John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. A Federal law enforcement training center, additional funding for the Department of Justice. Anyway, the reason I mention this is because I think these are significant. It comes to a total of about $600 million; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object--I will not object--I wish to thank the Senator from New York and those on the other side for taking a significant step forward. I believe we have a lot more to do, but this will contribute to our effort to get our border secured. And we will be continuing to fight for all of the provisions Senator Kyl and I have put forward, but I thank my colleague for his cooperation in sending some $60 million to help our border get secured, and at this time, it is not. But I think this is movement in the right direction. I thank my colleague.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I think this is significant legislation. I ask the Senator if he would amend his request to include the adoption of three amendments. Those amendments are Nos. 4590, 4591, and 4592. They are: $200 million for Operation Streamline, which is a program that charges those individuals who have crossed the border illegally with a petty crime or misdemeanor with jail time. This has proved to be a great deterrent for repeat crossers; $68 million additional for the Customs inspectors and the other third would be $20 million for the Law Enforcement Support Center which helps the Federal Government, States, and localities identify those individuals who are here illegally and also determines their status regarding eligibility. If I may mention to my colleague, I am not complaining about these provisions. I would like to point out that Operation Streamline on the border has been a very effective tool as disincentives to repeat crossers. I hope that either in this legislation the Senator from New York would consider it and, of course, we need more Customs inspectors. The Law Enforcement Support Center is to identify individuals because right now they are overtaxed, as we know, with the number of illegals, how to identify them and to determine their status. These three amendments I would obviously pay for out of the stimulus package. My question to my colleague from New York, I understand he is paying for them--maybe he can elaborate--for these provisions by increasing fees or taxes on companies that issue or need H-1B visas and those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator describe that.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. Again, I ask if the Senator from New York would amend his request to include the adoption of those three Kyl-McCain amendments.

Mr. McCAIN. I think my colleague may have been referring, when we are talking about the law enforcement support center provision that says U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement salaries and expenses, maybe that is the area that he is referring to that falls under----

Mr. McCAIN. The stimulus money. I would remind my colleague that just this morning he voted to use $1.5 billion in stimulus funds for the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. But that is a subject of a different discussion. Let me just say again about Operation Streamline that I would invite my colleague from New York to come and see one of these facilities and talk to our people down at the border. One of the problems, as you know, is we have had this catch and release, or even catch and take to another part of the United States and put them across the border. So we seem to have these repeat crossers. The experience that we have had, and the people down there will tell you about, is keeping these people incarcerated for a period of time--and it isn't just everybody who comes across, it is somebody who has committed a petty crime, a misdemeanor, et cetera--we have found those individuals do not return or are much less likely to do so. So I say to the Senator from New York, there is no fence money in here, and we would have liked to have seen that. We need to complete and reinforce the fence. We want 3,000 officers down on the border, but the bill has 1,200, which is certainly a major step forward. And there is 1,000 Border Patrol. We think we need as many as 3,000, as I mentioned. But I think this $600 million is important. I think it is going to a lot of the right purposes. We will fight some more on these three additional amendments I am talking about. While I appreciate the addition of UAVs, we need more surveillance capability on the border and, obviously, in my view, we need to finish the fences. But this is a step forward, so I would ask unanimous consent on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl to be added as cosponsors. This will move forward our 10- point plan we have put forward to get our border secured.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I do so with some reluctance, I remind my colleagues that last year we took up the consideration of the Defense authorization bill without warning. The distinguished chairman of the committee introduced a hate crimes bill which had no business on the Defense authorization bill, filled up the tree, and then, of course, we spent a great amount of time on hate crimes. I have only been a member of this committee since 1987. I have never seen what the chairman of the committee did last year by bringing forth a totally irrelevant and very controversial issue and putting it on the Defense authorization bill. We spent weeks on that when we should have been spending time on defending this Nation. It was a betrayal of the men and women who are serving this country. I am not going to allow us to move forward, and I will be discussing with