[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 10, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2930-S2954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009--CONTINUED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what is the pending order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending order. There has been no 
unanimous consent. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the Omnibus appropriations bill that is before us. I think this debate 
has been good. We have had amendments. I thank the majority leader for 
allowing amendments to be offered. I note that not one amendment has 
been agreed to, but nevertheless we have had the debate and I think the 
American people do deserve to know more about this bill and why there 
are so many objections to it.
  I am speaking against it today because of its sheer size. It is a 
$408 billion bill. But when you account for the previous bills that 
have already passed appropriations this fiscal year for defense, 
military construction, veterans affairs, and homeland security, the 
bottom line is for fiscal year 2009 we are going to spend $1 trillion. 
Passage of this bill will mark the first time in U.S. history that our 
regular appropriations process, funding Government in the routine and 
regular order, will surpass $1 trillion.
  Last week I offered an amendment. Senator McCain offered an 
amendment, Senator Coburn offered several amendments, Senator DeMint, 
Senator Vitter, Senator Kyl--so many amendments have been offered but 
they were basically different ways to bring down the cost of this bill 
to some kind of responsible, agreed-upon area so we can say we are 
doing the people's bidding by taking care of taxpayer dollars. That is 
what we tried to do.
  First, Senator McCain offered an amendment to say let's do a 
continuing resolution that funds Government at 2008 levels until 
October 1, the end of the fiscal year. Next, an amendment was offered 
by Senator Ensign that basically said 2008 spending levels, but with 
the new bill, with the new authorizations. It will have all of the 
congressional imprint but it will be 2008 levels. That failed.
  My amendment was 2008 levels with the rate of inflation, so instead 
of an 8-percent increase in spending in a 1-year period, double the 
rate of inflation, it would have been a 3.8 percent increase from 2008, 
which I thought was quite reasonable. Furthermore, I said let's decide 
that we will only take it from the accounts in the bill before us that 
duplicate what we passed in the stimulus bill weeks ago. In that way, 
we would say to the American people we are going to fund the Government 
at 2008 levels plus the rate of inflation, and the way we are going to 
cut it back is to let the Appropriations Committee decide which of the 
duplicated accounts that were passed in the stimulus bill 2 weeks ago 
would be taken

[[Page S2931]]

out--either the stimulus bill or the bill before us. That was my 
amendment and it too failed.
  We have tried everything we know how to do in a reasonable and 
responsible way to say to the American people: Everyone is hurting 
right now and we should not be spending in the regular order on regular 
Government business, 8 percent above last year's rate. My amendment 
would have been a 1-percent cut from this bill and the Appropriations 
Committee could have chosen where that went. I also suggested that we 
take it out of the duplicate measures that we passed within 1 month of 
each other. The American people expect more responsible actions from 
Congress than spending without restraint.
  I hear from my constituents all the time. A lot of common sense is 
coming out of my constituents. I wish we could export the good old 
Texas common sense to the Congress because what we are saying is why 
don't we look at the big picture here? Instead of a $1 trillion 
stimulus spending package on top of $1 trillion to fund Government for 
the next 9 months, and furthermore we have not even dealt with the 
financial institutions yet, why don't we step back and look at the 
problem we have, which is that our financial institutions are not 
working, our small businesses are not getting credit so they are not 
able to borrow to stay in business, and the housing market is in the 
tank? We have not addressed those issues yet and here we are, spending 
as if there is no restraint, adding to the debt because we do not have 
the money in the bank. I cannot think of anything more irresponsible 
than what we are doing in these last couple of months in the Congress.
  Actually, the stimulus packages from last year were also erroneous. 
But couldn't we have learned from the mistakes? Couldn't we have 
learned from what did not work in the first stimulus package? But, no, 
we do not seem to have learned, even though it was less than a year 
ago. I think the American people are showing the concern they have 
because the stock market is low, and is not getting stabilized.
  Now we have coming on the heels of this omnibus bill, which we are 
not accounting for, a $3.6 trillion budget proposed by the President 
with a deficit for 2010 projected at $1.75 trillion. The cumulative 
debt of America today is $11 trillion. The proposed budget plan 
recently suggested a doubling of this debt over the long term.
  Mr. President, 25 percent of the national debt that we are 
accumulating is owned by foreigners. The Chinese Government owns almost 
$700 billion of our debt. This is the same Chinese Government that last 
weekend took a rather hostile action toward one of our naval vessels in 
the South China Sea. I think we should be looking at the national 
security implications of having so much of our country's debt in the 
hands of any foreign country or any foreign national.
  In addition to the concerns about whether the borrowers are going to 
buy our debt--what if they say: $10 trillion, $11 trillion, you know, 
maybe we will buy your debt, but the risk is too great and we will have 
to jack up the interest rate? What is that going to do to an economy 
that is teetering so badly?
  I do not think we can turn a blind eye to the long-term consequences 
of this debt burden. It is not only irresponsible but it borders on 
being reckless. When are we going to stop it? If not today, then when? 
We have a chance today to say to the American people we will go back to 
the drawing boards and we will put reasonable limits on the amount of 
debt we are accumulating. We will put limits on the deficits that are 
being created. I think we should go back to 2008 levels because we 
passed a $1 trillion spending plan. Why not go back to 2008 levels and 
take out the duplication from the stimulus bill and what is in the bill 
before us today? That would be a responsible action that might start 
giving confidence to the American people that the Congress and the 
President will be able to work together in a bipartisan way to act 
responsibly, with the big picture in mind. I urge the President of the 
United States not to go forward with the budget that he has put 
forward, not to go forward with an energy plan that is going to start 
increasing taxes on every electric bill that every consumer in this 
country will have, but instead to step back and say let's fix the 
financial industries. Let's fix the financial institutions. The idea 
has been propounded is that the FDIC is going to start putting an 
assessment on every bank deposit to pay for these other schemes that 
have no impact whatsoever.
  There are a lot of things coming out of here that do not make sense. 
I think it is time for us to begin to show the American people we are 
going to step back. We are going to fix the financial markets so people 
can borrow to make payroll and keep people working, so people can stay 
in their homes and not get foreclosed, and to shore up the housing 
industry and help them start building and selling homes again.
  If we can start there, then we will know what kind of stimulus we 
need, or what kind of further spending would be in the best interest of 
this country to get our economy going again. But until then, we should 
not pass the bill before us today. We should go back to the drawing 
board and begin responsible, bipartisan leadership from Congress and 
the President on behalf of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 662

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 662, and make it pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for himself, Mr. 
     DeMint, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 662.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by the Federal Communications 
           Commission to repromulgate the Fairness Doctrine)

       On page 410, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 753.  None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be used by the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe 
     any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, guideline, 
     or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of 
     reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the 
     requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing 
     viewpoints on issues of public importance, commonly referred 
     to as the ``Fairness Doctrine'', as such doctrine was 
     repealed in In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council against 
     Television Station WTVH, Syracuse New York, 2 FCC Rcd. 5043 
     (1987).

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, 87 Members of the Senate voted 
to uphold our first amendment rights by supporting a statutory 
prohibition on the so-called fairness doctrine. The amendment was 
offered by Senator DeMint and was accepted as part of the DC voting 
rights bill which is currently awaiting consideration by the House of 
Representatives. I am concerned that once the House considers this 
bill, whenever that might occur, and the Senate and House versions are 
conferenced together, this provision will no longer be a part of the 
final DC voting rights bill.
  I will say I am hopeful that the DeMint amendment is retained in the 
final version of the DC Voting Rights Act, but I am fearful it will be 
stripped out behind closed doors when the conference committee gets 
underway.
  So I filed an amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill that would 
prohibit the FCC from using any funds to reinstate the fairness 
doctrine during the current fiscal year.
  If this amendment is accepted to the omnibus bill, then the 87 
Senators who supported this prohibition last week will have assurances 
that the fairness doctrine will not be reinstated for the remainder of 
this year regardless of whether the DeMint amendment remains part of 
the DC Voting Rights Act.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues a similar provision was 
included as part of the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill, 
section 621, that was enacted into law last year. However, that 
language was not included as part of the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  Now, one of the arguments that has been made against this amendment 
from my colleagues on the other side is, well, this issue is not that 
important. Nobody really cares about it. It is not going to happen.
  If that is the case, then why is it that the prohibition on funding 
to reinstate the fairness doctrine was stripped out of this bill after 
it had been included in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill?

[[Page S2932]]

  The so-called fairness doctrine has a long and infamous history in 
our country. The FCC promulgated the fairness doctrine in 1949 to 
ensure the contrasting viewpoints would be presented on radio and 
television. In 1985, the FCC began repealing the doctrine after 
concluding that it actually had the opposite effect.
  They concluded then what we still know today, and that is the 
fairness doctrine resulted in broadcasters limiting coverage of 
controversial issues of public importance.
  Now, recently, many on the left have advocated reinstating the 
doctrine. They argue that broadcasters, including talk radio, should 
present both sides of any issue because they use the public airwaves. 
However, recent calls to reinstate the fairness doctrine failed to take 
into account several considerations, which I will mention in just a 
moment. But in the event that there would be any question about whether 
there are those out there who would like to see this happen--because 
that has been one of the arguments raised in the course of the debate, 
that nobody in here is very serious about really doing this--if you 
look at what the Speaker of the House said when she was asked: Do you 
personally support revival of the fairness doctrine? She said, ``Yes.''
  The leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives recently 
said:

       There is a real concern about the monopoly of information 
     and the skewering of information that the American public 
     gets.
       First, as to the monopoly. Obviously if one group or a 
     large group controls information and only allows one 
     perspective to be presented, that is not good for democracy. 
     That is not good for the American public.

  That is, of course, what the fairness doctrine is directed at. It can 
have great merit. Those are the two top Democrats in the House of 
Representatives, and those are statements made within the last year.
  Then perhaps even more telling is what was said by a top staffer in 
the House. And it says:

       Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage 
     for Republicans, and we have had to find a way to limit it.

  I would submit that really is what this is all about. We have had 
Members on this side, in the Senate, on the other side of the aisle, 
who have made similar statements. Recently, on a radio program one of 
my colleagues on the other side was asked: Do you think there will be a 
push to reinstate the fairness doctrine? ``I don't know; I certainly 
hope so'' was the answer.
  Do you support it? ``I do.''
  I mean, would you want this radio station to have to change? ``I 
would. I would want this station and all stations to present a balanced 
perspective and different point of view.''
  What we are talking about is a first amendment right. In reality, the 
fairness doctrine resulted in less, not more, broadcasting of issues 
that are important to the public because airing controversial issues 
subjected broadcasters to regulatory burdens and potentially severe 
liabilities. They simply made the rational choice not to air any such 
content at all.
  Now, the number of radio and TV stations and development of newer 
broadcast media, such as cable and satellite TV and satellite radio, 
have grown dramatically in the past 50 years. In 1949, there were 51 
television stations and about 2,500 radio stations in the entire United 
States.
  In 1985, there were 1,200 television stations and 9,800 radio 
stations. Today, there are nearly 1,800 television stations and nearly 
14,000 radio stations. There is simply no scarcity to justify content 
regulation such as the fairness doctrine.
  The third point I will make is this: Development of new media, social 
networking, and access to the Internet has changed media forever. 
Supporters of government-mandated balance either ignore the new 
multiple sources of media or they reveal their true intention, which is 
to regulate content on all forms of communication and ultimately stifle 
certain viewpoints on certain media such as talk radio.
  Fourth, broadcast content is driven by consumer demand. Consumers of 
media show whether they are being served well by broadcasters when they 
choose either to tune in or turn off the programming that is being 
offered. The fairness doctrine runs counter to individual choice and 
freedom to choose what we listen to or see on the air or read on the 
Internet.
  The fairness doctrine should not be reinstated, and 2 weeks ago the 
Senate acted in a strong bipartisan manner in opposition to the 
fairness doctrine. I am asking the Senate to agree to my amendment 
because it simply prohibits any funding from being used to reinstate 
the fairness doctrine just as we included as part of last year's 
Omnibus appropriations bill.
  Adoption of my amendment would ensure that our first amendment rights 
are protected and that consumers have the freedom to choose what they 
see and hear over our airwaves. This amendment ensures that the Federal 
Communications Commission does not use any resources to reinstate the 
fairness doctrine through the end of the fiscal year until a more 
permanent solution can be reached through a statutory prohibition.
  As I said, 2 weeks ago, the Senate adopted this by a vote of 87 to 
11. There were 87 Senators in the Senate who agreed to language that 
was contained in the DeMint amendment to the DC Voting Rights Act.
  Similar language prohibiting the FCC from reinstating the fairness 
doctrine again, as I said earlier, was contained in last year's Omnibus 
appropriations bill. The administration of President Obama is on record 
opposing efforts to reinstate the fairness doctrine. It makes sense, in 
my judgment, that we echo all of those statements and the vote that was 
made by the Senate a couple of weeks ago by including a prohibition on 
funding for the FCC to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
  Again, we do not know what is going to happen in the DC Voting Rights 
Act, whether this provision is going to be stripped out, whether the 
DeMint amendment is going to be stripped out. So it is important, in my 
view, that we reinforce the vote by making a strong statement, at least 
for this fiscal year's funding, that funding in the FCC cannot and will 
not be used to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
  There is no reason for the Senate not to vote for this language. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and 
putting us on record when it comes to the funding that would be used to 
reinstate the fairness doctrine that this appropriations bill will not 
do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to engage my colleagues, Senator 
Nelson and Senator Martinez, in a colloquy. And as I do, let me start 
off by saying, we want to take a moment to discuss some important 
provisions in the omnibus bill. I discussed these provisions at length 
last week on the Senate floor, and I want to give an update as to where 
things stand today.
  As I discussed last week, this bill includes three important foreign 
policy changes with respect to Cuba that have not been subjected to 
debate in this body. They have not gone to the Foreign Relations 
Committee, they have not been subject to a vote in either body, and 
these modifications deserve a full examination. This has not taken 
place. Instead, this body would have been forced to swallow these 
changes in the crudest process I can imagine, without analysis, and 
without inclusion.
  Since we have been unable to debate the substance of these 
provisions, I have asked for a clarification, along with my colleagues, 
to the Secretary of the Treasury on the implementation of these 
provisions and expressed my concern for their possible implications and 
the unproductive signals they might send to those who are fighting for 
democratic change on the island.
  We did this to get clear, first, of what might have been major 
loopholes that could have been exploited by individuals or 
organizations seeking to circumvent the longstanding and necessary 
economic embargo. In response, Secretary Geithner has provided me with 
two letters that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S2933]]




                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 2009.
     Senator Robert Menendez,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: I understand that you have concerns with 
     provisions of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 that would 
     amend Cuba sanctions on travel and agricultural and medical 
     trade. As you know, the Obama Administration had nothing to 
     do with these or any other provisions of that bill.
       We are, however, currently reviewing United States policy 
     toward Cuba to determine the best way to foster democratic 
     change in Cuba and improve the lives of the Cuban people. 
     Your views and the views of others on Capitol Hill will be 
     important to that review, and the President remains committed 
     to consulting with you as we consider changes to Cuba policy.
       I understand that one of your chief concerns with the 
     Omnibus is Section 622, which would prohibit the Treasury 
     Department from using funds to administer, implement, or 
     enforce the current definition of ``cash in advance,'' which 
     is one of the permissible ways to finance exports to Cuba. 
     Treasury believes that this change likely will have no 
     influence on current financing rules. The term ``cash in 
     advance'' is in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
     Enhancement Act of 2000 and therefore private parties are and 
     will continue to be statutorily required to comply with those 
     payment terms. Because the bill's language does not modify or 
     negate the statutory requirement in the 2000 Act, exporters 
     will still be required to receive payment in advance of 
     shipment and will not be permitted to export to Cuba on 
     credit other than through third-country banks.
       I also understand you are concerned about Section 620. As 
     you know that is a provision that will also be administered 
     by the Department of the Treasury. I can assure you that 
     regulations promulgated pursuant to that provision will seek 
     to ensure that only travel for credible sales of food and 
     medical products is authorized.
           Sincerely,
                                              Timothy F. Geithner,
     Secretary of the Treasury.
                                  ____



                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2009.
     Hon. Robert Menendez,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Menendez: You have expressed concerns to me 
     about provisions of H.R. 1105, the FY 2009 Omnibus 
     Appropriations bill, regarding Cuba sanctions. You have also 
     shared your views regarding Section 620 of the bill, which 
     relates specifically to travel to Cuba for the commercial 
     sales of agricultural and medical goods pursuant to the Trade 
     Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.
       Section 620 would be administered by the Department of the 
     Treasury. The regulations promulgated pursuant to that 
     provision would provide that the representatives of only a 
     narrow class of businesses would be eligible, under a new 
     general license, to travel to Cuba to market and sell 
     agricultural and medical goods. Any business using the 
     general license would be required to provide both advance 
     written notice outlining the purpose and scope of the planned 
     travel and, upon return, a report outlining the activities 
     conducted, including the persons with whom they met, the 
     expenses incurred, and business conducted in Cuba. All 
     travelers who take advantage of the general license would 
     also have their daily expenses limited to the then-applicable 
     State Department per diem rate.
       It is my hope that this letter has assisted you in 
     understanding how the Treasury Department would implement 
     Section 620 of H.R. 1105, the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations 
     bill. If there is anything that I can do to be of assistance 
     in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                              Timothy F. Geithner,
                                        Secretary of the Treasury.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Section 620 liberalizes individual travel regulations 
to Cuba for the promotion of agricultural and medical sales. This 
provision would systemically broaden the category of licenses available 
and allow individuals, in a self-policing manner, to travel to the 
island under the auspices of selling such supplies.
  While I am sympathetic to the U.S. agricultural industry, I remain 
concerned that provision was written with the aim not of benefitting 
the private sector but, rather, of undercutting the current travel 
regulations for individuals and putting a wedge in a broader issue of 
denying our currency to the Castro regime. Depending on how this 
provision was implemented, it could encourage a radical break in 
existing travel regulations and provide the Castro regime with enhanced 
financial benefit in the pursuit of its repressive policies.
  As a result, we asked Secretary Geithner specifically how the 
provision would be implemented. Secretary Geithner assured us in his 
letter dated March 5, 2009:

       Regulations promulgated pursuant to that provision, 
     [Section 620] will seek to ensure that only travel for 
     credible sales of food and medical products is authorized.

