[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 41 (Monday, March 9, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2874-S2903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

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

       Ensign amendment No. 615, to strike the restrictions on the 
     District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.
       Kyl amendment No. 631, to require the Secretary of State to 
     certify that funds made available for reconstruction efforts 
     in Gaza will not be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled 
     by Hamas.
       Kyl amendment No. 629, to provide that no funds may be used 
     to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States.
       Kyl amendment No. 630, to require a report on 
     countersmuggling efforts in Gaza.
       McCain amendment No. 593, to prohibit the use of certain 
     funds provided in the bill.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, everyone is well aware our country is 
going through some serious tribulation economically. The whole world, 
in fact, is dealing with serious economic troubles.
  There are signs of hope in many areas of our economy. I think it is 
important for us, particularly those of us in elected office, to 
recognize those good things, and that the strength of the American 
people will certainly pull us out of this hole, as they have many times 
in the past.
  Hopefully, what we do here in Washington will help and not hurt. I 
think everyone is aware a large part of our recession is the banking 
and credit problem. Certainly, if it did not cause it, it made it much 
worse, and continues to today.
  Unfortunately, the new administration and the Congress have not put 
forth any plan to fix our credit crisis, to make our banks work 
appropriately. While many of them are calling me to remind me they are 
loaning money, they are working, there is still a lot we need to do in 
the credit area that we have not fixed.
  Unfortunately, the trillion-dollar so-called stimulus plan we passed 
only a couple weeks ago--all borrowed money--did not address the 
credit/banking problem. It addressed issues that had nothing to do with 
the recession. The stimulus provided a lot of additional funds for 
education, health care, and infrastructure--a lot of good things. But 
those things did not cause our recession, and they are certainly not 
going to get us out of it.
  I think the failure to bring forth a plan that addresses the real 
causes of the recession has many people around the country wondering 
what we are thinking. The fact is, what we are thinking is about the 
next election and not the next generation. It has become clear we are 
not addressing the real causes of the problems but are doing things 
that are more politically beneficial than beneficial to our economy.
  As we deal with the difficult economic situation, it is almost hard 
to see the White House going in a lot of different directions, and some 
that are especially painful, particularly the issue of life. The new 
President campaigned on reducing the number of abortions, but in the 
first month or 6 weeks of his Presidency, he has changed the rule where 
now the American taxpayer is funding abortions all around the world. 
They put forth an Executive order to strike the conscience clause, 
which means we are

[[Page S2875]]

going to require physicians who are opposed to abortion to perform 
abortions. That makes no sense at all. When there are physicians who 
make a living performing abortions, why should we take a physician who 
considers it the taking of a life and force him to do it? Why do we 
need to do that in the middle of a recession and the economic problems 
we have?

  Today, the President reversed a prohibition on Federal funding of 
certain types of stem cells. It seems to be opening Pandora's box to 
begin the destruction of unborn human beings. His Cabinet nominee for 
Health and Human Services has been one of the most radical pro-abortion 
folks in the country, having encouraged and protected late-term 
abortion and partial-birth abortions. Many people who are not pro-life 
believe we certainly should not be performing late-term abortions in 
this country. Yet the President seems to be going in a rather radical 
direction, in the middle of this economic storm we have. We have to 
wonder: What are they thinking?
  Today we come to this, what we are calling an omnibus spending bill. 
Only 2 weeks after we passed this huge spending bill we called a 
stimulus--$1 trillion or more if you add interest and 2 weeks later we 
are talking about a bill that is over $400 billion. The Federal 
agencies cannot even spend the money as fast as we are throwing it at 
them, but now we are here today with this other bill under the pretense 
that we have to have this money to make the country operate. Americans 
need to know we have been operating under this year's funding through 
what we call a continuing resolution, which means we are operating 
essentially at last year's budget. The country has been operating 
effectively. The reason we are passing this bill is not that we need it 
to fund the Government because the Government is funded under a 
continuing resolution which we could extend through the end of the 
year. We actually need to be about working on next year's budget and 
next year's appropriations. That is what we are supposed to be doing 
now. Instead, we are going back and creating this new spending bill, 
which I consider an ominous spending bill, not so much an omnibus.
  What I have in front of me right here is the reason there is such a 
rush to pass this additional spending bill. All Americans have heard of 
earmarks. These are the earmarks in this spending bill. This is the 
reason it has to be passed. Remember, last week they brought it up and 
said we had to pass it before Friday or the Government would shut down 
and it would just not be right to pass another continuing resolution. 
Well, come Thursday, they found out that because the American people 
had gotten agitated and outraged and had begun to call and e-mail their 
Senators, they didn't quite have the votes to pass this bill last week. 
But they will pass it because they have taken over 9,000 earmarks--
special projects--and sprinkled them all around among Republicans and 
Democrats in the House and in the Senate. It is hard to vote against a 
bill that has a special project in it.
  Some Americans have begun to hear a little bit about these earmarks. 
I will take the one that is sitting right here on the top of this 
stack. Keep in mind we have over 9,000 earmarks for most of the 
Congressmen and Senators. Now, a lot of Senators will come today and 
talk about how it is wasteful and we should cut the earmarks, but they 
will vote for it because a lot of them have already done the press 
releases on the money they are taking back home.
  I will read a couple on the front page. There is an amount column, a 
project column, a purpose, and a location. Then they have the names of 
the Congressmen and Senators, but they have struck those. I am not 
exactly sure why. The first amount is $200,000 to Providence Holy Cross 
Foundation and it is for tattoo removal to a violence prevention 
outreach program in Mission Hills, CA. Now, I am sure that is a worthy 
cause, but in the middle of a recession, when we are borrowing 
trillions of dollars to try to keep this country going and the 
President is saying we have to make every dollar count and he is going 
to strike every item of waste, what is the Federal Government doing 
funding the removal of tattoos?
  The second item is $75,000. That is not too bad, although it is more 
than most families make in a whole year. It is for the city of Albany. 
It is for Totally Teen Zone. This is Albany, GA. This is where they go 
and play with Xboxes and things such as that. I am sure that is a fine 
thing, but you have to wonder, in these times when we are out of money 
as a country, do we need to be involved as a Federal Government with 
this kind of thing?
  The next item is $400,000 for the University of Montana. It is for 
teacher training, curriculum development, and awareness initiatives to 
combat bullying as well as the development of emergency protocol for 
school shootings--something I am sure is very necessary to combat 
bullying in schools; it is certainly something every school has to deal 
with. But how can we as a Federal Government send $400,000 to one 
university and expect to solve problems all over the country?
  Well, the next one is $50,000 to Los Angeles for after-dark gang 
prevention. Again, these are all good things, but there is probably no 
Senator who has read all of these, but they know the ones that are in 
it for them because that is why they are going to be voting for the 
bill. The tacit agreement always is, we are going to get the votes to 
pass this bill so these 9,000 earmarks--these 9,000 press releases--
will go out all over the country.
  Our only hope of stopping this is if the American people continue to 
show their outrage and to continue to connect the dots of what we are 
doing because we are not doing this to fund the Government. This isn't 
about last year's business. It violates every pledge many people here 
have run on and certainly the President. If you recall, the President 
has said he was against earmarks. When I introduced a 1-year moratorium 
on earmarks, he flew back, along with all the candidates for 
President--or at least the top three at that time--to vote to have a 1-
year moratorium on earmarks because more and more we are seeing the 
damage this is doing to our country. You can pass almost any bill with 
any bad policy with almost any level of spending as long as you fill it 
with earmarks for people back home.
  They are thinking about the next election, not the next generation. 
They are not thinking about the families who are hurting because they 
are losing their jobs right now because this is much more likely to 
cause additional job losses over the next 5 to 10 years than it is to 
help create them. So this is the seed. This greases the skids to pass 
almost any type of bill. If my colleagues remember, when the first Wall 
Street bailout came through the House, it failed. So when the Senate 
took it up, what did they add to it to help it get passed? More 
earmarks.
  Now, we have had several amendments to strike some of these earmarks, 
and there have been some heroes on the issue. John McCain has certainly 
been on the floor talking about the problems with earmarks he has seen 
over the many years he has been in the Senate, and he has one other 
amendment that will be on the floor that will basically take all these 
earmarks--they aren't in the legislation; they are in what they call 
report language off to the side, so it is not seen in the bill that is 
on the desk right here. But there is a reference in here to this, and 
that supposedly makes it all legal. The Constitution says we have to 
appropriate money based on law, which means it has to be in the bill, 
but we do everything we can to get around that Constitution and law by 
attaching some rider in here that says all these should be considered 
as law.
  Folks, this is no way to run a Federal government. This is just one 
bill; it has nothing to do with the trillions of dollars on Wall Street 
and the banking bailout we have been talking about or the $1 trillion 
stimulus 2 weeks ago. It is over $400 billion, with over 9,000 earmarks 
they wanted to rush through last week, but because of people back home, 
some were shamed into saying they couldn't vote for it unless we had a 
longer process with more amendments.
  Now, this is show. There is already a strategy to kill every 
amendment that comes up, so we are not trying to pass an amendment to 
strip earmarks. You will see Senator McCain's good amendment, a 
commonsense amendment that, in the middle of our financial crisis, 
let's us take these and set them aside and pass the bill that funds our

[[Page S2876]]

Government. It is a good amendment, but the decision has already been 
made on the other side to kill that amendment unless the American 
people can shame a few more into voting against it.

  John Ensign has an amendment that will strike some language in the 
bill that seeks to discontinue school choice in Washington, DC. It is a 
small program--only 1,700 kids are involved with it--but there is a 
waiting list of parents who would like another choice. In this funding 
bill, this must-have funding bill, they sneak in a little policy such 
as that to kill a little bit of freedom in our country that we need to 
be expanding to every State, not killing it in Washington, DC.
  David Vitter has an amendment that will force Congress to vote on pay 
raises for Congressmen and Senators every year instead of what we do 
right now. Currently, there is an automatic provision in appropriations 
bills that goes through and gives us a cost-of-living pay raise. This 
should be done in the light of day. Right now, we can say we didn't 
vote on a pay raise, and we didn't because it was set up years ago to 
be automatic. So at a time when many Americans don't have work and some 
are taking pay cuts to keep their job, Senator Vitter's idea to be more 
transparent in what we do in Washington makes a lot of sense.
  The President has promised change. Our growing concern is that the 
biggest change so far in Washington has been in him. We want to support 
him as much as we can. He did say he would stop this practice of 
earmarking, but he is looking the other way on this bill. He is saying 
he supports it. He could veto this bill and send it back to Congress 
and tell us to get rid of these earmarks. He could keep his promise and 
he could force us to change. But right now, this stack of earmarks is 
so addictive that the Congressmen and Senators who have these projects 
that they are so proud of back home are not going to vote against the 
bill. You could double this bill to $800 billion, and I am pretty sure 
it would pass anyway, as long as it had these earmarks in it.
  Folks, as Senator Coburn from Oklahoma says, earmarks are the gateway 
drug to this runaway spending we have in Washington. We are spending 
our children and grandchildren into such a hole it is going to be 
almost impossible for them to get out. We are almost guaranteeing them 
a lower quality of life than we have had, as we borrow more and more 
money from other countries, as we print more and more money, and as we 
spend more money as a government than we ever thought possible.
  This is the time when we need to stop this runaway spending. An 
amendment will be on the floor to strike these earmarks and to continue 
to fund the Government through the rest of the year. The other side 
doesn't want any amendments passed because that would mean we would 
have to go back and work with the House on a final bill. They want it 
to go through amendment free. It is up to us to make sure the American 
people know what is in this bill before we vote on it. That is the 
whole point of extending the debate. My hope is we will have 2 or 3 
days to make the American people more aware of what is in it and, even 
more importantly, what is in this stack of earmarks, which is the 
reason this bill is being rushed through the Senate.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to oppose two 
amendments, the Ensign amendment and the Barrasso amendment. However, 
before doing so, because my distinguished colleague from South Carolina 
spoke about the horrible earmarks, I wish to present my point of view.
  I come from the largest State in the Union.
  We are about 38 million people. In population, we are bigger than 21 
States and the District of Columbia put together. We have 10.1 percent 
unemployment. We have 1.86 million people unemployed. That is more 
people unemployed in California today than are people in 14 States in 
the United States. We have increasing wildfires. We have decreasing 
water. We are the largest agricultural State in the Union--a $40 
billion agricultural industry. For the great Central Valley south of 
the delta, the water allocation for this year is zero. We are a State 
that is in great need of infrastructure repair. The great North Delta, 
which provides the drinking water for 16 million people in my State, is 
subject to collapse. Levees collapse. We have major problems with 
collapsing sewers, bridge repair--Doyle Drive going onto the great 
Golden Gate Bridge is in high susceptibility to coming down in an 
earthquake. I could go on and on.
  I have been, for 14 out of the 16 years I have been here, on the 
Appropriations Committee. Yes, I fight for funds for my State. That is 
what I came here to do. I want my earmarks, which are congressionally 
added spending, to be transparent and be out there for the world to 
see. If I make a mistake, I will change the mistake. But I want to help 
my State; otherwise, why do I come here? I cannot guarantee that the 
President of the United States, with all he has on his desk, is going 
to take care of California's needs. That is what I am here for; that is 
what I became an appropriator to do. And to handcuff what is a coequal 
branch of Government--remember, we have three branches of Government 
and they are coequal under the Constitution. To say that I am going to 
represent this great State, the seventh or eighth largest economic 
engine on Earth, and not help its infrastructure, not help provide for 
the needs of its people as somebody who sits as an appropriator--
something I don't want to do. Candidly, why be an appropriator if you 
can't help your State? If you have to depend on a President who may 
want to ignore your State--that has happened in the past, and it can 
happen in the future.
  So I think all of this dialog is misplaced. If I can't fight for my 
State, if I can't help my State, if I can't see that there is money for 
sewers and money for water reconstruction and where education needs are 
vital--and a State that had a $42 billion deficit and was almost ready 
to collapse because it could not come to agreement on the terms should 
be made worse off because I can't do anything to help my State or 
Senator Boxer can't do anything to help our State?
  So I look at this as a way to reduce spending, no question about 
that, but also to create a more powerful precedent where the Congress 
is less able to add vital projects. Supposing a President has a bias 
against a given project. There is nothing, then, that an individual 
Senator or House Member or the House Members as a whole or the Senate 
as a whole can do about it. We make ourselves impotent as a coequal 
branch of Government if there is no ability, where necessary, to add to 
the budget.
  Now, it has been said that earmarks have greatly declined--and they 
have--and it has been said by some that they will be limited to 1 
percent of the budget for the next year. I have no problem with that. I 
think that ought to be announced now. I am prepared to do that in the 
Interior budget. But we have to know what the rules are when we do the 
appropriations bills. What happens is, we do the appropriations bills, 
and then they come out here and run into this kind of opposition. I say 
set the rule ahead of time, decide earmarks are to be a certain part of 
the budget. They have been ratcheted down over the years. Continue to 
ratchet them down and set a percent, so every one of us who is chairman 
of an appropriations subcommittee knows exactly what we have to work 
with.
  Quickly, let me speak to two amendments--one that has been presented 
on the floor and one that hasn't but will be. The one that has been 
presented on the floor is the Ensign amendment, No. 615, on DC 
vouchers. I wish to speak on that and the Barrasso amendment, No. 637, 
on oil and gas drilling permits.
  Here is another situation we are in. If the Senate approves either of 
these amendments, or any of the other 10 to 12 amendments now pending, 
this omnibus bill dies. The bill has been passed by the House. The 
House said they will take no amendments. The bill is over here, and we 
have a number of amendments being presented, many of which some of us 
would like to vote for, but we cannot. The Ensign amendment is one of 
those amendments for me.
  If the omnibus bill dies, you then fund the Federal Government for 
another year. It has already been funded

[[Page S2877]]

for 6 months out of a continuing resolution. This year is already 43 
percent gone. This means no agency has been able to start a new 
program, and funding levels have been frozen at fiscal year 2008 levels 
since October 1, 2008. As a matter of fact, we have paid for 1.2 
million Federal executive branch employees. It is increased 3.9 percent 
in January of this year. The money for that is in this omnibus bill. If 
the bill doesn't pass, I suppose it has to be added to a CR, and other 
things would have to be added to a CR as well. But I believe we should 
pass this bill.
  Let me speak for a moment about the Ensign amendment. I have 
supported the pilot program that provides vouchers on a pilot basis in 
Washington, DC, since its inception 5 years ago. I believe I was the 
deciding vote. This was added to an appropriations bill. I thought long 
and hard about it and decided to support it. I am prepared to continue 
to support this if the comprehensive evaluation, due this spring, shows 
that the program has value and students are improving.
  I believe in my heart of hearts that public education must 
fundamentally change. It must move away from the large, institutional-
type school into the smaller, more personal setting where teachers can 
spend more time with students and their families, particularly in a 
student's younger, habit-forming years. I don't believe youngsters from 
lower income families should be denied the opportunity to learn in 
these smaller, more personal settings.
  We have huge schools in California. Some have thousands of students 
and hundreds more than should be in any one school. The Washington, DC, 
scholarship program is a 5-year pilot program to determine whether low-
income students do, in fact, learn more and learn better in the area's 
private and parochial schools. Forty-nine schools, private and 
parochial, are included; 1,700 students are participating. They come 
from families under the average income of $23,000. They receive a 
Federal stipend of $7,500 a year to make their education in the private 
or parochial school possible, and the appropriation is $14 million a 
year.
  I believe we need different models for children to learn. Think of 
it--this country is so diverse, so many different people, so many 
different languages, so many different cultures. Yet there is one 
institutional type--public school. That is the model that is followed. 
I don't understand why there can't be different models. I believe there 
should be.
  So far, preliminary evaluation by the U.S. Department of Education 
Institute of Educational Sciences has shown some academic gains in 
reading and math. When these students entered the program, they were 
performing in the bottom third in reading and math tests in DC's public 
schools. Last year's evaluation, as I understand it, showed that the 
reading test scores of three subgroups of students, representing 88 
percent of students receiving a scholarship, were higher by the 
equivalent of 2 to 4 months of additional schooling. These academic 
gains, again, are despite the many challenges these children face 
outside the classroom, coming from families where the average income is 
$23,000.
  I believe the results of the more comprehensive evaluation are 
critical, and we expect to have those results this spring. I look 
forward to learning more in the months ahead on how students are 
performing overall in the program and the impact it has had.
  In closing, I believe the debate over the DC Voucher Program is an 
important one. It is a valid one, and we should discuss it and debate 
it on this floor. But this bill is not the place to do it. If I were to 
vote yes and others were to vote yes, it would kill this bill, and we 
all know that. Simply stated, the House will not accept it. So I 
believe the debate is for another time. I regretfully will have to vote 
no on this amendment.
  As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, I also 
want to oppose the Barrasso amendment. The 2009 Interior appropriations 
bill, as written, carries a provision that allows the Bureau of Land 
Management to recoup the cost of processing over 9,000 oil and gas 
drilling permits that were filed this year. Now, appropriations bills 
are replete with user fees, so this is nothing new. In fact, the 
language we are carrying in the omnibus bill is the same as what was in 
the 2008 bill and mirrors the proposal put forward by the Bush 
administration for the past 2 years. This language simply says to the 
oil and gas companies: If you are going to drill on public land, you 
need to cover the cost of processing your permit. For fiscal year 2009, 
the fee is $4,000 per permit. It is used to pay for the necessary 
environmental analysis that must be done before a permit can be issued.
  The $36 million raised through this fee is but a drop in the bucket 
compared to what these companies are getting. Listen to this: 23,293 
active leases produce 108 million barrels of oil, 3 trillion cubic feet 
of natural gas, and 2 million gallons of liquid natural gas. In 2008, 
that resulted in $34.9 billion in revenues to oil and gas companies. 
From that, they pay $4.2 billion in royalties, leaving the companies 
with $30.7 billion. Out of that substantial sum, what we are asking the 
companies to do is pay $36 million in permit costs for environmental 
analyses and the processing of the permits. That is less than one-
eighth of a percent or, to be precise, .12 percent to offset 
administrative costs.
  I want to ask you to consider this: From 2003 to 2007, the revenue of 
the oil and gas industry increased by 63 percent, from $1.1 trillion to 
nearly $1.9 trillion. At the same time, industry profits net income 
more than doubled, increasing from $72 billion to more than $150 
billion during this time period.