my leaders and the 41 Members of this side of the aisle as to whether we are going to move forward with a bill that contains the don't ask, don't tell policy repeal before--before--a meaningful survey of the impact on battle effectiveness and morale of the men and women who are serving this Nation in uniform. It is, again, the chairman of the committee and the majority leader and the other side moving forward with a social agenda on legislation that was intended to ensure this Nation's security. Along with it, abortion now is going to be performed in military hospitals for the first time in a long time. There is going to be a transparency. The distinguished chairman and his staff, without informing me or anybody else, put in $1 billion worth of porkbarrel projects instead of the $1 billion the administration asked for us to aid Iraq as we are finally leaving. It is a terrible piece of legislation, ramrodded through. My greatest concern, of course, is about repeal of don't ask, don't tell without any survey being done to find out the battle effectiveness and morale, which we were assured would take place before the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. It is purely a political promise on the part of the President of the United States and the Members on the other side of the aisle, and it is disgraceful to have it on this legislation without a survey being done about our battle effectiveness and the morale of the men and women in the military from whom I am hearing all the time. Therefore, I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will respond again. Last year, the Senator from Michigan did not allow exactly what he is espousing now. He brought up hate crimes and filled the tree so that even if the Senator from Arizona wanted to have an amendment on it, I could not do it. The hate crimes bill had nothing to do with national defense. It had everything to do with the social agenda of the chairman of the committee. What we have done is, we have eroded the confidence of Members on this side of the aisle as to what the agenda is going to be. Perhaps the Senator from Michigan can tell me what hate crimes had to do with the defense of this Nation. It had everything to do with his social agenda. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I can guarantee that we would not fill up the tree the way the Senator from Michigan did last year and would probably do again this year in violation of what I believe is what the Senate should be all about--amending on different legislative proposals that are before the Senate instead of filling up the tree and not allowing amending of the bill, despite what the chairman says had something to do with national defense. Hate crimes? Really? Then that means that everything in the social agenda of the Senator from Michigan has to do with the men and women who are serving in the military. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, no Senator has ever loved the institution of the U.S. Senate more than Senator Robert Byrd. I firmly believe that. He truly believed that the upper Chamber of Congress was the greatest deliberative body on Earth and he always strived to preserve its traditions and history for the generations to come as well as being the Senate's foremost instructor on Senate procedure and process. I was able to be a ``student'' of Senator Byrd's instruction when we worked together in 2005 to preserve Senate rule XXII, commonly known as the ``filibuster.'' Senator Byrd joined with me, along with six other Republican Senators and six Democrat Senators to form what became the ``Gang of 14.'' During the meetings between these 14 Members, which were often held in my office, I fondly recall the silence that would overcome the room when Senator Byrd spoke about the history of the filibuster and the rights of the minority in the Senate. It is not often that 13 members of the Senate are quiet for any given period of time. But Senator Byrd's stature and intellect brought the room to a standstill. Senator Byrd is remembered for being a strong majority leader and minority leader for his party. But as he reminded all of us during those meetings in my office, when he served as majority leader during President Reagan's time in office, Senator Byrd did not lead his Democratic caucus to filibuster any of President Reagan's judicial nominees. That was a different time with different leaders, but Senator Byrd's actions reflect his sincere desire for statesmanship and his respect for the President's nominees. His speech on the Senate floor in 2005 regarding the filibuster reflected this desire when he said: I rise today to make a request of my fellow Senators. In so doing, I reach out to all Senators on both sides of the aisle, respectful of the institution of the Senate and of the opinions of all Senators, respectful of the institution of the Presidency as well. I ask each Senator to pause for a moment and reflect seriously on the role of the Senate as it has existed now for 217 years, and on the role that it will play in the future if the so-called nuclear option or the so- called constitutional option--one in the same--is invoked. I implore Senators to step back--step back, step back, step back--from the precipice. Step back away from the cameras and the commentators and contemplate the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Things are not right, and the American people know that things are not right. The political discourse in our country has become so distorted, so unpleasant, so strident, so unbelievable . . . He was not only a leader in 2005 against removing the judicial filibuster rule, he was a life-long leader in the Senate against allowing Senators to issue secret holds. His motives were