On the recordSeptember 29, 2010
Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Thune amendment. There are a number of reasons the Thune amendment is a bad idea. A 5-percent cut across the board may seem reasonable, small, and not a big cut. But it is a devastating cut when Members understand the specific programmatic impact. A 5-percent cut against non-national security accounts would be about $20 billion below the current fiscal year spending level. This cut would be in addition to the current CR level which is $18 billion below the Sessions amendments offered earlier this year. I remind my colleagues that we have a $5 billion problem outside of all this cutting in terms of addressing the Pell grants shortfall. I believe the vast majority of my colleagues are in favor of the Pell grants. I can assure them that the Pell grant problem is not going to magically cure itself. Members may try and hide from taking responsibility for the devastating impacts of a generic across-the-board cut of this magnitude, but I am standing before my colleagues now and putting everyone in this Chamber on notice for what the actual impact of passing this amendment will be. For starters, let me discuss America's security outside of the Department of Homeland Security and outside of the department that handles the southwest border. Cutting funding by 5 percent would mean a loss of $1.5 billion for the Department of Justice. It is not part of Homeland Security and not part of the Defense Department.…





