Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. The first amendment is to use unspent stimulus funds and the second is by shutting down unnecessary or duplicate Federal programs. In other words, I am saying we should use money we have already set aside that has not been spent or eliminate wasteful spending to pay for the benefits that are in this current bill. Over the last few days, many Senators on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor and said unemployment benefits are the best form of stimulus available. They say the families who are getting those benefits turn around and spend the money immediately. Well, if that is true, I cannot think of a better use of the money from last year's so- called stimulus bill. Why leave that money sitting around unused in a government account somewhere when those funds could get into the hands of people who need them the most and will put them into the economy right away? What is so sacred about the stimulus bill that we should keep that money sitting around until it can be spent later this year or next year or even in 2012 and beyond? Why not help the people now? But for the Senators who think the stimulus money is so sacred that it cannot be touched, I am proposing another way to pay for this bill. Senator Coburn, my colleague from Oklahoma, has identified well more than $120 billion worth of savings from waste, fraud, and abuse. These savings include closing the Federal employee tax gap; that is, making sure all Federal employees pay all the taxes they owe, and stopping the payment of benefits to people and companies that are not entitled to those benefits. The amendment would also be paid for by ending Federal programs that are no longer needed or duplicates of other government programs and making existing programs run more efficiently. I think the President's budget itself has hit on many of those programs he would like to see eliminated or partially eliminated. I think it is safe to call that wasteful spending, and I think the taxpayers who are footing the bill for those programs would agree. Families all across America have to tighten their budgets when times get tough, and government should do the same. That is all I am trying to do with these two amendments. I am sure some will accuse me of being against the programs in this bill. But the record should be clear by now that I support helping people in their time of need. In fact, every Member of the Senate who was able to make the votes last night supported extension of those benefits, either in my pay-for version or in the version that added to the debt. My amendments are not about whether we should extend these programs. No. My amendments are about whether we should pay for extending these programs or whether we should keep piling more debt on top of the $14 trillion-plus debt we have already. I think the answer is very clear. Last night, I thought we had a deal worked out to give me an up-or- down vote on my amendment to pay for the short-term extender bill. Instead, one Senator raised a budget point of order against the amendment, and I expect someone will try to do the same thing today with my amendments. That was her right as a Senator, but it is certainly not within the spirit of the agreement I tried to reach to find a way forward on these important programs. But I think the larger question raised by that move is, What are the 53 Senators who voted to block my amendment afraid of? Are they afraid the Senate might pay for something we do? Are they afraid we might take a step toward balancing the Federal budget? Are they afraid we will bring Washington spending, which is out of control, just a little bit under control and live under the same rules as ordinary American families? Is it too much to ask that we pay for what we spend? Last night, 53 Senators said yes, it is too much to ask for. But I think it is not. Today, every Senator will have an opportunity to join me in saying it is not too much to ask or they can vote against my amendments and add another $100 billion-plus to the national debt. That is the emergency spending in this present bill--over $100 billion. So that goes onto the bottom line of the Federal debt. I urge every Senator to vote for my amendments to pay for this spending, to put away the taxpayers' credit card, and to put an end to the debt madness. I have examples of those spending rescissions. As an example, there is $245 million from congressional office budgets, to end some of the perks congressional leadership and congressional offices have; to end the Forest Service Economic Action Program, $5 million. I think the President put this in his budget. The program duplicates an existing USDA program--Urban and Community Forestry--that has been poorly managed. Another is to end the Public Telecommunications Facilities Grant Program, $18 million. I am positive this was in the President's budget. This program is intended to help public broadcasting stations construct telecom facilities. Since the transition to digital broadcasting has been completed, there is no more need for this program. On down the line--end HUD's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, $17 million; reduce the historic preservation services within the Interior Department by $55 million. This is a grant program duplicated by other programs at the Interior Department. This is one I am very familiar with because when I was in the House, we thought this was a necessary program to put our economic footing on foreign soil, the same as other foreign-based companies did when they came to America. End the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, $52 million. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation loans private U.S. companies funding for foreign investments and insurance. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency does the very same thing. Another is to eliminate $28 million in the Department of Transportation that has been directed at transportation museums-- museums. I do not think we should be building new museums with Department of Transportation funds. I think we should be building roads. Those are just a few examples of some of the rescissions I would like to see in the second amendment I have offered today. I think there will be ample time to discuss these later on, but I wanted to make sure we offered these amendments early on so we could have a good and thorough debate on these programs as this bill proceeds through the Senate. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. Amendment No. 3356

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are 4 minutes equally divided on these two amendments; is that correct?

