Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. I think I could wrap this up in less than 10 minutes.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I do want to speak principally about the two nominees from Pennsylvania, both of whom I strongly support, and I am delighted they are going to get their votes today. But before I do that, I do want to put just a little bit of context on judicial nominations and confirmations as a general matter because I think it is important that we understand this. In my own experience in the 2\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate, I know I have voted to confirm the vast majority of judicial nominees whom President Obama has proposed for us. In fact, since President Obama became President, the Senate has confirmed 193 district court nominees and blocked 2. That is a confirmation rate of about 99 percent. In the last Congress, the 112th Congress confirmed more judges than any Congress in 20 years. So by any reasonable measure, we are confirming judges at a terrific rate. Republicans are cooperating and confirming the nominees of a Democratic President, and this is as it should be when the nominees are competent, as they have been. So President Obama is enjoying a rate of confirmation of judges that is far greater than the rate President Bush, for instance, enjoyed or most other previous recent Presidents, which is part of the reason why I am concerned when I hear persistent rumors that the majority leader is considering invoking the nuclear option and breaking the rules so he can change the rules as to how nominees get confirmed. I do not understand why there is a problem that would require this. If he were to do this, this would be in direct contradiction to a commitment he made to all of us very publicly that he would not do this. So I really hope that Senator Reid will keep his word and that he will not break the rules in order to change the rules. He stated very clearly in January of 2011 that--I will quote Senator Reid: I agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules, and I will oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular order. I would remind my colleagues that earlier this year Republicans went along with a rule change about which I had real reservations. I personally could not support it, but most Republicans did. It changed the rules, forfeiting some of the power we have as a minority, granting the majority greater flexibility to go to a bill without assuring us we would be able to offer the amendments we would like. We granted that to the majority in part because we got another explicit commitment that there would be no nuclear rule change if we made that agreement. Well, we did, at least as a party and as a body. So, again, I certainly hope Senator Reid will honor the promise he made that was part of that understanding, where he said in January of this year, in an exchange with Senator McConnell--Senator Reid said: Any other resolutions related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process including consideration by the Rules Committee. I would add, that means a 67-vote majority in the Senate because that is the way you change the rules in accordance with the rules. Sarah Murnaghan Having said that, I want to also make a brief mention of some terrific news we got in Pennsylvania; that is, the opportunity for a little girl named Sarah Murnaghan to have a lung transplant she had been waiting for. I have spoken about this on the Senate floor. A Federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a temporary restraining order forbidding a rule that was keeping her off the transplant list to be a potential recipient of a donor lung transplant. Fortunately, by virtue of that restraining order, she was able to go on the list and receive the lung transplant. She had an emergency surgery just yesterday that seems to have gone very well, and we are all delighted for that and wishing for her speedy and full recovery. Having said that, as I indicated to the chairman, I wanted to come down principally to say how pleased I am that we are going to vote today and I believe confirm both Judge Jeffrey Schmehl and Judge Nitza Quinones, who are two nominees for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both are eminently qualified, terrific individuals who come highly recommended. I commend Senator Casey. He and I have worked together since I have been here. He has been terrific to work with. We have looked to identify some of the most capable and talented people. I would like to mention a couple of the things I know Senator Casey mentioned. Judge Schmehl is a terrific guy. He is the president judge of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas. His candidacy was approved by a voice vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is a graduate of Dickinson College. He has his J.D. from the University of Toledo School of Law. He has served as a public defender. He has served in private practice. After 9 years at a law firm, he was elected to the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, where his colleagues made him the president judge. He is a very bright individual. He has a keen intellect, a great judicial temperament. He has done a great job on the Berks County court, and he will make a great Federal judge. I hope my colleagues will support his candidacy. Nitza Quinones is a native of Puerto Rico. She is a graduate of the University of Puerto Rico School of Business Administration. At the University of Puerto Rico, she got her J.D. She has demonstrated a terrific commitment to the legal community and beyond that in Philadelphia. She has been very active mentoring young people--law students in particular--and is a great advocate of civic education for high school students. She has served on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas since 1991, presiding over a very large number of very diverse cases. She has extensive experience in the courtroom. She has demonstrated her ability, her commitment, her judicial temperament. Yet, as it happens, she will be the first Latino judge on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania court. I think it is terrific that we are able to vote today to confirm both of these judges. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Casey to fill the remaining vacancies across Pennsylvania. I thank Chairman Leahy for his work in advancing these nominees. I urge my colleagues to support their confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for several minutes, principally about the two judicial nominees.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise to speak briefly about a heartrending situation in Pennsylvania to wich I wish to call my colleagues' attention. As I speak this morning, there is a brave little 10-year-old girl who is fighting for her life in Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Sarah Murnaghan suffers from cystic fibrosis. She has been in the hospital for 3 months now. Recently, she has been put on a machine that helps her breathe, with great difficulty. But she is at a point now where she needs a lung transplant. There is no question about that. The doctors, in fact, have said she may only have a few weeks to live without a new lung. At this moment, her government is failing her. Here is the reason I say that. We have law and we have policy that requires that the Health and Human Services branch of the Federal Government, through a third party, develop rules governing how organs are transplanted. This organization which has the direct authority is the Organ Procurement and Transportation Network. So they set the rules by which we deal with this excruciating situation where there is always more demand for transplanted organs than the supply of organs. Prior to a decision yesterday afternoon, which I will comment on, despite a very high need for a transplant and despite the fact that her doctors believe she is a very good candidate for a transplant, Sarah's name was not on the list of people to receive a transplant simply by virtue of one fact; that is, she has not yet reached the age of 12. See, the current policy has one very sensible feature. The current policy is meant to establish as the highest priority for recipients people who have the most urgent need. That makes sense. You could have other criteria, such as how long you have been waiting or how much you are willing to pay, but I do not think those would be better. Those would be worse. The right criteria is who has the most urgent need. So that is right. The problem is it applies only to people who are 12 and over. But there are children under the age of 12 who are very good candidates for adult lung transplants. The medical science is very clear. You take a portion of the lung if the child is too small for a full lung transplant. This is well established. This works. This girl is a good candidate for this, but she is not on the list. Yesterday, something very important happened. Sarah's parents filed a suit against Health and Human Services challenging the rule that excludes their daughter from this list. The judge considering this, a judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a Federal judge, Judge Baylson, granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the Secretary and the Organ Procurement and Transportation Network from applying the rule that excludes Sarah. So this is terrific. This is a big breakthrough for 10 days now. This is the thing. It is a temporary order for 10 days now Sarah cannot be excluded from this list. So what that means is she can go on the list and she will go wherever on the list the urgency of her circumstances puts her. That is as it should be. The problem is this is only for 10 days, and then the judge is going to have a hearing. We don't know how that is all going to turn out I am asking Secretary Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to exercise the authority that is given to her in legislation to recognize that there is a flaw in this policy. I am not asking Secretary Sebelius to make an exception for one individual. I would be the first to suggest that would be a dangerous place to go. We don't want individual Cabinet members, politicians, or anyone else making decisions about who is going to get an organ and who is not. We want a system that works. The current system doesn't work for kids who are good transplant candidates and have the acute need but aren't yet 12 years old. I am urging Secretary Sebelius, as strongly as I can, to exercise the discretion that the law gives to her to change the policy. Don't change it for one person, change it for a category. I think any child who is a viable candidate for the adult transplant and who has sufficient urgency ought to be able to go on the adult list. That is not to say that they automatically go to the top of the list. Their ranking on the list ought to be determined by the urgency of their circumstances, as it should be for everyone else. I would argue we are not suggesting that we make an exception for Sarah. What I am suggesting in a way is the opposite: Stop making exceptions that exclude Sarah. She is a good candidate. The doctors believe this. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is one of the best children's hospitals in the world. Nobody disputes that. Her doctors are some of the best doctors in the world. This is vitally important. The life of a small child depends on this. I don't know how many other children might be in similar circumstances. I appreciate the opportunity to rise and make this case. Again, I just want to stress that we are not asking for an exception for one individual to be chosen over others. We are asking for a change in a policy that is flawed; that is currently excluding somebody from being on the list to be an organ donor recipient who ought to be on that list. I am grateful to Judge Baylson for the decision he made, but that is a temporary restraining order that will only last 10 days. If a transplant does not occur within that 10 days, then Sarah and any other children in her circumstances, their future becomes uncertain after that. I urge the Secretary to take the action that is necessary. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator from Louisiana is proposing an amendment that I strongly disagree with the substance on. Despite that, I don't object to her having a vote on her amendment. What I object to is the fact there are only four Senators who get to have amendments. We have a list of maybe a dozen, maybe it is 15 amendments, that Senators from our side have been requesting to have considered and they have been objected to all week long. Now we are told that soon we can expect the majority leader to file a cloture motion on the bill which will lead to shutting off this bill entirely. This seems to me a clear strategy to block amendments. So far we have had 10 rollcall votes on amendments on this bill. Of those, three have been Republican. Last year, the farm bill had 42 rollcall votes. What I would like to do is work this out right now, and we can do that, as far as I am concerned, if these amendments could be made in order. Maybe there are others on your side, and I would welcome them. I have no objection to the Senator from Louisiana having a vote on her amendment, but I don't think we should be doing just these four or some subset thereof and continuing to shut out all the other Senators who have been trying to get their amendments agreed to. So, for that reason, I object.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Lake Erie. In the history of United States, the War of 1812 is often an overlooked chapter. However, for any visitor intrepid enough to forego the elevators in the Senate side of the Capitol, it is impossible not to notice one important day within those years of turmoil and war. Dominating the staircase is a massive rendition of the Battle of Lake Erie, painted by William Henry Powell in 1873. The Battle of Lake Erie was one of the few unquestioned American triumphs in the war. In the center of Powell's painting is the young and courageous Oliver Hazard Perry. On September 10, 1813, after two hours of intense fighting, defeat stared Commodore Perry dead in the face, yet he refused to succumb. The painting depicts the famous point in the battle when Perry transfers his command from his disabled flagship to the U.S. Brig Niagara to begin the fight anew. His determination would pay off as the confused and battered enemy fleet would be unable to sustain the ongoing punishment from the Niagara's cannonade. One by one each enemy vessel would strike their colors as they were forced to relinquish control of the Great Lake of Erie. The dramatic encounter breathed new life into a damaged American war effort and captured the imagination of our young nation. Contributing in no small way to this victory was Pennsylvania's own city on the lake, Erie, that provided the safe locale, supplies, and muscle necessary to build the victorious fleet in limited time. Just as the Battle of Lake Erie would test the resolve of the young commander Perry and his fleet, the overall war would test the resolve of our young nation. For those who think that partisan division is something unique to our country's current condition, I encourage you to look back to the bitter struggles between the Republicans and Federalists at the beginning of the 19th century. Those years would produce not only disagreement on the direction of our nascent union but also uncertainty of the ultimate success of this great experiment in representative government and the war very nearly tore us apart. This upcoming bicentennial affords us the opportunity to reflect on the challenges overcome by our forefathers to shape and preserve this great nation that we have inherited. My friends in Erie and the Perry 200 Commemoration Commission will spend this summer paying tribute to this great battle and its participants, and I thank them for their hard work and dedication to ensure their appropriate recognition. I am hopeful this resolution can help bring attention to this remarkable event that so moved our Nation 200 years ago.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise to make a unanimous consent request. We have been following an extraordinary horror story in the news, and it is the story of Kermit Gosnell's truly unspeakable crimes that were committed over a long period of time--maybe as long as two decades--at the Women's Medical Society in Philadelphia, PA. We suspect there were literally hundreds of late-term and very late- term abortions that were conducted there, and we now know from his conviction in a criminal trial that there were babies born alive-- probably many--who were then murdered when scissors were used to sever their spinal cords after they were born alive in a failed abortion attempt. Further, we know that Kermit Gosnell and some of his colleagues kept aborted fetuses in bags and bottles, discarded them, left them on shelves. It is unbelievable