abdulmutallab case. stopped, interrogated by the f.b.i., he spoke to them for a while, he stopped talking, he was given his miranda warnings and let me tell you what happened next. abdulmutallab began talking again to interrogators and providing intelligence. there was no torture, coercion, or waterboarding involved. director robert mueller described it this way, "over a period of time we have been successful in obtaining intelligence not just on day one but on day two, day three, day four, day five, and down the road. and let me remind you, mr. abdulmutallab is associated with al qaeda, the very type of terrorist that would be precluded from an f.b.i. investigation and an article 3 court prosecution by the ayotte amendment. how did this happen? you know how if happened? instead of using coercive tech

negs, the obama administration convinced abdulmutallab's family to come to the united states. and his family set down with him and told him, why don't you cooperate with the f.b.i., and he did. that's a very different approach from what we saw in previous administrations when course of techniques are used. -- when coercive techniques were used. but it is not like the tv program "24." here's what we learned during the bush administration. in real life, people will say mig to make the pain stop. they will lie and fabricate and go on and babble as long as necessary to stop the pain of the torture. they often provide false information instead of valuable intelligence. richard clarke was a senior counterterrorism advisor to president cline continue and president george w. bush. wheres said about things about begs approach: "the f.b.i. is good at getting

people to talk. they've been much more successful than the previous attempts of torture peernlg trying to convince them to give the information that way." so what's the record here? the record is worth recounting. and i will tell you, i'm not sure of the exact number, but i've been told that anywhere from 200 to 300 accused terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in the article 3 criminal courts of america. the ayotte amendment would stop the president of the united states from using that option, an option that has been used repeatedly over the last ten years to stop terrorists in their tracks, prosecute them, incarcerate them and make them pay a heavy punishment for what they tried to do to the united states. this ayotte amendment would tie the hands of this president and future presidents where they could no longer make a decision about whether or not a case should be tried in the article 3 criminal courts or in a military

commission or tribunal. look at the facts. since 9/11, more than 200 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted. among them, ramsey uself, mastermind of the 1993 world trade center bombing, abdelmaman, the so-called blind sheikh. richard reed, the shoe bomber, tad kaczynski, and terry nichols, the oklahoma city coconspirator and now abdulmutallab. the ayotte amendment would stop the president of the united states and the attorney general and the secretary of defense from picking the right place to investigate, to gather information, and to prosecute an individual who is suspected of terrorism in the united states. well, during that same period of time, how many individuals have been successfully tried by the military commissions which

senator ayotte should -- believes should be the exclusive place to try a would-be terrorist? three. so the record is, if you're keeping score, over 200 in the criminal courts, three in military commissions. senator ayotte says, convincing evidence for me, it's pretty clear to me everybody should go to a military commission. really? and of the three who were prosecuted in military commissions, two of them spent less than a year in prison and are now living freely in their home countries of australia and yemen. let's go to general colin powell, a known member of a former republican administration and former secretary of state and former head of the joint chiefs of staff. you would think this man, with his special life experience and responsibilities to fight terrorism, would be a good place to turn. what does general colin powell think about the notion behind the ayotte amendment that we shouldn't try people in criminal

courts; only in military commissions? well, general colin powell is quite a military man. here's what he said: "the suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn't borne out by the history of military commissions." that's a very honest statement. it should be honest enough and direct enough to guide members of the senate to defeat the ayotte amendment, whether phs a democratic president or a -- whether it is a democratic president or a republican president, they should have every tool at their disposal to keep america safe. they should pick the forum that they believe they can most effectively use to gather information and prosecute terrorists. time and time and time again, under republican president bush and democratic president obama, they have turned to our court system and they have successfully prosecuted terrorists. and one point made by senator mikulski that i think is worth repeating, what we are saying is, come to america's court system, the same court system where we prosecute people

accused of crimes and misconduct in america and the would-be terrorists are going to be held to the same standards of trial. it won't be a military commission, it will be a court setting which can be followed by the public, not only in the united states but across the world. it says to them that our system of justice is fair and open and whether a person is a citizen of this country or a terrorist, suspected terrorist, they can be subjected to the same standards of justice. i urge my colleagues, do not tie the hands of this president or any president in protecting america against terrorists. leave to those presidents the tools they need to effectively protect the united states of america. defeat the ayotte amendment. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i believe we have cleared this

unanimous consent unanimous consent request, which is to set aside the pending amendment and calm my amendment number 857. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator new jersey, mr. menendez, for himself and others, proposes an aimed numbered 857 to amendment number 738. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: let me speak to this amendment. i offer this amendment along with my distinguished colleague from georgia, senator isakson, to temporarily restore the conforming loan limits that expired -- loan limits that we had under the law that created the opportunity for these abilities to loan at these levels. they expired on september 30 of this year.