  This is not an industry that is in need of a special break. As a 
matter of fact, one of these companies is a corporation that has made 
the greatest net profit of any corporation in our Nation's history. 
These companies are well off. They can afford to pay the permit costs, 
and I believe they should.
  The amendment proposed by the Senator from Wyoming strikes the cost 
recovery of the permit process and leaves the Federal Government and 
ultimately the taxpayers responsible for paying all of the 
administrative costs. I think that is fundamentally wrong.
  Furthermore, the industry would cause the Interior bill to exceed the 
subcommittee's spending allocation. Right now, our bill complies with 
the allocation we have been given, but striking the cost recovery fee, 
the Barrasso amendment would put the Interior bill $36 million over its 
allocation. I understand a point of order will be made against the bill 
at a later time.
  That concludes my comments. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, while the Senator from California is 
here, I wish to acknowledge her role in helping to create the DC 
voucher program for low-income children. It was not an easy vote for 
her. I listened to her remarks as I have before about the importance of 
trying new ideas in American public education. The new Secretary of 
Education, Arne Duncan, who I think is one of the President's best--
maybe his best--appointments, believes the same thing.
  I look forward to working with the Senator to see what the study, 
which comes out this spring, says about the first few years of this 
program. We know parental satisfaction is high.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I know he is under a time agreement. I say to the 
Senator through the Chair, I really do look forward to working with 
Senator Alexander. This is very important. I so regret some of the 
pressures that are brought upon this program. I am so pleased he and I 
agree these children should have different models to choose from in the 
public educational arena.
  This Washington Scholarship Program, I think we both believe, can go 
a long way, and hopefully the findings will be positive. I look forward 
to working with the Senator from Tennessee as well. I thank him for his 
comments.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. We do agree on 
that. The one area with which I respectfully disagree is that this was 
not the bill to put on restrictions and conditions to make sure the 
program ends. That is the reason we have an amendment, because someone 
thought it was

[[Page S2878]]

important to say that the program needs to end unless it is approved by 
the DC City Council which, unlike the Mayor, opposes the program. That 
is why we have an amendment.
  Unfortunately, the circumstance we have is, unless we take very quick 
action in the Congress, the 1,700 children who are part of this program 
will not be a part of it after another year. The program will shut 
down. It is beginning to do that now, and it will not be accepting new 
applications.
  I also regret that the amendment is being offered, but that was 
necessary because of the restrictions and the conditions that were 
placed on the scholarship program in the omnibus. But that does not 
change my attitude about working with the Senator from California to 
look to the future.
  Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when 9 minutes is completed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so notify.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Alexander are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I happened to be on the Senate floor. I 
thank my friend from Tennessee for his statement in regard to the time 
and difficulty it takes to confirm nominees for higher office in a new 
administration.
  I will tell my friend what he may well know, which is, under the 
leadership of one of his predecessors, Fred Thompson, a former Senator 
from Tennessee, our committee attempted to grapple with this problem. I 
think we made some progress but obviously not enough.
  I will be glad to discuss the Senator's proposal with Senator Collins 
who is always ready to lead a gang in a good cause.
  I thank my friend from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 615

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
amendment which I have cosponsored to the legislation before us, the 
one with Senator Ensign and others. I believe it is amendment No. 615.
  This amendment would strike language currently in the omnibus bill 
before us that is crippling to the DC Opportunity Scholarship 
Program. The language we seek to strike terminates the OSP program 
unless a reauthorization bill is passed by Congress and the DC Council 
prior to the 2010-2011 school year. So the language I have offered with 
Senator Ensign would strike the language that terminates the District 
of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.

  Madam President, quoting from title IV of the underlying bill, it 
says:

       . . . use of any funds in this Act or any other Act for 
     opportunity scholarships after school year 2009-2010 shall 
     only be available upon enactment of reauthorization of that 
     program by Congress and the adoption of legislation by the 
     District of Columbia approving such reauthorization.

  In narrative language attached to the report, it says:

       Funding provided for the scholarship program shall be used 
     for currently-enrolled participants rather than new 
     applicants. The chancellor of the District of Columbia Public 
     Schools should promptly take steps to minimize potential 
     disruption and ensure smooth transition for any students 
     seeking enrollment in the public school system as a result of 
     any changes made to the private scholarship program affecting 
     periods after school year 2009-2010.

  That is a quote from the underlying measure which the amendment of 
Senator Ensign and I and others would strike.
  Madam President, the language, in my opinion, is unnecessary, in some 
sense it is gratuitous, as is the narrative language, which essentially 
says to approximately 1,700 low-income students in the District of 
Columbia who are benefitting from this program: Get ready for it to 
end. I think substantively this is terribly wrong, but I think 
procedurally it is wrong to include such a measure in an Omnibus 
appropriations bill that we are being asked to pass without amendment. 
I understand that request, but it is harder to respond to that request 
when we are asked not to amend something that is not necessary as part 
of the Omnibus appropriations bill. It is an unnecessary and, I would 
say, gratuitous attempt to undercut this DC Opportunity Scholarship 
Program before the evaluation of the benefits of the program for the 
students involved are in and in total contradiction of the enormous 
amount of money we appropriate every year without authorization for a 
host of different programs.
  That is the summary of why I support this amendment. I would come 
back to say that the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program was created as 
part of an agreement--a kind of grand bargain that occurs here 
occasionally. A lot of people were opposed to these so-called vouchers, 
but an agreement was made--a kind of tripartite agreement--which said 
we would give, at that point, as I recall, an equal or slightly greater 
amount of money to the public school budget for the District of 
Columbia, to the charter school budget for the District of Columbia, 
and to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allows low-income 
students in the District to basically get a scholarship to go to a 
private or religious--faith-based--school. I think in that agreement 
there was the essence of what this is all about: Education is not about 
protecting a particular system for the sake of the system, it is about 
how we best educate our children.
  I don't think anyone can say all our public schools are doing the job 
that is so fundamental to our society; that of educating every one of 
America's children so every one of them has an equal opportunity to 
rise as far as their talents and hard work will take them. Some of them 
are not getting a quality education in the public schools they are in. 
Of course, as a societal goal, we should try to make sure every public 
school in America is prepared to give every child that equal 
opportunity to a first-class, world-class education. But that is not 
the reality now. Suffering most of all are the poor children--often 
children of minorities, either African American or Hispanic.
  As one response to this dilemma, while we are working on so much 
else, there has been an attempt in some parts of the country--Ohio, I 
believe Wisconsin, and here, through congressional action the District 
of Columbia--to create a lifeline for some of the children whose 
parents want them to go to another school than the one they are going 
to. As studies have shown, most Members of Congress send our children 
not to public schools but to the private and faith-based schools 
because we can afford it. This program says to the parents of children 
of the District of Columbia--a limited number--you have the same right, 
if you think the public school your child is in is not now giving them 
the kind of high-quality education your child needs to realize his or 
her dreams.
  So far the evaluations of students who have benefitted or taken 
advantage of this program have been quite positive. Final evaluation is 
coming this spring. I guess one evaluation is that every year this 
program is oversubscribed. In other words, there are many more parents 
of children in the DC school system who aspire to a scholarship to go 
to a school their parents feel is better. So why put in this omnibus 
bill a demand or requirement that there needs to be an authorization 
for this program to continue and adoption by the District City Council? 
Why do that, when so many programs are appropriated without 
authorization?
  I read from a CBO report--Congressional Budget Office report--dated 
January 15, 2009, titled ``Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring 
Authorizations,'' and on page 2 of that report it says:

       In recent years, the total amount of unauthorized 
     appropriations reported by the Congressional Budget Office 
     has ranged between $160 billion and $170 billion.

  Unauthorized appropriations every year are between $160 billion and 
$170 billion. How much money do we appropriate for the DC Opportunity 
Scholarship Program? Fourteen million dollars. That is million with an 
M. So why are we singling out the $14 million dedicated to providing 
school choice to low-income students in the District of Columbia for 
such a demand, such a requirement? I don't think it is fair. I don't 
think it makes sense. I think it is an attempt to put into this bill a 
kind of obstacle that the sponsors of it don't think can be passed, and 
particularly to do it on a measure in which we are

[[Page S2879]]

asked to oppose all amendments is just plain impossible to accept.
  The average household income of the families in the scholarship 
program in Washington is less than $24,000. So how in good conscience 
can we tell parents in the District they are going to be denied the 
resources to do what they believe is best for their children, when so 
many of us make the very same decision regarding the education of our 
own children? The DC scholarship program comes from our Nation's 
fundamental commitment not just to opportunity but to equal 
opportunity, so each and every American child is able to develop their 
God-given talents to the fullest extent based on their own willingness 
to work hard. We can't let the realization of that promise be 
jeopardized by the language in this bill.
  There was discussion on the DC Voting Rights Act of this DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program. Those who were going to amend that 
bill withdrew it in a colloquy in which two things happened: First, as 
chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I 
committed to holding hearings this spring, hopefully after the final 
evaluation of this program comes out--an independent evaluation which 
will allow us to fairly evaluate it before we act in any way. Why our 
committee? It happens that Governmental Affairs' jurisdiction--
traditional historic jurisdiction--includes jurisdiction over the 
District of Columbia. I am open to proposals to improve the standards 
in administration of the program and will probably propose some of my 
own. But I believe the restrictive language in this bill, this Omnibus 
appropriations bill, is so damaging to the Opportunity Scholarship 
Program and to the lives of these 1,700 children that it should be 
removed.
  I was very encouraged that our new Education Secretary, Arnie Duncan, 
said as much himself, when he said it would be particularly unfair to 
stop this program appraisal and the funding of it by Congress for the 
1,700 students who are in it now.
  There was a second promise made, which was from Senator Reid, the 
majority leader, which I greatly appreciate; and that was that at some 
point this spring there would be floor time given to a debate on the 
merits of the Opportunity Scholarship Program in the District of 
Columbia. So why jump ahead of that with this restrictive language in 
this underlying bill?
  I would add this, finally. This is all about children, about the 
future of our children. It is not about protecting the status quo, it 
is not about teachers' rights, it is about giving kids a chance to make 
their way forward and ultimately improving our public schools so they 
are all as good as we want them to be.
  I was raised with a quote that may seem irrelevant to this, but I 
think it is relevant. It came from religious sources. It was that if 
you save one life, it is as if you saved the whole world. What did that 
mean? I was taught it meant if every individual--and I am looking at 
these great pages of ours, young men and women with all sorts of 
promise that just radiates from them--if you saved the life of one 
person, all the promise, the possibilities of what that young man or 
woman would do in life will be saved, and they, in effect, can change 
the world.
  When I heard that years ago, and I thought of saving a life, I 
thought of protecting somebody from danger or a doctor who saved the 
life of a patient. But I will tell you that a good education in our 
country today makes so much of a difference between whether a person 
will have a real life in this country, full of opportunity and 
satisfaction and self-sufficiency or whether the person will always 
feel slightly behind the ball and always feel slightly unable to do 
what one has to do in this society to make it.
  So this DC Opportunity Scholarship Program says we can save lives by 
giving kids a choice, giving parents a choice to send their children to 
the school they want to send them to because they think it will be 
better for the child than the public school the child happens to be in 
now.
  As I mentioned in the beginning, this was part of a tripartite 
agreement that gave money to public schools in the District, charter 
schools in the District, and the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. In 
this budget this year, those numbers are $20 million for the public 
schools here in the District, $20 million for the charter schools, and 
$14 million to opportunity scholarships. I say to my friends who seem 
to have this wonderful DC Opportunity Scholarship Program in the 
crosshairs, that if this is followed through on, the danger here is 
that other Members of the Senate and Congress will rise and eliminate 
the extra funding for the DC public schools and the charter 
schools. That would be a shame three times over. That is why I am so 
proud to stand with Senator Ensign and others to try to strip this 
language from this bill so my committee can go ahead and hold a hearing 
this spring and we can bring a bill out to the floor this spring and 
have a full debate based on the final evaluation that an independent 
group will do. It is in the process of doing that, finishing the report 
now.

  I understand there are colleagues, like my friend and colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, who just spoke before, who support the 
DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, and she has worked so hard to make 
this happen. I have the greatest admiration for her for doing that--and 
so much else she has done in her public life. She will not vote for 
this amendment of ours because she does not want to jeopardize the 
underlying Omnibus appropriations bill.
  I understand that, and I understand that is probably why the 
amendment Senator Ensign and I and others have sponsored will not make 
it. But it is an important cause for which we are fighting. I think it 
is important that the vote on the amendment occur and that it serve as 
a kind of preface to the full-scale debate we will have this spring on 
this critically important and innovative and I think effective program 
that is changing the lives--as I took the liberty to say, saving the 
lives, creating a future--for 1,700 children, and hopefully more in the 
years ahead, who live in the District of Columbia.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer and ask that I be 
recognized for 15 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Vitter be recognized to speak following me, after my 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, in the midst of this debate on the $410 
billion omnibus spending package, the Finance Committee heard from 
Treasury Secretary Geithner as part of the committee's annual review of 
the President's budget. This is a very ambitious budget, particularly, 
coming on the heels of this omnibus package. It seems as if we have one 
huge bill after another--TARP, omnibus, stimulus, and now budget.
  For the first time we are looking at a budget that tops $3.6 
trillion. At a time when many families are struggling, this budget asks 
them, to support Federal spending on new and very questionable programs 
and higher taxes to support those programs. We ought to be 
concentrating instead on the scope of the economic recovery package, 
not on these other programs--which I will go into in just a moment.
  I also want to help set the record straight with regard to the 
Federal deficit. If we are ever going to achieve any progress, and with 
some bipartisan support, then we ought to quit looking in the rear-view 
mirror and citing some statistics that do not add up. Facts are 
stubborn. Since the new administration took office, we have heard a 
persistent drumbeat from the majority about the legacy of debt that 
they say they have inherited from the previous administration. The 
President did inherit a significant debt, but to say it was solely a 
result of Republican policies and those of the previous administration 
is simply not telling the full story to the American people Or, as the 
late great Paul Harvey would say: ``Now the rest of the story.''
  I borrowed this chart from Senator Grassley, the ranking member and 
previous chairman of the Finance Committee. It shows the deficit as a 
percentage of GDP over the past 8 years. It begins with the economy 
that the previous administration inherited. The deficit levels for 
those earlier years of the decade reflect the downturn in the economy, 
the burst of the tech and the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on

[[Page S2880]]

the economy. However, the deficit levels came down when we had 
bipartisan support for tax relief--not tax cuts, tax relief--that was 
passed in 2001, 2003.
  Look at what happened. The deficit shrank noticeably between 2004 and 
2007, from $413 billion in 2004 to $163 billion in 2007. Nobody ever 
talks about that.
  If you really wanted to get somewhat partisan, you could point to the 
fact that we were not in power then in 2007. That is when the majority 
took over. But I am not into that. It doesn't make much difference. It 
seems to me we should quit looking in the rear-view mirror and look on 
down the road with what we do for economic recovery.
  In other words, under the policy of the previous administration, the 
deficit shrank by more than half during this period from 2004 to 2007. 
Those are the facts. It was not until 2 years ago, when Democrats came 
to power in Congress, that the deficits began to increase again. The 
spending spree over the past 2 years was led by the majority who wrote 
and pushed through a $700 billion financial bailout bill that has 
contributed significantly to the deficit the country now faces.
  This bill, I will be very fair about it--this bill was bipartisan. It 
had the support of both Democrats and Republicans in the Congress, and 
a Republican President. As a Member of the Senate at that time 
President Obama supported the bill. When we talk about the deficit that 
the country is facing, let's keep this in mind. Again, we cannot keep 
looking in the rear-view mirror with facts that are misleading if we 
wish to achieve bipartisan progress in addressing the deficit.
  The American people are very fearful, if not fed up, with the current 
rampant and unceasing spending that is going on in Washington--$700 
billion to bail out financial firms that are too big to fail--with more 
requests for assistance expected; a $250 billion placeholder is 
provided in the President's budget; a questionable stimulus bill that 
will cost $787 billion--more than $1 trillion, when you add in 
interest; and there is a $410 billion omnibus bill and a $3.6 billion 
budget proposal. They simply want to know, and I think every Senator 
here wants to know as well, where does it end? When will we have spent 
enough and how on Earth are we going to pay for it? Is it going to 
work? Those are the questions.
  At least a partial downpayment for this spending is included in the 
budget. The President has returned to the tried and true majority 
playbook to pay for more spending by simply raising taxes.
  I take issue with the statement that the tax increases in the 
President's budget will be borne primarily by those families who earn 
over $250,000--the ``not one dime'' argument. This budget raises taxes 
on small businesses, the Nation's job creators. It passes on the cost 
of a cap-and-trade--or as I see it a cap-and-tax--system, not only to 
businesses but to consumers in the form of higher prices for energy. To 
my way of thinking, nobody has explained to this Senator how that is 
going to work or if we have the technology to make it work. It may be 
desirable, but I have yet to see how it is going to work or the 
technology.
  The budget raises taxes on domestic energy producers. It raises taxes 
on investments. American consumers and families will pay higher taxes 
under this cap-and-trade proposal.
  The counter argument is that they are targeting what they have 
determined are the wealthy to pay for their spending priorities. I 
always said I wonder when it would be time for those in Congress who 
believe this is the way to do things to determine who is rich or who is 
not. That is called class warfare in my view, but that is another 
speech and another story.
  In other words, most Americans do not need to worry about these tax 
increases because it will not affect them, it will only affect their 
neighbor. I have yet to see a tax imposed on one set of taxpayers where 
the cost was not ultimately passed on to someone else. We are all in 
this economy together, and a tax increase on one neighbor is likely to 
be felt by the guy next-door.
  The President's budget includes several of what I call anthill 
issues. These were the issues I discussed with Secretary Geithner.
  The reason I call them anthill issues is you do not want to be giving 
a speech, or standing on an anthill--and I have had that experience, 
with a fellow Senator in Kansas, where she was standing on an anthill. 
I suggested she move. She said she was happy where she was. And I said: 
I don't think you will be in about 2 or 3 minutes. That was the case 
and she moved.
  I have read with interest over the past few days the comments from 
several of my Democrat colleagues who have expressed the same concerns 
I have about these so-called anthill issues, those that bite, and that 
is a good sign. One anthill issue proposal would increase revenue by 
reducing the amount of mortgage interest that homeowners who pay taxes 
in the top brackets can deduct. At a time when the Federal Government 
is taking unprecedented steps to shore up the housing market and make 
home ownership possible for qualified homeowners, it seems 
counterintuitive. That is a Senate word, ``counterintuitive.'' ``It 
seems like we shouldn't be doing this.'' Those are the real words. It 
seems counterintuitive, to say the least, to reduce an inherent 
incentive in the Tax Code to own a home.
  Does it make sense to tell these families who have lived in their 
home for 10 to 20 years that they can no longer deduct their mortgage 
interest? And what does reducing the mortgage interest deduction mean 
for the value of their home? We have already heard concerns that 
limiting the deduction would further depress home prices. What message 
does it send to families who may be looking to purchase a home right 
now, which I thought was the goal.
  I do not know how the administration can, on one hand, provide 
billions of dollars to aid housing, including a $75 billion plan that 
Secretary Geithner announced a few weeks ago, to help those who have 
bought homes they can no longer afford and aid homeowners who are 
underwater in their mortgages but, on the other hand, reduce the tax 
incentive for those earning over a certain amount and who own or are 
looking to buy.
  The second anthill proposal targets contributions to charitable 
organizations. I don't know who thought this up. In this economic 
climate, many charitable organizations are being asked to do more with 
less while donors tighten their belts, while at the same time more 
people are turning to charities for assistance. Yet this budget not 
only raises income taxes on those in the top two tax brackets, reducing 
their discretionary income from which they can make charitable 
contributions, it also reduces the value of the deduction for 
charitable contributions for these taxpayers. Clearly, these changes 
will not bring a halt to charitable giving. I know that. But won't it 
reduce contributions to charities when more Americans are relying more 
on charitable assistance? Won't the cost of a decline in charitable 
giving be borne by those most in need of assistance?
  Secretary Geithner, in testimony, says an estimated $4 billion loss 
is ``modest.'' I do not agree with that. I suggest that a $4 billion 
loss to charitable organizations around the country is not modest. Why 
would the administration create any disincentive that will reduce 
donations to charity?
  Finally, the third anthill issue targets certain small businesses for 
tax increases. This is a point I want to underscore. In Kansas, we have 
over 60,000 small businesses which make up 97 percent of the State 
employers.
  They are the leading job creators.
  The budget reinstates the 36 percent and 39.6 percent--might as well 
make it 40 and 41 when you count the deductions that will not be 
included--in income tax rates for individuals earning over $200,000 and 
for families earning over $250,000, reinstates the personal exemption 
phaseout, and limits the benefits of itemized deductions for these 
taxpayers.
  These increases will result in higher taxes on many small businesses. 
I know supporters of the wealth redistribution in the budget say it 
does not raise taxes on that many small business owners. But the 
National Federation of Independent Business data shows differently. The 
data shows that 50 percent of the small business owners who employ 20 
to 249 workers would fall into the top two brackets. And over half of 
the Nation's private sector workers are employed by small businesses 
with 20 to 500 employees.