what was happening at that place for years and years. In fact, the crimes were discovered by accident. Police raided offices to seize evidence of illegal sales of prescription drugs. It was only during that raid for illegal prescription drug sales that they discovered the evidence of these atrocities. It is my view and the view of many of my colleagues that we need to do a lot more to make sure that the laws, which were blatantly being violated by Kermit Gosnell, are better enforced. We need to do that through proper due diligence and discover where they are being violated. About 2 weeks ago Kermit Gosnell was convicted. He was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder for killing three infants. He was convicted of one count of third-degree murder in the overdose death of a woman. There were 21 counts of abortion of an unborn child of 24 weeks or more, and he was convicted of 208 counts of violation of informed consent. We have a resolution, S. Res. 133. It points to these atrocities that were committed. It simply calls on Congress and the States to investigate and correct the abusive, unsanitary, and the blatantly illegal abortion practices that certainly were conducted here at the Women's Medical Society in Philadelphia and similar such practices that may be occurring in other places. I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 133, that the Senate proceed to its consideration, and that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. TOOMEY. Reserving the right to object, I think the Senator from Connecticut makes a number of important observations and raises a number of very important issues. I think there is an opportunity for the two of us to work together to address some of these. However, my reading of the actual resolution for which he is requesting unanimous consent, in my view, equates outcomes--including deaths but outcomes resulting from malpractice and unsanitary conditions and other completely indefensible practices--equates those with the serial, premeditated, intentional murder of babies. I don't think those things ought to be equated because I think they are of a very different nature. Furthermore, the resolution of the Senator from Connecticut, it is my understanding, does not call for the investigations that I think are necessary to determine how widespread these practices are, under what circumstances they are occurring, and what more could be done to prevent them. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, my understanding is Senator Shaheen is going to take the first 30 seconds of 1 minute on behalf of speaking in favor. I don't see her on the floor. I will take the second half. I believe I see her now, so at this time, if she is ready, I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. She is absolutely right. It makes no sense to have a program that forces American consumers to pay at least 30 percent more than the going rate for sugar to force taxpayers to subsidize these producers. Also, we can lose jobs because, as the Senator pointed out, our own Commerce Department has found that for every job it saves, three manufacturing jobs are lost. This is a modest amendment that takes us back to the 2008 levels.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the Shaheen amendment No. 925 the chairman of the committee just referred to. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I wish to start by thanking Senator Shaheen for her leadership, Senator Kirk for his leadership, and Senator Durbin for his support and leadership. We have all worked together on this amendment. I wish to briefly explain why I think it is important and why this amendment deserves the support of this body. First of all, people ought to understand we have an extensive and complicated system by which taxpayers and consumers are forced to prop up, to an artificially high price, the price of sugar in this country. We subsidize a handful of wealthy sugar growers at the expense of everybody in America because I can't think of any consumer who doesn't consume sugar. Everybody uses some amount of sugar. It is in virtually all processed food. It is obviously in any kind of confectionery or any kind of sweets. It is a staple, a fundamental staple. In fact, the poorest Americans spend the highest percentage of their limited income on sugar because that is the nature of this food staple that is sugar. Well, what do we do through our agricultural policy? One of the things we do is we put a limit on how much we can bring in from overseas. It just so happens there are some places in the world that can grow sugar cheaper than we can, and rather than take advantage of the opportunity to have a lower cost staple for all Americans-- including the poorest of Americans--instead we establish a quota and say there is only so much we are going to bring in without imposing a big, huge, expensive tariff on them, and since we don't grow enough ourselves to meet the demand, when we hit that quota, we do, in fact, impose that huge tariff on the additional sugar we need to buy. But that is not all we do to subsidize these handful of growers at the expense of American taxpayers and consumers. Another program we have is an extensive loan program where ultimately the taxpayer lends money to sugar producers, and it is a ``heads-I-win, tails-you-lose'' program for the sugar producer. If the price drops too low on sugar that the producer would actually have to reach into his own pocket to pay back the loan, guess what. He doesn't have to do that. He can say: Nevermind, I am not going to pay back the loan. I will just give you the sugar. This is classic ``heads-they-win, tails-we-all-lose.'' It