noble, and he fought for its elimination until the end. In his final speech, entered into the Record but not delivered, he defended an individual Senator's right to block legislation in secret. ``Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate,'' he lectured colleagues last month in one of his last appearances, to have ``unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights.'' Senator Byrd's respect for Senate rules and procedure were second only to his defense and passion for the Constitution. Because of his leadership, we were able to establish September 17 as Constitution Day. Now, annually, students across the country will learn about and celebrate the document that governs our Nation and hopefully understand the significance of this unparalleled document that has established freedom and sovereignty of our citizens for hundreds of years. Senator Byrd spent practically all of his adult life serving the American people for which we are all grateful. Even when he disagreed with his peers in the Senate, he respected their intellect and views. I am honored to have served beside him. He once said, ``On the great issues, the Senate has always been blessed with senators who were able to rise above party and consider first and foremost the national interest.'' I agree and hope the Senate continues to attract candidates who will rise above politics for the good of our country and who will appreciate the history of the institution as Senator Byrd did. Senator Byrd gave his life to the service of his country and the Senate and the Nation will miss him and the important leadership and sense of history that he brought to this body every day.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. During my time in Congress, I have had the honor to vote in support for the nominations of several Associate Justices put forward by both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Presidents are due a great amount of deference in the evaluation of his or her nominees to be members of the highest Court in the land, and elections, I understand very well, do have consequences. However, in this case I am not able to provide such deference to President Obama's nominee who has shown such a public unwillingness to follow the law. When Ms. Kagan was dean of the Harvard Law School, she unmistakably discouraged Harvard students from considering a career in the military by denying military recruiters the same access to Harvard students that was granted to the Nation's top law firms. She barred military recruiters because she believed the Federal Government's don't ask, don't tell policy to be ``a profound wrong--a moral injustice of the first order.'' Ms. Kagan is entitled to her opinion of whether the policy is wrong. She is not entitled to ignore the law that required universities to allow military recruiters on campus or forgo Federal funds. The chief of recruiting for the Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps was repeatedly blocked from participating in Harvard's spring 2005 recruiting season and wrote to Pentagon leaders: ``Harvard is playing games and won't give us an on-campus interviewing date.'' The Army's report from the 2005 recruiting season was even more blunt, stating: ``The Army was stonewalled at Harvard.'' Ms. Kagan sought a compromise by asking the law school's Veterans Association to host military recruiters, but the association responded: ``Given our tiny membership, meager budget, and lack of any office space, we possess neither the time nor the resources . . . of duplicating the excellent assistance provided by the Harvard Law School Office of Career Services.'' The association was right and an Air Force Judge Advocate General recruiter wrote Pentagon officials, and I quote from his letter: ``Without the support of the Career Services Office, we are relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us.'' That was a remarkable statement from a military recruiter. According to the Solomon Amendment, any institution that barred recruiters from their campus would therefore not be eligible for Federal funds. Ms. Kagan and Harvard University, in general, and the law school in particular, were, according to this Air Force officer, doing that. ``Without the support of the Career Services Office we are relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us.'' The university that portrays itself as the premier institution in America relegated our officers and recruiters for honorable service in the military of the United States of America to ``wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us.'' Ms. Kagan had a direct role in seeing that military recruiters were ``relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk'' to them. Ms. Kagan's claim that she was bound by Harvard's antidiscrimination policy is belied by the fact that her predecessor allowed military recruiters full official access, a policy Ms. Kagan changed. While Ms. Kagan barred military recruiters access to the school, Harvard continued to receive millions of dollars in Federal aid. I will not go into my opinion of Harvard University's behavior throughout this whole issue of whether recruiters should be allowed on their campus. There are members of the ROTC who are still condemned to go to a neighboring institution for their training. But we are speaking of Ms. Kagan. During her confirmation hearing last month, Ms. Kagan asserted that Harvard law school was ``never out of compliance with the law . . . in fact, the veterans' association did a fabulous job of letting all our students know that the military recruiters were going to be at Harvard. . . .'' She went on to state: ``The military at all times during my deanship had full and good access.'' Absolutely false