and in past year extending these loan limits has usually occurred on the t-h.u.d. appropriations bills. as the subcommittee chair on housing, i can tell you that getting our housing market moving again is one of the most important tasks facing our country today because if we don't get that weak housing market moving again, we won't get the kind of robust economic recovery that the american people deserve. historically, whenever we have been in the midst of an economic challenge or a recession, housing has been part of what has led us out of that recession. so, congress could be doing a great deal to get the housing market moving again, but perhaps the first rule that we should follow is, do no harm. do no harm.

but at this point, congress in my rue is doing harm to the housing market and to our economic recovery by allowing the higher loan limits to expire. with this bipartisan amendment, we can easily correct this problem. the lower loan limits of the federal housing administration, government-sponsored enterprises, and veterans administration have already riewlresulted in a reduction of consumer credit in 669 counties across 42 states in our country. the expiration is making a we can housing market even weaker, and it also makes it harder for middle-class home buyers to get mortgages when credit is already tight. and every day that passes is another day in which credit-worthy borrowers aren't getting loans or are having to pay much higher prates that could price them out of the

market, and those loans aren't going to come bafnlgt i recently chaired a housing subcommittee hearing on a different topic where the witnesses were not chosen for their viewstion a particular issue. they represented an entire cross-section of all of the interested stakeholders in the housing field including those that were submitted to us by our republican colleagues to consider as witnesses -- and there were several. eight of the nine bipartisan witnesses who testified in the hearing agreed that the conforming loan limits should be temporarily extended to boost the housing market and that now is not the right time to let them expire. one of the witnesses, dr. mark sedan -- the chief economist of moody'sage lit iks, urged that the limits being extended for -- quote -- "at least another year." that's a reversal of dr. zandi's position from earlier this year when he had supported the

expiration. he said at the hearing that markets remain too fragile and that allowing the limits to expire would be an air. a recent report by the nonpartisan congressional research service found that -- quote -- "virtually no -- no -- jumbo mortgages are being securitized today." in other words, in an ideal world where the private sector would fill this gap in home mortgages, the reality is that the economic conditions right now aren't allowing for that. it certainly hasn't taken place. and in terms of costs, our amendment will actually save $11 million over the next ten years and $2 million in fiscal year 2012, according to c.b.o. it is more than fully paid for in a fair way by creating a premium loan fee of 15 basis points per year that would apply

only -- only -- to affec to thed loans. the people benefiting from the loans would be directly responsible for paying the costs of those loans, so taxpayers are made whole and no other home buyers would pie pay. as i said, it carves $11 mlt over the next -- it saves $11 million over the next years. additionally, the amendment will likely increase returns to taxpayers because f.h.a. audits for the past decade have stated that the larger loans actually perform better and default at significantly lower rates than smaller loans so allowing the larger loans could actually improve returns to taxpayers. i want to thank the cosponsors of a very similar bipartisan bill, similar to the very essence of what we're strig to do i--of what we're trying to dn this amendment of the homeowner affordability act where senators

akaka, begich, blumenthal, boxer, scott brown, cardin, chambliss, coons, lautenberg, mikulski, bell nelson and senator schumer have become cosponsors of. i want to thank the national association of realtors, the national association of home build,the mortgage bankers association, and all the other groups that have advocated and supported for this effort. this is an important tool that we can use to boost our housing market and economic recovery at no cost to the taxpayers. i see my distinguished colleague, senator isakson, on the floor and i certainly would invite him, as the cosponsor of this amendment, someone who has a long history in the private sector before he came to the congress on the whole question of real estate. i'd be happy to yield to him at this time. mr. isakson: i thank the distinguished senator from new jersey, mr. menendez, for his leadership on this issue.