Mr. BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 3360 is simple. It contains all of the extensions in the Baucus substitute, but rather than adding over $100 billion in cost to the deficit and debt, which the Baucus substitute does, my amendment pays for the spending in this bill by rescinding unspent stimulus funding. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated repeatedly that CBO considers money spent on extending unemployment benefits to be one of the best kinds of stimulus because the people who receive it are likely to immediately spend it. So let's redirect money from an ineffective stimulus bill in which some of the funding won't be spent until fiscal year 2013 or beyond. Let's stimulate the economy now and prevent a massive increase in the debt at the same time. I am having a hard time understanding why some Senators believe stimulus funding is so sacred. Was the stimulus brought down from the mountaintop by Moses? If that is the case, why did the majority raid stimulus money to pay for an extension of cash for clunkers? I will be the first to admit that neither side of the aisle has clean hands when it comes to out-of-control spending. We can't control what was done in the past, but we can control what happens today. It is time to take a stand--a stand for our children and grandchildren so they won't have to pay back trillions more in debt. I am tired of China holding the mortgage on our country. I am tired of the massive national debt that will be doubled in 5 years and tripled in 10. It is hard for me to look my grandchildren in the eye when I know this generation is handing them a country where they won't have the same opportunities to succeed and prosper as I did. It has to stop. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, our spending has to stop. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, let me briefly describe my amendment No. 3361. Like other amendments, this amendment contains all the extensions in the Baucus substitute, and it also completely pays for that spending. But it provides a different alternative for paying for it: eliminating wasteful and duplicative government programs. Many of these programs are the ones President Obama has recommended terminating, and others have been highlighted by the CBO and the Congressional Research Service as wasteful. I thank Senator Coburn publicly for the good work he has done compiling this list of programs. We voted on a similar spending reduction when the Senate passed a record $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit to $14.3 trillion. I hope we have a different outcome today. I hope my colleagues will not choose bloated bureaucracy over our children and grandchildren. They will face over $100 billion more in debt and compounding interest on the debt if we do not pay for this bill. Enough is enough. If we cannot find the money to pay for programs, we ought to make the hard choices to reduce the deficit and debt. I hope my colleagues will make the right choice today and support my amendment.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. There is. I object. And let me----

