senate we haven't passed a 
budget now in--what is it--805 or 806 days? Over 2 years we have not 
passed a budget yet in this body. As an accountant--that is my 
background--I had to produce a budget on time for a wide variety of 
sizes of businesses, and it is simply unbelievable to me when I know 
how hard individuals and businesses work to produce a budget. And, by 
the way, they generally present those budgets on time. They don't miss 
the budget dates. But they actually produce a budget, and there is an 
awful lot of work that goes into those budgets.
  I come here after 34 years in business, and I come here to the Senate 
understanding, again, not because I want to be a Senator but because I 
realize we are bankrupting this Nation, that America is in peril. I get 
here, and I hope to get on the Budget Committee so I can actually start 
solving this problem. I get on the Budget Committee, and I am ready to 
roll up my shirt sleeves and start working on the problem. What did we 
hold? I think we had six hearings on the President's budget, a budget 
that was so unserious that it lost in this body 0 to 97. Not one Member 
of the President's own party thought it was serious enough or maybe it 
didn't spend quite enough for them. Maybe it didn't tax enough for 
them. But, for whatever reason, not one member of the President's own 
party decided to vote for that budget. I think that is a stunning 
repudiation.
  It is very disappointing, quite honestly, because right now, as our 
country faces bankruptcy, we are hungry for leadership and we are not 
getting any. The fact is if the President were serious about addressing 
this issue, if he were serious about attacking this problem, he would 
have been coming to us months ago to negotiate in good faith to prevent 
the bankrupting of America, but that hasn't happened.
  So what is happening now? For the last few weeks we have been holding 
some secret meetings, far from the view of the American public. I am 
not sure, is that how we are going to solve the financial future of 
America? I came here to work. I came here to be engaged in debate. I 
was hoping we would have a very open process under general order, but 
that is not what is happening. What I am afraid is we are going to end 
up with a deal that is going to be dropped in our laps with a couple of 
days to go, like with the health care law, like Dodd-Frank. All of a 
sudden we get these thousand-page bills dumped in our laps with no time 
to review, and then you start to see the unintended consequences. That 
is a real shame.
  I just came from a press conference where every Member of the 
freshman class--we had a meeting this morning--and we were talking 
about, what can we do? I mean, we all came here in a very sincere 
desire to actually solve the problem. One of the things we talked about 
is how President Obama, rather than being serious about this, rather 
than tackling the problem, is willing to scare seniors and members of 
our military. We thought that was over the line. So we sent a letter to 
the President today asking: Please, step to the plate. Seriously 
address the problem. Stop scaring our seniors. Work with us. We want to 
help you solve the problem.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. I thank him for his great group of 
freshmen Senators who have added so much common sense to our problem. 
We were not elected to preside over the financial decline of America. 
We were not elected to skirt the law. We were not elected to shut down 
committees, to shut down debate, to cede our constitutional 
responsibility to secret meetings and closed-door proceedings. We were 
elected to do our duty, and there is no higher duty than to protect the 
American people from a clear and present danger. For that reason, I 
will oppose cloture on today's motion to waive section 303(c) of the 
Budget Act. I will vote to sustain the budgetary point of order, and I 
will encourage my colleagues to support my amendment raising that 
budget point of order to a threshold of 60 votes.
  This is only the beginning of our fight. There will be more votes, 
more objections, more points of order working with my colleagues. I 
will give all that I have to help put this country on a sound, honest, 
financial path. Washington must recognize that America's strength does 
not lie in the size of our government, but in the scope of our freedoms 
and in the hearts of our people. The debt we have today is already 
pulling down our economic growth. Experts tell us we have lost 1 
percent of economic growth because our debt exceeds 90 percent of our 
total economy--90 percent of GDP. It is 95 percent of GDP right now. We 
will reach 100 percent of GDP by the end of this year. That alone 
reduces growth, according to the experts. Secretary of the Treasury 
Geithner said he thought that was an excellent study that found that 
fact.
  What does 1 percent growth mean? Well, instead of the first quarter 
having 1.8 or 2 percent growth, we would have had 3 percent growth. If 
we had 3 percent growth instead of 2 percent growth, 1 million more 
jobs would be added per year, based on just the alteration of the 
difference between 2 percent growth and 3 percent growth.
  We have to face these problems. I hope our colleagues are reaching a 
decision about how to proceed that can be successful. We have to make 
progress this year. We are going to have to sustain progress for a 
decade. If we do so, we will put this country on the right path. If we 
get that debt down--it is not too hard to do it--we will start seeing 
our growth come back, more jobs being created, more wealth being 
created, more taxes being paid, less help to people who are in need 
because they are now working when they weren't.
  So I thank the Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to share these 
remarks.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for me to offer and receive a vote on an amendment to this bill 
which relates to a 303(c) point of order that requires adoption of a 
budget resolution prior to the consideration of any appropriations 
bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam President, the amendment is not 
germane to the bill. I am trying to keep this bill bipartisan and free 
of extraneous matters. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise today in support of the motion to 
waive section 303 of the Budget Act and to allow the Senate to move 
forward with its consideration of the MilconVA appropriations bill. I 
would like to say for the record that I agree with the Senator from 
Alabama that it would be preferable for the Senate to have passed a 
budget resolution prior to its consideration of individual 
appropriations bills.
  In fact, on March 10 of this year, I stated my strong desire to move 
all of

