[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 10, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2920-S2930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

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

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

  Pending:

       Ensign amendment No. 615, to strike the restrictions on the 
     District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.
       Kyl amendment No. 629, to provide that no funds may be used 
     to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States.
       Bunning amendment No. 665, to require the Secretary of 
     State to issue a report on investments by foreign companies 
     in the energy sector of Iran.
       Sessions amendment No. 604, 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 673

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any 
pending amendment and call up Cornyn amendment No. 673 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 673.


[[Page S2921]]


  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prevent collection of excessive contingency legal fees by 
             lawyers hired to protect the public interest)

       On page 366, line 24, strike ``rule.'' and insert the 
     following: ``rule, provided that an attorney general of a 
     State may not enter into a contingency fee agreement for 
     legal or expert witness services relating to a civil action 
     under this section. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     'contingency fee agreement' means a contract or other 
     agreement to provide services under which the amount or the 
     payment of the fee for the services is contingent in whole or 
     in part on the outcome of the matter for which the services 
     were obtained.''.

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment 673 to the 
Omnibus appropriations bill. As a former State attorney general, I am 
very concerned that the current bill lets State attorneys general 
outsource their responsibilities on behalf of their citizens to enforce 
the Truth in Lending Act. This is a very important piece of legislation 
that was passed in 1968 to protect consumers in credit transactions by 
requiring clear disclosure of key terms of the lending agreement at all 
costs. As I said, this is an important piece of legislation. However, 
the current provision in the bill allows the attorney general, the 
elected representative of the people--the people's lawyer--to basically 
hire trial lawyers on a contingency fee arrangement. Thus, the 
litigation that might follow under this piece of legislation would 
benefit not just the citizens, not just the public, not just the 
taxpayers but trial lawyers too. I don't believe that should be the 
intent of Congress.
  Specifically, this amendment clarifies that State attorneys general 
may not outsource these lawsuits to outside lawyers or expert witnesses 
on a contingency fee basis. As we all know, contingency fee means you 
get a piece of the pie if you win. This would not prohibit attorneys 
general from hiring lawyers on a more reasonable basis, such as a set 
fee or an hourly rate, but the new causes of action created by this 
bill could add up to significant money damages, and this money, as I 
indicated, should be paid to the people, not to private lawyers.
  Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed some concerns about the 
enforcement of this Truth in Lending Act by State attorneys general. 
Senator Dodd, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, said that 
``giving such broad authority to State attorneys general would be a 
departure from the current regulatory regime,'' and he is right.
  This amendment prevents the authority to enforce the Truth in Lending 
Act from being further disbursed by State attorneys general delegating 
it to trial lawyers on a contingency fee basis. Without this amendment, 
it is likely that plaintiffs' lawyers will develop class action 
lawsuits, then go to their State attorney general proposing to pursue 
these cases on a contingency fee basis, perhaps reaping millions of 
dollars in attorneys' fees awards.
  My colleagues have expressed concerns the bill would increase the 
number of authorized enforcers from 1 to 51. I would submit that unless 
this amendment is adopted, we are effectively increasing the number of 
authorized enforcers of this legislation from 1 to 5,100 or more.
  Hiring outside counsel on a contingency fee basis, unfortunately, as 
we have learned through hard experience, can lead to other problems, 
including the appearance of corruption or outright corruption. For 
example, my predecessor in office, the Texas attorney general, entered 
into contingency fee agreements with outside lawyers in the tobacco 
litigation, which was then being pursued across the country. These 
lawyers ended up making roughly $3 billion in attorneys fees through 
contingency fee provisions that my predecessor in office entered into. 
Unfortunately, my predecessor also falsified records in an attempt to 
funnel some of that money to a friend, and he paid the price. He went 
to the Federal penitentiary.
  This is not just a problem in my State; this is a national problem as 
well. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported and editorialized 
about the appearance of corruption in Mississippi, where the State 
attorney general had retained as many as 27 law firms as outside 
counsel to pursue at least 20 different State lawsuits over a 5-year 
period. In 2007 alone, the attorney general received almost $800,000 in 
political contributions from those same lawyers and law firms and, 
thus, the appearance of conflict of interest, if not an outright 
conflict, was created.
  This kind of conflict of interest has no place in the attorney 
general's job, which is to protect the legal interests of the people of 
his or her State. Amendment No. 673 would ensure that State attorneys 
general either do the work themselves in enforcing this law or hire an 
outside lawyer at a reasonable, competitive hourly rate or flat rate; 
no windfall attorneys' fees for hitting the long ball over the fence.
  When Federal agencies bring suits to enforce the Truth in Lending 
Act, they are barred from hiring outside counsel on a contingency fee 
basis. All I am suggesting is that this same rule should apply to the 
State attorneys general who are now authorized enforcers under the law. 
Particularly at this time in our Nation's economic history, it should 
hardly be one of Congress's priorities to increase the number of 
lawsuits. We cannot sue our way to recovery. Unless amendment 673 is 
adopted, the bill would give trial lawyers a share of the public's 
money and will disrupt the Federal credit regulatory regime and, as I 
indicated a moment ago, create dangerous incentives to corruption. I 
ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 673.


                           Amendment No. 674

  Madam President, I have another amendment, Cornyn amendment No. 674, 
so I now ask unanimous consent to set aside temporarily my previous 
amendment and ask for the immediate consideration of amendment No. 674.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 674.

  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to implement an Executive Order 
    relating to employee notice of rights under Federal labor laws)

       At the appropriate place in title I of division F, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  No funds made available under this Act shall be 
     used to implement the Executive Order dated January 30, 2009, 
     entitled ``Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal 
     Labor Laws'' to the extent that the implementation of such 
     order is in conflict with Executive Order 13201, dated 
     February 17, 2001.

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, my second and final amendment to this 
Omnibus appropriations bill would help protect workers' paychecks and 
increase transparency, something we all heard our new President speak 
about just a few short weeks ago--I believe about 50 days ago now--when 
he said he believed increased transparency would increase 
accountability and help restore the public's confidence in their 
Government. This amendment is offered in that vein.
  The U.S. Supreme Court, in Communication Workers v. Beck, said 
workers could not be forced to pay dues for purposes other than 
collective bargaining. That means workers have the right to keep more 
of their money rather than support political action committees, 
lobbying and gifts, things they may not even agree with.
  We know every dollar counts in this economy, and many workers object 
to scenes such as the one we saw last week in Miami. There, the AFL-CIO 
held a meeting at the Fontainebleau Resort, which describes itself as 
``the epicenter of style, fame, and glamour.'' Now, if workers don't 
want to support that kind of extravagance based on their union dues, 
they shouldn't have to. And, frankly, who can blame them?
  The Bush administration issued an Executive order that required 
employers to post signs at the workplace that informed workers of these 
rights regarding union dues. These notices are similar to those that 
inform workers of

[[Page S2922]]

their rights regarding family and medical leave, workplace safety, 
equal employment opportunity, and other rights they have under the law.
  Now, this chart shows what the notice says. It says:

       Under Federal law, employees cannot be required to join a 
     union or maintain membership in a union in order to retain 
     their jobs. Under certain conditions, the law permits a union 
     and an employer to enter into a union security agreement 
     requiring employees to pay uniform periodic dues and 
     initiation fees. However, employees who are not union members 
     can object to the use of their payments for certain purposes 
     and can only be required to pay their share of union costs 
     relating to collective bargaining, contract administration, 
     and grievance adjustment.

  It goes on to say:

       If you do not want to pay that portion of dues or fees used 
     to support activities not related to collective bargaining, 
     contract administration, or grievance adjustment, you are 
     entitled to an appropriate reduction in your payment.

  Meaning your payment of your union dues.