[[Page S2881]]

  Small businesses in Kansas feel they are stressed to the limit and 
they worry that to pay the additional taxes proposed in this budget--
and this is the real world, this is the reality, this is the law of 
unintended effects that we always fall into--means they are going to 
have to lay off workers, reduce wages or benefits, or pass these costs 
on to their customers. None of those are good options.
  Let me say that tomorrow we are set to pass this $410 billion omnibus 
spending bill. I am going to oppose this bill. I do not like doing so, 
but I am going to oppose this bill. There are a lot of things wrong 
with this bill. And it is clear, it seems to me, that we must--we 
must--get a grip on Federal spending because in a few weeks we will 
take up the budget proposal for next year.
  If there is a silver lining in the President's $3.6 trillion budget, 
it is that the tax increases would not take effect until 2011, 
reflecting the administration's acknowledgment that raising taxes when 
the economy is in crisis is not a good idea.
  Thus, it appears that the administration expects that the economy 
will be recovering by 2011. I hope so. And that certainly would be good 
news. I hope the administration will use caution when determining if 
the economy is sufficiently recovered to withstand nearly $1 trillion 
in new taxes in 2011.
  I hope they will consider stepping off the anthills I have mentioned: 
limiting deductions for charitable giving, mortgage interest, and tax 
increases on small businesses. I hope they will not insist on pursuing 
their spending agenda at the expense of economic recovery. To forestall 
recovery in order to pursue their tax and spending agenda is simply not 
right.
  As the eminent columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington 
Post last week with regard to the President's proposed budget:

       The day of reckoning has arrived. President Obama has come 
     to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, 
     heavily nationalized health care; a cap and trade tax on 
     energy; and a major federalization of education with 
     universal access to college as the goal.

  Wow, that is an ambitious agenda. However, pursuing this through 
higher taxes and bigger Government is not a legacy I think the 
administration will want to pass on to future Presidents or to future 
generations.
  That is the rest of the story.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 621

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Grassley, is on his way to the floor to discuss the same issue I will 
be discussing, so in light of that, I ask unanimous consent that 
immediately following my remarks he be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from North 
Carolina, I object.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 20 minutes 
instead of my initial 15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. I stand to discuss my amendment to the omnibus spending 
bill, No. 621. My amendment would do something very simple and 
straightforward but important. It would change the present system which 
has been on the books since 1989 that puts annual pay raises for 
Members of Congress on autopilot, so there never has to be any 
inconvenient debate, any inconvenient votes whatsoever. They happen 
automatically. No votes. In fact, there is not even a line item in the 
appropriations bills about it.
  My amendment would change that, would end that law to require that 
any pay raise for Members of Congress, House or Senate, would have to 
be debated in open before the public and then be followed by a rollcall 
vote.
  I am honored to be joined by several Senators who support this idea 
and who have long tried to advance it. Senator Feingold has a stand-
alone bill, as do I. He has had it for several years. I certainly want 
to recognize his leadership and thank him for that. He is an original 
cosponsor of my amendment. Also Senators Grassley and Ensign are 
original cosponsors of my amendment and our stand-alone bill.
  This system of automatic, autopilot pay raises is offensive to the 
American people. Let me mention an experience I have had recently in 
Louisiana in the last several weeks. I have had well over a dozen 
townhall meetings, as I do on a regular basis all around the State. 
This past Friday I had two. The week before that during our recess week 
I had 12 all around the State.
  As I went to parishes all around the State, smaller communities, 
Hahnville and Lake Providence, and larger places such as Gonzales in 
the Greater Baton Rouge area, I was struck by a message that came 
across loudly and clearly. The message was not about any one narrow 
issue, the message was the tone of all of those meetings. Because 
without exception, meeting after meeting after meeting, folks expressed 
not just concern, not just anxiety, folks expressed real anger about 
what was going on in our country, to our country; what was going on 
here in the Halls of Congress in Washington, DC.
  If I had to summarize the tone I heard at these meetings, not 
directed at me because they knew my voting record, but directed at what 
is going on here in this city, the tone was, to quote that movie from 
several years ago, ``Network'': I am as mad as hell and I am not going 
to take it anymore.
  That was the tone over and over and over again. And why was that? 
Well, it is pretty simple. People see their 401(k)s cut in half, people 
see their life savings dwindling every day. People are facing, in some 
cases, real crisis in their lives: losing jobs, losing homes, with it 
losing crucial things such as health care.
  And yet up here in Congress, a majority in Congress rolls along with 
policy they view as enormously irresponsible, and in some cases, 
downright offensive. One thing they point to as downright offensive is 
this system of pay raises for Members of Congress being on autopilot, 
happening every year without the need for any inconvenient debate, 
without the need for any inconvenient vote, the system that has been in 
place under the law since 1989.
  My amendment would change that. It would simply say: We want to have 
a raise, we need to talk about it, we need to justify it out in public, 
in the open, have that open debate, and then have an actual vote on the 
floor of the Senate, on the floor of the House, and have a full, open, 
recorded rollcall vote.
  That is the way we should do it whenever we debate the issue and 
consider the issue. That sure as heck is the way we should do it in the 
midst of a horrible recession, what will only surely be the worst 
recession we have faced as Americans since World War II.
  In this omnibus spending bill, we do have a provision to forgo the 
one raise coming next year, and I applaud the leadership of the House 
and Senate for at least agreeing to that and inserting that in the 
underlying bill. That is the least we could do. We should have done 
that last December as well.
  We have been suffering this horrible economy for several months. We 
have seen the financial collapse in September. The economy continued to 
go down and down and down and yet still under this system, Congress had 
a significant $4,700 raise. So we should have done it then too. But at 
least this bill does it next time.

  But, quite simply, that is not good enough. What is truly fair to the 
American people is to do away with this system altogether, to get these 
issues out in the open for public debate whenever we want them to come 
up and demand a rollcall vote on the issue.
  That is what my amendment would do, purely and simply. My amendment 
is supported by Senators Feingold, Grassley, and Ensign. I urge 
Members, Democrats and Republicans, to support this commonsense 
reasonable amendment that the American people surely support 
overwhelmingly.
  In closing, let me say, in supporting this amendment, be aware of a 
lot of diversions and a lot of distractions and a lot of tricks that 
will no doubt be put before us. On Thursday night here on the floor, I 
finally secured a vote on the amendment. I had been trying to get a 
vote all last week. It was a significant amendment to the omnibus 
spending bill. It is even germane. Trying to get a vote never could 
happen.
  I have to tell you, it was pretty frustrating. I would tune in my TV 
in my office and hear over and over the leadership say: Come on down. 
We are open for business. We are open for amendments. We want to make 
amendments in order. And then when I would try to do that, the door was 
inevitably shut.

[[Page S2882]]

  Well, finally on Thursday night I secured a vote on this amendment 
for the very simple reason that the distinguished majority leader 
needed unanimous consent in order to call off the vote that was 
scheduled for that evening and therefore had to agree to give me a vote 
to get that unanimous consent. I am happy that happened.
  Then the next day a funny thing happened. Out of the blue, after 
denigrating it, quite frankly, in our exchange on the floor, the 
concept of my amendment the night before, the distinguished majority 
leader, backed by his leadership on the majority side, introduced a 
stand-alone bill that was almost exactly my amendment.
  Well, don't get me wrong. I am delighted to get any converts, folks 
who have long supported the concept, recent converts. But let's not be 
fooled by how the stand-alone bill might be used and abused, pointed to 
saying, we will get to that. We will have a debate. We have this stand-
alone bill. That is not the way to enact change in the law. We all know 
the way to enact this change into law, if we truly support it, is to 
support this amendment, to put it on a spending bill that must pass at 
the end of the day in some form, and to hold everyone's feet to the 
fire. If we truly want to pass it into law, I urge all of us to come 
together, particularly in this moment of enormous economic suffering 
across all of America, come together around this reasonable amendment 
and support amendment No. 621.
  With that, I yield for my distinguished colleague from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise in support of the Vitter 
amendment. Just so colleagues of mine don't think I am a latecomer to 
this battle on pay raises, I want to refer to a debate that went on in 
the House of Representatives, July 30, 1975, my first term in the 
House. There was a noncontroversial bill that came up, referred to on 
page 25824, -825 and -826 of the Congressional Record for that day, a 
little noncontroversial postal safety bill came up for postal 
employees. Attached to that bill were the provisions of the law that 
have been a little bit changed in 1989 but go back to this postal bill 
in 1975, when included in it was a provision that is referred to here 
as section (c)(2):

       Effective at the beginning of the first applicable pay 
     period commencing on or after the first day of the month in 
     which an adjustment takes effect under section 5305 . . .

  And I will not read the whole legislative language from the debate, 
but it essentially said that Members of Congress were going to get an 
automatic pay increase just as civil servants were already getting.
  The stage on that day was set so that everybody was going to be on 
the floor of the House of Representatives. The idea of the Republican 
leadership and the Democratic leadership--and the Democrats were 
controlling the House at that time, with only 140 or 141 Republicans, 
as I recall--the idea was to get everybody on the floor so when 
unanimous consent was asked to bring up this bill, there would be 
unanimous consent and there wouldn't be a vote because everybody, even 
34 years ago, didn't want to take a vote on raising pay; particularly, 
you didn't want to take a vote on the automatic increase in pay. So 
they had the stage all set. There are two words I want to refer you to 
after my name, ``Mr. Grassley.'' This is after unanimous consent was 
asked for. I said:

       I object.

  My point in objecting wasn't knowing whether I could kill that piece 
of legislation at that particular time. It was that I thought, as 
Senator Vitter thinks and as I think yet today, 34 years later, that if 
we are going to have a vote on a pay raise for a Member of Congress, we 
ought to have guts enough to stand up and cast a vote, yes or no.
  Eventually, the bill passed that very day by just a 1-vote margin, 
214 to 213. I remember after that vote there was a Mr. Hays, a 
Representative from Ohio, who was chairman of the Democratic 
Congressional Campaign Committee. It is still called the same thing 
today. He was chairman of it. He came up and he pointed to me and he 
said: We are going to get you. In other words, he was going to do 
everything he could as chairman of the Democratic Campaign Committee to 
defeat me in the next election. Well, he didn't defeat me in that next 
election, and I haven't been defeated since. That has nothing to do 
with it except I think I was reflecting what the attitude of the people 
at the grassroots of America was then, and I think Senator Vitter is 
expressing that same thing today. My colleagues at that time were not 
happy with me, and they probably aren't happy with what Senator Vitter 
is doing today. I thank him for going out in front.
  Then, in the 1980s, I sponsored legislation to reform the system 
where the President could recommend a congressional pay increase and 
have it go into effect without a vote of Congress because that system 
needed to be reformed further. I worked with several of my colleagues 
who felt letting pay raises take effect without a vote was wrong. The 
system did get reformed as part of the 1989 ethics reform bill but not 
in the way we had proposed at that particular time. That act just put 
congressional pay raises on autopilot. The congressional pay raise now 
takes effect every year unless Congress specifically rejects it.
  I have consistently voted for measures to deny all the congressional 
pay raises. However, in recent years Congress has not considered the 
annual spending bills on time or under regular order. This has denied 
us the typical opportunity to consider amendments as Senator Vitter is 
offering now.
  This massive omnibus bill we are now considering is a result of the 
failure to consider any of the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills 
separately and on time. As a result, Congress gets a 2.8-percent pay 
raise without a vote. At a time when many Americans are being forced to 
tighten their belts, this sends a very bad message. It makes Americans 
cynical about government. Congress seems totally out of touch, taking a 
pay raise when the people who pay our salaries are struggling to make 
ends meet. I completely understand the frustration because I hear it 
from my own constituents. That is why I support this amendment.
  I am not saying Congress should never consider increases to keep pace 
with inflation. We don't want only people who are independently wealthy 
to be able to afford to serve in Congress. What we are saying with this 
amendment is that if Congress decides it needs a pay raise, we had 
better be prepared to justify it to our constituents. When it can't be 
justified, like now, when Americans are facing a dismal economy and 
Congress just voted to double the deficit, then the least we can do is 
not boost our own salary.
  Article I, section 6, of the Constitution establishes that:

       Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation 
     for their Services, to be ascertained by Law.

  However, to prevent the conflict of interest inherent in Congress 
raising its own salary, the 27th amendment stipulates that:

       No law, varying the compensation for services of Senators 
     and Representative, shall take effect, until an election of 
     Representatives shall have intervened.

  This amendment was submitted to the States in 1789 as part of what 
became known as the Bill of Rights but was not fully ratified by the 
necessary three-fourths of the States until 1992. The clear intent of 
the wise and forward-thinking men of 1789 was that the sitting Congress 
not be able to raise its own salary before the people could have their 
say. Congress should be held accountable.
  The courts have ruled that the annual automatic congressional pay 
increase does not technically violate the 27th amendment, but it sure 
seems to violate the intentions of its authors. It is time to go back 
to the system originally envisioned by the Constitution without pay 
raises for Congress when the American people are not looking. In fact, 
I can't think of a better time to send that message to a public that is 
becoming increasingly cynical about the actions of the Congress.
  I urge adoption of the Vitter amendment to take us back to pre-July 
30, 1975, when Congress, by a 1-vote margin on an otherwise 
noncontroversial bill that was selected by the leadership of both the 
Republicans and Democrats at that time to let Congressmen get a pay 
raise without having a vote on it--that 1-vote margin was a controversy 
at that time, and I hope at this particular time we have a massive vote 
in support of this amendment.

[[Page S2883]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank my colleague from Iowa. I thank him for all of 
his leadership on this issue for several years. I also recognize again 
the leadership of our cosponsors of the amendment, Senator Feingold and 
Senator Ensign. Others will join us, but I ask all colleagues to 
support this amendment when we present it and vote on it tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, most Americans have a healthy 
understanding of the difference between a pay raise and a pay 
adjustment based on inflation.
  Most Americans will tell you that when they do receive a pay 
adjustment to their wages, they do not consider it a raise; they 
consider it being held harmless against the impact of inflation.
  The pay adjustment provided to Members of the House and Senate is 
based on a method established by the 1989 Ethics Reform Act that 
requires the annual adjustment be determined by a formula based on 
certain elements of the employment cost index, an index that measures 
inflation of wages.
  Basically the formula is tied to the pay adjustments given to Federal 
employees under the General Schedule.
  Further by law, and under no uncertain terms, Members cannot receive 
an adjustment greater than the increase provided in the base pay of our 
GS level Federal employees.
  Understanding that the substance of the matter before us is not about 
pay raises for Members but about pay adjustments tied to inflation. 
Everyone in this Chamber also is aware of the economic situation we are 
facing as a Nation.
  Because of this economic crisis, section 103 was included in the 
underlying bill, stating that Members of Congress will not receive a 
cost-of-living adjustment in fiscal year 2010.
  We have proactively addressed the issue of a Member pay adjustment 
and the current economic situation.
  To offer this amendment today is simply playing politics.
  This amendment is about trying to make it appear as if Members are 
against prohibiting a pay adjustment for themselves, when in fact they 
already have prohibited a pay adjustment for themselves.
  This amendment is about trying to change the underlying bill, knowing 
that the House has indicated they will not take this bill back up, in 
an effort to force the Government to operate under a continuing 
resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year.
  If the Senator from Louisiana is successful in having his amendment 
adopted and killing enactment of the underlying bill, the prohibition 
against the Member pay adjustment for fiscal year 2010 will not be 
enacted into law.
  Further our Federal agencies will have to decide between eliminating 
programs or firing employees as they absorb the 2009 cost increases at 
fiscal year 2008 funding levels.
  This amendment does not do anything that is not already addressed in 
the underlying bill, and its passage could in fact jeopardize the steps 
that have been taken.
  I encourage my colleagues not to take the political bait here, and 
vote against this amendment which appears to do one thing, but in fact 
creates exactly the opposite situation.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 668

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and amendment No. 668 be made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 668.

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

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to modify certain HIV/AIDS 
                           funding formulas)

       At the appropriate place in title II of division F, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     no funds shall be made available under this Act to modify the 
     HIV/AIDS funding formulas under title XXVI of the Public 
     Health Service Act.

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to discuss amendment 668. This 
amendment relates to the Ryan White Program. We reauthorized that 
program 3 years ago. We did it on a very bipartisan basis. I need to 
expose how one person has once again overruled a bipartisan, bicameral 
effort to create fair and equitable funding mechanisms for the program. 
I did this last year. It was funneling money specifically to one area 
that had less people. The idea behind the bill was to make sure we had 
money for the people with HIV/AIDS, and the money is supposed to follow 
the people. Why do I bring this up? I was involved in the original 
reauthorization. We will be doing that reauthorization later this year. 
I can tell Members that Wyoming is not affected one way or the other by 
my amendment. But 46 States are affected by this amendment; 46 States 
are affected adversely if this amendment does not pass.
  If anybody wonders which States those are, I am more than happy to 
tell them who the losers will be. And it will probably be a lot easier 
to say who the winners would be. I will get to that in a little bit.
  The Ryan White CARE Act provides funding to States across this 
country to provide HIV/AIDS treatment, care, and prevention to 
individuals in need. In 2006, the committee reauthorized the program 
and established new bipartisan, bicameral funding formulas that 
provided more equity in the program. It required funding determinations 
to be made based on the number of people with HIV and AIDS. This is a 
major distinction.
  Before 2006, funding was only based on AIDS cases. The Omnibus 
Appropriations Act includes a provision that will modify and 
dramatically change these bipartisan funding formulas. It allows larger 
cities to receive more Ryan White funding simply because they received 
more money in the past. The cities that had a high number of people 
with AIDS before 2006 will benefit, and those that have seen an 
increase in HIV and AIDS since 2006 will not be awarded the funding 
they need. Sadly, larger cities, most notably San Francisco, will 
receive more money than other cities for all the wrong reasons.
  Unfortunately, this is not new language. We have seen it in the 
appropriations bills in the past. We know exactly what the language 
does. It primarily benefits San Francisco--a city that continues to 
receive funding to care for people who are deceased. All the while, 
nearly every other city would have reduced funding so San Francisco can 
receive more riches.
  According to data put together by GAO--these are not my numbers; 
these are GAO's numbers, provided last Friday--so according to data put 
out by the Government Accountability Office, the language in the bill 
will ensure an additional $6.7 million will be awarded to San 
Francisco, while the other large cities will see a decrease in funding. 
I do not know why they did not ask to print $7 million more and put it 
in there instead of taking it from other people. That is kind of what 
we are doing these days.
  That additional funding is not based on the number of people they are 
treating or how many new cases they have. As a hold-harmless provision, 
it is related to what that city has received before. Let me expand on 
that. If your city's problem is increasing, under the omnibus, you will 
get less money. You will be penalized if your city's HIV/AIDS problem 
is increasing. Now, if your city's problem is decreasing, according to 
the omnibus, you will get more money. If we are giving cities with more 
people with HIV/AIDS less funding, and cities with less people with 
HIV/AIDS more funding, how fair is that?
  What is even more egregious is that after being exposed more than a 
year ago, someone has the audacity to include the language again. Of 
course, that may be because in conference they were able to get that 
pulled out and it happened anyway, even after a very substantial vote 
on this side of the building.
  Our bipartisan reauthorization was based on a pretty simple idea: The