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I wish to respond to the Democratic leader, particularly in view of what my leader just said about bipartisanship. It seems that last week there was a bipartisan agreement between the members of the Finance Committee on the very issue the Democratic leader spoke on. It was called the Baucus-Grassley compromise bill. It never got to the floor of the Senate. That was a bipartisan bill that was set aside for a very partisan bill that Senator Reid brought to the floor and rammed through instead of the bipartisan bill, which had all these extended benefits included in it: extended unemployment benefits, COBRA health care assistance, flood insurance, highway bill assistance, the Medicare doc fix, small business loans, distant network channel for rural satellite television, and other things. It is hypocritical of the Democratic side of this aisle passing a pay-go bill. What does pay-go mean? It means you pay for the bills as they appear on the floor of the Senate. Then, to present a bill that is not paid for or just paid for a little bit--one-third of it is paid for--and that was the Reid jobs bill he presented to us. Five billion dollars was paid for; ten billion dollars was not. Then, immediately follows a UC, which is not--which is not--something we normally do. We have unanimous consents that are much different than this. This is a House bill they have asked unanimous consent to proceed on. Regular order could prevail and the leader of this Senate could put this bill under cloture and get his vote. He will get his 60-plus votes and normal procedure will occur. That is the normal way to deal with this bill. Just so my colleagues understand that not all Americans feel the same as my dear friend from Maine and the majority leader of the Senate, I am going to read a letter into the Record from a constituent of mine from Louisville. I am going to read it also because it is very important people understand there are other sides of this. Dear Senator Jim Bunning: I haven't worked a full 40-hour week in probably 2 years now, but I fully support your decision to stand up to those in Congress who want to do nothing more than to spend the taxpayers' money, even the money they do not have, on unemployment extension benefits. So far this year I have worked a total of one week here in Louisville, Kentucky. My employer is a sheet metal fabrication plant with its main headquarters based in Cincinnati, Ohio. Normally the Louisville branch would employ upwards of fifty people on any given day if business were good. Recently that number has dwindled to about four. This country is sooner or later going to implode because of the massive amount of debt run up over the past 40 to 50 years. Selling the Nation's soul to countries like Communist China in order to finance our life style and allow the government to further debase the currency is sheer lunacy. Throwing away hundreds of billions of dollars so executives on Wall Street can keep their multi-million dollar bonuses while others in society worry about keeping the electricity on and their children fed only helps to move this country closer to a long overdue revolution. The problem is by then we won't even own it anymore. Politicians, on both sides, enjoy getting up in front of television cameras and talking about their support of the ``pay as you go'' plan, but when it comes down to actually doing what they say, they all run for cover and vote for anything they think will win them another vote or another term. Your stance in holding them to their words and expecting them to actually do what they voted for is a refreshing concept in an otherwise corrupt and hypocritical power base known as Washington, DC. It is too bad Senator Mitch McConnell and some of the elected officials on your side of the aisle do not have your backbone or your sense of decency when it comes to keeping their promises to the American people. For security's sake, I am just going to read his first name. It says: Sincerely, Robert, from Louisville. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that I have supported extension of unemployment benefits, COBRA health care benefits, flood insurance, the highway bill. I was the one who proposed the Medicare doc fix on a permanent basis in the Finance Committee. I have supported small business loans and all the other things that are in this temporary bill. I wish to set the record straight. The majority leader has all the tools in his kit and he normally exercises them and I think he is about to do that on the bill currently before us, which we call the large jobs bill. He soon will invoke cloture to cut off debate. He normally doesn't even allow amendments. He will file cloture, fill the tree--by filling the tree, that means the amendment tree which allows the Republicans no alternatives but to vote for cloture or not vote for cloture--and then, unfortunately, we have 30 hours of debate immediately following cloture. Unanimous-Consent Request I am going to propose, one more time, my unanimous-consent request. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691; that the amendment at the desk which offers a full offset be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read for a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I will only continue for 2 minutes. Why would you vote for a bill when you know it is not going to be honored? Why would you vote for a bill you knew was going to be violated in the first bill brought to the floor after you passed it? As far as the doc fix is concerned, I have a history with the doc fix that I don't need to defend to the majority leader or to anybody in this body. Check with the Kentucky Medical Association and all my doctors whom I represent in Kentucky. I think the letter of the gentleman from Louisville states the facts better than I. We want a country where my 40 grandchildren have the same abilities I did growing up. We want a country that doesn't owe everybody in the world for our existence. The question I have been asked mostly is: Why now? Well, why not now? What better time to stand than now, when the majority leader has the ability to do exactly on this bill what he has done on 25 bills in the last 5 months: file cloture, fill the tree, and vote yea or nay, get the 60 votes, pass the bill, and extend these temporary benefits. We may pass this other bill--I hope we do--that will extend them on a permanent basis for a year--until the end of the year, anyway. I think it is very important that people understand that I have the same right he does. He was elected by the people in Nevada, with fewer people than in Kentucky. So I have the same right as any other Senator here on the floor. It is not a filibuster when you object. That ought to be brought out clearly. A filibuster is when you stand on this floor and you talk and talk and talk. I have not done that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BUNNING. I wish to understand what the Senator from New York is trying to do.

Mr. BUNNING. Sure.

Mr. BUNNING. And that was granted.

Mr. BUNNING. But that is the normal procedure.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, in a minute I will speak about my amendment to pay for this bill. First, I want to talk about how we got here. Last week, I objected to the majority leader's request for unanimous consent to pass a 30-day extension of several expiring programs that was not paid for. I offered to pass the exact same bill that was paid for, and unfortunately he objected to my request. There was nothing stopping him from using the tools at his disposal to overcome my objection. The leader could have filed cloture on the bill and brought it to the floor last week, instead of the travel bill that is a great giveaway to his State. If he had done that, this bill would have been signed into law already. He also could have filed cloture on the bill and worked through the weekend and it would already be law. The leader could have proceeded to the bipartisan Baucus- Grassley bill that paid for these programs and it would have been signed into law by now. He could have accepted my request to pay for the bill and we would not be here tonight. Instead, the leader decided to press ahead with a bill that adds to the debt and violates the principles of pay-go that everyone claims to care about. Just over a month ago, the majority in the Senate passed pay-go legislation that supposedly says we are going to pay for what we spend. I support that idea, but I knew at the time that the legislation would be ignored. Unfortunately, I was right. Barely 1 week after President Obama signed the pay-go law into effect, the majority leader proposed a bill that was not paid for. That bill passed and added $10 billion to the deficit. That is $10 billion your children and my children and grandchildren will have to pay for. That is $10 billion on top of a $14 trillion national debt. After passing $10 billion more debt on to future generations, the majority leader proposed to pass another bill to add another $10 billion to the debt. That is when I said enough is enough; we cannot keep adding to the debt and passing the buck to generations of future workers and taxpayers--my children and your children and our grandchildren. As we all know, the national debt has grown at a record pace in recent years. A large part of that has been a result of a downturn in the economy a decade ago and then during the last few years. But increased government spending has been a major factor too. Over the last few days, several Senators on the other side of the aisle have blamed Republican spending for the debt and asked why we did not pay for things when we were in charge. They have a point. I wish we would have spent less and paid for more of it when we were in charge. There are some votes I wish I could have back, and I am sure many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle feel the same way. But it is not fair to blame Republican spending for all the drastic increases in our national debt. Our side has not controlled the Congress for more than 3 years, and the current Congress is spending more and faster than ever before. For example, last year, the majority pushed through a so-called stimulus bill, followed quickly by an omnibus spending bill that contributed to the government ending the year $1.4 trillion in the red, the largest 1-year deficit in the history of the United States of America. Clearly, we are not headed in the right direction. I do not want to turn this into a partisan debate because it is not a partisan issue. I only make these points to show that neither side has clean hands, and what matters is we get our spending problems under control. As every struggling family knows, we cannot solve a debt problem by spending more. We must get our debt problems under control, and there is no better time than now. That is why I have been down here demanding that this bill be paid for. I support the programs in the bill we are discussing, and if the extension of those programs were paid for, I would gladly support the bill. The unemployment rate in my State is well over 10 percent right now. Many rural families get their television through satellite providers in Kentucky. More than half our State is bordered by rivers, and flood insurance is vital to the people who live near those borders and any of the major-minor rivers in the State. In fact, I wrote the law that enacted the current version of the Flood Insurance Program. I care about it deeply. I am concerned about all the other programs in this bill as well, as is every other Member of this body. That is all the more reason to pay for this bill. If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 Senators support, how can we tell the American people with a straight face that we will ever pay for anything? That is what Senators say they want, and that is what the American people want. They want us to get our budgets in order, just like they have to get their budgets in order every day. But that is not what the majority is doing. Tonight, tomorrow, and on every spending bill in the future, we will see whether they mean business about controlling our debt or if it is just words. We will see if pay-go has any teeth. Tonight, I am offering a substitute amendment that pays for these important programs with Democratic ideas. Tomorrow, I will offer amendments to the offset, the longer term extender bill that was on the floor earlier today. I will be back on future spending bills demanding that they be paid for so future generations of Americans will not be burdened with our overspending. As I said, my amendment pays for this bill with Democratic ideas. The 10-year cost of extending these programs for 1 month is $10.26 billion. The offset I am offering will more than pay for this cost, and the offset should be familiar to many. It has been proposed by Senator Baucus in his substitute amendment to the long-term extension bill. It was also proposed in the Obama administration's budget. The offset would prevent