       If you believe that you have been required to pay dues or 
     fees used in part to support activities not related to 
     collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance 
     adjustment, you may be entitled to a refund and to 
     appropriate reduction in future payments. For further 
     information concerning your rights, you may wish to contact 
     the National Labor Relations Board, either at one of its 
     regional offices or at the following address.

  The Supreme Court has said when a worker pays their dues, they cannot 
be forced to financially support things they don't agree with, whether 
it is extravagant spending at the Fontainebleau Resort or perhaps even 
a political speech where a union might use those dues to help finance a 
campaign against a political candidate or perhaps an incumbent.
  President Obama, unfortunately, has signed an Executive order that, 
among other things, rescinds the requirement to inform workers of their 
rights regarding union dues. This Executive order, contrary to what we 
heard a few short weeks ago, actually reduces transparency in the 
workplace, and it places unnecessary limits on the information 
available to help workers make informed decisions about their union 
dues.
  Amendment No. 674 would prohibit Federal funds from being used to 
implement that part of President Obama's Executive order related to 
this notice to workers. It would have no other effect on the Executive 
order, other than to reinstate this notice to workers that you don't 
have to join a union; and, No. 2, if you do not join a union, you 
cannot be forced to finance points of view or activities you disagree 
with, and you can assure that your money can only be used for 
legitimate collective bargaining contract administration and grievance 
adjustment.
  I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 674.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 673

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today to speak against an 
amendment filed by Senator Cornyn of Texas. The amendment deals with 
the ability of State attorneys general to hire outside counsel for 
various lawsuits they may be pursuing. I wish to talk about that 
amendment for a few minutes and tell my colleagues how that works in 
the real world.
  One of the things we did when I was in the State attorney general's 
office is we looked at several cases on which we considered hiring 
outside counsel because the State did not have the resources to front 
the costs of the litigation. We ended up not retaining any outside 
counsel. We did not pursue those matters. Nonetheless, the fact that we 
had the ability to look at that option is very important for States. It 
is also very important for State sovereignty. In fact, I am not 
convinced--I have to look at the U.S. Constitution--I am not convinced 
that the U.S. Congress can limit a State's ability to file a lawsuit. 
My sense is that the States have that authority. They can do what they 
want to do. They are sovereign. My guess is that this amendment may be 
unconstitutional. I have not yet done a thorough analysis of it, but 
that is my suspicion.
  I say this too. One of the points my colleagues need to remember 
about the State AGs is that most of them--I think over 42, 43, 44 State 
attorneys general are just like us: they are elected by the people. 
There are a few appointed one way or another--by a supreme court, a 
legislature, a Governor. That happens State to State, but the vast 
majority of them are elected just as we are. They have accountability. 
They are responsible to the people who elected them. There is that 
check and balance that already exists. I am not sure about other States 
because I don't know how their outside counsel statutes work, but in 
our State, in order for us to hire outside counsel, we have to go to 
the legislature and get their approval, and we also have to get the 
Governor to sign off on it. Again, States are going to be different on 
point.
  Again, in Arkansas, we have another check and balance beyond just 
that the State attorney general is elected and is accountable to the 
people. There is also a check and balance between the State attorney 
general's office and the legislature and the Governor. Everyone has an 
interest to make sure this is done right and done well. It works very 
well in our State. If we had a lot of State attorneys general here, 
they would agree that it worked very well for them as well.
  Another point I wish to address in the Cornyn amendment is the 
underlying premise of this amendment. My understanding is it is based 
on some language dealing with the Federal Trade Commission in the 
omnibus bill we are discussing today and will vote on later today. We 
have to recognize that the Federal Government does not always have the 
manpower or the attention span or the ability, for one reason or 
another, to go after some bad actors out there. The States do not 
always have that manpower, attention span, or ability either, but the 
fact that the States can help augment and supplement the enforcement of 
the Federal Trade Commission and other Federal agencies can be very 
good for the people of this country.
  Again, we need to allow the States the flexibility to be on the team. 
They need to be on the team because these folks--again, most of them--
are elected by their people. Most of them have some sort of consumer 
protection function or some sort of public safety function. Most of 
them have an office that is ready, willing, and able to make sure their 
State's citizenry is protected and taken care of sometimes when the 
Federal Government cannot do it or is not able to do it or is not 
willing to do it. The State AG enforcement can be a very important part 
of that protection.
  With regard to the narrow issue of whether States can hire outside 
counsel, let me speak about that point for a moment.
  When I was elected to the State attorney general's office in Arkansas 
in 1998--we all remember the tobacco case, the big, mammoth tobacco 
case. I was elected and within weeks it settled. By the time I became 
attorney general, sworn into office, the case was over. It was done, 
and we were in the enforcement phase. The case itself was behind us.
  One of the first things I had to do--this literally happened on the 
first day I was in office--is I had to undo an outside counsel 
agreement my predecessor had entered into. Here, again, not only have I 
never entered into an outside counsel agreement as an attorney general, 
but I undid one my predecessor tried to enter into. That puts me in a 
different position than most people because I had been around this 
issue a lot during my years in the attorney general's office.
  The other point we need to keep in mind about the tobacco case--and 
this is just true for how State AGs work--one of the reasons, and I 
would say the primary reason, that the States brought that case in the 
first place is because Washington failed to act. Washington failed to 
act. We may remember those days in the nineties. President Clinton 
wanted to do something with the tobacco companies. He wanted to have a 
global settlement of these claims. I was not around then. A lot of my 
colleagues were around then

[[Page S2923]]