statement. Facts show that these statements are false, and recruitment for our Nation's military suffered due to her actions. Well, I strongly disagree with Ms. Kagan. I take no issue in terms of her nomination with her opposition to President Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy. She is free to have her own ownership. Ms. Kagan was not free to ignore the Solomon Amendment's requirement to provide military recruiters equal access because she opposed don't ask, don't tell. In short, she interpreted her duties as dean of Harvard to be consistent with what she wished the law to be, not with what the law was as written. In the end, Ms. Kagan's interpretation of the Solomon Amendment was soundly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. By changing the policy she inherited and restricting military recruiter access when the prevailing law was to the contrary, Ms. Kagan stepped beyond public advocacy in opposition to a policy and into the realm of usurping the prerogative of the Congress and the President to make law and the courts to interpret it. It is precisely for this reason that I cannot support her nomination. I have previously stated that I do not believe judges should stray beyond their constitutional role and act as if they have greater insight into the meaning of the broad principles of our Constitution than representatives who are elected by the people. These activist judges assume the judiciary is a superlegislature of moral philosophers. It demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is fundamental to our republican system of government. Regardless of one's success in academic and government service, an individual who does not appreciate the commonsense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench. For Ms. Kagan, given the choice to uphold the law that was unpopular with her peers and students or interpret the law to achieve her own political objectives, she chose the latter. I cannot support her nomination to the Supreme Court, where, based on her prior actions, she is unlikely to exercise judicial restraint and respect the roles of the coequal branches of government. I am sure my colleague from Alabama, who has done so much work on this issue, probably recalls that during her confirmation process, Peter Hegseth, who is the executive director of Vets for Freedom, a veteran of the Iraq war, and currently an infantry captain in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, testified: ``I have serious concern about Elena Kagan's actions toward the military and her willingness to myopically focus on preventing the military from having institutional and equal access to top-notch recruits at a time of war.'' He went on to say: ``I find her actions toward military recruiters at Harvard unbecoming a civic leader and unbefitting a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.'' Another veteran, Flagg Youngblood, ROTC graduate from Princeton, testified at the same hearing: To defend the barriers Dean Kagan erected by saying military recruiting did not suffer misses the point. Just imagine how many more among Harvard Law's 1,900 young adults would have answered the Defense Department's call. Lastly, retired Air Force COL Thomas Moe, a veteran with 33 years of service to our Nation, testified: ``Ms. Kagan knowingly defied a particular law and treated military recruiters as second-class citizens. How can our warriors look at such people when they are poised at the tip of the sword, ready to sacrifice everything for their country, while a cloistered clique in ivory towers eats away at their institution for the sake of narrow ideological interests.'' I know the Senator from Alabama was present at these hearings. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a short colloquy with the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Ms. Kagan stated that she--I understand her words were ``reveres the military;'' is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Is it a bit contradictory that you would want to treat the military as ``separate but equal,'' condemning them--the Air Force Judge Advocate General military person said they were condemned to wandering the halls of Harvard Law School in hopes that someone would stop and talk to them. Is that, I wonder, in keeping with the actions of someone who claims they revere the military?

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the Senator, is there any doubt in your mind, given the testimony of other witnesses, including letters such as from the Air Force Judge Advocate General recruiters and others, that Ms. Kagan--then Dean Kagan--did take these actions restricting the access of recruiters to the Harvard Law School?

Mr. McCAIN. But at the same time, then-Dean Kagan never asked to return the Federal funds that were flowing into the university?

Mr. McCAIN. So then-Dean Kagan's actions, which she believed--and I respect her views that it was a moral imperative, and basically she chose what she viewed as a moral imperative--i.e., her opposition to the don't ask, don't tell law--as overriding compliance with the law, which then brings into question her qualifications and what her future actions will be as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. McCAIN. So we are not discussing the merits or demerits of a law that was passed by Congress; we are discussing then-Dean Kagan's actions in opposition to this law which were absolutely in contradiction to the law.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I finally ask my colleague from Alabama, do you ever think the day will come when we have a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court who didn't go to Harvard Law School? Maybe that might be healthy for America.

