On the recordJune 22, 2011
I am not going to take long at this point. I absolutely support the policy behind the amendment offered by my friend and colleague Senator Coburn. In fact, I am a cosponsor of a stand-alone bill he has on this issue. My concern is that it is a rules change, and the bill before us is not a rules change. It is not a resolution. It is not a rules change. It is legislation. Coming up after this bill is the second half of the nominations reform package, and that is a rules change that is coming from the Rules Committee. My suggestion to my colleague and friend from Oklahoma is that his amendment would be better directed to the second half than to this bill. But, again, I am a cosponsor of his stand-alone bill, so it is not that I object to the policy. I would note for the information of my colleagues, the Congressional Research Service does have concerns about whether it has the resources and the ability to carry out the task the Senator would assign it. From my many years of working both with GAO and CRS, this sounds to me like a job for GAO, which has the auditors and the experience to do this kind of review and, indeed, has already started due to the good Senator's farsighted amendment which became law to identify duplication. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). The Senator from Oklahoma.
