[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 39 (Thursday, March 5, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2789-S2821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1105, which the clerk will report by 
title.
  The assistant 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:

       Wicker modified amendment No. 607, to require that amounts 
     appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not 
     used by organizations which support coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization.
       Thune modified amendment No. 635, to provide funding for 
     the Emergency Fund for Indian Safety and Health, with an 
     offset.
       Murkowski amendment No. 599, to modify a provision relating 
     to the repromulgation of final rules by the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.
       Cochran (for Kyl) amendment No. 634, to prohibit the 
     expenditure of amounts made available under this Act in a 
     contract with any company that has a business presence in 
     Iran's energy sector.
       Cochran (for Inhofe) amendment No. 613, to provide that no 
     funds may be made available to make any assessed contribution 
     or voluntary payment of the United States to the United 
     Nations if the United Nations implements or imposes any 
     taxation on any United States persons.
       Cochran (for Crapo (and others) amendment No. 638, to 
     strike a provision relating to Federal Trade Commission 
     authority over home mortgages.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak for 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have sought recognition to comment about the pending 
bill. As I reflect on it, I am speaking on the bill and do not need to 
put it in morning business. It is on the bill itself.
  I note the majority leader has filed a motion for cloture and it is 
scheduled for 9:30 tomorrow. We may vote on it today. But whenever we 
vote on it, there are some observations I have. I want to give my 
thinking on the issue. My current inclination is to vote against 
cloture because there has been insufficient time to offer amendments.
  This omnibus bill contains most of the budget process and there are a 
great many amendments pending. I compliment the majority leader for 
moving from the position of blocking all amendments. We have had 
considerable discussion last year, and even before that, about a 
practice of majority leaders taking procedural steps known as--there is 
an arcane procedure, inside-the-beltway talk--filling the tree, 
stopping amendments being offered and then moving to cloture. I have 
opposed cloture and have urged that regular order be followed in 
allowing amendments to be offered.
  The unique feature about the Senate is that any Senator can offer 
virtually any amendment at virtually any time on virtually any bill. 
That, plus unlimited debate, makes this a very extraordinary body where 
we can focus public attention on important matters of public policy and 
acquaint the public with what is going on and seek to improve our 
governance.
  The majority leader has objected to quite a number of amendments 
coming up. Looking over the list, there are quite a number of 
amendments which I believe merit consideration. Senator Grassley has 
tried to advance amendment No. 628. He did again this morning. There 
was an objection raised to it.
  Senator Sessions has sought to offer amendment No. 604 and he has 
been blocked on four occasions from offering this amendment on the 
economic stimulus.
  Senator Vitter has a number of amendments, one of which is amendment 
No. 636, involving drug reimportation from Canada.
  Senator Ensign has amendment No. 615, cosponsored by Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Kyl, Senator DeMint, Senator Brownback, and Senator 
Cornyn, which would deal with a subject where they are seeking to have 
a vote.
  I do not necessarily agree with all of these amendments. In fact, as 
I review them, there are some I disagree with. But I believe Senators 
ought to have an opportunity to offer amendments.
  Yesterday the Senate voted on an issue involving Emmett Till, and 
many Senators voted against that amendment, as I understand it, to 
avoid having an amendment agreed to on the omnibus which would require 
a conference with the House of Representatives. I think it is something 
we ought to decide on the merits, as to the amendment, without respect 
to having a conference.
  Regular order under our legislative process is to exercise our 
judgment on amendments. Then, if the Senate bill is different from the 
House bill, if an amendment is agreed to, then you have a conference. 
That is the way we do business. That is regular order. To determine how 
you are going to vote on an amendment in order to avoid a conference 
seems to me to be beside the point.
  If there were some emergency, some reason to avoid a conference, 
perhaps so. But there is time to have a Senate bill which disagrees 
with the House bill and to have a conference and iron it out on regular 
order. Whenever we depart from regular order, it seems to me, we run 
into potential problems. The institutions of the Senate have been 
crafted over centuries. The Senate is smarter than I am, certainly, and 
perhaps smarter than other Senators. But I think we ought to follow the 
regular order. That is why I am disinclined to vote for cloture.
  I know the majority leader wants to move this bill, but we have time 
to take up these amendments. If we move on into additional sessions of 
the Senate later this week, later tonight, later next week, then I 
think that is what ought to be done and Senators ought to have an 
opportunity to offer these amendments.
  In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. What is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 11:25 the Senate will begin 45 minutes of 
debate on amendment No. 607, and the time will be equally divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. Are we still in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the Senate is on the bill.

[[Page S2790]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 607

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand that we are on the Wicker 
amendment. I have listened to the statements made about it. It is hard 
to understand what the real purpose of the amendment is, although the 
junior Senator from Mississippi says the purpose is as follows: To 
require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population 
Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or 
involuntary sterilization.
  I do not know anybody who would disagree with that. But apparently he 
believes that his amendment is necessary to prevent funds from being 
used for coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Let me state 
what is in the bill, because it is the same as current law. It already 
prohibits funds for abortions of any kind, whether coercive or 
otherwise. No funds in this bill can be used for abortion. So the 
amendment is unnecessary for that purpose.
  His amendment prohibits funds for involuntary sterilization. Well, 
none of us is going to permit the use of Federal funds for involuntary 
sterilization. I urge him to read the bill. We already prohibit that. 
So the amendment is unnecessary for that purpose.
  Actually, if he is on the floor, I would urge him to declare victory 
and withdraw his amendment. Long before he was in the Senate, we were 
already prohibiting the things he wants to prohibit.
  His amendment also prohibits funds for the U.N. Population Fund for a 
program in China. Well, again, our bill already does that. We already 
prohibit explicitly any funds being used in China by the U.N. 
Population Fund.
  His amendment says we should put funds for the U.N. Population Fund 
in a separate account and not commingle them with other sums. We 
already do that. Again, there is no need for it.
  His amendment prohibits funds to the U.N. Population Fund unless it 
does not fund abortion. Well, the bill already says that. For the 
Record, the U.N. Population Fund has always had a policy of not 
supporting abortion. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that it 
ever did. It supports the same voluntary family planning and health 
programs the United States Agency for International Development does, 
but it does it in about 97 more countries than the United States Agency 
for International Development does.
  The amendment by the Senator from Mississippi would deduct, dollar 
for dollar, from the U.N. Population Fund for a program it spends in 
China. The bill already does that. So for all practical purposes, the 
amendment of the junior Senator from Mississippi does nothing that the 
bill already does not do, with one exception.
  His amendment would also strike the six limited purposes that are 
specified in the bill for which funds are made available to the U.N. 
Population Fund. For example, he would strike the funds that are 
provided ``to promote the abandonment of female genital mutilation and 
child marriage.'' Why would we want to cut programs to help encourage 
an end to child marriage? Is there anybody in the Senate in favor of 
child marriage? Is there anyone in the Senate in favor of female 
genital mutilation? I find it amazing I have to even come to the floor 
to talk about this. Yet his amendment would remove the funds we provide 
to try to stop child marriage and female genital mutilation. Why should 
we vote for something like that?
  Why should we prohibit funding to reduce the incidence of child 
marriage in countries where girls as young as 9 years old are forced to 
marry men they have never met, sometimes five times their age, who then 
abuse them?
  The bill also provides funds to prevent and treat obstetric fistula. 
For those who are not familiar with this, it is a terrible, 
debilitating condition that can destroy the life of any woman who 
suffers from it. But it can be treated with surgery.
  I ask unanimous consent that a February 24 article in the New York 
Times on obstetric fistula be printed in the Record at the end of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Why we would want to prohibit funds to save the lives of 
women who otherwise could die or be painfully debilitated for the rest 
of their lives, I cannot understand. None of us would hesitate for a 
moment to provide funds to help someone in our family who might be in 
this condition. I see the Senator from Mississippi on the floor. His 
amendment prohibits funds to the U.N. Population Fund for that.
  The bill provides funds to reestablish maternal health care in areas 
where medical facilities and services have been destroyed or limited by 
natural disasters, armed conflict or other factors, such as in Pakistan 
after the earthquake that destroyed whole villages. Why would we not 
want to support maternal health care? Any one of us, be it our sisters 
and daughters, our wives, we would want them to access to these medical 
services. Or in Congo, where armed conflict has destroyed what limited 
health services existed and where thousands of women and girls have 
been raped, some barely old enough to walk. This bill provides funds 
for programs to help them. The amendment of the Senator from 
Mississippi would prohibit funding for the U.N. Population Fund for 
that.
  Funds are provided to promote access to clean water, sanitation, food 
and health care for poor women and girls. His amendment would prohibit 
that. I have traveled to different parts of the world. I have seen the 
differences in the lives of women and young girls that are made with 
these programs. The Senator prohibits that.
  The U.S. Agency for International Development has these types of 
programs in 53 countries, but the U.N. Population Fund works in about 
150 countries. If you live in the Republic of the Congo or the Central 
African Republic, two of the poorest countries in Africa, and you are a 
16-year-old girl with obstetric fistula, you are out of luck because 
USAID does not have programs there. That is why we fund the U.N. 
program. If you have a 7-year-old daughter who has been raped there, we 
don't have a program to help her. But we give funds to the U.N. to help 
her. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi would stop that.
  If you live in Niger or Mauritania, where genital mutilation is 
common, or in Sri Lanka where child marriage is common, we don't have 
funds there, but we give funds to the U.N. to help.
  The Senator's amendment creates a problem where there is none. It 
denies funding to address the basic needs of poor women and girls who 
are subjected to practices that would be crimes in this country.
  Our law already prohibits funds for abortion of any kind, whether 
coercive or voluntary. We already prohibit funds for involuntary 
sterilization. We prohibit funds for the U.N. Population Fund's program 
in China. We have already done all these things. But we do provide 
funds to help girls who are being forced into marriages at the age of 
9. We do support care for women who suffer from these debilitating 
conditions. We do have funds for maternal care, clean water, and 
voluntary family planning. But if the amendment of the junior Senator 
from Mississippi is agreed to, we would prohibit those funds in many 
parts of the world.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 24, 2009]

                 After a Devastating Birth Injury, Hope

                           (By Denise Grady)

       Dodoma, Tanzania.--Lying side by side on a narrow bed, 
     talking and giggling and poking each other with skinny 
     elbows, they looked like any pair of teenage girls trading 
     jokes and secrets.
       But the bed was in a crowded hospital ward, and between the 
     moments of laughter, Sarah Jonas, 18, and Mwanaidi Swalehe, 
     17, had an inescapable air of sadness. Pregnant at 16, both 
     had given birth in 2007 after labor that lasted for days. 
     Their babies had died, and the prolonged labor had inflicted 
     a dreadful injury on the mothers: an internal wound called a 
     fistula, which left them incontinent and soaked in urine.
       Last month at the regional hospital in Dodoma, they awaited 
     expert surgeons who

[[Page S2791]]

     would try to repair the damage. For each, two previous, 
     painful operations by other doctors had failed.
       ``It will be great if the doctors succeed,'' Ms. Jonas said 
     softly in Swahili, through an interpreter.
       Along with about 20 other girls and women ranging in age 
     from teens to 50s, Ms. Jonas and Ms. Swalehe had taken long 
     bus rides from their villages to this hot, dusty city for 
     operations paid for by a charitable group, Amref, the African 
     Medical and Research Foundation.
       The foundation had brought in two surgeons who would 
     operate and teach doctors and nurses from different parts of 
     Tanzania how to repair fistulas and care for patients 
     afterward.
       ``This is a vulnerable population,'' said one of the 
     experts, Dr. Gileard Masenga, from the Kilimanjaro Christian 
     Medical Center in Moshi, Tanzania. ``These women are 
     suffering.''
       The mission--to do 20 operations in four days--illustrates 
     the challenges of providing medical care in one of the 
     world's poorest countries, with a shortage of doctors and 
     nurses, sweltering heat, limited equipment, unreliable 
     electricity, a scant blood supply and two patients at a time 
     in one operating room--patients with an array of injuries, 
     from easily fixable to dauntingly complex.
       The women filled most of Ward 2, a long, one-story building 
     with a cement floor and two rows of closely spaced beds 
     against opposite walls. All had suffered from obstructed 
     labor, meaning that their babies were too big or in the wrong 
     position to pass through the birth canal. If prolonged, 
     obstructed labor often kills the baby, which may then soften 
     enough to fit through the pelvis, so that the mother delivers 
     a corpse.
       Obstructed labor can kill the mother, too, or crush her 
     bladder, uterus and vagina between her pelvic bones and the 
     baby's skull. The injured tissue dies, leaving a fistula: a 
     hole that lets urine stream out constantly through the 
     vagina. In some cases, the rectum is damaged and stool leaks 
     out. Some women also have nerve damage in the legs.
       One of the most striking things about the women in Ward 2 
     was how small they were. Many stood barely five feet tall, 
     with slight frames and narrow hips, which may have 
     contributed to their problems. Girls not fully grown, or 
     women stunted by malnutrition, often have small pelvises that 
     make them prone to obstructed labor.
       The women wore kangas, bolts of cloth wrapped into skirts, 
     in bright prints that stood out against the ward's drab, 
     chipping paint. Under the skirts, some had kangas bunched 
     between their legs to absorb urine.
       Not even a curtain separated the beds. An occasional hot 
     breeze blew in through the screened windows. Flies buzzed, 
     and a cat with one kitten loitered in the doorway. Outside, 
     kangas that had been washed by patients or their families 
     were draped over bushes and clotheslines and patches of 
     grass, drying in the sun.
       Speaking to doctors and nurses in a classroom at the 
     hospital, Dr. Jeffrey P. Wilkinson, an expert on fistula 
     repair from Duke University, noted that women with fistulas 
     frequently became outcasts because of the odor. Since July, 
     Dr. Wilkinson has been working at the Kilimanjaro Christian 
     Medical Center, which is collaborating with Duke on a women's 
     health project.
       ``I've met countless fistula patients who have been thrown 
     off the bus,'' he said. ``Or their family tells them to 
     leave, or builds a separate hut.''
       For the women in Ward 2, the visiting doctors held out the 
     best hope of regaining a normal life.
       Fistulas are a scourge of the poor, affecting two million 
     women and girls, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia--those 
     who cannot get a Caesarean section or other medical help in 
     time. Long neglected, fistulas have gained increasing 
     attention in recent years, and nonprofit groups, hospitals 
     and governments have created programs, like the one in 
     Dodoma, to provide the surgery.
       Cure rates of 90 percent or more are widely cited, but, Dr. 
     Wilkinson said, ``That's not a realistic number.''
       It may be true that the holes are closed in 90 percent of 
     patients, but even so, women with extensive damage and 
     scarring do not always regain the nerve and muscle control 
     needed to stay dry, Dr. Wilkinson said.
       Ideally, fistulas should be prevented, but prevention--
     which requires education, more hospitals, doctors and 
     midwives, and better transportation--lags far behind 
     treatment. Worldwide, there are still 100,000 new cases a 
     year, and most experts think it will take decades to 
     eliminate fistulas in Africa, even though they were wiped out 
     in developed countries a century ago. Their continuing 
     presence is a sign that medical care for pregnant women is 
     desperately inadequate.
       ``Fistula is the thing to follow,'' Dr. Wilkinson said. 
     ``If you find patients with fistula, you'll also find that 
     mothers and babies are dying right and left.''
       The day before her surgery, Ms. Jonas sat on her bed, 
     anxiously eyeing the other women as they were wheeled back 
     from the operating room. Some vomited from the anesthesia, 
     and she found it a distressing sight.
       Ms. Jonas said that when she was 16, she became intimate 
     with a 19-year-old boyfriend, without realizing that sex 
     could make her pregnant. It quickly did. Her labor went on 
     for three days. By the time a Caesarean was performed, it was 
     too late. Her son survived for only an hour, and she 
     developed a fistula, as well as nerve damage in one leg that 
     left her with an awkward gait.
       Her boyfriend denied paternity and married someone else, 
     and some friends abandoned her because she was wet and 
     smelled. She was living in a rural village in a two-room mud 
     hut with her parents, two sisters and a brother. She had one 
     year of education and could not read or write, but said that 
     she hoped to go to school again someday.
       The operating room in Dodoma had just enough room for two 
     operating tables, separated by a green cloth screen. Two at a 
     time, the patients, wearing bedsheets they had draped as 
     gracefully as their kangas, walked in. Some were so short 
     that they needed a set of portable steps to climb up onto the 
     table.
       The women had an anesthetic injected into their spines to 
     numb them below the waist, and then their legs were lifted 
     into stirrups. Awake, they lay in silence while the doctors 
     worked, Dr. Masenga at one table and Dr. Wilkinson at the 
     other, each surrounded by other doctors who had come to 
     learn.
       An air-conditioner put out more noise than air. Flies 
     circled, sometimes lighting on the patients. A mouse scurried 
     alongside the wall. There were none of the beeping monitors 
     that dominate operating rooms in the United States. 
     Periodically, a nurse would take a blood pressure reading.
       Midway through the first operation the power failed, and 
     the lights went out. Dr. Wilkinson put on a battery-powered 
     headlamp and kept working, but Dr. Masenga had to depend on 
     daylight. Their scrubs and gowns grew dark with sweat.
       Most fistula surgery is performed through the vagina, and 
     can take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours. It 
     involves more than simply sewing a hole shut: delicate 
     dissection is needed to loosen nearby tissue so that there 
     will not be too much tension on the stitches, and sometimes 
     flaps of tissue must be cut and sculpted to patch or replace 
     a missing or damaged area. It can take several weeks to tell 
     how well the operation worked.
       At the end of the week in Dodoma, the surgeons said that of 
     the 20 operations, some were straightforward and easy, and a 
     few seemed likely to fail. Three patients needed such 
     complicated repairs that they were referred to the 
     Kilimanjaro medical center.
       At first, it seemed as if Ms. Jonas's operation had worked, 
     while Ms. Swalehe's outlook was uncertain. Shortly after 
     their surgeries, the two young women were violently ill. Ms. 
     Swalehe wept from pain when the surgeons came in to check on 
     her. But both women were smiling the next day, hoping for the 
     best. (Ultimately, Ms. Jonas's surgery failed, and Ms. 
     Swalehe's succeeded.)
       One day after the last operation, the fistula surgeons 
     moved on, already thinking about the countless new cases that 
     awaited them.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, if I could understand the order, do I 
understand that the time is equally divided between the proponents and 
opponents of the amendment and that we are to vote at approximately 10 
after noon; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WICKER. If I may, let me begin the debate. I understand Senator 
Brownback and others may be coming also. I had, frankly, understood the 
debate would begin later so I rushed over from a hearing.
  The Senator from Vermont has questioned the necessity of this 
amendment. Actually, I will point out to my colleagues that what the 
Wicker amendment does is restore the Kemp-Kasten provision that has 
been a part of the foreign policy of this Nation for almost a quarter 
century. It has worked well under Republican and Democratic 
administrations. I submit it would be wrong to change that policy at 
this point.
  What does Kemp-Kasten say? Kemp-Kasten says Federal funds, American 
taxpayer dollars, should not go to fund coercive abortion practices or 
involuntary sterilization practices. It prohibits the appropriation of 
American dollars to organizations involved in such activities. But it 
has always made provision that the President of the United States has 
the right to investigate and certify whether these organizations have 
been engaged in practices involving coercive family planning 
activities.
  Should my amendment pass, President Obama would have the same 
authority President Reagan, President Bush 1, President Bush 2, and 
President Clinton had to make this certification. In other words, the 
Wicker amendment keeps the Federal policy as it has been, and the 
underlying bill would amount to a dramatic shift in foreign policy.
  Why do we need the amendment to begin with? I quote from a letter, 
dated June 26, 2008, from John D. Negroponte,

[[Page S2792]]

the Deputy Secretary of State, to Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on 
this question, wherein he writes:

       As reflected in the law and as a matter of longstanding 
     policy, the United States opposes coercive abortion and 
     involuntary sterilization.

  Let me interject at this point. Certainly, that should still be the 
policy of the United States. That should always be the policy of this 
Federal Government, that we oppose coercive abortion and involuntary 
sterilization.
  The letter goes on:

       I have determined that by providing financial and technical 
     resources through its sixth cycle China Country Program to 
     the National Population and Family Planning Commission and 
     related entities, UNFPA provides support for and participates 
     in management of the Chinese government's program of coercive 
     abortion and involuntary sterilization. If that is true, this 
     Senate, this Congress has no business taking hard-earned tax 
     dollars from taxpayers and sending them to UNFPA, if it, 
     indeed, is true that they participate in the management of 
     this coercive Chinese program.

  If it is not true, the President will be able to make a 
determination. But if he investigates the question and finds that such 
coercion is still being practiced in China and if American dollars, 
through UNFPA, are being used to assist the program, then I would hope 
he would truthfully make the determination and, once again, it would 
not be a matter of the U.S. taxpayer funding such awful practices.
  Now, let me read, then, from the Analysis of Determination that Kemp-
Kasten Amendment Precludes Funding to UNFPA, which was attached to 
Secretary Negroponte's letter.
  The analysis says:

       China's birth limitation program retains harshly coercive 
     elements in law and practice, including coercive abortion and 
     involuntary sterilization.

  That is what this debate is about. Do we want tax dollars of American 
workers to go for coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization?
  The analysis goes on to say:

       These measures include the implementation of birth 
     limitation regulations, the provision of obligatory 
     contraception services, and the use of incentives and 
     penalties to induce compliance.

  Further quoting:

       [I]t is the provinces that establish detailed birth 
     limitation policies by regulation, enforce their compliance 
     and punish noncompliance.

  Quoting from the second page of this analysis:

       China's birth limitation program relies on harshly coercive 
     measures, such as so-called ``social maintenance'' fees . . . 
     the threat of job loss or demotion, loss of access to 
     education--

  If Chinese citizens do not comply with these harsh measures--

     extreme social pressure, and economic incentives.
       In families that already have two children, one parent is 
     often pressured to undergo sterilization.

  On the third page:

       Since fiscal year 2002, the Administration has reviewed 
     annually UNFPA's program in China and determined that the 
     U.S. cannot fund UNFPA in light of its support or 
     participation in the management of China's program of 
     coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

  Let's be careful. I would say to my colleagues, let's be careful with 
American tax dollars. Let's keep the provision that allows the 
President of the United States to make this determination. If there is 
evidence to prove that American tax dollars would be used by the United 
Nations to fund these coercive practices, then, for God's sake, let's 
not allow the U.S. taxpayers to be a party to these abhorrent and 
coercive practices.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
Wicker amendment. I am very appreciative Senator Wicker has brought up 
this amendment. This is an issue we have debated for some time, the 
Kemp-Kasten language, although it has been in since 1985. Our 
colleagues have put it in there. One of the prime authors of that 
language, then-Congressman Kemp, is struggling with illnesses himself 
right now, and I certainly wish him and his family well. They have been 
in my prayers.
  I want to put a personal feel and touch on this issue. This is a 
story about a young couple in China.
  Yang Zhongchen was a small-town businessman, and he wined and dined 
three Government officials for permission to become a father. It is a 
story for which I am paraphrasing some pieces and others I am taking 
directly out of an AP story that was filed in 2007, to give you a 
texture of what we are talking about.
  Here is a young, small-town businessman. He goes to Government 
officials, and he says: Look, I want to be a dad. I want to be a 
father. He wines and dines the local officials. ``But,'' as the AP 
writer writes, ``the Peking duck and liquor weren't enough. One night, 
a couple of weeks before [his wife's] date for giving birth, Yang's 
wife was dragged from her bed in a north China town and taken to a 
clinic, where, she says, her baby was killed by injection while still 
inside her.''
  Quoting from her:

       ``Several people held me down, they ripped my clothes aside 
     and the doctor pushed a large syringe into my stomach,'' says 
     Jin Yani, a shy, petite woman with a long ponytail. ``It was 
     very painful. . . . It was all very rough.''
       Some 30 years after China decreed a general limit of one 
     child per family, resentment still brews over the state's 
     regular and sometimes brutal intrusion into intimate family 
     matters. Not only are many second pregnancies aborted, but 
     even to have one's first child requires a license.
       Seven years after the dead baby was pulled from her body 
     with forceps, Jin remains traumatized and, the couple and a 
     doctor say, unable to bear children. Yang and Jin have made 
     the rounds of government offices pleading for restitution--
     [all] to no avail.