[[Page 11126]]

the fiscal year 2012 bills through regular order, which of course 
begins with the passage of a budget resolution and adoption of our 
302(a) allocation. Unfortunately, such is not the case this year. As we 
are all painfully aware, the current impasse over the budget is a 
direct result of the unwillingness of some in Congress to negotiate a 
comprehensive solution to our long-term deficit problem.
  We are all well aware of these realities. It is my strong belief, 
however, that we must not allow the needs of our military or our 
veterans to be held hostage by the current budget stalemate. And while 
it is true that we do not have an overall allocation for discretionary 
appropriations, for the MilconVA bill we were able to agree with our 
House colleagues on an acceptable allocation. Therefore, there is no 
reason to delay consideration of this bill.
  It is important that all of our colleagues understand that what we 
are recommending is not unprecedented. In fact, the Senate has acted on 
appropriations legislation absent a budget resolution four times in the 
past decade, including twice under Republican control. It is my strong 
desire, as I believe it is the desire of every member of the 
Appropriations Committee, that we move our bills under regular order. 
However, with less than 90 days left in the fiscal year and no budget 
resolution in sight, efforts need to be made to ensure the livelihood 
of our veterans and their families are not disrupted.
  This is not a controversial bill. It passed out of the full committee 
unanimously, by a vote of 30-0. Yesterday, 89 Senators voted in favor 
of the motion to proceed to the bill. Finally, my colleagues should 
know that many of the provisions of this bill were voted on in the 
Armed Services Committee which was also passed unanimously, by a vote 
of 22-0. That is a great deal of support for moving forward with this 
measure. And, I am aware of no serious opposition to the substance of 
the bill.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of 
waiving the budget point of order and allowing the Senate to move 
forward with its consideration of the fiscal year 2012 Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam President, there is a cloture 
motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to waive 
     the points of order under section 303 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 for H.R. 2055, any amendments thereto and 
     motions thereon.
         Harry Reid, Tim Johnson, Mark Kirk, Richard J. Durbin, 
           Kay R. Hagan, Michael F. Bennet, Mark R. Warner, John 
           F. Kerry, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, Carl 
           Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Jeff Bingaman, Mark Udall, 
           Patty Murray, Patrick J. Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse.

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to waive 
     the points of order under section 303 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 for H.R. 2055, any amendments thereto and 
     motions thereon.
         Harry Reid, Tim Johnson, Mark Kirk, Richard J. Durbin, 
           Kay R. Hagan, Michael F. Bennet, Mark R. Warner, John 
           F. Kerry, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, Carl 
           Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Jeff Bingaman, Mark Udall, 
           Patty Murray, Patrick J. Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to waive the points of order under section 303 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for H.R. 2055, and any amendments or 
motions thereto, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and 
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 71, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Burr
     Hatch
     Roberts
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 71, the nays are 
26. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am giving fair warning to everyone. We 
have gotten nonchalant about coming to vote. We have an extra 5 
minutes. We are not going to extend that in the future. It is not fair 
to everyone else who gets here on time. So everyone is on notice. We 
are going to cut the votes off in 20 minutes. People come straggling in 
8, 10 minutes late. That is not going to work anymore. It is going to 
affect Democrats and Republicans.
  Madam President, this will be the last vote of the week. We will more 
than likely be in session tomorrow. There will be no votes tomorrow. If 
there are people who want to offer amendments, the two managers of this 
bill, Senator Johnson and Senator Kirk are here. They are here tonight. 
This vote coming up will be the last vote of the week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts).