  In his letter dated March 9, 2009, Secretary Geithner wrote:

       The regulations promulgated pursuant to that to provision 
     [Section 620] would provide that the representatives of only 
     a narrow class of business would be eligible, under a new 
     general license, to travel to Cuba to market and sell 
     agricultural and medical goods. Any business using the 
     general license would be required to provide both advance 
     written notice outlining the purpose and scope of the planned 
     travel and, upon return, a report outlining the activities 
     conducted, including the persons with whom they met, the 
     expenses incurred, and business conducted in Cuba.

  Section 622 concerns cash in advance payments. This provision would 
strip the ability of the Department of the Treasury to enforce a 2005 
amendment that defined the term ``cash in advance.''
  In his March 5 letter, Secretary Geithner wrote that the U.S. 
Treasury ``believes that this change likely will have no influence on 
current financing rules. The term `cash in advance' is in the Trade 
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 and therefore 
private parties are and will continue to be statutorily required to 
comply with those payment terms. Because the bill's language does not 
modify or negate the statutory requirement in the 2000 Act, exporters 
will still be required to receive payments in advance of shipment and 
will not be permitted to export to Cuba on credit other than through 
third-country banks.''
  Which is the law today.
  This comes particularly at a moment that is very important. The Paris 
Club recently announced that Cuba has defaulted on over $9 billion of 
obligations. At a time that we are facing challenges in the United 
States in terms of our financial institutions and credit, in general, 
to be giving credit to a country that has not only a repressive policy 
but has $30 billion in default is not, in my mind, good policy.
  President Obama said:

       My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: 
     Libertad----

  Which means freedom--

     and the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with 
     justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free 
     speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must 
     lead to elections that are free and fair.

  I could not agree more with President Obama on this point, and I 
fully support him in moving forward in this direction.
  Finally, I know some of my colleagues might be confused about my 
persistence with this issue over the last couple of weeks. So let me 
clarify what, for me, is a principled position.
  First, I have many citizens in New Jersey whose personal stories 
speak powerfully to the repression of the Castro regime. Many of them 
have spent 10 to 20 years of their lives in a prison cell. Their only 
crime was trying to seek peaceful change in their country. They are now 
proud U.S. citizens. But they languished in a jail for a decade or two 
decades simply for seeking to make peaceful change. Many of them were 
tortured in that process. They are a powerful reminder to me every day, 
when I am back in New Jersey, of that reality.

  Second, let me propose that for some it is difficult to imagine the 
deep personal significance these changes have for the human rights and 
democracy activists on the island who fight for the ability to speak 
freely and think freely, as well as my own personal convictions on this 
issue that my family has both lived under and died trying to change.
  Changes in our Nation's policy toward Cuba, such as changes in our 
Nation's policy toward any nation our country determines a state 
sponsor of terrorism--such as Iran, Sudan, and Syria--are extremely 
delicate policy issues. Any such changes in our policy with these 
countries deserve a democratic debate and careful deliberation. It is 
simply undemocratic to tuck them in the middle of a large unrelated but 
must-pass spending bill.
  I thank Secretary Geithner for his understanding of the sensitivity 
of these issues, working with Senator Nelson and myself to ensure that 
the spirit of the legislation is carried out

[[Page S2934]]

in a responsible manner. I also thank my colleagues in the Senate who 
have worked with us on this and others who have understood and Majority 
Leader Reid for working with me on getting clarification on the 
implementation of these provisions. It is disappointing that the 
process unfolded in this way. We will look just as unkindly upon any 
future attempts to make significant foreign policy decisions of any 
sort, not only about Cuba, in this type of secretive and undemocratic 
manner. Instead, I wish to work with my colleagues in an open and 
transparent manner to deliberate the substance before we get to this 
point, even though, at the end of the day, we may still not find common 
ground. I would, of course, prefer that the provisions not be in this 
bill at all. But the assurances I have received from Secretary Geithner 
have allayed my most significant concerns, and I will vote in favor of 
the Omnibus appropriations bill.
  I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, who has 
been an ally in this effort to ensure that the clarifications needed 
were there. He is a tremendous advocate for freedom and democracy for 
the people of Cuba. I was privileged to work with him in getting the 
clarifications and making sure we are in a position so human rights 
activists and political dissidents in Cuba still have their opportunity 
to create change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I commend Senator Menendez for 
the conviction and passion with which he comes to this important 
position of influencing the Senate on this particular issue. I likewise 
wish to say the same thing about my colleague from Florida who has been 
my good friend for 31 years and who comes to this issue with equal 
passion and commitment. I thank my colleague from Florida for coming 
out here on the floor. Even though this issue was negotiated among 
Senator Menendez and myself and Secretary Geithner, he is willing to 
come and stand to embrace the product of our work.
  I wish to call to the attention of the Senate that our majority 
leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, came up to me and indicated he supports 
this and wanted me to state that to the Senate.
  I came to Congress 30 years ago. This issue has been an issue that 
any Floridian has lived with for a long time. I have supported an 
economic embargo against Cuba along with a ban on tourist travel to the 
island. I am a supporter of isolating the regime in Havana and giving 
the Cuban people the democracy they so desperately seek. The provisions 
in this omnibus that came out of the Appropriations Committee did not 
do away with the embargo but did weaken it. I think the better course 
is to allow our new President to undertake his own review of U.S. 
policy toward Cuba before pushing hasty and ill-advised language 
through on an omnibus bill, as Senator Menendez said, that was crafted 
behind closed doors, kept from public view, and kept from the rest of 
the Senate's view until it was disgorged from the full committee only a 
couple weeks ago; ``it'' being the omnibus, a must-pass piece of 
legislation to keep the Government functioning.
  As Senator Menendez has outlined, we reached out to the Secretary of 
the Treasury and to the White House to clarify the implementation and 
enforcement of these regulations. Senator Menendez has already put into 
the Record Secretary Geithner's letter of March 5 and his responsive 
clarification in a letter of March 9. I wish to enter into the Record 
the letter Senator Menendez and I sent to Secretary Geithner on March 
6, memorializing the personal conversation we had with him, to which he 
so graciously then followed up with his letter of March 9.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2009.
     Hon. Timothy F. Geithner,
     Secretary of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Geithner: We appreciate your recent 
     correspondence clarifying the implementation of Sec. 622 of 
     the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. As we discussed last 
     night, we continue to have serious concerns with Section 620. 
     Thank you for your personal commitment that the Department of 
     the Treasury will promulgate regulations pursuant to Section 
     620 that:
       1. Provide a narrow definition of the eligible businesses 
     that may travel to Cuba to sell agricultural and medical 
     products under a general license;
       2. Require written notice to the Office of Foreign Assets 
     Control (OFAC) in advance of travel to Cuba outlining the 
     purpose and scope of such travel to Cuba, pursuant to the 
     provisions as defined above;
       3. Require a filing upon return of travel to Cuba by 
     travelers outlining activities conducted, including persons 
     with whom they met, the amount of expenses incurred, and the 
     business conducted; and
       4. Limit such travelers to the current Department of State 
     per diem.
       Currently, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 
     pursues significant enforcement with regard to travel 
     regulations relating to Cuba. We would expect that such 
     enforcement would not be diminished in the ultimate 
     enforcement of the regulations outlined above.
           Sincerely,
     Robert Menendez.
     Bill Nelson.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would like to engage my colleague from 
Florida, Senator Martinez, in this colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank my two colleagues from New 
Jersey and Florida for what they have had to say but most of all for 
the work they have done. They have done good work. We have stood 
together, the three of us, along with others but particularly the three 
of us with the most immediate concern with this issue, in a way that is 
heartening. To me, oftentimes I have seen our names written as 
hardliners on Cuba. I prefer to think of ourselves as voices of freedom 
standing to oppression. That is what is at stake. People in the 
district of Senator Menendez and people in Florida, countless of them, 
we know their stories. We know their names. We know their suffering. It 
isn't about settling an old score because these conditions continue 
even today. Oscar Elias Biscet, to name one. He is in jail. His family 
seldom gets to visit him. His health is in peril. It is because of all 
these things that are not only part of history, but they are also part 
of today's reality, that we stand on the side of freedom. That means a 
state that is a sponsor of terror needs to be treated differently.
  I daresay that while I might not agree with everything that might be 
done, I trust President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to do a 
review of our policy toward Cuba and then, perhaps in the light of day, 
have a discussion about what would and would not be appropriate. What I 
would object to is anything that would be unilateral, that simply would 
say: We will do this, that and the other thing and expect nothing on 
behalf of those oppressed people of Cuba. We need to expect that there 
will be reciprocity of some type, that there will be steps taken by the 
Cuban Government contrary to what they seem to have done last week, 
which is to circle the wagons and hint of more military control of the 
Government and more repression for the people.
  I deeply thank both Senators Nelson and Menendez for what they were 
able to accomplish in this misguided piece of legislation. I agree with 
them, it was inserted in the dark of night with no debate and 
discussion. The letters and the understanding they have reached with 
the Secretary of the Treasury handles the problem as it relates to 
agricultural sales to Cuba as well as the related licensing for travel 
relating to doing business in Cuba.
  We talk often about an embargo. This embargo supposedly is limited to 
trade sanctions because we sell almost a billion dollars in 
agricultural goods to Cuba. We sell medicine. More humanitarian aid 
flows to Cuba from here than any other country in the world, hundreds 
of thousands, into the billions of dollars in remittances that go from 
folks in this country to those in Cuba. Sadly, the Cuban Government 
takes too big a cut out of it.
  I look forward to this implementation, which I think fixes the 
problem created by this misguided legislation. I thank both the 
Senators for their yeoman work in getting this accomplished. I remain 
concerned about travel by family members. While I am not one to 
begrudge anyone who wants to see an uncle or aunt, there will be a need 
for regulations that will enshrine what I know will be a different 
policy

[[Page S2935]]

under President Obama, and I respect that completely. But there needs 
to be some regulation about the frequency of travel and also about the 
amount of per diem dollars carried back and forth to Cuba. I am sure 
those will be forthcoming down the road.
  I believe it is important we continue to request that if there is 
going to be legislating on this topic, that it be done in the open air, 
that we have an opportunity for fair debate and for a legislative 
process that is worthy of the kind of institution we are.
  I thank both my colleagues for the great work and appreciate the fact 
that we have been able to maintain what is an important foreign policy 
initiative that should never be disturbed in the way this was done but 
should be left in the hands of the Executive and be done carefully, 
measuredly and after study and consideration.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank Senator Martinez again. 
It is important we understand that when we have that full and fair and 
open debate in the sunshine, we remember what Candidate Obama said 
during the campaign. He said what he wanted to do was go back to the 
status quo ante on travel to Cuba by family members every year instead 
of once every 3 years and to have more remittances every quarter than 
was cut back a few years ago by the previous administration. That seems 
to be common sense and family value oriented. That is what the 
candidate who became our next President articulated.
  Then once the new President announces his declaration of that policy, 
we can come out here and openly debate that issue. While there has been 
disagreement within this body over the most effective way for us to 
help the Cuban people, I believe if there is to be a new strategy 
toward Cuba, we must have the opportunity for the Commander in Chief to 
lay it out, not have it come from the tinkering of a few lawmakers 
inserting language in a must-pass appropriations bill without any 
opportunity for debate.
  I stand with our Cuban American families, many of them in Florida, 
who have ties to loved ones still on the island. That is why I support 
President Obama's efforts to allow increased family travel once a year, 
instead of only once every 3 years, and the increased remittances to 
family members.
  Our job in guiding U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba is to isolate the 
Castro regime but not to prevent families from being able to take care 
of their loved ones. On the basis of these letters entered in the 
Record today and on the personal assurance of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, which we appreciate very much, I have been assured by the 
administration as to the implications and enforcement of these 
regulations. Although I agree with many of my colleagues that this 
omnibus bill is far from perfect, I believe it is in the best interests 
of the country to provide the badly needed operational funding for the 
U.S. Government and for other important initiatives.
  This bill includes funding for lifesaving equipment at Florida 
hospitals, for sheriffs' offices, and for police departments to upgrade 
communications systems or to prevent kids from joining street gangs. It 
provides money for cleaning up blighted downtown neighborhoods, for 
retraining workers who are losing their jobs, and for projects to save 
one of the world's greatest natural treasures, the Florida Everglades. 
These are just a few of the reasons why this legislation is so 
important.
  If this bill, shepherded through this body by our esteemed chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye, were not to pass, 
NASA's contractors would have to start laying off skilled aerospace 
workers developing the replacement of the space shuttle. So it is my 
intention to vote for cloture on the 2009 omnibus bill, and I urge our 
colleagues to do so.