  This is a 2007 Associated Press story which I ask unanimous consent 
be printed at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, there is no reason to change this 
Kemp-Kasten language we have had since 1985. There is every reason to 
keep it, to provide this Presidential discretion. I have held hearings 
in the Senate where we have had people come in who have gone undercover 
in investigating forced abortions and sterilizations in China who have 
come back with traumatic and dramatic stories about this continuing to 
take place. It should not continue to take place, and it certainly 
should not happen with any sort of support--tacit, implicit, or actual, 
or financial--from the U.S. Government.
  Clearly, the U.S. citizenry would be completely opposed to doing 
anything like this, and in tough budgetary times, this certainly does 
not help our economy grow. It is a policy people broadly oppose of any 
sort of support for forced abortions or sterilizations. It is something 
for which there would probably be 90 percent agreement in this country 
that we should not fund or support forced sterilizations or abortions 
anywhere--probably 95 percent. Maybe it is 98 percent.
  So this policy that has stood since 1985 has broad bipartisan 
support. Why would we change it at this point in time, with the 
financial difficulties we have, the broad bipartisan support that it is 
not the right way to go, and the continued evidence that this continues 
to be the case today in places such as China and other countries around 
the world?
  I do not see the reason why we would want to go a different way. It 
does not make any sense to me we would want to go a different way. I 
think this is not a good foreign policy for the United States to be 
engaged in. I do not think it is a policy the American taxpayers 
support.
  I think if we would actually do some thorough digging throughout 
China--where many of these decisions are made and the actions are 
actually happening at the provincial level--we would find a lot more of 
this going on than we would care to know about because a number of 
these quota numbers are given to local officials who do not have much 
oversight on a national basis, and so they act on their own accord, and 
then a lot of bad things happen. We would not want to be anywhere near 
any of that. The American people do not want us anywhere near any of 
that.
  For those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to look at this. This 
is a time-honored policy that has served us well. Support Senator 
Wicker's language that reinstates Kemp-Kasten, language that has stood 
us well in the test of time, and let's not go down a

[[Page S2793]]

different road that is going to be harmful to a lot of people and is 
disagreed to by the American public.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Associated Press, Aug. 30, 2007]

        Chinese Victims of Forced Late-Term Abortion Fight Back

                           (By Alexa Olesen)

       Qian'an, China.--Yang Zhongchen, a small-town businessman, 
     wined and dined three government officials for permission to 
     become a father.
       But the Peking duck and liquor weren't enough. One night, a 
     couple of weeks before her date for giving birth, Yang's wife 
     was dragged from her bed in a north China town and taken to a 
     clinic, where, she says, her baby was killed by injection 
     while still inside her.
       ``Several people held me down, they ripped my clothes aside 
     and the doctor pushed a large syringe into my stomach,'' says 
     Jin Yani, a shy, petite woman with a long ponytail. ``It was 
     very painful. . . . It was all very rough.''
       Some 30 years after China decreed a general limit of one 
     child per family, resentment still brews over the state's 
     regular and sometimes brutal intrusion into intimate family 
     matters. Not only are many second pregnancies aborted, but 
     even to have one's first child requires a license.
       Seven years after the dead baby was pulled from her body 
     with forceps, Jin remains traumatized and, the couple and a 
     doctor say, unable to bear children. Yang and Jin have made 
     the rounds of government offices pleading for restitution--to 
     no avail.
       This year, they took the unusual step of suing the family 
     planning agency. The judges ruled against them, saying Yang 
     and Jin conceived out of wedlock. Local family planning 
     officials said Jin consented to the abortion. The couple's 
     appeal to a higher court is pending.
       The one-child policy applies to most families in this 
     nation of 1.3 billion people, and communist officials, often 
     under pressure to meet birth quotas set by the government, 
     can be coldly intolerant of violators.
       But in the new China, economically powerful and more open 
     to outside influences, ordinary citizens such as Yang and Jin 
     increasingly are speaking out. Aiding them are social 
     campaigners and lawyers who have documented cases of forced 
     abortions in the seventh, eighth or ninth month.
       Chen Guangcheng, a self-taught lawyer, prepared a lawsuit 
     cataloguing 20 cases of forced abortions and sterilizations 
     in rural parts of Shandong province in 2005, allegedly 
     carried out because local officials had failed to reach 
     population control targets.
       Chen, who is blind, is serving a prison sentence of three 
     years and four months which his supporters say was meted out 
     in retaliation for his activism.
       Many countries ban abortion after 12 or sometimes 24 weeks 
     of pregnancy unless the mother's life is at risk. While China 
     outlaws forced abortions, its laws do not expressly 
     prohibit or even define late-term termination.


                           A family unplanned

       Jin, an 18-year-old high school dropout from a broken home, 
     met 30-year-old Yang, a building materials supplier, in 
     September 1998. They moved in together. A year and a half 
     later, in January or February 2000, they discovered Jin was 
     pregnant but couldn't get married right away because she had 
     not reached 20, the marriage age.
       After her birthday in April, Jin bought porcelain cups for 
     the wedding and posed for studio photos. On May 5, they were 
     married.
       Now all that was missing was the piece of paper allowing 
     them to have a child. So about a month before Jin's due date, 
     her husband Yang set out to curry favor with Di Wenjun, head 
     of the neighborhood family planning office in Anshan, the 
     couple's home town about 190 miles east of Beijing.
       He faced a fine of $660 to $1,330 for not having gotten a 
     family planning permit in advance, so he treated Di to the 
     Peking duck lunch on Aug. 15, 2000, hoping to escape with a 
     lower fine since this was his first child.
       The next day he paid for another meal with Di and the 
     village's Communist Party secretary and accountant.
       He said the mood was cordial and that the officials toasted 
     him for finding a young wife and starting a family.
       ``They told me `We'll talk to our superiors. We'll do our 
     best. Wait for our news.' So I was put at ease,'' Yang said.
       But three weeks later, on Sept. 7, when Yang was away 
     opening a new building supplies store, Jin was taken from her 
     mother-in-law's home and forced into having the abortion.
       Why had the officials failed to make good on their 
     assurances? One of Yang's two lawyers, Wang Chen, says he 
     believes it was because no bribe was paid.
       ``Dinner is not enough,'' Wang said. ``Nothing gets done 
     without a bribe. This is the situation in China. Yang was too 
     naive.''
       Di, who has since been promoted to head of family planning 
     for all of Anshan township, could not be reached. Officials 
     who answered his office phone refused to take a message and 
     gave a cell phone number for him that was out of service.


                      Late-term procedures decline

       Zhai Zhenwu, a sociology professor at the People's 
     University Institute of Demographic Studies in Beijing, said 
     that while forced, late-term abortions do still occur 
     sporadically, they have fallen sharply.
       In the late '80s and early '90s, he said, some family 
     planning officials ``were really radical and would do very 
     inappropriate things like take your house, levy huge fines, 
     force you into procedures.''
       Things have improved since a propaganda campaign in 1993 to 
     make enforcement more humane and the enactment of the family 
     planning law in 2001, he said. Controls have been relaxed, 
     allowing couples in many rural areas to have two children 
     under certain conditions.
       Still, Radio Free Asia reported this year that dozens of 
     women in Baise, a small city in the southern province of 
     Guangxi, were forced to have abortions because local 
     officials failed to meet their population targets.
       In the province's Bobai county, thousands of farmers rioted 
     in May after family planners levied huge fines against people 
     with too many children. Those who didn't pay were told their 
     homes would be demolished and their belongings seized.
       Yang and Jin are suing the Family Planning Bureau in their 
     county of Changli for $38,000 in medical expenses and 
     $130,000 for psychological distress.
       But it's not about the money, said Yang, a fast-talking 
     chain-smoker. No longer able to afford to run his business, 
     he now works as a day laborer in Qian'an, an iron mining town 
     east of Beijing.
       ``What I want is my child and I want the court to 
     acknowledge our suffering,'' he said.
       A family planning official in Changli justified Jin's 
     abortion on the grounds she lacked a birth permit. The woman, 
     who would only give her surname, Fu, said no one in the 
     clinic was punished for performing the procedure.


                         Contradictory evidence

       The National Population and Family Planning Commission, the 
     agency overseeing the one-child policy, says it is looking 
     into Jin and Yang's case. Meanwhile, the evidence appears 
     contradictory.
       Jin's medical records include a doctor's certificate from 
     2001, the year after the abortion, confirming she could not 
     have children. Doctors in Changli county say they examined 
     her in 2001 and 2002 and found nothing wrong with her.
       The court ruling says Jin agreed to have the operation. Jin 
     says the signature on the consent form is not hers but that 
     of Di, the official her husband courted.
       Sun Maohang, another of the Yangs' lawyers, doubts the 
     court will rule for the couple lest it encourage further 
     lawsuits. But he hopes the case will stir debate and lead to 
     clearer guidelines on abortion.
       As she waits for the next round in court, Jin says she is 
     too weak to work and has been celibate for years because sex 
     is too painful.
       Her husband prods her to tell her story, but during an 
     interview she sits silent for a long time and finally says 
     she doesn't want to talk about the past because it's too sad.
       Then she quietly insists the lawsuit is something she has 
     to do for Yang Ying, the baby girl she carried but never got 
     to see or hold.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, may I inquire of the Chair as to how the 
remainder of time will be divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 2\1/2\ 
minutes, and the Senator from Vermont has 10 minutes.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank the Chair.
  I would inquire of the Senator from Vermont if he has further 
speakers?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, responding on the time of the Senator 
from Mississippi, I believe there may be some, and we are trying to 
ascertain that right now. I know I am going to speak some more.
  Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time, I await their remarks, and I yield 
the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 1 minute 45 seconds for the 
Senator from Mississippi, and 10 minutes for the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is hard to respond to all the things 
that have been misstated about the amendment before us.
  For one thing, the bill before us does not change the Kemp-Kasten 
amendment. You can find it on page 763 of the bill. It is in the bill. 
In fact, let me read what it says:

       Provided further, That none of the funds made available in 
     this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior 
     appropriations Acts may be made available to any organization 
     or program which, as determined by the

[[Page S2794]]

     President of the United States, supports or participates in 
     the management of a program of coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization.

  So there is no need to pass the amendment of the Senator from 
Mississippi to put that language in--I suppose we could just print it 
twice--it is already in there.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Vermont 
will yield on that point?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will yield on the time of the Senator 
from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Well, I do not ask for that, Madam President. Now, I 
asked if the Senator will yield on his time. I yielded to him on my 
time just a moment ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have heard it said several times that 
we should not spend U.S. taxpayer dollars on coercive abortion. I agree 
with the Senator from Mississippi. We should not. I have taken that 
position. I have been chairman or ranking member of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee several times. I have always taken that 
position. We should not, we don't, we never have. It is prohibited in 
the bill--Republicans and Democrats have always agreed about that. I 
don't know how many times we have to say it.

  I am reminded of Senator Mark Hatfield, a revered member of the 
Republican Party and a former chairman of the Appropriations Committee. 
I know of no stronger pro-life opponent of abortion, but there is also 
no stronger pro-life proponent of family planning. He knows that if 
there are voluntary family planning services, you are most apt to avoid 
unwanted pregnancies and thus avoid abortion.
  Now, we have heard Senators say: Well, we don't want to use taxpayer 
money for coerced abortions. You can't. There is no money in here with 
which it can be done. We specifically prohibit that.
  But let me repeat for my colleagues what this amendment does do. The 
Wicker amendment removes funds we have in here for UNFPA to promote the 
abandonment of female genital mutilation and child marriage. The funds 
can be used in countries where we don't have USAID programs, to help 
prevent child marriage. The Senator from Mississippi would remove those 
funds. I have listened to some of the harrowing stories: 7, 8 or 9 
year-old girls forced into marriage. We ought to all unite to try to 
stop that, but the Senator from Mississippi takes out the funds that 
can be used to try to stop that.
  Obstetric fistula--anybody who is familiar with that knows how 
terrible it is, a debilitating condition that can destroy the life of 
any woman who suffers from it, but it can be cured by surgery. If any 
member of our family was faced with that, of course they would have the 
surgery to fix it. The funds are not there, not available in many 
countries. But there are funds in the bill so UNFPA can help women with 
that terrible condition. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi 
takes that money out. I can't support something like that.
  We have funds in the bill to reestablish maternal health care in 
areas where medical facilities and services have been destroyed or 
limited by natural disasters. We put in funds to rebuild those health 
services, but the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi takes that 
money out.
  We are talking about countries where the average person doesn't earn 
even $100 a year. We ought to think about it, as the wealthiest, most 
powerful Nation on Earth, where there is a certain God-given moral duty 
to help people less privileged, but the amendment of the Senator from 
Mississippi takes that money out.
  Are we concerned with coercion and forced abortion in China, as the 
Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Kansas said? Of course. I 
have no doubt that they find that morally repugnant. I totally agree 
with the Senator from Mississippi. I totally agree with him that forced 
abortions are wrong. I totally agree with the Senator from Kansas about 
that. That is why, when Senator Gregg and I brought this bill to the 
Appropriations Committee, we prohibited any funds going to China. We 
prohibit any funds for abortion. We prohibit those things. It is not 
correct to suggest otherwise.
  I don't know what kind of political points are made by bringing up 
this kind of an amendment, but explain those political points to the 
mother of a 5-year-old who has been raped in the Congo. Explain those 
political points to a mother, herself a child, who is giving birth and 
now has the problem of obstetric fistula, and we can't do anything to 
help her. Explain it to those families in war-ravaged countries where 
the U.S. does not have programs. Explain to them when they ask: Why 
can't you help us--a wealthy nation like America--why can't you help 
us? And the answer is because we are making a political point.
  I don't accept that. I oppose this amendment with every fiber of my 
body.
  How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Vermont has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 45 seconds remaining.
  The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I am prepared to close, and I assume the 
Senator from Vermont will do so also.
  The Senator from Vermont says the money in this bill will go to 
sanitization, to protect against child marriage, to protect against 
female genital mutilation, to promote maternal health care. No one 
objects to that. If the President of the United States, under the 
Wicker amendment and under the 25-year-old Kemp-Kasten provision, can 
certify that such organizations do not promote coercion in the name of 
family planning, then the money will go to these worthy causes. The 
question is, Why does the Senator from Vermont and the people who agree 
with him on this issue not trust the President of their own political 
party to make a determination?
  Now, the Senator says that the Kemp-Kasten language is still in the 
bill. I would submit that, in fact, is not true. The bill purports to 
retain Kemp-Kasten, but it goes on to say that funds will be directed 
to the United Nations Population Fund ``notwithstanding any other 
provision of law.'' I say to my friend from Vermont, that is the change 
in the law that guts Kemp-Kasten, that changes 23 years to 25 years of 
Federal policy and allows U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent for 
coercive sterilization, for forced abortion, and that is the issue. 
Yes, Kemp-Kasten is purported to be in the bill, and then it is gutted 
in the next paragraph.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe women around the world should 
have access to safe health care that will help them plan their families 
and stay free of diseases.
  These are basic rights. That is why I rise in opposition to the 
amendment being offered by Senator Wicker to block funding to the 
United Nations Population Fund.
  In the developing world, ``complications from pregnancy'' is still 
one of the leading causes of death for women.
  More than half a million women die each year--one every minute--from 
preventable complications of pregnancy and childbirth.
  Madam President, 201 million women can not get access to safe, modern 
contraception even w en they want it, and 6,800 new cases of HIV occur 
every day.
  With its mission ``to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every 
birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl 
and woman is treated with dignity and respect,'' the United Nations 
Population Fund is working every day to make things better.
  For nearly 40 years, UNFPA has provided more than $6 billion in aid 
to about 150 countries for voluntary family planning and maternal and 
child health care.
  They are helping more women survive childbirth.
  They are providing contraceptives to help women plan their families 
and stay free of HIV/AIDS.
  They are promoting access to basic services, including clean water, 
sanitation facilities, food, and health care for poor women and girls.
  Yet Senator Wicker and other supporters of this amendment would deny

[[Page S2795]]

women around the world this basic care because they believe 
misinformation that has been spread by antichoice lobbyists who say 
this fund would pay for coerced abortions.
  The reality is that our government already prohibits any money from 
being used to fund coerced abortions. And, no U.S. money goes to China.
  This bill actually continues that policy.
  So all Senator Wicker's amendment would do is prevent women around 
the world from getting access to basic health care services--services 
that we take for granted here in the United States.
  All of us would agree that we want to see fewer abortions in the 
world. I certainly do not condone funding coercive abortion practices 
in China or anywhere else.
  And I cannot accept that we would deny women life-saving care because 
of a dishonest lobbying campaign.
  Not only is contributing to UNFPA the right thing to do--it is in our 
best interest.
  By helping to lift families out of poverty, and slow the spread of 
disease, we can reduce conflicts and bring stability and hope to some 
of the most troubled regions in the world.
  I am proud that President Obama is pledging to refund UNFPA after the 
previous administration consistently canceled funding for the agency.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down the Wicker amendment.
  So let me simply say that I believe that women around the world 
should have access to safe health care that will help them plan their 
families and stay free of diseases. These are basic rights, and that is 
why I oppose the amendment that is being offered by Senator Wicker to 
block funding to the United Nations Population Fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Conrad
     Johanns
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Sessions
  The amendment (No. 607), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, at 1 o'clock today, Democrats and 
Republicans have been invited to the White House to work on health 
care. That is going to take 4 hours. There are Senators here who are 
going to be working. We have a number of Senators on our side who wish 
to speak on the five remaining amendments that have been offered. So we 
will continue to work on those.
  What we are trying to work out with the minority staff is to have a 
series of votes starting at 5:30 this afternoon and then continue 
working through these amendments. I had a conversation with the 
Republican leader today, who suggested Senators Sessions and Grassley 
had amendments. I have spoken with Senator Grassley. Senator Sessions 
was not available. Senator Grassley is trying to make a determination 
if he wants to offer the amendment. I had a conversation with him. So 
that is where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, if I might add, if we could vote on 
all amendments that are now pending at 5:30 p.m., I think that would 
give us a better chance to figure out the way forward.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend, if I didn't say that, 
that is what I wanted to say. I have had a number of people on my 
side--for example, I just spoke with Chairman Kerry. He is going to 
come and speak on the Kyl amendment. He will finish lunch and do that. 
Anyone who has speeches they want to give on these five amendments must 
come before 5:30 p.m. because we are going to enter into that agreement 
as soon as we can, which will be very quickly. We will have all those 
votes at 5:30 p.m. and decide anything else we have to do. We 
understand that. A number of people contacted me about amendments on my 
side and on the Republican side.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me add, I think at that point, we 
will be able to determine what additional amendments Members on my side 
wish to offer and figure out where we go from there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burris are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BURRIS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I return to the floor to talk about this 
bill before us which includes 9,000 earmarks and a 1,844-page statement 
of managers that accompanies this 1,122 page bill. When the Congress 
establishes its funding priorities, it should do so decisively without 
cause for subjective interpretation or reference to material outside 
the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President. These funding 
priorities should have the binding force of law, subject only to the 
President's veto power.
  Yet here we are with a statement of managers that totals 1,844 pages, 
including 775 pages identifying over 9,000 Members' earmark requests 
that are expected to be funded, although most of them are not contained 
in the bill text. Because they are conveniently not listed in the bill 
text, Members who question the merits of specific earmarks are unable 
to offer an amendment to specifically strike them.
  They are wasteful. They should not be funded. I ask unanimous consent 
that the list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million for 
     the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii; $6.6 million for 
     termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center 
     for Grape Genetics in New York; $650,000 for beaver 
     management in North Carolina and Mississippi; $1 million for 
     mormon cricket control in Utah; $332,000 for the design and 
     construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas; 
     $870,000 for wolf breeding facilities in North Carolina and 
     Washington; $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center; 
     $1.7M ``for a honey bee factory'' in Weslaco, TX; $951,500 
     for Sustainable Las Vegas; $143,000 for Nevada Humanities to 
     develop and expand an

[[Page S2796]]

     online encyclopedia; $475,000 to build a parking garage in 
     Provo City, Utah; $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence 
     outreach program in the LA area; $238,000 for the Polynesian 
     Voyaging Society in Honolulu, Hawaii; $100,000 for the 
     regional robotics training center in Union, SC; $1,427,250 
     for genetic improvements of switchgrass; $167,000 for the 
     Autry National Center for the American West in Los Angeles, 
     CA; $143,000 to teach art energy; $100,000 for the Central 
     Nebraska World Trade Center; $951,500 for the Oregon Solar 
     Highway; $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama; 
     $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY; 
     $209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in 
     GA; and  $400,000 for copper wire theft prevention efforts.
       $250,000 to enhance research on Ice Seal populations; 
     $238,000 for the Alaska PTA; $150,000 for a rodeo museum in 
     South Dakota; $47,500 to remodel and expand a playground in 
     Ottawa, IL; $285,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho in 
     Boise, ID; $632,000 for the Hungry Horse Project; $380,000 
     for a recreation and fairground area in Kotzebue, AK; 
     $118,750 for a building to house an aircraft display in 
     Rantoul, IL; $380,000 to revitalize downtown Aliceville, AL; 
     $380,000 for lighthouses in Maine; $190,000 to build a Living 
     Science Museum in New Orleans, LA; $7,100,000 for the 
     conservation and recovery of endangered Hawaiian sea turtle 
     populations; $900,000 for fish management; $150,000 for 
     lobster research; $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New 
     York; $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service 
     Project, CT; $238,000 for Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra for 
     curriculum development; $95,000 for Hawaii Public Radio; 
     $95,000 for the state of New Mexico to find a dental school 
     location; $143,000 for the Dayton Society of Natural History 
     in Dayton, OH; $190,000 for the Guam Public Library; $143,000 
     for the Historic Jazz Foundation in Kansas City, MO; 
     $3,806,000 for a Sun Grant Initiative in SD; and $950,000 for 
     a Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, SC.
       The Army Corps of Engineers has the distinction of having 
     the largest number of individual earmarks imposed among all 
     of the federal agencies funding in this legislation, with an 
     amazing 1,849 individually identified earmarked projects as 
     identified by the Appropriations Committee. Examples include:
       $670,000 for Abandoned Mine Restoration in California; 
     $59,000 for Dismal Swamp and Dismal Swamp Canal in Virginia; 
     $2 million for Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery in Maryland and 
     Virginia; $3 million for Joseph G. Minish Waterfront in New 
     Jersey; $18 million for Middle Rio Grande Restoration in New 
     Mexico; $10 million for North Dakota Environmental 
     Infrastructure;  $5.56 million for Northern Wisconsin 
     Environmental Assistance; $546,000 for Surfside-Sunset-
     Newport Beach in California; $3.8 million for Mississippi 
     River Levees; and $41.180 million for Yazoo Basin in 
     Mississippi (this is a total for all of the Yazoo Basin 
     projects listed under MRT--Construction).
       We're giving billions of dollars to 1,849 projects--some 
     which are authorized--but with no clear understanding of what 
     our nation's water infrastructure priorities actually are or 
     should be. We witnessed how lives literally depend on these 
     projects and yet we're just throwing money at them without 
     the benefit of any realistic or transparent set of criteria. 
     It is long overdue for Congress to take a hard look at how 
     our Army Corps dollars are being spent and whether or not 
     they're actually going to the most necessary projects.
       While the Corps gets the distinction for the largest number 
     of earmarks, every agency is chock full of earmarks:
     Division A--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
         Administration, and Related Agencies (52 pages of 
         earmarks)
       Total: 506 earmarks.
       Agriculture Research Service, 94 earmarks.
       Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 46 earmarks.
       Cooperative State Research and Extension Service, 265 
     earmarks.
       FDA, 8 earmarks.
       Earmarks in General Provisions, 6 earmarks.
       Natural Resource Conservation Service, 86 earmarks.
       Rural Business Cooperative Service, 1 earmark.
     Division C--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
         Appropriations (164 pages of earmarks)
       Total: 2,402 earmarks.
       Corps of Engineers, 1,849 earmarks.
       Bureau of Reclamation, 186 earmarks.
       Dept of Energy, 367 earmarks.
     Division D--Financial Services and General Government (16 
         pages of earmarks)
       Total: 277 earmarks.
       Small Business Administration, 245 earmarks.
       District of Columbia, 13 earmarks.
       General Services Administration, 14 earmarks.
       National Archives Records Administration, 3 earmarks.
       Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2 earmarks.
     Division E--Department of Interior, Environment, and Related 
         Agencies (47 pages of earmarks)
       Total: 531 earmarks.
       Bureau of Land Management, 13 earmarks.
       Fish and Wildlife Service, 40 earmarks.
       National Park Service, 111 earmarks.
       USGS, 12 earmarks.
       Minerals Management Service, 1 earmark.
       Bureau of Indian Affairs, 6 earmarks.
       Environmental Protection Agency, 288 earmarks.
       US Forest Service, 60 earmarks.
     Division F--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
         and Education, and Related Agencies (211 pages of 
         earmarks)
       Total: 2125 earmarks.
       Department of Education:
       Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 357 earmarks.
       Higher Education, 331 earmarks.
       Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research, 12 
     earmarks.
       Total: 700 earmarks.
       Department of Health and Human Services:
       Administration for Children and Families, 95 earmarks.
       Administration on Aging, 26 earmarks.
       Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 83 earmarks.
       Mine Safety and Health Administration, 1 earmark.
       Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 18 earmarks.
       Health Resources and Services Administration, 924 earmarks.
       HHS Office of the Secretary, 10 earmarks.
       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin, 66 
     earmarks.
       Total: 1223 earmarks.
       Department of Labor:
       Employment and Training Administration, 141 earmarks.
       General provisions:
       Museums & Libraries, 61 earmarks.
     Division G--Legislative Branch Appropriations--1 page of 
         earmarks (division G)
       Total: 3 earmarks.
       Architect of the Capitol, 1 earmark.
       Library of Congress, 2 earmarks.
     Division I--Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 
         and Related Agencies--114 pages of earmarks
       Total: 1,858 earmarks.
       Transportation:
       Total: 1,321 earmarks.
       Airport Improvement Program, 78 earmarks.
       Alternatives Analysis, 26 earmarks.
       Appalachian Highway Development System, 1 earmark ($9.5 
     million).
       Bus and Bus Facilities, 302 earmarks.
       Capital Investment Grants, 64 earmarks.
       Delta Regional Transportation Development Program, 9 
     earmarks.
       Denali Commission, 1 earmark ($5.7 million).
       FAA Facilities and Equipment, 9 earmarks.
       Federal Lands Highways, 68 earmarks.
       Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities, 30 earmarks.
       Grade Crossings on Designated High Speed Rail Corridors, 8 
     earmarks.
       Interstate Maintenance Discretionary, 93 earmarks.
       Maritime Administration, 1 earmark.
       FAA Operations, 2 earmarks.
       NHTSA Operations and Research, 1 earmark.
       Rail Line Relocations and Improvement Program, 23 earmarks.
       FTA Research, 7 earmarks.
       FRA Research and Development, 4 earmarks.
       FAA Research Engineering and Development, 3 earmarks.
       Surface Transportation Priorities, 194 earmarks.
       Terminal Air Traffic Facilities, 18 earmarks.
       Transportation, Community, and System Preservation, 343 
     earmarks.
       FTA Priority Consideration, 20 earmarks.
       Technical Corrections, 16 earmarks.
       Housing and Urban Development:
       Total: 537 earmarks.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, examples of earmarks on this list include 
$870,000 for wolf-breeding facilities in North Carolina and 
Washington--not anyplace else but North Carolina and Washington State; 
$1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass; $100,000 for the 
central Nebraska World Trade Center; $819,000 for catfish genetics 
research in Alabama; $250,000 to enhance research on ice seal 
populations; $47,500 to remodel and expand a playground in Ottawa, IL; 
$285,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho in Boise; $632,000 for the 
Hungry Horse Project; $380,000 for a recreation and fairground area in 
Alaska; $190,000 to build a living science museum in New Orleans, LA; 
$7,100,000 for the conservation and recovery of endangered Hawaiian sea 
turtle populations; $900,000 for fish management; $381,000 for jazz at 
Lincoln Center, New York; $238,000 for the Pittsburgh Symphony 
Orchestra for curriculum development; $95,000 for Hawaii Public Radio; 
$143,000 for the Dayton Society of Natural History in Dayton, OH; 
$193,000 for the Guam Public Library; $143,000 for the Historic Jazz 
Foundation in Kansas City, MO; and $950,000 for a convention center in 
Myrtle Beach, SC.
  The list goes on and on.
  The fact is, this has been stated by members of the administration, 
including, incredibly, the President's Budget

