Wednesday, January 27, 2010

U.S. Senate voted to Reject Sen. Coburn's (R-Okla.) Amendment to H.J. Res 45

This IHEC Blog post is a follow-up to my Take Action post on Monday and is taken, in predominately, from the NAFSA Legislative Update that was just sent out to those who have registered for ACT and is posted with the permission Kari Lantos from NAFSA.

Last night, the Senate voted to reject Senator Coburn's (R-Okla.) amendment to H.J. Res 45 that would have rescinded $120 billion in federal funding for all agencies. Among other things, Sen. Coburn's amendment would have had a negative impact on funding for the Department of State's Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program; the Defense Department's National Security Education Program; the Department of Education's Title VI and Fulbright Hays Programs; and the Office of International Science and Engineering at the National Science Foundation.

Speaking in opposition of the amendment to rescind federal funding, Senator Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, defended funding for international exchange programs. He said, "I would tell the Senator from Oklahoma that if you look over the last 10 years, there have been significant [funding] shortfalls in many of these [exchange] programs, and in personnel. The [funding] increases began first at the request of former President George W. Bush, and then followed by President Obama because they realized the need for us to have these programs for our own security." He went on to say, "Rather than cut funding, Senators on both sides of the aisle have consistently urged the Appropriations Committee to increase funding to expand our efforts to promote better understanding of the United States. If we had funded all the requests for increases, [the exchanges budget] would be considerably more than it was."

In order to complete action on the bill and move the debate Sen. Coburn's amendment forward, his overall amendment was divided into four divisions. The sections of the amendment focused on reducing funding for all federal agencies made up Division III of the amendment. All but one of the divisions was rejected by the Senate. The portion of the amendment that passed - Division I - requires the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to routinely evaluate programs to "identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals" and submit an annual report to Congress outlining those findings.

To see which Senators voted "yea" or "nay" to Division III of Senator Coburn's amendment to reduce overall federal funding, including funding for international education programs, click

1 comment:

  1. I have few words about our U.S. Senators in the Democratic Party.

    The U.S. Senators within our Democratic Party are socialist liberals, and everyone of them should be removed from government office. They have passed massive legislation and regulations from President Obama and the Congress without first disclosing and identifying what they really contain and mean for us, our economy, our freedom, our security, or the future of our families and our country.

    At the very least, we the Democratic Party members are extremely offended in seeing our Democrat majority Senate bribe fellow Senators into supporting the healthcare bill made by a few of them behind closed doors. More importantly, where do they get off bribing our other Senators within the Democratic Party and not calling it a "bribe"? Without question, everyone of our Senators within the Democratic Party have really sunk below expectations and ethical standards, and they are changing America into a far different county than the one we have known in our lifetimes.

    In other words, we the members of the Democratic Party love our country and we do not want corrupted, dishonest and socialist liberal U.S. Senators making radical changes within our government, especially when it curtails taking away our individual Liberty and Freedom.

    Altogether, we as Democrats must take the lead with a powerful political opposition within our Democratic Party by participating in electoral politics. In addition, we must have a willingness to speak out in providing the facts and analysis people can us to criticize liberal proposals, and propose common-sense conservative alternatives.

    Eric Pearson, for Democrats seeking reform with the Democratic Party.

    Web site: