[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2652-S2658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1105, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1105) making omnibus appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 592, in the nature of a substitute.


                           Amendment No. 592

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11:45 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the 
Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Hawaii or their designees on 
amendment No. 592.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will be brief this morning, but I wish to make a couple points. The 
appropriations bill that is on the floor of the Senate represents the 
bills that were not completed last year but were worked through in the 
individual subcommittees, and the full Appropriations Committee of the 
Senate, passed, as I indicated earlier, almost unanimously, for every 
piece of legislation, by all Republicans and all Democrats in the 
Appropriations Committee. So it is not as if there is something strange 
here.
  The question is, Do we want to pass an appropriations bill, at least 
for the last half of this year, that funds the agencies the way 
Congress has determined they should be funded? Or do we want to defeat 
this bill and go on autopilot and say: Whatever was done last year, 
that is what we will do next year. That does not make much sense to me. 
What we might have done last year should be judged on the basis: Did it 
work? Did it not work? Where are the increases we probably ought to 
make some additional appropriations for? Or where are some areas that 
ought to be cut?
  All these things represent a matter of judgment by Members of the 
Senate and particularly members of the Appropriations Committee who are 
funding the individual agencies.
  I mentioned, a moment ago, there is an account I cut in the 
subcommittee I chair by $100 million because I felt it was not needed 
in the coming fiscal year, and I would move that $100 million to fund 
something else I thought was very important. Well, that is the kind of 
thing that will not exist if we decide: Whatever was spent last year in 
all those accounts, that is what we will spend going forward. That is 
devoid of any kind of judgment at all.
  Let me mention some areas we have felt should be increased. I will 
give you some examples. One is the funding to prepare for a potential 
pandemic flu. Obviously, it is a very significant issue. This country 
needs to be prepared in the event we suffer in our lifetimes a pandemic 
flu. An influenza, pandemic epidemic that would move around this world 
would be very serious, kill a lot of people. The need to be prepared 
for that is very important. There are funds available in this 
legislation to begin that preparation.
  The efforts to improve the warning systems to notify communities 
about severe weather: This deals with the funding that is necessary for 
the next-generation satellites. This is not just something that is 
convenient. When killer storms and hurricanes and other things are 
threatening population centers, it is a need to have the very finest 
capability to warn people. This is the money that is needed to continue 
that progress in improving warning systems through the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration weather and climate satellites. That is 
in this bill to continue that work.
  In my subcommittee, nonproliferation programs--and that is the issue 
of trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the programs we 
have to try to prevent terrorist groups from acquiring the kind of 
material with which they can produce nuclear weapons--we provide 
funding for that and increased funding for that, which is very 
necessary. It is funding to the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, and it is critical to our efforts to secure weapons-
grade nuclear material around the world that even today, as I speak, 
terrorists are trying to acquire.
  So that issue of nonproliferation--we have increased some funding for 
it. If we decide we are not going to proceed with the normal 
appropriations bills that have now been put in this omnibus and instead 
we are going to go with a continuing resolution, that extra funding to 
try to protect us and stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons is 
gone.
  There are so many areas. The area of science: our National 
Laboratories. You know the Bell Labs, which used to be the jewels in 
our country of scientific inquiry and discovery, and all the 
unbelievable inventions and new knowledge, those labs are largely gone. 
Now our science laboratories in this country--and the three weapons 
laboratories and the array of science laboratories--represent the 
repository of the best and brightest Ph.D.s in physics and engineering 
and mathematics and so on. We have to keep our lead in the world in 
these areas. This legislation provides the increased funding for our 
science labs that our country has already made a decision to do. If we 
do not go forward, then we go backward, we lose some of those best and 
brightest scientists and engineers.
  At one of our laboratories, we have something called the Roadrunner, 
which is the most powerful computer in the world.
  That is not elsewhere; that is here in our country. They were telling 
me one day about the roadrunner, what is called a petaflop, which is a 
thousand teraflops. A teraflop is a computer that has capacity to do 1 
trillion distinct functions per second. That is a teraflop. We reached 
that 11 years ago. Now we have done a thousand teraflops, or what is 
called a petaflop. One thousand trillion functions per second in this 
world's most powerful computer. What can you do with that? Well, they 
are talking about studying the synapses--1 billion synapses of the 
brain to work how it works together to produce what we call vision. We 
don't know that. With supercomputing, the potential to know a lot of 
things is breathtaking. That exists here. It is the most powerful 
computer in the world here.
  We have to continue to keep our edge in science and knowledge and 
invention. Part of that will be dependent upon how we fund our national 
laboratories and whether we keep that group of scientists and engineers 
working on these breathtaking inventions and the development of new 
knowledge. We can only do that if we continue the commitment we have 
made to fund our science in our national laboratories.