[[Page S2797]]

Director as ``last year's business.'' This is this year's business. 
This is funding that will be provided this year. This is 1,122 pages of 
a bill accompanied by 1,844 pages of porkbarrel earmark projects. It is 
not last year's business; it is this year's business. If it is last 
year's business, then if it is passed by the Senate and the House, send 
it down to Crawford, TX, and have it signed by last year's President. 
It won't be. It will be signed by this year's President, when it should 
be vetoed by this year's President.
  I wish to remind my colleagues, again, that over the course of the 
last campaign I talked about earmarks. I have been fighting against 
them for years, and I was severely critical of Republicans who were in 
charge and frittered away our responsibilities as fiscal conservatives 
and paid a very heavy price for it. The then candidate and now 
President of the United States also stated repeatedly his opposition to 
earmarks, and he had stopped asking for earmarks, even though his first 
2 years he had many millions of dollars in earmarks.
  The President should veto this bill and send it back to Congress and 
tell them to clean it up.
  Last week, President Obama commented on the fiscal 2010 budget 
blueprint after the Democratic-controlled Congress passed a $1.2 
trillion stimulus bill. He said he had inherited a $1 trillion budget 
deficit from the prior administration. Again, I say, the Republican 
Party lost its way in recent years because we gave in to higher 
Government spending and porkbarrel spending and it bred corruption. We 
have former Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. As a 
result, the Republican Party paid a price for it at the polls.
  That said, I think we have to be honest about the bill that is before 
us. It is a massive bill, here for our consideration because the House 
Democratic leadership--specifically, the Speaker and House 
Appropriations Committee chairman--made a calculated decision last 
year. They were faced with a threat from President Bush to veto each of 
these combined appropriations bills that exceeded his budget request. 
As a result, they decided to put the Federal Government under a 
continuing resolution and wait for the outcome of the election in hopes 
that a new administration would be more willing to go along with the 
pork-laden projects that have been inserted into every aspect of this 
swollen, wasteful, egregious example of out-of-control spending. Their 
wish came true. Elections have consequences and this bill is one of 
them.
  As I said earlier, a mere 6 months ago, Candidate Obama vowed he 
would not support earmarking business as usual when he said during the 
debate in Oxford, MS: ``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.''
  Let's start going line by line on this 1,122 pages. Let's start going 
line by line with this 1,844 pages. It is loaded with billions of 
dollars of unnecessary and wasteful spending. Sadly, based on recent 
comments by some of his top advisers, including the Chief of Staff and 
the Director of OMB, it doesn't sound as if he is willing to put his 
veto pen to use to back up his vow.
  The majority party has presented us and the new President with an 
outrageous example of a massive spending bill of more than $410 billion 
that, I repeat, includes over 9,000 wasteful earmarks. This bill is one 
of the first examples, among what will be many, of whether this 
Congress and this new President are serious about fiscal 
responsibility. I am not encouraged by this bill, to say the least.
  If we can't reform earmarking, the best thing to do is to provide the 
President with a line-item veto authority. Yesterday, Senator Feingold 
and I, along with Congressman Paul Ryan, introduced legislation to 
grant the President specific authority to rescind or cancel 
congressional earmarks, including earmark spending, tax breaks, and 
tariff benefits. Granting the President the authority to propose 
rescissions which then must be approved by the Congress could go a long 
way toward restoring credibility to a system ravaged by congressional 
waste and special interest pork.
  Yesterday, there were comments made by some of the leaders of 
Congress who basically said that if the President tries to eliminate 
wasteful and porkbarrel spending, that they can't do it. We hear the 
majority leader of the Senate who said:

       Since we have been a country we have had the obligation as 
     a Congress to direct spending . . .

  Defending a new spending bill that is bursting with congressional 
earmarks.

       We cannot let spending be done by a bunch of nameless, 
     faceless bureaucrats buried in this town someplace.

  I am asking that we authorize these programs the way this Congress 
did business for many, many, many, many years--many years. We 
authorized programs. Then we appropriated. That is why we have the 
authorization committees we have today. Unfortunately, bills such as 
this completely bypass the authorizing committees and are put in quite 
often without any consideration, without any authorization, and are 
directly related to the influence of the Member of Congress. Somebody 
pays for all this. Somebody pays for all of it, and it is our kids and 
our grandkids. That is what is going on. The President of the United 
States should veto it.
  I agree with the Senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh, who had an op-ed 
piece in the Wall Street Journal saying:

       The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President 
     Obama should veto it.

  I understand that Senator Evan Bayh's op-ed in the Wall Street 
Journal of March 4 was printed in the Record yesterday.
  So what has happened here? What has happened here, as I have watched 
over the years, is the system got more and more out of control. Yes, we 
have made a little progress. Now it is easier to identify who put the 
earmark in and who the lobbying group was, but if there is any 
testimonial to the fact that we have made no progress in the effort to 
reform, it was the vote yesterday on an amendment offered by Senator 
Tom Coburn that said we would eliminate 13 earmarks, worth about $9 
million, which were put in by a lobbying organization that is now shut 
down and under FBI investigation. Remarkable. Remarkable. We couldn't 
even take out porkbarrel projects that were inserted through the 
influence of a lobbying organization that has been raided and shut down 
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Remarkable. Remarkable.
  So it is a fight worth having, my friends. I would imagine the Senate 
will vote and probably this legislation will pass, but it is a very bad 
signal to send to the American people, and it is a very bad precedent 
for this administration to begin its first 100 days with the President 
of the United States signing a bill that has 1,844 pages of pork on the 
one hand and 1,122 pages of pork on the other.
  One of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle came to the 
floor yesterday and said Republicans were guilty as well as Democrats. 
I agree. I agree. I have always said there are three kinds of Members 
of Congress: The Democratic members, Republican members, and 
appropriators.
  A number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have voted 
consistently against eliminating these porkbarrel earmarks. So my 
prediction is, the American people will not stand for this much longer. 
The American people are beginning to figure out we are mortgaging their 
children's and their grandchildren's future. The American people are 
fed up with this kind of a system that breeds corruption. The American 
people, I don't think, will stand for it, and I think sooner rather 
than later, you are going to see a rejection of this kind of practice, 
which does such damage to our credibility, to our ability to serve, and 
the ability of us to take care of future generations of Americans, as 
well as this one.

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  (The remarks of Mr. Udall of New Mexico are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')

[[Page S2798]]

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) Without objection, 
it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 635, as Modified

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have made no secret of the fact that the 
appropriations bill we have in front of us today is one that I think is 
way too large relative to what we should be doing in light of the fact 
that 2 weeks ago we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill which will fund 
many of the same programs that are funded under this appropriations 
bill.
  This appropriations bill creates an increase of 8.3 percent in 
funding over last year's appropriated level, which is the largest 
increased appropriation, year over year, that we have seen since the 
Carter administration. In fact, an 8.3-percent increase represents more 
than twice the rate of inflation.
  Most Americans and families today are trying to survive and live at a 
time when they are dealing with diminishing revenue coming into their 
households and certainly are not getting an increase that is the same 
as the rate of inflation. We have an appropriations bill in front of us 
today that is more than twice the rate of inflation. So I would daresay 
the Federal Government is certainly not leading by example when it 
comes to tightening our belts. I think when American families are 
struggling to make ends meet and tightening their belts, it is 
important that we also do the same thing, and this appropriations bill 
is anything but that. The 8.3-percent increase, as I said, is more than 
twice the rate of inflation and represents the largest year-over-year 
increase in appropriations since the Carter administration.
  Having said that, I expect at the end of the day it is probably going 
to pass in the Senate. What we have tried to do as we have debated it 
is make improvements in it and address different priorities all of us 
bring to this debate.
  I have one in particular that I think needs to be adopted, an 
amendment that needs to be adopted. It is filed, it is pending at the 
desk, and hopefully we will have a vote on it later today. What it does 
is reduce discretionary spending throughout the bill by $400 million, 
which equals the fiscal year 2009 authorized amount from PEPFAR.
  Now, PEPFAR was an emergency--well, the PEPFAR itself was the Tom 
Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act, which passed last 
year. But the Emergency Fund for Indian Safety and Health was 
established as part of that legislation. It was an authorization. And 
of the $50 billion that was authorized in the so-called PEPFAR bill, $2 
billion of that was set aside to address what are very urgent needs on 
America's Indian reservations, the argument being that there are needs 
that are great abroad, other places around the world, but we have some 
very urgent and pressing needs right here at home. So the $2 billion 
authorization was a 5-year authorization, which would represent $400 
million each year, and what my amendment would do is simply fund at 
$400 million that first-year level of authorization that was created by 
the PEPFAR legislation we passed last fall.
  In order to do that, because there wasn't any funding for the 
emergency fund for Indian safety and health in the underlying bill, we 
have to find the money somewhere else. What my amendment does, very 
simply, is reduce by one-tenth of 1 percent each program funded in the 
bill. So bear in mind, you have an 8.3-percent increase over last 
year's appropriated level in the base bill. With my amendment, what you 
would do is reduce the 8.3-percent increase each of these programs 
would receive in this bill to 8.2 percent and take that one-tenth of 1 
percent and distribute it into this emergency fund for Indian safety 
and health, which was created as part of the PEPFAR legislation that we 
passed last fall. It is done in a very straightforward way. It 
distributes money where it is needed most.
  Keep in mind it doesn't do anything to the significant funding that 
was included for many of these same programs that received a portion of 
the stimulus bill funding we passed a couple of weeks ago.
  Why is this important to people in Indian Country? There are a number 
of reasons because what that authorization did is, it allowed money, 
money that would come through appropriated funds later after it was 
authorized, to be used for three purposes: One is law enforcement, 
public safety; one is Indian Health Service and health care on 
reservations; the third one was water development. We separated those 
out in the bill and allocated a certain amount of funding to each of 
those particular categories.
  The reason that is so important is because in many places, 
particularly on Indian reservations, these very basic needs many of us 
take for granted are not being met. Nationwide, 1 percent of the U.S. 
population doesn't have access to safe and adequate drinking water and 
sanitation needs. On Indian reservations, if you can believe this--I 
said 1 percent is the average across America. On the Nation's Indian 
reservations that number climbs to 11 percent, and in some parts of 
Indian Country, the worst parts in terms of not having access to some 
of these necessities that most people expect--water and sanitation 
services--that number climbs to 35 percent. Lack of reliable safe 
drinking water leads to high incidences of disease and infection. The 
Indian Health Service estimates for each $1 it spends on safe drinking 
water and sewage systems, it receives a twentyfold return in the form 
of health benefits.
  The Indian Health Service estimates in order to provide all Native 
Americans with safe drinking water and sewage systems, they would 
need--this is the backlog--over $2.3 billion. What we are talking about 
represents a small amount of what the need is that exists out there, 
but that being said, we could go a long way, by enacting this 
amendment, toward meeting that need.
  With respect to health care, nationally Native Americans are three 
times as likely to die from diabetes as compared to the rest of the 
population. An individual who is served by the Indian Health Service is 
50 percent more likely to commit suicide than the general population. 
An individual who is served by the Indian Health Service is 6.5 times 
more likely to suffer an alcohol-related death than the general 
population.
  On the Oglala Sioux Reservation in my State of South Dakota, the 
average life expectancy for males is 56 years old. I want you to 
compare that with some other countries around the world. In Iraq, the 
average life expectancy for a male is 58. In Haiti, it is 59 years. In 
Ghana, the average life expectancy for a male is 60 years old--all 
higher than right here in America. On the Oglala Sioux Reservation in 
my home State of South Dakota, the average life expectancy for males is 
56.
  In South Dakota, between 2000 and 2005, Native American infants were 
more than twice as likely to die as nonnative infants. In South Dakota, 
a recent survey found that 13 percent of Native Americans suffer from 
diabetes. This is twice the rate of the general population, where only 
about 6 percent suffer from the same disease.
  With respect to public safety, one out of every three Native American 
women will be raped in their lifetimes. According to a recent 
Department of Interior report, tribal jails are so grossly insufficient 
when it comes to cell space that only half of the offenders who should 
be incarcerated are being put in jail. That same report found that 
constructing or rehabilitating only those detention centers that are 
the most in need would cost $8.4 billion. Again, it is way more than 
what we are talking about here. But, certainly, what we could do today, 
in the form of this amendment, would be to put a downpayment on and 
begin to address what is a very serious need of adequate space for 
people who have committed crimes.
  The South Dakota attorney general released a study at the end of last 
year on tribal criminal justice statistics. That study found that 
homicide rates on South Dakota reservations are almost 10 times higher 
than those found in the rest of South Dakota. Forcible rapes on South 
Dakota reservations

[[Page S2799]]

are seven times higher than those found in the rest of South Dakota. 
These are all things that statistically point to the very serious 
public safety needs that exist on America's Indian reservations today 
and point to the importance of us adopting the amendment I will put 
before the Senate and have a vote on later today.
  These critical, unmet needs have consequences in the day-to-day 
operations for tribal courts and law enforcement. I talked about public 
safety, how that translates. You see all the statistics and data. That 
is stunning enough. But then you talk about how that actually impacts a 
lot of our reservations. I will give a couple examples.
  At the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court, a tribe that is a supporter of the 
amendment, on June 19, 2008, the tribal prosecutor scheduled to attend 
court proceedings that day did not appear at court. Alarmed, the tribal 
judge sent a court employee to the police department to ensure the 
prosecutor was not hurt in an accident. Once it was clear the 
prosecutor was not injured but instead did not show, all cases 
scheduled that day had to be dismissed because no replacement 
prosecutor was available. Cases that were dismissed that day included 
sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and DUIs.
  At Standing Rock Reservation, another example, another reservation 
that borders or crosses the line in South Dakota and North Dakota--in 
early 2008, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation had six police officers 
to patrol a reservation that is geographically the size of Connecticut.
  This meant during any given shift there was only one officer on duty 
to cover that entire area. One day the only dispatcher on the 
reservation was out sick. This left only one police officer to act both 
as a first responder and also as the dispatcher. Not only did this 
directly impact the officer's ability to patrol and respond to 
emergencies, it also prevented him from appearing in tribal court to 
testify at a criminal trial.
  Later in the year I was able to work with my Senate colleagues in the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs to bring additional police officers to the 
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation through Operation Dakota Peacekeeper. 
That operation, which was a success, was only possible because of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs being able to dramatically increase the number 
of law enforcement officials on the reservation during what we referred 
to as the surge. This dramatic increase in officers was only possible 
because the Bureau had been given additional public safety and justice 
funds in 2008, something I would like to continue with my amendment.
  The way these dollars would be used, if my amendment is accepted, 
also is spelled out in the amendment. It is actually spelled out in the 
statute, the authorization bill. But the $400 million would be 
distributed as follows: $200 million will go to congressionally 
approved water settlements; $150 million will go to public safety and 
justice; $74 million for detention facility construction, 
rehabilitation, and placement through the Department of Justice; $62 
million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs public safety and justice 
account which funds tribal police and tribal courts; $6 million for 
investigations and prosecution of crimes in Indian Country by the FBI 
and the U.S. attorneys; $6 million would go to the Department of 
Justice Office of Justice Program for Indian and Alaska Native 
Programs; $2 million for cross-deputization or other cooperative 
agreements between State, local, and tribal governments; $50 million to 
health care which would be divided as the Director of Indian Health 
Services determines between contract health services, construction and 
rehabilitation of Indian health facilities, and domestic and community 
sanitation facilities serving Indian tribes.
  Passage of the original amendment to PEPFAR, which occurred last 
year, showed a commitment by the Senate on a bipartisan basis to 
address these domestic priorities that are faced by Native Americans in 
Indian Country. That was a bill that had, and the amendment I offered 
to that bill had, bipartisan cosponsorship. There were a number of 
people on both sides of the aisle who supported it. Vice President 
Biden was a supporter. Secretary of State Clinton was a cosponsor of 
the amendment. A number of colleagues have supported the effort we made 
to demonstrate a commitment to addressing these very serious needs, 
which I have alluded to that exist today in Indian Country.
  What my amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill before us does 
is ensures the underlying bill, the bill that we authorized, actually 
gets funded, and the dollars we committed are actually appropriated for 
the purpose of addressing these very serious needs.
  I ask that when this comes to a vote, amendment No. 635, my 
colleagues support it in the same sort of bipartisan way we were able 
to support the underlying authorization that was approved last year. 
There is no greater need. The statistics in Indian Country, both in 
South Dakota and other reservations in other States, are dire. We, as 
the Senate, have a responsibility to address those needs, particularly 
at a time when we are already funding or going to pass a bill which 
increases spending in this appropriations bill by as much as it does.
  One-tenth of 1 percent is all we are saying would be necessary to 
provide the $400 million that is necessary to fund this amendment and 
the important priorities it would serve.
  I hope my colleagues will be able to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I understand Senator Thune has modified 
his amendment to correct an earlier drafting error.
  The original amendment proposed a $400 million across-the-board cut 
against the programs funded in the interior division of the bill, as an 
offset to increase funding for various Indian health and safety 
programs in the interior division by $400 million.
  As it stands, the modified amendment proposes that the $400 million 
across-the-board cut now applies to the entire omnibus appropriations 
bill, not just the interior subcommittee's division.
  Nevertheless, I still oppose the Senator's amendment.
  This amendment now makes cuts to all programs in the omnibus.
  This means there will be cuts in job training, law enforcement, 
cancer research, highway funding, food inspection, energy research, and 
on, and on, and on.
  I know that no single cut will be that great, but if we are going to 
go down this road, where will it end?
  Who brings the next amendment, claiming that it only cuts 0.1 
percent?
  How many more of these will we have to accept before we say we have 
cut enough out of law enforcement or enough out of health care?
  Mr. President, just to make the record clear, the interior division 
of this bill contains $2.376 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
and $3.581 billion for the Indian health service.
  Many of the programs run by those agencies and by the tribes 
themselves deal directly with health and safety issues.
  We cannot start chipping away in this fashion and have any hope of 
ever finishing this bill.
  Furthermore, the amendment, as modified, causes the interior bill to 
exceed its 302(b) allocation for budget authority. This makes it very 
troublesome.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might respond to the remarks of the 
distinguished chairman, and I understand what I am doing here may 
create some technicality with regard to the budget rules, but we do 
this all the time, and we routinely waive the budget. The only reason 
it does is because it does take that one-tenth of 1 percent from across 
the entire nine appropriations bills as opposed to taking it out of one 
particular appropriations bill. What that does is attempts to 
distribute that reduction across the board so no one area is hurt in a 
significant way relative to the others.
  But, again, I would simply point out--and I appreciate what the 
chairman said about these other areas in the budget, these programs 
being cut--bear in mind, this is an 8.3-percent increase, year over 
year, over last year's appropriated level in all these accounts. There 
is not any account in this appropriations bill that is receiving a cut. 
They are all receiving an increase.
  The question is, Will it be an 8.3-percent increase or an 8.2-percent 
increase? What I am simply saying is,

[[Page S2800]]

you make it an 8.2-percent increase and use that one-tenth of 1 percent 
to fund a program this Congress, this Senate voted to authorize last 
year, specifically, for Indian health care, for water development, and 
for public safety on our reservations. Of course, there is funding in 
the underlying bill for some of these things, but none of which is 
adequate to address the need, which is precisely why so many of the 
reservations in my State have the high incidents of crime, the data 
they have in terms of the many areas I mentioned. When it comes to 
prosecutions, when it comes to detention facilities, when it comes to 
law enforcement personnel and officers, we are deficient in the 
responsibility we have.
  So, again, it is not a question of whether all the programs that are 
funded in the bill are going to get an increase. They are all going to 
get an increase, a substantial increase. Under my amendment, it is 
simply an 8.2-percent increase as opposed to an 8.3-percent increase.
  It seems to me, at least, the least we can do to honor the commitment 
we made by passing the emergency fund for Indian safety and health we 
passed last year is to provide funding for it.
  So I appreciate the chairman's observations. I would simply ask my 
colleagues to look beyond whatever technicality may be raised with 
regard to where the one-tenth of 1 percent is coming from. It is coming 
from all nine appropriations bills across the board as opposed to from 
one particular area or account. But that, to me, seems to be the fair 
way in which to do this in a way that distributes that one-tenth of 1 
percent reduction evenly. So I hope my colleagues will support the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                     Amendment No. 635, as Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to, first of all, 
oppose the Thune amendment, and then to speak in opposition to the 
Murkowski amendment.
  I rise as chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. In 
its current form, the Interior portion of the omnibus is funded at $27 
billion. This section includes a substantial increase for the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. For fiscal year 2009, the 
bill provides $5.957 billion. This is an increase of $320 million over 
the fiscal year 2008 bill. It is a 5.7-percent increase. That is a 
great deal of money.
  The Thune measure--well, let me make one other point first. In 
addition, the Recovery Act, which we enacted last month, contained $1 
billion for these two agencies. So taken together, the omnibus bill and 
the recovery act will provide $6.957 billion. That is an increase over 
the 2008 level of $1.320 billion, or 23 percent. Now, that is what the 
underlying bill and the recovery act, the stimulus bill, does--a 23-
percent increase. That is a great deal of money.
  Senator Thune has proposed an across-the-board cut of 0.1 percent to 
the entire omnibus to pay for an increase of $400 million for these two 
agencies in addition. That means every account in the entire omnibus 
bill must take a cut.
  Now, if the Thune amendment were successful, it would increase my 
bill, the Interior bill, by $372 million, which would put us over our 
allocation, which would make germane a point of order against our bill. 
I think that is wrong. I think when we do a substantial increase, I do 
not understand the need for this. I do not understand why a 23-percent 
increase, to the tune of $6.957 billion--that is a huge increase, 
probably one of the greatest increases in any part of this omnibus, and 
that is the underlying omnibus bill.
  So I am concerned. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Thune amendment.
  Mr. President, I would like to raise a point of order against the 
amendment under section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act. The 
pending amendment would increase spending in the Interior Subcommittee 
by $400 million, primarily by cutting spending in the jurisdiction of 
the eight other subcommittees funded in this act. The amendment, 
therefore, would result in spending exceeding the budget allocation of 
the Interior Subcommittee.
  I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional 
Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the 
Interior Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 2009 
concurrent resolution on the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order the 
Senator raised under the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive has been entered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senator concludes her remarks on the other amendment, I have a couple 
minutes to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to recognizing the Senator 
from South Dakota after the Senator from California yields?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.


                           Amendment No. 599

  Mr. President, I would now like to speak against amendment No. 599, 
offered by Senator Murkowski, which would limit the Endangered Species 
Act protections for the polar bear and other fragile species.
  The Interior portion of the omnibus bill as currently written allows 
the Obama administration to quickly undo two last-minute rules imposed 
by the Bush administration.
  The first Bush administration rule, issued in December 2008, denies 
the protections of the Endangered Species Act to the polar bear, 
despite its threatened status. The omnibus bill language would allow 
the Obama administration to immediately lift this ruling. This is an 
important first step toward fully protecting the polar bear under the 
Endangered Species Act.
  As I said, the amendment would undo the Obama administration's 
ability to quickly move to change two last-minute rules imposed by the 
Bush administration.
  The first Bush administration rule, issued in December 2008, denies 
the protections of the Endangered Species Act to the polar bear, 
despite its threatened status.
  The omnibus bill language would allow the Obama administration to 
immediately lift this ruling. This is an important first step toward 
fully protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.
  The second Bush regulation, also issued in December of 2008, excludes 
independent wildlife experts from the decisionmaking process of the 
Endangered Species Act. This is major. I think it is wrongheaded 
because it would leave the decisionmaking up to the Department that 
handled whatever the project was without any input from scientists or 
biologists on the subject. So whichever Federal agency has proposed a 
project is given the full jurisdiction to determine whether there is an 
impact to an endangered or threatened species, and independent 
scientists are excluded from the consultation process.

  The omnibus bill, as currently written, allows the Obama 
administration to quickly undo the Bush rule and return independent 
wildlife experts to this consultation process.
  The amendment offered by Senator Murkowski would further prolong 
these two Bush administration rules and require a public comment period 
of 60 days before the Bush rules can be lifted. I cannot support that.
  In my view, right now the polar bear is not sufficiently protected. 
Here is why. Under the rule issued by the Bush administration, the 
polar bear is only protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
This Federal statute only protects polar bears from direct harm. It 
does not address the problem of the arctic habitat of the bears, which 
is literally melting away.
  I read books. I have watched PBS nature shows, which have shadowed 
polar bears, which have shown the deteriorating ice pack.
  Let me quote something Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, the former 
Secretary of the Interior, said in May of last year. Here is what he 
said. This is a Republican Secretary of the Interior:

       Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of [sea 
     ice] habitat, they are, in my judgment, likely to become 
     endangered in the foreseeable future.

  So we know the polar bear is being jeopardized by the deterioration 
of ice. Now, some people, perhaps, do not believe the ice is really 
deteriorating.

[[Page S2801]]

But if you look here, this is the Arctic Sea ice loss. This whole 
thing, as shown on this chart--both the ochre color, the yellowish 
color, and the white--is the way it was in 2005. In 2005, this was the 
Arctic. In 2007, the Arctic ice mask is 39 percent below the long-term 
average from 1979 to 2000, and you can clearly see its deterioration in 
a 2-year period.
  So what is happening in the Arctic is actually very dramatic. It is 
actually destroying polar bear habitat, and absent that habitat, the 
polar bear cannot feed himself or herself. The polar bear starves. The 
nature show on PBS actually tracked a female polar bear. It showed her 
starving. It showed her having two cubs. It showed one of the cubs 
dying of starvation. It showed her struggling to find food floating out 
on individual pieces of ice.
  In my view, there is no question that Secretary Kempthorne was 
correct, that the polar bear will very shortly meet the criteria of the 
Endangered Species Act and, therefore, I strongly believe if that is, 
in fact, the case, we should have the proper opportunity to assess it 
and move in that direction.
  So I am fully supportive of what President Obama has done to move 
rapidly to set up the situation for that kind of consideration. The 
statute that is in the underlying bill would ensure that melting 
habitat of the Arctic is taken into consideration. So the omnibus bill 
will give the Obama administration strengthened authority to quickly 
undo the Bush rule on polar bears and open the door to the process of 
applying the Endangered Species Act to the threatened polar bear.
  Anyone who looks at the beauty of these animals recognizes their 
significance not only to nature but to man and woman as well. This is 
an extraordinary animal. It deserves to be protected. So I am very 
proud we have language in the bill that is supportive of what the 
President of the United States is attempting to do. So I thank the 
Chair, and I yield the floor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might briefly respond to the Senator 
from California regarding my amendment that deals with Indian health, 
public safety, and water development.
  I think it is important to remind everybody, first of all, that this 
bill we have in front of us and the appropriations bills that have been 
passed so far--three of them passed last year--nine of them are bundled 
into this bill--this bill was written behind closed doors. There wasn't 
any participation by Members, at least that I know of, on our side when 
it came to putting this together and offering amendments at the 
committee level. The only opportunity we have to offer amendments is 
when a bill comes to the floor of the Senate.
  Now, it shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody here in the Chamber 
or anybody who is tuning in to what is going on here that that is what 
we do. We offer amendments. We determine priorities. We move money 
around within appropriations bills. To suggest for a minute that we 
shouldn't be offering amendments to move money from one part of this 
bill to another part of the bill, the fact is that nine appropriations 
bills have been bundled together and we are being asked to vote on $410 
billion in spending at one time, and then we are being told we can't 
come down here and offer amendments. That is what we do. We have 100 
Senators. All of them come to this Chamber with different priorities. I 
came down here and said I wanted to offer an amendment that took a one-
tenth of 1 percent haircut across all nine appropriations bills, evenly 
distributed, to take $400 million and put it into a program that 
Congress authorized last fall but has not funded that would address the 
needs of Indian health care, public safety, and water development--
critical needs on Indian reservations.
  I urge any of my colleagues who haven't visited a reservation to come 
to South Dakota and see what I am talking about. I mentioned it 
earlier. The average life expectancy for males on the Oglala Sioux 
Reservation in my home State of South Dakota is 56 years. It is 58 in 
Iraq, 59 in Haiti, and 60 in Ghana, all higher than right here in 
America. Between 2000 and 2005, Native American infants were more than 
twice as likely to die as non-native infants. I already mentioned the 
public safety statistics and the crime data that exist on our 
reservations because we don't have adequate law enforcement personnel, 
we don't have cops, we don't have prosecutors, we don't have jails, we 
don't have all the things that are necessary to keep our people safe on 
our reservations in South Dakota.
  Here may be a budget technicality, a point of order that can be 
raised against my amendment which will require that we have to have 60 
votes for my amendment, but all that means is instead of getting 51, we 
need 60. I can't imagine that we would not have an opportunity--nine 
appropriations bills being bundled together, brought to the floor of 
the Senate, $410 billion in spending--to come down here and offer 
amendments that move money around. That is what Senators do. That is 
what we do in the Senate.
  I hope my colleagues will look past the point of order that is going 
to be raised and say: One-tenth of 1 percent in a bill that is being 
increased by 8.3 percent year over year; go for this important priority 
on Indian reservations across our country.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment or vote to waive 
the point of order.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like the opportunity to simply 
say to the Senator from South Dakota that it is not correct there was 
no Republican input into this bill. This bill was put together last 
year. Senator Allard was the ranking member. Senator Allard and his 
staff participated in the committee deliberation of this bill. There is 
no question about it. I think we have to remember this is not a 2010 
appropriations bill; it is a 2009 appropriations bill.
  I wish to state that the reason we have a 23-percent increase in the 
bill for Indian services and Indian health care is that we recognize 
there is a need. This is a substantial addition. So my objection to the 
amendment should not be construed that I do not want to support Indian 
health services or Indian health care. The amendment causes a point of 
order against the bill. We exceed our allocation. It forces every one 
of the nine bills to take a cut and then adds to my bill an additional 
$372 million which forces us up over the limit.
  This is a bill that has been discussed. It has been discussed with 
the Republican side. We had agreement on it last year. I believe the 
commitment should be kept and the bill should be passed. I believe 
there is an ample increase both for Indian health care and Indian 
services. So I wanted the opportunity to respond to the Senator from 
South Dakota in that regard.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Nevada is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, in a moment I am going to ask unanimous 
consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can offer an 
amendment dealing with the DC scholarship program for low-income 
children. I wish to talk about it first and give the other side fair 
warning, because I understand that the other side is going to object, 
which is very unfortunate.
  We have had a wonderful program that recognized DC public schools are 
failing children of the District of Columbia. Most of those children 
are low income, minority children. A few years ago, under a Republican 
Congress and President Bush, we put together a program that initiated a 
little experiment. In DC schools, the dropout rates are high, kids 
aren't learning to read at the appropriate levels, they aren't learning 
math at the appropriate levels; across the board the crime levels are 
too high in the schools. Since the vast majority of the schools in the 
District of Columbia are failing the kids, Congress decided to 
experiment here and see if something works. So we selected 1,700 kids 
and we gave their parents a $7,500 scholarship to be able to go to the 
school of their choosing in the area. The response by the parents was 
overwhelming. A lot more people wanted to sign up for this program than 
there were scholarships available, but we at least allowed 1,700 
children to participate for the last five years, this being the sixth 
year now.
  In this underlying bill, there is language that effectively kills 
this program, because it says that unless the

[[Page S2802]]

bill is reauthorized and the DC City Council approves the program, no 
funding shall be allowed to go toward this DC scholarship fund.
  Now, we know Head Start and the Higher Education Act both continued, 
even though they weren't reauthorized, for many years until we were 
able to come together to reauthorize. That is not uncommon in this 
building because it is difficult to get legislation reauthorized. So we 
continued funding Head Start. We continued funding Higher Education. 
But the No. 1 issue for the National Education Association is to kill 
the DC scholarship program for poor children. I ask: What are they 
afraid of? Well, as was stated today in the Chicago Tribune, they are 
not afraid of this program because it is failing; they are afraid of 
this program because it is actually working. Let's ask a commonsense 
question: If this program weren't working, would the children who have 
received this scholarship continue in this program? The obvious answer 
is of course they wouldn't. They would go back into their other 
schools.
  We had a press conference earlier today with some of the parents and 
teachers who are involved in this program. Three wonderful young men 
came together with us today. We had Fransoir, Richard, and Ronald. Two 
of them had written statements, and then there was little Richard who 
got up and spoke off the cuff. All three of them were incredibly 
articulate. They were talking about how important this scholarship 
program was to them and how they didn't want to go back to the other 
schools because in the schools they are in today, they are actually 
learning.
  So do we put the interests of the National Education Association 
first, or do we put the interests of our children first? It isn't just 
these 1,700 kids whose future is at stake. We are trying to look for 
programs in education, reforms that actually work, because the No. 1 
priority for our children should be about their education into the 
future. If they are going to compete in the 21st century, they have to 
have a good education. It is the new civil right of our day. It is not 
a civil right to stick them in failing schools that are unsafe, that 
are gang ridden, that are drug ridden, that have teachers who are not 
teaching our children in a constructive manner. It is not a civil right 
to say to them: I know other people have more money than you. They can 
go to a good school and can learn, but we are going to trap you in this 
poor performing school simply because you don't have enough money. 
Civil rights is supposed to be about giving people opportunities, not 
based on income, not based on race, not based on religion, but simply 
because they are Americans who can actually have a chance.
  So this program is going to show, I believe, as the studies come out 
on it, that these kids did better because they had an opportunity. I 
think this is what the National Education Association is afraid of. 
They are afraid this program is going to work and it will then be tried 
in other areas. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid we are actually 
going to improve education in the United States through an innovative 
program?
  Even yesterday, the Secretary of Education under President Obama made 
this comment about the DC scholarship program. He said:

       I don't think it makes sense to take kids out of a school 
     where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning. I 
     think those kids need to stay in their school.

  He was talking about those 1,700 kids who are in the DC schools under 
this scholarship program today. Two of those children actually go to 
school with President Obama's children. Unfortunately, the majority 
party in Congress has written into this bill that we are going to take 
those kids out of these schools. We are going to effectively eliminate 
the scholarship that allows them to stay in their schools. One young 
man, Ronald, who was here today is a junior in high school. Ronald is 
also the Deputy Youth Mayor for Washington DC and has made education 
his number one priority. Next year Ronald will be a senior. They are 
going to take him out of a school he has attended the last 5 or 6 years 
and make him go to a different high school for his senior year. At this 
other high school, it's likely over half the kids aren't learning at 
the grade level they should be learning at and where about half of them 
drop out of that school. Instead, Ronald should remain at the school 
that gave him a future, hope, and opportunity. I wish all Americans 
could have heard him speaking today, and then I would like to see the 
other side of the aisle vote against this amendment and vote against 
allowing this amendment to even come to a vote.
  It is very unfortunate that the other side is not allowing us to do 
but just a few amendments, amendments that they deem worthy to be voted 
on. That is not the way the Senate has worked the last several weeks. 
It has actually been working. As the minority, we realize we have fewer 
votes on this side. We understand that. We understand we are going to 
lose most of these votes. Occasionally, as last week, we did win one, 
but most of the time we are losing these votes. That is the way this 
body is at least supposed to work, you debate amendments and you have 
votes on the amendments.
  Unfortunately, with regards to the bill before us, that is not the 
case. Normally, we vote on appropriations bills one at a time and 
somewhere around 15 amendments per bill are offered and voted on. We 
have eight or nine bills combined together and, so far, I think we have 
had six or seven amendments voted on. We will have a few more voted on 
tonight. That seems to be the total that the majority wants us to vote 
on. By the way, the Democrats have come to an agreement that they are 
going to defeat them, whether they are meritorious or not, because they 
set a false deadline of tomorrow to finish the bill. They said tomorrow 
the funding runs out for our Government. In reality, all you have to do 
is pass a continuing resolution that will fund the Government for 
another week. We could do it on a voice vote, and then the House can do 
it on a voice vote. Then we can come back next week and debate 
amendments and have votes on them.
  This is one of the amendments that needs to be voted on. If you want 
to throw 1,700 kids out of good schools and put them into nonperforming 
schools, I want you recorded on this vote. Some have said this isn't 
just going to poor children. The limit is 185 percent of poverty and 
below. That is the limit of the income to qualify for this scholarship 
program. The average income for families qualifying for this 
scholarship is $23,000 a year.
  The National Education Association said this is a threat to public 
education. Oh, really? First of all, $7,500 is what we give as a 
scholarship. The average spent per student in Washington, DC, public 
schools is around $15,000. So we are spending half that. We didn't give 
them the full $15,000, just half that. This was in addition to the 
Washington, DC, School District money. But the benefit is, every child 
you take out of Washington, DC schools, allows money to be spent on 
other students.
  I have a couple stories to tell you about. Sherine Robinson, the 
parent of an opportunity scholarship recipient, believes parents should 
not have to worry about violence in their schools. That is one of the 
reasons some of the parents are taking their children out. It is not 
just the educational opportunities, it is the violence they may have to 
experience while they are in school. She believes the parents should 
not have to fight for their kids to learn. She believes all parents 
should have a choice and ``the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program gives 
us a chance to find the best school possible.'' Those are the words of 
a parent. She now feels her child is in a safe school and is doing 
well. Why do we want to deprive her of that opportunity?
  Obviously, I believe strongly in this scholarship program. I believe 
this program is working. I believe we can prove it is working 
statically and spread this program across the country. Let's put our 
children first; let's not put special interests before our children and 
their education. That is what this argument comes down to.
  Let's use common sense and put compassion back into this bill. Let's 
allow amendments so we can take care of our kids and educate them in 
the way they deserve to be educated.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and 
that I be allowed to call up the Ensign amendment No. 615, which 
provides an

[[Page S2803]]

opportunity scholarship for 1,700 poor children in the District of 
Columbia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, on behalf of the leadership, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, this is most unfortunate. It is what I 
thought would happen. There was a rumor going around today that this 
would happen. I plead with the other side to give these 1,700 children 
a chance to learn, a chance to continue in the program that is working 
for them. I would love to expand the program, but I know that is not 
doable in this Congress. But let's at least keep these 1,700 
schoolchildren in school with the ability to learn, in safe schools 
that are actually giving them hope and opportunity for the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 599

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak this afternoon in 
favor of an amendment I laid down yesterday, No. 599. I wish to respond 
to some comments that have been made on the floor by several 
colleagues.
  The amendment I have introduced would modify section 429 of the 
Omnibus appropriations bill that allows the Secretary of the Interior 
and the Secretary of Commerce to withdraw the final rule relating to 
the ``Interagency Cooperation under the Endangered Species Act,'' and 
the final rule that relates to the ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants: Special Rule for the Polar Bear.'' This is a special rule 
for the polar bear.
  These provisions allow the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, or 
both, to withdraw the two Endangered Species Act rules inserted under 
section 7 of the ESA within 60 days of adoption of the omnibus bill and 
then reissue the ESA rule without having to go through any notice or 
any public comment period, and without being subject to any judicial 
review as to whether their actions were responsible.
  Neither of the ESA rules that are part of this amendment were 
promulgated in the dark of night. Nothing happened in the back room. 
The existing rules were the result of a public process that fully 
complied with all applicable laws. In fact, one of the rules is under 
judicial review now, as the Administrative Procedures Act allowed.
  The polar bear 4(d) interim final rule was certainly not a ``midnight 
rule.'' Look at the process it went through. It was announced and made 
available as a final special rule on May 15 of 2008, concurrent with 
the announcement of the decision to list the polar bear as threatened 
under the ESA. That announcement then triggered or opened a 60-day 
public comment period to all interested parties to submit comments that 
might contribute to the development of a final rule. Then those 
comments come in throughout that period. After the comments are 
received, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made several appropriate 
revisions to the final rule.
  Nothing in this special rule changed the recovery planning provisions 
and the consultation requirements that exist under section 7 of the 
ESA. The 4(d) rules that are contained are not exclusions, and they are 
not exemptions. Under the ESA itself, section 4(d) says that for 
threatened species, the Secretary may promulgate such regulations as he 
deems necessary or advisable. So what happened was Secretary Kempthorne 
used this very strict authority to develop a rule that states if an 
activity is permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the Endangered 
Species Act with respect to the polar bear.
  I wish to repeat a comment the Senator from California made 
yesterday. It is one I absolutely agreed with. I agree we must follow 
the process; we must follow the law. The problem is, the House rider 
circumvents the public process because it completely eliminates the 
law. Section 429 doesn't require public notice and doesn't allow public 
comment or judicial review, as is required by the law.
  What my amendment does is maintain the public process. It not only 
requires that any withdrawal or repromulgation of either of these two 
rules follows the Administrative Procedures Act, with at least a 60-day 
comment period to allow for that adequate public comment. This is the 
same amount of time the public had to comment on the polar bear 4(d) 
interim final rule last year.
  Without this amendment, this provision allows the Secretaries to make 
dramatic changes in rules and regulations, without having to comply 
with multiple, longstanding Federal laws that require public notice and 
comment by the American public and knowledgeable scientists. These 
challenges have the potential for far-reaching and truly unintended 
consequences in our country.
  The House rider we are dealing with in this omnibus bill shortchanges 
the public process. It is certainly not my amendment that shortchanges 
anything or tries to go outside the process. What we are providing in 
this amendment is ensuring we follow that public process.
  I ask Members of this body to vote in favor of my amendment to 
maintain this public process. That is what this amendment does. We owe 
it to ourselves to keep the integrity of the process intact. It is a 
dangerous precedent for this body to set. I ask Members to look very 
carefully at this amendment and truly attempt to understand the full 
implications if we are not successful in removing this rider from the 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 
p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments 
in the order listed; that prior to each vote, except as noted below, 
there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the 
usual form; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments in 
this agreement; that after the first vote in the sequence, the 
remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes each; that prior to the vote 
in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 634, there be 10 minutes of 
debate, with 5 minutes each for Senators Kyl and Lautenberg; Murkowski, 
No. 599; Inhofe, No. 613; Thune, No. 635, as modified; Kyl, No. 634; 
and Crapo, No. 638.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will speak briefly about one of the 
amendments pending, but first I wish to express my support for the 
fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. With all the debate here, 
we sometimes lose sight of the fact that this is a product of months of 
bipartisan negotiation and hard work. I serve on the Appropriations 
Committee and I watch the various subcommittees come together and meet. 
We had both the Republican leader and the Democratic leader of the 
committees join together and pass most of the bills that make up the 
omnibus. It is bipartisan. They passed almost unanimously.
  Now, we find we are getting into debate on amendments and it is 
somewhat troubling.
  We completed a budget process begun more than a year ago to fund the 
Federal Government and also to fund hundreds of critical programs in 
the Federal Government.
  It is unfortunate we are now halfway through the fiscal year. I wish 
it could have been completed through regular order. But enacting this 
legislation means funding increases for programs that serve as a 
lifeline to many Americans.
  I appreciate what Chairman Inouye has done, what President pro 
tempore Byrd has done, and what ranking member Thad Cochran has done. 
These are people with whom I have served for decades on the 
Appropriations Committee. They put together a piece of legislation that 
is going to take our country forward by investing in health care, law 
enforcement, the environment, and public schools.
  Some have argued that because we passed the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act that this legislation is not needed. That is not 
correct. The economic recovery plan was crafted specifically to create 
and save millions of jobs through investments, infrastructure, 
education funding, and so forth. But the recovery plan was not intended 
to replace the regular order of

[[Page S2804]]

the Federal budget. This is a comprehensive bill, not a targeted piece 
of legislation.
  I have listened to the debate on this legislation throughout the week 
and heard the arguments that this bill is too expensive, it is 
unnecessary and we would save money by level funding the government for 
the rest of the year. Those making these arguments seem to ignore the 
fact that flat funding the government would mean no additional 
assistance through child nutrition programs for hungry children whose 
families struggle to put food on their tables. It would mean less 
funding is available to help rebuild our crumbling bridges and roads, 
fewer funds for ensuring Americans have clean and safe water to drink 
and reductions in critical health prevention programs. In short, not 
passing this bill would mean turning a blind eye to the millions of 
Americans who need their Government to extend a helping hand to pull 
them up off the ground.
  Some members of this body have argued that because we passed the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act this legislation is not needed. 
That could not be further from the truth. The economic recovery plan 
was crafted specifically to create or save millions of jobs through 
significant investments in infrastructure, education funding, and 
public safety net programs. I voted for this plan and have confidence 
that it is a necessary step to protect and strengthen our economy and 
invest in America's future. But the recovery plan was not intended to 
replace the regular order for the Federal Budget.
  While the recovery plan includes numerous important priorities, it 
was structured to be timely and targeted, not a comprehensive bill to 
fund the entire Government. Using the rationale of some on the other 
side of the aisle and passing a yearlong continuing resolution would 
mean we are less able to ensure our security both at home and abroad. 
Not passing this legislation means the FBI will not be able to hire new 
agents, intelligence analysts, and others who protect us from crime and 
terrorism. It would mean the FDA will not be able to protect us from 
unsafe food and medicine. Finally, it would mean fewer funds for 
critical activities such as nuclear nonproliferation, military 
assistance and peacekeeping operations and security operations for our 
embassies abroad.
  Again, I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for 
their hard work in crafting this bill. It is not an easy job to weigh 
the thousands of competing priorities of our country and produce a 
comprehensive bill that addresses these needs. I applaud Chairman 
Inouye for his work and offer my strong support for this legislation.
  Madam President, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill 
contains $36.6 billion in discretionary budget authority for the 
Department of State and Foreign Operations, which is the same amount 
approved by the Appropriations Committee in July 2008.
  This represents a $1.6 billion decrease from former President Bush's 
budget request of $38.2 billion. I repeat--this bill is $1.6 billion 
below what former President Bush recommended in his budget.
  It is a $3.8 billion increase from the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted 
level, not counting supplemental funds, and $968 million above the 
Fiscal Year 2008 level including Fiscal Year 2008 supplemental and 
Fiscal Year 2009 bridge funds.
  The State and Foreign Operations portion of this omnibus bill does 
not contain any congressional earmarks. It does, as is customary and 
appropriate, specify funding levels for authorized programs, certain 
countries, and international organizations such as the United Nations 
and the World Bank.
  I thank Chairman Inouye, President pro tempore Byrd, and Ranking 
Member Cochran for their support throughout this protracted process. 
And I thank Senator Gregg, who, as ranking member of the State and 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee, worked with me to produce this 
bipartisan legislation that was reported by the Appropriations 
Committee with only one dissenting vote.
  It is imperative that we enact this bill. The alternative of a full 
year continuing resolution would be devastating to the operations of 
the State Department and our embassies, consulates, and missions around 
the world, and to programs that support a myriad of United States 
foreign policy interests and that protect the security of the American 
people. Many Senators on both sides of the aisle were encouraged that 
Senator Clinton was nominated for and confirmed to be Secretary of 
State. If we want her to succeed we must provide the tools to do so. 
This bill supports her highest priority of rebuilding the civilian 
capabilities of our Government.
  The bill provides $7.8 billion for Department of State operations, a 
decrease of $274 million below former President's Bush's request and 
$1.2 billion above the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level, not including 
supplemental funds. Counting emergency funds provided in Fiscal Year 
2008 for personnel, operations and security costs in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the bill provides a 5.6 percent increase.
  These increases are attributed to a major investment in personnel, 
primarily to replace worldwide positions that were redirected to Iraq 
and invest particularly in countries of growing importance in South 
Asia. The bill supports the request of 500 additional positions, much 
of which will help posts left depleted, some by 25 percent, due to 
positions shifting to Iraq during the last 5 years. In addition, the 
bill recommends $75 million for a new initiative to train and deploy 
personnel in post-conflict stabilization. These critical investments 
would be lost if we do not pass this bill.
  The bill provides $1.7 billion for construction of new secure 
embassies and to provide security upgrades to existing facilities, 
which is $178 million below former President Bush's request. He had 
proposed a 41-percent increase which we did not have the funds to 
support. But an increase of $99.5 million, or 13 percent, above the 
Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level is provided considering the significant 
threats our embassies faced last year alone, from Yemen to Belgrade. 
Even this lesser increase for embassy construction and security 
upgrades would be lost under a year-long continuing resolution.
  Specifically, the bill provides $4.24 billion for Diplomatic and 
Consular Programs, which funds State Department personnel. This is an 
increase of $464 million, or 12 percent, above the Fiscal Year 2008 
enacted level and $42 million above the President's request. This funds 
a major investment in personnel to increase language training and 
expand the number of personnel in regions of growing importance. 
Senators on both sides of the aisle have strongly endorsed this 
investment, but it would not be funded under a continuing resolution.
  In fact, under a continuing resolution, the State Department would 
not have the resources to fund the staff currently serving at 267 posts 
overseas, due to exchange rate losses and the increased cost of 
security overseas. That means the United States would have even less 
representation than we do now, which none of us here would find 
acceptable.
  The bill provides $1.1 billion for Worldwide Security Protection for 
noncapital security upgrades, an increase of $355 million above the 
Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level and $46 million below the request. This 
account funds all the Diplomatic Security agents at every post 
worldwide, armored vehicles, and training--all investments which, 
again, have bipartisan support. The increases would fund additional 
personnel for protection at high-threat embassies and oversight of 
security contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel-West Bank. This 
would not be possible under a continuing resolution.
  Senators of both parties have expressed strong support for expanding 
international exchange programs, particularly in predominantly Muslim 
countries. The bill provides $538 million for education and cultural 
exchanges, which is $15.5 million above the President's request and an 
increase of $36.6 million above the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level. 
Those additional funds would be lost under a continuing resolution at 
the moment when the United States has the greatest opportunity to 
reintroduce our country, our people, and our values to the rest of the 
world.
  The same is true of public diplomacy. The bill provides $394.8 
million for the State Department's public diplomacy activities, 
including outreach, media, and programs in embassies to develop

[[Page S2805]]

relationships with people in host countries. This is $33.9 million 
above the fiscal year 2008 level, which would not be available under a 
continuing resolution.

  The bill provides $1.7 billion for construction of new secure 
embassies and maintenance of existing facilities, a $280 million 
increase above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $83 million below 
the President's request. Of this amount, $801 million is for embassy 
maintenance, $40 million less than the request and $46 million above 
the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
  The bill provides $770 million for planning, design, and construction 
of new embassies and office buildings worldwide, $178 million below the 
request and $99 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Any 
Senator who has traveled abroad has seen the need to replace insecure 
and old embassies. There is already a long waiting list, and it would 
be even longer under a continuing resolution.
  Former President Bush's budget underfunded the U.S. assessed 
contribution to UN peacekeeping in fiscal year 2009 by assuming a 
reduction in every mission except Sudan. That was pie in the sky. The 
cost of most of these missions is increasing, not decreasing. The bill 
provides $1.5 billion for UN peacekeeping, an increase of $295 million 
above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $20 million above the 
President's request. However, compared to the total amount enacted in 
fiscal year 2008, the bill is $173 million below the operating level in 
fiscal year 2008 including supplemental funds. These are costs we are 
obligated to pay by treaty. They support the troops of other nations in 
Darfur, the Congo, Lebanon, Haiti, and a dozen other countries.
  The bill provides $1.5 billion for contributions to international 
organizations, the same as the President's request and $186 million 
above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The account funds the U.S. 
assessed dues to 47 international organizations, including NATO, IAEA, 
OECD, the UN, and others for which, as a member of the organization, 
the United States is obligated by treaty to contribute. We either pay 
now or we pay later.
  The bill provides $709.5 million for the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors, an increase of $39.5 million above the fiscal year 2008 
enacted level and $10 million above former President Bush's budget 
request. This includes funding for languages which the former 
administration proposed to eliminate in fiscal year 2009, such as 
Russian, Georgian, Kazak, Uzbek, Tibetan and the Balkans, where freedom 
of speech remains restricted and broadcasting programs are still 
necessary to provide unbiased news.
  For USAID, the bill provides $808.6 million for operating expenses, 
$41.4 million above former President Bush's request and $179 million 
above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This continues efforts begun 
last year to address the serious staff shortage at USAID, but under a 
continuing resolution USAID's staff problems would continue to worsen. 
It would not be able to hire additional staff for Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, or for other posts where there is not sufficient oversight of 
contracting and procurement. It is a crisis situation that I and 
Senator Gregg are determined to fix.
  For bilateral economic assistance, the bill provides a total of $17.1 
billion, $1.3 billion below former President Bush's request and $623.3 
million above the fiscal year 2008 level. We received requests from 
most Senators--Democrats and Republicans--for funding from within this 
account, totaling far more than we could afford. A continuing 
resolution would make it impossible to fund many, if not most, of those 
requests.
  A good example is global health. The bill provides $7.1 billion for 
global health and child survival, an increase of $757 million above the 
request and $737 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. A 
continuing resolution would be devastating for these lifesaving 
programs.
  A total of $495 million is provided for child survival and maternal 
health, an increase of $125 million above former President Bush's 
request and $49 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. These 
funds are for programs that directly decrease child and maternal 
mortality from preventable diseases, such as malaria, polio and 
pneumonia. Under a continuing resolution, USAID would not be able to 
expand its malaria control programs to other countries in Africa with a 
high incidence of malaria, which kills a million people, mostly African 
children, every year.
  The bill provides $300 million for safe water programs, including 
increasing access to safe drinking water and sanitation, which is a key 
factor in improving public health.
  Former President Bush proposed a steep cut in funding for family 
planning and reproductive health programs, even though they are the 
most effective means of reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. 
The bill, instead, provides a total of $545 million from all accounts 
for family planning and reproductive health including $50 million for 
the UN Population Fund, which is $82 million above the fiscal year 2008 
level. A continuing resolution would eliminate those additional funds, 
and the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions would increase.
  The bill provides a total of $5.5 billion for programs to combat HIV/
AIDS, $388 million above former President Bush's request and $459 
million above the fiscal year 2008 level. Of this amount, $600 million 
is provided for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, which is $400 
million above the request. Additionally within the total, $350 million 
is provided for USAID programs to combat HIV/AIDS, which is $8 million 
above the request.
  These additional funds, which pay for life-sustaining antiretroviral 
drugs, prevention and care programs, would be lost under a continuing 
resolution, to the detriment of 1 million people who would receive 
lifesaving treatment this year. With this funding 2 million additional 
HIV infections would be prevented this year. Instead of 10 million 
lives we are saving today, we have the opportunity to save 12 million 
people. We have the opportunity with this bill to save 1 million more 
orphans or vulnerable children who are either infected with HIV or have 
been orphaned because a parent died from HIV/AIDS. Why would we not 
make this investment this year?
  The development assistance account funds energy and environment 
programs, microcredit programs, private enterprise, rule of law, trade 
capacity, and many other activities that Senators on both sides of the 
aisle support. The bill provides $1.8 billion for development 
assistance which is $161 million above former President Bush's request 
and $176 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
  The bill provides $350 million for international disaster assistance, 
$52 million above the request and $30 million above the fiscal year 
2008 enacted level, excluding supplemental funds. These funds enable 
the United States to put its best face forward when disaster strikes, 
as it did with the tsunami, the earthquake in Pakistan, floods in 
Central America, and famine in Africa.
  The bill provides $875 million for the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation. This is $1.3 billion below the request and $669 million 
below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This reflects the view of the 
House and Senate that the Congress supports the MCC but wants to see a 
slowdown in new compacts, while $7 billion in previously appropriated 
funds are disbursed, and while the new administration decides how it 
wants to fund the MCC in the future. The agreement provides sufficient 
funds to continue current operations and to commence two new compacts 
of $350 million each.
  For the Peace Corps, the bill provides $340 million, which is $9 
million above the fiscal year 2008 level. Those additional funds would 
be lost under a continuing resolution.
  The bill provides $875 million for international narcotics control 
and law enforcement, which is $327 million below the request and $321 
million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Those additional 
funds for programs in Latin America, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many 
other countries would be lost under a continuing resolution.
  There is a total of $405 million for continued support of the Merida 
Initiative, including $300 million for Mexico and $105 million for the 
countries of Central America. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental 
included $400 million and $65 million, respectively. We are all 
increasingly alarmed by the spread of

[[Page S2806]]

drug-related violence and criminal gangs in Mexico, but under a 
continuing resolution there would be nothing for the Merida Initiative.
  Migration and refugee assistance is funded at $931 million, which is 
$167 million above former President Bush's request and $108 million 
above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. That $108 million would be 
lost under a continuing resolution. This amount is already $557 million 
below what was provided in fiscal year 2008 including supplemental and 
fiscal year 2009 bridge funds. These funds are used for basic care and 
protection of refugees and internally displaced persons, whose numbers 
are not expected to decrease this year.
  The bill provides $4.9 billion for military assistance and 
peacekeeping operations, $173 million below former President Bush's 
request but $212.6 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 
The bill assumes $170 million provided in the fiscal year 2008 
supplemental as fiscal year 2009 bridge funds for military assistance 
to Israel, making the total amount for Israel equal to the President's 
request, $2.55 billion. The additional $212.6 million for other 
important bilateral relationships would be lost under a continuing 
resolution.
  For contributions to the multilateral development institutions, which 
we owe by treaty, the bill provides $1.8 billion. That is $503 million 
below the former President's request and $251 million above the fiscal 
year 2008 enacted level. A continuing resolution would put us another 
$251 million in arrears, in addition to the arrears we already owe.
  The bill provides the amounts requested by the former president for 
the Export-Import Bank, an increase of $26.5 million above fiscal year 
2008. By not passing this bill, these additional resources would not be 
available to make U.S. businesses competitive in the global 
marketplace. At this time of economic downturn at home we should be 
doing everything we can to support U.S. trade.
  These are the highlights of the fiscal year 2009 State and Foreign 
Operations portion of the omnibus bill before us. It contains funding 
to meet critical operational costs and programmatic needs which support 
U.S. interests and protect U.S. security around the world.
  A handful of our friends in the minority have criticized this omnibus 
because it contains earmarks. Apparently they would prefer that 
unnamed, unelected bureaucrats make all the decisions about the use of 
taxpayer dollars. In fact, the total amount of this bill that Members 
of Congress--Democrats and Republicans--have earmarked for schools, 
fire and police departments, roads, bridges, hospitals, scientific 
research, universities and other organizations and programs in their 
states and districts which would not otherwise receive funding is less 
than 1 percent. That is what the aggrieved speeches are about. A 
whopping 1 percent.
  Some here complain that this omnibus--all but a small fraction of 
which would fund the budget requests of former President Bush--is more 
than we can afford. Those are the same Senators who, year after year, 
rubberstamped billions and billions of borrowed dollars to fund an 
unnecessary war and reconstruction programs in Iraq that were fraught 
with waste and abuse.
  Some say that the intervention of the Economic Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act is the reason they oppose this omnibus bill. Regarding 
the Department of State and foreign operations, 99.6 percent of the 
omnibus has no correlation whatsoever to what was funded by the 
Recovery Act. This portion of the omnibus funds all of the United 
States' activities overseas. All of the key new investments I have 
described will not occur if this bill is not passed.
  The funding for State and foreign operations in this omnibus bill 
amounts to about 1 percent of the total budget of this country. However 
one views the Economic Recovery Act, it would be the height of 
irresponsibility to oppose this bill. The damage that a continuing 
resolution would cause to the functions of our embassies, consulates 
and missions, and to the foreign service officers who serve the 
American people around the world, would be devastating. The damage to 
programs would be measured in lives.
  We have seen the image of our country battered beyond recognition. 
The values our country was founded on were ignored, ridiculed, and 
diminished. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that the United 
States needs to reinvigorate its engagement in the world, particularly 
through rebuilding alliances and using diplomacy more effectively. This 
bill puts our money where our mouths are. The alternative is to retract 
and to invite others to fill the vacuum. That might save money in the 
short term, but it will cost us dearly in the future.


                           Amendment No. 613

  Madam President, I will speak briefly in opposition to an amendment 
offered by Senator Inhofe. Before I do, I might note that I have served 
here for 35 years. Seeing the distinguished Presiding Officer, when I 
first came to the Senate, there were two Senators from Minnesota--
Senator Hubert Humphrey, Senator Walter Mondale. Senator Humphrey had 
been Vice President of the United States; Senator Mondale was to become 
Vice President of the United States. I was helped immeasurably by the 
mentoring and the friendship of those two Senators.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer and I had the opportunity to be 
present when the distinguished former Senator from Minnesota, Mr. 
Mondale, or Ambassador Mondale or Vice President Mondale--he had all 
those titles--was given one of the highest awards that the Japanese 
Government could give.
  I mention this only because I still serve with the whole delegation 
from Minnesota, which is now presiding over the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, to go back to the subject at hand, I do 
wish to speak briefly in opposition to an amendment offered by Senator 
Inhofe. It is amendment No. 613. According to the unanimous consent 
agreement entered into by my dear friend, the senior Senator from 
Mississippi, we are going to vote on that amendment later today.
  His amendment prohibits any United States funding to the United 
Nations if the United Nations imposes a tax on any United States 
person. It's like: My gosh, how did we ever overlook this situation? 
But this amendment is a textbook case of legislating when there is 
absolutely no rhyme or reason and shooting ourselves in the foot at the 
same time.
  It is not a response to anything that has happened in the entire 
history of the United Nations. It is something that apparently the 
author of the amendment imagines maybe, some time, somehow, somewhere 
this could happen.
  The United Nations has never levied a tax on anyone. It is not a 
taxing organization. This provision was originally put in many years 
ago when anti-United Nations sentiment was high. It was a feel-good, 
chest-thumping response to a totally imagined, non-existent problem.
  I call it the Godzilla amendment. Let's pass a law that says if 
Godzilla comes tromping down the National Mall, he is prohibited from 
coming within 100 yards of the Nation's Capitol Building.
  The fact is, of course, there is no Godzilla and there never will be. 
The U.N. has no taxing authority. It does not impose taxes. There has 
never been a U.N. tax on Americans. There is no realistic possibility 
that there ever will be.
  This would be like saying if the United Nations ever passes a law to 
rename the United States of America, we will cut off funding. It is not 
going to happen.
  Every year each appropriations subcommittee receives requests from 
Senators for what they want included in the bill. Both the ranking 
Republican member and the Democratic chairman look at all these 
requests. No Senator requested the language proposed by the Senator 
from Oklahoma. The Bush administration never requested this language. 
Both I and Senator Gregg saw absolutely no reason to continue to 
include it. It has no practical effect.
  The Senator from Oklahoma has had since last July, over half a year, 
to ask for its inclusion if he wanted. He never did. President Bush, 
Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice--none of them saw any 
reason for it.
  This sort of falls into the ``we need to prohibit black helicopters 
from coming in the middle of the night from the

[[Page S2807]]

United Nations.'' It is fantasy. But if we did adopt it, what an 
embarrassment for this country, the only country in the world to adopt 
such an amendment.
  At a time when we are trying to reestablish the reputation and 
leadership of the United States, why would we put Congress on record 
threatening the United Nations not to do something that it is never 
going to do? We are not some two-bit country that wants to stand up and 
wave a flag and show how tough it is. We are not the mouse that roared. 
We are the United States of America. And doing something like this, the 
rest of the world is going to look at us and say: Why are you doing 
such silly things?
  The Senator's amendment would cut off funding for U.N. peacekeeping, 
for the operations of the U.N. Security Council, for UNICEF, for all 
the things we are asking the United Nations to do in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
Darfur, the Middle East, and around the world. That is what the 
amendment says. It is an anachronism. It has no basis in fact.
  Does anyone think that even if they wanted to the other members of 
the U.N. Security Council could do that over a United States veto? It's 
impossible.
  We already pay our assessed dues to the United Nations. Is that a 
tax? We have to pay it. It comes out of the Federal budget, and the 
Federal budget is taxpayer money. Should we stop paying that?
  Let's stop treating the United Nations as the enemy. Let's start 
showing maturity and leadership. The amendment was an unnecessary piece 
of legislation years ago when it was first offered by Senator Jesse 
Helms, and it is no less so today.
  No President, even if the U.N. had the ability to, which it does 
not--even if it tried, whoever was President would simply instruct our 
Representative to the United Nations: Veto it.
  It is a solution looking for a problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 635

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise briefly to oppose the amendment 
offered by my colleague, Senator Thune from South Dakota. I supported 
and worked with Senator Thune and Senator Kyl on Indian law enforcement 
issues and health care issues with respect to a very sizable 
authorization bill that was passed last year. It was actually an 
amendment to another bill. It was enacted into law. We now have an 
authorization for an Emergency Fund for Indian Safety and Health that 
is very important, and it needs to get funded.
  I had not been aware of this amendment proposed by Senator Thune. I 
don't know with whom Senator Thune talked about it. He did not visit 
with me.
  In any event, his amendment would provide funding for a range of 
Indian issues, which I think are very important issues, with an across-
the-board reduction in other areas. His original amendment was drafted 
in a way that would have cut $90 million out of current Indian programs 
to pay for this Emergency Fund. He has since modified that amendment so 
that it is now an across-the-board cut on a much broader array of 
programs.
  He makes the point that it is not a significant cut. I do not 
disagree with that. It is, however, a cut in Indian health care 
programs, a cut in Indian housing programs, a cut in programs that are 
so desperately in need of funding. I would be anxious to work with my 
colleague. I think those of us who have worked so hard together, 
including Senator Thune and others, need to collaborate on these issues 
and determine how we can come up with some additional funding for the 
authorization we worked together to complete last Congress.
  As I indicated, I was surprised by this amendment, as I am sure the 
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, was as well. We have so many 
problems. For example, contract health care on Indian reservations. You 
know the word on reservations: Don't get sick after June because they 
are out of contract health care funds and you are not going to get 
admitted to a hospital.
  We have people with bone-on-bone health conditions, and bad knees so 
painful they cannot walk. But, it is not considered life or limb, which 
means they will not get funding for it.
  In the past, I held up on the floor of the Senate a photograph of a 
woman who showed up lying on a gurney at a hospital having a heart 
attack with an 8-by-10 piece of paper Scotch taped to her leg that said 
to the hospital: If you admit this person, understand you may not be 
paid for it because we are out of contract health care funds.
  We are so desperately short of funds in these areas, I don't think we 
ought to be cutting an account like that, even for something of great 
merit such as adding law enforcement funding to this Emergency Fund.
  I support law enforcement funding initiatives. We need to find 
funding for them. We have reservations where the level of violence is 5 
times, 10 times, 12 times the rate of violent crimes in the rest of the 
country. I have held hearings on it in Washington and on an Indian 
reservation. I fully believe we need to fund these initiatives. But 
should we do that by taking funding out of contract health care funds? 
I don't think so. Contract health care where people cannot show up at 
the hospital door after June, when they have run out of funds, in very 
serious trouble with something taped to their leg that says: By the 
way, you ought not admit this person because you are not going to get 
paid.
  Full scale health care rationing is going on. Forty percent of the 
health care needs of American Indians are not getting met. Little kids 
are dying and elders are dying. We are desperately short of money in 
these accounts. To cut any of these health care accounts in any amount, 
in my judgment, is wrong.
  I am sorry I am not able to support that amendment. It is the wrong 
amendment. I am anxious to work with my colleague from South Dakota. My 
colleague has a record of working with us on the Indian Affairs 
Committee, and he has a record of working on Indian reservations on 
important issues. I am anxious to work with him and my other 
colleagues, including Senator Barrasso from Wyoming, who take a big 
interest in this issue.
  I hope as we move forward that we will be able to provide the funding 
for the crisis that exists in health care, housing, and education on 
Indian reservations in this country. At the same time, we need to 
provide the funding for adequate law enforcement, which we have signed 
treaties to do and which we have a trust responsibility to do, but 
which we have systematically over a long period of time failed to do.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 634

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I wish to talk about the amendment of the 
Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, amendment No. 634, which is a well-
intentioned amendment fundamentally but I think a misdirected 
amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to prohibit the expenditure 
of amounts of money made available under this act in a contract with 
any company that has a business presence in Iran's energy sector.
  Effectively, what Senator Kyl is seeking to do on this appropriations 
bill--on the fly, without hearings within the appropriate committees of 
jurisdiction, and without any appropriate input by the administration--
a new administration, 1 month into office, and an administration that 
already has announced it has a new policy with respect to Iran--is to 
walk in here and apply a unilateral sanction by the United States.
  Now, all of us share a very deep and real concern about the course 
Iran is on. We have just concluded 3 days of hearings in the Foreign 
Relations Committee on this very subject in order to get a better 
understanding of exactly what is happening in Iran, exactly what the 
possibilities may be, how we might avoid making the mistakes that were 
made in the last administration by rushing to judgment, and how we can 
proceed in a deliberative, thoughtful way. To simply attach to this 
appropriations bill this amendment in this way would be to contradict 
every single one of those legitimate interests of trying to approach a 
policy with regard to Iran in a thoughtful way.
  First, let us make it very clear. We all know the effect of adopting 
this amendment, because of the procedural situation we are in, is very 
simple. It

[[Page S2808]]

keeps us from enacting this bill before the current continuing 
resolution expires. And given what we have heard from the House of 
Representatives, that means a vote for this amendment is effectively a 
vote against the Omnibus appropriations bill and it is a vote for a 
year-long continuing resolution at last year's funding levels. Given 
the state of our economy, given all of the initiatives contained in 
bills we should have passed last year and that we are only now getting 
to, it would be irresponsible in the context of the current economic 
situation of this country to deny some of these funds to flow and to 
put people back to work and to help create the future jobs for this 
country that we need.
  On another level--and this is important--this amendment, if it 
passed, would actually have a very negative impact on the very office 
the Treasury Department--the Office of Terrorism and Financial 
Intelligence--would require to enforce the amendment. Why is that? 
Because in this omnibus bill that we want to pass is over $5 million, 
or about 10 percent over last year's budget, to help them be able to do 
the very job this amendment seeks to have them do. So the result of 
passing the amendment would be to take away the needed resources from 
the very people at the Treasury Department who right now are trying to 
track down and root out the Iranian banking and financial transactions 
that contribute directly to Iran's nuclear missile programs.
  I think for the first reason alone you should not vote for this 
amendment, but the second reason not to vote for it is that it doesn't 
make sense to take money away from the people who are already doing the 
job we want them to do. That doesn't make sense. But more broadly--and 
I hope colleagues will think about this--this is not the time for this 
kind of an amendment.
  We had a secret briefing yesterday afternoon with all of the DNI and 
CIA and other folks who are doing a lot of hard work with respect to 
Iran, and we spent a number of hours analyzing this. We are trying to 
come up with a multilateral approach that reaches out to the Europeans, 
to the Russians, to the Chinese and others, and we are trying to put 
together an Iran policy that makes sense. Developing a more effective 
Iran strategy is one of President Obama's top priorities, and getting 
it right is challenging. That is why the administration is undertaking 
the comprehensive review of its policy options even as it works to get 
its team in place. It doesn't make sense to come careening in here in 
the course of an afternoon, without hearings, without melding it into 
that larger strategy, to think about putting in place something that 
not only works against your interests but actually may wind up making 
it more difficult for our allies to be able to work with us, and 
without understanding how it fits into a broader strategy.
  The President is right to open the door to direct engagement with 
Iran. And a lot of us are hoping--all of us hope, I think--that a more 
productive relationship is going to emerge, whereby we can explore 
areas of mutual interest. Believe it or not--a lot of people don't 
realize it at first blush--when you begin to look at the region and 
understand the dynamics of what is happening in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan and even Iraq, the fact is that Iran has the potential to be a 
constructive partner with respect to a number of different mutual 
interests. They do not like the Taliban, they have an interest in not 
having drugs come from Afghanistan across the border, they have other 
interests with respect to the stability of Afghanistan and other parts 
of that world.
  The fact is they helped us--a lot of people don't realize this--
recently, in 2001 and 2002, when the Senate made almost a unanimous 
decision that we needed to respond to the 9/11 attacks by dealing with 
Afghanistan and a safe haven. Iran was enormously helpful to us in that 
effort. And in fact much of what we were able to accomplish with the 
northern alliance, with the placement of our personnel on the ground, 
and other things through other components of that relationship wound up 
being very constructive in helping us to achieve what we did. So there 
are possibilities of a different relationship.
  Nobody is believing that mere talking is going to produce them, but 
you don't know until you talk what the possibilities are. And you 
certainly, if you ultimately are going to wind up going down a much 
tougher road, want to build your bona fides with other countries to 
show that you have made every effort to be able to find out whether 
there are alternatives. So I have long advocated that we take a 
different approach with respect to Iran, and I think this kind of 
measure gets flat bang immediately plunked down right in the way of 
being able to take those kinds of additional new initiatives.
  The challenge for the Obama administration now is going to be to 
choose a series of red lines with respect to Iran's potential nuclear 
program. And to do that, everybody has learned we need to build 
coalitions with the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, and nations 
within the Middle East in order to be able to pull the full weight of 
the international community against Iran, should they defy common sense 
and the requirements of the nonproliferation treaty and the United 
Nations and the IAEA. So I think for diplomacy to proceed, we don't 
want to engage in unthought out, ad hoc efforts such as this particular 
amendment, which can get in the way of our ability to put together a 
strong multilateral coalition.
  Here is another reality. This amendment would wind up actually making 
it more difficult to achieve that coalition, because it would 
indirectly sanction companies in some of the very countries we hope to 
enlist. That is going to be made more difficult if this amendment were 
to pass. So again, it is unwise to target unilateral sanctions at 
allies and other influential countries we need in order to help 
appropriately build a coalition to deal with Iran.
  I mentioned earlier that the Foreign Relations Committee has been 
doing 3 days of hearings on this very topic. Today, we heard from two 
of the most distinguished and thoughtful individuals in America with 
respect to national security issues. They have both served as national 
security advisers to Presidents of the United States--Democratic and 
Republican. I am talking about Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski and GEN Brent 
Scowcroft. Both of them made perfectly clear that this kind of 
approach--the kind of approach in this amendment--is counterproductive 
to our overall strategy of bringing tough pressure to bear on Iran in 
order to change its direction.
  So I say to my colleagues, going it alone on Iran may make you feel 
good, but it ain't smart, it is not playing to our strengths, and it is 
not permitting the current President of the United States, as Commander 
in Chief and as the initiator of our foreign policy, to be able to take 
the initiatives he wants. What is more, it is not even clear how the 
Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control would even be 
able to implement this amendment, and we haven't had any hearings to 
determine how they would implement this amendment.