[[Page 11127]]

  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Burr
     Hatch
     Moran
     Roberts
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam President, I move to reconsider 
the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I am pleased that we are beginning 
consideration of the fiscal year 2012 Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.
  This bill passed out of the Committee on Appropriations by a 
unanimous vote of 30 to 0. It is the hope of the committee that such 
strong, bipartisan support will continue as the full Senate debates 
this measure and that we will be able to consider germane amendments in 
a reasonable period of time, pass the bill, and move on to a conference 
with the House.
  As we continue to debate the larger fiscal challenges our Nation 
faces, I note that the level of funding in the Senate mark of this 
MILCON-VA bill is consistent with the level of funding in the House-
passed measure.
  I thank Chairman Johnson and Vice Chairman Kirk for their brilliant 
work in producing a bill that provides essential support to our 
veterans, our Active-Duty military, and their families. The resources 
provided in this bill will fund vital construction projects and will 
ensure that our wounded veterans and warriors receive the excellent 
care they deserve.
  It is good we are moving the first of our fiscal year 2012 
appropriations bills under regular order. As I have said on numerous 
occasions, the best way to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent 
wisely is to move our 12 bills through the committee, the full Senate, 
to a conference with the House, and through final passage in both 
Chambers.
  Our ability to work together on this important bill serves as a 
reminder that bipartisan compromise can be achieved by the Congress, 
even in the most difficult of budget environments. It is my hope that 
the spirit of bipartisanship embodied in this bill will serve as a 
model for the remaining fiscal year 2012 appropriations process.
  I congratulate Chairman Johnson and Vice Chairman Kirk for their 
efforts. I look forward to returning to the floor at the earliest 
possible date with the next appropriations measure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii for his kind word about the management of this bill. I join him 
in his congratulations to the two managers. We appreciate their hard 
work.
  The committee had extensive hearings and review of all the 
appropriations bills we are going to be taking up--a public hearing 
process, open for comments, with opportunities for people to express 
their views. They have done that in a diligent, careful, and 
responsible manner. I think it is a credit to the Senate that we have 
considered this bill today. We look forward to continuing to work our 
way through all the appropriations bills that come under the 
jurisdiction of the committee. I especially thank my friend from Hawaii 
for his leadership.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam 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. KIRK. 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. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       REMEMBERING Betty Lou Reed

  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, while we are waiting for authors of their 
amendments to come to the floor to speak on a point of personal 
business, I wanted to rise to eulogize one of my mentors in politics.
  State Representative Betty Lou Reed died this week. She was somebody 
many of us in northern Illinois looked up to. Betty Lou Reed served 
from her home community of Deerfield, IL. She knew Senator Everett 
Dirksen well and helped in his campaigns for reelection. She was 
someone who practiced the art of politics from the fiscally 
conservative side but the ideological center. She was someone who was a 
role model for many of us at the township, the State, and especially at 
the Federal level.
  I first met Betty Lou after she had retired from our State 
legislature in Springfield, IL, when she served as the district 
director for Congressman John Porter. I remember a long visit with her, 
as she was showing me the congressional district where I grew up, from 
a political point of view.
  As we passed by the Zion nuclear reactor, she said: Whatever your 
feelings from college, buddy boy, here we are pro nuclear power. And 
she began to introduce me to the politics, especially of Lake County, 
IL.
  Betty Lou Reed was someone who liked to drink her bourbon and branch 
water, as she called it, regularly in the evening, telling old war 
stories about how things were done in Springfield, IL. She was always 
kind and considerate, and I never heard a swear word from her, ever--
despite the rough language that is used both in Springfield and in 
Chicago.
  Her husband was a staunch supporter of hers and always available for 
the continuous set of parades and public meetings she went to. She 
guided us, especially in the consideration of the first Base 
Realignment and Closure Committee in which Ft. Sheridan--in Illinois, 
next to her home district--was the poster child for disposal, given its 
high value and golf course next to Lake Michigan. We went through a 
number of proposals, such as bringing in a prison or homeless shelters, 
et cetera, but finally came to a mutually agreed-upon solution of a set 
of public buildings, parks, and additions to Lake Forest, Highwood, and 
Highland Park.
  Probably her greatest legacy was in supporting and teaching a young 
Congressman from our area, Congressman John Porter, the ropes and 
guiding him through difficult elections and tough partisan times. I 
served as Congressman Porter's chief of staff while she, as she put it, 
garnered the real votes back home and took care of business.
  Betty Lou lost her husband a while ago, and she passed away this 
week. Many of us in northern Illinois remember her not just as a 
trusted public official and congressional staff member but as someone 
who taught us the ropes--even those of us from