Mr. McCAIN. Or perhaps Alabama.

Mr. McCAIN. Frankly, I would say to my colleague from Alabama, obviously it is not related to Dean Kagan, but treatment at these elite institutions in the Ivy League, going all the way back to the Vietnam war--you know, they are entitled to their views and their opinions and their opposition, but to treat people who were designated by the President of the United States to be recruiters, to motivate other young men and women to join what I believe is a very honorable profession, most honorable, to put impediments in their way and intentionally block their ability to do so is something that I guess they will have to answer for in the future. I thank my colleague from Alabama for his leadership on this issue on the Judiciary Committee. He has worked tirelessly, night and day, on this issue for a long period of time now. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his outstanding work and leadership. I appreciate it. I know Americans do too.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I opposed the motion to invoke cloture on the small business lending bill for several reasons, with the foremost being that it had become a vehicle for petty partisanship rather than a serious effort to extend a much-needed helping hand to America's small businesses. The manner in which this bill has been deliberated in the Senate has been both frustrating and disappinting to say the very least. The majority leader has brought this bill up for consideration and then moved off of it to consider other matters no less than six times since June 24. Furthermore, he has offered at least three different substitute amendments--each time filling the amendment tree and filing cloture--effectively choking off debate and prohibiting my colleagues and me on this side of the aisle from offering amendments. This should not be a partisan bill. In fact, as originally introduced, this measure enjoyed broad bipartisan support. The original version of this bill included many positive provisions. For example, it included a number of tax provisions that had been championed by both Republican and Democrats which both sides believed would help small businesses create new jobs. The $30 billion fund contained in this bill was supposedly designed to provide capital to community banks and give them incentives to make loans to small business owners. While this is a nice notion, I have heard from some of the smaller, community banks in my home State of Arizona that the capital requirements were so stringent that they would not even qualify for the program and, there are serious concerns as to whether or not this would turn into another bank bailout program. One of the provisions of this bill that I strongly opposed was a carve-out of $1.5 billion for agriculture disaster assistance which was not requested by the administration. While I support ensuring that our farmers are protected from financial losses caused by natural disasters, Congress must first find a way to pay for this increased spending just like many of the other handouts included in this bill. That is why many of my colleagues had hoped to offer amendments, including an amendment to extend expiring tax breaks for small business owners, an amendment to eliminate the death tax, and an amendment to make permanent the tax credit for research and development--just to name a few. Unfortunately, the majority prevented us from offering those important amendments. I had planned to offer an amendment on border security that would have helped generate sales tax revenue for border towns. The amendment would have added an additional 6,000 new Custom and Border Protection agents and officers to secure the border and to ensure that those seeking to cross our borders legally at our ports of entry are able to do so without unnecessary wait times. There are frequent, often excessive wait times in the northbound lanes at the DeConcini/Port of Entry in Nogales. The economy of Nogales, AZ, is heavily dependent on cross border traffic, with the majority of the city's sales tax revenue generated by shoppers from Mexico. The long wait times to cross the border are having real, adverse effects on the economy of Nogales. Securing our borders should be the top priority of CBP and that the drug related violence that threatens our border communities must be combated with all available resources. With that said, businesses and law abiding citizens should be able to cross the border in an efficient manner. Our economic recovery and the creation of new jobs are the most important issues facing our nation today. We have an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent and we need to do all that we can to help our small businesses thrive. It is my sincere hope that we can end the partisan bickering and reach an agreement that will give our small businesses the tools necessary to create jobs.