  Mr. President, I yield to Senator Menendez.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me now make some broader comments about the omnibus, having 
expressed my concerns. And, again, in recognition and in light of the 
assurances we have received on the matter that Senator Nelson, Senator 
Martinez, and I have discussed, I have come to the floor today to 
support the omnibus bill.
  It is an important measure to help our economy recover and keep 
essential public services running. It includes important funding for my 
home State of New Jersey, including everything from an initial burst of 
capital for a new trans-Hudson tunnel--incredibly important to move 
large numbers of people across the Hudson River to New York, and also 
for reverse commutes, for economic opportunity, access to hospitals, a 
whole host of critical issues in a way that is promoting mass transit 
and does so not only in terms of economic opportunity and an enormous 
number of jobs that will be created as a result of that but also as it 
relates to the quality of life and the environment by moving a lot more 
people in a high-speed, nonpolluting process versus through a car--to 
support for flood control and protection of our shore--which is 
incredibly important in terms of the tourism and fishing industry and 
the economy of New Jersey--to grants that allow local law enforcement 
to have the latest technology to help the police officer on the beat.
  This bill invests in education, strengthening our commitment to 
science over the next decade so we can have a workforce that can 
compete on a global playing field and be second to no one in terms of 
that ability in those fields that are going to be the competitive 
future opportunities for our citizens and for our Nation.
  It makes strong advances in health care. It includes more than $30 
billion for lifesaving research so that the National Institutes of 
Health leaves no stone unturned in the search for treatment for cancer, 
for diabetes, and the Alzheimer's that I have watched take over my 
strong and proud mother.
  The bill allows us to immunize an additional 15,000 children against 
debilitating diseases. And it funds the Patient Navigator program I 
established to help citizens make their way through a complicated 
health care system.
  The legislation puts resources toward revitalizing local communities 
and keeping families in their homes--because the housing crisis is at 
the root of our overall economic crisis. It funds community and 
economic development in over 1,000 cities and towns, gives competitive 
grants to revitalize neighborhoods, and renews section 8 vouchers to 
help nearly 45,000 families keep a place to call home.
  In short, the omnibus makes a broad range of the kind of worthy, 
needed investments that will help our economy recover and our citizens 
get through this difficult time. I am happy to see the Senate move 
forward on this vitally important legislation. Although I know I am not 
the only Senator to have felt frustration in this process, I wish to 
take this opportunity to express that I am always open to discussions 
with my colleagues, and I hope we can work together in the future to 
make sure in the greatest deliberative body in the world we will all do 
our part to deliberate before we take significant action.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 662

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 662, 
an amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. This amendment 
would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating 
the fairness doctrine.
  This amendment is totally unnecessary. There is no funding in this 
bill for the FCC to reinstate the fairness doctrine. This bill does not 
contain any provisions directing the FCC to reinstate the fairness 
doctrine.
  Further, President Obama does not support reinstating the fairness 
doctrine. The FCC repealed this doctrine in 1987, and has no plans to 
bring it back.
  Finally, last week, 87 Senators, including myself, voted to include a 
similar amendment to the voting rights bill that would prevent the FCC 
from reinstating the fairness doctrine, which is exactly what this 
amendment would do. So there is no question about Democratic support 
for the position being proposed by the South Dakota Senator.
  I wish to take a few seconds and talk about the history of this 
issue. The

[[Page S2936]]

fairness doctrine, which was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949--60 
years ago--is a concept that broadcasters should cover issues fairly, 
allowing for different viewpoints to be presented in a balanced way.
  I agree with the goals the fairness doctrine advanced, but the need 
for this policy today has become obsolete. In the 1950s, there were 
only three nationwide broadcast stations--NBC, ABC, and CBS. There was 
a legitimate public concern that the small number of media outlets 
could abuse their power and present a biased public agenda. At that 
time, the fairness doctrine was the right answer to a small and heavily 
concentrated media world.
  A lot has changed since the 1950s. Technology has exploded. There are 
more ways than ever to hear a variety of perspectives and opinions on 
any number of issues. There are hundreds of channels on cable TV. We 
have public broadcasting, which was nonexistent at that time. We have 
more than 14,000 AM and FM radio stations, and hundreds of satellite 
radio stations. We also have the Internet.
  As I stated earlier, the FCC repealed the provision in 1987, and has 
no plans to reinstate this doctrine. The amendment is simply an attempt 
to take an issue on which a vast majority of the Members of this 
Chamber voted in agreement last week and offer it to an unrelated bill 
of significant importance to the day-to-day operation of our 
Government.
  It does not belong in this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
matter so we can send the bill to the President of the United States.


                           Amendment No. 604

  Mr. President, if I may, I wish to speak on another amendment. This 
is amendment No. 604.
  The bill before us, the Omnibus appropriations bill, would provide 
funding for the majority of the Federal Departments which have been 
funded under a continuing resolution since October of 2008.
  This bill, the omnibus bill, is not an authorization bill. At the 
request of both the chairman and ranking member of the authorizing 
committee of jurisdiction, this bill includes a simple 1-year extension 
of the E-Verify employment verification system, known as the Basic 
Pilot Program, and includes a simple extension of the EB-5 program.
  The Appropriations Committee chose not to include the controversial 
authorization measures associated with the E-Verify Program. Rather, 
the extension provided in the Omnibus appropriations bill provides the 
authorizing committee ample time during this session of Congress to 
consider the 6-year authorizing legislation contained in this 
amendment.
  The continuing resolution expires at midnight this Wednesday, March 
11 and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this controversial 
authorization language, particularly since this bill provides time to 
the authorizing committees to address this issue through the 
authorizing process.
  I oppose that amendment.


                           Amendment No. 674

  Mr. President, now, if I may, I wish to speak on another amendment. 
This is amendment No. 674, which would prohibit the use of funds to 
implement Executive Order 13496 which was issued on January 30 of this 
year.
  This Executive order requires Federal contractors to post a notice 
informing workers of their existing labor rights under Federal labor 
laws. The pending amendment, however, prohibits President Obama's order 
from being implemented unless it uses the same exact language as a 
prejudiced order issued by former President George W. Bush in 2001.
  The Bush Executive order required Federal contractors to post a 
Federal labor rights notice, but that notice only provided one-sided 
material about the right to not join a union or pay certain union dues. 
Unlike President Bush's order, President Obama's executive order does 
not limit the notice to pro- or anti-union material, and it does not 
dictate what specific language must be used. It simply requires the 
Department of Labor to issue guidelines within 120 days from January 30 
of this year about the notice, and for the notice to be more 
comprehensive and informative than the Bush Executive order.
  Mandating that the one-sided Executive order from the previous 
administration be restored defies logic. Many new federally funded 
projects to improve our Nation's infrastructure are underway and 
productive labor relations are more important than ever. Ensuring that 
workers are aware of their rights promotes better working relationships 
between labor and contractors.
  Federal law gives the President discretion to determine what is in 
this notice. President Bush exercised that right during the 8 years he 
served as President, and issued an Executive order on this matter that 
many of us in this Chamber believed to be one sided. President Obama 
deserves the same authority and discretion that was afforded to 
President Bush to issue Executive orders. The Congress should not take 
steps to intercede on this matter by adopting this amendment and, 
therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 615

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to speak once again about my 
amendment dealing with the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program we have 
here in the District of Columbia. Currently, 1,700 children from lower 
income families are able to attend a private school with a $7,500 
voucher thanks to this program, a program we implemented about 5 years 
ago.
  It seems the No. 1 priority for the National Education Association, 
one of the largest unions in the country, is to eliminate this program. 
We are talking about real children here. These are two of the kids who 
attend school with President Obama's children. It is a great school. 
The President and Mrs. Obama could afford to send their kids to any 
school. They chose this particular school because it is an excellent 
school. They chose not to send them to a public school in Washington, 
DC. After seeing some of the statistics on the DC public schools, it 
doesn't surprise me. Why should these two happy, healthy kids who are 
enrolled at the same school as the President's children be forced to 
leave?
  The bill before us allows the program to continue for one more year, 
then, if not reauthorized and approved by the DC City Council, the bill 
de-funds the program and forces 1,700 children out of private schools 
where they are happy, healthy and learning.
  I quoted these statistics earlier: forty-five percent of Senators and 
37 percent of members of the House send their children to private 
schools. That is almost four times the rate of the general population. 
Quality education shouldn't be only for a privileged few. We should be 
able to send kids such as Sarah and James here to the schools where 
they can get a better education, where they are safer.
  The safety of DC public schools is a major concern. One-half of all 
teenagers attending DC public schools are in a school that has enough 
criminal activity to be classified as persistently dangerous. In school 
year 2006-2007, DC Metropolitan Police reported that over 6,500 crimes 
were committed in D.C. public schools. Too many of these schools are 
not safe.
  It is a civil right to get a good education. So we came up with a 
plan a few years ago that took up to 2,000 poor children in the metro 
DC area and sent them to a school of their parents' choice. Washington, 
DC, spends more than any school District in America per student. The 
District of Columbia spends over $15,000 per student per year--three 
times as much as we spend in my home State of Nevada. Yet the public 
schools are failing here in Washington. So we decided to design a 
program to see if we can help some of those kids escape the failing 
public schools in Washington. We thought: if it works as a pilot 
project, maybe we can expand it to other places.
  Well, the National Education Association has come out with their No. 
1 priority, which is to destroy this program. My question is, Why? I 
believe they are afraid this program is working, so it is a threat to 
their power. It

[[Page S2937]]

is a threat to union member dues. That is unfortunate because when it 
comes to education, our only concern should be in the quality of 
education for our children. They need that kind of quality education to 
compete in the 21st century.
  I have a couple other kids to tell my colleagues about.
  This is Sanya. She is a beautiful, happy young lady, and is receiving 
a great education in a private school here in DC. Today, she has a 3.95 
GPA. She is the vice president of her class. She is the captain of her 
soccer team, a player on the lacrosse team, president of the 
International Club, and she is a peer minister. She is a future leader 
whom we are going to be taking out of the school she loves if this bill 
is enacted without my amendment.
  Rashawn is 16 years old and a handsome devil. He started school in 
1996. His father had him tested and found out he was 3 years behind his 
grade level. The scholarship program provided him the opportunity to go 
to the Academia De La Recta Christian Day School. Rashawn said he can 
now do his classwork with very little help because of the scholarship. 
His sister, Dominique, who is 14 years of age, is now attending the 
same school, and these are her words. She says: ``I love my school now. 
I am working on my level on my grade.''
  Do we really want to take these kids out of their schools? Do we 
really want to do that? We have to ask ourselves, Do we want to protect 
this bill and the special interests this bill is addressing so much 
that we are actually going to pull 1,700 children from lower income 
families out of the schools they are attending today? I think it is 
unconscionable that we are going to be doing that.
  Breanna Williams is 9 years of age and in the fourth grade. She loves 
her new school, St. Peters. She is getting all A's and B's. She loves 
to read and is reading at a level above her grade. In addition, Breanna 
plays clarinet in the school band. When she grows up, she wants to be a 
translator and travel the world.
  Lastly, I wish to tell my colleagues about Ronald Holassie. He is 
currently Washington, DC's deputy youth mayor. I had the honor of 
meeting this young man, and I had the honor of meeting his little 
brother, Richard. His little brother, Richard, 8 years of age, came to 
our press conference and stole the show. These are two incredibly 
bright young men. Ronald, a tenth grader, runs track, he is studying 
physics, mentoring middle-school students, and absolutely loves every 
minute of it. As the Youth Deputy Mayor, he considers saving this 
program his chief legislative priority, because he has seen what it has 
done for him and what it has done for his little brother.
  So individually and collectively these programs are working. We just 
have to put ourselves in a commonsense position.
  There have been some studies quoted here claiming that this program 
wasn't working. First of all, the studies were incredibly flawed. We 
pointed out all of the flaws of the study. But we just have to ask 
ourselves, if 45% of the Senators send their kids to private schools, 
and they pay a lot of money to do that, would they do that if they 
thought the educational opportunity was inferior? Of course not. It 
just makes common sense. Do you think the parents of these 1,700 
children would voluntarily send their kids to the DC schools of their 
choice if these schools were inferior or if their kids weren't getting 
a better education? Well, of course not.
  This is what President Obama's Education Secretary said about the DC 
scholarship program. He said:

       It is a mistake to take kids out of a school where they're 
     happy and safe and satisfied. I think those kids need to stay 
     in their school.

  So we need to adopt my amendment to keep the DC scholarship program 
funded. It is the right thing to do for these kids. Showing them we 
care more about their education than we do some special interest group 
is the right thing to do.
  So I urge all of my colleagues, when they are voting, to think of 
Ronald. Think of the kids we have talked about and many others. Instead 
of doing away with this program, let's study it. Let's study what is 
working about it. If it is working, let's expand it to other places in 
the country.
  America leads the world when it comes to higher education. Our 
colleges and universities are the best. One of the reasons they are the 
best is because you can take a GI bill, student loan or Pell grant, and 
you have the opportunity to attend any college you desire. You have a 
choice. About 5 years ago, this program gave these kids a choice. Our 
public, K-12 school system is in bad shape when compared to the rest of 
the industrialized world. We are falling behind, especially in science, 
math and in the technical fields. If we want our kids to have the 
chance to compete in the 21st century, we have to improve our school 
system. One of the ways to do that is through competition. This is just 
a little experiment and a little competition that some people now want 
to come to this floor and destroy.
  So let's think of these kids, and let's think of kids all over 
America when we are thinking about the educational choices we are going 
to be making in the Senate. Let's give children in DC a choice. We, as 
senators, are fortunate enough to have a choice for our children. 
Forty-five percent of the Senators chose private schools, including the 
chief opponent of this amendment, Senator Durbin.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 604

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I hope that in a little bit we will vote 
in favor of the amendment I have offered to extend the E-Verify system 
for 5 years. It is time we do that. It is a proven, effective system 
that brings integrity to our immigration system.
  The E-Verify system is up and working today all over America. Between 
1,000 and 2,000 businesses a week are signing up voluntarily. Over 
112,000 have already signed up. When an applicant submits an 
application for a position with a company, the company can input their 
Social Security number into an electronic system, and the computer 
checks it to see whether it is a valid Social Security number.
  People who are not authorized to be in the U.S. know they can use any 
Social Security number you choose. We found a few years ago that 
hundreds of people were using the exact same Social Security number to 
get a job. People were also using the same fake ID and getting jobs in 
that fashion. E-Verify is a program that would help eliminate the jobs 
magnet, the ability of a person who enters America illegally to get a 
job. If employees aren't authorized to work after they have been 
checked through E-Verify, nobody will be arrested. Police officers are 
going to be called out. Nobody is going to be put in jail under this 
system. What would happen is the employer would simply say: You don't 
qualify. You are not a legal resident. If there is any doubt about it, 
the applicant has a mechanism to very quickly validate their status if 
they have a legitimate status to validate. It can make a big 
difference.
  The Heritage Foundation and I believe the Center for Immigration 
Studies a few days ago did a study, and they estimate that under the 
stimulus bill, 300,000 people who are not legally American will be 
given jobs.
  My colleagues probably saw the article--I am sure many of my 
colleagues did--a couple of days ago where 700 people signed up for a 
janitor's job in Ohio. The American people are seeing an increase in 
unemployment. I don't think the numbers are going to reach as high as 
they did in the 1980s--at least that is the testimony we just had at 
the Budget Committee at two different hearings--where employment 
reached 9.4 percent, 8.6 percent. People were estimating what 
unemployment will reach. I don't know what it will reach, but I know a 
lot of good people are out of work and looking for a job. We created a 
stimulus package, $800 billion worth, and that stimulus package was 
supposed to create jobs. The President says he wants to create 3 
million, and we have just been given a report that says almost 10 
percent of those jobs could go to people who are in the country 
unlawfully.

[[Page S2938]]

  Let me just say as an aside something that worries me. I think every 
Member of this Congress should be worried about it. Under President 
Bush's Executive order 12989, which was supposed to be implemented in 
February of this year, every business that got a contract with the U.S. 
Government must use the E-Verify system. As I said, over 112,000 are 
using it voluntarily today.