[[Page 11128]]

Chicagoland--and how to exercise the art of politics, maybe more gently 
and with better language than our predecessors.
  I very much will miss Betty Lou Reed. I know Congressman Porter 
shares this sentiment, as do many of the staff and the political 
families of northern Illinois, and I wanted to take this moment today 
in the Senate to mark her passing and say how very much we will miss 
her.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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. MENENDEZ. 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.


                          BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I know we are on the MILCON 
appropriations bill, but I did not want to lose the opportunity to talk 
about a pressing issue before the country today; that is, how we will 
work to resolve the Nation's obligations to its creditors and what the 
failure of doing that means to the Nation and to each and every 
American. I rise to ask a simple question of my Republican colleagues: 
When is an entitlement not an entitlement? Apparently, given the 
rhetoric and actions of some of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, the answer would be that an entitlement is not an entitlement 
when it benefits an entitled class of wealthy Americans. In the 
Republicans' ideological haze that is swirling around Washington these 
days, it is only an entitlement when it goes to the middle-class 
families, to students, to seniors, to the disabled, to the downtrodden, 
and the dispossessed.
  Those entitlements, according to the Republicans, should be on the 
chopping block. But entitlements to the wealthy can never be on the 
table, despite the fact that our current Tax Code allows the wealthiest 
400 taxpayers in America to pay a smaller percentage of their income in 
taxes than the average New Jersey family--less than the average New 
Jersey family.
  What Republicans will ultimately do, their goal in this debt 
negotiation, is outlined in the House-passed budget that ends Medicare 
as we know it, the baseline of retirement security for our seniors, 
what was the retirement security of my mother in the twilight of her 
life as she struggled against Alzheimer's, after having worked a 
lifetime to help build a family and be part of contributing to a 
community. She would not have lived in the dignity she deserved in the 
twilight of her life but for Medicare as we know it--and it makes a 
middle-class life in America more expensive and less accessible.
  It seems to me the policies of our Republican friends would make sure 
the rich get even more rich at the expense of the middle class. They 
think the rich are entitled to all the tax loopholes they get but 
seniors and the disabled, they do not need the health benefits they are 
getting. We call this leadership? Do they call it leadership, to stand 
on ideology and send this Nation into default?
  Default basically means being a deadbeat. I think average Americans 
understand what being a deadbeat is all about. We teach our children to 
meet their responsibilities. We say do not incur a debt, but if you 
incur that debt, meet your responsibility--pay it. But now we have 
leaders in this Nation who say let's have this Nation be a deadbeat, 
and we would leave a senior citizen who lives--I know some of our 
friends here who may not have an appreciation of this--who lives month 
to month only on Social Security, standing hopelessly on the front 
porch waiting for a check that may not come. You call that leadership?
  We call it leadership to risk increasing interest rates on mortgages 
when families are struggling to pay at the current rates on student 
loans, on car payments, on credit cards that middle-class families can 
ill-afford now? They call it leadership to risk leaving a wounded 
veteran without a benefit check or active military men and women, their 
families, without a paycheck?
  They call it leadership to risk a spike in prices that increases the 
cost of groceries and gas and potentially costs a middle-class family 
in New Jersey an additional $1,500? They call it leadership to risk an 
end to unemployment benefits to States, leaving those already 
struggling in this economy at risk of losing what little they have?
  They call it leadership to risk Medicaid payments to States for 
disabled seniors in nursing homes who have no other options but 
amazingly allow a millionaire who owns a stable of racehorses a 
depreciation allowance on the Tax Code on those racehorses? That is an 
entitlement we should not touch? That is leadership? Bottom line, it is 
estimated that about $125 billion worth of bills, on average, may have 
to be put off if we don't deal with meeting the Nation's obligations.
  It is not leadership if the dollar plummets and America loses. It is 
not leadership if no one follows but the far rightwing of the 
Republican Party. If we are going to balance the budget by limiting 
entitlements and subsidies and earmarks, perhaps we should begin with 
those entitlements in the Tax Code that benefit those who are the 
wealthiest in the country. Perhaps we should look at ending 
entitlements for rich oil companies that receive $2 billion a year. 
They receive in just two tax breaks that the code gives them $21 
billion over the next 10 years. Yet, oh, no, we can't touch that, but 
we can tell some senior that, in fact, they have to be on the chopping 
block; that Medicare has to end as we know it.
  How about $6 billion for ethanol producers or how about the racehorse 
depreciation allowance or the billions year after year that defense 
contractors think they are entitled to? How about investing in new 
bridges and tunnels and a new state-of-the-art transportation system in 
New Jersey instead of Kandahar?
  Our friends on the other side who believe we should balance the 
budget by spending cuts alone are more than willing to bargain away 
student loans, bargain away prescription drug coverage, even bargain 
away nursing home care for the elderly parents to protect entitlements 
for big oil companies, billionaire corporate executives who travel the 
world in private jets, and millionaires who believe they are entitled 
to all of the tax loopholes they are getting now after the biggest tax 
cut in history--entitled to tax cuts but not obligated to create 
American jobs, contrary to the false rhetoric we hear from the other 
side about a correlation between entitlements for the wealthy and job 
creation.
  The hard rightwing of the Republican Party has come to the table 
willing to give up nothing--unwilling to accept an offer by the 
President and Democrats of trillions of dollars in spending cuts, 
potential savings in entitlement programs, and tax reform options, all 
of which they have been demanding, unless we agree to protect the 
entitlements that exist for the wealthy. Not even a single penny on the 
revenue side of the option. Don't touch those entitlements for the big 
five oil companies. Don't touch the entitlements for the corporate 
jets. Don't touch the entitlements for the racehorses. Don't touch any 
of those entitlements giving the tax breaks and having a code where an 
incredible universe of corporations in America don't even pay at the 
end of the day by using all of the provisions of the code, anything 
toward the common good.
  They come to the table with nothing. They look America in the eye and 
tell us we cannot cut subsidies to big oil companies. We cannot put 
entitlements to the wealthy on the table because in their ideological 
haze, they conveniently, through this political sleight of hand, label 
any attempt to end those tax breaks, those entitlements, as a tax 
increase on what they like to call the job creators. Their excuse for 
such an irresponsible bargaining position: trickle-down economics. I 
have heard this so many times over the time I have been in Congress. 
But the problem is nothing has ever trickled down. Yet those same 
entitlements for the entitled, the $5 trillion entitlement the Bush tax 
cuts would cost going forward

[[Page 11129]]