i ask to be recognized. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. isakson: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. president. let me try to dispel what concern there may be and the concern i heard right before we a adjourned in awtion to why not to extend the loan limits. people were afraid, a understand i understand the fear, that might cause some additional liability and cost to the government and taxpayers. let me make something crystal clear. we're going through terrible foreclosure problem right now not because of loan limits but because of underwriting. and underwriting today because of the ramifications of the real estate collapse is the most pristine underwriting i have ever seen. i was in the business for 33 year, since 1966. i have seen a lost housing veetionz go by. i've seen a lost difficulties. this one solicit worst i've every -- this one is the worst i've ever seen. it was cause bid underwriting. as mr. menendez has said, this will pay the government back because the fee associated with the loan in the first place.

in the second plashings it will answer the big question we need to start answering in this question and that is doing no more harm. a lot of the problems that have been manifested in the real estate interest has been manifested by our doing harm either in what we goffed on fred chieie or fannie or what we did not allow to happen. the restrictions on mortgage underwriting under dodd-frank and the requirements that are now true in awful our underwriting agencies are so strict that the underwriting of loans is so pristine that only the best of the best is being made. the unintended consequences of not extending these increases in august caused a number of transactions that were made to never close. the lending went down. therefore the loan went down. nobody in this body should confuse the amount of a loan with its ability to be repaid. they need to understand it is the underwriting of the loan that ensures the repayment. this will not add additional pressure on the united states

taxpayer and it will at least give us breathing room in a housing industry that is still troubling terribly. i'd ask any of our members who were objecting back in august to these loan limits being restored, please come see me. i don't know a lot about many things. i know a whole lot about this because i made my living all my life. i have no interest any more so there is no self-interest except to know we're in deep trouble in our economy. you're never going to get 9% unemployment down until you bring construction back. you're never going to get the american consumer to have more confidence until they feel like the value of their home is secure. those things aren't going to happen if a reluctant congress continues to pass suppressing legislation or keep these loan limits down rather than do things that will do no harm and help the housing market. i lend my full support to senator menendez and what he has done and ask for be favorable consideration by our colleagues in the senate. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i would like to commend the senator from new jersey for this amendment.

i think it's common sense and i think it accomplishes so many objectives. number one, it helps people with real problems be able to get back on their feet, maintain homeownership and get our economy going and put people to work. i know that the gentleman from new jersey and others here support an infrastructure. we want to build roads and bridges. i'd like to take broadband to every part of america. we also need to look at home building. mine has come to a screeching halt, even in a robust community -- a robust state like maryland. and everybody i talk to in the maryland business community that says unless you crack the housing situation, you can't crack the economic situation. by having access to the american

dream, which is now becoming an american nightmare, this american dream created jobs, whether the people who built them, the real estate developers who developed them, the people like senator isakson who made a career of selling them, and this was about building homes, and in many instances it was about building community. i think that where we are with these mortgage -- doing the menendez amendment will go a long way in being able to help people. we've got to really deal with this. quite frankly, i've been disappointed. just about every darned thing that we've done to -- quote -- "help with the housing mortgage situation" has been a bust. been an absolute bust. we spent millions and so on, but we had this program and we have

catchy little titles, but nothing catches on to solve the mortgage crisis. i believe the menendez amendment, supported by someone who really understands business and housing and community, i think this amendment is a winner. i'm happy to put my name on it, and i'll look forward to voting for it when the time comes. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i want to thank my distinguished colleague from maryland and the bill manager here, and i whao*epl get to a point -- i hope we'll get to a point where we can vote on this amendment. i appreciate senator isakson joining me and particularly his expertise. if we look to the voice of reason as well as experience here, senator isakson's shroeubs a winner. -- voice should be a winner. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i recommit.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senator utah, lee, tphaoufs -- -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i stand on behalf of this motion to recommit. what we're looking at here with h.r. 2112 is a measure that actually spends more in each of these areas than what we spent in fiscal year 2011. now, we are in dire economic circumstances in this country. we're currently spending at a rate roughly $1.5 trillion annually in excess of what we're bringing in. we've gone to great lengths through a number of accounting mechanisms to demonstrate to the american people we're doing our best to spend less. and in many circumstances the message that has been sent has been a message of austerity. it becomes increasingly