  What worries me is that President Obama pushed back implementation of 
that Executive Order. He has now put it off until May 21. At the same 
time, our Democratic leadership is blocking an effort to make E-Verify 
permanent or even extend it for just 5 years.
  What does that signal, I ask? Do we want people here unlawfully in 
this country to get jobs working for the Government when there are 
hundreds of people applying for a janitor's job? Do we want contractors 
who hire illegals to get Government work while Americans cannot get the 
jobs? I don't think so.
  I will just say with regard to extending the E-Verify Program, in the 
House they had a square vote on it last July. It passed 407 to 2. So 
now we are not going to put that in this legislation. I was blocked 3 
times in my attempt to get a vote on the amendment as part of the 
stimulus package. At least, I have to say, I am pleased I will 
apparently get a vote on this bill. But I am troubled with what I am 
hearing that the leadership is going to put pressure on Democratic 
Members to vote no. There is a majority there, and if they do, it will 
not even pass today.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the telephone calls. I am getting 
calls asking that I vote for it. It is my amendment. People care about 
this issue. The American people wonder what it is we are doing here. Do 
we not get it? Do we not understand what this is all about? It is about 
a jobs package to create jobs for lawful American workers. They can be 
noncitizens, but they need to be lawfully present in the country.
  The first thing you do in dealing with a situation of illegality is 
stop rewarding it. You do not give them good jobs.
  I am amazed there is an objection to this amendment. I had a 
suspicion that a move was afoot to keep my amendment from passing on 
the stimulus bill, and that turned out to be correct. In addition to a 
5 year extension, the House accepted an amendment making E-Verify 
mandatory for stimulus money recipients without objection in the House 
Appropriations Committee. It was in their bill, but Senate leadership 
was able to block us from getting a vote on it. So we did not get a 
vote and it was not in the Senate bill.
  What happened when they went to conference? Speaker Pelosi and the 
majority leader meet. They control the conference. And, oh, goodness, 
they decided the House would concede and the amendment would be taken 
out of the bill. Since the Senate had not put it in the bill, it would 
be stripped from the legislation. That is how the stimulus package 
passed without any E-Verify extension. I think it has expired now, 
actually.
  We need a long-term extension because it is going to cause businesses 
that don't use it to wonder whether they should sign up if they do not 
even know it is going to be a continuing system. It would be very bad.
  The new Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Napalitano, 
President Obama's Secretary, says she does favor this program. Michael 
Chertoff, the previous Secretary of Homeland Security, strongly 
supported this program. A bipartisan group of people support it. We 
need to extend it. We need to actually make it permanent, and we need 
to make it apply to all Government contractors, as even President Bush 
required in his Executive order, which has now been abrogated by 
President Obama.
  To sum up, this amendment does not make E-Verify required for 
Government contractors. All it does is extend the E-Verify system for 
another 5 years. I cannot imagine we would let this cornerstone of a 
plan to establish a lawful system of immigration to expire. We are on 
the verge of that now.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 622

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, one of the amendments we are going to have 
the opportunity to vote on this afternoon is the Thune amendment. I 
have some strong feelings about it. I wish to make a couple 
observations that I think are necessary dealing with the fairness 
doctrine.
  As indicated by the vote on Senator DeMint's amendment to the DC 
Voting Rights Act, any attempt on the part of any Senator to reinstate 
the fairness doctrine clearly goes against the will of Congress and the 
American people. It is a dangerous policy to enact more Government 
policing of our airwaves.
  With the onset of the Internet and other media technology, there are 
countless sources of information at our fingertips. I can remember, and 
you can remember, I say to the Chair, many years ago when we had 
nothing but three networks, and we didn't even have talk shows at that 
time. Then CNN came along. I guess it was the first cable network.
  At the time, there was limited opportunity. As it is now, with all 
the information that is going around, that is no longer a problem.
  Senator DeMint's amendment addressed this issue. It was similar to 
the intent of the Thune amendment that will be coming up this 
afternoon. The DeMint amendment was adopted by a margin of 87 to 11. 
One would believe, then, that the Thune amendment would pass by an 
equally substantial margin. However, it was obvious at the time the 
vote on the DeMint amendment was merely a political game on the part of 
some of my colleagues to mask their true intent to regulate broadcast 
media, and I suspect the vote on this amendment will be different. I 
encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to hold true to 
their earlier conviction and pass this measure by an equally 
substantial margin.
  A lot of mail went out after that vote. People were talking about how 
they were going to protect first amendment rights, and we were not 
going to try to infringe on the airwaves with the fairness doctrine.
  While reinstatement of the fairness doctrine still poses a threat to 
free speech on the airwaves, the debate over Government regulation of 
broadcast media has changed. Media ownership diversity and broadcast 
localism are the new liberal tools they intend to use to regulate the 
airwaves.
  Two weeks ago, in a straight party-line vote, Democrats chose to 
adopt an amendment--it was amendment No. 591 sponsored by Senator 
Richard Durbin of Illinois--which calls on the FCC to ``encourage and 
promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that 
broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.''
  That is very nebulous, very vague language, just enough to scare 
people who are in business but not enough to define what they are 
trying to do. There is no indication in the legislation as to what 
``encourage and promote diversity'' and ``in the public interest'' 
means. These clauses can be interpreted by the FCC in any manner they 
choose.
  The Durbin doctrine, as I refer to it, is legislation that is so 
incredibly vague and so potentially far reaching that there is no 
certainty what the end result will be. This is not good governance. 
This is not a good idea.
  Another threat to our freedom of speech is a proposal called 
broadcast localism. We have two different issues. We have localism and 
then we have, of course, the diversity issue. Neither one is well 
defined. The FCC gave notice of proposed localism regulations in 
January of 2008. While the proposal was ultimately dropped, it is 
indicative of future attempts to regulate the airwaves and is something 
all Americans need to know about.
  Among other things, the proposal would have required radio stations 
to adhere to programming advice from community advisory boards. It 
doesn't say what kind of advice. It doesn't say who these boards are. 
It could be ACORN. It could be just about anybody, I suppose. Then to 
report every 3 months on the content of their programming, they have to 
report what the content is when it has been a matter of public record 
anyway. They talk about how their program reflects the community 
interest. If you have one biased source of localism, they can dictate 
the content of broadcast material.
  The localism rule, if it were promulgated, would mean that radio 
stations

[[Page S2939]]

would have to comply with blanket regulations and broadcast programming 
that may not be commercially viable and be forced to take into account 
the advice of community advisory boards over their regular listeners.
  Right now it is market driven. That is what people do not understand. 
The reason we have content--I admit it is biased on the conservative 
side because most people are biased on the conservative side. In my 
State of Oklahoma, it does not matter if you are Democrat or 
Republican. They are people who are conservative. They want limited 
Government. They want limited taxation. I think Oklahoma is not the 
only State that is unique in that respect. Although the rule was 
ultimately abandoned, President Obama has expressed support for a new 
localism regulation, and it is expected to come up again under this 
administration.
  Both localism and diversity--those are the keywords--in media 
ownership will force radio stations to comply with blanket regulations 
and to broadcast programming that is not commercially viable rather 
than taking into account the needs of their communities.
  I was in Bartonsville, OK, last week. There is a guy up there named 
Kevin Potter who owns a station. That is his whole livelihood. He has 
been doing it for as many years as I can remember. It is a very 
competitive business he is in. He has to comply with something if it is 
specific, but this is so nebulous he doesn't know what he has to comply 
with. He is panicking that they would have the power under this new 
regulation to shut him down.
  I think what is most concerning to me is the enforcement procedure 
for breaches of localism and diversity. Certainly, no one has been able 
to determine what that is or what the definition is.
  Senator Durbin's amendment requires affirmative action on the part of 
the FCC stating ``the Commission shall take actions to encourage and 
promote diversity.'' It doesn't stipulate what actions or to what 
degree but instead leaves the enforcement mechanism up to the 
determination of the FCC, which is likely to be emboldened by the 
affirmative language of the amendment. I find it to be extremely 
dangerous and this, too, should be a concern of everyone.
  We tried to do this on the Senate floor, I think it was 2 years ago, 
when there was an objection that most of the broadcast radio talk shows 
and television shows were biased on the conservative side. I admit they 
are. There is no question about that.
  There was an attempt made--I think it was Senator Harkin at that 
time--to change the content of what our troops overseas would be 
listening to on the overseas radio.
  Frankly, that probably would have passed. We arranged to have a 
survey done through the Army Times of all those overseas, and it was 97 
percent wanting the market to determine--in other words, the 
conservative type of programming.
  I hope when the Thune amendment comes up that we will support it. To 
do otherwise, to me, is a little bit disingenuous and would show that 
the 87 people who voted in favor of the DeMint amendment are not really 
concerned about it.
  I have often been concerned. I hear all over my State of Oklahoma 
that it is a tough enough business to deal with, to have a station that 
makes money and survives. On the issue of localism, Kevin Potter told 
me: We pay attention to localism because we have to sell products. We 
interrupt these nationally syndicated programs with weather reports and 
with all the local things.
  So localism is there, and it is there because the market demands it, 
not because Government says you have to do it. I just think, let's let 
the market take its effect. I will certainly support the Thune 
amendment and hope that our colleagues will do what they did with the 
DeMint amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 615

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, later this afternoon, the Senate will 
consider an amendment by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, relative 
to the DC Voucher Program. Senator Ensign has been on the floor several 
times today to discuss this program. I wanted to make certain the 
record was clear on both sides as to the issue before us.
  This was an experimental program that was started 5 years ago. At 
that time, under the Bush administration, with a Republican Congress, 
they made a proposal to the District of Columbia. They basically said: 
We will give you somewhere in the range of $14 million to $18 million 
for your public schools--which any school district would gladly 
accept--and another $14 million to $18 million for your charter schools 
if you will use a similar amount to start a DC voucher program. So we 
started this program 5 years ago and had some $14 to $18 million, and 
it was said to the District of Columbia, we will pay tuition, we will 
give families up to $7,500 to pay the tuition of children who want to 
attend private schools.

  The argument was made that the DC Public Schools were not as good as 
they should be; that many of these children would have a much better 
opportunity if they attended these voucher schools. So this was an 
experiment. It had never been tried before. There was some controversy 
associated with it. I offered amendments in the Appropriations 
Committee to try to establish what kind of standards there would be at 
these DC voucher schools. In fact, I thought my amendments were rather 
straightforward--the kind of amendments most people would take for 
granted.
  The first amendment I offered in the committee said: I hope all the 
teachers in the DC voucher private schools will have college degrees. 
That amendment was defeated. The argument was made that we shouldn't 
restrict the teachers in those schools, who may be nontraditional. They 
may not have a college diploma. Though we require in the public schools 
that all teachers have college degrees, they didn't want to require 
that in the DC voucher schools.
  The second amendment I offered said the buildings where the DC 
voucher schools are being conducted should meet the basic life safety 
codes--health and fire safety code of the District of Columbia. That 
was rejected as well because these would be nontraditional buildings. 
Now what kind of comfort does that give a parent whose kids are going 
to school--whether it is a public school, a charter school or a voucher 
school--if there is any question of safety? But my amendment was 
rejected.
  The third amendment I suggested was one I thought was only fair. If 
we are trying to create a private school voucher so students can have a 
better learning opportunity, at the end of a year or two we need to 
measure success. The only way to measure success is if the DC Public 
Schools and the voucher schools use the same achievement test so we can 
see if a fourth or fifth grader in one school or the other is doing 
better. That was rejected too. They wanted no comparison.
  Excuse me if I am suspicious of this program if you can't mandate 
bachelor's degrees for teachers, if you can't mandate the buildings 
pass the health and safety code of the District of Columbia, and you 
can't mandate they have the same basic tests so we can compare them. So 
I went into this skeptical. I thought the fix was on. They were going 
to create this program with few, if any, rules and take it or leave it.
  Well, it went forward and it was funded. After a year or two, the 
Department of Education and the General Accountability Office took a 
look at it and they raised serious questions about all this money--
these millions of dollars coming into this program in a hurry--and 
whether they had the proper management techniques, whether they were 
handling the money right, whether they were giving it out properly, and 
whether the right families were receiving it--some fundamental 
accounting and bookkeeping issues which we should ask of every program, 
particularly those using taxpayers' money. So there was a question of 
the administration of the program. Then they went on to find some 
things which were troubling. For example, the GAO report said schools 
that didn't traditionally charge tuition were now being funded. In 
other words, they were free schools before we created this program and 
now they were charging tuition.
  What does that mean? For the school year 2006-2007, they offered 
scholarships to about 30 students in one of

[[Page S2940]]

these schools, and a school that traditionally had asked only for a 
small monthly fee as a sign of commitment to the school. They raised 
their money from charity and donors. Now, since the Federal Government 
was here with this DC voucher scholarship program, they decided that 30 
of their students should qualify for these scholarships. Well, that 
comes out to $210,000 being spent by the Federal Government in a school 
that traditionally didn't even charge tuition. Does that raise a 
question? It raised a question in my mind.
  They also found out there were a number of schools that lacked these 
occupancy certificates. Even after I offered this amendment raising a 
question about the safety of the schools, the schools went on to 
operate without filing the adequate certificates with the District of 
Columbia--the City of Washington, DC--that they were safe and that 
they, in fact, offered the kind of facilities they said they did. The 
GAO report said District officials provided documentation indicating 
that 3 of 18 schools the GAO selected for review lacked certificates of 
occupancy--3 out of 18. Six of them had permits that did not specify 
their use as a private school, child development center or before and 
after school care center, and 7 of the 18 appeared to have occupancy 
permits that designated use as child development centers with before 
and after school care.
  It turned out there wasn't a consistent presentation by these schools 
of what they were. They included in the GAO report photos of two of 
these schools. One of these schools looked like a single-family 
residence in a neighborhood where they were supposedly holding school 
in the basement. Another one looked like some kind of commercial 
building. It didn't look like a school at all. It raised a question in 
my mind as to why we would allow them to get by with this. If they were 
receiving Federal money to sustain their program, at a minimum they 
ought to have teachers with a bachelor's degree, they ought to meet the 
requirements of safety, and they ought to have a test they can compare 
with the DC Public Schools. They didn't.
  Now, what happened? The program was 5 years in duration. It was 
described as a pilot program--an experimental program--and the idea 
was, at the end of the day, to take a measurement as to whether this 
worked: Did this provide better education for the millions of dollars 
we put into it? Well, if we followed the law, that program would have 
expired in June of this year. I was in charge of the Appropriations 
Committee for the District of Columbia, and I decided that wasn't fair 
to the 1,700 students currently in the DC voucher scholarship program. 
To cut them off as of June of this year, without any certainty as to 
what is going to happen the next year, I thought was unfair to the 
students and their families. So instead of ending the program, which 
would have happened without an authorization, I extended it 1 year so 
it will cover the students in these programs for the school year 2009-
2010.
  I thought that was fair. And I said in that period of time Congress 
had to do its job. We had to go in and ask these questions about the 
schools: Are they working? Are they worth the money spent? Are the 
teachers doing a good job? Are the students better off at the end of 
the day?
  Senator Ensign has brought some impressive photographs of young 
students who have been successful using this program, but we have to 
ask about 1,700 students and what is working and what isn't.
  The second thing we said in the bill which we are considering is that 
this is a program that affects one public school district--Washington, 
DC--that is managed by the DC City Council. I believe that if they are 
going to extend this program beyond next school year, the government of 
Washington, DC, should decide whether they want it in their school 
district. I wouldn't want it in Chicago--which I am proud to represent, 
or in Springfield, IL, my hometown--to have someone come in from the 
Federal Government and say: We are creating a new school program here. 
We don't care what the local voters say or the local school board says. 
We are from the Federal Government; we are only here to help you.
  I don't buy that logic. So we said those two things are required: 
Reauthorize the program, have the DC City Council approve the program, 
and then we can consider going forward. Now, the committee that 
considers this reauthorization is not a hostile and angry committee. It 
is chaired by Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, who has expressed 
his support for the DC voucher program. So it isn't as if I am sending 
it to a committee that is going to deep six it and forget it. He is 
going to have a hearing about the future of the DC voucher schools. 
Senator Ensign, who comes to the floor and argues we should not ask the 
questions, we should not demand reauthorization, we should not ask the 
DC City Council whether they want the program to continue, is also a 
member of that committee. So he will have his chance under the bill 
that is before us to make this evaluation.
  Now, let me be very candid about this. Half the students are in 
Catholic schools. The archdiocese of Washington is offering education 
to many of these students. I have had teachers and parents and others 
who have come to me and said it is working. A lot of these kids who 
otherwise wouldn't be getting a good education are getting a good 
education. I don't believe the archdiocese and schools should be 
frightened by this examination. If they are doing what they say they 
are doing--and I trust they are--this examination is going to prove it, 
and they are going to find out, at the end of the day, that the money 
is being well spent.
  In the recent version of the Catholic newspaper here, which was 
published in the Washington, DC, area--and I will not read it in 
detail--there was some language about how a reauthorization could take 
years. Well, that is not the fact. It can be done on a very expeditious 
basis by the committee. Senator Reid, the majority leader, has said he 
will bring this matter to the floor for consideration.
  Let us assess where we are with this DC voucher program, which would 
have expired in June of this year. We have extended it another year. We 
have said the 1,700 students are protected. They can continue to go to 
the schools they are attending right now. We have said that in that 
period of time Congress will take a look at the program and decide if 
the money is well spent and then report a bill if they want to 
reauthorize the program to the Senate floor for consideration. I think 
that is fair.
  I hope those who are opposed to my language in this bill can come 
before the Senate and explain the alternative. If we are going to 
continue this program, literally for millions of dollars each year, and 
never ask any questions, it is not only unfair to taxpayers, it is 
unfair to the students. We have to make sure this is working and 
working effectively.
  I had it within my power, I believe, to have ended this program, as 
promised, in June of 2009. I didn't do it. I extended it for an 
additional year. So those who argue the language in this bill kills 
this program are ignoring the obvious.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                      Amendment No. 665, Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:15 p.m. 
today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following 
amendments in the order listed, with the time until 4:15 p.m. equally 
divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, that the 
Bunning amendment No. 665 be withdrawn as soon as this order is 
entered: Cornyn No. 673; Cornyn No. 674; Thune No. 662; Sessions No. 
604; Ensign No. 615; that there be 4 minutes equally divided and 
controlled prior to the Ensign vote; and Vitter No. 621; provided 
further that prior to the vote in relation to amendment No. 621, the 
majority leader be recognized, and that the time the majority leader 
consumes not count as time against the debate time previously provided 
under the orders of March 6 and 9; further that the other relevant 
provisions of those previous orders remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, amendment No. 665 is withdrawn.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S2941]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
quorum call the time remaining between now and the time the vote is 
scheduled be evenly divided between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) Without objection, it 
is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 673