[[Page S2884]]

money should follow the patients. We modernized funding formulas in 
order to fight this deadly disease on its new front lines. More people 
in rural areas and the South, more women, and more African Americans 
are being infected with HIV/AIDS every day, and we made sure these 
populations could get the treatment they needed. It was a bipartisan, 
bicameral agreement. We were very clear about the implications of those 
new formula changes. In fact, we provided GAO reports with estimates on 
how the new formulas would change funding levels for grantees that were 
nearly identical to how the funding would be distributed today--but 
because of the language in the appropriations bill, it has not. Yes, 
that is how we did this vote last year, which, again, I repeat, Wyoming 
had no gain or loss in. We are not even involved in this issue. I have 
been involved in this issue trying to take care of HIV/AIDS patients. 
My amendment was taken out so the language can continue, and it is very 
unfair. It is unfair to the people in rural areas and the South, where 
more women, more African Americans are being infected with HIV/AIDS 
every day. We made sure treatment could be gotten. It passed this body. 
It passed the House. We agreed to these formulas. We were clear about 
the implications of the new formula changes. As I have mentioned, the 
GAO reports are practically the same this time as they were a year ago.
  Those funding formulas included hold-harmless provisions to ensure 
that the formula funding would not decrease by more than 5 percent for 
anybody. Now, when we did that, I think we all thought that was going 
to be 5 percent for each of 3 years. As it turned out, it was a total 
of a 5-percent decrease over the 3 years for anybody. I would have 
preferred no hold-harmless provisions or ones that allowed for more 
dramatic fluctuations so the money could follow the HIV-infected 
person, but that was what we agreed on. That is the agreement we 
reached in this bipartisan, bicameral bill.
  We did not pull the wool over anyone's eyes. We provided clear 
information about the implications of those funding formulas. We found 
the third way. Now, with one simple pen stroke, someone is again 
undoing all those carefully crafted bipartisan, bicameral compromises 
by inserting another hold-harmless provision with little thought to how 
this change would affect others. Last year we had the list of people, 
and we have that again, of who gains and who loses, and it was an easy 
vote to win.
  This change does not allow money to follow the patient. It allows 
money to follow those who are in power. We want to change that with 
this amendment.
  I do not know about you, but I find this reprehensible. This is 
simply unfair to those cities and States that are struggling to come up 
with the moneys for basic HIV/AIDS treatments. What is worse, the 
majority--well, what is worse is that this bill continues to cheat 
others. Not just once, not twice, but this would be the third year that 
San Francisco will have benefited from this language.
  In 2007, I brought up this exact issue. A very strong majority of the 
Senate agreed with me. Unfortunately, it did not change. They are still 
willing to try to institute an unfair and unjust formula. I object to 
that provision and the implications of it.
  We changed the formula to have money follow the problem. In 2007, we 
passed my amendment to focus the funding on people living with HIV/
AIDS. Most of the people in this Chamber voted with me. Of the ones who 
are still here, it is a vast majority.
  Now, I understand that after passing it with those kinds of numbers, 
it was dropped in conference. I understand that will probably happen 
this year too. But I do think we need to send the message and hope for 
fairness. Without this amendment, there will be no fairness.
  You realize that--last year--only a couple of States have a city that 
is helped. Most of you will be contributing money from your cities to 
help those with declining problems. Where I come from that is called 
cheating. So if you wonder if your State gains or loses, check with me.
  The amendment I am offering is simple. It states that the language in 
the omnibus bill will not change the funding formulas we agreed to in a 
bipartisan, bicameral process in 2006. If you support an equitable 
system that distributes funding on the true basis of need, I believe 
you should support my amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from GAO to me 
dated March 6, 2009, and relevant material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Government Accountability Office,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2009.
     Subject: Ryan White CARE Act: Estimated Effect of Proposed 
         Stop-Loss Provision on Urban Areas
     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
         Pensions, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Tom A. Coburn,
     U.S. Senate.
       You asked us to estimate the effect on Ryan White 
     Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990 (CARE Act) 
     funding to urban areas if certain stop-loss provisions are 
     enacted. The CARE Act, administered by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services's (HHS) Health Resources and 
     Services Administration (HRSA), was enacted to address the 
     needs of jurisdictions, health care providers, and people 
     with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency 
     syndrome (HIV/AIDS).\1\ In December 2006, the Ryan White HIV/
     AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006 (Modernization Act 
     of 2006) reauthorized CARE Act programs for fiscal years 2007 
     through 2009.\2\ In February 2009, the House of 
     Representatives passed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations 
     Act, 2009, which contains a stop-loss provision covering CARE 
     Act funding for urban areas that receive funding under the 
     CARE Act.\3\ This bill has not been passed by the Senate.
       Under the CARE Act, funding for urban areas--Eligible 
     Metropolitan Areas (EMA) and Transitional Grant Areas (TGA) 
     \4\--is primarily provided through three categories of 
     grants:
       (1) formula grants that are awarded based on the case 
     counts of people with HIV/AIDS in an urban area; (2) 
     supplemental grants that are awarded on a competitive basis 
     based on an urban area's demonstration of need, including 
     criteria such as HIV/AIDS prevalence; and (3) Minority AIDS 
     Initiative (MAI) grants, which are supplemental grants 
     awarded on a competitive basis for urban areas to address 
     disparities in access, treatment, care, and health outcomes. 
     Changes in grantee characteristics and funding formulas can 
     cause increases or decreases in grantees' funding.
       H.R. 1105, which was passed by the House of Representatives 
     on February 25, 2009, contains a provision to ensure that 
     decreases in total 2008 Part A funding for fiscal year 2008 
     for each EMA and TGA would not exceed levels specified in the 
     bill.\5\ It would limit the total funding decrease for an EMA 
     for the 2008 fiscal year to no more than 6.3 percent of what 
     the EMA received for the 2006 fiscal year. Decreases for a 
     TGA for the 2008 fiscal year would be limited to 11.3 percent 
     of its total funding for fiscal year 2006.\6\ The funding 
     necessary to limit the decreases to urban areas would be 
     given as increases to supplemental grants for fiscal year 
     2009.
       To provide you with technical assistance, we developed an 
     estimate of fiscal year 2009 Part A CARE Act funding for EMAs 
     and TGAs with the stop-loss provision in H.R. 1105. We also 
     developed an estimate of such funding without that provision. 
     We used data from HHS, H.R. 1105, and an Explanatory 
     Statement submitted by the Chairman of the House Committee on 
     Appropriations to H.R. 1105 to estimate these amounts.\7\ In 
     order to conduct these analyses, we made a number of 
     assumptions. These assumptions are described in notes to the 
     accompanying tables. See enclosure I for estimates of Part A 
     CARE Act funding for EMAs with and without the stop-loss 
     provision. See enclosure II for estimates of Part A CARE Act 
     funding for TGAs with and without the stop-loss provision.
       The objective of this work was to provide pertinent and 
     timely information by showing the effect of the stop-loss 
     provision on EMAs and TGAs for fiscal year 2009 that Congress 
     can use in determining funding for CARE Act programs. We used 
     data from agency reference documents to conduct our analyses. 
     Because of time constraints, we did not conduct any 
     additional analysis of the proposed provision. We performed 
     our work in March 2009.
       We are sending copies of this letter to interested 
     congressional committees. The letter will be available at no 
     charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
 If you or your staff have any questions about this letter, 
     please contact me. Contact points for our Offices of 
     Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
     the last page of this letter.
                                                    Marcia Crosse,
                                            Director, Health Care.
       Enclosures.


                                endnotes

     \1\ Pub. L. No. 101-381, 104 Stat. 576 (codified as amended 
     at 42 U.S.C. 300ff through 300ff-121). Unless otherwise 
     indicated, references to the CARE Act refer to current law.
     \2\ Pub. L. No. 109-415, 120 Stat. 2767. The CARE Act 
     programs had previously been reauthorized by the Ryan White 
     CARE Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-146, 110 Stat. 
     1346) and the Ryan White CARE

[[Page S2885]]

     Act Amendments of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-345, 114 Stat. 1319).
     \3\ H.R. 1105, 111th Cong. (2009). For purposes of this 
     report, unless otherwise specified we use the term H.R. 1105 
     to refer to the bill as passed by the House of 
     Representatives.
     \4\ In this report, we use the term urban areas to refer to 
     both EMAs and TGAs. An EMA is a metropolitan area with a 
     population of 50,000 or more that had more than 2,000 AIDS 
     cases reported in the most recent 5-year period. The 2,000 
     AIDS-case criterion does not include cases of HIV that have 
     not progressed to AIDS. In fiscal year 2008, there were 22 
     EMAs. The Modernization Act of 2006 created a new program for 
     TGAs. A TGA is a metropolitan area with a population of 
     50,000 or more, which had 1,000 to 1,999 AIDS cases reported 
     in the most recent 5-year period. Under this program, urban 
     areas that were eligible for EMA funding in fiscal year 2006 
     but that no longer meet the eligibility criteria for either 
     EMAs or TGAs maintain their eligibility for funding and are 
     considered TGAs until for 3 consecutive years they (1) fail 
     to have at least 1,000 to 1,999 AIDS cases reported in the 
     most recent 5-year period and (2) do not have more than 1,500 
     living cases of AIDS. In fiscal year 2008, there were 34 TGAs 
     according to HRSA.
     \5\ Part A of the CARE Act covers funding to urban areas. 
     Part B covers funding to states, territories, and the 
     District of Columbia.
     \6\ The stop-loss provision in H.R. 1105 states that ``within 
     the amounts provided for Part A . .  ., $10,853,000 is 
     available . . . for increasing supplemental grants for fiscal 
     year 2009 to metropolitan areas that received grant funding 
     in fiscal year 2008 . . . to ensure that an area's total 
     funding under [Part A to an EMA] for fiscal year 2008, 
     together with the amount of this additional funding, is not 
     less than 93.7 percent of the amount of such area's total 
     funding under part A for fiscal year 2006, and to ensure . . 
     . that an area's total funding under [Part A to a TGA] for 
     fiscal year 2008, together with the amount of this additional 
     funding, is not less than 88.7 percent of the amount of such 
     area's total funding under part A for fiscal year 2006.'' 
     Because the provision would apply to an EMA's or TGA's 
     ``total funding'' under Part A, we consider the total amount 
     subject to the stop-loss provision to be formula, 
     supplemental, and MAI grants made with Part A funds. MAI 
     grants are authorized by 42 U.S.C. 300ff-121, which 
     specifically directs HHS to provide funding under Part A.
     \7\ 155 Cong. Rec. H1653, H2377 (daily ed. Feb. 23, 2009) 
     (statement of Rep. Obey).

[[Page S2886]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS09MR09.001
     


[[Page S2887]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS09MR09.002
     


[[Page S2888]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS09MR09.003
     


[[Page S2889]]

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 630

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to talk about two amendments 
offered by the good Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, amendment No. 630 
and amendment No. 629. I say to my friend from Arizona that I regret to 
sort of be in the position of opposing a couple of his amendments 
because these are subjects I would have loved to have worked with him 
on closely and I appreciate the relationship we have and the 
conversations we have had recently about a number of very important 
issues in front of the Senate.
  So I find myself a little bit in an uncomfortable position, but 
nevertheless a necessary one, because, first of all, on amendment No. 
630--which refers to the issue of requiring a report on whether more 
United States assistance to Egypt is going to improve Egyptian efforts 
to counter illicit smuggling in Gaza--we all agree we have to increase 
the efforts with respect to smuggling.
  In fact, we agree so much that over the course of the last 
administration, and now continuing into this one, we have entered into 
new agreements with the Egyptians, with new technical means that are 
going to be applied to this effort, with an increased effort that is 
going to be taking place right now.
  But the problem with the amendment is--it is a well-intended 
amendment, but again everyone here understands what the effect of this 
amendment is going to be. It is simply to keep us, if it were to pass, 
from enacting this bill before the current continuing resolution 
expires. Because given what we have heard from the House, a vote for 
the amendment is effectively a vote against the Omnibus appropriations 
bill and a vote for a year-long continuing resolution at last year's 
funding levels. That is what is at stake here.
  But going from there, given the fact there are so many priorities in 
this bill we want to pass, and we need to, let me talk for a moment 
about the substance, just on the substance itself. I personally do not 
think this is the best moment or best way to go about achieving what we 
want to achieve with the Egyptians, who have been particularly helpful 
at this moment with respect to the efforts to try to seek Hamas-Fatah 
reconciliation, and particularly helpful with respect to some of the 
issues on the border at Rafah and with respect to the tunnels.
  Moreover, the bill that is in front of us states that ``not less than 
$1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only for Egypt, 
including for border security programs and activities in the Sinai.'' 
So there is additional money here. There is money available to be spent 
on this task.
  It also reflects the fact we have recently upgraded our efforts with 
Egypt. I think if we come along now and pass this amendment, we wind up 
saying that the efforts we have made are insufficient, and it is a slap 
in the face to the Egyptians in the process. So this is a sensitive 
time. It is an important time. I hope Egypt's good interventions--and I 
recently was in Egypt. I met with President Mubarak. I met with General 
Suleiman and the people involved directly in this effort. I am 
absolutely confident about their focus on the border, as well as their 
focus on these reconciliation efforts. So in the context of those 
efforts, this amendment is, frankly, not helpful to the broader 
interests in the region at this moment.


                           Amendment No. 629

  The second amendment, No. 629, would prohibit the use of any funds in 
the omnibus to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States.
  Now, let me first point out, in 2008 the United States did not 
resettle anyone from Gaza. So this is an amendment, this is a solution 
in search of a problem. The fact is, there is no problem currently. But 
let's assume--let's assume for the purposes of argument--in the future 
a Palestinian escaped from Gaza to get away from Hamas oppression and 
applied to be resettled in the United States. This amendment would 
prevent that resettlement.
  Now, obviously, any Palestinian refugee ought to be subjected to a 
complete and thorough battery of security checks, screens, background 
checks, as we do already for any refugee from anywhere. And, of course, 
we want to be assured that an asylum seeker does not have ties with 
Hamas, with Islamic Jihaddists or any other terrorist organization.
  But the point is, we already have exactly those kinds of security 
screens and background checks. We have them in the regular Department 
of Homeland Security resettlement procedures. So I see no reason to 
make an exception to the normal procedures that suddenly singles out a 
resident of Gaza. It also sends a message, not just of indifference, 
but, frankly, of hostility to tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza 
who are victims of Hamas.
  Now, I just was in Gaza. I became--unbeknownst to me; I did not 
realize it at the time--the highest ranking American to go into Gaza in 
something like 8 or 9 years, and I saw thousands of kids roaming around 
the rubble of Gaza. I met with Fatah businessmen and others, with 
people who are struggling to make ends meet and pull their lives 
together. If one of them were to escape because of the oppression of 
Hamas and wanted to come to the United States, it would seem, given the 
daily deprivations and brutality of Hamas militants, the United States, 
commensurate with our highest values and the traditions of this 
country, would not want to refuse the possibility of asylum to those 
folks. In fact, this amendment assumes that every resident of Gaza, 
regardless of age, background, political opinion or any other 
distinguishing characteristic, is pro-Hamas and ineligible for 
consideration for resettlement in the United States, even if they are 
lucky enough to escape from Gaza. It ignores the fact that a whole 
bunch of folks in Fatah were killed by Hamas and some of them knee-
capped and otherwise assaulted in the course of the recent war because 
they weren't part of Hamas.

  It is unnecessary. There are ample laws on the books which prohibit 
entry into the United States of any person who has been involved in 
terrorism or other crimes. During the Cold War, we did not bar Russians 
from coming to the United States, just as we don't bar Cubans or North 
Koreans from entering the United States, even though they live in 
oppressive regimes that we object to--or did live, in the case of the 
Soviet Union, in that situation. This amendment, therefore, is not only 
unnecessary but it would establish for the first time since the passage 
of the 1980 Refugee Act a law that discriminates against a particular 
nationality in a particular geographic region.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against both these amendments, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, while my colleague from Massachusetts is 
still here, let me advise him of two things with respect to amendment 
No. 629. First of all, it was certainly not my intention that we deal 
individually with political asylees, but the amendment could have been 
read that way and I appreciate the point. Secondly, it was a response 
to a news story which gained a great deal of attention from my 
constituents related to the January 30 order by the President, ordering 
$20 million for urgent relief efforts to provide migration assistance 
to Palestinian refugees. That has gotten a lot of attention from folks. 
They wanted to know what we were doing.
  We have talked to the State Department, and while I haven't withdrawn 
the amendment yet, we have received assurances from them orally that--
and I believe and hope we will receive assurances in writing--that was 
not the intention of that order. Assuming that is the case, there would 
be no need for the amendment, and it would be my intention tomorrow to 
withdraw it. I hope they will have something to us in writing. If not, 
if they have a spokesman of high enough authority to provide the 
assurance orally, that will suffice as well, but we will want to get 
that.
  I will speak to the other amendment, but I wished to respond to my 
colleague.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator. 
As I said, I know he works reasonably on these things and I look 
forward to working with him on it and I thank him.

[[Page S2890]]

                           Amendment No. 630

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, if my colleague would like to hear a brief 
comment with regard to amendment No. 630, although I don't need to hold 
him here, it will be my intention to get a vote on that amendment. Let 
me explain why, even though I certainly recognize the validity of some 
of the points made by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  This amendment deals with a problem that was violently brought to our 
attention again when the cease-fire between Hamas and Israel was broken 
and hundreds of rockets were again rained down on Israel, most of which 
had been smuggled across the Sinai and into the Gaza Strip; many of the 
weapons having come from Iran, or at least groups sponsored by Iran. We 
have partially, as a result--in fact, significantly, as a result of the 
assistance that I know the Senator from Massachusetts has supported, 
and we have all supported, to Egypt--gotten a lot of cooperation from 
Egypt in helping to bring this smuggling to a much lower level than it 
otherwise would have been. I am very cognizant of that. I have thanked 
the Egyptian Government for its efforts, and we want to continue to 
thank them for those efforts. The problem is smuggling does continue.
  All this amendment does is to ask for a report about what other uses 
this money could be put to, to help the Egyptians, the Israelis, the 
United States, and others who engaged in the effort to stop the 
smuggling from the Sinai through primarily tunnels but by other means 
as well into Gaza so Israel can no longer be threatened. The amendment 
is not to denigrate these efforts of the Egyptians in any way. I 
understand there is some sensitivity by folks at the State Department, 
for example, that the amendment may look like we are not grateful for 
those efforts. Quite to the contrary. But I do think--and I will be 
happy to read some news reports--that illustrates it is the view of the 
Israeli Government that this smuggling is continuing and will continue 
unless more is done, including by the Egyptians. So the purpose of the 
amendment is simply to keep track of what else we might do to try to 
stop the smuggling.
  If my colleague would like to intercede at this point, I would be 
happy to hear his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I understand what the Senator is saying. 
Again, I was just in Israel and I know the smuggling continues. We all 
understand that.
  Immediately after the war, the Hamas folks immediately began to try 
to restore those tunnels, and we understand that. But there are 
specific steps now to counter that in new means which I will not go 
into here on the floor of the Senate--I can't. But Egypt has agreed to 
engage in a significantly ratcheted-up effort. Since there is 
additional money and that is exactly what is contained, again, I say 
this is unnecessary, particularly given the impact that this might have 
on this bill if it were to pass.
  So we have three reasons there. One, the problem is being addressed. 
Two, it does have an impact on the Egyptians in terms of what they have 
already agreed to, given the fact that we have agreed to it. Three, it 
has a huge damaging impact on the overall omnibus bill we are trying to 
pass. But I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I certainly acknowledge what my colleague 
has said. Let me quote from one news article which illustrates the 
reason why I think we need to do this. This is from March 3--very 
recent--from the Jerusalem Post. The authors of the article talk about 
Hamas's ongoing smuggling into Gaza--ongoing. They talk about the 
persistence of Hamas arms smuggling which almost ensures a resumption 
of hostilities in Gaza. That is the point of this: to try to prevent 
more hostilities. If those weapons are not smuggled into Gaza, they are 
not going to rain them down on the people of Israel and there won't be 
a need for Israel to engage in any hostilities. I am afraid that if it 
continues, they would have no choice but to try to defend itself.
  I will conclude with these two paragraphs in this one article:

       In most cases, following the exposure of a tunnel, Egyptian 
     forces have either placed a guard at the mouth of the tunnel 
     or blocked the tunnel's entrance rather than taking steps to 
     demolish the tunnel completely. As such, smugglers have been 
     able to employ these tunnels again after a short interval. 
     When a tunnel entrance has been blocked, diggers typically 
     cut a new access channel nearby and connect it with the 
     existing tunnel closer to the border.
       In addition, there is no evidence that Egyptian forces are 
     taking steps to arrest and punish smugglers. These rings are 
     rarely broken up, and in the absence of lengthy jail terms, 
     there is little deterrence.

