[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5663-5664]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 788

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of S. 788.
  My friends on the other side have had this legislation for a short 
time, not a long time, but it is not that difficult to understand. I 
have tried to explain it the best I can.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
of S. 788, the text of which is at the desk, which is a bill to suspend 
the fiscal year 2013 sequestration and offset that with funds from the 
Overseas Contingency Operations; that the bill be read three times and 
passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
plan to object, I will take some time to explain why I object.
  What is happening in the Senate is phenomenal, and I want the 
American people to see this. The Federal Government is 89 percent 
bigger than it was 10 years ago. We just heard the majority leader say 
flexibility can't work because we are already dealing with the same 
amount of money--89 percent more than we were 10 years ago.
  I didn't vote for the Budget Control Act. I think sequester is a 
stupid way to cut spending. But I want us to understand exactly what is 
going on. This is a contrived situation because no effort--zero 
effort--by the FAA or the Department of Transportation has been made to 
have any flexibility in terms of how they spend their money. They have 
made no request for a reprogramming of funds within the FAA. They have 
over $500 million unobligated sitting in balances that aren't 
obligated, so none of this had to happen. This has been a created 
situation.
  I want my colleagues to think for a minute about the number of people 
who didn't make it to their aunt's funeral yesterday because of a 
contrived situation; the number of people who may not get to the birth 
of a grandchild; the number of business meetings that aren't going to 
occur because we have created a contrived situation. Our problem is we 
are continuing to spend money we don't have.
  So we have taken FAA, we have put the airlines at risk--and they are, 
by the way, suing the government because they haven't made a good-faith 
effort to do it in another way--and we have created a situation where 
we are going to discomfit and inconvenience hundreds of thousands of 
American people on a political point because we can't cut any spending 
in Washington.
  Let me outline for my colleagues a moment what the FAA could do. They 
could save $105 million by cutting their overhead expenses for 
consultant supplies and travel by 15 percent. That is one-seventh or 
one-sixth of all the money they need to keep all their controllers on. 
They could save $41 million by eliminating funding the President has 
already recommended eliminating in terms of programs for airports that 
are on the national plan of integrated airports. They have already 
recommended doing that, but they are not doing that. They have the 
flexibility to do that but they are not doing it. That is another $41 
million.
  They can save $6 million on small community air service--flexible. 
They could reduce the Airport Improvement Program. They have plenty of 
flexibility there. That is up to $926 million. They could do that. They 
could reduce or eliminate--and they would have to have our help to do 
this--the Essential Air Service Program where at many airports across 
this country we are paying a $1,200 subsidy to fly less than 10 people 
a day out of an airport less than 90 miles away from a major airport. 
So to say there is no flexibility, they do not want any flexibility. 
And the fact is our country is headed toward bankruptcy.
  Let me talk about OCO for a minute. It is true OCO money is in the 
budget, because we thought we were going to have to spend it. But every 
penny of that money will be borrowed money--borrowed money. So if we 
weren't going to spend it, we are saying now we are going to go over 
here and take care of sequestration? A 4-percent cut in the Federal 
budget--4 percent. It is only 89 percent bigger than it was 10 years 
ago and we can't find 4 percent within the FAA?
  Let me outline a few other things going on at the FAA. They have 
posted requirements for nonessential employees since sequestration 
started. They have made no efforts at flexibility. They have made no 
efforts to do what they could do to keep the most number of controllers 
working.
  This isn't going to happen. We are not going to borrow money anymore

[[Page 5664]]

against the future of our kids when in fact we have other ways to do 
it.
  I will make my final point. The President is the CEO of this country. 
He can make this happen with the least amount of inconvenience for the 
American people. The question is: Will he or not? Will he or not? Will 
we play this political shell game with the lives and perhaps the safety 
and certainly the inconvenience of the traveling public in this country 
to make the point there is no way we are going to cut any spending out 
of the Federal Government when it is 89 percent bigger? And, by the 
way, it is 48 percent bigger under President Obama.
  It is a real choice. America is going to get a real choice: Can we in 
fact respond in a prudent way to run this government in an efficient 
manner and eliminate low-priority items and put money for items such as 
NIH in a priority? We can. The question is: Do we have the will to do 
that?
  What we are hearing from the majority leader is: No, we don't want to 
cut anything. We will take some funny money that doesn't really exist, 
and if we use it, we are going to borrow, and that will take all the 
pain away. There won't be any oversight, no streamlining, no priorities 
made in terms of how we spend money.
  Every other American family and business has had to make those 
decisions. Yet we are refusing to do it. When we asked the President: 
Do you want the flexibility, he said no. He would veto the bill that 
gives him the flexibility to put high priorities up here and low 
priorities down here. That tells me it is all political. It doesn't 
have anything to do with the FAA; it has to do with creating an event 
so we won't do what is in the best long-term interests of the country.
  With that, I object.

                          ____________________