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act. My reasons for opposing this motion are very simple--this is clearly a partisan attempt by the majority to gain an advantage in the upcoming election. There was no hearing held in the Rules Committee on this bill and no Republican members were given the opportunity to consider the bill and offer amendments in a committee markup. Additionally, this bill is stuffed with onerous new government regulations and is loaded with loopholes and carve-outs for special interests. The authors of this bill insist that it is fair and is not designed to benefit one party over the other. That is simply not the case. One example of this is the ban on campaign-related activities by Federal Government contractors. If this legislation were enacted--tens of thousands of American businesses--large and small would be prohibited from engaging in campaigns while labor unions--which receive Federal grants and routinely negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the Federal Government--would be free to operate as they see fit. It is a simple matter of fairness, and this bill as drafted is patently unfair. As my colleagues know, I have been involved in the issue of campaign finance reform for most of my career, and I am fully supportive of measures which call for full and complete disclosure of all spending in Federal campaigns. When my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and I set out to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money and to reform how our campaigns are paid for--we vowed to be truly bipartisan and to do nothing which would give one party a political advantage over the other. As my colleague from Arizona noted earlier--the new rules created under our legislation applied equally to everyone, and they only applied after the subsequent election. That is not the case with this piece of legislation. The provisions of this bill would become effective 30 days after being signed by the President. This bill is clearly designed to silence American businesses while allowing labor unions to speak and spend freely in the elections this November. I encourage my colleagues to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and I urge my friends in the majority to go back to the drawing board and bring back a bill that is truly fair, truly bipartisan, and requires true full disclosure.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, very soon, we will be voting to move to consider the House-passed version of the 2010 supplemental appropriations bill. I will vote against proceeding to the bill for one simple reason: It is not fully offset and now has a pricetag of $80 billion. When will the spending stop? When the Senate considered the supplemental in May of this year, the bill totaled nearly $60 billion. Again, I opposed it because our version was not paid for, and it added to the ever-growing deficit for future generations. Those who say we oppose small business and all the motherhood and apple pie provisions of this bill, all we want to do is have it paid for. Dr. Coburn and I had two reasonable amendments to fully offset the cost of the bill when it was $60 billion. I am sure we could find offsets for this $80 billion bill--if amendments were in order. Our amendment would have saved taxpayers a combined total of nearly $120 billion by freezing raises, bonuses, and salary increases for Federal employees for a year; collecting unpaid taxes from Federal employees, which is $3 billion; reducing printing and publishing costs of government documents; eliminating nonessential government travel; eliminating bonuses for poor performance by government contractors, which is $8 billion. The list goes on and on. It also includes cutting budgets of Members of Congress, which would save $100 million; disposing of unneeded and unused government property, which would save $15 billion. In other words, the size of government has doubled since 1990. Surely, it is time we started paying for these spending bills. Our efforts failed. The majority, once again, succeeded in preventing the elimination of a single dime of wasteful and unnecessary and duplicative spending. I remind my colleagues that in April of 2009, well over a year ago, the President wrote to Speaker Pelosi and said this: As I noted when I first introduced my budget in February, this is the last planned war supplemental. That was in April of 2009 when the President said last year, April, was the last planned war supplemental. He went on to say: Since September 2001, the Congress has passed 17 separate emergency funding bills totaling $822.1 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After 7 years of war, the American people deserve an honest accounting of the cost of our involvement in our ongoing military operations. I could not agree more. That is why I am disappointed to see yet another supplemental spending bill--designated as an emergency--and without offsets. Now the majority leader wants us to take up the House-passed bill, which exceeds the cost of the Senate version by $22 billion--nearly $23 billion. The House added $10 billion for an education jobs program and $4.9 billion for Pell grants. Other items added by the House include $80 million for energy loans, $142 million for the gulf oilspill--the list goes on and on. Many of these are very worthy causes, very worthy items. But it should not be added to a must-pass bill to fund our troops, and it should be fully offset. That is what this debate has been all about for a long time--not whether these are worthy items, not whether we should have $10 billion for an education jobs program-- although I seriously question that one--but the question is, Are we going to pay for it? When are we going to stop mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future and start balancing the budget and reducing and eliminating spending? Our soldiers and their families are making tremendous sacrifices. Why don't we make some sacrifices? Why don't we forego the earmarks and the special interests and the special deals that continue to characterize our behavior? I don't need to remind my colleagues that we are fighting two wars. But the House has proposed reduced defense spending for this fiscal year and prior year funding by $3.2 billion to help pay for the $22.8 billion added by the House for