[[Page S2653]]

  Those are a few of the things I wanted to mention. Again, these were 
appropriation bills considered individually by a subcommittee of 
Appropriations, Republicans and Democrats, and then brought to the full 
Committee on Appropriations, Republicans and Democrats, and passed in 
every case, except two, unanimously, 29 to 0. In two cases, it was 26 
to 3 and 28 to 1. Essentially, all of these pieces of legislation were 
passed unanimously. So when someone says, you know, this legislation is 
mysterious, new, and it has been thrust upon the Senate--that is not 
true. This legislation was prepared in June and July of last year. This 
Congress cannot continue to do appropriations this way.
  The majority leader has made a commitment and one that I think makes 
a lot of sense. This year, this has to stop. We bring individual 
appropriation bills to the floor, vote on them, go to conference, have 
a conference report and send the bill to the President, one by one. 
That is the way this should work. It didn't work last year, or the year 
before, that way. As a result, for the last 6 months of the year, we 
were confronted with nine appropriation bills that were worked through 
on a bipartisan basis last summer and now need to be enacted.
  My hope is that the Senate, working its will this week, will do the 
right thing and pass what is, for the most part, bipartisan legislation 
dealing with funding for Homeland Security, Justice, Energy, and so 
many different areas that are important to the functioning of our 
Government--and important to the American people as well.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the time of the quorum call 
be charged equally to both sides. We are in a time agreement.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been listening to the various 
colleagues on the Republican side who are continuing to be the party of 
``nope'' instead of the party of ``hope.'' I came to the floor to say 
that it is very easy to say no to this and no to that. But I have to 
tell you, the American people need leadership. When you say ``nope, 
nope, nope,'' it means you are in fact endorsing the status quo, and 
the status quo is a major problem.
  I see my friend from Washington on the floor. I know she had intended 
to speak. I will be glad to stop at this time and ask unanimous consent 
that following her remarks, I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding me time on this bill and thank her for her support as we move 
forward in a very critical time to cast a vote that is very important 
to all of our communities, and that is for the Omnibus appropriations 
bill from last year that is currently on the Senate floor.
  Let me start by commending our leadership, our new committee 
chairman, Senator Inouye, and our vice chairman, Senator Cochran, who 
have put this bill in front of us. This Omnibus appropriations bill 
before us that we are now debating is absolutely essential to every 
community in our country, especially as we work to address this 
economic crisis. Both of our Senators, Mr. Inouye and Mr. Cochran, have 
been very measured and evenhanded as we have brought this bill 
together, despite the many challenges we face. I thank them for their 
work.
  I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Housing. I rise today to urge all of my colleagues to support this very 
important Omnibus appropriations bill. As I said, this bill is 
essential to families and communities across our country. It enables 
us, our Government, to meet the needs for health care, for housing, to 
make college more affordable, and to keep our communities safe. Just as 
important, our communities today are counting on us doing our job and 
passing this bill.
  With this bill, we are fulfilling our commitments we made to them 
back in June and July of last year when these bills were marked up in 
our appropriations committees. Senator Byrd, who was the Appropriations 
Committee chairman at the time, held four separate markup sessions. 
Almost every committee member attended those sessions to debate and 
vote those appropriations bills out of committee. While, of course, not 
every Senator agreed with every line in every bill, they were written 
with the cooperation of our Republican colleagues. All of us had to 
make compromises, but in the end each of these bills was reported out 
of the full committee either unanimously or with a very large 
bipartisan vote. That is because each of these bills represents a 
bipartisan consensus and stays within the budget resolution Congress 
passed earlier last year.
  Our Republican colleagues were full participants when we negotiated 
the final details of this with the House of Representatives. Therefore, 
the omnibus bill we are debating today reflects many of the same 
priorities Democrats and Republicans alike approved last July.
  Even so, our Federal agencies have now been operating under a 
continuing resolution for 5 months now, since this fiscal year began. 
We cannot delay sending them this bill any longer. On Friday night of 
this week, at midnight, if we do not pass this bill, funding for most 
of our Federal agencies will stop. It will stop and the money will be 
cut off. The Federal Government will come to a halt. I think about what 
that means. Millions of Americans depend on this funding. We cannot 
afford to let politics stand in the way and risk a government shutdown, 
especially not when we face the greatest economic challenge since the 
Great Depression, not with so many of our Federal agencies working day 
and night to make sure the economic recovery bill we adopted last month 
can meet the needs of our families across the country, and not when we 
know communities across the Nation are desperate for help to keep 
transportation and safety and housing and all the other programs moving 
forward.
  As chair of the Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, I want to 
take a little bit of time today to give some details about why this 
bill is so important to address the housing crisis and ensure the 
continued safety of our transportation system.
  First of all, this bill is an essential part of our efforts to 
restart the housing market. In the last several weeks, I have heard 
some of my colleagues talk about how they want to focus on housing as 
we repair this economy. We cannot fix the housing market without the 
provisions in this omnibus bill.
  Let me give just one example. Up until last year, the Federal Housing 
Administration's market share for guaranteeing mortgages had dropped to 
a low of 3 percent. But now that the mortgage industry is in crisis, 
lenders have turned back to the FHA in droves because they know it will 
be reliable. Yet, under the terms of the continuing resolution, the FHA 
is prevented from helping willing and qualified buyers get mortgages 
because that agency cannot guarantee more than $185 billion a year. If 
we do not pass the bill in front of us and raise that cap to a level 
above $300 billion, our effort to restart the real estate and housing 
industry is going to crash and burn. If any of us think it is hard to 
get a mortgage now, just watch that happen if we keep the FHA's loan 
volume cap at last year's level.
  If we fail to pass this bill, we are going to throw thousands of low-
income families out of stable, affordable