and remember the details of those discussions and the bill that came 
through. It got bogged down in the Congress. In fact, I remember 
listening to the news media saying it came like a Christmas tree--
everybody was adding an ornament as it went through the process. It 
never passed. It got burdened down, and it never passed and never got 
to the President's desk for his signature. So when Congress did not 
act, the States did.
  We have seen that in other context as well. When there is a void, 
when there is a vacuum and the Federal Government is not out there 
trying to take care of an issue, whatever it may be, oftentimes the 
States want action. It could be the Governors, it could be the State 
AGs, it could be the State legislatures, but--what is the old saying 
about power abhors a vacuum? That is what happens in this country. 
Again, we need to keep the States' flexibility in bringing lawsuits if 
they need to do that.
  The other point we need to keep in mind is that a lot of today's 
litigation, a lot of the litigation the States are either involved in 
or are looking at is very complex and very expensive. I personally 
believe that an outside counsel contract can make a lot of sense. 
Again, we looked at these contracts when I was in the attorney 
general's office. We never did one, but we looked at them very closely 
because there are cases where it is very complex, it is very expensive, 
and you can structure an agreement with an outside counsel. It is not a 
get-rich-quick scheme by the outside lawyers, by the plaintiffs' 
attorneys, but it really is good for public policy, and if it is done 
right and done well, the public interest is very much served.
  I think we should look at the Cornyn amendment. With all due respect 
to my colleague and friend from Texas, I think we should vote against 
the Cornyn amendment. We should not limit the States' ability to hire 
outside counsel if they feel they need to. Let the States make that 
decision. As I mentioned before, constitutionally, I am not sure we 
have the authority to limit the States anyway.
  In the end, the interest of our people back home would be disserved 
if we adopted this amendment because what we would do would be to take 
some of the authority, some of the ability away from the State to 
protect its citizenry. As this amendment is voted on--apparently later 
this afternoon; I don't know exactly when it will be voted on--as it is 
voted on, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the Cornyn 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I take the floor to give a little 
background, important background on the amendment I will call up later 
today. That Vitter amendment would do away with the system that is now 
in place under the law whereby Members of Congress get automatic pay 
increases annually without any open debate and without any open, clear 
rollcall vote.
  Madam President, I have to say, Americans--certainly Louisianans in 
my State--are frustrated about a lot that is going on in Washington and 
in Congress. They are frustrated about the direction of the country, 
about runaway spending, about bailouts, but they are also frustrated 
with how we in Congress often seem to do our business. They are not 
frustrated so much with disagreement. People can have legitimate 
disagreements, vast differences in points of view and philosophy and 
approaches to issues. What they are most frustrated about is pure 
partisanship for partisanship's sake, political games, and a cynical 
approach to doing what should be the people's business in the Halls of 
Congress.
  Unfortunately, a lot of voters and citizens in Louisiana and across 
the country are going to view some of the maneuvering and some of the 
political strategizing over attempts to defeat my amendment in that 
light, and they are certainly going to consider it more of the same. 
What am I talking about? Well, we have a big omnibus spending bill on 
the floor of the Senate, and last week the majority leader took great 
pains to say--including from his spot on the floor several times--we 
are going to have an open amendment process; that the floor is open for 
business, it is open for amendments. He invited Members to come on 
down. We will consider them. We are moving forward and taking care of 
amendments, having votes, and getting back to the proper procedure of 
the Senate.
  I was excited to hear that because I had an amendment I very much 
wanted to call up for debate and a vote. The problem is, when I tried 
to do that, both through staff and individually, we were blocked every 
step of the way. At every turn, my amendment would never be put in 
order. It was never allowed to be called up, and I was never allowed to 
get that vote on this pay raise amendment.
  Thursday night, that changed, and it changed for one simple reason: 
The majority leader needed to cancel a vote. He needed 60 votes for 
cloture. He didn't have the votes, as he explained from his podium. To 
cancel that vote, under the rules of the Senate, he needed unanimous 
consent--the consent of each and every Member of this body. Well, I 
took the opportunity--after a week of being frustrated and blocked and 
hemmed in at every turn from getting a vote on my amendment--to say 
very simply, in a straightforward way: I will be happy to grant that 
unanimous consent request with regard to my role in this if--if and 
only if--I will finally be guaranteed a vote on my amendment. The 
majority leader had to agree, and he did agree.
  So here we are today, the following week, debating the Vitter pay 
raise amendment to stop pay raises on autopilot. This will finally lead 
to a vote. But as soon as that vote was scheduled, a sort of funny 
thing happened. The next day the majority leader introduced his own 
bill, coauthored by the entire Democratic leadership, which would do 
the same thing. Now, if I thought I had gained that many enthusiastic 
converts to the cause, I would be excited. But even though I was born 
at night, I wasn't born last night. I know--and every observer to the 
process knows--something else is going on. The something else is 
simple: The majority leader filed his own bill regarding automatic pay 
raises simply to be able to point to it and say: I am offering this 
bill, we can push this forward through this vehicle, and therefore you 
must vote against the Vitter amendment to the omnibus spending bill.
  Again, I think the American people are going to be frustrated by the 
maneuvering and the cynical political games. I think they want a full, 
straightforward open debate. I think they want to hear where people are 
coming from. If folks support this idea of changing and doing away with 
automatic pay raises--pay raises on autopilot and no debate, no votes, 
they just happen every year--then I think they are going to want to see 
those Members vote for the Vitter amendment on the floor of this body 
today.
  Quite frankly, I think it is a cynical maneuver to point to a bill 
that will never pass, that is controlled by individuals who don't want 
the measure to pass, in order to defeat an amendment that can pass and 
that can be the vehicle for this important change and reform. So I 
would encourage all Members to support the Vitter amendment, to support 
the idea in the form in which it can actually be passed into law.
  This is a must-pass bill. This is an appropriations bill--something 
to fund this part of the Government. Something has to pass within the 
next several days. In this bill--in the original version of this bill--
the pay raise issue is already there. It is a perfectly germane and 
natural amendment to the bill and agrees with my provision to do away 
with automatic pay raises. Nothing could be more natural than to debate 
the issue on this bill, to offer this amendment on this bill, and it is 
the legitimate and appropriate and effective way if we actually do want 
to pass this into law.
  The way to never pass it into law is to have a stand-alone straw man; 
to point to a separate bill that will never be passed, certainly in the 
House.
  Now, I expect what will happen is, the majority leader will not only 
point to this stand-alone bill, but he will actually ask unanimous 
consent that it be passed through the Senate and sent down the road to 
the House in the process. Well, that would be very promising if there 
was any hope whatsoever that the Speaker of the House and the House 
leadership would take up the matter and put it on the House floor.

[[Page S2924]]

So I would ask the majority leader and the Speaker of the House if they 
have had those discussions. Is there a commitment to putting any stand-
alone bill passed through the Senate on the House floor for a vote in 
the very near future?
  If there is that commitment, I would love to hear that expressed 
publicly, clearly, and in a straightforward way, and then that would 
rebut my argument that this is all a cynical, political game. I am 
afraid we are not going to hear those assurances. We are not going to 
hear that public commitment because I am afraid what is swirling around 
my amendment is a cynical political game. Let us treat the people's 
business the way it should be treated. Let us come to the floor, let us 
express our opinions. If we have legitimate differences of opinion, let 
us express them and let us debate them. But let us do it in that 
straightforward way and then let us have a vote on the Vitter 
amendment--the amendment that would do away with automatic pay raises--
which is the true effective way to pass this reform into law on a must-
pass appropriations bill.
  I urge all my colleagues to come to the floor in that spirit. I urge 
all my colleagues to express themselves and wherever they are coming 
from in that straightforward way, in that straightforward spirit and 
not to drop in stand-alone bills the day after I was finally able to 
secure a vote on this matter, particularly when this proposal--thanks 
to my good friend, Senator Russ Feingold--has been around at least 
since the year 2000, 9 years. Neither the majority leader nor any of 
his Democratic leadership who are cosponsors to his brand new bill have 
ever reached out to Senator Feingold to express support and join him in 
supporting his bill, which, as I say, has been around since the year 
2000.
  I am now happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Iowa.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 604

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to speak on another amendment. 
I spoke on Senator Vitter's amendment yesterday, and I spoke in support 
of it. I will now speak on the Sessions amendment.
  I rise in support of the Sessions amendment to extend the E-Verify 
Program for a period of 5 years. The E-Verify Program is an effective 
Web-based tool that provides employers with a process for the purpose 
of verifying the Social Security numbers and, at the same time, for the 
main purpose of determining the legal status of newly hired employees.
  As my colleagues know, it is unlawful for employers to knowingly hire 
or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. Under 
current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear 
on their face to be genuine, then the employer has met the obligation 
to review the worker's documents. Unfortunately, counterfeit documents 
and stolen identities have made a mockery of this law. But with the E-
Verify Program, employers can electronically verify a new hire's 
employment authorization through the Social Security Administration 
and, if necessary, follow it up with the Department of Homeland 
Security databases.
  E-Verify has been an extremely successful program for employers who 
are seeking to comply with the law. The program is voluntary and free 
for all employers. Right now, over 100,000 employers have signed up for 
the program, and, in addition, each week more than 2,000 employers sign 
up. E-Verify has a proven track record--more than 5 million queries by 
employers were made last year and, of those, 96.1 percent were verified 
automatically.