goes beyond that because in an effort to prop up the price at artificially high levels so we are all paying more than we need to for sugar, we have a program that is called the Feedstock Flexibility Program. This program is one in which the USDA takes taxpayer money and buys up huge quantities of sugar in order to drive up the price for all of us. I know it is hard to believe this is true. I am not making this up. I am not creative enough to make this up. This is real. Then what does the USDA do with the massive quantity of sugar it might buy? By the way, there was a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal just a few weeks ago about a huge purchase the USDA is seriously thinking about making, has the discretion to do it, and might very well make. If they don't use all of the sugar, they don't have anything to do with it, so they sell it at a huge loss. They sell it to somebody who is going to make ethanol or something with it. That is what we do with it. It is unbelievable, all the ways in which taxpayers or consumers are forced to subsidize a very wealthy group of sugar growers. So that is what we do as policy under existing law. This amendment tries to push that back a little bit. That is all we are trying to do. What Senators Shaheen and Kirk and Durbin and I have done with this amendment is say: Can we at least push back some of the most egregious features? Can we go back to the policy we had prior to the 2008 farm bill because prior to 2008, we did subsidize sugar, but at least not quite as much as we do today. So that is what we are trying to do. Let's just go back to the policies we had before 2008, and specifically let's eliminate this Feed Stock Program, this program whereby the USDA can go out and purchase huge quantities of sugar, driving up the price, and then turn around and sell it at a huge loss. Let's end that, and let's have a little bit more flexibility on this quota so American consumers can have the opportunity to buy more sugar at prices that are at least a little closer to the world prices. Here are a few facts we ought to keep in mind. The net effect of all of these programs on all of our consumers--and as I say, everybody consumes sugar--is that we pay, on average, about 30 percent more than the world market price for sugar. That is what we are doing to our consumers now. By the way, that is separate and apart from the cost to taxpayers. That is just what consumers are forced to pay. Now, does that have the effect of maybe protecting a handful of jobs among sugar growers? It probably does. So the Commerce Department decided to take a look at this, and they did a study. They discovered, sure enough, there are a certain number of jobs among sugar producers that are protected by the fact that we don't allow a free market in sugar and we don't allow imports from more efficient producers. But here is what else they discovered. They discovered for every job we save among sugar producers, we lose three jobs among companies that manufacture with sugar--companies that make cakes and desserts and candies and all the other kinds of goods we manufacture that require sugar as an ingredient. The reason we lose those jobs is because those companies can't compete with foreign imports that don't have this crazy Sugar Program. So, for instance, we have candy companies that have left America and have moved to Canada because Canada doesn't do this. When they relocate in Canada, they can buy sugar at a normal world price, the same as anyone else anywhere in the world outside of America--maybe not anybody, but lots of people outside of America can buy sugar that is much cheaper than what they have to pay for sugar when they are an American citizen, an American company, so they can make candy much cheaper. So we lose American jobs, which we have lost, they go to Canada or somewhere else, and how can that possibly be a good outcome to lose three jobs for every one we protect. It doesn't make any sense. This is a badly flawed policy. I would advocate that we completely repeal all of this. That would be my personal view. That is not what this amendment does. All we do in this amendment is say let's just go back to where we were before the farm bill of 2008 expanded this program and created this new liability for taxpayers. So I urge my colleagues to support the Shaheen amendment No. 925 for some good, commonsense improvements to our existing sugar policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, as a proud co-sponsor of S. Res. 140, I was delighted by the Senate's unanimous passage this week of legislation commemorating the dedication and sacrifice made by Federal, State and local law enforcement officers who have been killed or injured in the line of duty. As our Nation celebrates National Police Week, I wish to honor five heroes who gave their lives in service to the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2012. Like 120 other law enforcement officers across the U.S., they died in the line of duty, joining the ranks of the 21,465 officers who have similarly given their lives since 1791. This week we honor Trooper First Class Blake T. Coble, Police Officer Bradley Michael Fox, Police Officer Moses Walker Jr., Police Officer Brian J. Lorenzo and Patrolman Avery Freeman. Additionally we honor their families who must bear the profound absence of their loved ones. On behalf of all Pennsylvanians I extend my condolences to the families and friends of these heroes. We mourn the loss of these remarkable men and women who represented the best of their communities and whose memory will serve as an inspiration for future generations.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. I think I answered the question.