[[Page S2654]]

housing. In the last year alone, 3 million Americans lost their jobs. 
Communities across this country are struggling to meet those needs. 
This is absolutely the wrong time to unravel the safety net we have in 
place. The 2009 omnibus bill would provide enough additional money to 
keep up with inflation and keep the current tenant-based section 8 
recipients in their homes. If we have to keep the funding for that 
program flat, the consequences will be severe. It is estimated that as 
many as 45,000 families will be turned out of their homes if we don't 
pass this bill; that is, 45,000 families who would lose their housing 
and be forced to turn to relatives, shelters--wherever they can--for 
help. So this bill is critical to help us address the Nation's housing 
needs.
  But the omnibus is also essential to the safety of our airlines, our 
railroads, our roads, and our bridges. All of us, I hope, are aware we 
face very serious challenges today because our air traffic controllers 
and our safety inspectors are retiring in very large numbers, leaving a 
lot of less-experienced people to fill their shoes. Those are the 
people who help us land or take off at our airports, who make sure our 
planes are safe. We have been working for several years to address this 
crisis. This bill is going to make sure we can keep hiring new air 
traffic controllers and safety inspectors so they can get the training 
and experience they need. This bill provides the money to fully fund 
some of the safety personnel we brought on last year. I hope it is very 
clear to everyone how important it is to keep up these efforts. If we 
do not pass this bill, not only will we be unable to hire new safety 
personnel, but we are going to have to fire some of the people we hired 
last year. We face a simple choice: We can hire and train new air 
traffic controllers and address that huge gap in experience levels 
between the workers who are retiring and the new employers who are at 
our towers across the Nation or we can just let those shortfalls get 
worse. I think that is an investment we cannot afford to not make.
  The same is true when it comes to the safety of the rest of our 
transportation system. This omnibus bill provides critical investments 
in rail safety inspectors, truck safety inspectors, and pipeline 
inspectors.
  Back in the fall, through the leadership of Senators Inouye and 
Lautenberg and many others, the Senate passed a comprehensive rail 
safety and Amtrak bill that was signed by President Bush. That bill 
laid out a very new vision for a modernized national rail network and a 
new safety system that requires adequate staffing at the Federal 
Railroad Administration. With this bill that is before us now, we begin 
to make those investments. It is not a moment too soon. In the last 
couple of years, a record number of commuters have parked their cars 
and started taking the train in response to the economic crisis and 
high gas prices. We have to expand and improve our rail transportation 
in America to meet that demand. But if we keep the funding levels flat, 
we could end up forcing Amtrak to shut down some of those routes 
instead.
  Additionally, we finally got a settlement for Amtrak's workers last 
year after they were forced to go almost 9 years without a wage 
increase. That settlement was recommended by President Bush's emergency 
board. It called for the Government--us--to make a lump-sum payment in 
backpay to Amtrak workers. The bill before us includes the funding for 
that long-awaited payment. Those workers earned that money, but if we 
do not pass this bill, they almost certainly will not get it.
  I give those as a couple of examples of what could happen if we do 
not approve this omnibus bill and get it to the President's desk by 
Friday. Those, by the way, are just the risks in transportation and 
housing. I know many of my fellow chairmen on the committee will be 
talking about what happens to health or agriculture or energy or law 
enforcement.
  Less than a month ago, we came together on this floor to pass a huge 
bill designed to give our economy the jump-start we need to get the 
Government working again and make investments that are going to create 
jobs and strengthen our communities. We are already seeing it begin to 