  I ask unanimous consent that three of these similar reports be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Jerusalem Post, Jan. 1, 2009]

                  Latest Rockets Manufactured in China

                            (By Yaakov Katz)

       The Grad-model Katyusha rockets that were fired into 
     Beersheba on Wednesday were manufactured in China and 
     smuggled into Gaza after the Sinai border wall was blown up 
     by Hamas in January, defense officials said.
       The Chinese rockets have a range of 40 kilometers. They are 
     very similar to the 122 mm Soviet-made Katyusha that was used 
     extensively by Hizbullah during the Second Lebanon War and 
     are slightly more sophisticated than an Iranian-made Grad-
     model Katyusha that is also in Hamas's arsenal.
       The four rockets that hit Beersheba this week were filled 
     with metal balls that can scatter up to 100 meters from the 
     impact site, officials said. These rockets have also been 
     fired into Ashkelon and Ashdod.
       The three countries that manufacture Grad-model Katyushas 
     are China, Russia and Bulgaria.
       Defense officials told The Jerusalem Post the rockets were 
     smuggled into Gaza in the 12 days after Hamas blew a hole in 
     the border wall between Gaza and Egypt on January 23.
       ``Huge quantities of weaponry were smuggled into Gaza then 
     from above ground, including the Grad rockets,'' an official 
     said, adding that even after the border wall was sealed, 
     Hamas continued to smuggle the long-range rockets into Gaza 
     via tunnels under the Philadelphi Corridor.
       From China, the rockets make several stops before reaching 
     Gaza. In many cases, officials said, they are bought by Iran 
     or Hizbullah and then transferred to Sinai.
       In some instances, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) 
     has learned of weapons that came from Yemen and Eritrea, were 
     moved to Sudan, then north to Egypt, and finally smuggled 
     into Gaza.
       ``This is a complicated smuggling system that involves many 
     different people around the world,'' one official said.
       The Grad-model Katyushas, officials said, were packed with 
     large quantities of ammonia and less-than-maximum explosives 
     to increase their durability and lethality.
       Last Thursday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit 
     told Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni that Cairo was not 
     responsible for Hamas's military buildup and that the long-
     range rockets in the group's arsenal were not smuggled 
     through the tunnels from Sinai.
       Defense officials said. Wednesday that Aboul Gheit was 
     partially correct, in that some of the rockets did not come 
     into Gaza through tunnels, but that they did enter the Strip 
     from Sinai.
                                  ____


                 [From the Jerusalem Post, Mar. 3 2009]

  Analysis: When It Comes to Tunnels, Egypt Still Has Its Head in the 
                                  Sand

                  (By Yoram Cohen and Matthew Levitt)

       This week's Egyptian-hosted international conference on the 
     reconstruction of the Gaza Strip underlined that the 
     rehabilitation of Gaza is high on the international 
     community's agenda.
       But the implementation of any rebuilding project may be 
     premature. Indeed, given Hamas's ongoing weapons smuggling 
     into Gaza, Israel's mid-January unilateral ceasefire may be 
     short-lived.
       Although the United States and Israel reached an agreement 
     on January 16 to counter the smuggling, Egypt and Israel have 
     yet to forge a similar understanding. The persistence of 
     Hamas's arms-smuggling almost ensures an eventual resumption 
     of hostilities in Gaza.
       Beyond small arms, Israeli intelligence estimates that some 
     250 tons of explosives, 80 tons of fertilizer, 4,000 rocket-
     propelled grenades, and 1,800 rockets were transported from 
     Egypt to Gaza from September 2005 to December 2008.
       According to Israeli figures, from June 2007 to December 
     2008, Hamas increased not only the quantity but also the 
     quality of its arsenal in Gaza, improving the performance of 
     its improvised explosive devices and expanding the distance 
     and payload capabilities of its Kassam rocket warheads.
       Most small-range rockets fired from Gaza prior to and 
     during the recent conflict were locally produced. However, 
     over the past year, Hamas has acquired a formidable 
     collection of imported 122-mm. rockets--the longer-range 
     Grads--brought in piecemeal through tunnels and reassembled 
     in Gaza.

[[Page S2891]]

     These Grads, an Iranian-produced version of the Chinese-
     designed rocket, increase the reach of Hamas into Israel, 
     making them a sought-after commodity and well worth the 
     effort and expense of smuggling them all the way from Iran.
       According to Israeli assessments, the arms-smuggling 
     network is directed by Hamas offices in Damascus and aided by 
     Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which 
     provides the majority of the weaponry.
       The arms travel overland to Egypt through a variety of 
     routes that cross Yemen, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and South Africa 
     and eventually meet in Sudan, where they are moved to Egypt's 
     Sinai desert. After the material enters the Sinai, it is 
     transferred into Gaza via tunnels underneath the Philadelphi 
     Corridor.
       Less frequently, arms are moved to Gaza via the 
     Mediterranean Sea. The weapons are deposited in waterproof 
     barrels submerged below the surface and tied to buoys 
     eventually retrieved by fishermen.
       Despite recent improvements to the countersmuggling effort 
     in the Sinai, Egypt is averse to recognizing the severity of 
     the issue. Egypt's approach to countering Hamas's extensive 
     network of smuggling tunnels has been tentative, generally 
     limited to exposing tunnel openings and seizing weapons 
     arsenals inside the Sinai Peninsula.
       In most cases, following the exposure of a tunnel, Egyptian 
     forces have either placed a guard at the mouth of the tunnel 
     or blocked the tunnel entrance, rather than taking steps to 
     demolish the tunnel completely. As such, smugglers have been 
     able to employ these tunnels again after a short interval. 
     When a tunnel entrance has been blocked, diggers typically 
     cut a new access channel nearby and connect with the existing 
     tunnel closer to the border.
       In addition, there is no evidence that Egyptian forces are 
     taking steps to arrest and punish smugglers. These rings are 
     rarely broken up, and in the absence of lengthy jail terms, 
     there is little deterrence.
       Moreover, cooperation between Egypt and Israel has been 
     lacking. In mid-February, for example, Egypt announced it 
     would not send a delegation to Israel as originally planned 
     to discuss anti-smuggling and cease-fire negotiation efforts. 
     Although Israel recognizes an effort is being made--Shin Bet 
     (Israel Security Agency) chief Yuval Diskin told the cabinet 
     on February 15 that Egyptian actions are indeed combating 
     arms smuggling--Israeli officials note that the effort is, at 
     best, ``slow.''
       Finally, the United States has provided Egypt with various 
     technological devices--such as seismographic sensors--to 
     expose the tunnels, but Egyptian forces still require 
     training to make full use of these tools.
       It is imperative that Egypt recognize that arms smuggling 
     is not just an Israeli issue but an Egyptian national 
     security priority. The head of the Egyptian parliament's 
     foreign relations committee said on December 3, 2008 that it 
     would not allow an Islamic state on its northern border. If 
     arms smuggling continues, however, such an outcome will 
     become more likely.
       As such, Egypt needs to adopt a sustained and effective 
     approach to its activities countering the movement of weapons 
     from Sudan to the Sinai Peninsula, as well as the tunnels 
     themselves. First, Egypt should close these tunnels for good 
     rather than temporarily securing them. At the same time, 
     Egyptian security forces should arrest smugglers, target 
     their networks, and impose stricter penalties for these 
     illegal activities. Finally, Egypt should better publicize 
     these efforts to create a deterrent effect.
       More effective bilateral cooperation between Israel and 
     Egypt, with US oversight and active involvement, should be 
     initiated. Discussions between all three parties would go a 
     long way toward increasing coordination and efforts to combat 
     this threat.
       In this regard, the United States could play an important 
     role as a watchdog, providing periodic reports on the 
     effectiveness of Egyptian and Israeli action. Perhaps most 
     importantly, the three countries' intelligence services 
     should join forces and share information to successfully 
     combat the Hamas weapons-smuggling networks.
       Much of the weaponry is provided by Iran, and specifically 
     by the IRGC, increasing Iran's regional influence while 
     threatening the position of Fatah in Palestinian politics. 
     Dealing effectively with these tunnel systems could curtail 
     Iranian influence. Conversely, if Gaza remains a terror 
     base--a safe haven for extremists and global jihadists--
     regional instability and Palestinian suffering will surely 
     grow.
                                  ____


                     [From Haaretz, Feb. 26, 2009]

              Gaza Rockets Strike Negev; IAF Returns Fire

                   (By Amos Harel and Anshel Pfeffer)

       While talks between rival Palestinian factions continue in 
     Cairo, a near-daily ritual continues of Gaza militants firing 
     Qassam rockets and the Israel Air Force retaliating by 
     striking smuggling tunnels along the Philadelphi route.
       Yesterday morning. two rockets landed in open fields in the 
     Eshkol region, causing neither casualties nor damage. In the 
     ensuing air strikes, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman said, 
     pilots reported seeing secondary blasts from the smuggling 
     tunnels, indicating that they contained explosives.
       Security officials said yesterday the extended waiting 
     period for a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas 
     could undermine the relative calm that currently prevails in 
     the Gaza Strip.
       Egypt has been trying to broker a long-term cease-fire 
     between Israel and Hamas in the aftermath of Israel's 22-day 
     military offensive.
       The officials said Hamas look steps to reduce the rocket 
     fire from smaller militant factions after Israel's withdrawal 
     from Gaza. However, since then, the group has noticeably cut 
     down its efforts. They added that Egypt is making only 
     limited attempts to stem the tide of weapons flowing into the 
     territory.
       An Israeli intelligence source recently said that 
     significant quantities of weapons and explosives, including 
     Grad rockets, anti-aircraft missiles and explosive materials, 
     had been transported from Egypt to Gaza through the Rafah 
     crossing.
       Israel tightened its blockade of Gaza alter Hamas took 
     control of the Strip in 2007. Egypt also limits the movement 
     through its border crossing with the territory.
       ``The smuggling is part of a broad worldwide apparatus, 
     from Iran to Yemen and other sources, to the Gaza Strip, by 
     land and sea. We are working against them,'' Defense Minister 
     Ehud Barak said.
                                  ____


                [From the Jerusalem Post, Feb. 26, 2009]

   Israel Thanks Cyprus for Confiscating Iranian Arms on Way to Gaza

                            (By Herb Keinon)

       President Shimon Peres thanked visiting Cypriot Foreign 
     Minister Markos Kypriano on Wednesday for confiscating 
     Iranian arms that were believed to be headed to Gaza.
       Peres, according to his office, said the confiscation of 
     the ship's cargo was extremely important, and that fighting 
     the arms smuggling to the Gaza Strip required this type of 
     cooperation.
       Last Wednesday, Cypriot authorities said the ship suspected 
     of transporting the contraband cargo was free to go after the 
     cargo was unloaded and stored at a Cypriot naval base.
       Cypriot officials said that the cargo was ``material that 
     could be used to make munitions,'' and the Cypriot government 
     said the ship had breached the UN ban on Iranian arms 
     exports.
       The US military said it found arms aboard the ship after 
     stopping it last month in the Red Sea.
       The issue also came up in talks Kypriano held with Foreign 
     Minister Tzipi Livni.
       ``Iran must be made aware that the weapon smuggling to 
     Syria, Lebanon and Hamas constitutes a severe violation of 
     international agreements, and must cease,'' Livni said. ``The 
     weapon smuggling organized by Iran is one of the central 
     problems in the region. If the weapon smuggling to Gaza 
     continues, Israel will have no other option than to initiate 
     another defensive operation. That is why the international 
     community must exhaust all the legal and operative means at 
     its disposal to put an end to the arms smuggling.''
                                  ____


                     [From VOA News, Feb. 16, 2009]

     Israel Pounds Gaza Smuggling Tunnels After More Rocket Attacks

                           (By Luis Ramirez)

       Israeli warplanes have attacked smuggling tunnels between 
     the Gaza Strip and Egypt, after militants in Gaza fired at 
     least two rockets into southern Israel. The tit-for-tat 
     violence is further complicating prospects to draft a truce 
     between Israel and the militant Islamic group Hamas.
       The rocket attacks have again become an almost everyday 
     occurrence in the four weeks since Israel called off its 22-
     day offensive on militants in Gaza.
       Nearly a month after both sides declared separate cease-
     fires, efforts by Egypt to mediate a durable truce are 
     deadlocked.
       Hamas wants Israel to open all of its border crossings, 
     including one to Egypt. Israel wants Hamas to stop militants 
     from firing rockets into its territory and the smuggling of 
     weapons into the seaside enclave.
       Israeli officials say they will not consider reopening 
     border crossings until Hamas returns Gilad Schalit, an 
     Israeli soldier who has been held since he was captured in 
     the Gaza Strip in 2006.
       Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri, a spokesman for the 
     militant Islamist group, rejected any attempt by Israel to 
     link the release of Schalit to a longer-term cease-fire.
       Al-Masri says Hamas' position is obvious. He says Hamas 
     wants a cease-fire and is not backing away on that issue. But 
     he says the Israeli attempt to connect the Schalit case with 
     a cease-fire agreement is going to destroy the process and he 
     says Hamas considers that ``a stab in the face'' of the 
     Egyptian efforts to mediate peace.
       Hamas is also demanding that Israel release hundreds of 
     prisoners--including militants who were responsible for a 
     number of suicide bombings--in exchange for Schalit.
       Despite the setbacks, prospects for a truce remain alive.
       Israeli officials say the country's security cabinet is due 
     to meet Wednesday to discuss a response to Hamas' demands, 
     and details of a possible peace deal.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, again, I wish to compliment the Egyptian 
Government and others who have insisted on trying to stop this 
smuggling. My amendment asks for a study by the Secretary of State and 
the DNI about whether additional taxpayer support

[[Page S2892]]

out of the annual appropriation for Egypt would aid in stopping this 
smuggling activity.
  That is one of the two amendments--amendment No. 630--that will be 
voted on this evening. The other amendment is amendment No. 631; that 
is to say, if the unanimous consent agreement goes into effect, which 
includes the four amendments we are likely to vote on, two of those 
would be my amendments, No. 630 and 631.


                           Amendment No. 631

  Let me briefly describe amendment 631. It deals with the $300 million 
for Gaza reconstruction that Secretary Clinton offered at the Sharm el-
Sheikh Donors Conference last Monday. We don't have details from the 
administration on its plans to keep the $300 million out of Hamas's 
hands. Clearly, obviously, we want to do that. What we do have is a 
general acknowledgment by the State Department of its concern that this 
is important to do. Obviously, we are all aware that Hamas controls 
nearly every means of power and leverage in the Gaza Strip. So I don't 
think we can be too careful in ensuring that none of our taxpayer 
dollars get into the hands of a terrorist group such as Hamas.
  Section 7040(f) of the bill addresses this problem partly. It 
provides limitations on the disbursements of the main types of 
assistance funds--these are the bilateral economic assistance, 
international security assistance and multilateral assistance and 
export investment assistance--to the Palestinian Authority. So there 
are limitations on the funds going to the Palestinian Authority.
  The problem is, some of this money goes through the United Nations 
and through nongovernmental organizations--the so-called NGOs. So what 
my amendment does is to close this loophole to ensure that none of our 
money goes to them and then Hamas as well. It adds the crucial step of 
making explicit that no funds from the omnibus shall be made available 
for reconstruction in Gaza until the Secretary of State certifies that 
no such funds will be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled by 
Hamas. As I said, the reason is because some of the money is going to 
these other organizations.
  There is a recent op-ed in Forbes magazine--and I will ask for its 
inclusion in a moment--by Claudia Rosett, the same intrepid reporter, 
incidentally, who first revealed the United Nations oil-for-food 
scandal. In it she wrote:

       On the matter of how exactly the ``safeguards'' will work, 
     the State Department has been stunningly vague. At a State 
     Department press briefing on Monday, while Clinton was in 
     Egypt making her pledge, a spokesman said that up to $300 
     million would go for Gaza's ``urgent humanitarian needs'' as 
     identified by the U.N. and the Palestinian Authority. Those 
     funds, he said, would flow via the United States Agency for 
     International Development ``in coordination with U.N. 
     agencies, international organizations, and USAID grantees'' 
     and ``through the State Department for the U.N. agencies, 
     including the international committee of the Red Cross, and 
     other humanitarian organizations.''

  Then she further notes that one of the institutions that the U.N. 
uses to funnel aid to the Palestinian Authority is the Commercial Bank 
of Syria. Here is what she says about that:

       Under Secretary Stuart Levey alleged that the bank had been 
     used by terrorists to move money, ``and as a state-owned 
     entity with inadequate money laundering and terrorist 
     financing controls, the Commercial Bank in Syria poses a 
     significant risk of being used to further the Syrian 
     Government's continuing support for international terrorist 
     groups.'' Among the terrorist groups cited as examples of 
     such clients were Hezbollah in Lebanon, and such denizens of 
     Gaza as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the 
     Liberation of Palestine and Hamas.

  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From Forbes magazine, Mar. 5, 2009]

              Can We Give to Gaza Without Giving to Hamas?

                          (By Claudia Rosett)

       If stuffing billions worth of aid into the Palestinian 
     territories could end Islamist terrorism out of Gaza, it 
     might be worth the money. That seems to be President Obama's 
     gamble, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jetting to a 
     donors' conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, this past 
     Monday, to chip in $900 million on behalf of U.S. tax payers. 
     All told, more than 70 countries, cheered on by United 
     Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, pledged a whopping 
     total of $4.5 billion in fresh aid to the Palestinians.
       The focus was largely on repairing damage to Gaza, after 
     Israel's recent three-week battle to shut down mortar and 
     rocket attacks out of the terrorist-controlled enclave. But, 
     as Clinton described it, this is a nuanced effort. The broad 
     aim is to bypass the Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists who 
     control Gaza, and shovel resources for strictly humanitarian 
     uses into the enclave ``in coordination with'' the 
     Palestinian Authority, which is run by the U.S.-favored Fatah 
     faction, Hamas' rival, based in the West Bank.
       Thus the long and winding title for the Sharm el-Sheikh 
     powwow: ``The International Conference in Support of the 
     Palestinian Economy for the Reconstruction of Gaza.'' Thus, 
     also, the confusion and contradictory news accounts over how 
     much of the multiple billions in aid will flow to the West 
     Bank, how much to Gaza, when and how this will happen, and 
     who will decide.
       And so, despite a record which suggests that decades of aid 
     to the Palestinians--bilateral, multilateral, you name it--
     have fostered not peace, but continuing violence, here we go 
     again. The plan this time seems to be to flood the 
     Palestinian Authority with funds that might somehow grease 
     the way toward somehow easing Hamas out of the cockpit in 
     Gaza.
       Speaking of her aim to ``foster conditions'' to create a 
     responsible, accountable Palestinian state, living in peace 
     with Israel, Clinton pledged that America's $900 million in 
     new aid to Palestinians--still to be approved by Congress--
     would include $300 million for Gaza. To blunt concerns that 
     some of these taxpayer dollars might end up bankrolling 
     Hamas, Clinton spelled out that ``We have worked with the 
     Palestinian Authority to install safeguards that will ensure 
     that our funding is used only where, and for whom, it is 
     intended, and does not end up in the wrong hands.''
       Good luck. The downside of this gamble, and the likelier 
     scenario, is that this new multibillion-dollar wave of aid, 
     pouring in from many sources, will boost Hamas. In case 
     anyone needs a reminder, Hamas is an Islamist, terrorist 
     group, spun out of the Egyptian Sunni Muslim Brotherhood but 
     backed and trained these days by the Shiite mullocracy of 
     terrorist-sponsoring Iran--which looks close to acquiring a 
     nuclear arsenal. Hamas is dedicated in its charter to the 
     destruction of Israel and hostile in its principles to 
     western democracy.
       Hamas was elected in 2006 by a Gazan population that five 
     years earlier had celebrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks 
     on America by handing out sweets and dancing in the streets. 
     Hamas consolidated its control over Gaza in 2007, kicking out 
     Fatah in a bloody battle that included fighting in hospitals 
     and apartment buildings, and both sides throwing prisoners 
     off rooftops. Nor does Hamas mind putting Gaza's 1.5 million 
     people at risk in order to pursue its terrorist ``Death to 
     Israel'' agenda. Since Israel called a halt on Jan. 17 to its 
     Operation Cast Lead, Hamas-controlled Gaza has continued to 
     serve as a launching pad for attacks on Israel, firing more 
     than 50 rockets, including 11 over the past weekend, one of 
     them hitting a school in Ashkelon.
       Were such attacks targeting, say, New York, one might hope 
     they would be treated as terrorism and answered with force. 
     But on Monday, the de facto reply of the ``international 
     community'' to these assaults on Israel was to promise Gaza--
     already one of the developed world's top per-capita welfare 
     clients--billions more in aid. Clinton, while making her 
     pledge, and detailing rosy visions of the future, made just 
     one ritual nod to the Hamas rockets of the here-and-now: 
     ``These attacks must stop.'' Expect more rockets.
       As for the financial safeguards--somewhere in Gaza, or 
     maybe Damascus or Tehran, members of Hamas must be smiling. 
     As long as Gaza is controlled by Hamas, any aid funneled into 
     the enclave is one dollar less that Hamas might be impelled 
     to spend on upkeep of its turf, and one dollar more available 
     for terrorist activities.
       On the matter of how exactly the ``safeguards'' will work, 
     the State Department has been stunningly vague. At a State 
     Department press briefing on Monday, while Clinton was in 
     Egypt making her pledge, a spokesman said that up to $300 
     million would go for Gaza's ``urgent humanitarian needs'' as 
     identified by the U.N. and the Palestinian Authority. Those 
     funds, he said, would flow via United States Agency for 
     International Development ``in coordination with U.N. 
     agencies, international organizations and USAID grantees'' 
     and ``through the State Department for the U.N. agencies, 
     [International Committee of the Red Cross] and other 
     humanitarian organizations.''
       That's just the U.S. agenda, before we get to the even less 
     transparent donations, such as the $1.65 billion pledged by 
     the Gulf Arab States, to be handled out of the Saudi capital. 
     To explore every rabbit hole on this list could be the work 
     of an entire career. But let's go down just one of the big 
     ones.
       Looking for further hints about what this three-ring aid 
     circus might entail, I pulled up the Web site on Tuesday of 
     the U.N.'s lead agency in Gaza, the U.N. Relief and Works 
     Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, best known as 
     UNRWA. There, on UNRWA's home page, as of this writing, is a 
     photo of the U.N.'s Ban Ki-moon, standing in a damaged UNRWA 
     warehouse, backlit by what appear to be rays of the sun, 
     during his