over the next decade that we are told at the outset would create jobs, 
would turn out to be the greatest failed jobs program in American 
history.
  I look at how those tax breaks are skewed to the wealthiest. I 
understand the opportunity to help middle-class families, and I promote 
that because they are the ones who spend in this economy and create 
demands. But the way those tax cuts are skewed to the wealthiest, $5 
trillion, I ask my friends: Where are all the jobs that were supposedly 
going to be created as a result of that? Where are all the jobs these 
Republican entitlements to the wealthy are supposed to produce? Where 
are they? When middle-class Americans are struggling to make ends meet, 
pay the bills, keep their jobs, their health care, their homes, 
entitlements to the entitled are the most reckless kind of spending.
  This is the irresponsible Republican entitlement spending that should 
be on the table, the very entitlement spending that contributed to our 
current debt, and yet our friends on the other side continue to protect 
these entitlements.
  They will not vote to raise the debt limit unless we cut entitlements 
for the working middle-class families of this country, but they protect 
entitlements for the wealthiest Americans. They are holding a gun to 
our heads at a critical time in our economic history, but we need only 
to look back at how often Republicans, themselves, have raised the debt 
limit.
  As we can see from this chart, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, 
George W. Bush had seven increases of the debt ceiling, increasing it 
by 90 percent for the largest increase in history, a total of over $5 
trillion that includes the entitlements for the wealthy that they will 
not put on the table in the name of shared sacrifice even if it means 
America defaults on its debt and becomes a deadbeat and sends a ripple-
effect throughout the world and its economies that come back crashing 
on our shores in the United States. So it is amazing me.
  Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. Mr. President, 18 
times in 8 years, a total percentage increase of 199 percent, amounting 
to $1.8 trillion, which in today's dollars would be $4 trillion. Mr. 
President, 18 times, Ronald Reagan. George Bush, 7 times, for $5.3 
trillion.
  That amount, by the way, under the Bush years, ends up being, what. 
What is it equal to? The Bush tax cuts, $5 trillion.
  They will not raise the debt limit to protect the good faith of the 
American financial system, to protect middle-class families who have 
already lost so much under Republican economic policies that led us to 
the brink of economic disaster. The whole confluence of what happened 
in September of 2008 where we had these Bush tax cuts totally unpaid 
for, denying the Federal Treasury those moneys, at a time in which we 
had two wars raging abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan, a new entitlement 
program unpaid for, and a marketplace that instead of being a free 
market--which I support--became a free-for-all market in which investor 
decisions ended up becoming a collective risk to the entire country, 
and that is what we have been facing.
  Instead of meeting this responsibility, they favor cuts in 
entitlements to the seniors, to the disabled, to families struggling to 
make ends meet, to students seeking to get the college education that 
could help fuel America's prosperity. That is what we saw in the House 
Republican budget that passed but are willing to decimate our Nation's 
economy to protect entitlements for the rich. They have dug in their 
heels and walled off irresponsible, unnecessary tax breaks for big oil 
companies. They have walled off entitlements to multibillion-dollar 
corporations and millionaires who need no entitlements because they 
believe--blinded by their ideological haze--the rich are entitled to 
their outrageous giveaways even if it means ballooning the deficit and 
sending the Nation into default on its debt. Entitlements for these 
special interests, cuts for everyone else.
  Republicans prefer to talk about cutting entitlements rather than 