work. But the progress we are already making will be forced to a stop 
before it can get any momentum if we do not put the people in place to 
carry it out.
  That is why this bill is so important. This bill will keep the 
Government running at a time when we need Federal employees to put all 
of their efforts, every single day, into helping our economy recover. 
We need this bill to help ensure that our low-income families keep 
safe, affordable housing. We need this bill so that the FHA can help 
more people get loans and buy homes. And we need it to ensure that our 
transit system runs safely and smoothly. This bill is critical to every 
one of our communities, and we all have to work together and do what is 
right for the American people today. We all know our families are 
struggling and they are scared about what is ahead for our economy. 
They do not have time for us to play games. They need help now.
  I hope we can all join together this week and move this bill, the 
2009 Omnibus appropriations bill, to the President's desk by Friday and 
get our country working again.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously ordered 
vote slated to occur at 11:45 now occur at 12 noon and that the 
additional time be divided as previously ordered and the remaining 
provisions under the agreement remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on the other side 
for giving us this little extra time. I intend to speak about 5 
minutes. If the Chair will tell me when I have a minute to go, I would 
appreciate it.
  Mr. President, before Senator Murray leaves the floor, I wish to 
thank her for her very clear explanation as to the choice that is 
before us. If I could restate it in my own way, it is a choice right 
now that Senator McCain is giving us through his particular amendment, 
which would give us an option to go back to the budget of 2008 instead 
of moving forward with a current budget that reflects the needs and 
priorities of our Nation right now.
  I do not have to tell you what has happened to our country in the 
last several months and in the last year. We are seeing an 
unprecedented recession. My personal belief is we are going to get out 
of this. My personal belief is there are some signs out there even in 
my State, which is struggling mightily with an over 10 percent 
unemployment rate, we see some small signs here of life. For example, 
sales of existing homes in California went up 100 percent in January 
over the year before. I might say these are mostly sales of foreclosed 
homes. This is a good thing. We are looking for a bottom. But if we go 
back to old policies, if we go back to a budget that doesn't reflect 
the realities we face now, we are going backward.
  So we passed a stimulus package--and I am so grateful we did that. 
Our President led us in that. Democrats stuck together. We got three 
independent-thinking Republicans to join us, and we challenged the 
status quo and we passed it.
  And now today we are facing another such choice between a budget of 
the past offered to us by Senator McCain, and a budget of the present. 
Senator Murray was eloquent in going through all of the things--not all 
of the things, but some of the things. I am going to talk about a 
couple of others.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission gets an increase. If we go 
back to the old bill, as Senator McCain wants, we do not get that 
increase. What are we doing over there in the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission? Protecting our children from dangerous toys.
  Senator Murray talked about families losing housing. That will be the 
reality if we go with the McCain approach to a continuing resolution. 
The FHA will have to stop helping families facing foreclosure. Senator 
Murray pointed that out.
  Here is one I will point out, enforcement of security laws. 
Inadequate resources for the SEC. This would hamper their ability to 
finally undertake investigation enforcement against these Ponzi 
schemes. Do we want to go back to the old budget before we knew about 
these Ponzi schemes? I think it would be irresponsible. It would be 
more of the party of nope; nope, we cannot fix this, nope, we cannot do 
that. I want to stand for hope, not nope.