black liquor, which is a byproduct of the pulp and paper process, from being eligible for the cellulosic biofuels producer tax credit. This will save the Treasury almost $24 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Tax Committee. As I said, this will more than pay for the cost of the bill, and there will be almost $14 billion left over. Under the pay-go rules, that $14 billion will be available to be used to pay for the next bill Congress passes. I think we all expect that the next bill will be the long-term extension bill. Some might say I am creating a $24 billion hole in the next bill by using that offset now. That is not true. First, we are removing over $10 billion in costs from that larger bill by enacting the 1-month extensions now, and we are also making $14 billion available for that bill. Members on this side of the aisle, including myself, have offered and will offer ways to completely pay for the cost of that more expensive, longer term extension bill. This pay-for is a proposal made by the majority, and I hope and expect every one of them to support my amendment. Anyone who does not should be prepared to answer why the Senate does not have to make the tough decisions to balance the government's budget while every American family does. We must bring an end to the out-of-control spending, and there is no better time than now. I urge my colleagues to join me in saying enough and restoring some discipline to Washington. I urge everyone in this body to support this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Chair. As the good Senator from Illinois knows, there is no need for a conference, since the House has already passed this bill and has already passed the language in this amendment. I am very sure that they would be willing to accept their own bill back and paid for. He mentioned the fact that I objected four times. I objected more than four, but the majority leader objected four times to my request. That was nowhere in his statement. And talking about Medicare Part D premiums and the cost of Medicare Part D, the majority party in this Senate has had 3 years to repeal Medicare Part D if it was a bad idea at the time we passed it. Certainly, with 60 full votes in the Senate, it could have repealed what they considered a bad bill. The fact it was not paid for was not to my liking. The fact that we were going to take care of Medicare senior citizens who couldn't afford their prescription drugs took precedence. He spoke about the letter from the Governor of Kentucky. I didn't receive it. I had no knowledge of the letter until it was brought up by the Senator from Illinois. It is amazing to me the number of misstatements, and how the Governor--a Democratic Governor of the Commonwealth--could bring all these facts out to the Senator from Illinois and not the Senator from Kentucky. There are so many things that I can say, but I have, I guess, 11 constituent communications here--either phone calls or letters, usually e-mails--and I am going to read a couple of them because I want to reserve some time in case the Senator from Illinois gets up again. This is from Randall in Bardstown, KY. Just want to thank you for your principled stand against the squandering of our country's wealth. Yes, we need to help those out of work; but no, we do not want to print more money to do it. I have two sons on unemployment at this time, yet we realize we cannot continue to spend money that doesn't exist. Thank you very much, Senator Bunning, for having the guts to stand up for your principles and oppose further spending of money we simply do not have. In particular, I am glad you stood up against extending unemployment benefits, which would put us further in debt. Regards. That was from Bob in Burlington, KY. And here is another: I just want to send you some encouragement to hold your ground in the Senate on renewing unemployment extension benefits. As a Kentucky taxpayer and a Federal taxpayer, I am tired of seeing unfunded and underfunded programs pass by Congress, and I am glad you are taking a stand. As an American and a Kentuckian, I believe the government has failed the American people almost totally, but at least in this instance you are not failing us. Please keep your resolve and don't let pressure and influence sway a good decision. That was from William in Flemingsburg, KY. I am surprised that you don't have more support when you are 100 percent correct; that if 100 men in agreement can't find a way to pay for a program, they will never pay for anything. Our deficit has got to stop, and now is always the best time to start. Thank you for standing up for us. That was Mark from Independence, KY. This will be the last one because I still have about three more pages of them: Thank you for holding firm last night. You are very much appreciated for being willing to say no to extended benefits that no one knows how to pay for or who will foot the bill. It takes a very special individual to stand firm when everyone around you seems to be caving in. That is from Debbie from Somerset, KY. These are just a few. There are more. But there are a lot of really good people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky--4.2 million--who want their Senators, their Members of the House, to stand up for themselves. I appreciate hearing from each and every one of them. I thank them for their support. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BUNNING. I want to object.

Mr. BUNNING. I want to understand what the Senator has proposed in plain English.

Mr. BUNNING. Reserving the right to object, what 5 minutes is he talking about--his time or the time that is already reserved for the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Finance Committee?

Mr. BUNNING. So I understand, on the time that is reserved for the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BUNNING. I yield whatever time the Senator from Alabama will consume.

Mr. BUNNING. How much time is left on our side?