what it really means--rather than cutting Social Security, rather than 
cutting Medicare, rather than cutting Medicaid--because cutting 
entitlements seems so esoteric. It is not very personal. But we all 
know our families, our mothers and fathers who may be getting their 
health care on Medicare or one of them who may be sitting in a nursing 
home on Medicaid or a poor child who is getting their health care being 
taken care of on Medicaid, we know our friends and neighbors with 
disabilities, and we understand what those challenges are.
  Let's be clear. The only entitled people Republicans are talking 
about in this debate are those who already enjoy enormous benefits 
under the Tax Code, both individually and corporations that feel 
entitled to these pretty outrageous tax breaks.
  Oil companies, as I heard from the executives who appeared before the 
Senate Finance Committee, clearly feel entitled to $21 billion in 
subsidies. Millionaires and billionaires think they are entitled to the 
Bush tax cuts. Corporate titans think they are entitled to tax breaks 
for their private corporate jets, and Republicans think these are the 
only entitlements worth protecting.
  It is time to stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of 
seniors and middle-class working families. It is time to stop 
protecting government handouts to the entitled class at the expense of 
the middle class and telling America in good economic times that it 
stimulates the economy and in bad times that it is a job creation 
policy.
  The truth is, it is neither. It is simply an entitlement program for 
an entitled small class of Americans who are not struggling to make 
ends meet or pay the mortgage or afford health care or find another 
minimum wage job to put food on the table. This stark contrast of 
wealth in the Nation is in the numbers.
  The 400 wealthiest taxpayers--those who get the most out of 
Republican entitlements--had an average income in 2008 of $270 million, 
almost $300 million. That amounts to an hourly wage of about $31,000 an 
hour. Their average tax rate was about 18 percent. In contrast, the 
median New Jersey household earned about $64,777 the entire year as 
opposed to just 2 hours. That equated to 2 hours for the richest 400 
people, and yet they paid an average of 21.2 percent. They paid a 
higher percentage of less of their wages than those 400 top earners in 
the country.
  A first lieutenant at Fort Dix, NJ, earned about $52,000. He paid an 
average tax rate of 18.9 percent. So I ask, looking at these numbers, 
what should be on the table and what should not? The fact is, we are 
offering solutions. We are simply asking for fairness and for our 
friends on the other side to bring something to the table other than a 
political ideology and an unrealistic ultimatum, all in order to 
protect an entitled class that needs no protections. I don't usually 
agree with the conservative columnist David Brooks, but as I have said 
on this floor before, I agree with him when he says, ``The members of 
this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their 
Nation's honor . . .
  They are willing to stain their Nation's honor.
  I agree when he wrote that ``if the debt talks fail independent 
voters will see Democrats as willing to compromise but Republicans were 
not.''
  Although this is not even about that. At the end of the day, this is 
about the Nation. This is about our economy. This is about trying to 
get people back to work. This is about trying to ensure families can 
realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations. This is about the 
United States of America, a beacon of light to the rest of the world, 
the gold standard in terms of credit and meeting its obligations, 
continuing to be that gold standard and that beacon of light or 
becoming a deadbeat in the world.
  I would go even further and say the American public will see right 
through these efforts to protect entitlements for a privileged class 
while those Americans who struggle every day to build the foundation of 
America, the cuts go on their backs. They come to the table with 
nothing other than an ideological