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 673, offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if amendment No. 673 is adopted, State 
attorneys general could still enforce the Truth in Lending Act, they 
can still hire outside counsel, they just could not do so on a 
contingency fee basis.
  Contingency fee contracts offer three hazards in this context that 
are not presented with more traditional fee arrangements. First, there 
is a serious risk of overcompensating the lawyer at a loss to 
taxpayers, since typically they work on 30 percent up to 50 percent of 
whatever is recovered goes to the lawyers and not to the taxpayers, as 
should be the case.
  Second, the proposed prospect of contingency fees actually creates an 
incentive for trial lawyers to encourage litigation that State would 
not otherwise bring. State attorneys general could initiate this 
litigation when it is in the public interest. With contingency 
arrangements, too often the lawyer decides who should initiate the case 
because, of course, of the profit motive. And this undermines the 
current regulatory regime.
  Third, contingency fee agreements have been proven to be a temptation 
for corruption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CORNYN. For that reason I ask my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Cornyn 
amendment, and I do this for three reasons. First, the Federal Trade 
Commission does not have the resources to pursue all bad actors in the 
lending markets under their jurisdiction.
  The States need the ability to enforce what the FTC is doing in their 
State. Occasionally State governments do not have adequate resources or 
the expertise on these very complicated matters. Sometimes they need 
outside counsel. And in order to get outside counsel, they need to put 
that in a contingency fee in many cases.
  Also, I have great concern that this amendment may be 
unconstitutional. I am not sure that the Congress can limit the States' 
ability to bring an action or to structure a contract for outside 
counsel.
  So for those three reasons, I would respectfully ask my colleagues to 
vote against the Cornyn amendment.
  I thank everybody for their hard work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. 
Gillibrand) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: 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 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--64

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gillibrand
     Johanns
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 673) was rejected.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BEGICH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 674

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 674 offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment would protect workers' 
paychecks and promote transparency. Currently, the NLRB permits an 
employer and union to enter into a contract that requires all employees 
in a bargaining unit to pay union dues as a condition of employment 
whether or not the employee actually is a member of the union.
  In a Supreme Court case recently, Communication Workers v. Beck, the 
Court ruled that nonunion workers could get a refund for that portion 
of their dues which would be used for political action or other 
purposes other than collective bargaining. President Obama has now 
changed the rules by Executive order, and now Federal contractors are 
no longer required to post signs in the workplace informing workers of 
their rights regarding union dues. President Obama's Executive order 
does not change the law, for workers are still entitled to the refund. 
It is just that now, under the Executive order, employers don't have to 
tell the workers of their rights, which they should.
  My amendment prohibits omnibus funds from being used for this 
provision of the Executive order. I ask my colleagues for their 
support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Cornyn amendment and 
urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.
  On January 30, President Obama issued Executive Order 13496 to inform 
Federal contractor employees of their rights under Federal labor law. 
Under the Executive order, there are 120 days of rulemaking to 
prescribe the size, form, and content of this notice to be posted. In 
other words, it is underway at this moment.
  I am opposed to this amendment because we didn't restrict the ability 
of former President Bush to inform employees of Federal employers of 
their labor rights. We should allow President Obama the same 
opportunity.
  I urge Members to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S2942]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

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

                                NAYS--59

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johanns
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 674) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 662

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Under the previous order, 
there will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote 
in relation to amendment No. 662, offered by the Senator from South 
Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  Who yields time? The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, amendment No. 662 is simply a prohibition 
on funding being used to implement the fairness doctrine.
  A couple of weeks ago, the Senate had a vote, and 87 Members of the 
Senate voted for a statutory prohibition on reinstating the fairness 
doctrine. In fact, the appropriations bill last year included similar 
language to what I am proposing in my amendment that would prohibit the 
FCC from using funds, appropriating funds to implement the fairness 
doctrine. So it is consistent with what the appropriations bill 
included last year. It was not included in this year's bill. All this 
simply does is makes it consistent with what we did in last year's 
appropriations bill.
  Furthermore, the legislation that was actually passed by the Senate 2 
weeks ago, the DC voting rights bill, my hope is the prohibition on 
implementing the fairness doctrine will stay in that legislation, but I 
have a fear that when it gets to conference with the House, it might be 
stripped out. This is yet another way of ensuring that funds will not 
be used to implement this very bad idea.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment is unnecessary. There is 
no funding in the bill to reinstate the fairness doctrine. The bill 
does not contain any provisions directing the FCC to reinstate the 
doctrine. President Obama does not support it. The FCC has no plans to 
reinstate the doctrine. Opposition to the amendment is not based on 
substance, it is based on fact. It does not belong in the bill.
  Things have changed since the fairness doctrine was adopted in 1949. 
Today, there are more ways than ever to hear a variety of opinions on 
any issue. We have hundreds of channels on cable TV, over 14,000 AM and 
FM stations, and we have the Internet. Therefore, we don't need it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a second? There appears to be a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johanns
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 662) was rejected.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, 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. 604

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 604 
offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, 1 minute or 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me, 1 minute.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this amendment simply will extend the 
authorization for the E-Verify system for 5 years. On this current 
bill, it will be extended only for 6 months. I ask why we would not 
make it a more extended period of time unless we have doubts about it, 
unless we don't like it, unless we are looking for a way to eliminate 
it.
  It is the core system businesses are signing up to use voluntarily. 
Over 100,000 are now using it. They punch in a Social Security number 
and determine whether the job applicant who is before them is legally 
authorized to be employed, if they are legally in the country. That is 
what it is. It is not required to be used even in Government contracts. 
It does not require there to be any police officers, detention spaces, 
or any enforcement. It simply allows businesses to use this system 
voluntarily.
  We cannot allow it to expire. I am amazed we are not extending it 
permanently. We need to do that. And we need to soon pass legislation, 
which this bill does not do, that would require all Government 
contractors to use the system because that would have been the law as 
of January until President Obama stopped that Executive Order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my good friend from Alabama knows that 
the bill contains an extension of the E-Verify Program through 
September 30 of this year. I share his frustration about short-term 
extensions. Similarly, I have been trying to work in good faith to 
extend the EB-5 Regional Center Program, which is as important to 
Alabama as it is to Vermont.
  Much to the detriment of the economic benefits created by the EB-5 
program, such as capital investments and new jobs in American 
communities, the Senator from Alabama and others have refused to pass 
an EB-5 extension without simultaneously extending the E-Verify 
Program. I believe they should both be extended.

[[Page S2943]]

While I have no objection to reauthorizing the E-Verify Program for a 
longer term, so long as it remains voluntary and free of mandates, I 
cannot vote for one that leaves the EB-5 program behind.
  Besides, in the context of this bill which has to be passed and 
enacted to keep the Federal Government running, this amendment is 
inappropriate. It is the wrong action at this time and would jeopardize 
the swift passage of this legislation.
  I support the efforts of Chairman Inouye, Senator Byrd, and others to 
oppose it.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to 
table?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the Senate to allow me to make a 
statement prior to this next vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Senator Leahy

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I pause to honor the senior Senator from 
Vermont, Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He will 
cast his 13,000th vote.
  (Applause.)
  This is a remarkable tally that few men or women in the hallowed 
history of this Chamber can match. But I guess what we note most about 
our friend from Vermont--I think I can say ``we''--is not the quantity 
of his votes so much as the quality. In his 3\1/2\ decades of service 
in the Senate, Pat Leahy has been a reliable friend in the cause of 
justice.
  Pat was elected to the Senate at the age of 34. Few gave this young 
prosecutor from Burlington much of a chance to win. After all, not a 
single Democrat had ever been elected to the U.S. Senate from Vermont. 
And, of course, Vermont was one of our early States.
  Senator Leahy recalls that the Republican Senator George Aiken was 
asked by some to resign his seat a day early to give Senator Leahy a 
headstart in seniority among his fellow freshmen, which you could do. 
Senator Leahy recalls Senator Aiken replying:

       If Vermont is foolish enough to elect a Democrat, let him 
     be number 100.

  On the contrary, the people of Vermont acted wisely by sending 
Patrick Leahy to Washington and sent him again and again and again and 
again.
  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy has been a 
national leader for an independent judiciary, the promotion of equal 
rights, and the protection of our Constitution. He also has been 
chairman in the past of our Agriculture Committee, where he did 
remarkably good work protecting the State of Vermont and all 
agricultural interests. As a senior member of the Appropriations 
committee, Senator Leahy has ensured that all communities throughout 
Vermont and across America have access to the tools they need to grow 
and to prosper. Senator Leahy is a leading voice for conservation and 
environmental protection. He has led the charge to expand broadband 
access to rural communities.
  Senator Leahy is also a leader on foreign policy, working to protect 
human rights across the world while ensuring our men and women in 
uniform have the training, equipment, and respect they need and 
deserve.
  This is a fine man, and it can best be shown as a result of his 
wonderful wife Marcelle. I am fortunate to call Senator Leahy my 
friend. I am fortunate I have had the good fortune of being able to 
serve in the Senate with this senior Senator from the State of Vermont, 
Patrick Leahy.
  Congratulations, Patrick, on your 13,000th vote as a U.S. Senator.
  (Applause.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me add to our friend and 
colleague from Vermont for this side of the aisle how much we admire 
and respect his extraordinary record. He and I had an opportunity to 
serve together as either ranking member or chairman--we switched hats 
several times--of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of 
Appropriations.
  I will pick out one area for which I think Pat Leahy is known around 
the world, and that is his efforts with regard to demining all over the 
world.
  He has made an extraordinary contribution, not only to his State but 
his Nation. I know I speak for all Republicans in congratulating my 
friend from Vermont for his--how many votes is this?--13,000th vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I join in congratulating the 
distinguished senior Senator from Vermont. I have had the pleasure of 
knowing him longer than his Senate colleagues because we met in 1970 at 
a district attorneys convention where I was the host in Philadelphia. 
We have been fast friends ever since, going on the 29th year I have 
been working with him on the Judiciary Committee and on the 
Appropriations Committee. We have disagreed very infrequently. Mostly, 
we have been able to carry forward bipartisanship, which has been in 
the interest of the Senate and in the interest of the country.
  I could commend him for many of his votes, but I would pick out his 
vote in favor of Chief Justice Roberts at a time when there were 
considerable political considerations and strengths against an 
affirmative vote. He saw the importance of a unifying factor being the 
ranking member--I chaired at that time--and saw the importance of a 
unifying factor with a courageous vote.
  He has been an extraordinary Senator. I look forward to seeing him 
serve many years, and I hope to serve with him.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I don't want to hold up the votes, but I 
do want to thank my dear friend, the majority leader, and my good 
friend, the Republican leader, for their kind remarks and, of course, 
my friend, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. As he said, we first 
knew each other when we were much younger and prosecutors.
  I will just take a moment. When Marcelle and I first came here in 
January 1975 with three young children--Kevin, Alicia, and Mark--we 
never thought we would be here this long. I have enjoyed every moment 
of it. But especially, I have served with hundreds and hundreds of 
Senators, both Republican and Democratic Senators. I have enjoyed my 
relationship with every single one of the men and women with whom I 
have had the privilege to serve.
  We have often said we are the conscience of the Nation--the Senate. 
Only 100 of us have the privilege to serve here at any given time to 
represent a great and wonderful Nation of 300 million people. It is a 
privilege, and it is an honor.
  I thank my colleagues for this tribute. This is something I will long 
remember.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  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 absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

[[Page S2944]]



                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johanns
     Kennedy
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CARPER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 615