domestic programs. Subsequent to House action on the supplemental, the chairman of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees further reduced the Defense Department's fiscal year 2011 discretionary base allocations below the President's request by $7 billion and $8 billion, respectively. In other words, we are increasing domestic spending, larding it on this, by some $60 billion, and at the same time we are cutting defense. One issue of concern is a provision contained in the Senate-passed bill to provide funding for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to exercise his authority to expand the number of service-related illnesses presumed to be connected to exposure to Agent Orange. The cost of that provision is $42 billion over 10 years and will most assuredly have a detrimental impact on the ability of the VA to process current and backlogged claims in a timely manner. Perhaps the most controversial provision added by the House is the $10 billion for an education jobs fund. This money would be used to supplement State budgets to pay the salaries of teachers, administrators, janitors, and other school personnel. I fully support the goal of saving teachers' jobs, but this certainly isn't the way to do it. In fact, the government should be incentivizing districts to make crucial reforms so that effective teachers are rewarded. The proposed Education Jobs Fund would continue the archaic seniority system that many say rewards bad teachers instead of the most effective teachers. Additionally, the House proposed $800 million in spending cuts to help offset the cost of this $10 billion fund--an act which quickly drew a veto threat from the President. The bill proposes to cut $500 million from the Race to the Top Fund. I don't know of a better educational incentive in recent years than the Race to the Top Fund. Yet they are going to cut $500 million from it. The bill proposes to cut $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund that supports creation of pay-for-performance programs and $100 million from the Charter Schools Program. All these are proven ways to help education in America, so they are going to cut them. They are going to cut the Charter Schools Program. In my State, charter schools have worked and have provided competition to the public school system. If the cuts to the Charter Schools Program in the House- passed bill are enacted, as many as 200 fewer charter schools could start next year and approximately 6,000 charter school employees could be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. There are 420,000 children on charter school waiting lists nationally. Now is not the time to stop supporting the growth of new charter schools. I could go on and on about what this bill does. Of interest is the House decreased by $27 million the funding for the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents for the southwest border, decreased by $63 million the funding for the acquisition of unmanned aerial vehicles and helicopters, and decreased by $1 million the construction of forward operating bases for use by the Border Patrol. Every one of those programs that have been cut are effective in securing our border. Even more egregious is that the House cut $100 million more than the President requested from the account that funds the construction of and repairs to the border fence. I support the President's request to rescind $100 million from the failed virtual fence project, but this money should go toward increased Border Patrol and Customs agents and technology. I do not support the House's effort to cut an additional $100 million in funding that is currently available and being used to complete construction of the border fence and repair the constant damage done to the fence by those trying to illegally cross into our country. In summary, in the past 2 years, America has faced her greatest fiscal challenges since the Great Depression. When the financial market collapsed, it was the American taxpayer who came to the rescue of the banks and big Wall Street firms. But who has come to the rescue of the American taxpayer? Not Congress. What has Congress done? We have saddled future generations with trillions of dollars of debt. Since January 2009, we have been on a spending binge, the likes of which this Nation has never seen. In that time, our debt has grown by over $2 trillion. We passed a $1.1 trillion stimulus bill. Has anybody seen any good things from that? We spent $83 billion to bail out the domestic auto industry. We passed a $2.5 trillion health care bill. We now have a deficit of over $1.4 trillion and a debt of $13 trillion. That amounts to more than $42,000 owed by every man, woman, and child in America. This year, the government will spend more than $3.6 trillion and will borrow 41 cents for every $1 it spends. Unemployment remains around 9.7 percent. According to forbes.com, a record 2.8 million American households were threatened with foreclosure last year, and that number is expected to rise to well over 3 million homes this year. Now with this bill, the majority wants to tack on another $80 billion. When is it going to end? It may end next January. It may end next January because the American people will not stand for this continued crime we are inflicting on our children and our grandchildren. The greatness of America is that every generation has passed on to the next generation a better one than that generation inherited. I cannot say that about the next generation with the debt with which we have saddled them. This kind of legislation has to be soundly rejected. I yield the floor.