[[Page 11130]]

fixation that prevents them from negotiating in good faith, prevents 
them from putting the interests of the country ahead of their narrow 
political interests.
  I have read some of the comments about this issue as it relates to: 
Well, you know, do we end up giving President Obama the ability to get 
reelected? This is not about President Obama. This is about the United 
States of America. This is about our country. This is about being 
responsible at one of its most critical times. This is about getting 
the country back on track. It is about giving the private sector faith 
and confidence that we are not going to default on our debt, that we 
are going to meet our obligations. It is about telling investors in the 
world the United States is still a good place to invest. And when those 
investments are made, jobs are created, people go to work, once again 
they have the dignity of work taking place; they are able to spend in 
the economy, the economy grows, that creates other jobs, other 
opportunities, and we move toward fulfillment once again of the great 
American opportunity.
  That is what this debate is all about. It is a debate about each and 
every one of us. The sooner our friends realize it is not about a 
political equation, it is not about who wins and loses in a political 
context, it is about the Nation, the better. If we can fix our 
attention to the needs of the Nation, then I have to believe we can 
meet this challenge in a balanced way. Clearly, if Ronald Reagan raised 
the debt ceiling 18 times and if George Bush raised it 7 times, then 
this time, the first time under President Obama it needs to be raised, 
which is merely to pay the obligations we already have, I have to 
believe responsible people will come forward and say yes and do it in a 
way that isn't on the backs of middle-class working families.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 553

  Mr. COBURN. I call up amendment No. 553.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 553.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 eliminate the additional amount of $10,000,000, not 
   included in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2012, 
appropriated for the Department of Defense for planning and design for 
              the Energy Conservation Investment Program)

       On Page 64, line 24, strike ``$3,380,917,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,370,917,000''.

  Mr. COBURN. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) Without objection, 
it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 556

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up my amendment No. 
556, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], for himself 
     and Mr. Kirk, proposes an amendment numbered 556.

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. 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:

       On page 114 between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       Sec. 301. Not later than 90 days after enactment of this 
     Act, the Executive Director of Arlington National Cemetery 
     shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives detailing the 
     strategic plan and timetable to modernize the Cemetery's 
     Information Technology system, including electronic burial 
     records.

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, this is a joint amendment. I support it. It 
concerns a report on the operations of Arlington National Cemetery. It 
is very necessary. My understanding is that this then sets up the vote 
that the leaders have scheduled for Monday afternoon. And that is what 
we are doing right now to continue the consideration of this bill.

                          ____________________