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 615, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, in the underlying bill there is language 
addressing the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program that would 
effectively, after next year, kill the program. It requires that not 
only it be reauthorized by Congress but also that the DC City Council 
approve the program. There are 1,700 kids from families making an 
average of less than $24,000 a year that now participate in this 
program. The parents love this program. The kids love this program. I 
am a big believer in the public school system, but the DC Public 
Schools, which spend more than any other school district in the 
country, over $15,000 per student per year, are failing too many kids 
in Washington. So this program was put in to give some low-income kids 
the opportunity to succeed.
  Guess what. They are thriving in this program. Earlier, the senior 
Senator from Illinois said we have to make sure all the teachers have 
4-year degrees. The omnibus bill before us requires that. My amendment 
does not touch that requirement. He also says we have to make sure they 
are in structurally safe schools. The bill before us requires that. My 
amendment does not touch that. So those are both side issues that are 
not affected at all by my amendment.
  We need to put special interests aside and focus on the children from 
Washington, DC, especially those low-income children
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the Mayor of 
Washington, DC, Adrian Fenty, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   March 10, 2009.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for contacting me about 
     the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. I appreciate your 
     continued interest in matters that are vitally important to 
     the residents of the District of Columbia.
       As my staff had the opportunity to advise your staff last 
     week, the position of the Administration is consistent with 
     our position during the last two budgets--we support the 
     three sector approach initiated by the Williams 
     Administration because in the past two years the District has 
     made tremendous strides toward improving the educational 
     experience of all students.
       Accordingly, we do not support any measures that would 
     reverse the three sector approach or strategy. We further 
     agree with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: that while the 
     ultimate goal is to fix the entire school system it would not 
     be productive to disrupt the education of children who are 
     presently enrolled in private schools through the DC 
     Opportunity Scholarship Program.
       Once again, thank you for your inquiry and continued 
     support of the District of Columbia. If you have any 
     questions please feel free to contact me or Bridget Davis in 
     my Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Adrian M. Fenty,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mayor Fenty is agreeing with the Education Secretary, who 
says these kids should not be pulled out of this program, and this 
program should not end. There are so many scholarship recipients across 
this town who want to stay in their private schools. We should stand up 
for the kids and not the special interest groups, such as the National 
Education Association, that want to end this program.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment by 
Senator Ensign to continue funding for the DC Opportunity Scholarship 
Program, which has given thousands of children in the District of 
Columbia a chance to escape failing schools. Unfortunately, the 
underlying bill contains language which would have a devastating impact 
on low-income families in the District of Columbia by prematurely 
ending the program.
  Many of us are outraged that a Member of the Senate has included a 
provision to kill the program. The provision has not gone unnoticed. On 
March 6 The Washington Post asked why ``anyone would want to force 
children out of schools where they are happy, safe and satisfied'' and 
on March 9, Newsweek asked why lawmakers would consider stopping a $14 
million program which is a ``rounding error'' on the General Motors 
bailout figure. Finally, The Wall Street Journal calls it what it is: 
``perhaps the most odious of double standards in American life today: 
the way some of our loudest champions of public education vote to keep 
other people's children--mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos--trapped 
in schools where they'd never let their own kids set foot.'' Whoever is 
responsible should be ashamed and admit who put them up to it. I think 
I know who is behind efforts to end this program.
  The program provides 1,700 children with scholarships of up to $7,500 
each to attend the school of their choice. To qualify, students must 
live in the District and have a household income of no more than 18 
percent of the poverty line. For 2008-2009, the average income for 
families using the program was just over $23,000 a year.
  Since 2004 when the program began, approximately 7,200 families have 
applied for spots in the program--nearly four applicants for each 
available scholarship. It is a program that has repeatedly shown 
improved family satisfaction and increase parental involvement.
  The students themselves are perhaps the best testimonials. Tiffany 
Dunston, valedictorian of Archbishop Carroll High School's class of 
2008, who was a four year scholarship recipient, is now studying 
biochemistry at Syracuse University. Tiffany's thoughts on the program 
underscore why this program must continue: ``I am determined to build a 
better life and want others in my community to have that chance as 
well.'' Another scholarship student, Ronald Holassie, was recently 
sworn in as deputy youth mayor for the District. Ronald says he 
``wouldn't be where he is today'' without his scholarship.
  It is premature to add conditions to this important program. This 
spring, Congress will have the results of the comprehensive analysis of 
the program. Chairman Lieberman has committed to holding a hearing to 
review the program and discuss proposals for improvement in advance of 
the Senate's debate on reauthorization. I appreciate the majority 
leader's commitment to a fair debate on long-term reauthorization.
  My colleagues know that I have been through this fight before. As 
Governor I supported opportunity scholarships for Cleveland in 1992. 
With hard work and dedication, we managed to get the bill through in 
1995 and within 3 years, over 3,600 children were attending the school 
of their choice. Just last year, there were over 6,000 students 
participating!
  It wasn't easy. After we stood-up the Cleveland Scholarship and 
Tutoring Program, the American Federation of Teachers, National 
Education Association, and others filed a lawsuit and for nearly a 
decade Ohioans fought for the program. All along I had advocated that 
the program was constitutional. I will never forget the day when the 
U.S. Supreme Court agreed the program was constitutional in Zelman v. 
Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, on June 27, 2002. The program continues 
to thrive and expand because of its success. I consider it one of the 
major contributions to our country's educational system. It is a morsel 
on our smorgasbord of educational opportunities.
  And the benefits go far beyond the academic. A study by the Buckeye 
Institute found that students involved in

[[Page S2945]]

the Cleveland program are gaining access to a more integrated school 
experience. Here in Washington, a Georgetown University study found 
that with their children in safer schools, parents were free to focus 
on their child's academic development and the school's curriculum.
  Now, after so much progress and money invested, some Members of 
Congress wish to establish premature roadblocks for the program. What 
is lost in the underlying language is the need for the children of the 
District of Columbia to have every opportunity to receive a high-
quality education. How offensive for Members of Congress, many with the 
means to send their children to any school, to limit the ability of 
District students to do the same.
  Just last week, one of my esteemed colleagues came to the floor and 
discussed how he had sent his children to private Catholic School. He 
said that it was a family decision and that they made the ``extra 
sacrifice'' to pay for it. What my colleague fails to realize is that 
many of the parochial schools that participate in the program do so 
because they are giving witness to the Second Great Commandment.
  During the State of the Union, President Obama said that ``good 
education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity--it is a 
prerequisite . . . to ensure that every child has access to a complete 
and competitive education--from the day they are born to the day they 
begin a career.'' The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program provides 
District students the pathway to meet the President's goal. Shame on 
the President for not getting involved and telling his friends in the 
Senate how embarrassed he is about what they are attempting to do to 
the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program in this bill.
  Two weeks ago, the Senate voted by supermajority to give voting 
rights to the District of Columbia--which I was proud to cosponsor. I 
am sure if we were to let parents in the District vote on this 
amendment--let the parents tell Congress what they want for their 
children--their answer would be to continue funding the DC Opportunity 
Scholarship Program.
  The language in the base bill takes away the opportunity for parents 
of limited means to choose the best education available for their 
children. The Omnibus appropriations bill provides $410 billion to fund 
Federal programs through the end of the fiscal year. Surely my 
colleagues would be willing to continue to spend $14 million on a 
program that continues to give quality education to thousands of 
deserving children.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I wanted to briefly comment on the remarks by the senior Senator from 
New York in opposition to Ensign amendment 615 to H.R. 1105. The 
Senator emphasized the importance of local support for educational 
programs. My colleagues may be interested to know that the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program had the support of the District of 
Columbia government when it was created.
  On June 24, 2003, in testimony before the House Committee on 
Government Reform, then District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams 
testified, ``I support the President's desire to create a scholarship 
program in the District. I believe, if done effectively, such a program 
could truly expand choice to low-income families, who currently do not 
have the same freedom of choice enjoyed by more affluent families.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 5 years ago we created an experimental 
pilot plan for 5 years that would expire in June of this year. Rather 
than let it expire and these 1,700 students and their families be 
disadvantaged, we extended it for a year in this bill. What is going to 
happen in the course of that year? Senator Lieberman's committee is 
going to take a close look to see if the over $70 million we spent on 
this program has worked. Are the students getting a good education, 
better than they would in public schools, better than in charter 
schools? Are the teachers competent in this program? Are the schools 
they are learning in safe buildings?
  These are fundamental questions we should ask of every school 
program. I do not understand reluctance on the other side to have an 
honest evaluation of the program that has cost us over $70 million in 
taxpayer funds.
  At the end of the day, those schools that are doing a good job will 
be given good grades. Those that are failing in this process do not 
deserve to be renewed. I have extended this program for a year in the 
bill, and the other provision, which I am going to allow Senator 
Schumer to address, gives to the DC City Council the same thing you 
would want the Las Vegas City Council to have if Congress tried to 
impose a program on them.
  I yield my remaining time to Senator Schumer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for his excellent remarks. The 
bottom line is this: On the issue of vouchers in DC schools, some 
people are for them; some people are against them. We are all for our 
local school districts determining what they ought to do. I would not 
want Washington to tell any of my 800 school districts in New York they 
must have vouchers or they can't have vouchers. Yet this law, which was 
put on the books 5 years ago, forces DC to use the program.
  The amendment is very simple. It says leave it up to the DC City 
Council. I think every one of us would support that kind of 
independence and autonomy for our local school boards.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Is there any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining. 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 is a 
sufficient second.
  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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--58

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johanns
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 615) was rejected.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 542

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last week the junior Senator from Louisiana 
offered an amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill that would 
change the way the cost-of-living adjustments are given to Members of 
the House and the Senate. The bill before us, which has already passed 
the House, ensures there will be no cost-of-living adjustment in 2010. 
Most Senators, me included, have indicated support for that provision 
that is in this bill.
  Senator Vitter's amendment would require the House and the Senate to 
vote every year on cost-of-living adjustments rather than having those 
adjustments take effect immediately. I

[[Page S2946]]

agree with Senator Vitter that cost-of-living adjustments for Members 
of Congress should not be automatic. That is why I introduced a 
freestanding bill last week that would do just that. That is why we 
seek consent to pass this bill before we are scheduled to vote on the 
amendment by the Senator from Louisiana.
  By passing this legislation as a stand-alone, it can become law 
without threatening completion of this appropriations bill. If Senators 
want to demonstrate their support for the proposed automatic cost-of-
living adjustments, they can and should support my stand-alone 
legislation. It is fiscally responsible, responsible to the state of 
our economy, and will allow us to continue the good progress we have 
made toward passing this bill.
  Objecting to this request will have two negative results: It will 
jeopardize our ability to pass legislation ending the automatic COLAs, 
and it will deal a serious blow to our efforts to pass this 
appropriations bill. Any Senator who wishes to end the automatic COLA 
should support this consent request I will shortly make. Likewise, any 
Senator who wishes to move forward with the omnibus will support my 
request. The only way to accomplish these objectives is to support my 
request, take up and pass the stand-alone pay adjustment bill.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this unanimous consent pay 
request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 29, S. 542, a bill which repeals the 
provisions of law to provide for an automatic pay adjustment to Members 
of Congress; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  This is a serious piece of legislation. It accomplishes what the 
Senator from Louisiana obviously wants to accomplish. I would hope we 
can do this tonight. It would end all discussion on autopay 
adjustments. We should do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I believe the way to actually get this 
done, to actually pass this into law, is to include it in a must-pass 
bill, such as the appropriations bill before us, not to point to a 
stand-alone to give people cover for votes; a bill that would not be 
taken up on the floor of the House. So in that regard I would simply 
ask the majority leader, does he have a commitment from the Speaker of 
the House that his bill will be given a vote on the House floor in the 
near future?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is obvious that this is an important 
issue. We have an economy that is in distress. That is why we should 
pass this. I have not gotten commitments from anyone in the House. But 
it seems to me there is tremendous movement to get this accomplished.
  I say to my friend from Louisiana, this is an important piece of 
legislation. We should go ahead and pass this. We know there are not 
going to be any amendments to the appropriations bill that I can get 
through the House. That is clear.
  Everyone read in the newspaper what happened there Thursday night. So 
I would hope that in good faith this is not an effort to avoid 
anything, this is not an effort to try to play any legislative games. 
This is important legislation, I repeat for the third time, that we 
should adopt, and the House will take care of this itself.
  Now, for me to stand and say what the House is going to do--I think 
it is pretty clear that with what is going on around the rest of the 
country, there is going to be significant support for this legislation, 
as I hope there is here in this body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Ms. STABENOW. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Well, certainly I agree with the distinguished majority 
leader on one point: there is movement on this issue. Just 12 hours 
after I was finally able to secure a vote on my amendment, after being 
blocked at every turn for a week, the majority leader himself adopted 
the cause and introduced, out of the blue, a stand-alone amendment. I 
wish he had been with his colleague, Senator Feingold, on this issue 
since at least the year 2000, when Senator Feingold has had legislation 
on the topic. I applaud Senator Feingold for that.
  But, again, I renew my objection because I think this stand-alone 
bill is nothing more than cover, nothing more than something to point 
to, when it will not be taken up on the floor of the House. I would be 
happy to lift my objection to the majority leader's stand-alone bill if 
the Speaker of the House publicly commits to a vote of his bill on the 
House floor in the very near future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I will certainly yield to my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. President, I did not block his amendment last week. I never heard 
from him until we were here Thursday night, late. I have had a number 
of Republicans come to me--as I look through this crowd here, there 
were a number of Senators who came to me and said: We would like our 
amendments to be offered. There was general agreement Thursday night 
after final passage did not take place; Senators told me they wanted to 
offer amendments. They talked during the week the same way.
  So I did not block his amendment. The Democrats did not block it. No 
one knew he wanted to offer it, that I know of, on this side of the 
aisle.
  I am using leader time so no one feels constrained.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader, is it not 
true that if this amendment were to pass on this bill, that, in fact, 
it would never take effect because it will not be taken up in the 
House? But if we pass it independently, as our leader has put forward, 
and we all support it, it would, in fact, pass immediately in the 
Senate and then go to the House for consideration?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Michigan, it is clear as the 
daylight hour that my friend from Louisiana doesn't want the underlying 
bill to pass. Common sense dictates the best way to go is by adopting 
this consent agreement I made.
  Let me also say this: I will be happy to ask consent--I ask unanimous 
consent the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 29, this 
legislation, S. 542, tomorrow, March 11, at 3 p.m. I make a commitment 
that I will bring this bill up. If there are people who don't want to 
agree to this tonight, assuming the Senator from Louisiana is that 
person, I will bring it up some other time. I am committed to doing 
this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, again, unfortunately, the 
same game is at work. I would object. I would also be happy to lift my 
objection if the Speaker of the House would offer a public commitment 
to give Senator Reid's bill a vote on the House floor in the near 
future.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, to show how--what is the right word--how 
Senator Vitter is not serious, he knows that I can't represent what the 
Speaker is going to do. She doesn't know I am here doing this. She runs 
her little show over there, and I do my best to have some input on what 
happens here. But I can't make that kind of commitment.
  I can't imagine why anyone would object to our passing this. It would 
move this down the road a long way. I am sorry the Senator from 
Louisiana obviously is not serious about passing this legislation, 
because I have asked that we do it right now. I have asked that we go 
to it tomorrow. He objects.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. There is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                           Amendment No. 621

  Under the previous order, there is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 621 offered by the 
Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page S2947]]

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in this economy there are millions of 
Americans who are seeing their savings dwindle to nothing, who are 
losing their jobs, their homes. Yet they also see, as recently as last 
January 1, Members of Congress getting an automatic pay raise, in that 
instance $4,700. It is wrong. The system that has these pay raises on 
autopilot is wrong. We should have full, open debates and votes. That 
is what my amendment would ensure.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Vitter wants to bring this bill 
down. He wants to score political points. Do you know what is in this 
bill? We stop our pay raise from next year. He wants to bring this bill 
down. We stop our pay raise in this bill. Senator Reid offered a 
unanimous consent request. All of us could have gone right down the 
aisle here together saying every year we vote on a cost-of-living 
raise. So don't be fooled by this. The people need our help, the help 
that is offered in this bill. People are unemployed. There is funding 
in this bill to get them back to work, to do the business of 
government. This bill stops our pay raise. This is a cheap shot, in my 
opinion. We ought to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from California is absolutely right. If this 
bill goes down, the work we have done, in keeping with Senator 
Feingold--that is, to not have a cost-of-living adjustment next year--
we would have to start all over. This is wrong. We should move forward 
and defeat this amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22 seconds.
  Mr. VITTER. People do need our help and the people are watching. So 
if you want to change the law that puts our pay raises on autopilot 
while they suffer, that system, not pass on it one year but change that 
law, vote for this amendment. If you want to kill that concept, vote 
against the amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. REID. I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the yeas and 
nays on the motion to table?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  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 Senator is necessarily absent: 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 52, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johanns
       
     Kennedy
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I opposed the amendment offered by Senator 
Vitter to the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill that would 
repeal the automatic cost of living adjustment, COLA, for Members of 
Congress starting in fiscal year 2010. The Omnibus appropriations bill 
already eliminates the Members of Congress COLA for fiscal year 2010. I 
choose to give my COLA to worthy charities because I know that many 
families in Massachusetts and across the Nation are struggling to make 
ends meet and need help.
  I opposed the Vitter amendment because it could have jeopardized the 
enactment of the omnibus legislation which includes critical 
investments in America's future. Given the process of the bill winding 
its way through Congress, the Vitter amendment would have essentially 
stopped the omnibus in its tracks. We can't afford to have this bill 
delayed. The bill increases our energy security by prioritizing 
research and development of renewable energy and energy efficiency 
including solar power, biofuels, vehicle technologies, energy-efficient 
buildings, and advanced energy research. It also includes strong 
investments into cutting-edge science so that our Nation will maintain 
its preeminence in the global economy and create new jobs. The bill 
also keeps Americans safe by supporting the Community Oriented Policing 
Services, or COPS program, and the Byrne justice assistance grants, 
which help State and local law enforcement fight and prevent crime in 
communities across America.
  The Vitter amendment should be considered on another legislative 
vehicle that would not jeopardize our national priorities.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I support annual votes on congressional pay 
raises to avoid automatic cost of living increases. I was a cosponsor 
of an alternative by Senator Reid that would have accomplished this 
goal without derailing the Omnibus appropriations bill. The underlying 
Omnibus appropriations bill cancels the pay raise that would have gone 
into effect in January 2010. Additionally, I have previously stated 
that I will give the 2009 cost of living increase to charity.
  Unfortunately, this amendment was nothing more than political 
grandstanding and a poison pill designed to block necessary 
appropriations bills from passing and I was forced to vote against the 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes 
prior to the cloture vote be reduced to 10 minutes, to be divided as 
previously ordered, with the remaining provisions of the previous order 
in effect, meaning that Senator Inouye will control 5 minutes and 
Senator Cochran will control 5 minutes.
  Let me say this, Mr. President: I simply want to tell everyone--
Democrats and Republicans--this has been very difficult, but I think it 
has been good for this institution. And I, frankly--I do not want to 
lay out all of my dirty laundry, but I think it has been good for me. I 
think the situation that has developed on the Republican side--I had a 
number of Republican Senators come to me and say: We need a few more 
amendments, and I had enough votes to pass it, and I ignored them. That 
will not happen in the future. I am going to try to be more aware of 
trying to create a better feeling in this body, not necessarily count 
60 or 51, whatever it is.
  So I appreciate what everyone has done here, but especially do I 
appreciate the two managers of this bill. This has been extremely 
difficult for them. All of the difficult issues had to be resolved by 
them. I think people looking at this Senate today should know how 
fortunate we are as a country to have two people such as Dan Inouye and 
Thad Cochran being the managers of this bill. These are two of the 
best, and I want to personally extend my appreciation. I applaud and 
commend both of them for doing an excellent job on a very difficult 
piece of work.