  The small percentage of applicants who receive a tentative 
nonconfirmation must sort out their records with the Social Security 
Administration. I would think if the Social Security Administration has 
bad information about you, you would want to clear that up for sure 
anyway. Many times this is a simple misunderstanding with the Social 
Security Administration or a case in which records were not updated. In 
the event a person receives a tentative nonconfirmation after his 
employment application, that person can still continue to work and 
cannot be fired.
  The Sessions amendment would extend the E-Verify Program for 5 more 
years. Now, frankly, I would like to see more reforms to the E-Verify 
Program. For example, I would like to make E-Verify mandatory for all 
businesses. I would like employers to check all their employees through 
E-Verify, not just new hires. I would also like to see the program made 
a permanent provision in our immigration laws. But for now, I am happy 
to support this first baby step in extending E-Verify for 5 years.
  There is a bottom line to everything we do around here, and the 
bottom line is that this amendment is a jobs amendment. Our economy is 
on the skids. Americans are losing their jobs. The E-Verify Program 
will help stimulate the economy by preserving jobs for a legal 
workforce. It will help root out illegal workers who are taking jobs 
from Americans. We need the E-Verify Program to encourage employers to 
use the system to prevent them from hiring foreign labor that has come 
here illegally.
  I wish to make clear this has nothing to do with whether we have 
people coming to this country. It has nothing to do with whether we 
have people coming to this country to work. It only has to do with laws 
being followed--following the rule of law--to make sure people are 
working here legally and are conforming with our laws. That is all this 
is about, and E-Verify is a process--not mandatory, but a process to 
help people who are employers to verify whether the people who apply 
for the jobs are here legally and are registered with our Social 
Security system in a legal way.

  I urge my colleagues, then, to support the Sessions amendment. Of 
course I appreciate very much the leadership of Senator Sessions in 
this E-Verify Program extension for 5 years, which is what the 
amendment calls for.
  I yield the floor and I don't see anybody yet ready to speak so I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 621

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for Senator Vitter, I ask his 
amendment be called up. It is amendment No. 621.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), for Mr. Vitter, for 
     himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Ensign, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 621.

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

 (Purpose: To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay 
                  adjustments for Members of Congress)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR 
                   MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is 
     repealed.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 601(a)(1) 
     of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
       (3) by striking ``as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection'' and inserting ``adjusted as provided by law''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     December 31, 2010.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise today to speak a little bit about 
where we are in our economic situation in

[[Page S2925]]

this country and specifically as it is affected by the President's 
budget as he has brought it forward. I want to begin by acknowledging 
my respect and appreciation for what this administration has tried to 
do in the area of stabilizing the financial industry of this country. 
They, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Treasury 
Secretary Geithner, and Larry Summers, the Special Adviser to the 
President, along, obviously, with the input of Chairman Volcker, have 
put together a very comprehensive effort to try to use the strengths of 
the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government to basically inject 
liquidity into the system and put stability into the financial system 
of the country.
  There has been a tremendous amount of commentary on this and much of 
it has reflected a lack of confidence in the initiatives that have been 
brought forward by this administration because, in many instances, they 
have not been as specific as they might have been. But the general 
thrust of what the administration has done in this area has been 
positive and I believe we are starting to see it work. The initial TARP 
dollars, which were put in by the prior administration, did stabilize 
the banking industry during a critical time. That has been followed on 
with additional TARP dollars from this administration, followed on by 
the initiatives from the Fed in the area of TALF, which basically is 
potentially over $1 trillion of support for new loans in the area of 
consumer credit and maybe commercial real estate; trying to do 
something in the mortgage area--initiatives have begun there using the 
FDIC and also the Treasury and the Fed again; in the area of basically 
underwriting the stability of major banking systems in the country, 
significant efforts have been made; and we are now hearing there is 
going to be an additional effort made to take toxic loans off the 
balance sheets of the banks using the leverage from the private sector.
  All this has been, in my opinion, the right way to go. I didn't 
support the stimulus package because I thought it was unfocused and I 
did not think the dollars were used as effectively as they might. I 
wanted to see the dollars in the real estate area. But as a very 
practical statement, on balance the efforts of this administration to 
try to stabilize the financial industry, because stabilizing the 
financial industry is critical to getting the economy going, have been 
positive in my opinion. There is still a long way to go and there are 
more specifics that need to come and I guess more of that is going to 
come this week.
  But that initiative to try to get this economy going and try to 
address the issue of people's concerns about their jobs and the value 
of their homes and their ability to live their lives in a constructive 
way in the face of severe financial distress which is being caused by 
this recession, stands in juxtaposition to this budget they have sent 
up. It is as if they have a ying and yang personality down there at the 
White House because they sent us up a whole group of ideas in the area 
of stabilizing the financial industries and trying to get the economy 
going with their stimulus package, the purpose of which is to lift the 
economy using the Federal Government.

  Then they sent us up a budget which essentially creates a massive 
expansion in spending, a massive expansion in taxation, a massive 
expansion in borrowing, not only in the short run when you might be 
able to justify more spending, when you can justify more spending and 
borrowing, but as far as the eye can see with the practical effect of 
having a dampening effect, throwing a wet blanket on top of this 
country's productivity capabilities and this country's ability to be 
moving forward as an entrepreneurial society.
  Look at the budget in specifics. The budget, in the short run, spikes 
the deficit dramatically. I am not going to argue with that. That may 
be necessary--maybe not at the levels they are doing it, but it may be 
necessary. It is necessary in order to put liquidity into the market, 
put liquidity into the American economy.
  But then it continues to expand the size of Government; 28 percent of 
GDP will be the size of the Government this year. That is massive 
compared to our historical size of the Government as part of the GDP. 
That has got to come down. It does come down, but it does not come down 
all that much. By the fifth, sixth, seventh year, we still have 
Government spending that is 22, 23 percent of GDP. We have a deficit in 
the fifth year that is 3 to 4 percent of GDP.
  The debt of the Federal Government, the public debt, is doubled in 5 
years under this budget. It is tripled in 10 years under this budget. 
Taxes are increased by $1.4 trillion under this budget, $1.4 trillion. 
What are those taxes used for? Not to reduce the deficit but to expand 
the size of the Government even further.
  Health care is essentially put on a track toward nationalization. 
Educational loans are nationalized. Discretionary spending goes up by 
almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars. And there is absolutely no 
restraint in any accounts of any significance on the spending side of 
the ledger in this budget. So that by the time we get to the fourth and 
fifth year of this budget, rather than seeing the numbers come down to 
something that is manageable for our society, rather than seeing the 
debt-to-GDP ratio come down to what might be a manageable number, it 
remains at a very high level, 67 percent.
  Historically, debt to GDP in this country has been about 40 percent. 
Those are numbers. What do they mean? Well, essentially, instead of 
having a traditionally strong industrialized society, where your debt 
is manageable at 40 percent of your GDP, you are heading toward a 
banana republic society or country where your GDP-to-debt ratio is up 
around 70 percent. You cannot sustain that. Yet this budget presumes we 
are going to have a debt-to-GDP ratio of the banana republic type as 
far as the eye can see.
  And the deficit? It is claimed that it is cut in half. Well, if you 
increase the deficit four times, and then you cut it in half, you do 
not gain very much. That is like taking four steps backward and only 
two steps forward. The practical effect of that is that we still end up 
with a deficit 4 or 5 years out, well after we are past this 
recessionary period, hopefully. I am sure we will be past it by then 
because we are a resilient nation. A deficit which is still way above 
the historical norm for this country, a $712 billion deficit is 
projected by the year 2019 under this budget, 3 to 4 percent of GDP. 
That is not sustainable. What is the practical effect of this?
  Well, the practical effect is that we give our kids a country they 
cannot afford. We put on them a debt burden which basically stymies 
their ability to succeed and prosper.
  In addition to this, you have got to look at the policies underlying 
this budget. What are the policies that are driving this massive 
expansion of Government in this massive expansion of debt? Well, they 
are basically policies which say, we are going to take the Government 
and we are going to explode its role relative to the private sector 
activities.
  There is a proposal in this budget, as I mentioned earlier, to 
nationalize the student loan program. That is certainly an unnecessary 
act. We had a very vibrant private sector student loan program and a 
vibrant public sector student loan program. There is no reason we 
cannot have both. That is no longer acceptable. We are going to 
nationalize the student loan program.
  There is a $636 billion place holder in this budget for the expansion 
of health care. They say it is a downpayment. Well, if it is a 
downpayment, we are talking about health care expenditures exceeding $1 
trillion under this budget, growth in health care costs. Well, health 
care already absorbs 17 percent of the gross national product. That is 
about 5 percent higher than any other industrialized nation. It is not 
that we do not put enough money in our health care system, it is that 
we do not use it very well. And to increase the dollars going into 
health care by those numbers means what you are proposing is 
essentially for the Government to take over the entire health care 
system at some point in the future--another great expansion in the size 
of Government.
  Then you have got this expansion on the discretionary side of the 
account. Every discretionary program expanding, except for defense, 
where they play a gimmick for the purposes of claiming budgetary 
savings that do not even exist on spending that will not occur.
  So the goal of this budget is not to contain or to slow the rate of 
growth of