[[Page S2655]]

  We talked about the air traffic controllers. There are also food and 
medical product safety inspections. We would provide the FDA with an 
increase of $325 million so they can make sure we do not see people 
getting sick from eating peanut butter that is contaminated.
  There is so much more Federal law enforcement effort through the 
Department of Justice. In the FBI, there would be 650 fewer FBI agents. 
Is this a time we want to do that, as we are continuing the war against 
terror?
  In my last 2 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that I have an 
additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. We see in this bill, brought to us by the Appropriations 
Committee, and I might say, in a bipartisan fashion--am I right on 
that--Senator Inouye, working hard with the senior members of the 
committee, such as my colleague, Senator Murray--we see a bill that is 
relevant to the problems of today, not an old bill that is offered up 
by Senator McCain going backward, looking backward, going in reverse. 
It does not make any sense. If you sit down with your family today to 
discuss the issues of the day, and you avoid talking about the fact 
that one child has gotten very ill and requires a lot of changes in 
your family budget, then your family budget is not going to accommodate 
for what has happened to your family. America is a family. This is a 
Government of, by, and for the people.
  The last point I want to make, Senator Coburn has been on the floor 
bashing the congressional priorities that are in this bill, and he 
happened to hit on one of mine. I want to set the record straight. We 
have a county in our State, Orange County. It is the biggest Republican 
county in the State. The voters voted, 58 percent, to take a former 
Marine Corps air station and turn it into what is called a great park. 
It is going to be a diverse development. In this bill, we have answered 
the call of the local veterans group that wants to protect the great 
history of El Toro, and they want to convert an old hangar that was 
opened in 1943 into a military history museum and a welcoming center 
for the park. This response to that request will put people to work 
refurbishing this old Air Force base. So the Senator from Oklahoma has 
railed against it. He attacks a balloon ride for children. That is not 
what we are funding. We are funding a military museum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let's listen carefully. I hope we will support our 
leaders on the Appropriations Committee and vote down the continuing 
resolution as an option.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona controls all the 
remaining 24\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank you. It is entirely possible all the time may not 
be used.
  As I discussed at length yesterday, this amendment would provide for 
a long-term continuing resolution to fund the Federal Government 
through the end of this fiscal year at the fiscal year 2008 level; in 
other words, the same level as last year.
  Obviously, funds can be shifted around within agencies, and the 
allegations that somehow we cannot do business this year at the same 
level as last year, when American families are clearly not doing 
business this year as they did last year, I think are an example of 
being out of touch with the challenges the American people face.
  I think it is important for us to look at what this amendment is 
trying to do, which is simply maintain the same level of funding as 
last year, in the context of what the American people are facing today. 
Unemployment in the previous speaker's State is now at 10 percent, home 
values continue to plummet, the stock market yesterday took another 
serious dive, as more and more of Americans' savings, 401(k)s are 
dramatically reduced, with massive job layoffs, in a very serious 
economic situation.
  I want to state again, America will recover from this. It is tough. 
It may be long and hard. But America will recover because we are still 
the greatest nation in the world. But in the meantime, Americans are 
having to tighten their belts all across this great Nation of ours. 
They are having to reduce or eliminate spending they have wanted to 
engage in for a new car, for whatever they feel the necessities of 
their families are. They watch as their health insurance premiums 
continue to go up and that are less and less affordable for many 
families.
  What we are asking here, obviously in this very simple 1-page 
resolution, is that we maintain the same funding level as last year. I 
will tell you, there are millions of American families who would like 
to stay on the same funding level as last year. So instead of that, we 
have a statement of managers, 1,844 pages, which no Member has read. We 
have the bill itself, 800, 700-some pages, whatever it is. And, 
obviously, we have dramatic increases, an 8-percent increase in 
spending over last year. We have been through many of these earmarks. 
We have put them out. We have twittered them. And we will continue with 
our top ten. We have many top ten lists for this bill. It will be 
passed. It will be passed. Then it will be on the President's desk, and 
the President will have a choice as to whether to accept all of these 
thousands and thousands of unnecessary, wasteful earmark projects, and 
business as usual in Washington, or take out his veto pen. By the way, 
in all spirit of candor, the last President should have taken out his 
veto pen and vetoed these bloated, pork-barrel, project-laden bills. He 
should have. He did not, and he lost the confidence of the American 
people because we were not careful stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
  So we went through a Presidential campaign, and we said we would stop 
business as usual here in Washington. The President stated very clearly 
at the debate in Oxford, MS, a mere 6 months ago:
  We need earmark reform. And when I am President, I will go line by 
line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.
  I want to give the President of the United States a line item veto. I 
want him to be able to go line by line and veto each unnecessary and 
wasteful spending project. I will be introducing, with my friend from 
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, a line item veto again.
  But right now, this bill deserves the President's veto. By vetoing 
this bill, the President could send a message to America and the world 
that for the enormous economic difficulties every American family is 
facing, we will show them that we will be, for a change, careful 
stewards of their tax dollars.
  But there is no justification for, at these difficult times, $1.7 
million for pig odor research in Iowa, $2 million for the promotion of 
astronomy in Hawaii, termite research, $1.9 million for the Pleasure 
Beach water taxi service project in Connecticut, $95,000 for the State 
of New Mexico to find a dental school location, $1.7 million for a 
honey bee factory, $951,500 for a sustainable Las Vegas, a parking 
garage in Provo City, UT, tattoo removal, $167,000 for the Autry 
National Center for the Indian American West in Los Angeles, a rodeo 
museum in South Dakota.
  These things may be nice. They may be nice to have, a Buffalo Bill 
historical center in Cody, WY, but right now Americans cannot afford 
health insurance, they cannot keep their jobs. I am not only angry 
about it, my constituents are angry. And Americans are angry. It is 
being reflected in the polls of the lack of confidence in the future of 
this country because we continue business as usual here in our Nation's 
Capital.
  I know I will not be elected ``Ms. Congeniality'' again this year in 
the Senate. For many years I have fought to try to eliminate a great 
deal of this. Sometimes I have succeeded; most times I have failed. The 
previous chairman of the committee used to call me the sheriff. But the 
fact is, there is no time more important than now for us to show the 
American people that we are willing to tighten our belts, that we are 
willing to stop this practice, which, yes, has corrupted people. That 
is why we have former Members of Congress now residing in Federal 
prison, and staffers under indictment. This process is wrong. It is 
wrong because we do not give it the scrutiny and the

[[Page S2656]]

examination and the authorizing it deserves before we appropriate the 
money.
  That is why Americans are angry at the way we do business and our 
approval ratings continue to be very low. Our approval ratings are 
something that is somewhat ephemeral. But this practice has grown and 
grown and grown over the years that I have been a Member of Congress 
and the Senate. It has continued to grow, and it has continued to waste 
the American taxpayers' dollars. So I ask Americans, along with me, to 
ask the President to veto this bill and have him send one back that is 
truly reflective of the tough times America is in today, that we cannot 
afford any longer this wasteful spending practice, this spending on 
projects that appear in the middle of the night, and sometimes, as in 
one of last year's appropriations bills, they were projects added after 
the President signed the bill into law. No one knows where it came 
from. What kind of a process is that? What kind of a process is it that 
we have legislation that is this high, that no Member has read? The 
whole process has to be fixed.
  For the President's budget director to say: This is last year's 
business, we want to move on, and the President's Chief of Staff, who 
has said: Mr. Obama was not happy with the large number of earmarks in 
this bill but, ``The President had kept lawmakers from adding a single 
earmark to the $787 billion stimulus package, and a $32.8 billion State 
Children's Health Insurance Program,'' I find to be a very disingenuous 
statement on its face.
  The President's pledge 6 months ago wasn't that he would claim to 
keep two bills earmark free and then let there be a feeding frenzy of 
pork barrel. His pledge was: ``We need earmark reform'' and, as 
President, he would do it.
  I read today an article in the Chicago Tribune that Mr. Emanuel is 
tied to as many as 16 earmarks in this legislation, totaling $8.5 
million, $900,000 for Chicago's Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum, 
and the list goes on. When do we turn off the spigot? Haven't we 
learned anything from the calls and letters, meetings with our 
constituents who pour their hearts and souls out and share their fears 
about keeping their jobs and homes as they struggle to put food on 
their families' tables? Bills such as this jeopardize their future. One 
of my greatest fears about the President's budget is that at no point 
in his budget does there seem to be a balanced budget, nor is there any 
triggering mechanism, such as this side proposed in the stimulus bill, 
that once our economy recovers--and it will recover--we embark on 
reductions in spending. Right now we are laying a huge debt on our 
children and grandchildren which is not in keeping with our 
responsibilities.
  I urge colleagues to vote for this amendment. I doubt it will be 
passed. I hope the American people understand what is at stake. I hope 
all Americans will urge the President to veto the bill when it gets to 
his desk, send it back, save billions of their tax dollars, and come 
back with a bill that Americans can say is truly reflective of the 
challenges we face.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona proposes that the 
Congress should enact a continuing resolution until the end of the year 
instead of fulfilling our responsibilities and completing work on the 
appropriations bills for fiscal year 2009.
  Last summer the Appropriations Committee reported 10 Appropriations 
bills to the Senate. All of them were reported to the Senate from the 
Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. Eight were reported 
with unanimous support. Of the ten bills, only three were enacted.
  The other bills were put on hold because the previous administration 
refused to negotiate on overall spending levels approved by the 
Congress.
  Two other bills, Legislative and Interior, were prepared by the 
Subcommittee Chairmen, in concert with their Ranking Members, but were 
never completed.
  These nine unfinished bills were left on the shelf until the current 
administration was elected.
  Last fall the House and Senate Appropriations Committees sat down in 
bipartisan negotiations to work out the differences between these nine 
bills.
  The result of those negotiations is the bill before the Senate today, 
H.R. 1105.
  This bill reflects a compromise between the bills of both bodies.
  It is a fair outcome that protects the interests of the House and 
Senate.
  This bill was agreed to by the House last week, with votes from 
Members of both parties.
  I should point out that Members have had more than a week to review 
the legislation.
  The bill and statement have been on the internet since last Monday.
  I also note that this bill was not done in the dark of night. 
Virtually every item in the bill reflects the bipartisan work of the 
Appropriations Subcommittees from last year.
  Most of this information was posted on the internet and has been 
available to Members' offices since last summer.
  Unlike some omnibus bills in the past, there is no major legislation 
that was added at the last minute.
  The direction from the leadership of both houses was not to add 
controversial new material in this bill, and the committees did not.
  If the Senate were now to determine that we should not complete our 
work on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills at this juncture and 
instead agree to a continuing resolution for the rest of the year, all 
the efforts of the Committee in reviewing the budget request, the 
hearings and staff review, the countless meetings with executive branch 
officials, the mark ups and the ensuing direction that comes with this 
bill would be wasted.
  More importantly than the wasted effort is that the Congress would be 
abrogating its responsibility.
  Under a continuing resolution the government operates programs under 
the authority of the previous year. Programs that should have been 
terminated continue to be funded.
  Important new programs cannot be initiated. This is true even if the 
program is something that was supported by both the previous 
administration and the Congress. It is true if the Congress passed a 
new authorization to fund it last year.
  Is this really how we want to manage the executive branch?
  Under a continuing resolution funding for the agencies covered by 
this bill would be held at last year's level.
  The Congress authorized a pay raise for our civil servants, and it 
must be paid. But unless funding in the budget is increased, other 
programs will have to be cut to meet payroll.
  A continuing resolution doesn't account for the cost of inflation. 
Even in these tough economic times, there has been cost growth in 
managing our Government. We all know that it costs more to run these 
agencies this year than it did in 2008. But under a continuing 
resolution agencies have to cut necessary functions to cover the higher 
costs due to inflation.
  Perhaps most important, under a continuing resolution the Congress 
foregoes oversight of the executive branch. In each appropriations 
bill, the committees include guidance on how funding should be 
allocated. Some programs are increased; others are cut compared to the 
budget request. When we operate under a continuing resolution, the 
Congress turns over control to the agencies.
  Mr. President, the Constitution provides the Congress with the power 
of the purse to ensure that we exercise control over the executive 
branch.
  It is one of the most important rights of the legislative branch.
  But it is also a duty.
  It is the duty of the Congress to decide how the executive branch 
should spend the taxpayer's money.
  When we decide to govern by continuing resolution we are not 
responsibly fulfilling this duty.
  This amendment would turn over control of Government spending to the 
administration.
  It would put the Government on autopilot for programs approved for 
2008 not 2009.
  This is not the way for the Congress to manage its business.
  I will grant that the effect of this amendment would probably cut the 
earmarks that are included in this bill.
  And while the majority of my colleagues have supported earmarks in 
this bill for their constituents, it is

[[Page S2657]]

well understood that the Senator from Arizona does not.
  But this amendment isn't about the 1 percent of this bill for 
earmarks; it is about the 99 percent of the funds in the bill over 
which we are sacrificing oversight if this amendment were adopted.
  This is bad policy for both the Congress and the executive branch, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, it should be 
noted that if it weren't for earmarks or congressional initiatives, the 
C-17, the highly acclaimed cargo plane, would be history. Production 
would have been stopped. But Congress took action to continue. Now all 
military leaders are saying that was a great decision. The F-22, the 
fighter of the future--stealth, firepower--that would be a matter of 
history also. I could go on and on, but we don't have the time.
  All I want to say is that earmarks are not evil. Yes, there are some 
that are questionable, and there will come a time to do that.
  I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield the remainder of the time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will you please state the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 592 offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
McCain.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--63

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Conrad
     Johanns
     Kennedy
     Sessions
  The amendment (No. 592) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                        America's Credit Crisis

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, families and businesses across the Nation 
are suffering from a severe economic squeeze. Unfortunately, despite 
the $1 trillion stimulus bill passed by Congress, this economy will not 
recover--at least not until we tackle the root of the problem. As 
President Obama said last week, we must solve America's credit crisis.
  I am hearing from folks in my home State of Missouri and across the 
Nation who are sick of hearing gloom and doom being preached by 
Government officials, sick of watching tens of billions of good 
taxpayer dollars being put into failing institutions, and sick of 
listening to the debate on how much we should pay failing CEOs, when 
common sense says we should fire them.
  Let me be clear. All Americans need to care about the credit crisis 
and the Government's response. We have to solve the credit crisis to 
protect Main Street families and workers. The key to our economic 
recovery is the stabilization and restoration of the financial markets. 
Our financial markets make up the lifeblood of our economy, which 
families need to buy homes and cars, students need to receive loans, 
and small businesses need to purchase supplies, invest in new 
equipment, and meet payroll. A functioning financial system is critical 
to our State and local governments so they can finance critical 
infrastructure needs, water and sewer systems, affordable housing, and 
transportation.
  Our banking system affects every American's standard of living, our 
ability to create and maintain jobs, and our ability to compete 
globally. It is central to all financial and household activities for 
Main Street America.
  Unfortunately, our financial system is not working. The credit market 
is clogged with toxic assets mainly made up of risky subprime housing 
loans which were packaged into exotic financial instruments, sliced and 
diced, and sold here and abroad. The toxic assets are clearly at the 
center of the credit crisis, and until they are removed from the 
system, fear and uncertainty will continue to dominate the markets and 
our economy.
  To respond to the financial crisis, the previous administration and 
financial regulators took a number of actions. While many of these 
actions were confusing and ad hoc in nature and lacking in 
transparency, a financial calamity was likely staved off.
  Unfortunately, instead of being implemented with the expectation that 
the administration and the Treasury Department would provide a 
coherent, systematic, and transparent approach to its financial rescue 
efforts, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, has been plagued 
by poor oversight, confusion, and changing direction.
  This ``ad hocracy'' has created more uncertainty in the financial 
markets and for policymakers and taxpayers. Also, independent 
assessments have raised serious questions about the program's 
integrity, accountability, transparency, and effectiveness.
  About 3 weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Geithner released his financial 
stability plan. While I welcome the Secretary's and the 
administration's new thoughts on resolving the financial crisis, his 
plan fails to live up to its promise. The plan fails to provide the 
clarity and the focus needed to address the financial crisis. Perhaps 
even more damaging, the plan created doubt and uncertainty about the 
Secretary's and administration's ability to lead our Nation out of this 
crisis.
  There is no roadmap, no exit strategy, and by throwing more taxpayer 
money at the problem, we are only digging a deeper hole. Once again, 
the plan is nothing more than ``ad hocracy.''
  Based on what can be gleaned from the administration's bare bones 
announcement, most elements of the plan appear to be stylistic changes 
to what has already been tried under the previous administration and 
leaves uncertainty about the ultimate question: How will toxic assets 
be addressed?
  Fear and uncertainty cloud financial markets because of a lack of 
confidence of the solvency of our banking

[[Page S2658]]

system. To address this, we ultimately have to cleanse the financial 
institutions of the toxic assets. There are a number of ideas about how 
to do it. One option is to do nothing. That would not work because of 
massive uncertainty. The private sector is unwilling to provide capital 
to the banks, and the likely result would be a collapse of the system.
  Let me be clear. We cannot afford to do nothing. We cannot afford a 
collapse of the entire banking system. A collapse of this magnitude 
would devastate families, farmers, students, and businesses in every 
community in every State.
  The second option is to keep propping up the financial institutions 
by injecting more good taxpayer funds into sick financial institutions. 
That option has been applied over the past several months--most 
recently with AIG. Yet our financial system clearly continues to 
struggle. And I for one cannot support a plan that will spend more 
taxpayer dollars without solving the real problem.
  Putting more good taxpayer money into bad institutions must end. We 
must implement a plan that has worked in this and other countries. We 
must remove toxic assets from banks.
  This approach employs the statutory authorities, an approach long 
used by the FDIC for failed banks. It has succeeded in purging toxic 
assets over a long period of time.
  This American credit cleanup plan is founded on lessons we learned 
with our experience with the savings and loan crisis and avoids the 
mistakes made by Japan which gave them their so-called lost decade.
  First, through independent regulators, the Government must determine 
the true health of our banks. The overarching test is, will the bank or 
financial institution fail without taxpayer funds. Secretary Geithner 
deserves credit for recommending a stress test to determine more 
precisely and fully the condition of the bank--a stress test that 
should have been implemented a long time ago. However, a stress test 
cannot be a one-time snapshot. It should have been and now must be a 
regular and ongoing review of a bank's health.
  It is critical these stress tests be done in an objective and 
transparent manner, without political interference, but professionally, 
since it is the basis for Government action. This leads to the second 
key principle.
  For those banks found to be insolvent, toxic assets must be removed 
in a transparent, market friendly manner that is free from political 
interference, protects taxpayers, and has a clear exit strategy.
  To accomplish the goal, the Government should exert temporary control 
of the institution through conservatorship. The FDIC has existing 
authorities to act as conservators and did so recently with IndyMac.
  Under this approach, the taxpayer has greater protections because the 
Government is in control of assets and liabilities, and they can 
cleanse the balance sheet and off-balance sheet activities and 
restructure the institution.
  Under conservatorship, the first order of business is to protect the 
bank's depositors up to the current FDIC guarantee. It is essential 
that we continue to protect families' investments.
  Next, the Government can separate the bad assets from the good and 
hold the bad assets until market conditions improve. Remember, during 
the savings and loan crisis, the RTC took 4 to 5 years and sold off 
nearly $460 billion in assets. But the RTC's patience and strategy to 
sell off the assets in a gradual manner is a model we can use to 
address the massive toxic assets that are holding back the recovery of 
the financial industry and do so in a manner that will help limit loss 
to taxpayers.
  The FDIC has broad powers and experience, which is why the FDIC 
should be the lead. Its resolution powers, including conservatorship, 
were authorized by Congress nearly 20 years ago and then later improved 
under the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991. And if the FDIC needs 
additional authority or resources, Congress and the administration 
should act quickly to ensure the FDIC can handle the crisis.
  In the case of IndyMac, FDIC took over as conservator. It not only 
protected depositors, it also established and implemented an aggressive 
foreclosure mitigation program. To avoid long-term ownership of the 
institution, the FDIC is in the process of selling the assets and 
ownership of the operation back into private hands.
  Finally, this approach eliminates the conundrum of valuing the assets 
since the Government is acquiring the assets at the bank's current book 
value, which means including appropriate writedowns by regulatory and 
accounting authorities.
  For conservatorship to be effective, however, it is critical that the 
Government's work be free and independent from political interference. 
Micromanaging by Congress and the administration must end.
  It is critical that one Government agency be selected to lead the 
cleanup. Management by committee and multiple regulators is a recipe 
for disaster.
  While each Government regulator brings important skills and resources 
that may be necessary for cleaning up toxic assets, the FDIC is best 
equipped to carry out an efficient and effective process of cleaning up 
troubled banks as the lead agency. If necessary, the FDIC can draw upon 
additional resources from other regulatory agencies, as well as the 
private sector, to complete its conservatorship.
  Under the third principle, failed executives and members of the board 
who are responsible for the failure of the sick financial institution 
should be replaced. Capping pay and taking away corporate jets is not 
enough. Firing the senior executives and boards of directors who failed 
the company and its shareholders must be a prerequisite to further 
governmental assistance.
  It is time to stop taking a piecemeal, ad hoc approach in addressing 
our financial crisis, burying our collective heads in the sand to avoid 
what needs to be done, and by simply hoping things will get better. 
Throwing more taxpayer dollars at it or hoping they will get better on 
their own is unrealistic. Failing to address the toxic assets that clog 
the financial system undermines taxpayers' confidence in our markets, 
exacerbates our economic condition, and throws more tax dollars down a 
rathole. The time for half-baked measures is long past.
  It is time we implement a bold, coherent, and smart plan to ensure 
accountability, transparency, and oversight. This tried and tested 
approach is more cost-effective and efficient than the current 
haphazard approach. Rather than pumping more and more taxpayer funds 
into sick banks, it is time to take the toxic assets that undermine the 
health and viability of the financial system. In other words, it is 
time to fire the bazooka. It is time to stop letting politics and fear 
drive decisions. It is time for smart, considered, and decisive action 
based on strategies that have worked.
  In closing, I ask my colleagues and fellow Americans this question: 
Are we prepared to do what is necessary to save our financial system 
and our economy? I do not believe the answer can be anything but yes.
  I thank the Chair for his indulgence, and the staff. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator requires unanimous consent to 
proceed and debate.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to proceed and debate.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard from the Senator from 
Washington.

                          ____________________