difficult to manage and to maintain that necessary message of austerity, one that is accompanied by hundreds of millions of americans making sacrifices every day in response to this economic downturn. it becomes absolutely essential that we actually make cuts. to make actual cuts, i think that means necessarily that we have to spend less in fiscal year 2012 than what we spent in fiscal year 2011. we will continue, i fear, to lack credibility if we persist in using whatever techniques we use accounting-wise or otherwise to claim that we're reducing spending when in fact this appropriations package, this minibus spending package, as we sometimes refer to it, actually spends more money than what was spent in 2011. this is why i submitted this

motion, and i hope that my colleagues will share this concern that i've expressed, which has caused me to submit this motion. the idea of the motion is that we bring our spending levels back down in each of these areas to what spwaoepbt in fiscal year -- to what we spent in fiscal year 2011. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request? the senator from maryland. under the previous order, the motion to recommit is set aside. the senator from maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: mr. president, we have set aside the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from utah. however, i object to -- i wish to rise in opposition to his motion. this is all about budget-speak and it's really hard to follow, between budget authority and

expenditures, et cetera. but let me just say this in plain english, this bill is $500 million less than we spent in 2011. $500 million less than we spent in 2011. now, this isn't the chairperson of the c.j.s. bill kind of making up numbers. this is confirmed by the congressional budget office, and it's been certified by the chairman of the budget committee. the c.j.s. bill is nearly $500 million less than last year. now, am i doing fuzzy math? no, i don't do fuzzy math. the c.j.s. bill is consistent with something called the budget control act. the budget control act required appropriations to cut $7 billion for our fiscal year 2012.

well, we got our allocations, the c.j.s. subcommittee allocation was $500 million below 2011. i'm going to say it again. $500 million below what we spent in 2011. this allocation required the c.j.s. committee to take stern and even drastic measures. mr. president, i eliminated 30 programs. yes, senator barbara mikulski, a democrat, a liberal, i cut and eliminated 30 programs. four in commerce, one i think you object to, 20 in justice, one in space, four in the national science foundation.

i couldn't believe -- i couldn't believe it, but that's what we had to do. we cut the deep underground science and engineering lab by $1 billion, that was a $1 billion project that the national science foundation wanted. we said we'd like it too, but not in these austere times. there were other programs that we were able to do. and we weren't happy about it. we weren't happy about it. we cut the bald ridge program. we cut the public telecommunications facility in planning and communication. we did what we had to do. so while the senator looks at, i'm not sure what, i could tell you we are $500 million below

2011. the congressional budget office says it. the numbers were reviewed by the budget committee itself. the chairman signed off that we were $500 million below to help the overall appropriations committee reduce its expenditures by $7 billion. so that's for 2011. then let's look at 2012. the president came to the congress and gave a dynamic state of the union speech. it touched america deeply when he said "i want to outbuild, outeducate, outinnovate anyone in the world." and he proposed his budget. when you look at what we're doing here, my appropriations, my commerce-justice appropriations is by the billion -- that's "b" like in

barb, not $5 million like "m" like mikulski. we're $5 billion below in science, justice, science to outeducate, outinnovate anybody in the world. i'm $5 billion less than what the president of the united states said he needed to have to accomplish national goals. now we talk a lot about we want america to be exceptional. you've got to spend money to be exceptional. and we put your money in science, technology, education, where we can come up with new ideas, new products that we can make and sell around the world and that our children know that they have a future in this new global economy. i don't want to be nickeled and

dimed here. i've already been nickeled and dimed to be able to comply with this bill. you know, i'm back to where obama was in january, that cold day. and now here we are. so when we talk about cutting, we've cut. we've absolutely cut. we've cut discretionary spending at an incredible level. and you think it's helped create one job? do you think the market's going hoorah! hoorah! look at what they're doing. no. you know why? because the private sector knows if we're going to be a 21st century nation, if we are going to be america the exceptional, we must educate, and we also must invest in scientific research so that the private sector can take that basic research that we do, value add to it, and with the genius that is america, the ability that