[[Page S2926]]

Government in the outyears after we are past this recession, it is 
rather to explode the size of Government as we move out of this 
recession, and put in place a government that continues to grow at a 
rate which the economy cannot afford and which obviously our children 
cannot afford.
  How is this paid for, this dramatic expansion of Government? Well, 
most of it is borrowed, borrowed money. But some of it comes out of 
taxes. There are major new taxes proposed. We have all heard about the 
taxes on the wealthy. Let me point out that essentially what is being 
proposed here is that if you make more than $250,000, your income is 
going to be nationalized. Well, there are a lot of wealthy people who 
make more than $250,000, but there are also a lot of small businesses 
in this country that make $250,000.
  That is where jobs come from in this country--the person running the 
local restaurant, the person running the local garage, the person who 
started a software company, the person who has initiated a new product, 
a new catalog product, maybe, selling something. All of these are small 
businesses, and they are across this Nation, and they are what create 
jobs. When you say to those folks, well, we are going to tax away 
whatever you make above a certain amount, $250,000, you are saying to 
them they do not have the assets to reinvest in their small businesses. 
You are basically going to create a huge disincentive. This creates a 
huge disincentive for small businesses to expand and for people to be 
added, for employees to be added to their businesses. It throws a wet 
blanket on the expansion of small business.
  There is another tax in here that is not talked about too much. They 
call it a carbon tax. This is a massive new tax on everybody's electric 
bill. If you described it fairly, it should be described as a national 
sales tax on electricity. If you use electricity for anything, 
something in your home, if you use energy basically for anything--and 
almost every American does; I cannot think of anyone who does not--you 
are going to find yourself hit with a new tax, this carbon tax, this 
national sales tax on energy.
  And what does it amount to? It is not a small sum. It is scored in 
this budget. It is understated in this budget. It is scored at, I 
think, $70 billion a year or something like that. That is still a lot 
of money, by the way. But it is understated. According to the MIT study 
and according to the numbers which were being used last year when this 
was being discussed, the actual number is closer to $300 billion, $300 
billion in a brandnew tax burden on the American consumer.
  And what is this tax used for? Well, it is used, in large part, for 
walking-around money for various constituencies who have an interest in 
getting money from the Federal Government. It is not used to contain 
the Federal Government or to reduce its size by reducing the deficit. A 
large percentage of these tax revenues are going to be added to various 
initiatives around here which are the projects of Members--worthwhile, 
I am sure.

  But it is pretty hard to justify hitting Americans with a brandnew 
national sales tax on their energy bills for the purposes of expanding 
this Government, which is already too large to begin with. And, 
remember, none of this expansion in the Government taxes takes into 
account the huge costs which we have coming at us which we do not know 
how we are going to handle. Those are the costs of the retirement of 
the baby boom generation, for as this baby boom generation continues to 
retire--it has begun retiring now--it is going to generate massive 
costs on our Government.
  We know we have $60 trillion of unfunded liability to pay for 
Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid for the baby boom generation as 
it retires. And why is that? Why are there all of those trillions of 
dollars? Why is all of that money out there and obligated?
  Because we have created a massive cost, and we have the largest 
generation in America retiring that is going to push that cost onto our 
children. We go from 35 million retired people to 70 million retired 
people, and most of that is going to occur by the end of this 
administration's term in office should the President be reelected.
  So you would think that in this budget they would have said, well, we 
better start addressing that issue. We better start disciplining 
ourselves relative to how we are going to handle this massive increase 
in spending, which we know is coming at us--I call it a fiscal 
tsunami--as a result of the baby boom generation retiring. But, no, not 
one word in this budget about containing or slowing down or in any way 
addressing the issue of entitlement spending as a result of retirement 
of the baby boom generation.
  The practical effect is there is an elephant in the room that we know 
we are going to have to address relative to cost that is not addressed, 
but at the same time the budget radically expands the size of 
Government, using resources that might have been used to address 
entitlement reform.
  It is a budget which, if you look at it, essentially says to the 
productive and entrepreneurial side of our Nation: We are going to tax 
you. We are going to regulate you. And we are going to create an 
atmosphere where we are going to crowd out your ability to borrow money 
because the Federal Government is going to borrow so much money.
  It is simply an attack on the entrepreneurial elements of our 
society, the people, the small business people who go out there and 
create jobs. That is why I said there is a conundrum here. On the one 
side this Government is proposing all sorts of initiatives, which I 
agree with, to try to float the economy using the liquidity of the 
Federal Government in a lot of different areas but primarily focused on 
getting stability back into our financial system and helping people who 
have mortgages that they cannot pay.
  But, on the other side, you have this budget sent up here which is a 
clear and present attack essentially on the productive side of our 
ledger as a nation, while it expands radically the size of Government. 
So you can understand why the stock market and others are saying, whoa, 
what is happening here? Who am I to believe, the part of the 
administration which says we are going to try to get this economy going 
or the part of this administration that says, once we get it going, we 
are going to stuff it down with a major new tax burden and a dramatic 
expansion in Government?
  So much more could have been accomplished in this budget than what 
has been proposed. If it had come forward with any reasonable ideas in 
the area of disciplining and managing the entitlement accounts, there 
would have been strong bipartisan support for that. But none were put 
on the table.
  The opportunity to move forward in the area of Social Security was 
not taken. The opportunity to do something significant in the area of 
Medicare was certainly not taken in this budget, and the practical 
effect of that is, that if you are looking at this budget, and you are 
an investor from somewhere around the world buying American bonds--and, 
remember, most of our debt today is being bought by people outside the 
United States. They are basically funding our capacity as a nation to 
function--you are going to look at this budget and you are going to 
say, do I have confidence that the bonds I am buying are going to have 
the value that I am putting into them 5 or 10 years from now?
  If I look at this budget, I am going to conclude that the American 
Government is not going to discipline itself, that it is going to 
continue to run a debt-to-GDP ratio that is not sustainable, and that, 
therefore, it is very likely that maybe my debt that I am buying from 
the United States, the Treasury bonds I am buying, are not going to be 
the value I am paying for them.
  This budget not only stifles the entrepreneurial spirit of America in 
the outyears--and people looking 4 or 5 years down the road are not 
thinking that far now, but in October, this budget repeals many of the 
tax initiatives which create entrepreneurship and tax people at a 
heavier rate; it starts pretty soon here--at the same time it is 
putting at risk the value of our currency and the value of our debt. It 
is saying to the world: We are not going to discipline ourselves in the 
outyears.
  When we raise taxes, which this administration is proposing--and that 
is what they said they would do--one presumes they would do what 
President Clinton did when he raised taxes. He

[[Page S2927]]

used it to try to reduce the deficit. With the help of a Republican 
Congress, which limited spending, we were able to accomplish that. This 
budget does not accomplish that. This budget takes $1.4 trillion in new 
taxes and spends it on a massive expansion of the Federal Government in 
the area of health care and the way we finance student loans, all the 
different initiatives basically expanding Government's role.
  The practical effect of that will be to weaken the dollar, our 
currency, and to cause people to question the value of our debt. That 
is serious. That is very serious for us as a nation.
  I agree with those who say the market is confused by this 
administration. It is confused because, on one hand the administration 
is pursuing what is a necessary policy to get liquidity into the market 
and stabilize the financial industry, stabilize the housing industry, 
but, on the other hand, it has put forward a budget which is probably 
the largest expansion of Government in the history of the country or 
the largest proposed expansion of Government in the history of the 
country, unpaid for and, therefore, threatening the future of our 
children with debt they can't possibly afford.
  As we move forward in this effort, I suggest a better course of 
action would be for this administration to come forward with some 
fiscal discipline. Why don't they propose some specific ideas which 
will address the impending fiscal tsunami? There are bipartisan 
initiatives in the Senate to do so. Senator Conrad and I have proposed 
a procedure which would allow us to put in place a process which would 
lead to policy, which would lead to a vote, which would actually limit 
and make affordable a large percentage of the outyear cost of 
entitlement programs as we try to fund the retirement of the baby boom 
generation.
  Take us up on that offer. It has very significant bipartisan support. 
Why not take up an initiative in the area of trying to get the deficit 
and the debt back to the prerecession period? When we went into the 
recession, the debt was 40 percent of GDP. The deficit was down to 
about 1.5 percent of GDP. Let's get back to those numbers. If we are 
going to raise revenues, let's use them to reduce the deficit, not to 
expand the size of Government.
  These are initiatives that would get a lot of Republican support, 
certainly on the first point. There might even be some support on the 
second idea of getting the deficit down. I would certainly support 
lowering the debt. But the proposal as put forward now is confusing. 
Not only is it confusing, but if it were actually put in place, it 
would put our country in a very serious situation as our children try 
to lead their lives and move forward in a nation which gives them an 
opportunity for prosperity.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 629 Withdrawn

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, yesterday I spoke to my pending amendment 
No. 629, an amendment that would have required an assurance that none 
of the funds in the underlying legislation would be used to resettle 
Gazans in the United States. There had been a flurry of news stories 
suggesting that an Executive order by the President might have that 
result.
  In contacting the State Department, we have been assured that is not 
the case. As a result, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment and to have printed in the Record a letter from the U.S. 
Department of State, Michael Polt, Acting Assistant Secretary, 
addressed to me, dated March 9.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2009.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Kyl: Thank you for your inquiry regarding 
     Presidential Determination No. 2009-15, signed on January 27, 
     2009, which approved a $20.3 million drawdown from the 
     Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund (ERMA) to 
     assist Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. 
     These funds will be used to provide humanitarian assistance 
     to Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. None of 
     these funds will be used to resettle Gazans in the United 
     States.
       We appreciate your inquiry regarding this U.S. humanitarian 
     program. If we can be of further assistance on this or any 
     other issue, please do not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,

                                              Michael C. Polt,

                                       Acting Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I will read the two specific sentences from 
the letter that cleared up this matter. The letter says:

       These funds will be used to provide humanitarian assistance 
     to Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. None of 
     these funds will be used to resettle Gazans in the United 
     States.

  As a result of that assurance, the amendment is not necessary, and 
that is one less vote my colleagues have to take this afternoon.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 615

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I wish to talk about my amendment 
dealing with the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. Unfortunately, if 
the current bill should pass, this program will end. There is specific 
language in the bill that says unless this program is reauthorized and 
the DC City Council approves it, 1,700 children will lose their 
opportunity scholarships that allow them to attend a private school in 
the District of Columbia. That is unfortunate, and that is why my 
amendment must be adopted.
  When we take a close look at the data on DC schools, it is no wonder 
the DC opportunity scholarship parents are so vocal about keeping this 
program alive. Here in the District of Columbia, public schools spend, 
on average, over $14,000 per year per student. The DC class size has 
one of the lowest student-teacher ratios in the country, 14 to 1. Yet 
reading scores continue to languish at or near the bottom in every 
national assessment. Recent data shows that 69 percent of fourth 
graders in the DC Public Schools are reading below basic levels as 
defined by the Department of Education. DC students in DC Public 
Schools ranked last in the Nation in both SAT and ACT scores. About 42 
percent of DC students drop out of school.
  Beyond the low performance in the classroom, DC schools are often 
violent and dangerous. A Federal government study found that roughly 12 
percent of DC students were threatened or injured by someone possessing 
a weapon on school property during a recent school year. This 
percentage is well above the national average. Perhaps, it is because 
of these statistics, that President Obama chose to enroll both his 
daughters in a private school.
  Let's see what his Secretary of Education said about the DC 
scholarship program:

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

  Secretary Duncan was referring to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
Program, the same program we are trying to save today.
  Michelle Rhee, the Chancellor of DC city schools said:

       I would never, as long as I am in this role, do anything to 
     limit another parent's ability to make a choice for their 
     child. Ever.

  That is what she said.
  DC Mayor Fenty said:

       We should not disrupt the education of children who are 
     presently enrolled in private schools through the DC 
     Opportunity Scholarship Program.

  Last Friday, Senator Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois, made 
some charges against this DC Opportunity Scholarship Program that I 
wish to address. Senator Durbin claims the program doesn't work. He 
claimed the Department of Education study proves the DC Opportunity 
Scholarship Program doesn't work. What Senator Durbin failed to mention 
were some of the fundamental flaws of the Department of Education 
study. First, the study fails to examine the performance

[[Page S2928]]