  This amendment would bar any funds provided by the bill for any new 
Federal contract with any company that has a ``business practice'' in 
Iran's energy sector. Well, nobody here even knows fully what the 
definition of a business practice is. Does that mean CIA? What does 
that mean in terms of anybody's understanding of what in fact is going 
to be banned? Moreover, the Office of Foreign Asset Control doesn't 
even catalogue those kinds of companies right now. So all of a sudden 
you pass the money and you are going to ask them to start tracking, no 
matter how small that company. It is going to distract them, frankly, 
from the serious work they are doing now to root out and shut down 
Iran's nuclear missile-related procurement transactions around the 
world. That is more important than diverting to this subeffort.
  The bottom line is our challenges with Iran are plain too serious to 
be making foreign policy on the fly in an amendment to an 
appropriations bill without hearing and without even adequately 
understanding fully the terms within it. The committees of jurisdiction 
have not debated this approach. They haven't had any votes on this 
approach. There may well be a time and place for this kind of a 
provision. Maybe this provision will fit into a series of escalating 
sanctions which we have already been talking about within the Foreign 
Relations Committee. But we ought to do that not in this ad hoc way but 
in a thoughtful and disciplined

[[Page S2809]]

way, and I think we will have a much stronger policy if we do that.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what brings me to the floor is the Kyl 
amendment that is presently before us. I have listened to some of my 
colleagues say how this is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. I 
would simply say that, in fact, this is. I happen to agree. I happen to 
agree that it is at the wrong time.
  I might very well agree with Senator Kyl on the underpinnings of the 
amendment. I think we need to do what we must in order to ensure that 
Iran does not achieve the possibility of a nuclear weapon, and whatever 
we need to do in pursuing a two-track parallel as we engage them, at 
the same time have them understand that if engagement is not going to 
achieve them stopping obtaining a nuclear weapon, that there are 
consequences. But this is the wrong way to do foreign policy--in an 
omnibus bill--just as it is the wrong way to do foreign policy on the 
Cuba provisions in this bill.
  I am compelled to come to the floor because I will oppose the Kyl 
amendment particularly because I think it is wrong to include it in an 
omnibus bill without going through the process--the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee and others--to consider in fact whether this is the 
best policy, to have an open and free debate about it, to be able to 
vote on it either way after such rigorous debate. But we are being 
asked to vote for an omnibus bill that has provisions that change a 
significant foreign policy as it relates to the United States and Cuba. 
So there is a duality.
  Finally, I have been reading a lot from our friends in the 
blogosphere and others, who talk about this issue on Cuba, and the 
press. What is incredible to me is that they still cannot cite one 
human rights activist in Cuba, one democracy activist in Cuba, they do 
not have the name of one prisoner of conscience inside of Cuba. They 
lose track. They talk about policy, but if it were any other part of 
the world--if we were talking about Burma, if we were talking about 
what happens in the Sudan--if we were talking about any other part of 
the world, we would see the same attention being given to the human 
rights activists, the democracy activists, the political prisoners 
inside of Cuba who languish each and every day, and their crime is 
simply to try to create a civil society with the benefits of the 
freedoms we enjoy here in the United States--to be able to come to a 
body like this and be able to debate; to be able to choose our elected 
representatives; to worship at the altar at which we choose to worship; 
to be able to enjoy the benefits of the sweat of our labor, whether by 
brawn or by brain. But there is silence.
  I am a little tired that we keep reading about those who will spend 
hours listening to Castro's soliloquies but not spend 1 minute with 
human rights activists, with political dissidents, with independent 
journalists. There was a time when we used to help human rights 
activists and democracy activists in the world; when we put an 
international spotlight on people such as Lech Walesa in Poland; when 
we did it with Vaclav Havel in the Czech Republic; when we did it with 
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the former Soviet Union. By creating that 
spotlight on those individuals, we gave them the opportunity not to be 
harassed on a daily basis, as Cuba's democracy activists are, in jail 
and in prison and sentenced, sometimes for a quarter of a century for 
some minor act that, in fact, we would enjoy here as one of our 
fundamental freedoms, such as wearing a simple white bracelet that says 
``cambio''--change. Change in the last election in the United States 
would get you elected President.
  Say ``change'' in Cuba, it sends you to jail. Yet there is silence. 
There is silence. It is deafening. It is deafening. So I will vote 
against the Kyl amendment because I think it is the wrong process in an 
omnibus bill. But, by the same token, you cannot have it one way and 
say it is wrong to have major foreign policy changes in an omnibus bill 
and then be silent about the other.
  It is wrong to say our policies should be changed but not have one 
word about democracy, human rights, political prisoners. It is amazing 
to me that people do not know who Oscar Elias Biscetis is, an Afro-
Cuban doctor who ultimately was sent to jail for 25 years simply 
because he refused to perform the abortions the regime called upon him 
to do. He protested it and he was sent to jail for 25 years; or Marta 
Beatrice Roque, who, in fact, languishes with health issues, and every 
time she goes out, most recently to visit a U.S. diplomat, gets beaten 
along the way; or Antunes, who is on a hunger strike trying to create 
limited openings in a civil society and protesting the beating and 
incarceration of another human rights activist.
  I hope people will get to know their names, such as they did Vaclav 
Havel and Lech Walesa and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and others in the 
world whose voices we hear from our colleagues who come here and talk 
about them. I am proud of them for doing that. They need to start 
speaking out about the voices of those who languish in Castro's jails 
and stop losing the romanticism of the regime and start talking about 
those human rights activists, democracy activists, those who are 
suffering simply to create an opening in civil society within their 
country. Then there will be some balance. Then there would be some 
equity. Then we would have an opportunity to move on broader in the 
context of policy.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 599

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have a series of votes. I believe the 
first one will be the Murkowski amendment. I rise to speak against it. 
I think if you vote for the Murkowski amendment, what you are endorsing 
is a process that is something that should not be encouraged, which is 
a President in the waning hours doing a midnight regulation to overturn 
a law.
  Let me repeat that. What Senator Murkowski is doing is she is 
removing language in this bill that reversed two midnight regulations 
the Bush administration put into place, without proper hearing, without 
going through the comment period the way they should, ignoring the 
public, ignoring the science, and, in essence, doing a backdoor repeal 
of the Endangered Species Act.
  Now, that is not right. It happens to be that one of these dealt with 
the polar bear, which, as you probably know, was listed as a threatened 
species by the Bush administration. But then people looked at the 
Endangered Species Act and said: My goodness, we do not know what can 
happen if we now declare that the polar bear is not only threatened but 
endangered. We better take away the protection of the Endangered 
Species Act from the polar bear.
  Whether you care about the survival of the polar bear, as do I, or 
whether you do not, it seems to me what the Murkowski amendment does is 
to say that we approve of the President of any party, acting in a 
capricious way, overturning a law that was passed by Republicans and 
Democrats.
  She not only deals with the polar bear, but she also deals with 
another very important rule that says, before there is a major 
development, Federal agencies have to check with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to make sure we are not destroying God's creation.
  I do not understand the thinking behind it. We have laws in place to 
protect endangered species. If we do not like the Endangered Species 
Act, if we have decided we do not care about polar bears or we do not 
care about bald eagles or we do not care about any of this, we want to 
do away with it, let Lisa Murkowski and any of my colleagues come and 
move to overturn and

[[Page S2810]]

overrule and abolish the Endangered Species Act.
  But let's not send a signal tonight that Presidents of either party 
can, at the waning hours of their Presidency--and I do not care if it 
is a Democrat or Republican--can willy-nilly, with the stroke of a pen, 
decide to do away with the protections of an act that was a landmark 
environmental law.
  If you do not like the law, come here, tell me why, let's talk. Maybe 
we can fix parts of it, maybe we cannot. Maybe we can rework parts of 
it, maybe we cannot. But let's not allow Presidents to simply do away 
with these laws when they may prove to be inconvenient.
  I hope we will vote against the Murkowski amendment, whether we want 
to protect the polar bear or we do not, whether we care about the bald 
eagle or we do not. That is up to us to decide. But let's not say 
tonight in this vote that we approve of an Executive doing away with 
the protections of Federal law with the stroke of a pen without a 
hearing, without the comments, without the scientists, without working 
with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
  I hope we will have a strong vote against the Murkowski amendment.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry to take back the time so quickly, but I want 
to place in the Record a number of editorials from around the country 
that have come out against the Murkowski amendment. One is from the 
Miami Herald entitled ``Who needs those pesky scientists?'' Another is 
entitled ``Endangered Process, Proposed rule changes to the Endangered 
Species Act could do lasting harm in the natural world.'' ``Unnecessary 
ESA Rewrite,'' that is from the Bangor Daily News. ``Gutting the law'' 
is from St. Louis Today. ``Endangered law: Bush rule change ignores 
science--again.'' That is from the Salt Lake Tribune. Here is one from 
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: ``Endangered species: A 9-second 
rewrite.'' ``A complete sham, Public comments given curt review in rush 
to dilute the Endangered Species Act.'' That is from the Las Vegas Sun. 
``Shredder is overheating in Bush's final months.'' That is from the 
Virginian Pilot. These editorials were written when George Bush issued 
the executive orders.
  Senator Murkowski's amendment would say: Fine, let it stand. The 
underlying bill reverses these midnight regulations and goes back to 
the status quo ante and back to the regular order.
  I ask unanimous consent the editorials be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Miami Herald, Aug. 13, 2008]

                   Who Needs Those Pesky Scientists?

       The Bush administration continued its assault on the 
     Endangered Species Act this week with a last-minute proposal 
     that would speed up approval of construction projects that 
     could cause harm to endangered plants and animals. Maybe it 
     comes out of desperation, but whatever the motivation for the 
     change, the administration misses the mark and should 
     reconsider. If it doesn't and the change is approved, whoever 
     is in the White House next year should immediately rescind 
     the new rule.


                        Complete projects first

       Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said the change is 
     necessary to keep the Act from being used as a ``back door'' 
     means of regulating greenhouse gases that are believed to 
     cause global warming. The change would allow federal agencies 
     that are responsible for building highways, bridges, dams and 
     other projects to decide if their projects create a risk to 
     endangered species. This would drastically limit the 
     requirement for mandatory, independent reviews by the Fish 
     and Wildlife Service and other agencies that employ 
     scientists and experts to conduct the studies. It would be 
     like letting the proverbial fox guard the henhouse. Those 
     agencies' first priority is to get projects completed, not 
     protect at-risk species.
       If the problem truly were about the time involved in the 
     review process, the solution would be to streamline the 
     process--not change the reviewer. But the administration has 
     used this gambit before. In 2003, it adopted rules to let 
     agencies approve new pesticides without hearing from 
     government scientists about the impact on endangered species. 
     The rule was overturned in court.
       The administration's antipathy to the idea that human 
     activities contribute to global warming has been well 
     documented. In announcing the proposed change, Secretary 
     Kempthorne said, ``It is not possible to draw a link between 
     greenhouse gas emissions and distant observations of the 
     impacts on species.''


                             Public's input

       If approved, the administration would accomplish with a 
     change in the rules what it has not been able to achieve in 
     Congress. The House passed a bill in 2005 that would have 
     made similar changes to the Endangered Species Act, but the 
     measure failed in the Senate. The proposed change is subject 
     to a 30-day public comment period after which it can be 
     finalized by the Interior Department.
       Thus, it is possible that the change could take effect 
     before the next president is sworn into office, and could be 
     in place for months before a decision on rescinding is made. 
     The Bush administration showed its animus toward scientific 
     data by rejecting stem-cell research that could help people 
     with chronic diseases. Now it eschews research that protects 
     the bald eagle, grizzly bear and Florida panther.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 19, 2008]

                           Endangered Process

       In May, the Bush administration reluctantly listed the 
     polar bear as ``threatened'' under the Endangered Species 
     Act. The facts left it with little choice: the bear's Arctic 
     Sea ice habitat is melting because of global warming. But the 
     administration wasn't happy, because the Endangered Species 
     Act was never intended to be an instrument for coping with 
     climate change. Our sympathy was limited, since President 
     Bush spent his entire time in office resisting the adoption 
     of laws that would have been better suited to combating 
     greenhouse gas emissions. But we agreed that the Endangered 
     Species Act was the wrong tool for the problem.
       Now, however, in what is ostensibly an attempt to deal with 
     this polar bear mismatch, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne 
     has proposed a rules change that would undermine the law's 
     fundamental work. Mr. Kempthorne suggests far-reaching 
     changes to the consultation process between the Fish and 
     Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service and 
     other agencies. The changes would render the process 
     meaningless and put all protected species at risk. Currently, 
     an agency building a highway has to consult with the Fish and 
     Wildlife Service to determine whether the project is ``likely 
     to adversely affect'' a listed species. If a determination is 
     made that such harm is likely, the service conducts a more 
     rigorous review of the project and issues a detailed opinion 
     on its effects. It is in this give-and-take between the 
     various agencies and services that modifications are made 
     that allow projects to go forward while minimizing the harm 
     to animals and to trees and other plants.
       Under Mr. Kempthorne's plan, agencies would be able to 
     decide for themselves whether a project is likely to harm a 
     species, and not just polar bears. If an agency decided to 
     consult on the possible impact, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
     would have 60 days (with the possibility of a 60-day 
     extension) to issue an opinion. If it didn't meet that 
     deadline, the other agency could end the consultation and 
     proceed. The Fish and Wildlife Service already can't meet the 
     deadlines established in the Endangered Species Act and is 
     practically being run by judges and lawyers because of 
     litigation stemming from blown deadlines. So we don't hold 
     out much hope that Mr. Kempthorne's new deadlines would be 
     met, either. The impact could be devastating.
       The department contends that other government agencies have 
     had years of experience with the law and know as much as the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service about how to protect listed species. This is 
     doubtful. The services are there for a reason--to safeguard 
     threatened and endangered species and to act as a check 
     against the ambitions of agencies that want to complete 
     projects. The rigor that the current consultation process 
     fosters would be lost.
       A 30-day comment period on the new rules has begun. So, 
     here's our comment: Reissue the proposed regulations with a 
     specific, targeted policy on how greenhouse gas emissions 
     should be taken into account on federal projects under the 
     Endangered Species Act. Gutting the consultation process, 
     with all the unintended consequences of such an action, could 
     be avoided.
                                  ____


              [From the Bangor Daily News, Aug. 21, 2008]

                        Unnecessary ESA Rewrite

       The Endangered Species Act has rightly been criticized for 
     being slow and cumbersome. Eliminating a key provision of the 
     act--which requires agencies that promote development, such 
     as the Department of Transportation and the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, to consult with agencies charged with protecting 
     wildlife is not the solution.
       The Bush administration, through the Departments of 
     Commerce and Interior, proposed such a change last week under 
     the guises of ``narrow'' updates to the act. Far from narrow, 
     this is a fundamental shift of responsibility. ``The fox 
     guarding the henhouse,'' was the favorite cliched description 
     from environmental groups. Cliche or not, they are right.

[[Page S2811]]

       The Office of Surface Mining has more interest in allowing 
     ore to be mined than in protecting animals. The Army Corps of 
     Engineers is more concerned with seeing dredging projects 
     completed than ensuring fish habitat isn't destroyed. That's 
     why consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for 
     projects on land, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
     for marine projects, has long been required for work on 
     federal land, paid for with federal funds or requiring 
     federal permits.
       Proposed new rules, published last Monday, would eliminate 
     all formal consultation, instead allowing the federal 
     agencies to decide whether proposed projects pose a threat to 
     species protected by the ESA. Informal consultations would 
     still be allowed if the federal agencies overseeing the 
     projects wanted advice or review by the wildlife or fisheries 
     service.
       A major shortcoming of this proposal is that it aims to 
     correct a problem that is more perception than reality.
       Between 1987 and 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
     reviewed approximately 186,000 projects for possible impact 
     on listed species. In only 5046 cases--less than 3 percent--
     were the projects deemed to adversely affect those species, 
     requiring formal consultation. Of these, 607 concluded that a 
     listed species would be jeopardized, but most could go 
     forward if modified. During this time, only 100--0.0005 
     percent of the total reviewed by the service--were blocked 
     due to endangered species concerns.
       In Maine, between 1990 and 2005, the service reviewed more 
     than 1,100 projects. In only eight was a formal consultation 
     warranted. In each of these cases, the service found that the 
     work could be done without harming the species in question, 
     most often bald eagles, and the projects were allowed to 
     proceed.
       In another major overreach, the proposed rules eliminate 
     climate change as a consideration when reviewing projects and 
     their potential to harm threatened and endangered species. 
     This follows last year's Supreme Court ruling that the 
     Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate 
     the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 
     from cars. The agency had argued that carbon dioxide was not 
     a pollutant so the federal government could not regulate it.
       Just as the EPA has refused to follow the court's ruling, 
     now the wildlife and fisheries services are saying greenhouse 
     gas emissions are beyond their reach. The proposed rule 
     basically says that because the consequences of global 
     warming are difficult to quantify and pinpoint, they 
     shouldn't be considered at all. By this rationale, no agency 
     in the U.S. is responsible for reducing America's 
     contribution to a growing global problem.
       These changes will likely go into effect unless Congress 
     stops them, or a court does later. Congress must step in now.
                                  ____


                 [From St. Louis Today, Aug. 19, 2008]

                            Gutting the Law

       Let's face it, the Endangered Species Act can create quite 
     a burden. If your goal is to build dams or open federal land 
     to mining, logging and oil drilling, all those threatened 
     animals and plants just get in the way.
       Congress gets in the way, too, stubbornly insisting that 
     the Endangered Species Act be obeyed. In part, that means 
     that independent experts have to review any project proposed 
     for federal lands for its impact on endangered species.
       So now comes the Bush administration with a parting gift to 
     its many friends in the timber, development and extraction 
     industries: An end-run around Congress.
       In what Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne described last 
     week as a ``narrow regulatory change,'' the administration 
     has proposed changing that picky requirement that independent 
     botanists and biologists get involved in reviewing new 
     projects.
       Instead, the projects will be reviewed by the very people 
     proposing them: Federal agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers or the Office of Surface Mining, whose expertise 
     lies elsewhere.
       In May, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten wrote a 
     memo to federal agencies outlining what he called a 
     ``principled approach to regulation as we sprint to the 
     finish'' of Mr. Bush's final term. Except under 
     ``extraordinary circumstances,'' any new regulations had to 
     be proposed--issued in draft form by publication in the 
     Federal Register--by June 1.
       Apparently, new rules gutting an important protection in 
     the Endangered Species Act qualify as an ``extraordinary 
     circumstance.'' But Mr. Kempthorne said the new rules he 
     proposed last week are very limited in scope.
       His new rules will ``provide clarity and certainty'' to the 
     Endangered Species Act. In fact, the law's purpose and 
     process already are clear. The administration's changes would 
     weaken it significantly.
       This is hardly the first time the administration, having 
     failed to convince Congress to change environmental laws it 
     dislikes, has tried to recast the law by issuing new 
     regulations.
       It took that route in 2005 to weaken parts of the Clean Air 
     Act. With a chilling Orwellian flourish, the administration 
     dubbed its new plan the ``Clear Skies Initiative.'' In 2006, 
     federal courts struck down a similar effort that would have 
     given the Environmental Protection Agency authority to 
     approve pesticides without input from Fish and Wildlife 
     Service scientists.
       The Endangered Species Act has helped rescue the bald 
     eagle, other animals and plants from the brink of extinction 
     over the past three decades. This latest assault is certain 
     to face the same legal challenges that derailed the pesticide 
     regulations. It should suffer the same fate, too.
       Regulations written in haste by an administration headed 
     for the exits--no matter which administration makes them--
     make lovely parting gifts for special interests. But they 
     make for terrible government.
                                  ____


              [From the Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 12, 2008]

        Endangered Law: Bush Rule Change Ignores Science--Again

       It should come as no surprise.
       The Bush administration has single-mindedly worked for 
     years to undo this country's landmark environmental 
     conservation measures. So a rule change to emasculate the 35-
     year-old Endangered Species Act probably was to be expected. 
     After all, efforts by conservative members of Congress have 
     been thwarted for years by thoughtful senators and 
     representatives with more concern for the environment than 
     for developers, private contractors and the oil industry.
       As his presidency grinds to a close, Bush and his 
     appointees are working overtime on roadblocks to prevent the 
     United States from taking any steps to reduce the use of 
     fossil fuels that might shrink Big Oil's bottom line. The 
     changes they're proposing would block regulation of the 
     greenhouse-gas emissions that are endangering plant and 
     animal species by eliminating science as a consideration.
       Under the new rules, for example, the Bureau of Reclamation 
     could decide for itself whether a new dam posed a threat to 
     fish, and the Transportation Department alone could determine 
     whether a major highway threatened wildlife habitat. No 
     longer would those agencies have to consult with scientists 
     at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service who have expertise in this complex area of 
     biology.
       Bush has never let science get in the way of cronyism. On 
     the critical issues of global warming, in particular, Bush's 
     cohorts have soft-pedaled, ignored or simply edited out 
     scientists' conclusions.
       When the polar bear became the first species threatened by 
     the effects of human-caused climate change, Interior 
     Secretary Dirk Kempthorne took the unprecedented step of 
     declaring the bear threatened, but also forbidding any 
     requirements to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the primary 
     cause of climate change, in order to protect the animal.
       Besides eliminating all basic scientific recommendations, 
     the rule change would extend the polar bear ruling to all 
     species, barring federal agencies from even considering how 
     CO2 emissions and their contribution to global 
     warming impact species and habitat.
       These execrable rule changes threaten the ESA, but they 
     don't have to make it extinct. If the changes are approved by 
     the agencies before Bush leaves office, a new president and 
     Congress should act immediately to reverse them.
                                  ____


                 [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer]