intellectual property, you could own and be protected that you're going to develop a project and you have the national institutes of standards to come and help you develop the standards so that you will be able to sell it in america in every state and sell it around the world in every nation. so come on. if we want to be america the exceptional, stop nickel and diming, that in order to tkproe tkproe -- grow and be prosperous and one of the ways you deal with debt is a growing economy, restoring consumer confidence, restoring citizen confidence number one that we can govern ourselves and we can govern ourselves in a smart fashion. yes, we do need to be frugal but we sure don't need to be stupid. i'm going to oppose this amendment and i sure hope the people pass my bill. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. a senator: mr. president, i see that i have other colleagues on the floor, but i'll only be a

couple of minutes here. mr. pryor: mr. president, today i rise to oppose an amendment offered by senator moran. it is amendment number 815. i really do appreciate the intent of senator moran's amendment and i actually support the intent of what he's trying to do because he is trying to support the watershed rehabilitation program. while i'm not opposed to that program and i recognize that difficult decisions had to be made in order to meet our statutory spending caps outlined in the budget control act, i regret to say that i cannot support the senator's amendment as it's written because its offset comes from departmental administration which provides numerous essential services to the usda. these cuts would force usda to reduce their number of employees which would have a dead limittal

effect on the department and its operation. in fact, secretary vilsack reached out to the entrepreneur appropriations subcommittee staff to relay his very serious concerns. the usda employees provide essential services to some of the most rural areas of the country, so i cannot support the amendment which would in effect reduce the services to rural america, and on top of that, it's important for all my colleagues to understand that the level for departmental administration is already over $13 million below -- $13 million below fiscal year 2010 level, and $7 million below that -- that's $7 million below the president's request. so although i definitely support the watershed rehabilitation program, i certainly hope that senator kohl and senator moran can find a good offset that is agreeable to the majority of us. still, i must oppose this amendment and urge other senators to oppose it as well.

with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i was going to call up an amendment and make some remarks. is there some procedural matter or something that the senator would be interested in doing before that? if not, i would plan to go forward. i just thought maybe he wanted to comment on senator pryor's prior comments or something. a senator: mr. president, i have another set of comments i would like to make on a pending amendment, but i don't know where we are in the order here. mr. mikulski: you want to offer an amendment? mr. udall: i wish to comment and rise in opposition to an amendment that's already been offered. mr. sessions: i guess i have the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama has the floor. ms. mikulski: as manager, i'm

seeking clarification. mr. sessions: i will yield to the senator for a question. ms. mikulski: does the senator wish to comment on the moran amendment? mr. udall: i wish to comment on amendment number 753 which was offered by the junior senator from new hampshire. ms. mikulski: on the trying of terrorism. mr. udall: on military tribunals. ms. mikulski: we're alternating back and forth. senator sessions and then senator -- mr. udall: i thank the senator for the clarification. i look forward to hearing the senator from alabama. ms. mikulski: and then we turn to the senator from colorado for his comments. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i ask unanimous consent that the senator from colorado be recognized after i complete my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, i call up the sessions number 810. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from alabama, mr. sessions, proposes

amendment numbered 810 to amendment numbered 738. mr. sessions: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment in its entirety. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, amendment 810 is to -- the purpose of it is to eliminate the categorical eligibility for supplemental nutrition assistance program, the snap program or the food stamp program, a categorical eligibility standard has been imposed and has been causing a substantial increase in unjustified expenditures in food stamp programs. let me just share briefly the history over the last decade of the food stamp program. of course, we in america strongly believe that persons ought not to go to bed hungry if

we have got the food and the ability to take care of them, and we have added a very generous food stamp program for a number of years, but in the last decade, it's shown incredible, amazing increases in spending. as a matter of fact, i think it would increase -- has increased faster probably than any other significant item in the entire federal budget. it is probably increasing more even than interest on the debt, which is one of the most surgerying expenditures this -- surging expenditures this nation has. in 2001, we expended $20 billion on the food stamp program this year. we're projected under this bill to spend $80 billion. in ten years, spending on food stamps would have increased 400%. this year's proposal calls for an increase of 14% over last