of students who actually took advantage of the scholarship and actually 
attended private school versus the performance of those who attended 
public schools. Instead, it compares the students who were just offered 
the scholarships to those in public schools. In fact, over a quarter of 
the students who were considered private school participants for 
purposes of this study did not even attend the private schools.
  This study has many flaws and we could go through all of them. How 
can the program be considered not working yet there are 1,700 kids 
whose parents showed they are satisfied and that think their kids are 
getting a better education? The parents are happier, and they can sleep 
well knowing their kids are going to safer schools. I believe that if 
there were more than 1,700 scholarships available, there would be a lot 
more people who would be enrolled in the program because of the 
satisfaction of both the parents and the teachers.
  According to the Heritage Foundation, 37 percent of the members in 
the House of Representatives and 45 percent of Senators send their 
children to private schools. That is almost four times the rate of the 
general population. The senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, 
stated on Friday that he and his wife sent their children to private 
Catholic schools. He said this was their choice, and it was a personal 
family decision. I respect Senator Durbin's choice to send his own 
children to private schools, but why should the choice to send children 
to private schools be the right of only a privileged Senator's family 
or those who make a lot of money?
  Keep in mind, the 1,700 children we are talking about come from 
families whose average income is less than $23,000 a year. A good 
education is a civil right, and this should not be the exclusive 
purview of the rich or the well connected.
  Before closing, I wish to highlight some of the stories of success in 
the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program so it can be clear who is losing 
out because of the Democrats' efforts to kill the Program. I wish to 
put some names with some of the faces and show how important this 
program truly is.
  Sarah and James Parker attend the Sidwell Friends School in our 
Nation's Capital with President Obama's children. Here they are right 
here. Unlike the Obama girls, they could not afford this school without 
the $7,500 voucher they received from the DC Opportunity Scholarship 
Program. Now, keep in mind, these two students are funded at half what 
it costs to send a child to DC Public Schools. Every time we take these 
students out of the public schools in Washington, the DC Public Schools 
save money. So why would we want to end this program? Plus the fact 
that these kids love going to school where they are going.
  Now, Sanya Arias is a scholarship recipient who lives in Adams 
Morgan. She said some of her friends she went to school with in middle 
school and who now attend public high school speak using profanities 
and aren't making the kind of progress she is making academically. This 
is Sanya, here. Sanya said in middle school she started slacking off 
and she would have probably followed her friends' path if she didn't 
receive the scholarship to attend private school. Sanya currently has a 
GPA of 3.95. She is vice president of her class, captain of the soccer 
team, a player on the lacrosse team, president of the International 
Club, and a peer minister. This is the type of student the Democrats 
are going to take out of a school that she loves so much.
  Rashawn is 16 years of age and started school in 1996. His father had 
him tested and found he was 3 years behind his grade level. The 
scholarship program gave him the opportunity to attend Academia De La 
Recta Christian Day School where Rashawn has said: ``I can now do my 
classwork with very little help'' because of this scholarship.
  Dominique, who is Rashawn's sister, is a 14-year-old girl who lives 
in Washington, DC. She is now attending the same school and, in 
Dominique's own words, she says: ``I love my school, and I am working 
on my level and my grade.''
  Breanna Williams is a 9-year-old girl in the fourth grade. She loves 
her new school, St. Peter's, because she is getting all As and Bs. She 
loves to read and is doing that at a level above her grade. In 
addition, Breanna plays the clarinet in the school band and when 
Breanna grows up, she wants to be a translator who travels the world.
  I would be remiss if I did not reintroduce you to Ronald Holassie. He 
is a 10th grader at Archbishop Carroll High School in the District, 
where he is thriving--running track, studying physics, mentoring 
middle-school students. Further, he has just been appointed as DC's 
deputy youth mayor. Ronald said that maintaining the DC opportunity 
scholarship is his chief legislative priority. Ending the program will 
send Ronald, who is just a sophomore, to Woodson High School, a failing 
school under the No Child Left Behind Act, for his senior year.
  Individually and collectively, these students demonstrate just how 
important it is to continue the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and 
just how wrong the program's opponents are to eliminate it for 
political purposes. We should continue this scholarship program and 
help students like the ones I just pointed out--help them to continue 
to succeed and to develop in our Nation's Capital. I ask President 
Obama and the Democrats to keep Sarah, James, Sanya, Rashawn, 
Dominique, Breanna, and Ronald in mind before deciding to kill the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program. I ask my colleagues to please join me 
in supporting this critical program.
  Madam President, I will close with this. I met Ronald last week. I 
met him and his folks. I met his little brother who is also in the 
program. I looked in their eyes and saw their heartfelt pleas to keep 
this program going. I challenge any member to look into their eyes and 
then vote against this program. We should be putting kids before 
special interest groups. Shouldn't our educational system be about 
kids? Shouldn't it be about their education and providing them the 
opportunities to compete in the 21st century?
  I think the people who are against this program are afraid of this 
program for one reason--because it is actually working. This program is 
very popular. The senior Senator from Illinois sends his kids to 
private school. Parents choose to send their kids to private schools 
because they want better education for their kids.
  Let's give these children a chance at a better education. Let's prove 
that it is working. Let's study the students and the program. Don't 
stop this program when it is still in its infancy. Let's decide how we 
need to measure it, prove it is working or not working. But I predict 
that at the end of the day, if we really follow these kids in an 
objective manner, we will show this program has great promise, and 
maybe we can even take it to other places in the country and help other 
low-income kids get a better chance at a better education.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am glad I am here to speak in 
reference to the Ensign amendment. Senator Ensign mentioned my name 
several times during the course of that debate, which he is entitled to 
do on the floor of the Senate. I would like to respond.
  Five years ago, we started a program in the District of Columbia. It 
was never tried before by the Federal Government. Here is the program. 
We said we would give to the parents of up to 2,000 students Federal 
money to pay for the tuition costs of sending their kids to private 
schools. It was called the DC Voucher Program. At the time--it was 
proposed 5 years ago--it was proposed as a pilot program. It basically 
said we are going to do this on an experimental basis to see whether it 
works, whether at the end of the day these kids going into private 
schools will turn out to be better and more successful students, and 
then at the end of the authorizing period Congress will make a decision 
whether to proceed forward with this program.
  Sometime last year, I ended up with the responsibility of funding 
this program just as it was about to expire. It was going to expire 
this June, at the end of this school year. I said: I don't think that 
is fair. We have not done the evaluation we were supposed to do. We 
have not considered reauthorizing the program as we planned to do. And 
we do not want to leave 1,700 students and their families in suspense 
about their future. So, unlike the statement

[[Page S2929]]

made by the Senator from Nevada, I did not end the program in the bill. 
I think he knows I did not. Instead, we extended it an additional year 
beyond the authorization period. We said that we will cover the kids in 
this program for not only the school year we are in right now but the 
next school year, 2009 to 2010. I did not think it was fair for these 
kids to be uncertain about where they would be in the next school year 
while Congress did its work.
  What has happened to this DC Voucher Program? Let me tell my 
colleagues what happened initially to the DC Voucher Program. I offered 
three amendments in the Senate Appropriations Committee to this 
program. Here is what they were, I say to Senator Ensign:
  No. 1, I said that any DC voucher school teacher had to have a 
college degree. Is that a radical idea? Do you have any public schools 
in Nevada where the teachers do not have a college degree? We don't in 
Illinois. We put this up for a vote, and the people who were supporting 
the DC Voucher Program voted it down. They said: We can't require 
teachers in these private schools to have a college degree. Imagine 
that.
  The second amendment I offered said the buildings that we will call 
DC voucher schools have to pass the Life Safety Code. They have to be 
safe buildings so that if there is a fire in the building, the kids 
will survive. I don't know of a single school in Nevada or Illinois 
that is not in a safe building, an inspected building. Do you know what 
happened to the amendment in the committee? They voted it down. They 
told me: Don't get in the way of creativity. We have these voucher 
schools that are very creative. The teachers may not have college 
degrees and the building may not be judged safe, but these are creative 
ideas. This could work, Senator, step aside.
  The third thing I said was that it is only fair, since we are all 
critical of the current DC public schools and what is happening there, 
in most instances, that we have the same achievement test offered in 
the voucher school as in the DC public school so that at the end of a 
year or 2 years or 3 years, we can compare the results. Are the kids 
really doing better? It was voted down.
  Durbin, you are standing in the way of creativity. These are voucher 
schools. They don't need teachers with college degrees. They don't need 
to be in buildings that are inspected and safe. We don't need to have 
comparable tests. You are missing the point.
  I guess I did miss the point. Do you know what happened when the 
General Accountability Office took a look at these schools? They found 
that many of them were world-class schools. And I bet you the students 
the Senator from Nevada was pointing to were the products of those 
schools. Do you know what they also found, I say to Senator Ensign. 
They also found schools where somebody's mom or somebody's wife 
declared themselves principals and teachers and went in to teach 
without college degrees and received Federal subsidies to do it.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will yield when I finish.
  They also found schools that did not pass the Life Safety Code 
inspection. They found schools where they had misrepresented what the 
building was being used for. And, of course, there were no comparative 
tests they could use.
  In my mind, if this were to be an experimental program, a pilot 
program, and we wanted to make sure that the kids were protected and 
that at the end of the day we could measure the results honestly and 
accurately, you would have included these provisions. Unfortunately, 
they were not included.
  So now the question is, Should the Federal taxpayers continue to 
subsidize the education of the students in the DC voucher schools? It 
is a legitimate question, and it is one that a serious committee should 
look at. In fact, I think it should be a committee the Senator serves 
on, and that is what we suggested. He is a member of the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Senator 
Lieberman. He came to the floor when the Senator asked 2 weeks ago and 
stated publicly: Yes, I will have a hearing on the reauthorization of 
the DC Voucher Program, and, in fact, has indicated to many of us that 
he supports the program. He is no enemy of the program.
  So when our bill says we ought to take a look at the total results of 
the millions of dollars we put into DC voucher schools, let's judge how 
the students are doing--incidentally, in the first year or two, it 
turned out that the test scores, when they tried to compare them, they 
said there doesn't seem to be much difference between students 
in voucher schools and those in public schools. Maybe that has changed. 
It is certainly worth asking the question.

