On the recordMarch 4, 2010
Madam President, so often when Members come to the floor to offer simple amendments and describe their normal objectives, it sounds too good to be true. In my years in the Senate, I have found that when things are too good to be true, they usually are. The amendment from the Senator from Alabama seeks to constrain discretionary spending at levels agreed to in last year's budget resolution. He says his intent is to cap spending for the next 4 years. We all understand that discretionary spending is likely to be frozen this year, as the President has proposed, but this proposal goes way beyond what the President of the United States recommended. The President has proposed a modified spending freeze which caps nonsecurity-related spending. The President allows growth in Homeland Security, but this amendment does not assume growth. The President does not put a cap on emergency spending, but this amendment would. The President has requested more than $700 billion in this budget for Defense, including the cost of war. This amendment only allocates $614 billion. Specifically, this amendment only allows $50 billion for the cost of overseas deployments. As such, it fails to fully cover the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we want to support our men and women deployed overseas, we will need to get 60 votes. Does the Senate really want national defense to be a hostage to a 60-vote threshold?…