year. this is a stunning amount of money. this country has headed the financial crisis. mr. erskine bowles and alan simpson who headed president obama's debt task force told us in the budget committee the country has never faced a more serious financial crisis than the debt crisis that we are now on. and one of the reasons is we have had these incredible surges of expenditures in programs over a period of years. we have not watched them. we have not contained them. indeed, we have taken action that made them less accountable and less efficient and more subject to fraud, abuse and waste. so this year proposes another 14% increase in the food stamp program. now, that's $80 billion. the house has proposed only a $1 billion increase. theirs comes in at $71 billion

for food stamps. so theirs is more level, but it still has an increase, but certainly far less than this. to give some perspective on what we're talking about when we say $80 billion, let me just share a few facts. the federal prison system costs $7 billion. the department of justice, the entire department of justice which senator wows -- senator whitehouse and i served in and we're proud to do so gets $31 billion. the federal highway bill, the federal highway funding for the entire year, $40 billion. food stamps are twice the federal highway bill. customs and border patrol, they get $12 billion. the education department, federal education aid is $30 billion. $80 billion dwarfs the budgets

of, i think, most any state in the country unless it's new york or california. alabama's general fund budget and educational budget is less than $10 billion. this is $80 billion, and it increases $10 billion this year under this bill, and i would just say to my colleague we have got to get real. we don't have the money. we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. no wonder congress is in such disrepute. how can we defend ourselves against a charge of irresponsibility to good and decent american citizens when we are spending at this rate and continuing to show increased spending at this rate now? i'm still amazed that the budget the president submitted to us earlier this year called for a 10% increase in education

department, 10% for the energy department, 10% for the state department. at a time we're borrowing money at a rate we have never borrowed before, at a time when we have never, ever systemically faced such a substantial threat to our country's financial welfare, as every expert has so told. i know we want to help poor people. and i -- i don't want to see people hungry, but do we need to be spending four times as much on food stamps as we were in 2001? can we not look at this program and see if we could make it better and more efficient? by the way, one of the things that really has concerned me -- mr. president, i believe we have a little chatter going on back here. it's kind of hard to think. the presiding officer: may we have order so that the senator from alabama's remarks are not

disturbed. mr. sessions: so i just would say we need to get focused on what we're doing here and try to bring this matter under control, and we can do better. so the federal regulations require states under the food stamp program, and by the way, states administer the program. they don't get money to enforce it and supervise it. they pay that out of their own budget, but the food stamps are 100% federally funded programs. so there is a little bit of a conflict of interest. states are benefited when more food stamps come into their state, right? it's federal dollars. they are not paying any money in it. why spend their money to catch fraud, waste and abuse to crack down on problems. why not utilize every possible action that would bring more food stamps to the state, and

that's what's happening. i know a little bit about that because i probably -- unless the presiding officer is one, it would be the only person in this body who has actually prosecuted food stamp fraud. in certain areas of the country, food stamps are currency used in drug dealing. it's just a lot of fraud going on out there, and we need to do better about it. the states aren't really stepping up because they don't have an incentive to do so. so the federal regulations now require states, require them to make households categorically eligible with the snap program, the food stamp program simply because the household also receives certain other benefits or assistance from federal programs. categorical eligibility is a fancy way of saying automatically qualified. if you qualify for one, you

qualify for another. for example, households that receive temporary assistance for needy families or supplemental social security income benefits or assistance, they are automatically eligible for snap benefits. these other programs, however, have loser eligibility standards than the food stamp program. to be eligible for snap benefits, a household must meet specific income and asset tests. households with income above a certain threshold or savings above a certain amount cannot qualify for food stamps. so if you have got a substantial savings, even if you don't have any income, you're not entitled to -- for somebody else to pay your food. i don't know what the number is but you have got a savings amount. if you are above that, you don't

get food stamps. is that irrational? but in 42 states, there is no limit on the amount of assets that certain households may have to qualify for the program. as a result, households with substantial assets for low-income would be deemed eligible for snap benefits even if they have substantial assets. astonishingly, households can be categorically eligible for snap, even if they receive no tanf funded services other than a toll-free number or informational brochure. i kid you not. that's what they tell me. merely the act of receiving the information about the tanf or other applicable programs can qualify a household to be categorically eligible for snap benefits. a 2010 g.a.o. report revealed

that one state included information about a pregnancy prevention hotline on the snap applications, and that was used as a basis to grant categorical eligibility. other states reported providing household brochures with information about marriage classes in order to confer categorical eligibility to food stamps. according to officials with the food and nutrition service, increased use of categorical eligibility by states has increased approval of snap benefits to households who would not otherwise have been eligible for the program due to the household asset or income limits. so g.a.o. -- the food and nutrition service who supervises this acknowledge that more people are eligible if you use this categorical eligibility rather than requiring them to

comply with the explicit requirements of the food stamp program. so my amendment would eliminate categorical eligibility for snap benefits, taking us back to where we were just a few years ago, meaning that only those who meet the income and asset requirements under the program would be eligible for benefits. they'd have to apply like anyone else. is it too much to ask someone who is going to receive thousands of dollars in food benefits are the federal government to fill out a form and to honestly state whether or not they're in need and to a degree that qualifies for the program? automatic eligibility through other income support programs would end under my amendment. last friday the treasury department closed the books on fiscal year 2011 and declared that the federal government ended the year with a $1.23 trillion in additional debt. that makes our gross debt now

$15 trillion. our appropriations for the snap program have gone from $20 billion in 2001 to $71 billion in 2011 and projected now to go to $80 billion. from 2001 through 2011, that is a multiple increase in funding for the program. the percentage of people using food stamps has increased sevenfold since the program's national expansion in the 1970's with nearly one in seven americans now receiving the benefit. meanwhile, food stamp funds have been mishandled and misused and there are many examples of it. i've seen it in my personal practice as a federal prosecutor. but in one recent notorious

case, a defendant in the operation fast and furious, one of the people that came in and bought a whole host of illegal weapons in arizona to take back across into mexico was a food stamp recipient. according to the report, he spent thousands of dollars on these guns, maybe tens of thousands of dollars on these expensive weapons. got 300 high-powered assault rifles he bought. had money for that and we're buying his food for him. in another case a michigan man was able to continue receiving food stamps after winning $2 million in the lottery. $2 million. he asked about it. he said can i continue to receive food stamps? and you know what they told him? yes. the lottery, you see, winning was an asset and we're not checking assets now.

this is not income. it's an asset. so you get to keep having food stamps while american working people are paying for it. categorical not eligibility -- be categorical eligibility, that flawed process allows recipients to avoid the asset test required to determine need and it's a policy we can't afford at the time this country is having this huge debt crisis. president obama has coined a somewhat disingenuous term we think called the buffett rule in his push to raise taxes on millions of americans who have zero in common with mr. buffett. of course he's one of the president's big allies, but i would like to suggest something called the solyndra rule. under this rule, before any proposals are offered to raise any taxes, we first put an end

to the wasteful, inappropriate spending in washington. shouldn't we first clean up our act before we demand the american people to send more money up here? until we do that, raising tax rates only will be funding continuing abuse of the american taxpayer. raising taxes to bail out congress is like giving money to the alcoholic on the way to the liquor store. it doesn't help matters if the money comes from a wealthy person if the money is going to be used for an unwise or unhealthy result. so it's time for the president and this senate to get their spending habits under control. and these bills before us, i'm afraid, and the ones that we will be seeing really don't reduce spending but increase spending. so, mr. president, i thank the chair for the opportunity to express my concerns about it. finally, i would just say we're

told we can't do anything about it. we're told we can't fix the food stamps. food stamps don't count like other appropriations. so you say why is that? well, they say it's an entitlement. well, what is an entitlement? well, an entitlement is when there's a law that says if your income is a certain level, you go into the government and they have to give you money whether the government has any money or not. whether it's been appropriated or not. it's an entitlement program. so it makes it very hard for those of us in congress to really be able to make the kind of proposals that are appropriate to fix this program. one of think simply would be in my opinion to reduce the spending back to the level of the house. showing a modest increase this year after surging the spending level for the snap program over

the last decade. and all of us have got to grasp something. i don't think the american people are happy hearing excuses. i don't think they're happy hearing us say well, we would like to have done something abouod