  In this bill, I also require now that the teachers in the DC voucher 
schools in this next year have a college degree. Is that what you call 
ending the program? I think it makes the program more responsible. I 
think it makes the program more likely to produce students with a good 
education.
  Let me tell you what else happened. When the Department of Education 
took a look at this program, they raised questions about whether the 
people administering the program were spending the money wisely, 
whether they were watching how the resources were gathered and spent. 
There is a lot of talk about oversight here and a lot of criticism that 
taxpayers' money and Government funds are being wasted. That is a fair 
criticism of everything we do on the floor. Why should this program be 
any exception? Why should we create a standard for this program that is 
different from any other program in Government or any agency of 
Government? I think it ought to withstand the oversight and review that 
every single program does.
  I want to also tell you that this provision which created these 
schools--the law is a DC City Council ordinance. It was codified. It 
was made a law in the DC City Council, where it said specifically:

       The Secretary may make grants under this section for a 
     period of not more than 5 years.

  We have gone beyond 5 years. I have not only allowed it, I said we 
should. It is only fair it go beyond at least an additional year. Now 
the Senator from Nevada objects to the DC government itself deciding 
whether to continue this program. For a lot of people who come to this 
floor and talk about home rule, local control of schools, they are 
basically saying to DC: You don't have any voice in this matter. You 
are our laboratory. We will decide what happens to your school right 
here in Congress.
  The Senate and the House of Representatives are filled with many 
gifted politicians, people who have served in many offices throughout 
their careers and bring that service as an experience to help them 
serve in the Senate. But it turns out that many of them, more than 
anything else, always wanted to be mayors, and in particular Mayor of 
the District of Columbia. Time and again, this Congress--and an attempt 
is being made right now--tries to preempt the District of Columbia from 
making its own choices for its own citizens. I would no more think of 
imposing on Las Vegas, NV, an education program that its school 
district did not want, would not accept, without saying to them: You 
ought to have a voice in this as well.
  So at the end of the day, we say the program needs to be reauthorized 
to make sure it is working, that the money is not being wasted, and the 
program needs to be approved by the DC City Council.
  I have met some of these students to whom Senator Ensign has 
referred. They are truly impressive. They tell a wonderful story about 
lives that were turned around and new opportunities. And that is 
exactly what I wanted to create for my children and what everyone else 
wants to create. But believe me, we are not going to create new 
opportunities when we have DC voucher schools stuck in the basement of 
a home where the principal has no academic credentials and the teachers 
do not have college degrees. We are not going to create excellence in 
buildings which are dangerous for kids to be in. We are not going to 
create excellence until we have accurate measurement between the 
progress students are making in the DC voucher schools and in the 
public schools as well.
  While we are engaged in this conversation, many on the other side--I 
am not pointing at the Senator from Nevada when I say this--many on the 
other side have completely given up on the DC public schools. They are 
wrong.

[[Page S2930]]

Michelle Rhee is the new chancellor of education in the District of 
Columbia. She is an extraordinarily talented young woman who has come 
from the Teach For America Program, one of the most successful new 
programs and largest employer of college grads in America. She was 
successful in Baltimore in bringing back a classroom that had fallen 
behind. She went up to New York to recruit nontraditional teachers. And 
she is now here with the same dedication and commitment. I am not about 
to give up on DC public schools. I honestly believe the vast majority 
of kids are going to be in those public schools, and they deserve a 
decent education. As much as we can help them, we should. To despair 
and say there is no hope for these public schools is not fair to 
Michelle Rhee, to the new Mayor, Mayor Fenty, or to those who want to 
see this new day in education in the District of Columbia.
  I think an honest evaluation of the DC voucher schools, as well as 
the DC charter schools, and a commitment to reform in the DC public 
schools is the answer. For those who want to stop and say no 
evaluation, no reauthorization, no investigation, spend the money on 
the program, no questions asked, I am going to say no. I am going to 
fight this amendment because I think it is a move in the wrong 
direction. It is a move away from accountability. It is a move away 
from a local voice in the future of the education of kids in the 
District of Columbia. And it is a movement away from quality and back 
to the DC voucher original model that did not include the most basic 
standards we require of virtually every public school in America.
  I can tell you that many who are participating in the DC Voucher 
Program agree with the reforms I have suggested. I have talked with 
them about it. There are those who will resist it. We cannot let them 
win the day by adopting the Ensign amendment.
  Now I will yield for a question.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I thank Senator Durbin for yielding.
  Madam President, is the Senator aware that in all of the private 
schools these kids are attending the core subject teachers have 4-year 
degrees and that it was only in subjects such as art and wood shop that 
they did not necessarily have 4-year degrees? Madam President, I ask 
the Senator from Illinois, through the Chair, whether he is aware of 
that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that 
the complement of teachers in the DC voucher schools has changed and 
improved over the years, there is no question about that. But it is 
also true to say that the standards imposed on the DC public school 
teachers are not being followed by the teachers in the DC voucher 
schools. We have created a double standard. As far as I am concerned, 
if you are arguing that we shouldn't require all teachers to have the 
appropriate academic credentials based on the course they teach, I ask 
in response, through the Chair, is that the standard you are suggesting 
for your home State of Nevada?

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I actually send my kids to schools where 
not all of the teachers in core subjects have 4-year degrees. But if a 
teacher is teaching art, if a teacher is teaching woodshop, or some 
other kind of program, I would ask: Does the Senator from Illinois 
really believe imposing that on private schools is necessary?
  You send your kids to private schools just as I am sending my kids to 
private schools. We sent them where we thought they would get a good 
education. Does the Senator think these parents who are taking 
advantage of these programs don't care enough about their kids to send 
them to the best schools? That is why they are choosing to get them out 
of public schools. Wouldn't the Senator from Illinois agree those are 
wise parents signing up voluntarily for this program because they care 
about their kids?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to respond to the Senator--I know our time 
is about to end--by saying that when the GAO did their study, 
incidentally, they found what you stated on the floor was not exactly 
the case. It turned out there were teachers in so-called ``core 
academic subjects'' without college degrees. Those subjects include 
English, reading, and language arts, math, science, foreign language, 
civics and government, economics, art, history, and geography. That is 
the definition of core academic subjects. And the teachers in many 
voucher schools did not meet those requirements.
  I might also say to the Senator from Nevada that my wife and I made a 
personal decision to send our children to Catholic schools, knowing we 
would be paying public property taxes in my hometown of Springfield, 
IL, to support public education, and we had an additional financial 
burden on our family to pay for tuition, as you have. We accepted that 
burden, and I believe it is part of the bargain. We support public 
education, but we made a family decision to pay for our kids to go to 
Catholic schools.
  I have supported public school referenda throughout my time in my 
hometown. I believe public education is the core when it comes to the 
development of the community. In my hometown of East St. Louis, when 
the public schools went to Haiti, the Catholic schools followed quickly 
behind. They are all in this together.
  Madam President, I know we have run out of time.

                          ____________________