                 Endangered Species: A 9-second Rewrite

       It's a time of maximum danger for the environment. The 
     clock is winding down on the Bush administration, leaving 
     little time to fulfill its long-cherished dreams of weakening 
     endangered species protections.
       Not known for worrying about manipulating the rules, facts 
     or common sense, the administration appears ready to go to 
     absurd lengths to rush through damaging changes. Consider how 
     the Department of the Interior is hurrying to cement into 
     federal policy the administration's highhanded disdain for 
     scientific advice, with a proposed rule that would exclude 
     greenhouse gases and the advice of federal biologists from 
     decisions about whether dams, power plants and other federal 
     projects could harm endangered species. According to an 
     Associated Press report, agency officials will review--so to 
     speak--the 200,000 comments on the policy at a pace of one 
     every nine seconds.
       Somewhat similarly, the National Marine Fisheries Service 
     is working on a rule to expedite all environmental reviews of 
     fisheries decisions. After scheduling only three public 
     hearings around the country, the agency then cut short a July 
     hearing in Seattle, the only West Coast opportunity to 
     comment. U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott last month requested an 
     extension of the comment period.
       The National Resources Defense Council questions whether 
     Interior's policy will even meet legal requirements. It's 
     particularly disappointing to see blatant politicization in 
     Interior, where we have admired Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and 
     thought of him as someone who could serve well in a McCain 
     administration.
       Kempthorne's aim apparently is to finish work early enough 
     so the devastation of environmental protections can't be 
     undone by the next administration without a years long formal 
     review. There is an alternative that doesn't require waiting 
     for a new administration. If Congress returns to work for an 
     economic fix, it also should put an immediate stop to this 
     nonsense.
                                  ____


                [From the Las Vegas Sun, Oct. 23, 2008]

                            A Complete Sham

       The Bush administration is making a mockery of a long-
     standing practice in the

[[Page S2812]]

     federal government--to set aside substantial time for 
     reviewing public comments about major rule changes.
       Since midsummer the Interior Department has been rushing to 
     implement a high priority of President Bush's regarding the 
     Endangered Species Act. The White House is seeking rule 
     changes that would significantly dilute the act's 
     effectiveness.
       The administration tried to get the rule changes through 
     Congress in 2005, but failed. Now it wants to make the 
     changes administratively, which it claims it has the power to 
     do once public comments have been received and reviewed.
       A 60-day comment period expired last week. Online responses 
     and letters numbered at least 200,000 (not counting 100,000 
     form letters).
       Normally, it would take months to review that many 
     comments. But the Associated Press reported that a team of 15 
     was ordered to have the reviews completed this week. They 
     were given 32 hours, from Tuesday through Friday.
       An analysis by the House Natural Resources Committee, led 
     by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., concluded that each member of 
     the team would have to review seven comments each minute. 
     Many of the comments are long and technical, including one 
     submitted by a University of California law professor that 
     numbers 70 pages.
       The rule changes would give federal agencies the power to 
     decide for themselves whether any project they were planning 
     to build, fund or authorize, including highways, dams and 
     mines, would harm endangered species. Since the Endangered 
     Species Act was passed in 1973, such projects have undergone 
     independent review by government scientists.
       The new rules would also prohibit federal agencies from 
     assessing whether emissions from a project would intensify 
     global warming, thus harming endangered species or their 
     habitats.
       Obviously, the administration is so hellbent on getting 
     these developer-friendly changes made that it is turning the 
     comment review process into a total sham. If the rules indeed 
     get changed, the next president should immediately work to 
     reverse them--this time after giving appropriate thought to 
     public comments.
                                  ____


               [From the Virginian-Pilot, Aug. 18, 2008]

             Shredder Is Overheating in Bush's Final Months

       Generally speaking, it is a very bad idea to enlist hungry 
     foxes to guard the chickens, since they rarely have the 
     birds' best interests at heart. In the waning days of this 
     White House, doing so is called ``streamlining,'' presumably 
     because it gets food into the foxes faster.
       The administration is hard at work in its last months 
     gutting decades of environmental and wildlife regulation. 
     That the moves defy both the legislative and judicial 
     branches of the government is just a bonus.
       According to the draft regulations, obtained by the 
     Associated Press, the White House intends to allow federal 
     agencies to skip an independent review designed to determine 
     whether a project threatens animals or wildlife. Instead, the 
     agencies would do the assessments themselves.
       The whole reason that agencies were required to submit to 
     such tests was because they weren't able to see beyond their 
     own narrow interests--in building a dam, in locating a 
     military base, in expanding a highway--to the larger public 
     interest in protecting species.
       The regulations, which don't require congressional 
     approval, would amount to the biggest changes in endangered 
     species law in decades.
       The new rules would also forbid the federal government from 
     considering the greenhouse gas emissions of a project in 
     determining the effects on threatened species. That's nothing 
     more than a backdoor attempt to circumvent the 
     administration's own conclusion that global warming is 
     killing polar bears.
       The Endangered Species Act isn't the only environmental 
     regulation the administration seems determined to leave in 
     tatters.
       According to Pilot writer Catherine Kozak, the National 
     Marine Fisheries Service has proposed replacing environmental 
     impact analyses and shortening public comment periods when 
     developing or changing rules for fisheries management. The 
     goal is to shut citizens out, or at least to mute their 
     voices.
       ``They're throwing out 40 years of case law,'' said Sera 
     Harold Drevenak, South Atlantic representative with the 
     Marine Fish Conservation Network. ``I don't see how it's 
     making anything any simpler. To start over from scratch is 
     ridiculous.''
       Or sublime, depending on your perspective.
       Nobody advocates unnecessary regulation that masks a 
     political agenda. But the administration seems bent on doing 
     away with environmental regulation simply because it doesn't 
     like the result, or the interpretation by regulators, 
     Congress or the courts.
       For eight years now, there have been plenty of hints that 
     the Bush administration had no qualms about entrusting foxes 
     with keys to the White House, as when the vice president 
     encouraged oil companies to craft the nation's energy policy, 
     or when politicians were encouraged to use the Justice 
     Department to settle scores.
       The effect of the White House push on the environment is 
     likely to be measured largely by the time opponents will 
     waste fighting them.
       The resulting uncertainty will also paralyze precisely the 
     projects the revisions were designed to speed, because 
     whoever is elected next to guard the nation's henhouse will 
     almost certainly change the rules yet again.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Congress has a right to override a 
regulation, and in fact Congress should use this authority more often. 
Exercising the right of legislative review of regulations is a key 
responsibility of Congress. Should Congress deem a regulation 
deficient, members should exercise their legislative authority to 
change or override that rule. The Omnibus appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2009 includes a provision in section 429 effectively doing 
that by giving the Secretary of the Interior the authority to withdraw 
or reissue two rules of the Bush administration related to the 
Endangered Species Act.
  One rule, relating to Interagency Cooperation under the Endangered 
Species Act, weakens the requirement that Federal agencies consult with 
either the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the agencies that have expertise in matters related to 
endangered and threatened species. Giving Federal agencies the 
permission to bypass the consultation with these expert agencies harms 
the purpose of the Endangered Species Act.
  The other rule includes a special provision that would prohibit the 
use of the Endangered Species Act from activities that occur outside of 
the current range of the species. I agree that it is better that 
greenhouse gas emissions should be controlled through a national 
economy-wide scheme rather than through the Endangered Species Act. 
However, the language isn't mandatory and I also understand that even 
if the Secretary of the Interior rescinds this rule, an interim final 
rule protecting the polar bear would still be in effect and would also 
include the reasonable limitations provided in section 4(d) of this 
rule.
  Finally, we are in a unique procedural situation where the passage of 
any amendment will push us to a year-long continuing resolution instead 
of appropriations. That outcome needs to be avoided.
  Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. I understood that under the order previously entered 
today, the Senate was to begin voting at 5:30 on amendments to the 
pending legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The question is on agreeing to the Murkowski amendment No. 599.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

[[Page S2813]]



                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Conrad
     Johanns
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Sessions
  The amendment (No. 599) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 613

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 613, offered by 
the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, since 1996, we have had a provision in law 
that was put in and passed with a very strong majority and signed into 
law by President Clinton. It is a provision that states the United 
Nations is attempting to have a global funding, so we would not have 
anything to do with what they do with this funding. If they consider 
this, it would allow them to do something contrary to the--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  The Senate is not in order. Senators please take their conversations 
out of the Senate.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it might be easier to read the two 
sentences in the law that were there before:

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under any title of this Act may be made available to make any 
     assessed contribution or voluntary payment of the United 
     States to the United Nations if the United Nations implements 
     or imposes any taxation on any United States persons.

  It has been there since 1996. It had broad support. Nobody knows why 
it was taken out, but in this law that language was taken out that has 
been there for 13 years. So I encourage us to support this amendment to 
put that language back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is an unnecessary amendment. The 
Senator from Oklahoma asked an obvious question: Why is this language 
not in there? Nobody wanted it. No Republican asked for it. No Democrat 
asked for it. The Bush administration didn't ask for it. We constantly 
remove outdated, unnecessary language from these bills to clean them 
up.
  The United Nations has no power to tax the United States or any 
person in the United States. It would be like saying we want to pass a 
law that says that if the U.N. were to launch several divisions of 
soldiers against us, we will cut off their funding. They can't do that 
any more than they can impose a tax against us. They are not a taxing 
organization.
  So we deleted provisions like this that serve no purpose, and which 
no senator requested. It has no practical effect. The Bush 
administration didn't want it. No Republican asked for it. No Democrat 
asked for it. Let's focus on the real problems such as Darfur, the 
Middle East, and Afghanistan where we are asking United Nations 
peacekeepers and aid workers to risk their lives to support our goals.
  I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think I have 30 seconds left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Conrad
     Johanns
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Sessions
  The amendment (No. 613) was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 635

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to a vote on the motion to waive the point of order 
relating to amendment No. 635, as modified, offered by Senator Thune.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, lest there be any confusion, I filed this 
amendment on Monday and made it pending on Tuesday, and I spoke to it 
then. It is simple. Last July, the Senate, in the debate on the PEPFAR 
bill, voice voted an amendment to that bill that created a $2 billion, 
5-year authorization for an emergency fund for Indian health and 
safety. All my amendment does is fund it, $400 million. It wasn't 
funded in the bill. I paid for it by taking a one-tenth of 1 percent 
across-the-board reduction in the entire bill to put the $400 million 
into this fund, which is necessary to fund this important program for 
Indian health and safety. That means the increase in the bill won't be 
8.3 percent, it will be 8.2 percent. Contrary to what was stated, it 
increases Indian health care by $23 million. It was stated that it 
would reduce the health care account by a little over a million 
dollars. Congress authorized it last summer.
  I hope my colleagues will vote to waive the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Thune amendment and ask 
this body to vote against it.
  Last year's Interior appropriations bill provided $5.6 billion for 
Native American programs. This year, the regular appropriations bill 
and the recently enacted Recovery Act will provide $6.9 billion for 
Indian health. That is an increase of 23 percent over the 2008 level. 
The Thune amendment would increase the funding an additional 6 percent, 
or $400 million, paid for by an across-the-board cut in every account 
in this omnibus bill. That would cause the Interior bill to exceed its 
allocation; consequently, a point of order would rest against the 
entire Interior bill and it would be dead.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S2814]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 26, nays 68, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Thune
     Wicker

                                NAYS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Conrad
     Johanns
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 26, the nays are 
68. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 634

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 10 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 634 offered by the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if my colleagues on the other side are 
willing, I am willing to cut this time in half.
  My amendment is actually very simple. If my colleagues would give me 
a moment to explain, all this amendment says is that none of the money 
that is spent in this bill can go to companies that are helping Iran; 
that is to say, they are doing business with Iran in the export or 
import business.
  In the campaign, the President noted that the kind of sanction we 
need to impose is on the companies, for example, that are providing 
refined gasoline to Iran. One of the first reports to the President by 
nonproliferation expert, David Albright, said:

       At a first step, the Obama administration should ask all of 
     Iran's gasoline suppliers to stop their sales to Iran, 
     followed by an initiative to seek agreement among supplier 
     nations not to provide Iran gasoline.

  The President has all of the authorities he needs to engage in this. 
The one thing that Congress can do that we have not done yet is with 
the power of the purse; that is, to make sure none of the money in the 
omnibus bill would go to any of the companies that are doing business 
with Iran.
  One quick example of why it is necessary: Senator Lieberman and I 
sent a letter to the Eximbank. Eximbank gets money. That money can go 
to companies. Once they got the letter, those companies stopped sending 
refined gas to Iran. I don't know if that is because of our letter. 
That is the kind of stuff we need to stop with this amendment.
  I hope my colleagues agree we do not need to send this money to 
companies that do business with Iran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my strenuous 
objection to the amendment that is being offered by the Senator from 
Arizona. The amendment has a purpose, no doubt, but it is particularly 
and solely political.
  Let there be no doubt, we have to stop companies from doing business 
with Iran. Iran's nuclear technology program grows stronger every day, 
and it represents a serious threat to our country, to Israel, and to 
mankind. It is known that Iran also funds terrorist organizations, such 
as Hamas and Hezbollah. That is why we have to deal with this threat 
seriously whenever we can do so.
  Over the last few years, I have offered three amendments to block 
American companies from helping Iran to develop its nuclear technology 
and promote terrorist actions. But when the chips were down, my 
Republican colleagues voted against three amendments.
  My amendment would have closed the loophole in our laws that allows 
American-owned companies to use sham offshore subsidiaries to do 
business with Iran. Three times I brought amendments for a vote on the 
Senate floor to shut down this loophole. But each and every time, the 
Republican Members of the Senate voted against commonsense legislation. 
They voted to keep Iran open for business. They voted to allow American 
companies to help the regime in Tehran, as the Senator said, to produce 
oil, to produce revenues they sent to Iraq to help those guys kill our 
troops.
  So I ask, why now are these Members so interested in stopping 
companies from doing business with Iran? We know why. Raw political 
showmanship. But we have to stop Iran's serious nuclear threat from 
continuing to try to wipe Israel off the map and to attack the United 
States and other democratic nations. Our national security is at stake, 
and we should have a serious debate on how to block Iran's nuclear 
program. That is why we have to object to Senator Kyl's amendment.
  There is another problem with his amendment. My legislation would 
have closed the ``business with terrorists'' loophole, and this 
amendment does not. I checked with the Congressional Research Service. 
CRS says this amendment will not have any effect on present sanctions. 
It will have little or no influence on the mad stream of threats and 
the ugly hatred that comes from Iran.
  If the Senator wants us to work together to get a decent approach to 
get at this problem, I would be happy to work with him on it in the 
days ahead. But this amendment before us does nothing to stop their mad 
dash to build a nuclear threat to humankind. I hope we can work 
together to come up with a strong piece of legislation to end this 
practice once and for all.
  The amendment simply is a gimmick to attack the omnibus bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a little over a minute.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield a minute to my friend from Connecticut, 
Senator Dodd.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly--and I say this because I 
happen to agree with, and I think most of our colleagues agree with, 
the intent of the Senator from Arizona--this has been a matter before 
the Banking Committee. In fact, in the last session of Congress, by a 
vote of 19 to 2, the Banking Committee--with Senator Shelby as ranking 
member--approved Comprehensive Iran sanctions legislation, that went 
far beyond the scope of the amendment proposed by the Senator from 
Arizona. But when the legislation was sent to the Senate floor, it was 
blocked by the Senate minority. I thank my colleagues on the committee 
who supported it.
  Right now, however, the administration is conducting a policy review 
on Iran at the very time we are gathering here to engage in this 
debate. I think before considering new legislation, it would be wise to 
have some hearings, after the administration completes its review and 
decide the appropriate course of action, in consultation with the 
appropriate federal agencies.

[[Page S2815]]

  Clearly, sanctions dealing with Iran's energy sector, as Senator Kyl 
pointed out, have great merit, as Congress has determined in years 
past. But I think there is a time and a place for deciding major 
changes in our sanctions policy--probably not this evening at 7 
o'clock, at the end of a long debate on this omnibus bill, when so much 
is at stake. Such changes should not be added to this underlying bill. 
Speaker Pelosi has made clear she would pursue a year-long Continuing 
Resolution if this bill is changed in any way the day before funds for 
the government expire. If that happens, the amendment would essentially 
kill or potentially delay critical funding, including an additional $5 
million slated for the Department of the Treasury's Terrorism and 
Financial Intelligence unit to enforce our sanctions against Iran.
  I say respectfully, while there is no disagreement that something 
must be done to stop Iran's efforts to promote terrorism and 
proliferate weapons of mass destruction, we must do so in close 
coordination with the new Administration, much as we worked with the 
Bush administration in fashioning our sanctions bill last year. Let the 
Obama Administration's Iran review be completed. Once we have an 
opportunity to examine it, we may then consider a new approach to our 
Iran policy. At that time, I look forward to working with my 
colleagues, on both sides of the aisle to address these critical 
matters. I therefore, urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the aim and intent of the Kyl 
amendment that prohibits any omnibus funding being spent on new 
contracts with companies that do business with Iran's energy sector. 
Iran's energy resources provide massive amounts of petro-dollars to 
this regime.
  In 2008 alone, Iran made over $65 billion in profits from exporting 
oil. Make no mistake where these dollars are spent--these profits 
directly contribute to Iran's ability to arm, train, and fund 
Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups that seek to do Israel, 
the United States, and our allies harm.
  Although I support the intent of the Kyl amendment, I oppose it today 
because it is legislating in an appropriations bill and it would 
further delay the delivery of $2.48 billion in urgently needed security 
assistance to Israel which is contained in the bill.
  Tough, targeted, and enforceable sanctions against Iran must be 
implemented. I look forward to working on a comprehensive Iran 
sanctions policy with the Obama administration this Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, actually, I am not proposing a new regime of 
sanctions or anything that needs to be studied. My amendment simply 
goes to this Omnibus appropriations bill and says what I think all of 
us intend, which is none of the money shall be spent or shall go to 
companies that are doing this kind of business with Iran, the kind of 
business that is already subject to sanctions. That is already the law.
  All we are saying is, nothing in this bill can get money to those 
companies. It is the kind of thing we had to do with the Eximbank 
because as they, in their letter back to us said, we do not allow 
political considerations to determine whether we make a loan to a 
country. That is why they were able to make the loan to Iran and why we 
could do nothing to stop that. Once we wrote the letter, however, and 
pointed out this was a violation of our sanctions, then mysteriously, 
the effort of the company ceased.
  All we want to make sure is that nothing in this bill, none of the 
money in this particular bill goes to those companies. So it is not a 
new sanctions regime or anything new that I think has to be studied.
  With all due respect, this is not for political showmanship. Had this 
bill gone through a little different process, we could have worked this 
out. But under the circumstances, that wasn't possible. As a result, I 
thought it was important to make sure none of the money in this bill is 
spent on these companies.

  Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator have time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. I would be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think there is time here, if there is more 
time needed for everybody on this amendment. If there is more time 
needed, why don't we extend the time for a little bit.
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts for a 
question.
  Mr. KERRY. I appreciate the Senator doing that.
  I wish to point out a couple things to the audience. First of all, we 
have had 3 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee on Iran. 
Today, GEN Brent Scowcroft and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski made it clear 
this is the not an advisable way to approach the current situation in 
Iran; that we need to think carefully about the overall record of the 
type of sanctions we develop or that will be interpreted, as a result, 
as taking an effort unilaterally by the Senate outside the 
administration's review process and outside its foreign policy.
  Moreover, the Foreign Assets Control Office, which is responsible now 
for rooting out Iran's program, actually loses money under this 
amendment and would, therefore, not be able to do the job it is doing 
today with respect to it.
  Thirdly, there is no definition here of what a business presence is. 
The fact is, the administration right now is working with a bunch of 
moderate Arab countries, as well as some of our allies in Europe, in 
order to put together a sanctions regime that has bite, if we need it. 
This, in fact, could prevent some of those countries from feeling good 
about joining in that effort or ultimately joining in it.
  I would ask my colleague if he would be willing to come together with 
us. There isn't anybody in this body who doesn't understand the 
seriousness of what Iran is doing. We had classified briefings on it 
yesterday. But we owe the administration the opportunity to decide what 
it believes is the proper regime for sanctions, and so I ask my 
colleague if he would consider that it might be better, rather than 
even having a vote, to give us the opportunity to do that, and we will 
work together and see if we can't come up with a sensible, unified 
bipartisan approach to Iran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Given the fact that I think my remaining 2 minutes have 
expired, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute of time to 
respond to my colleague's question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I were proposing some new sanctions 
regime, that would be an entirely appropriate request, and of course I 
would accede to it. I am not asking for any new sanctions or any new 
law. All this amendment does is to say that the money in this 
appropriations bill doesn't go to a country that is doing these kinds 
of exports or imports to Iran. That is all. We have the power of the 
purse, and surely we can restrict our own expenditure of money to 
countries that are cooperating with us in dealing with Iran, rather 
than dealing with Iran.
  I urge my colleagues to support this. It is a very limited amendment. 
It is not a new policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Republican leader and I be 
allowed to offer a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of the pending amendments, no further amendments be in 
order this evening; that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture occur 
at 8:15 p.m. tonight, and that the time until then be equally divided 
and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that if cloture 
is invoked, then all postcloture time be

[[Page S2816]]

considered yielded back, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate 
then proceed to vote on passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Conrad
     Johanns
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Sessions
  The amendment (No. 634) was rejected.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 638, withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 638, offered by 
the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment would strike section 626 
from the bill. This is a section that gives the Federal Trade 
Commission authority to expedite rulemaking over mortgage loans that 
are now overseen by not only the FTC but Federal banking and credit 
union regulators. This grant of increased authority to the FTC is not 
appropriate because we already have Federal regulators over both the 
banking and credit union industries. I think everyone agrees we do not 
want to see this extended regulatory authority changed. I have been 
working with our Banking Committee chairman, Senator Dodd, and with 
Senator Dorgan and Senator Inouye, to see if we can address this.
  It is my understanding we have an agreement and Senator Dodd will 
discuss that agreement and enter into a colloquy for the Record that 
will establish that we do not want to change the regulatory authority 
and the jurisdictional structures we now have for our Federal 
regulators over our depository institutions, and that we will, in a 
very expedited manner in the next available option for a legislative 
vehicle, make statutory changes to correct that. In the meantime we 
will make it clear the intent of this legislation is not to have the 
FTC engage in rulemaking that would seek to assert jurisdiction over 
any of the institutions over which it does not now have authority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I seek time of my own time. My colleague is 
exactly right and I thank him immensely for his involvement. We thank 
Senator Inouye as well as others who were part of this exchange, a 
colloquy which we will submit for the Record, which explains exactly 
what the Senator from Idaho has described. He has it exactly right. 
This is an expanded removal of jurisdiction from one area to another. 
There are a lot of very serious questions raised by it.
  Our intent is at the earliest possible time we will have legislation 
to correct what is in this bill and change that. I thank him for his 
cooperation on this. I thank Senator Inouye and the staff and other 
people who could have objected to this. Senator Dorgan and others have 
had some strong views on this and I am very grateful to him as well, 
understanding our concerns on this matter. We will have a chance to 
come back to it. I again thank my colleague who helped us craft this 
colloquy which allowed us to move beyond this particular point. There 
may be others who want to object to what we want to do, but we feel 
strongly about the language of the amendment that Senator Crapo has 
crafted here and we will hopefully get to that quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Idaho and 
my colleague from Connecticut. The Federal Trade Commission does not 
have jurisdiction over FDIC-insured banks. There was no intention in 
any legislation drafted here to give them that jurisdiction and I think 
this colloquy clarifies that. If there is any lack of clarity going 
forward, I certainly want to work with my colleagues from Idaho and 
Connecticut to make certain there is no confusion at all about what 
this applies to. This does not apply to FDIC-insured banks.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I seek clarification from the Senator from 
North Dakota and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee about the 
intent and effect of section 626 of Division D of the bill. Will the 
Senators confirm that section 626 was designed to enhance the FTC's 
ability to impose new standards only on those mortgage industry 
participants that are currently subject to the FTC's rulemaking 
jurisdiction?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, that is correct. Section 626 is not intended to 
alter the allocation of responsibility for the Federal oversight of 
lenders under current law. The FTC is currently authorized, under the 
Federal Trade Commission Act, to issue regulations defining unfair and 
deceptive acts and practices by mortgage industry participants that are 
regulated at the Federal level by the FTC, such as nonbank mortgage 
brokers. Section 626 directs the FTC to initiate such a rulemaking 
within 90 days, using procedures widely used by all agencies under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, instead of more protracted procedures 
specified for FTC unfair and deceptive practices rulemaking under 
section 18 of the FTC Act. Section 626 is not intended to apply to 
institutions including banks, thrifts and credit unions that are 
outside the FTC's jurisdiction.
  Mr. INOUYE. I concur with Senator Dorgan.
  Mr. DODD. With respect to the provisions granting the states 
authority to take enforcement action, is it your intent the states 
limit their enforcement actions under the new mortgage standards 
promulgated by the FTC, or under TILA, only to those mortgage industry 
participants that are not currently supervised by the federal banking 
agencies or are not Federal credit unions?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, the Senator from Connecticut is correct. Our 
intention was to permit state attorneys general to bring civil actions 
only against mortgage industry participants that are not supervised by 
the Federal banking agencies or are not Federal credit unions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes, I concur with Senator Dodd and Senator Dorgan.
  Mr. DODD. I ask the Senators to work with me to add an amendment to 
the next appropriate legislative vehicle that clarifies the scope of 
this provision to reflect the gentlemen's intent and that provides 
appropriate participation by state attorneys general in enforcement of 
federal mortgage standards.
  Mr. DORGAN. I agree, and commit to work with the Senator from 
Connecticut to clarify this provision as expeditiously as possible on 
the next appropriate vehicle.