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to point out there is one amendment in this package that is very troubling to me. Under the current flood insurance law we passed just 10 months ago, we put in place a mechanism to diminish the subsidization that occurs now where homeowners in low-risk areas are made to subsidize homeowners in high-risk areas by the nature of the way premiums are set. The existing law is designed to diminish significantly that unfair subsidy that occurs, and I think that is why the chairman and the ranking member of the Banking Committee and many others of our colleagues oppose this amendment. If this amendment goes through, the Landrieu amendment No. 888, then for 5 years this reform cannot take place and that means not only do people in low-risk areas continue subsidizing people in high-risk areas, but because people in high-risk areas are paying lower premiums than what they ought to pay to reflect the risk they are taking, it creates the moral hazard of a risk to continue building in high-risk areas with the expectation this will continue and therefore jeopardizes taxpayer funds. This is already a program that is $24 billion in debt and that is the reason I object.

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, my understanding is there is a unanimous consent request for a series of amendments on this bill, and I am objecting to that consent request because it contains the Landrieu amendment No. 888.

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, as I said earlier, this is a matter that has been litigated and adjudicated in this body. We have had a vote on this. This has not come back through committee. This would cause considerable risk to taxpayers. If the Senator from Louisiana believes this is something that needs to be addressed yet again, despite the fact that 10 months ago we had a vote on this--and we did vote, then I would be happy to work with the Senator on how we might address that. But my objection still remains.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I wish to honor the remarkable service of a great Pennsylvanian to our Nation's defense and its veterans. Maj. Nathan Kline, U.S. Air Force, Retired, served for nearly half a century in our country's Armed Forces. After enlisting in the U.S. Army Air Forces in 1942, he served in highly hazardous positions as a bombardier and navigator on a B-26 Marauder. His 65 air combat missions included the D-day invasion and the Battle of the Bulge. Incredibly, he survived after his aircraft was shot down twice during the campaign in Europe. For his actions, he earned the Distinguished Flying Cross and 10 Air Medals. After the war, the French Ambassador welcomed Major Kline into the coveted Legion d'Honneur for his service in the liberation of France. Major Kline did not seek a quiet postwar civilian life. He continued his military service in the Reserves while working in support of the veterans' community. His advocacy on behalf of veterans and their families became a lifelong endeavor. Major Kline was a founding member of the Lehigh Valley Military Affairs Council. In this capacity, he raised funds to provide scholarships to deployed servicemembers' children, managed assembly and shipment of care packages and helped veterans to find employment. In honoring Major Kline, we recognize his commitment to service during times of war and peace. As Congress confronts the dual challenges of ensuring our national security and putting our fiscal house in order, it must remember its profound responsibility to keep our Nation safe and care for its veterans. For well over 200 years, our servicemembers and veterans, like Maj. Nathan Kline, have steadfastly served our Nation and have set a stellar example for those who will follow in the generations to come.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague Senator Brown for his leadership on this issue, and Senator Casey, my colleague from Pennsylvania, who is supportive of this effort as well. This is not a complicated amendment. I do not think it is a controversial amendment either. The fact is in southwestern Pennsylvania, we have three iconic rivers. In northwestern Pennsylvania we have access to and a coastline along a beautiful and important national treasure, Lake Erie. On all of these, the rivers and Lake Erie, the commerce and the recreation that occurs on these waterways are potentially at risk to an invasion of the Asian carp. This, as we all know, is a very aggressive, large, nonindigenous species that could be very disruptive to the ecosystem of the rivers, to the ecosystem of Lake Erie. What we discovered is that there is no single entity in the entire Federal Government that is responsible for coordinating our response, a response that will help to minimize the risk that the Asian carp would be able to invade the waterways and ultimately make their way into the Great Lakes. It would be potentially devastating if the Asian carp were to do so. We have introduced this amendment to this bill which would simply do two things. It would place the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in charge of coordinating the Federal multiagency effort. That would include the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Army Corps of Engineers. It would require an annual report on what is being done at the Federal and State level to minimize the risk of an invasion of the Asian carp. As I say, I believe this is a very constructive, modest amendment. I trust it is not controversial. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to explain what this amounts to. Let's be very clear. There is no money in the overseas contingency operation fund. This is barely an accounting device. Do you know what this really is? The proposal is that we do away with the sequester and we thereby spend more money and we just pretend it is offset. But the fact is, some time ago, this administration made a decision about the level of our involvement in Afghanistan that had nothing to do with this sequester. That has nothing to do with the sequester. The fact that we are no longer at war there does not allow us to spend money we do not have. Let me give an analogy. I could come down to the Senate floor and suggest I think it should be the policy of the United States that we absolutely not invade Canada and we not have a war with Canada. Imagine the money we could save if we do not go to war with Canada. So, with all that savings, let's go out and spend it because we have this terrific savings. This proposal is absolutely no more meaningful than if I were to make that suggestion, which obviously everyone understands is ridiculous. So I object.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership and work, and say a few words, and then I am going to make a unanimous consent request in this regard--but first a little bit of context here. This Federal Government has doubled in size in the last 12 years. Total spending is up 100 percent in a little over a decade. What the sequester amounts to is 2.5 percent of this gigantic bloated government. But it is actually less than that in a very meaningful way, because the 2.5 percent we referred to--the sequestration, this cut-- is a reduction in the permission to spend. We call it budget authority. What it is is permission for the government to spend money. It actually takes a while for the government to get around to spending the money that is authorized in any given year. So the actual reduction in spending, the real reduction in cash that will go out the door in this fiscal year if the sequester goes into effect is a little over 1 percent, about 1.25 percent. That is what we are talking about. Our friends on the other side of the aisle say, This is impossible; you can't do it; it will be devastating. They predicted all kinds of calamity if a government that has grown by 100 percent has to find 1 percent to trim over the next 6 months. Here is another point we ought to keep in mind. If the cuts and sequester hold, if we achieve the savings that were signed into law, that were voted on by both Chambers, and that the President of the United States agreed to by virtue of his signature--if we do, then total spending this year will still be greater than last year. And we are told that is somehow a Draconian austerity program. What we are talking about is a modest reduction in the rate at which this Federal Government grows. That is all we are talking about here. And we are told that is not possible; there is no way you can do it. That is simply not true. One of the things that is maddening to me is the administration--and the President is responsible for this. They are willfully choosing to make the cuts in the most disruptive way they can, because they have got so much invested in this idea that we can't cut any spending. Because they predicted such dire consequences and such disaster, they can't very well allow reasonable and manageable cuts to take place which would be easily attained. So we have this extremely irresponsible set of cuts that are completely unnecessary. Let me zero in a little bit on the FAA budget itself. The sequester is in effect now. If it holds--if it is fully implemented--the FAA budget will, as a result, be larger than the President asked for in his budget submission. Does anybody think when the President submitted his budget request he was intending to shut down air traffic control operations? I can assure you he didn't tell us that at the time. The fact is there are plenty of places where we can achieve this savings. The administration knew this day was coming for over 1 year. There has been plenty of time to plan for this and to prioritize. The Senator from Oklahoma points to the huge growth in the FAA's budget. That is wildly disproportionate to any growth in flights. There are plenty of opportunities to achieve the savings, as evidenced by the fact that the President never asked for all this money. Let me give a few examples of places where the President, within the FAA budget, could be tightening belts so we don't have to furlough air traffic controllers. For instance, the FAA spends $540 million a year on consultants. That is nice. I am not sure all of that is as important as keeping planes flying in the air. The FAA operates a fleet of 46 aircraft. That costs $143 million a year--very nice indeed. Probably not as important as making sure planes are coming and going from La Guardia and Kennedy and Newark and Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and across the country. The FAA budget includes $1 billion more in grants for airport improvements. I am a pilot. I fly in and out of lots of airports and it is great when a nice little airport has a new taxiway, terrific, but is it truly as important as keeping our air traffic controllers there on the job? These are the kinds of tradeoffs we ought to be making. My Republican colleagues and I have been offering a wide range of solutions. Senator Blunt had the idea that maybe we ought to treat Federal workers, in this context, the context of the sequestration, the same way we do in other emergencies and designate essential workers. That makes some sense to me. I think that would make a lot of sense. Jerry Moran has another idea for how we could address this. Senator Inhofe and I introduced a bill