[[Page S2893]]

     visit in January to Gaza. Next to Ban's photo is a blurb 
     about his appeal for ``crucial funds needed for Gaza's 
     reconstruction after the recent Israeli offensive.''
       But just below Ban's photo is where it gets interesting. 
     The same Web page lists several banks, complete with Society 
     for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) 
     codes and account numbers through which benefactors are 
     invited to send money to UNRWA for its ``Special Gaza 
     Appeal.''
       One of them is the state-owned Commercial Bank of Syria, 
     headquartered in Damascus, which is an intriguing choice for 
     Ban and UNRWA to condone, because for the past five years 
     this bank has been under sanctions by the U.S. Treasury as an 
     institution of ``primary money-laundering concern.''
       In 2004, Treasury imposed sanctions on the Commercial Bank 
     of Syria alleging it had laundered illicit proceeds from the 
     U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, and had also handled 
     ``numerous transactions that may be indicative of terrorist 
     financing and money laundering.'' According to Treasury, this 
     included two accounts ``that reference a reputed financier 
     for Usama bin Laden.''
       In 2006, Treasury finalized its rule, which is still 
     current, against the Commercial Bank of Syria. Under-
     Secretary Stuart Levey alleged that the bank had been used by 
     terrorists to move money, and ``as a state-owned entity with 
     inadequate money laundering and terrorist financing controls, 
     the Commercial Bank of Syria poses a significant risk of 
     being used to further the Syrian Government's continuing 
     support for international terrorist groups.'' Among the 
     terrorist groups cited as examples of such clients were 
     Hezbollah in Lebanon, and such denizens of Gaza as 
     Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the 
     Liberation of Palestine and Hamas.
       UNRWA's choice of this bank is all the more curious in 
     light of the lifestyle choices of a number of Hamas leaders, 
     such as Khaled Meshal, who are based not in Gaza, but work 
     ``in exile'' in Damascus. According to a Council on Foreign 
     Relations backgrounder released in 2006, Meshal has served 
     Hamas from Damascus as head of the terrorist group's 
     politburo, and as chief strategist and fundraiser. In 2006 he 
     was alleged by Israeli then-Vice Premier Shimon Peres to have 
     ordered the kidnapping into Gaza of Israeli soldier Gilad 
     Shalit, who has not been released.
       It's hard to know whether it is of any concern to UNRWA 
     that one of the conduits headlined by Ban Ki-moon for its 
     Gaza relief appeal is a U.S.-censured bank, headquartered in 
     a country that hosts Hamas leaders such as Meshal, and is 
     designated by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism. The 
     U.N. has no definition of terrorism. UNRWA, which employs 
     mostly local Palestinian staff, and has never had an 
     independent outside audit, is not bound by U.S. sanctions. My 
     queries to UNRWA about this Syrian banking connection were 
     answered evasively by a spokesperson, who stated in an email 
     that ``UNRWA's strict financial regulations, and its close 
     oversight of all resources contributed to it, serve to ensure 
     that funds are used appropriately in our humanitarian relief 
     activities.''
       It's likewise hard to say whether the U.S. State Department 
     cares that U.S. funds might mingle via UNRWA with money 
     flowing to Gaza through the Commercial Bank of Syria. My 
     queries to the State Department received no reply.
       These are, of course, busy times for American diplomacy in 
     the Middle East. There are slows of new envoys setting out, 
     and the new administration is stepping up ``engagement'' 
     already begun during the final years of President Bush, by 
     courting Syria as a potential U.S. partner. But if President 
     Obama wants to try banking on multi-tiered diplomacy and 
     massive aid to turn terrorist-infested, Iranian-armed Gaza 
     into a place of peace, it looks like someone in his 
     administration needs to be keeping a closer eye on who, 
     exactly, might be cashing in on the largesse.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I also ask that a press release from the 
ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and members of 
the House Republican leadership also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Ros-Lehtinen, Boehner, Cantor, McCotter, Pence Question Omnibus Funding 
    for UN Palestinian Agency Partnering With Banks Targeted by U.S.

       (Washington).--U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), 
     Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 
     Republican Leader John Boehner, Republican Whip Eric Cantor, 
     Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence, and Republican 
     Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter called on the 
     Senate to pull funding for UNRWA and the Palestinian 
     Authority from a $410 billion spending bill. Statement 
     follows:
       ``The Administration should withdraw its pledge to provide 
     $900 million in bonus funding to the Palestinian Authority 
     and Gaza reconstruction. These funds are proposed in addition 
     to what is already included in the Omnibus appropriations 
     bill pending in the Senate. And some of the funds will be 
     going through UNRWA at a time when this UN agency is 
     partnering with banks targeted by the U.S. for their roles in 
     financing violent Islamist militants.
       ``We need to protect taxpayer funds from finding their way 
     to the Commercial Bank of Syria, an UNRWA partner subject to 
     U.S. sanctions and run by the Syrian regime. Another UNRWA 
     partner is the Arab Bank, which is under investigation for 
     financing Palestinian militants and suicide bombers 
     responsible for the deaths of Israelis and Americans in 
     Israel.
       ``Yet, the Senate is poised to allow millions of taxpayer 
     dollars to go to UNRWA, which also fails to vet its own staff 
     and aid recipients for ties to violent Islamist groups. The 
     bailouts and spending sprees have become so vast that even 
     violent extremists and their enabling UN agencies are getting 
     a `piece of the pie.' ''
       BACKGROUND: UNRWA's website solicits donations for its 
     ``Special Gaza Appeal,'' and directs donors to send money to 
     accounts with the Commercial Bank of Syria, which the U.S. 
     Department of the Treasury has designated as a ``primary 
     money laundering concern,'' and with the Arab Bank, which is 
     reportedly under investigation by the U.S. government for 
     financing Palestinian militant groups. Treasury also states 
     that the Commercial Bank ``has been used by terrorists to 
     move their money and it continues to afford direct 
     opportunities for the Syrian government to facilitate 
     international terrorist activity and money laundering.'' The 
     Arab Bank was reportedly fined $24 million for extremist 
     financing in 2005.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, what these all point out is that in 
addition to ensuring that money that goes to the Palestinian Authority 
doesn't get into the hands of Hamas, which is assured by the 
legislation, we need to make sure that other funds that go to the 
United Nations or the NGOs also are not diverted to Hamas. That is what 
we have provided by this amendment.
  Incidentally, I would say this: One of my colleagues said: Well, 
isn't a secretarial certification a little bit much? My response is: 
Well, if the Secretary can't certify it, we probably shouldn't be 
sending taxpayer money. But I had also suggested language such as the 
following: That all possible steps have been taken to ensure that no 
such funds have been diverted by Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. 
If there is any objection to the exact language of my amendment, I 
would be happy to amend the language to include the language I 
indicated.
  So I hope my colleagues, when we vote at 5:30 this afternoon, will 
consider the arguments I have made with respect to these two 
amendments: to make sure that, first of all, our Egyptian friends have 
all the support they need to ensure that smuggling does not occur in 
the future and threaten the people of Israel; secondly, that no 
American taxpayer money is spent either through the Palestinian 
Authority or--and this is not controlled in the bill--through the 
United Nations or other NGOs to provide support to any terrorist 
groups, including Hamas, and my amendment would prevent that from 
happening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my friend from Arizona's amendment No. 
630 would require the Secretary of State to report on whether 
additional foreign military financing assistance provided for Egypt 
could be used to improve Egypt's efforts to counter illegal smuggling 
and intercept weapons into Gaza.
  We all want Egypt to intercept those weapons. So on the face of it, 
it appears this amendment is very appealing. But I note for my friend 
from Arizona that the omnibus bill already explicitly authorizes the 
use of FMF assistance provided to Egypt ``for border security programs 
and activities in the Sinai.''
  That was language put in by the distinguished ranking Republican 
member on the Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, precisely for 
the purpose of the Kyl amendment--to enable those funds to be used to 
help police the border and reduce the smuggling into Gaza.
  Now, I understand there is a concern about adding amendments to this 
bill and sending it back to the other body. All this does, if passed, 
is send the bill back to the other body because what the Senator from 
Arizona is asking for is already in the bill. Egypt is already 
cooperating with Israel and the United States to reduce smuggling of 
weapons into Gaza. We need Egypt's continued help. The Egyptian 
Government will--in fact, they already do--regard this amendment 
requiring a report by the Secretary of State as a public slap in the 
face. The distinguished Secretary

[[Page S2894]]

of State has just come back from the region. The State Department says 
the bill gives them the authority and the money they want to do 
precisely what the Kyl amendment asks for. Why pass something that is a 
public humiliation of an ally in the area?
  Egypt could undoubtedly do more. Everybody could. But publicly 
shaming them as they are trying to negotiate a lasting cease-fire 
between Hamas and Israel is in no one's interest. It is not in our 
interest or Egypt's interest, and it is certainly not in Israel's 
interest. Maybe some think this makes a good talking point.
  I am more interested not in what makes great talking points, but in 
stopping the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. That is why Senator Gregg 
put the language into the foreign aid bill in the first place.
  There is no question that the money can be used. We don't need a 
report from the State Department telling us what we already know. We 
wrote the law. We know what it says. We don't need the State Department 
to tell us what it says.
  The key point is this: You can vote against the Kyl amendment and 
still be on record voting for everything in the Kyl amendment simply by 
voting for final passage of the omnibus bill.
  Also, the Senator from Arizona has offered amendment No. 629, which 
would prohibit the use of any funds in the omnibus to resettle 
Palestinians from Gaza into the United States. We are going to vote on 
that tomorrow.
  Frankly, it is unnecessary and for the United States, a Nation of 
immigrants, it goes against everything we stand for.
  We don't resettle anybody from Gaza, nor do we resettle anybody from 
Gaza who is living in the U.N. refugee camps in the West Bank, Lebanon, 
Syria, or Jordan. The amendment is a solution looking for a problem. If 
a Palestinian from Gaza gets to a place like Italy, or somewhere in 
Europe, the amendment would prevent the State Department from even 
considering that person for resettlement to the United States. We would 
have to tell them sorry, you can't come in, because you are from a 
place that has terrorists.
  I think back to my family who came to Vermont about 150 years ago. On 
my father's side, they were Irish. If we had a law like this in place 
then, it is questionable whether they could have entered this country. 
If the Irish were fighting to keep their land, if they were fighting to 
keep their rights, if they were fighting for the ability to vote, and 
they lived in what is now the Republic of Ireland, they were considered 
terrorists. We have gone back through the record and found when they 
left Ireland, even though they had been offered free room and board for 
the rest of their lives. They were very small rooms, with bars on the 
windows, and they didn't know that the rest of their lives would come 
very soon. But they left for Canada, the United States, or Australia.
  I was thinking about the birthday party for Senator Kennedy the other 
night at the Kennedy Center. There were a number of Irish-Americans 
there who could speak about their roots, when their families came here, 
and why they had to leave Ireland to come here. They were hunted 
because they fought to practice their own religion. They were hunted 
because they spoke Irish. They were hunted because they wanted to keep 
their land. They were hunted because they would not renounce their 
religion. Thank goodness the United States had open arms for them.
  We have very strict rules about who can come into this country. This, 
again, is an unnecessary amendment, saying that we in the Congress are 
going to pick and choose which groups of people can resettle here.
  When my maternal grandparents came from Italy, a country that had 
numerous wars at that time, thank goodness they weren't blocked from 
coming here. My grandmother lived long enough to see her grandson run 
for the U.S. Senate. They came to this country not speaking English, 
not reading or writing it, learning English and raising six children. 
We could all tell stories like that.
  I hope we don't start doing things that label whole groups of people 
as terrorists, no matter who they are as individuals.
  The Senator from Arizona has also offered amendment No. 631 which 
prohibits funds for reconstruction efforts in Gaza until the Secretary 
of State certifies that none of the funds will be diverted to Hamas or 
entities controlled by Hamas. Again, it is an appealing amendment. We 
all want to be sure no funds are diverted to Hamas. But, of course, 
that is already in the bill. I don't know how many times we have to 
vote on it. We voted on that; all Republicans and Democrats voted on 
that in committee. It is already in the bill.
  There is also permanent law in this country that prohibits any funds 
going to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. So the amendment is 
unnecessary--unless the intent of the amendment is simply to send the 
bill back to the other body and further delay its passage.
  Anybody can read the bill. Section 7040(f) of the bill, on page 861, 
bans funding to Hamas and any entity effectively controlled by Hamas or 
a power sharing government.
  Section 7039 of the bill, on page 856, requires that the Secretary of 
State take all appropriate steps to ensure that assistance doesn't go 
to any individual or entity in the West Bank or Gaza that advocates, 
plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in terrorist activity. It 
cannot be any clearer than that.
  Maybe every one of us should introduce our own amendment to say the 
same thing over and over again and have 100 of us saying we don't want 
any money to go to Hamas. The easy way to do that is to vote for the 
bill the way it was when the Senator from New Hampshire and I presented 
it to the committee, which adopted it with only one dissenting vote. It 
prohibits that.
  The Palestinian Antiterrorist Act of 2006 prohibits money going to a 
Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. That is section 620(k) of the 
Foreign Assistance Act.
  So we prohibited assistance to Hamas at least three times already. 
And there are undoubtedly other laws on the books that prohibit funding 
going to terrorist organizations, which Hamas is. Do we get extra 
political points for doing this? Why don't we all stand and say: I am 
against any assistance for Hamas? I have not heard a single Senator--
Republican, Democrat, or Independent--say they do want to support 
Hamas. That is probably why we have all voted overwhelmingly in favor 
of laws to prohibit it.
  It appears to me some of these amendments are intended simply to try 
to make a point, or to send the bill back to the other body.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. I want to associate myself with the Senator's concern. I 
think a proper explanation of how the bill is structured is in order. 
As I understand it, as the bill left the subcommittee, and then the 
full committee, it made it unalterably clear no money that goes into 
Gaza can be used for Hamas. That doesn't need to be restated in an 
amendment. In fact, doing that might imply that the language in the 
bill isn't as strong as it should be. Also, on the issue of 
resettlement of Palestinian refugees, there may be many we would want 
to come to the United States--maybe physicists and other folks. This 
blanket approach that nobody can enter the country is really over the 
top and far too broad a brush to paint on the entire population of an 
area.
  Obviously, we don't want terrorists or anybody who is sympathetic to 
the Hamas to come. But there are others we may wish to come to the 
United States because maybe they were opposition leaders to Hamas.
  Thirdly, the issue of the language relative to Egypt concerns me, and 
I guess it concerned the Senator from Vermont. I will put this in the 
form of a question.
  To complete my inquiry of the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
language relative to Egypt in using funds from the money that was 
allocated to Egypt, approximately $1.3 billion for the purpose of 
making sure the border entries into Gaza and other entries that might 
affect Israel are adequately monitored, that language truly is not 
necessary because we have language in the bill that says it can be used 
for the purpose of limiting access on the borders.
  There is an ongoing, good-faith effort, as I understand it, by the 
Government of Egypt to police those borders,

[[Page S2895]]

using our resources to some degree. Further, Egypt has worked very hard 
to be an ally to us in the region. It is one of our key allies in the 
sense that it has always been reasonably supportive of what we have 
tried to do. I think we have a responsibility to be equally supportive 
of them when they make a legitimate request, which is that we not be 
overly officious in directing them under this language.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire is 
correct on every one of the points he has made. He and I worked closely 
together on this so all of these issues we have been discussing came 
out of our subcommittee with strong bipartisan support.
  Both of us were sensitive to a number of things: One, we did not want 
money going to Hamas; two, we wanted to help Egypt because Egypt has, 
with some peril to itself, been cooperating with us. Obviously, we are 
committed to the security of Israel. We put all that in here. So it 
becomes, in some ways, worse than redundancy.
  The Senator from New Hampshire put his finger on it. It appears to be 
an officious way of telling Egypt: We don't trust you. I would rather 
continue as the Secretary of State has, as her predecessors in the past 
administration did, working cooperatively with Egypt to try to address 
this problem.
  The last point about saying nobody should be allowed into the U.S. 
from Gaza, there are tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza who are 
victims of Hamas every day. Are we going to say that a Palestinian 
child cannot be considered for resettlement, because of his or her 
place or origin? Are we going to say to a child's parents, if they were 
being persecuted by Hamas, they are ineligible for resettlement? Are we 
going to say, as the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire 
suggested, to a scientist who has great skills, we cannot accept you 
because there are terrorists in Gaza? That is not what made this Nation 
great. We have that wonderful Statue of Liberty with the upraised torch 
in the New York Harbor--or the New Jersey Harbor, depending on where 
you live--saying we are a welcoming country. I trust our State 
Department and our intelligence agencies and others, that if somebody 
with an interest that is hostile toward the United States tries to come 
here, they will be barred. But let's not make a blanket rule against a 
whole group of people based solely on their ethnicity or place of 
origin.
  I thank the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire for 
coming down here and pointing these things out. He and I worked hard to 
get a bipartisan bill that reflects the best interests of the United 
States no matter who the administration might be.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m. 
today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following 
amendments in the order listed; provided that prior to each vote, there 
be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual 
form; that after the first vote, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes 
each, with provisions of the previous order regarding intervening 
amendments remaining in effect: McCain amendment No. 593, Kyl amendment 
No. 630, Kyl amendment No. 631, Enzi amendment No. 668.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 665

  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I call up Bunning amendment No. 665 and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 665.

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

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of State to issue a report on 
     investments by foreign companies in the energy sector of Iran)

       On page 942, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:


                  investments in energy sector of iran

       Sec. 7093.  (a) None of the amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be made available 
     for the Department of State until the Secretary of State, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, submits to 
     Congress a report on investments by foreign companies in the 
     energy sector of Iran since the date of the enactment of the 
     Iran Sanctions Act (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note), 
     including information compiled from credible media reports. 
     The report shall include the status of any United States 
     investigations of companies that may have violated the Iran 
     Sanctions Act, including explanations of why the Department 
     of State has not made a determination of whether any such 
     investment constitutes a violation of such Act.
       (b) In this section, the term ``investment'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 14 of the Iran Sanctions 
     Act (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note).