[[Page S2817]]

  Mr. INOUYE. I, too, will work with the Senator to clarify this 
provision.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that there is 
consensus that section 626 goes too far and that it is not the 
intention of the chairman of the Banking Committee and the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee to provide the Federal Trade Commission 
authority in its rulemaking over mortgage loans overseen by the Federal 
banking and credit union regulators. However, if the intention is 
merely to expedite the FTC rulemaking process over nonbanks then the 
language should be clear on that account. Unfortunately, that is not 
the case.
  It is important to remember that once this legislation is signed into 
law, the FTC is directed to initiate rulemaking within 90 days. Rather 
than agreeing to clarify this issue at a later point, it is my strong 
preference that the Senate would have deleted this section and agreed 
to working out compromise language at a later point. That is what my 
amendment would have accomplished by striking the section.
  Per the colloquy of Senators Dodd, Inouye, and Dorgan, I will follow 
up with the FTC that it is the clear intent of the Senate that the 
provision does not expand the FTC's regulatory jurisdiction and that 
the required FTC rulemaking will not attempt to include insured 
depository institutions. I will also note that there is a bi-partisan 
agreement that the Senate will shortly take up legislation to clarify 
the scope of the legislation to that effect. Additionally, in light of 
the focus by the Federal Reserve Board on mortgage lending, the FTC 
should be required to consult with the Federal Reserve Board in 
developing their rule. I would encourage my colleagues to send similar 
letters to the FTC.
  If the initial FTC proposed rule attempts to go beyond this scope, it 
is my understanding that there is agreement that the Senate would 
immediately take up legislation and stop that from occurring. It would 
be a terrible mistake to add another patchwork of conflicting 
authorities and interpretations of Federal laws for insured depository 
institutions as it relates to home loans and other types of consumer 
finance transactions. This type of regulatory uncertainty and 
complexity will only further complicate the resurrection of our 
mortgage market, harming consumers who are having a difficult enough 
time obtaining appropriate mortgage loans.
  I intend to closely monitor how the FTC proceeds and work with my 
colleagues to craft a narrow legislative clarification. If we cannot 
shortly come to agreement on this front, then I will push for a vote to 
eliminate this authority in the next appropriate vehicle before the 
Senate.
  With that clarification and explanation, the FTC rulemaking that will 
be able to proceed under this legislation will not seek to extend to 
the FDIC depository institutions and credit union regulated 
institutions, then I--and our agreement that we would on an expeditious 
basis statutorily seek to correct that and make that clear in the 
Congressional Record, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.


                     Restoring Nominal Drug Prices

  Ms. STABENOW. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman 
of the Committee on Finance, Senator Max Baucus. Senator Baucus, I am 
very pleased to see that the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations 
bill corrects an unintended consequence of a provision in the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005, DRA. Section 6001(d) of the DRA, which is Public 
Law 109-171, caused family planning clinics that do not receive Federal 
funding and university-based clinics to sustain increases in the price 
of oral contraceptives as much as tenfold over the past 2 years. This 
is because drug manufacturers stopped offering discounts to these 
clinics in response to changes to the Medicaid drug rebate program made 
by the DRA. While discounts remained perfectly legal, drug companies 
were concerned about the impact of their Medicaid rebate liability for 
the continued offering of discounts to certain family planning and 
college- or university-based clinics. The price increases have put a 
terrible strain on our country's first line of defense against 
unintended pregnancies. We have the highest unintended pregnancy rate 
of any advanced industrial country.
  With enactment of this critical legislation, these clinics will once 
again have access to nominally priced drugs, should private sector 
manufacturers choose to provide these discounts. This access should 
begin immediately upon enactment, and manufacturers should feel 
confident that they can extend discounts to family planning clinics 
such as Planned Parenthood and college and university clinics without 
it affecting the rebates they must provide under Federal law to State 
Medicaid programs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I share the Senator's views on this 
matter. It has taken too long to correct what all parties agree was an 
unintended outcome of the DRA. I had asked the previous administration 
to use the discretion provided in the DRA to designate additional 
health providers as entities to whom the sale of nominally priced drugs 
is appropriate. The Bush administration chose not to make these 
designations when it promulgated final regulations on July 17, 2007, 
and so Congress is acting now to correct this error. The Senate 
included this provision in last year's Iraq supplemental appropriations 
bill, but the administration objected to its inclusion so it did not 
become law.
  It is my understanding that, once this provision is enacted into law, 
drug manufacturers will immediately be able to restore the nominal drug 
prices they provided to these types of clinics--family planning clinics 
and college and university health centers--for decades.
  This provision simply restores the original policy in place since the 
enactment of the Medicaid rebate program in the Omnibus Reconciliation 
Act of 1990. Then, as now, no administrative action is necessary for 
manufacturers to commence offering deep discounts to the entities 
described in this provision.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator. I hope that the manufacturers will 
do this and that women will have access to affordable birth control and 
other critical health services.


                         Transportation Funding

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I wish today to engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague, the Senator from Washington and the chairman of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairman is aware, 
language was included in the explanatory statement accompanying the 
bill before us to help address an issue that has plagued the Milwaukee 
area for several years.
  Due to a longstanding dispute between city and county officials, 
unobligated transportation dollars have lost value with each passing 
year. In an effort to spend down those funds on much needed transit 
projects, the report resolves this dispute by dividing the funding. I 
have spoken with Congressman Obey, the chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee, to confirm the intent of the language 
included in the explanatory statement. I would ask the Senator from 
Washington, is it your understanding that it is the expectation of both 
the House and Senate committees that 60 percent of the funding in 
question should be made available to the city of Milwaukee for a 
downtown fixed-rail corridor while 40 percent of the funding should be 
made available to the county of Milwaukee for energy efficient buses?
  Mrs. MURRAY. To the Senator from Wisconsin I would say, yes, that is 
our expectation.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee for her help and for engaging in this colloquy.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies, I rise to clarify an error that we have found in the 
explanatory materials accompanying H.R. 1105, the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act. Included within the Transportation-Housing Division 
of the bill is an appropriation of $570,000 within the TCSP program for 
transportation improvement in the Antelope Valley in Lincoln, NE. The 
attribution table that accompanies the explanatory statement to the 
bill inadvertently omits the name of the Senate sponsor of that 
appropriation. Mr. President, the Senate sponsor of the project is my 
colleague, Senator Ben Nelson.

[[Page S2818]]

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus 
appropriations bill would provide $5 million for design and real estate 
activities and pump supply elements for the Yazoo Basin, Yazoo 
Backwater Pumping Plant and for activities associated with the Theodore 
Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge. I want to clarify that nothing in 
the language is intended to: (1) override or otherwise affect the final 
determination that was effective August 31, 2008, and published in the 
Federal Register on September 19, 2008, of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act that 
prohibits the use of wetlands and other waters of the United States in 
Issaquena County, MS, as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged 
or fill material for the construction of the proposed Yazoo Backwater 
Area Pumps Project, (2) create or imply any exception with respect to 
the project to the requirements of the Clean Water Act, including any 
exceptions from the prohibitions and regulatory requirements of the 
Clean Water Act under section 404(r); or (3) affect the application of 
any other environmental laws with respect to the project.
  As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the Clean Water 
Act and authorizations for the civil works program of the Corps of 
Engineers, I believe it is critical that our environmental laws be 
adhered to in the planning, construction, and operation and maintenance 
of all Corps of Engineers' projects.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish briefly to discuss an amendment that 
I filed related to the royalty collection of coal and other leasable 
minerals. I want to be clear that I am in favor of having coal 
companies and other mining companies pay the royalties they are 
required to pay. I believe that they should pay them on time and I 
believe that they should face the consequences if they do not pay them 
on time.
  The provision in the omnibus bill is arbitrary. It attempts to apply 
the penalty sections of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act 
to coal leases. The provision comes out of nowhere and, to my 
knowledge, has not been studied by the Senate Energy Committee nor the 
House Natural Resources Committee. This is a policy change, not a 
funding matter, and therefore, it should be considered in the normal 
legislative process--not slipped into an omnibus appropriations bill.
  I have put forth this amendment to take a more considerate approach. 
My amendment would strike this provision and replace it with a study by 
the Minerals Management Service, MMS, the Government's royalty 
collection agency. The MMS would examine the current royalty system and 
provide a report back to Congress within 180 days that includes any 
recommendations with ways that royalty collection process can be 
improved. Doing so would then give the Senate the appropriate amount of 
background to consider making these changes and would ensure that we do 
not make a change that has unintended consequences.
  Again, I want to reiterate that I fully support companies making 
royalty payments on time and if they don't, I support them being 
punished. I do not, however, support the process by which the majority 
has stuck this legislative provision in an appropriations bill. Rather 
than shooting from the hip, the Senate should give it proper 
consideration.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as chairwoman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, I rise 
today to clarify for the Senate the sponsorship of three 
congressionally designated projects, recipient name of one 
congressionally directed project, and locations of three 
congressionally designated projects included in the Joint Explanatory 
Statement to accompany H.R. 1105, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus 
Appropriations Act. Specifically:
  Senator Bill Nelson should be listed as having requested funding for 
the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, RAINN, Washington, DC, for 
national anti-sexual assault programs funded through the Department of 
Justice;
  Senator Ben Nelson should not be listed as having requested funding 
for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, RAINN, Washington, DC, 
for national anti-sexual assault programs funded through the Department 
of Justice;
  Senators Ben Nelson and Crapo should not be listed as having 
requested funding for the National Police Athletic League, Jupiter, FL, 
for National Police Athletic League Programs funded through the 
Department of Justice;
  ``Union Springs YMCA'' should be listed as ``Union Springs Recreation 
Program'', Union Springs, AL, for youth mentoring and juvenile justice 
programs funded through the Department of Justice;
  Location of the Citizenship Trust at American Village should be 
listed as Montevallo, AL, for youth mentoring and juvenile justice 
programs funded through the Department of Justice;
  Location of the Scottsboro Police Department should be listed as 
Florence, AL, for the Scottsboro Police Department funded through the 
Department of Justice; and
  Location of the Alabama 4-H Foundation should be listed as 
Columbiana, AL, for juvenile justice prevention programs funded through 
the Department of Justice.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a longtime advocate of greater 
transparency in our government, I am pleased that the Omnibus 
appropriations bill includes several key provisions to strengthen the 
Freedom of Information Act--FOIA--and to protect Americans' privacy and 
civil liberties.
  The Omnibus appropriations bill provides $1 million in funding to 
establish the new Office of Government Information Services--OGIS--in 
the National Archives and Records Administration. When Congress enacted 
the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act of 2007, which made the first 
major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade, a key component of that 
bill was the creation of the OGIS to mediate FOIA disputes, review 
agency compliance with FOIA, and house a newly created FOIA ombudsman. 
Establishing this new FOIA office within the National Archives is 
essential to reversing the troubling trend of lax FOIA compliance and 
excessive government secrecy during the past 8 years. The OGIS will 
also play a critical role in meeting the goals of President Obama's new 
directive on FOIA. I thank Senators Cornyn, Inouye and Cochran for 
their support of funding for this critical new office. I also thank the 
many FOIA and open government groups, including OpenTheGovernment.org, 
the Sunshine in Government Initiative and the National Security 
Archive, who have advocated tirelessly for a fully operational OGIS.
  The bill also includes much-needed funding to reconstitute the 
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. When Congress enacted the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in 2004, it 
implemented a 9/11 Commission recommendation to establish an 
independent board to help protect Americans' privacy and civil 
liberties. Since then, I have worked hard to make sure that the Privacy 
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has the resources and personnel to 
fulfill this important mission.
  During the last Congress, I worked with Senators Lieberman and Durbin 
to further strengthen this Board in the 9/11 reform bill. 
Unfortunately, the last administration left the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board with no members or staff. The Board is too 
important for us to let it fall by the wayside. The funding in the 
omnibus bill will help to reconstitute the Board so it can get back to 
work. Now that this initial funding is in place, I hope the President 
will promptly name qualified nominees so that the Board can carry out 
its important work.
  Both of these provisions will help to make our government more open 
and accountable to the American people. That is something that 
Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike can--and should--
celebrate. Again, I commend the bill's lead sponsors and the President 
for their demonstrated commitment to open and transparent government.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment that would help 
millions of small businesses that receive valuable technical assistance 
and support through the Small Business

[[Page S2819]]

Administration's, SBA's, technical assistance and business development 
programs. The challenges facing America's small businesses are real. In 
today's economic climate, small businesses are fighting for survival. A 
December 2008 CNN survey found that 49 percent of small business owners 
expressed serious concerns about going out of business.
  To that end, I humbly request my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support the measure I am offering to provide essential 
resources to the Small Business Administration's crucial technical 
assistance and business development programs. This effort will help 
ensure that small businesses--our Nation's true job generators--will 
not be shortchanged at a time when the economy is struggling to grow 
and create jobs.
  My amendment would direct that a small fraction, $16.8 million of the 
existing funding provided in the omnibus appropriations bill for the 
SBA, be used to increase funding levels for vital SBA programs, 
including Veterans Business Outreach Centers, VBOCs, Small Business 
Development Centers, SBDCs, Women Business Centers, WBCs, SCORE, the 
Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program, and the 
Agency's international trade programs. These programs are some of the 
most successful job creators within the Federal Government, but they 
were woefully underfunded under the previous administration. Now is the 
time to reverse that trend, by ensuring that SBA devotes sufficient 
resources to support small business technical assistance and business 
development.
  The SBA's programs are proven job creators--just look at the 
statistics! In 2006, clients of the SBDC program generated a total of 
approximately $7.2 billion in sales and 73,377 new full time jobs as a 
result of the assistance received. The average cost of generating each 
job was a paltry $2,658. Moreover, based on SBDC client assessments, an 
additional $8.8 billion in sales and 93,449 jobs were saved due to SBDC 
counseling in that same year. My amendment would direct that $6.5 
million in SBA funding be used to fund SBDC veterans and energy grants, 
in addition to the $110 million for core funding provided in the bill 
to support SBDCs nationwide.
  Furthermore, the SCORE program has proven time and again to be one of 
the most cost-effective programs within the Federal Government. In 
fiscal year 2008 SCORE received $4.95 million from the Federal 
Government and provided 357,637 clients with free technical assistance. 
Entrepreneurs assisted by SCORE created 25,000 new jobs in 2006, and 
one in seven new clients created a job. SCORE also provides American 
taxpayers with a great buy, as it is operated by volunteers--all of 
which are retired business experts. In fact, in fiscal year 2008 these 
volunteers donated 1.3 million hours valued at $195 million when using 
a standard hourly consulting fee of $150. My amendment would direct 
that an additional $2 million be directed to the SCORE program for a 
total of $7 million.
  Additionally, my amendment would direct an additional $1.1 million to 
SBA's Veterans Business Outreach Centers, a modest increase to account 
for additional responsibilities taken on from the Vets Corps Centers, 
which no longer receive Federal funding. An additional $3.35 million 
would be directed to the WBC program, one of SBA's most diverse, far-
reaching entrepreneurial development efforts. In 2007, WBCs trained and 
counseled 148,123 clients who reported 8,751 new jobs and 3,304 new 
businesses.
  My amendment also would direct additional funds to two programs, 
which I consider to be important business development programs, the 
SBA's International Trade programs and the HUBZone Program. With 
exports being one of the few bright spots in our economy last year, 
exporting by small firms has considerable room for growth. The 
amendment would direct that $8 million in SBA funds be used for these 
export assistance programs, an increase of $2 million over the current 
omnibus level. For the HUBZone program, which provides contracting 
preferences to small firms in economically disadvantaged areas, the 
amendment provides an additional $1.85 million for urban and rural 
development under this program.
  To reiterate, under my amendment, the increased funding for these 
programs comes from amounts already provided in the omnibus 
appropriations bill for the SBA. No additional funding is required; it 
simply directs the SBA to allocate adequate resources to these 
programs. For more than 50 years, the SBA has been a vital resource to 
small businesses, helping millions of Americans start, grow, and expand 
their businesses. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment to provide the SBA's technical assistance and business 
development programs with the resources to expand their proven success 
and economic value during this economic crisis.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against this Omnibus 
appropriations bill, which contains thousands and thousands of 
unjustified, unexamined earmarked spending provisions, and which is 
being rushed through the Senate. By one estimate, the total cost of 
those items is nearly $8 billion. Even under ordinary circumstances it 
would be hard to defend those earmarks but there is certainly no 
defense for them at a time when the Nation is contending with this deep 
recession and millions of families are struggling to make ends meet.
  The hundreds of pages of tables in the report accompanying the bill, 
each listing multiple earmarks, is probably the best rationale I have 
seen for earmark reform. I have been pleased to work with a number of 
my colleagues on a proposal to establish a new point of order against 
unauthorized earmarks, and on another proposal to provide the President 
with authority similar to a line item veto to cancel earmark spending. 
We certainly need to enact something like those reforms because we 
cannot afford to continue this abusive process. After all the talk of 
reform last year, and after the promising beginning made by keeping the 
stimulus legislation free of earmarks, we have quickly slid back to 
business as usual. We are considering a bill that has nearly $8 billion 
in earmarks. And that is just one bill. We haven't even begun the 
appropriations process for fiscal year 2010.
  The President deserves great credit for keeping the stimulus bill 
free of earmarks. He should build on that achievement by insisting this 
omnibus appropriations bill be stripped of the earmarks currently in 
it. If that means vetoing the bill and sending it back to Congress for 
further work, then that is exactly what he should do.
  I strongly prefer that Congress address this issue and clean up its 
own earmark mess. But right now there is little indication that 
Congress act without some tough leadership from the President.
  Mr. President, I was pleased to support amendments offered by the 
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, that sought to eliminate some of the 
earmarks in the bill. I did not, however, support other efforts to cut 
overall funding levels in the bill. While I believe that Congress needs 
to be extra vigilant in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are well-spent, 
those efforts failed to specify where the funding would be cut. We 
should be making those tough decisions ourselves, and ensuring that any 
cuts are targeted and appropriate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know everyone is anxiously awaiting the 
8:15 time to arrive. I have had a number of conversations with Senator 
McConnell, Senator Kyl, and Senators on my side of the aisle. It 
appears at this time that we are going to have to continue to work on 
this bill. I have had calls from a number of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, including conversations with my colleague from 
Nevada, and there are a number of amendments they feel strongly about, 
that they want the opportunity to offer. I wish that were not the case. 
We have had a significant number of amendments. But ``enough'' is in 
the eye of the beholder. As a result of that, we would probably be a 
vote short of being able to invoke cloture on this bill. My being a 
vote counter for a long time, discretion is the better part of valor.
  I have not only heard from my friend from Nevada but other Senators. 
They have certain amendments they want to offer, and others have no 
amendments to offer but they want to be part of the team on the other 
side of the aisle, and if some of their colleagues want certain things 
done, they are going to go along with that. I don't criticize that.

[[Page S2820]]

I am not happy about it, but that is the way things work.
  I have worked with Senators Kyl and McConnell, and by 11 o'clock 
tomorrow we will have a finite list of amendments, hopefully 10. There 
could be as many as 12. I doubt if we will need votes on all those. 
Senator Kyl, who is the mechanic working through this process, is going 
to try to squeeze that down as much as he can.
  With that brief statement, it would be wasted time to have a cloture 
vote tonight. We are not going to have a cloture vote tonight. We would 
just go back into a quorum and spend the rest of the night looking at 
each other.
  We have had pleasant conversations with each other. No one is trying 
to game the system. I wish we could finish this bill. The House is 
going to send us a CR that will take us to midnight Tuesday, as I 
understand it.
  If we get that finite list of amendments, the Senate certainly could 
be open tomorrow for people to offer amendments. We could have votes on 
some of these Monday night when we come back. I could schedule votes on 
Monday, but that would really make for an unhappy group of people. So I 
think we would be better off starting the votes at 5 or 5:30 Monday 
night if, in fact, people lay these amendments down.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for an observation.
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me underscore what the majority leader has 
indicated. The votes would not have been there tonight. We would be 
more than happy to have the vote, but since the majority leader and I 
concur that 60 votes are not there tonight, I think the way forward as 
he outlines is going to be widely acceptable on our side because we 
want amendments. There are additional amendments, probably, as he 
indicated, 10 or 12, which, as he indicates, I think would make sense 
to vote on on Monday.
  I want to say to my Republican colleagues, we appreciate their 
accommodation, their requests of others of our Members to have a 
reasonable number of amendments on a bill of this magnitude. This is a 
huge appropriations bill. At the end of the day, we will not have had 
an unusual number of amendments voted on on a bill of this magnitude.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say in response to my friend, at quarter 
to 8 tonight, we had 59\1/2\ votes. If we can have consent, I could 
round that off--I don't think I could get that.
  I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the cloture vote now pending.
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I could simply inquire of the majority 
leader through the Chair, I would be happy to offer consent if I had 
assurance that my amendment that I have been trying to call up, that I 
have been trying to get a vote on all week, which heretofore has been 
blocked, if I can have absolute assurance that will be on the list of 
amendments offered and voted on.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think he should direct that to his 
assistant leader, Senator Kyl.
  Is his amendment going to be on the list?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it seems to me if the Senator from Louisiana 
has indicated he will object to the unanimous consent unless his 
amendment--No. 621, I gather?
  Mr. VITTER. Yes.
  Mr. KYL. Is on the list, that is a question, then, for the leader to 
address.
  I wanted to indicate that we have a number of Members who have 
amendments they want to offer, and we are going to work hard to make 
sure all our Members who want to offer amendments can do so. At the 
same time, we are going to do our best to ensure that is not an 
unreasonable list of amendments. Obviously, Members who insist on 
having an amendment as a condition to the unanimous consent request can 
make that point clear.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think it is clear from my friend--the 
conversations, plural, that we have had--that the list we are talking 
about is a list of 10 or 12 amendments; is that right?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to the leader that I think that 
is correct. That is going to require a lot of effort on this side to 
reduce the number of amendments that are pending, as the leader is well 
aware.
  Mr. REID. You think you are going to have to work hard, think how 
hard I am going to have to work to defeat those amendments. I have more 
work than you have.
  Mr. KYL. In response to my friend, the leader, he has worked very 
hard, and he has been very successful. But I do, in all seriousness, 
want to note that in order to try to limit the number of amendments--
because there is a list of 36--it is going to require a lot of work on 
our side. We are going to, in good faith, do the best we can, but I 
just want to reiterate as far as I am concerned the Senator from 
Louisiana will have to be on the list because otherwise he will object 
to the vitiation of the cloture vote. As far as I am concerned, his 
amendment is on the list, but at some point the majority leader will 
have to agree to the list that we offer.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think it is fair that we have a finite 
list. We are now up to 35 amendments?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as I told the leader, we had a list of 36 
amendments filed. I told the majority leader that I thought we could 
get that list down to 10 or 12, and that is still my intention.
  Mr. REID. What I think would be fair, Mr. President--I know the 
Senator from Arizona is going to act in good faith to cut the number 
down to as small a number as he can, but we can still come back with 
another cloture vote if there is a lot of unnecessary amendments in 
that number, if you can't get people to work reasonably with you.
  So I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the cloture vote, and that a 
subsequent cloture vote occur----
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I didn't mean to cut off the majority leader, if he wants 
to finish. I just wanted to reiterate--having spent the week trying to 
get this one amendment up--that my top priority is my amendment will be 
recognized, and I get a vote on that. And having heard speeches on the 
floor that the floor was open to amendments, yet having been blocked 
consistently in my attempts to get this amendment up, I have not yet 
heard any guarantee that will happen.
  So given that, I regretfully will object to the unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. REID. We are familiar with his amendment. Basically, as I 
understand the amendment, Members would never get a COLA again. So we 
are willing to debate that. That basically is what it is; is that 
right?
  Mr. VITTER. That is not correct. If I could advise the Chair, the 
amendment would be to require votes for any future pay raises or COLAs. 
It would require Member votes to not have that be on autopilot and to 
happen automatically, particularly given the state of the economy and 
the income losses and the job losses that are being suffered around the 
country.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Louisiana, we will 
make sure that Senator McConnell has a vote in relation to the 
amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. With that assurance, Mr. President, I lift my objection.
  Mr. REID. I renew my unanimous consent request to vitiate the pending 
cloture vote; that we not have the vote tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Members, we apologize 
for having Senators from all sides leave. I hope those Senators who are 
working with Senator Kyl and want to offer these amendments will do so 
tomorrow or, if not, on Monday. We want to have some of these votes 
Monday night. We can have a series of votes Monday

[[Page S2821]]

night and work toward completing this stuff.
  So I think that is about all I have to say, except that I appreciate 
everyone's cooperation.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 615

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 
615.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mr. 
     Voinovich, Mr. Kyl, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. 
     Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 615.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To strike the restrictions on the District of Columbia 
                    Opportunity Scholarship Program)

       On page 308, line 2, strike beginning with ``: Provided'' 
     through line 8 and insert a period.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair clarifies that the cloture motion on H.R. 1105 has been 
withdrawn.

                          ____________________