before the sequester went into effect. What we said was let's give the President the maximum flexibility--right? The reason they say they have to lay off or furlough air traffic controllers is because they do not have any choice, the law requires it--except they did not want the change in the law which would have given them the choice. Senator Inhofe and I had a bill that would give the administration complete flexibility. I say this because I pointed to a number of areas in the FAA's budget where I think they could find the savings, avoid furloughing air traffic controllers, but under the approach Senator Inhofe and I suggested, they would not be limited to finding the savings within the FAA budget; they could look anywhere in the government for the lowest priority spending, the most wasteful spending, the least necessary spending or perhaps redundancy and duplication. I will give just another few examples. The GAO has discovered that throughout the Federal Government we have 47 different job training programs. Does anyone truly think we need 47 of these and that by consolidating them maybe we could save some overhead, some administrative costs? Maybe some of them don't work so well. How about the fact that we have 94 different green building programs--94 programs--679 renewable energy programs. This is all over government because we have never bothered to scrub this and come up with the savings we could have achieved. Senator Coburn from Oklahoma has offered all kinds of ideas, Senator Lee from Utah. There are all kinds of places we can save. The fact is, especially in a government that has grown this big, we absolutely can find the little, tiny savings that are required in the sequester so we do not have to do it in a disruptive way. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 799 That is why I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 799. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. I feel the need to respond to the comments from the leader about the sequester that has gone into effect. I wish to be very clear. The flight delays that are occurring, the furloughs among air traffic controllers, and the shutting down of air traffic towers are entirely, utterly unnecessary. This is a willful choice being made by this administration in order to inflict as disruptive a process as possible on the American public and on our economy, all to further a political agenda. The political agenda is to attempt to convince the American people there are no circumstances under which we can ever cut spending at all. If you question why I say this is a willful decision on the part of this administration, I would refer you to legislation Senator Inhofe and I offered prior to the beginning of the sequestration. This legislation, as you may recall, would have granted to the administration complete flexibility in how they achieved the savings of the sequester. What we hear from the administration, administration officials, and White House spokespeople is that this is terribly unfortunate, but they have no choice and no alternative; the law requires that they make these cuts. However, when Senator Inhofe and I introduced legislation to explicitly grant them all the flexibility they could ask for, complete flexibility to find the most wasteful, most redundant, most unnecessary programs, and to cut there instead of cutting essential services, what did the administration say? They said: If you send us the legislation, we will veto it. They put out a Statement of Administration Policy insisting that this was a terrible idea, to give them the flexibility to avoid exactly what they are doing. I don't know how one can come to any conclusion other than that this administration wishes to impose this inconvenience, this disruption, and this cost on the American people and our economy. They have it within their ability to accept the device we were offering, which would have allowed them to avoid this entirely. I am extremely disappointed the administration would choose to inflict this kind of harm to our economy, this kind of inconvenience to our travelers, all for the purpose of furthering a political agenda. This is no way to run this government. What I would suggest we do is we revisit the legislation Senator Inhofe and I offered which would have avoided all of this, allowed us to cut some of the waste, excess, duplication, and avoid all of this inconvenience. This is entirely unnecessary, and it is unacceptable. One of the proper functions of any executive, including the President of the United States, is to look throughout the spending over which he or she has control to find the lowest priority, to find the least necessary and least disruptive way to achieve the savings we need. We are running unacceptably large deficits. We have a huge debt that is already costing this economy the kind of growth we ought to have. The very modest savings of the sequester could be achieved in a way that wouldn't be disruptive at all. The size of the Federal budget has more than doubled in the last 12 years. To suggest that it is not possible to find 2.5 percent savings is simply ridiculous. It is not true. I urge my colleagues, let's fix this. We know how to do it. We have the tools available. Senator Inhofe and I offered. There are other ways, and I would be open to any number of them. We need to achieve the savings of the sequester, and we need to do it in a way that is not disruptive and that can be done. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, is not available because he has a conflict at the moment. On his behalf, I object.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address this issue for 5 minutes.