[[Page S2948]]

  I have spoken to both of them. Everyone should understand, we are 
going to move into an appropriations process we can all be proud of. No 
more of these big, lumpy bills. We are going to move forward and try to 
do a bill at a time.
  Again, thanks for everyone's cooperation.
  Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There is now 10 minutes equally divided.


                         LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senate, I would 
like to discuss with the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water the congressional intent with respect to the funding 
provided by the pending legislation, H.R. 1105, regarding the 
Department of Energy's loan guarantee program.
  The pending legislation provides a total of $47 billion for eligible 
projects pursuant to title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to 
remain available until committed, of which $18.5 billion shall be for 
nuclear power facilities.
  In order to address budget scoring issues raised by the Congressional 
Budget Office, regarding third party financing, the conferees included 
legislation recommended by CBO counsel. CBO staff believes there is 
concern that the Federal Government might incur mandatory spending as a 
result of entering into power purchase agreements for energy projects 
that also receive loan guarantees from the Department of Energy.
  While CBO acknowledges that this scoring issue is separate from the 
1-percent subsidy cost that CBO has assessed the title XVII since 
fiscal year 2007, the conferees were obliged to include language 
drafted by CBO that would mitigate the possible scoring impact.
  The language is drafted to capture as many possible third party 
financing options and as a result has created several unintended 
consequences. Specifically, the omnibus language could inadvertently 
have an adverse impact on a number of pending projects, for numerous 
title XVII eligible projects including the American Centrifuge Plant, 
ACP. The ACP project will employ more than 3,000 people in Ohio and 
thousands of employees with contracts to build this facility including 
ATK and Hexcel located in Utah.
  First, I would like to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water for his work since taking over this subcommittee in 
2007 to support the loan guarantee program and his willingness to find 
the necessary resources, when budget requests were insufficient.
  I know the chairman is familiar with this frustrating interpretation 
and ask if he would be willing to work with me and others to find a 
solution to these inadvertent problems and to correct them in the first 
possible legislation following the enactment of this legislation?
  Would the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water also agree 
with me that the Department of Energy should therefore continue to work 
on the pending loan guarantee applications for those projects which 
could be adversely impacted by this legislation if not corrected, such 
as those for renewable projects and for USEC's loan guarantee 
application for its ACP project?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I agree with the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water that the House-passed language 
contains flaws that we would all like to see remedied. In response to 
his two questions I will state the following.
  First, I am willing to work with him and any other Member who has a 
similar concern about the unintended impact of the language on these 
energy projects.
  Second, I agree that the Department of Energy, including its Loan 
Guarantee Office, should not cease, delay or slow down its processing 
of any of these pending loan guarantee applications.
  The Department of Energy should continue to take all actions and 
steps necessary and predicate for the issuance of a final loan 
guarantee so that a final loan guarantee can be issued upon enactment 
of the necessary technical corrections and competitive selection.
  I can assure the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee 
that I will work with him to try to correct this situation. 
Accordingly, the Department of Energy and its Loan Guarantee Office 
should proceed to process these loan guarantee applications 
expeditiously so as to be prepared to act immediately on these pending 
loan guarantee applications to issue final loan guarantees if 
corrective legislation is enacted.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am very pleased with the commitments 
of the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Energy and Water to fix these flaws in the pending legislation. All 
of these energy projects are very important to the future of our 
country as we work towards achieving energy independence and cleaner 
environment.
  USEC's American Centrifuge Plant project is not only very important 
to Ohio, it is particularly important to the Nation.
  The ACP project is shovel-ready and is estimated to create over 3,000 
jobs in Ohio where it is located, and another 3,000 or more jobs in 11 
other States around the country through manufacturing and engineering 
contracts.
  The ACP project will have the capacity to provide domestically 
enriched uranium to fuel over one-half of the 104 domestic nuclear 
powerplants that provide nearly all of our emission-free base-load 
electricity.
  Once built, the ACP project will be the only U.S.-owned source of 
nuclear fuel that is critically important for various national security 
reasons.
  I would like to observe that the Governors of Ohio, Maryland, 
Tennessee and Kentucky strongly support USEC's ACP project.
  Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
Governors of Ohio, Maryland, Tennessee and Kentucky be printed in the 
Record following my statement.
  I would also like to observe that President Obama, during his 
campaign visits to Ohio last summer, expressed his support for USEC's 
ACP project, as articulated in his letter to Governor Strickland of 
Ohio dated September 2, 2008, and I will ask unanimous consent that 
that letter also be printed in the Record following my statement.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I also thank the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water for their willingness to 
work on addressing the unintended consequences associated with this 
language. Ensuring that the language is appropriately modified is 
crucial to ensure the U.S. has the flexibility to maintain a 
domestically owned and produced source of enriched uranium, rather than 
relying on other nations.
  I am not happy with the long delay in getting the next generation 
enrichment technology up and running in Piketon, OH. Good paying jobs 
are at stake. Our national security is at stake. And, freedom from 
dependency on foreign sources of uranium is at stake.
  I look forward to working with the senior Senator from Ohio and the 
chairman and ranking member to address the concerns arising from this 
language.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 2 
letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                December 19, 2008.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Our states provide the domestic 
     infrastructure to support the proposed American Centrifuge 
     Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio. We are asking that you direct 
     your Administration to act promptly within existing funding 
     authorities and take the steps needed to reach a Department 
     of Energy (DOE) conditional loan guarantee agreement for this 
     project. Prompt action is essential in order to avoid 
     demobilization of the project and workforce layoffs within 
     the next several months.
       Also, ACP represents the only U.S. advanced technology for 
     uranium enrichment that can meet both domestic energy 
     security and national security needs; the use of which would 
     mitigate the present need to import over half of the domestic 
     nuclear fuel supply from Russia. It is critically important 
     that

[[Page S2949]]

     we develop our domestic enrichment capabilities so we as a 
     Nation do not create an unhealthy reliance on foreign nations 
     for our sources of enriched uranium. It is especially 
     important to our States that ACP will create a new domestic 
     manufacturing infrastructure of 6,000 high-skilled jobs in 12 
     states. In addition, many of the technologies ACP would 
     utilize, such as high precision machining and carbon fiber 
     fabrication, will be able to support the growth of other new 
     domestic industries.
       Your Administration has taken a leadership role in 
     promoting the resurgence of safe and secure domestic nuclear 
     energy. The ACP project offers the opportunity to put a 
     tangible capstone on this effort.
       While DOE has made significant progress with its loan 
     guarantee program, continued implementation of the ACP 
     project is vulnerable without timely action and a conditional 
     loan guarantee agreement. Therefore, we are seeking your 
     commitment to set the appropriate timetable for decision-
     making, without compromise to the creditworthiness standards 
     set for the program. Your leadership also would send a strong 
     message that the business of government has not been 
     diminished during this time of turmoil in the financial 
     markets.
       We will continue to work with your staff to reach a 
     conditional loan guarantee agreement by the end of this 
     Administration.
           Sincerely,
     Ted Strickland,
       Governor of Ohio.
     Martin O'Malley,
       Governor of Maryland.
     Phil Bredesen,
       Governor of Tennessee.
     Steven L. Beshear,
       Governor of Kentucky.
                                  ____

                                                September 2, 2008.
     Governor Ted Strickland,
     Riffe Center,
     Columbus, OH.
       Dear Governor Strickland: You have continued to be a strong 
     advocate for the workforce and surrounding communities of the 
     Piketon Enrichment Plant and throughout Ohio. This workforce 
     and community have made significant contributions to our 
     nation's defense and energy security needs for over the past 
     half-century.
       There are a number of steps I will take as President to 
     assure the future health and prosperity of this community and 
     its workforce. Under my administration, the Piketon site 
     workforce and the surrounding communities will play a central 
     role in our nation's domestic energy supply through private 
     sector and government initiatives. The Piketon site is ideal 
     for either traditional or advanced energy programs, or both. 
     The Piketon site has vast infrastructure and potential reuse 
     applications are very promising.
       Under my administration, energy programs that promote safe 
     and environmentally-sound technologies and are domestically 
     produced, such as the enrichment facility in Ohio, will have 
     my full support. I will work with the Department of Energy to 
     help make loan guarantees available for this and other 
     advanced energy programs that reduce carbon emissions and 
     break the tie to high cost, foreign energy sources.
       I will ensure that workers' rights, pensions and retirement 
     health care benefits are fully protected and facilitate 
     pension portability for workers among the various contractors 
     and subcontractors as new missions unfold with the Department 
     of Energy. We will work with the respective union leadership 
     at the Portsmouth site to assure that their members' rights 
     are fully protected.
       I will assure that the benefits due under the ``Energy 
     Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act'' of 
     2000 will be provided in a timely and equitable manner. I 
     understand that it is imperative to help those workers who 
     were made sick or ill while serving in our nation's defense 
     nuclear facilities. The delays and foot-dragging over the 
     past several years is simply inexcusable. If necessary, I 
     will support legislative reforms to assure that workers will 
     be promptly compensated. I will not tolerate further excuses 
     or delays in the implementation of this important 
     legislation, which has left deserving workers waiting. I will 
     also support the on-going medical screening program to help 
     workers identify occupational illnesses that may have been 
     caused from work at this facility.
       I will work with Congress to provided adequate funding and 
     will direct the Energy Department to commence Decontamination 
     and Decommissioning activities of those facilities which are 
     no longer needed, and maximize the employment of site workers 
     to achieve this end. The failure to clean up this site 
     quickly will delay future economic development opportunities 
     and only add additional mortgage costs and pose undue 
     environmental risks.
       I will help assure the Depleted Uranium Hexaflouride (DUF-
     6) Conversion Facility in Piketon will be operational on an 
     expedited time schedule. This project was authorized through 
     legislation in July 1998, however, it is still not 
     operational. I will work with Congress to fund this project 
     and the disposition of the 20,000 plus cylinders of legacy 
     uranium material. This project will create jobs for at least 
     20 years and remove thousands of tons of depleted uranium.
       I will support funding the cleanup of soil, groundwater and 
     hazardous waste from legacy operations. I want to assure that 
     when we declare the Piketon site is cleaned up, it will mean 
     that health and environmental hazards are not left behind so 
     that new businesses can locate at the Piketon facility 
     without concern.
       I will direct my Administration to work with the community 
     leadership to develop a long-term site plan to include 
     opportunities to reuse the Portsmouth plant site and maximize 
     the vast infrastructure while creating needed jobs in the 
     Southern Ohio region. I ant committed to making the Piketon 
     facility a ``multi-mission site'' to drive economic 
     development and environmental improvements.
       Combined. I recognize these steps will assure energy 
     security, environmental restoration and job creation for 
     Southeastern Ohio and I look forward to working with you on 
     this important project for the state.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Barack Obama.


              Clerical Error on Beef Improvement Research

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to join with our Chair, 
Senator Kohl, in a colloquy to correct a clerical error in the 
attribution table accompanying Division I of H.R. 1105. Senator Bond is 
listed as having requested the ``Beef Improvement Research'' project 
under the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service. My staff 
has confirmed that this project was not requested by Senator Bond and, 
as such, Senator Bond's name should not be listed as a requestor.
  Mr. KOHL. My colleague and former subcommittee ranking member, 
Senator Bennett, is correct. This resulted from a clerical error 
involving confusion between two different projects on beef research. 
Senator Bond should not be listed as a sponsor of the Beef Improvement 
Research project.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair for his assistance in this matter.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to address a provision in 
the statement to accompany the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations 
bill that seeks to address a critical issue in our country, the rising 
rate of childhood obesity. Over the last several years, Senator Harkin 
and I have worked jointly to address this issue.
  During this time, we have focused our efforts on bringing together 
the different sectors in our society that are equipped to address this 
crucial issue for our Nation's children. It is my firm belief, that 
there is not just one solution to reducing the rates of childhood 
obesity but this should be a collective effort.
  To that end, I am encouraged that there are those in the food and 
beverage industry, the advertising industry and media industry that 
have taken voluntary steps to address this issue.
  I am pleased that the Ad Council has also worked to address childhood 
obesity as well with donated multimedia efforts since October 2005 that 
have equaled $170 million. This initiative includes creative 
partnerships with NFL, Qubo, an NBC-owned children's network, and the 
U.S. Olympics.
  It is my firm belief that the best option to address this issue is 
not by rushing into government regulation but by working together to 
address this issue within our spirit of a free-market society--and that 
is the intention behind this language that directs the Federal Trade 
Commission to create a working group among the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the 
Secretary of Agriculture. I also hope that as this working group 
convenes they will first study the Better Business Bureau's Children's 
Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, and determine whether 
initiatives such as these would suffice to address this crucial issue, 
before they implement the remainder of the directive. And, consistent 
with the current focus of self-regulatory initiatives, I think it would 
be more appropriate to limit the scope of the working group activities 
to children under the age of 12.
  I have found that oftentimes the best results are rooted in industry-
led reforms and it is my intention that this working group will keep 
this intent in mind as they study and develop ways in which to address 
foods marketed to our children. For example, in July 2007 and again in 
September 2008, the Grocery Manufacturers Association commissioned 
studies of U.S. advertising trends through Georgetown Economic 
Services. These studies have shown that as food and beverage marketers

