On the recordMarch 8, 2012
last September we rightly rejected a Coburn amendment not much different from this one. Senator Coburn claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce duplication, but in reality it would just give a $10 billion reduction in discretionary caps regardless of whether there actually is $10 billion in discretionary savings. In addition, there is an existing rescission authority in place, thus making this amendment on reducing duplication redundant. This amendment is a backdoor attempt to lower discretionary spending caps agreed to by the Budget Control Act. So we should not violate the BCA, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