  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I would like to send a modification to 
the desk, if possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will have to object. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BUNNING. Then I will speak on the original amendment No. 665.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, we have had sanctions against Iran on 
our books since 1987. They, along with other multilateral efforts, have 
served to put a financial chokehold on Iran's rogue behavior. Now is 
the time to enforce these sanctions and deny Iran the financial capital 
it needs to fund its nuclear proliferation and support for 
international terrorism. This is why I have offered an amendment 
requiring the State Department to provide Congress with the report of 
potential violations of existing Iranian sanctions under the Iran 
Sanctions Act of 1996.
  Under the act, a company is found in violation of our sanctions if it 
invests more than $20 million in 1 year in Iran's energy sector. Since 
enactment, companies have invested more than $29 billion in Iran's 
energy sector. This does not include the $70 billion in pending 
transactions that are known about, most of which are long-term 
contracts to purchase Iranian gas and oil.
  As it stands, the State Department is not required to provide any 
type of report to Congress or publish in the Federal Registry a list of 
potential violations of our sanctions against Iran. Time and time 
again, I have asked the State Department for transparency on this 
issue, as well as imposing some sort of timeline on ruling on pending 
investigations of existing sanctions. The State Department has no 
enforceable guidelines on these sanctions and, thus, gives them little 
or no teeth. As it stands, pending investigations of companies in 
violation of our sanctions laws have gone on as long as 10 years. 
Furthermore, since enactment, there has only been one found violation 
of the Iran Sanctions Act by a French company. Through the use of a 
Presidential waiver, this violation was totally waived.
  My amendment is in no way seeking to change or remove this 
flexibility. It simply asks the State Department for a report on 
pending violations of our existing sanctions laws against Iran.
  I have long said that the danger of a nuclear Iran poses one of if 
not the greatest threat to our national security. As this rogue nation 
continues to ignore three U.N. Security Council resolutions, the time 
for Congress to act is now. I ask my colleagues to join me and support 
the Bunning amendment. Now more than ever, we need to tighten our 
economic chokehold on Iran.
  I ask for the yeas and nays in a timely fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 593

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 593, an 
amendment submitted by the Senator from Arizona.
  This amendment limits the flexibility of the executive branch. It has 
no impact on Government spending and

[[Page S2896]]

will not add to congressional oversight. It is an amendment which will 
serve no useful purpose to either the Congress or the executive branch.
  The amendment of the Senator from Arizona states that no funds for 
congressionally directed spending programs could be spent unless the 
items were included in bill language. The Senator seems to believe that 
the inclusion of the items in bill language affords the Congress 
greater oversight over the items. This is not correct. The Senate has 
the ability to review, debate, and vote in relation to any item, 
whether it is included in this measure as bill language or just 
identified in report language.
  The Senator apparently believes that putting items in the bill 
language offers better control over spending. The opposite is true. 
When items are contained in bill language, the executive branch is 
afforded less opportunity to exercise management over use of the funds. 
For example, if the Congress appropriates $1 million for an item in 
bill language, the funding can be used only for that purpose. Under 
current law, funds must be spent for the purpose for which the funds 
were appropriated unless the Congress has provided agencies additional 
authority to transfer funds. While most agencies have some ability to 
transfer funds, the rules are more often restrictive. The only other 
recourse an agency has is to propose the funding for rescission.
  The effect of this amendment would be to require that every item 
specified in bill language could not be altered without either the use 
of authorized transfer authority or the passage of a new law governing 
the use of funds. If a product is allocated $1 million in report 
language but only costs $800,000 to complete, in most cases agencies 
are afforded some flexibility to reapply the remaining funds for other 
authorized purposes. However, once the items are included in bill 
language, unless additional legal authority has been enacted, they 
cannot be allocated for another purpose. If a Government program 
manager has an additional and unneeded $200,000 but which can only be 
used for that one purpose, what incentive does he or she have to make 
certain all the funds that are approved for spending are really 
necessary? The unintended consequence of this amendment is to limit the 
ability of agencies to adjust to changing circumstances, such as 
reduced costs or resolution of environmental issues. This amendment 
needlessly ties the hands of agencies.
  This amendment will not save funding. If it were to be enacted, the 
Congress would simply move items that currently appear in report 
language to bill language.
  We shouldn't see this amendment as a way to reduce spending. It would 
probably necessitate the adding of an additional 1,000 pages to the 
bill, but it would not save a dime.
  I am not sure what useful purpose this amendment is thought to have. 
Its enactment would limit the flexibility of our agencies to manage 
funds. The amendment provides no additional congressional oversight of 
funding. It would have no impact on spending. Its adoption would, 
however, force the Senate to send the bill back to the House, further 
delaying the passage of this important legislation. Therefore, I urge 
my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from 
Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 593

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to discuss 
my pending amendment which would prohibit funds to be spent on 
thousands of earmarks that are listed in the statement of managers but 
are not included in the bill text.
  Most Americans would say: Why don't you have what you want to spend 
in the bill itself? So far, obviously, the answer has been that this 
has just grown and grown over the years, as earmarks have grown over 
the years. And let me just also point out, there is an attempt to say: 
Look, we have always done this. This has always been the case. So we 
are just doing what we have always done. You know, the fact is, Mr. 
President, we haven't always done this. The fact is this porkbarrel and 
earmark spending has grown and grown and grown and grown over the 
years.

  One of the people I admired most when I served in the other body was 
a Congressman from Tennessee, Congressman Natcher, who would not allow 
a single earmark in his appropriations bills, not a single one. He was 
proud of that, and he continued to get reelected.
  I did a little research. It is a little hard to get the information, 
but up until the 1960s or the 1970s there was no such thing as 
earmarks. There was no such thing. Citizens Against Government Waste 
have tracked the growth of earmarks, and in 1991, according to that 
organization, there were 546 earmarks--546 earmarks in 1991. In this 
bill, we have nearly 9,000.
  Now, that is how evil grows. That is what happens when this kind of 
activity continues to be allowed. There were 546 earmarks. In 2008, 
there were 11,610 earmarks. That is an increase of 337 percent in 17 
years. The numbers for fiscal 2009: with the three bills already 
enacted, there were nearly 3,000, and this is another 9,000.
  I don't enjoy bringing this up all the time, but the fact is, there 
is another article this morning in RollCall with the headline 
``Abramoff Case Keeps On Going.'' Quoting from the article, it says:

       Disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff may one day see an 
     end to the scandal that he largely created--at least in his 
     scheduled release from prison in 2011--but the complex 
     criminal investigation spurred by his activities shows no 
     sign of winding down any time soon.

  It talks about former Senate aides who are either under indictment or 
in prison or, according to this article, going to be indicted. But that 
is what happens when you are able to put in an earmark without anybody 
knowing about it, without any scrutiny, without any oversight, but 
directly related to the influence of the individual Member or staff 
member.
  You can't make up these stories. You can't make them up. We have 
various staff members who became lobbyists, and obviously, as we know, 
we have former Members of Congress now residing in Federal prison. So I 
come to my opposition to these earmarks because it makes good people do 
bad things. A colleague from the other body, who was a great American 
hero, ended up making a list of the appropriations that he would get 
and the money that he would get in return, and now he resides in 
Federal prison.
  May I also say we continue to hear that the President will do 
something about this. Last week Mr. Gibbs said we will see and hear the 
President outline a process of dealing with this problem in a different 
way and that the rules of the road going forward for those many 
appropriations bills that will go through Congress and come to his desk 
will be done differently. There is an easy way of doing that, Mr. 
President. Just authorize them. Just send these requests through the 
authorizing committees and have them authorized and you will never see 
the Senator from Arizona on the Senate floor again complaining about 
earmarks because then they will have done what we did for most of this 
Nation's history, and that is to authorize projects and then have the 
appropriators fund the projects. It is the way that the Congress should 
do business and the way we have gotten away from in recent years.
  So I say to the President, if you really want to see something 
different, veto this bill. Just simply veto this bill and say: I am 
sending it back to you. Authorize those earmarks, don't put them in, 
all 9,000 of them.
  I don't know if they are good or bad projects. I continuously see 
Members come to the floor on both sides of the aisle saying: This is a 
good project. This is a good project.
  As you know, Mr. President, we are twittering over the top 10 every 
day--the top 10--and the responses we get are from local authorities to 
Members of Congress saying: This is a good, worthwhile project. Fine, 
get it authorized. Get it authorized and you will not hear a word of 
criticism from me.
  Here we are, unemployment at 8.1 percent in February, the highest 
since late 1983--when we didn't do earmarks, 25 years ago--and 
employers having cut another 65,000 jobs. The Labor Department also 
reported that job losses in December were the biggest monthly decline 
in jobs since October 1949. So we are going to spend $1.7 million for 
pig odor research--that has been bandied

[[Page S2897]]

about a lot--and $6.6 million for termite research, $1.9 million for 
the Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service Project in Connecticut, $951,000 
for Sustainable Las Vegas. And the list goes on and on. I have talked 
about many of them.
  The message is this: As we are in the most dire economic times since 
the Great Depression, in the view of many experts we are going to 
continue business here as usual with 9,000 earmarks for things which 
certainly do not have a priority for the American people at this time. 
So if the President really wants to change Washington, as soon as this 
bill reaches his desk he should veto it and send it back and say: Clean 
it up. Clean it up. Then let's fix the system, which is obviously badly 
broken.
  I would remind my colleagues that back in January of 2007 we passed a 
pretty tough reform bill through the Senate, and then 7 months later, I 
believe it was, we then finally passed a much watered-down effort to 
bring in the porkbarrel earmark spending under control.
  In the last week or so, the Senator from Wisconsin and I have 
introduced legislation which we call a line-item veto, which is more 
understandable but, frankly, is really an enhanced rescission. The 
President would issue a rescission and then the Congress would have to 
vote in order for it to take place.
  There is another aspect of this, because I see my colleague from 
Alabama is here: policy changes. Policy changes have been enacted in an 
appropriations bill. Appropriations, as is the title, is funding for 
the Government. So what have we done? We have made changes in health 
care in both the stimulus package and in the omnibus bill; welfare 
changes, a number of changes that have been made in Government policy. 
There are several provisions that would weaken U.S. sanctions against 
the Castro regime in Cuba. That is a legitimate subject of debate. Why 
should it be put in an appropriations bill? The DC school vouchers, why 
should the vouchers for the District of Columbia schools, which provide 
financial assistance to 1,800 students in the District of Columbia who 
want to attend private elementary and secondary schools, why should 
that policy be changed under this bill?
  NAFTA and trucking--you can argue whether we should allow Mexican 
trucks into the United States of America or not. It was part of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement many years ago. You could have that 
debate. But how can you rationalize a process that puts it into what is 
supposed to be an appropriations bill without debate or anything else?
  We need to end this earmarking practice. We don't have the votes 
probably. I can count fairly well, not as well as some, but I can count 
fairly well. But I can tell you that this week's debate has aroused a 
lot of Americans. We have heard from them. We have heard from them. 
They voted for change. They voted for change, and they are not getting 
change. They are getting business as usual. They are getting 9,000 
porkbarrel earmark projects that have not received scrutiny nor 
authorization nor what they deserve if we are going to spend nearly $8 
billion of the taxpayers' money.
  I would also like to respond to what one of my colleagues said--
little porky projects. Another one said: Well, that is the way business 
is done. I would argue that it is time to do business differently.
  An article appeared in the Chicago Tribune today entitled ``Some 
Odor.'' The article said:

       The bill may still pass this week and if it does, President 
     Barack Obama is likely to sign it. But maybe, with the 
     benefit of a few more days to digest how much this thing 
     smacks of Washington business as usual, Democrats in Congress 
     and the White House will feel some pangs of responsibility.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this morning's 
Chicago Tribune article entitled ``Some Odor,'' along with the 
Washington Post editorial this morning entitled ``Truck Stop.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 9. 2009]

                               Some Odor

       Democrats were pushing full speed ahead last week for the 
     $410 billion bill to finance the government for the rest of 
     the year. That's the one that increases discretionary 
     spending by 8 percent and is loaded with 8,570 earmarks worth 
     $7.7 billion. It's the one the White House has dismissed as 
     ``last year's business.''
       But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to acknowledge 
     Thursday night that he couldn't rustle up enough votes to 
     break a Republican filibuster. He had to pull the bill.
       And suddenly, $1.7 million to study pig odor was in 
     jeopardy. New Orleans might not get $6.6 million to study 
     termites. New York could have to forgo $2.1 million to study 
     grape genetics. California might have to struggle without 
     $200,000 for gang tattoo removal. Arkansas? No $1.75 million 
     for a fish hatchery visitors center. Texas? It could still 
     study honeybees, but without $1.7 million in federal money to 
     do it.
       All are earmarks in this spending bill.
       The bill may still pass this week and if it does, President 
     Barack Obama is likely to sign it. But maybe, with the 
     benefit of a few more days to digest how much this thing 
     smacks of Washington business as usual, Democrats in Congress 
     and the White House will feel some pangs of responsibility.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 6, 2009]

 Truck Stop: Congress Flashes a Yellow Light on Free Trade With Mexico

       PRESIDENT OBAMA seems to have resolved, for now, an 
     incipient dispute with Canada over ``Buy American'' rules in 
     the stimulus package. The law would have hurt Canadian steel 
     exports to the United States, but, at the White House's 
     insistence, Congress appended language that blunted the worst 
     protectionist consequences. Now, however, Congress has turned 
     on Mexico, the United States' other partner in the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement. A $410 billion omnibus 
     spending bill contains a provision that would pretty much 
     kill any chance that long-haul freight trucks from Mexico 
     could operate in the United States, as had been promised 
     under NAFTA.
       Economically, giving U.S. and Mexican trucks reciprocal 
     access to each other's markets makes a lot of sense. 
     Currently, Mexican rigs can drive in only a small zone on the 
     U.S. side of the border, where they must offload their goods 
     onto U.S. trucks. The process wastes time, money and fuel, 
     harming the U.S. environment and raising the cost of Mexican 
     goods to U.S. consumers. Yet access for Mexican trucks has 
     been bitterly resisted by U.S. interests, most notably the 
     Teamsters union--which claims that poorly regulated trucks 
     from south of the border would be a menace on U.S. highways.
       In an effort to disprove that, the Bush administration 
     promoted a pilot project under which Mexican trucks, screened 
     by U.S. personnel, could operate freely within the United 
     States. The Mexican trucks compiled a safety record 
     comparable to that of American rigs. Mexican participation 
     was limited, however, because of the political uncertainty. 
     And safety was always a smokescreen for the Teamsters' real 
     concern--economic turf--anyway. Now the Democratic majority 
     on the Hill has slipped into the omnibus bill a provision 
     killing the program. The provision seems certain to survive, 
     given that the president supported such a measure when he was 
     a senator; his transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, backed 
     it as a member of the House.
       When the U.S. economy needs all the help it can get, this 
     legislation perpetuates inefficiency and invites Mexican 
     retaliation against U.S. exports. To a world looking for 
     signs that Democratic rule in Washington would not mean 
     revived protectionism, this can only be a disappointment.

  Mr. McCAIN. The Washington Post article I just referred to states:

       When the U.S. economy needs all the help it can get, this 
     legislation perpetuates inefficiency and invites Mexican 
     retaliation against U.S. exports. To a world looking for 
     signs that Democratic rule in Washington would not mean 
     revived protectionism, this can only be a disappointment.

  So I object to this legislation on grounds that there are fundamental 
policy changes which should be debated and be the subject of separate 
legislation. I also object to the 9,000 earmarks that are in this 
legislation, which sends the message to the American people that we are 
doing business as usual.
  I am encouraged to continue to hear the news that the President will 
issue rescissions. He will say we are not going to do business like 
this anymore. Well, the best way that the President can send the 
message is, after we pass this legislation, to veto it and send it back 
and ask for clean legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, which separates this 
1,844 pages, which was supposed to be originally just a statement of 
the managers but is now full of thousands of earmark projects, and at 
least not have those have the force of law.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are many reasons to oppose the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, but a principal reason 
is that passage would not reduce Federal spending

[[Page S2898]]

by one dollar. The amendment would prohibit spending on specific 
programs mentioned in the statement of managers but not included in the 
statutory bill language. But the money would be appropriated and 
available to be spent as the executive branch sees fit. So voting for 
this amendment thinking it will reduce spending would be a vote cast on 
a false assumption.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a memo to me by 
the Congressional Research Service. Part of that memo reads that 
prohibiting the use of funds for `` projects referred to in the McCain 
amendment number 593 would not have the effect of reducing the spending 
provided in the measure.'' This is also true for the amendment which 
had been offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Senate amendment No. 
610. According to Congressional Research Service, ``[t]he funds that 
might have been set aside for these projects could not be used to fund 
the projects, but would be available for other activities funded within 
the pertinent account.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Congressional Research Service,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2009.

                               Memorandum

     To: Honorable Carl Levin, Attention: Jack Danielson
     From: Sandy Streeter, 7-8653, Analyst on the Congress and 
         Legislative Process
     Subject: Spending Effect of Two Specified Senate Amendments
       This memorandum responds to your request for the spending 
     effect of S. Amdt. 610 and S. Amdt. 593 to the Omnibus 
     Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105).
       The texts of the two amendments are provided below. Senate 
     amendment 610 stated:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.     . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds made available under this Act may be 
     obligated or otherwise expended for any congressionally 
     directed spending item for--
       (1) the Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service Project of 
     Connecticut;
       (2) the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy of Michigan;
       (3) the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Hawaii;
       (4) the American Lighthouse Foundation of Maine;
       (5) the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of John 
     Brown's raid on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry National 
     Historic Park in West Virginia;
       (6) the Orange County Great Park Corporation in California;
       (7) odor and manure management research in Iowa;
       (8) tattoo removal in California;
       (9) the California National Historic Trail Interpretive 
     Center in Nevada;
       (10) the Iowa Department of Education for the Harkin grant 
     program; and
       (11) the construction of recreation and fairgrounds in 
     Kotzebue, Alaska.
       On March 4, 2009, the Senate rejected the amendment by a 
     vote of 34-61.
       Senate amendment 593 would have a broader impact; it 
     states:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC X. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.

       None of the funds in this Act may be used for any project 
     listed in the statement of managers [joint explanatory 
     statement] that is not listed and specifically provided for 
     in this Act.
       No Senate action has occurred on this amendment.
       Total spending provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 
     2009, generally equals the sum of numerous separate 
     appropriations and obligation limitations as well as 
     rescissions. The funding levels are provided in the text of 
     the measure for individual accounts and would have statutory 
     effect. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
     provided more detailed instructions to agencies in a ``joint 
     explanatory statement'' accompanying the bill. For example, 
     the committees provided direction allocating funds within 
     certain accounts for a variety of activities and projects. 
     Such statements do not have any statutory effect and as a 
     result, do not reduce spending provided in the accompanying 
     bill. An amendment that would prohibit the use of funds for 
     projects identified solely in a joint explanatory statement 
     (including the 11 projects listed in S. Amdt. 610 and the 
     projects referred to in S. Amdt. 593) would not have the 
     effect of reducing the spending provided in the measure. The 
     funds that might have been set aside for these projects could 
     not be used to fund the projects, but would be available for 
     other activities funded within the pertinent account.
       If the provisions included in S. Amdt. 610 and/or S. Amdt. 
     593 become law, they would not have a direct effect on the 
     spending provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.
       If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Alabama.


                           Amendment No. 604

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 604, the E-Verify amendment. I believe it has been agreed 
to by the leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 604.

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

   (Purpose: To extend the pilot program for employment eligibility 
confirmation established in title IV of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
         and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 for 6 years)

       On page 1121, line 5, strike ``143, 144,'' and insert 
     ``144''.
       On page 1121, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following
       Sec. 102.  Section 143 of division A of the Consolidated 
     Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations 
     Act, 2009 (Public Law 110-329; 122 Stat. 3580) is amended by 
     striking ``shall'' and all that follows through the end and 
     inserting ``is amended by striking `11-year' and inserting 
     `17-year'.''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, when we recently worked on the 
stimulus package, I attempted, on three different occasions, to get a 
vote on my amendment which incorporated E-Verify provisions that were 
included in the House version of the bill. I was extremely disappointed 
that all of my attempts were blocked by Democrats. The provisions I 
refer to were both unanimously accepted without a vote by the House 
Appropriations Committee. The provision that extended the E-Verify 
Program for another 4 years had, in addition to being included in the 
House-passed stimulus bill, overwhelmingly passed the House last July 
by a vote of 407 to 2.
  The E-Verify system is the system that about 2,000 businesses a week 
are voluntarily signing up to use. Over 112,000 businesses are now 
using it voluntarily. They simply check a person's Social Security 
number when they make employment applications to verify they are 
lawfully in the country, and not here illegally.
  The main purpose of the stimulus package was to put Americans back to 
work. It is common sense, therefore, to include a simple requirement 
that the people hired to fill stimulus-related jobs be lawful American 
citizens or residents. They could be here lawfully and obtain a job, 
whether through as a green card or otherwise. The actions of the 
majority in blocking that amendment seems to be a clear signal that 
they are indifferent to the utilization of American tax money to hire 
people who are unlawfully in the country and indifferent to the fact 
that would deny an American citizen that job.
  So I tried to offer the amendment that incorporated both the House 
provision to the Senate bill. But it was blocked. That was interesting, 
because the House had it in their bill, we did not have it in ours. We 
could not get a vote on it. Had we had a vote on it, I am certain it 
would have passed. But we did not get a vote on it.
  When they went to conference, it was not in the Senate bill, but it 
was in the House bill. So one side or the other had to give. So what 
happened? The House gave. Speaker Pelosi and her team gave in and they 
took the language out.
  So I did not think that was good. I am pleased now that at least we 
will get a vote, apparently, on that portion of the amendment that 
would reauthorize the E-Verify Program for an additional 5 years. I 
will be introducing soon a bill to make the E-Verify system permanent 
and make it mandatory for contractors who get contracts with the U.S. 
Government, get money from the U.S. taxpayers. Every one of them should 
be using this program. In fact, it should have been law already. That 
would include the TARP spending or other bills we are passing that 
spend taxpayers' money. At a minimum what employers should do is take 
the 2 minutes it takes to use E-Verify and determine whether a job 
applicant is legally authorized to work in the country.
  Short-term extensions, such as the 6 month extension included in the 
underlying bill, are not the right way to go. It is baffling to me that 
we would go through the process of wanting to extend this program for 6 
months. Why 6

[[Page S2899]]

months? If you are committed to it, if you understand, as almost every 
top official who has dealt with it understands, the E-Verify central 
component of creating a lawful system of immigration, a short term 
extension is simply unsatisfactory. E-Verify is a central component of 
eliminating the jobs magnet that draws people into our country 
illegally.
  E-Verify is an on-line system operated by the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Social Security Administration. Participating 
employers can check the work status of new hires on line by comparing 
information from their I-9 form against the Social Security 
Administration and DHS databases. It is free and voluntary. It is the 
best means available for determining employment eligibility of new 
hires.
  According to Homeland Security, 96 percent of employees are cleared 
automatically, and growth continues throughout the country voluntarily 
by businesses. As of February 2 of this year, there have been over 2 
million inquiries run. In 2008, there were more than 6 million 
inquiries run. So we can see that those numbers are going up 
exponentially, since more than one-third of the number of inquiries 
made last year were already made from January 1 through February 2 of 
this year.
  An employer who verifies work authorization under the E-Verify system 
will have established a rebuttable presumption that it did not 
knowingly hire an unauthorized alien. In other words, if law 
enforcement says you illegally hired someone knowing they were illegal 
and wants to prosecute, companies using E-Verify have a defense. That 
is one of the reasons people like to use it.
  I was most disappointed to learn that on January 28 of this year, 
President Obama pushed back the implementation of Executive Order 12989 
which would require all Federal contractors and subcontractors to use 
E-Verify. It was supposed to take effect on February 20, but now it has 
been pushed back to May 21.
  Congress needs to act on this. My amendment that I called up today 
only incorporates one part of what we need to do, that is, a short 5-
year extension. Though I do plan to offer the other provisions at some 
point later, it is imperative that we reauthorize this successful 
program which is currently set to expire when the CR runs.
  It is important, particularly because of the economic downturn. The 
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate in 
February jumped to 8.1 percent, 651,000 jobs lost in January, which 
equates to roughly 12 million workers without jobs. This is the highest 
unemployment rate since the mid 1980s.
  Immigration by illegal immigrants and other poorly educated aliens 
has had a depressing effect on the standard of living of lower skilled 
American workers. This is a matter of very little dispute. The U.S. 
Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late civil rights 
pioneer Barbara Jordan, found that immigration of unskilled immigrants 
``comes at a cost to U.S. workers.''
  The Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that such 
immigration has reduced the wage of average native-born workers in a 
low-skilled occupation by 12 percent or almost $2,000 annually. Is 
there any doubt about that? I do not think so.
  In addition, Harvard economist George Borjas, himself a Cuban 
refugee, an immigrant who came here as a young man, has estimated that 
immigration in recent decades has reduced wages of native-born workers 
with a high school degree by 8.2 percent.
  It also takes jobs. A report in today's USA Today cites to studies by 
the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Immigration Studies which 
found that according to their estimate, out of the 2.5 million jobs 
projected to be created by the stimulus plan, 300,000 would be going to 
people illegally here. That is approximately 15 percent.
  Doris Meissner, in February of this year, former head of the INS 
under President Clinton, said this.
  ``Mandatory,'' this amendment does not make anything mandatory, but 
she said:

       Mandatory employer verification must be at the center of 
     legislation to combat illegal immigration . . . the E-Verify 
     system provides a valuable tool for employers who are trying 
     to comply with the law. E-Verify also provides an opportunity 
     to determine the best electronic means to implement 
     verification requirements. The Administration should support 
     reauthorization of E-Verify and expand the program . . .

  This is an expert in this. She knows that E-Verify is the cornerstone 
of the entire effort to clear a lawful system of immigration.
  Mr. Alexander Aleinikoff, the Clinton administration INS official and 
President Obama's transition team member, called it a ``myth'' that 
``there is little or no competition between undocumented workers and 
American workers.''
  It is a myth. Of course it does. Of course it pulls down the wages of 
lower hard-working American citizens. They are competition.
  Even the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, has indicated 
he supports the program. In a time of increased unemployment, our focus 
should be on creating jobs for American citizens. It is critical that 
we extend the E-Verify Program in order to protect American jobs and to 
create a system we can be proud of.
  Some critics have argued, the program is too cumbersome and costly. 
But in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, Mark Powell, a human 
resources officer executive for a Fortune 500 company, wrote this:

       The E-Verify program is free, only takes a few minutes, and 
     is less work than a car dealership would do in checking a 
     credit score.

  Well, that is correct. How else can you explain so many employers 
signing up voluntarily. Recent improvements have also made the system 
more accurate. The USCIS has begun to incorporate Department of State 
passport information into the E-Verify program. This allows the system 
to check passport numbers for citizens providing a U.S. passport as 
Form I-9. Additionally, foreign born workers who receive a tentative 
nonconfirmation can now directly call USCIS instead of visiting a 
Social Security Administration office to resolve the case. Both of 
these measures are steps toward greater accuracy by eliminating any 
unforeseen delays in this system.
  I will conclude by saying I hope our colleagues will consider this 
amendment and will all vote for it. It would represent, in my view, a 
statement that the fundamental electronic system that will help 
businesses, particularly those that are doing business with the 
Government, to ensure the applicant who applies with them for a job is 
lawfully in the country. That system would continue, and it would give 
encouragement for other businesses to voluntarily sign up for the 
program. There are 12 States that have made it mandatory. I think this 
is a good amendment. My amendment is not as far as we should go; it 
simply reauthorizes the program. It is time to do that. I believe our 
colleagues are prepared to vote for it. I certainly hope so. I think it 
would send a very bad message were we not to do so.
  We need to make it clear this foundational system will be continued 
and will remain a part of our enforcement mechanism and we will 
continue to enhance it, improve it in the years to come.
  I would note, of course, if someone shows up as not being lawful, and 
they cannot be hired, we do not have investigators or police or arrest 
warrants or jail for them. The employer simply denies their employment 
eligibility; they are not hired. That is not too much to ask. I think 
it is the right thing. It is good policy.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute remains prior to the debate on the 
McCain amendment.


                           Amendment No. 668

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I realize time is of the essence, so I 
will simply say I wish to oppose amendment No. 668, which was submitted 
by Senator Enzi, which would strip a hold-harmless provision enacted 
last year in the Ryan White Act, an act we passed several years ago to 
combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. It is an amendment that will cause some 
problems to the cities that are helping in this fight, and I hope my 
colleagues will oppose this amendment.
  In 2006, the Ryan White Care Act programs were reauthorized, enacting

[[Page S2900]]

some dramatic shifts in the formula by which funds are disbursed to 
municipalities. Without increased funding, some cities were slated to 
have more than 25 percent of their funding cut.
  To reduce the impact of these extreme cuts, the Labor HHS 
Appropriations bill has included provisions since 2006 that accomplish 
two things.
  First, the bill has provided increases in the formula funds to offset 
the cuts.
  Second, the bill included language in Part A providing a fully funded 
partial hold-harmless account.
  As the formula funding is increased every year, the funding needed 
for the hold harmless is decreased. The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill ensures that no municipality receives more than a 
6.3 percent cut from fiscal year 2006 funding levels.
  The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill includes a $35 
million increase for Part A grants, of which $10.8 million is used 
specifically to hold cities to no more than a 6.3 percent cut in their 
funding level.
  The remaining $25 million is used to increase the formula allotments 
as the second part of efforts to reduce the impact of the authorized 
shift in the formula.
  The Enzi amendment seeks to stop the efforts to soften the blow to 
those geographical regions negatively impacted from the authorized 
shift in formula.
  When the reauthorization was debated, the best information out there 
was that there were 40,000 new cases of HIV per year in the U.S.
  In 2007, just after that reauthorization passed, we learned that 
number is really more than 56,000. Between 2004 and 2007, we saw a 15 
percent increase in HIV diagnoses. We knew none of this when the 
reauthorization passed.
  With this many new infections happening, we cannot afford to cut HIV 
treatment funding to any one area so drastically.
  We are not overriding the formula. All we are doing is ramping down 
the funding gradually. As the formula funding increases, the need for 
the hold harmless decreases.
  The Enzi amendment seeks to stop the ramp down approach and impose 
draconian cuts when our cities simply cannot afford to keep up.
  I urge my colleagues to agree to the modest adjustment included in 
the underlying bill and vote no on the Enzi amendment.
  I yield the floor and 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. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 593

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 593, offered by the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. McCain.
  Mr. INOUYE. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

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

                                NAYS--63

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennett
     Hutchison
     Johanns
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 593) was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 630

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 630, offered by the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. Kyl.
  Mr. KYL. Colleagues, this amendment is very simple. It simply calls 
for a study by the Secretary of State and the DNI about whether 
additional U.S. taxpayer support out of the annual appropriation for 
Egypt would aid in stopping smuggling activity from the Sinai into 
Gaza.
  Egypt has been helpful to the United States but much more could be 
done. I put in the Record during my earlier remarks articles that 
demonstrate the degree to which Egypt is not helping. I think, 
therefore, those who argue this is a slap in the face at Egypt miss the 
point. Egypt has been recognized for its support, but it can do much 
more, and a mere study asking to identify what else it could do would 
be very appropriate when we are talking about spending U.S. taxpayer 
dollars.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this amendment is unnecessary. As the 
senior Senator from New Hampshire and I both said on the floor this 
afternoon, the omnibus bill already explicitly authorizes the use of 
foreign military financing assistance to Egypt for border security 
programs and activities in the Sinai. Senator Gregg and I put that 
language in to help them police the border and reduce the smuggling 
into Gaza. Egypt is cooperating with Israel and the United States to do 
this. If we were to pass this it would be seen in Egypt as though we do 
not acknowledge their cooperation, it would be seen as publicly shaming 
Egypt.
  Senators can vote against the Kyl amendment and still be on record 
supporting additional funds to stop smuggling into Gaza. That is 
already in the omnibus bill. This is an unnecessary roiling of the 
waters. Both Senator Gregg and I said this afternoon that it should be 
opposed.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  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 Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts

[[Page S2901]]


     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--61

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennett
     Hutchison
     Johanns
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 630) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 631

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, 
prior to a vote on amendment No. 631, offered by the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment deals with $300 million in 
this bill that Secretary of State Clinton announced at the donors 
conference at Sharm el-Sheikh would go to support efforts of the 
Palestinians in Gaza.
  The point of the amendment is to keep the money out of the hands of 
Hamas. Recognizing that this was important, there is a section of the 
bill that explicitly puts limitations on the money that flows to the 
Palestinian Authority to make sure it goes to the Palestinian Authority 
and not to Hamas or other terrorists.
  The problem is, according to a State Department spokesman, other 
parts of the money are going to go to NGOs and through the U.N. 
including potentially to a bank in Syria, which launders money to get 
to Hamas.
  The point of this amendment is to provide that the Secretary certify 
that none of this money goes to Hamas, whether it is through the 
Palestinian Authority or the U.N. or these NGOs. This amendment is 
necessary to protect American taxpayer money from getting to terrorist 
organizations such as Hamas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am in complete agreement with the Senator 
from Arizona that no money should be diverted to Hamas. That is why the 
omnibus bill already does that. When Senator Gregg and I wrote this 
bill we included specific provisions. Section 7040(f) of the bill 
prohibits funding to Hamas, to any entity effectively controlled by 
Hamas, or to any power-sharing government.
  When it comes to what the State Department might do, the State 
Department lawyers have said they would not do anything differently if 
the Kyl amendment were adopted, because laws that protect against the 
diversion of funds to Hamas are already in the bill. You can vote 
against the Kyl amendment and still be on record as voting for blocking 
funds to Hamas. Nobody in this body, Republican or Democrat, wants any 
funds to go to Hamas. This is an unnecessary amendment. I oppose it.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennett
     Hutchison
     Johanns
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 631) was rejected.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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. 668

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 668 offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. 
Enzi.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this amendment is an issue of the fairness 
of HIV/AIDS funding on which most of my colleagues who were here last 
year voted with me. With just those votes again, my amendment would be 
adopted.
  When we passed the last reauthorization of Ryan White 3 years ago, we 
changed the formula to follow the HIV/AIDS patients. We did not just 
keep increasing the amounts the cities got. The amount had to relate to 
HIV or AIDS patients who were still living. We even put in a hold 
harmless clause so no one would lose more than 5 percent over the 3-
year period. The reauthorization passed unanimously with the House 
agreeing with our changes.
  This amendment does not affect Wyoming, but I am sensitive as 
chairman of the committee when we passed the reauthorization. The 
omnibus has a provision which, according to the GAO, only four States 
gain money. Of the $10 million being redistributed, San Francisco gets 
$6.7 million. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California are the 
only States that gain. This is redistributed money, which means it is 
not new money. This is money being taken from those with an increasing 
problem to pay for those with a decreasing problem.
  This language is an attempt to change a formula for which most of my 
colleagues voted. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, when the reauthorization of the Ryan White 
legislation came through, the best scientists who testified before us 
said there were about 40,000 new cases of HIV in the United States. In 
2007, just after the reauthorization passed, the number was more like 
56,000.
  Between 2004 and 2007, we saw a 15-percent increase in HIV diagnoses. 
So we put this formula in without knowing this information. Some of the 
cities, such as San Francisco and New York--I know Senator Dodd told me 
about a couple cities in Connecticut that will get up to a 25-percent 
cut in Ryan White.
  What we did was we put in this bill a $35 million increase for Ryan 
White. Mr. President, $25 million goes for the Enzi formula. About 
$10.8 million goes to help hold harmless those largest cities that will 
be facing a 25-percent cut. We cannot afford to have these cities take 
that 25-percent cut.
  If we want to go after the HIV/AIDS, we have to go where the people 
are diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. That is what this bill does.
  I urge the defeat of the Enzi amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page S2902]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are they any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennett
     Hutchison
     Johanns
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 668) was rejected.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 637

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 637 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso], for himself, and 
     Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 637.

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

   (Purpose: To remove the new application fee for a permit to drill)

       On page 426, lines 18 through 22, strike ``to be reduced'' 
     and all that follows through ``each new application,''.

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to talk a minute, if I 
could, on my amendment.
  Imagine you run a small company, a small, independent oil-and-gas 
operation in Wyoming, and you have about a dozen people you employ--
people who are getting good benefits, people who have health insurance, 
people who have retirement benefits--and you are applying for a permit 
to explore for energy. As a result, people are going to be put to work, 
your business is going to grow, and the economy of your community is 
going to prosper.
  Well, the success of your business strategy relies on the Government, 
unfortunately. It relies on the Government to process your application 
and to provide you with a response--is it OK to explore or is it not 
OK? The law says the Government has to let you know in 30 days up or 
down, yes or no, is it OK. Well, you have 30 days to get geared up. You 
are waiting for your response.
  Now, Mr. President, when you put in that application, you also had to 
send in $4,000--$4,000 for each well. So if you are applying to do 10, 
that is $40,000, but you know you are going to get your response in 30 
days. Well, the calendar proceeds and the clock winds down and you 
begin checking your mail every day. Nothing arrives. Each day for 30 
days you check your mail. Nothing. You have called the agency but no 
permit. They say they are deferring a decision. Another 30 days passes. 
Nothing. You wait another 90 days and still no permit. You have paid 
your $4,000 but no permit.
  Half a year has passed--as has happened to many people in Wyoming--
and what do you have? Nothing. You have sent in $4,000, you have waited 
6 months, the Government has promised you an answer in 30 days, and you 
have nothing--not a yes, not a no, nothing.
  That is the situation that small business owners in my State are 
facing every day. It is a sad state of affairs when the Government 
can't meet its own deadline.
  Meanwhile, the backlog of these permits at the Bureau of Land 
Management continues to grow. As of February 14 of this year, in the 
field office in Buffalo, WY, Johnson County, the Bureau of Land 
Management has over 2,600 applications for permits that are still 
pending--2,609 permits still pending. For those applications in 
Buffalo, WY, Washington has collected $4,000 per permit. That is over 
$10 million. The energy producers in Wyoming continue to wait for an 
answer.
  America's independent producers drill and manage 90 percent of 
America's wells. They produce 82 percent of America's natural gas and 
62 percent of American oil. There are approximately 5,000 of these 
independent producers in the United States, and on average they have 
about a dozen employees. These are small businesses. These small 
business men and women create jobs in the United States. These folks 
are entrepreneurs whose hard work and innovative skills are integral to 
meeting our Nation's energy needs.
  The fees to apply for a permit place an especially heavy burden on 
small independent producers without any tangible benefit whatsoever. 
Congress should be focused on promoting job growth not on imposing 
additional fees on U.S. energy investment and production. 
Unfortunately, the fee is just the beginning of what these independent 
producers are facing. The administration has already moved to restrict 
oil-and-gas exploration and development in the United States. The 
administration is proposing more fees, more taxes, and more 
restrictions on these activities. None of this will make the United 
States more energy independent. None of the administration's proposals 
will make the Federal Government operate more efficiently.
  I have talked to a number of these folks who are in this business, 
and they tell me if the money that was collected from this application 
fee--this $4,000 per permit--were actually used to hire more people to 
help process the permits, then they could actually understand there is 
some purpose in this fee, that it is being used to help with studying 
this, looking at this, getting more people to work through these 2,600 
applications for permits, for which they still have no answer.
  Unfortunately, that is still not the case. The fee doesn't go to the 
Bureau of Land Management to reduce the permit backlog. It doesn't go 
to hire more people to look at these permits, to say if we should give 
them a yes or a no.
  At the very least, all of the revenue should be spent on reducing 
this permit backlog so that the Government can keep its word to let 
people know in 30 days yes or no, up or down. Instead, this money is 
going into the Washington black hole.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We should not be 
rewarding the inefficiency of Washington and the way this Government is 
currently working.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 637) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CARPER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay and the table was agreed to.


                     Project Attribution Correction

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join with our chair, Senator 
Murray, in a colloquy to correct a clerical error in the attribution 
table accompanying division I of H.R. 1105. Senator Barrasso is listed 
as having requested the ``Casper Civic Auditorium'' project under HUD 
Economic Development Initiatives. My staff has confirmed that this 
project was not requested by Senator Barrasso and, as

[[Page S2903]]

such, Senator Barrasso's name should not be listed as a requestor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. My colleague and subcommittee ranking member, Senator 
Bond, is correct. This resulted from a clerical error involving 
confusion between two different projects in the city of Casper. Senator 
Barrasso should not be listed as a sponsor of the Civic Auditorium 
project.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the chair for her assistance in this matter.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, 
March 10, tomorrow, after the opening of the Senate, the Senate resume 
consideration of H.R. 1105; that the remaining amendments be 
considered, debated, and that after all debate is concluded on the 
remaining amendments, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to 
the amendments in the sequence established under a subsequent order, 
with 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual 
fashion prior to a vote in relation to each; and that after the first 
vote in the sequence, remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes each; 
that upon the disposition of all remaining amendments, there be 30 
minutes of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
H.R. 1105 that will be equally divided and controlled between the 
leaders or their designees, with the remaining provisions of the order 
of March 6, 2009, remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. What this means is we will tomorrow debate all of the 
amendments. I think there are seven left. A number of those may not be 
brought to a vote. After the debate is completed, we will set a time to 
start voting, and we will go right through the sequence as indicated in 
the unanimous consent order.
  It should work out very well. Everyone has had an opportunity to 
offer the amendments they want that are on the list.

                          ____________________