[[Page S2950]]

have shifted the mix of products advertised to children, not only are 
children today seeing fewer food, beverage and restaurant ads on 
television, they are seeing far fewer ads for soft drinks, cookies, 
snacks and candy, while being exposed to more ads for soups, juices, 
fruits, and vegetables and water than they were in 2004.
  I truly believe that with everyone coming together around a free 
market principled approach that we will have more expedient and 
effective results for our children.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Omnibus Appropriations Act. I 
appreciate all of the efforts made by my friend, the senior Senator 
from Hawaii, to develop and manage this tremendously important bill. I 
also value the effort of the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee as well as all of the work done by the subcommittee chairmen 
and ranking members to draft the omnibus.
  Continuing resolutions hinder the ability of agencies to meet the 
needs of our communities and address changing circumstances. We must 
enact this legislation in order to have a more effective and responsive 
Federal Government in dealing with many of the problems that our Nation 
is confronted with currently. This legislation improves access to 
health care, education, housing, and economic development 
opportunities. It also provides essential support for financial 
literacy programs, transportation infrastructure investments, 
sustainable energy development, natural resource preservation, and 
investor protection efforts.
  This bill will help further promote medical research. Investments in 
medical research have tremendous potential to improve the lives of so 
many people by developing better methods to prevent, detect, and treat 
different illnesses. I am also proud that the legislation increases the 
ability of our federally qualified community health centers to better 
meet the medical needs of our communities.
  The fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill will help ensure that our Nation's 
students are prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. This 
includes funding for programs to help disadvantaged students reach 
their potential as well as funding to help recruit and retain highly 
skilled and talented teachers. The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus also 
includes $1.2 million in funding for Impact Aid. Impact Aid assists 
school districts that have lost property tax revenue due to the 
presence of tax-exempt Federal property, including Indian lands and 
military bases. It is vital to a State like Hawaii where there is a 
significant military presence.
  This legislation also provides vital resources for housing. Ten 
million dollars is provided for the Native Hawaiian housing block 
grant, which is administered in the State of Hawaii by the Department 
of Hawaiian Home Lands, DHHL. DHHL is the largest affordable housing 
developer in the State of Hawaii. Although these resources provide only 
about one-tenth of the DHHL's spending, it is extremely important to 
support additional home ownership opportunities for residents 
throughout Hawaii.
  I also appreciated the inclusion of funding for the Laiopua 2020 
Community Center. Economic Development Initiative resources will 
facilitate the development of this comprehensive community center. The 
community center will improve the quality of life for residents in the 
growing Kona community by increasing access to social services, 
recreational facilities, and educational and economic opportunities.
  The omnibus provides a slight increase in resources for the Community 
Development Block Grant, CDBG, Program. CDBG provides essential Federal 
resources to help meet the specific needs of communities. In Hawaii, 
our counties utilize CDBG resources to help provide affordable housing, 
assist the homeless, expand day care facilities, provide meals to low-
income families, strengthen our medical infrastructure by making 
physical improvements to our community health centers, and expand 
opportunities to help individuals with disabilities find employment.
  This bill provides essential resources intended to improve our 
Nation's financial literacy lending and improve individual 
understanding of economics and personal finance. This bill includes 
$1.447 million in funding to implement the Excellence in Economic 
Education Act, which promotes economic and financial literacy among 
students in kindergarten through high school. An additional $1.6 
million is provided for the Department of the Treasury's Office of 
Financial Education to increase access to financial education and 
protect consumers against predatory lending. Also, I applaud the 
inclusion of a directive in the bill that requires the Internal Revenue 
Service, IRS, in consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, to 
educate consumers about the costs of refund anticipation loans and 
expand access to alternative methods of obtaining timely refunds.
  The act also will improve our roads, transit, and airports; 
strengthen Hawaii's transportation infrastructure; and increase the 
mobility of our residents.
  Provisions contained within the act enable the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers to address our Nation's critical navigation, flood control, 
and environmental restoration needs. I was pleased that more than $1.6 
million was provided for Hawaii projects.
  Recognizing that shoreline erosion threatens upland development and 
coastal habitats along much of Hawaii's shoreline, I worked to provide 
funding for a regional sediment management demonstration program to 
further understand the dynamics of complex coastal processes and 
promote the development of long-term strategies for sediment 
management. On the island of Molokai funding has been provided to 
complete a much needed water resource study in order to more 
effectively manage ground-water resources. Wise stewardship and 
management at a watershed level has a significant impact on the health 
and quality of numerous natural resources. Inclusion of funds to 
address stream management and restoration is critical for Hawaii. These 
resources will assist and protect communities in Hawaii from 
destruction caused by severe weather and flooding, as well as promote 
conservation and revival of our islands' ecosystems.
  The fiscal year 2009 omnibus includes provisions that will go a long 
way to improve advancements in science and technology, as well as 
enhance U.S. competitiveness. In Hawaii and the Pacific, we are 
uniquely confronted by climate fluctuations and its impact on the 
public, economic development, and health of our ecosystems and 
wildlife. I am proud to have supported the inclusion of $1.75 million 
for the International Pacific Research Center at the University of 
Hawaii to conduct systematic and reliable climatographic research of 
the Pacific region. Improving our understanding of climate variability 
empowers us to use data and models to mitigate adverse impacts.
  Hawaii is home to some of the world's most critically threatened and 
endangered species, including the endemic Hawaiian monk seal. For years 
I have been an advocate for the conservation and recovery of the 
critically endangered monk seal and other cetaceans in the Pacific. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service issued the first Hawaiian monk seal 
recovery plan in 1983 and a revised plan in 2007. The Hawaiian monk 
seals are vulnerable due to a variety of influences, including human 
disturbances of birth and nursery habitats, entanglement in marine 
debris, and commercial fisheries. In the last 50 years the Hawaiian 
monk seal population has fallen by 60 percent. To address this need, I 
worked to include $2.6 million in this act to address female and 
juvenile monk seal survival and enhancement, as well as efforts to 
minimize monk seal mortality. In addition, these funds will strengthen 
coordinated regional office efforts for field response teams and 
enhance implementation of the 2007 recovery plan.
  The preservation of our national parks, forests, and public lands has 
been a priority of utmost importance. Public lands are valued assets 
that must be properly managed for the benefit of all Americans and 
future generations. I am encouraged that the act supports the 
preservation of our natural landscapes, furthers conservation of 
wildlife, expands water resource assessment, and fosters wise 
management of our Nation's natural resources.
  Given the unique needs of Hawaii, I supported funding in the Fiscal 
Year 2009 omnibus to fortify the preservation of four endangered 
Hawaiian

[[Page S2951]]

waterbirds located within the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, 
as well as combat the threat of invasive species on our natural and 
cultural heritage. Invasive species are the primary cause of decline in 
Hawaii's threatened and endangered species, and cause hundreds of 
millions of dollars in damage to Hawaii's agricultural industry, 
tourism, real estate, and water quality. Funding will continue the 
ongoing, collaborative, interagency, and community-based effort to 
address invasive species impacts. Such joint action, cooperative 
agreements, and collaboration will be needed to control invasive 
species that are crossing geographic and jurisdictional boundaries.
  I am pleased that the omnibus supports the development of sustainable 
and clean energy. We must continue to invest in development and 
implementation of energy from renewable, efficient sources as this 
Nation transitions away from foreign oil. Our energy security and 
independence depend on conducting advanced research and better 
utilizing energy from sources including the sun, wind, ocean.
  Included in the act is $3.1 million to support the ongoing Hawaii-New 
Mexico Sustainable Energy Security Partnership. In order to develop, 
demonstrate, and deploy technologies that enhance usage of renewable 
resources, the Partnership evaluates electric and transportation 
infrastructure, tests technologies, and provides sound science to 
inform debate and the implementation of public policy. Building upon 
its successful development of a comprehensive model of the 
transportation and electricity infrastructures on the Big Island and 
Maui, these funds will be used to support promising projects identified 
for implementation on those islands, as well as extend efforts to 
evaluate and address the energy infrastructure needs on Oahu and Kauai.
  I am encouraged by the inclusion of funding to improve Hawaii's 
infrastructure and nurture sustainable agriculture production. Our 
agricultural industry is a key component of our State's economy, and I 
have long supported the policies and programs cultivating opportunities 
for our farmers and rural communities. Further, funds supporting 
research, extension, and teaching efforts are necessary as we prepare a 
skilled and thriving workforce focused on developing sustainable 
solutions that improve the health of our environment, as well as the 
quality and efficiency in production.
  Another important provision I want to highlight is the critical 
support included for the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to 
better protect investors. I will continue to work with the SEC to 
ensure it has the statutory authority and resources necessary to better 
protect and educate investors and promote market stability.
  In conclusion, I want to thank the senior Senator from Hawaii for all 
of his extraordinary efforts to develop and shepherd this comprehensive 
bill through the legislative process. The Nation and our home State of 
Hawaii will benefit tremendously from its passage.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Congress will hopefully with this vote 
finally complete action on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills. 
This bill addresses some of the Nation's critical needs. It also 
addresses some of Michigan's special needs such as protecting the Great 
Lakes, improving our transportation infrastructure, and supporting our 
manufacturers and small businesses. In addition, it supplies our local 
law enforcement with tools they need to protect our citizens and 
provides support for our communities to help our most vulnerable 
citizens during this economic crisis.
  This bill includes funding for a number of important Great Lakes 
programs. With the funding in this bill, the Thunder Bay Marine 
Sanctuary and Under Water Preserve will be able to complete the 
exhibits in the new visitor's facility. The bill provides a $2 million 
increase for the Great Lakes Legacy program which has made a positive 
impact on the Lakes by removing contaminated sediment. This bill also 
provides funds to the Corps of Engineers to complete construction of 
the permanent dispersal barrier in order to stop Asian carp and other 
invasive species from entering the Great Lakes.
  I am pleased that funding of over $50 million that I requested for 
dredging and other operation and maintenance needs for Michigan's ports 
and harbors was included in this bill. The Great Lakes navigational 
system faces a backlog of 16 million cubic yards of dredging needs, 
which has had very real negative impacts on Great Lakes shipping. 
Several freighters have gotten stuck in Great Lakes channels, ships 
have had to carry reduced loads, and some shipments have simply ceased 
altogether. While an increase in some water levels is helping somewhat 
in this regard, the Great Lakes navigational system has an accumulation 
of maintenance needs. The additional funding that was included will 
help address this backlog, and I will keep working to increase 
appropriations and the budget so this important maritime highway, so 
that one of the lowest cost ways to transport supplies to industry and 
products to consumers, is not impeded.
  The bill also provides $17 million to the Corps of Engineers for the 
Soo Lock replacement project, which would serve as a backup for the 
current Poe Lock. Total annual shipping on the Great Lakes exceeds 180 
million tons, over half of which goes through the Soo Locks. Funding 
for the lock is critical to ensuring that this system remains 
operational.
  This bill provides a boost in funding for our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure which will put people to work while improving mobility, 
safety and competitiveness in Michigan and around the country. The bill 
provides $15.39 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, an 
increase of $865 million over the fiscal year 2008 levels. Included in 
that total is $9.04 billion for Federal Aviation Administration 
operations that would be used to improve safety and air traffic 
organization, and to increase the hiring and training of air traffic 
controllers and aviation safety inspectors. The bill provides $40.7 
billion in highway funding, $483.9 million above fiscal year 2008 
levels. It also provides $1.45 billion for the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, Amtrak, a $128.1 million increase over the 
fiscal year 2008 level. It also provides $10.1 billion for Federal 
Transit Administration, $773 million over fiscal year 2008 levels.
  This bill also includes a number of programs to help technology 
companies and manufacturers in Michigan and throughout the country, 
including funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, and 
the Technology Innovation Program, TIP. The bill includes $110 million 
for the MEP program. President Bush proposed to eliminate the program 
in his fiscal year 2009 budget. MEP is the only Federal program 
dedicated to providing technical support and services to small- and 
medium-sized manufacturers. MEP is a nationwide network of proven 
resources that enables manufacturers to compete globally, supports 
greater supply chain integration, and provides access to information, 
training and technologies that improve efficiency, productivity, and 
profitability. In fiscal year 2007 alone, based on services provided in 
fiscal year 2006, MEP helped to: create or retain over 52,500 jobs, 
generate more than $6.765 billion in sales, and stimulate more than 
$1.65 billion in economic growth. MEP is needed now more than ever as 
our small and medium manufacturers struggle to survive in this serious 
recession.
  The bill includes $65 million for the Technology Innovation Program, 
TIP, the successor to the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. While 
slightly less than the fiscal year 2008 level it is still significant 
given the fact that President Bush proposed zeroing out the program in 
his fiscal year 2009 budget. TIP is a cost-sharing program that 
promotes the development of new, innovative products that are made and 
developed in the United States, helping American companies compete 
against their foreign competitors and contribute to the growth of the 
U.S. economy. During this terrible recession the TIP program is an 
important way to stimulate job growth and high technology R&D in the 
United States.
  I am pleased that this bill continues the current ban on using 
Federal funds for future Federal contracts to so-called ``inverted'' 
U.S. companies that, to avoid certain U.S. taxes, have reincorporated 
in an offshore tax haven country but left their offices and production 
service facilities here in the

[[Page S2952]]

U.S. We should not further reward inversion by granting them Federal 
contracts. It is unfair to the U.S. companies left to operate on an 
uneven playing field, and it is unfair to the rest of our taxpayers who 
pay their fair share.
  The fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill includes an increase in funding 
over fiscal year 2008 in a number of important areas at the Department 
of Energy. In particular, this bill includes $273 million for advanced 
vehicle technologies, an increase of $58 million over fiscal year 2008, 
with additional funding included for research and development on 
advanced battery technologies. The bill also includes $217 million for 
biomass and biorefinery systems, an increase of $17 million over fiscal 
year 2008, which should allow for continued and increased support of 
innovative technologies for production of ethanol and biofuels produced 
from cellulosic materials. The omnibus also includes modest increases 
for both solar and wind energy research and development that will 
contribute to ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and decrease 
the cost of commercialization of these technologies. I am also pleased 
that this bill includes additional new funding for loan guarantees for 
advanced innovative technologies, specifically providing up to $18.5 
billion for loan guarantees for renewable energy, energy efficiency, 
and manufacturing that will be available for important projects such as 
biofuels production and advanced battery manufacturing.
  This bill includes a significant increase in several areas of funding 
for science and technology. Within the Department of Energy, this bill 
includes an increase of $754 million for the Office of Science, which 
will increase federal support for basic research and support the goals 
and programs of the America Competes Act, which called for a doubling 
of the U.S. investment in science over 10 years. It also includes 
increases in science programs at the National Science Foundation and 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, both of which have 
a significant role to play in development of advanced technologies that 
will keep the U.S. competitive in the global market.
  This legislation provides funding for state and local law enforcement 
and crime prevention. It includes much needed funding for the Community 
Organized Policing Services, COPS, program, which provides our police 
departments with the technology and training tools needed to prevent 
and detect crime and for the Office of Justice Programs that provides 
funding for Byrne justice assistance grants, juvenile justice programs, 
and drug courts. It also provides $415 million to the Office on 
Violence Against Women so that we can better prevent and prosecute 
violent crimes against women. Finally, I am pleased that the 
legislation includes $185 million for interoperable radio systems.
  During this economic crisis, it is especially important that this 
bill includes vital funding for our Nation's nutrition, housing and 
economic development programs that will provide much-needed help to our 
communities. This bill includes increased funding for the Supplemental 
Nutrition Program, SNAP, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 
for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, which help provide nutritious 
food to many in this country who are in need. It also includes 
increased funding for public and affordable housing programs that 
provide housing to low-income Americans and $1.7 billion, which is $91 
million above the 2008 funding level, for homeless assistance grants 
which provide rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and 
permanent housing, and supportive services to homeless persons and 
families to help break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless 
persons and families into permanent housing. In addition, this bill 
provides $3.9 billion, $34 million above the 2008 funding level, for 
the community development block grant, CDBG, program which will fund 
community and economic development projects to revitalize our 
communities.
  This bill includes funding I requested for the redevelopment of part 
of the old Tiger Stadium and its ball field. This funding will help the 
surrounding community move forward on a plan to preserve part of the 
old Tiger Stadium and its ball field as a premier baseball field for 
youth leagues and to redevelop part of the stadium structure and 
adjacent land to be used for retail shops and restaurants and other 
commercial and entertainment attractions. This funding will not only 
help preserve this part of Detroit and baseball history, but also bring 
much needed jobs and economic activity into this neighborhood and to 
the city of Detroit.
  I am glad that we have finally completed the fiscal year 2009 
appropriations bills. While it is unfortunate that we once again had to 
consider nine different bills packaged into a single omnibus spending 
measure, I am very pleased that this bill includes funding for many 
important national programs and projects that will especially benefit 
Michigan. It is my hope that we will be able to complete a timely, open 
and transparent appropriations process in the coming year.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, these are difficult times in our 
country. American families are facing challenges that we have not seen 
in decades, we have record budget deficits, and we are fighting two 
wars.
  The national economic crisis is affecting so many people across our 
Nation and in West Virginia, and we must give the economic recovery 
plan time to do what it was designed to do--create jobs and reinvest in 
the American dream.
  In West Virginia, factories and businesses are closing their doors. 
Unemployment rose in all 55 counties in January 2009. Our statewide 
unemployment rate jumped from 4.4 percent in December to 6.2 percent in 
just 1 month. And February and March have brought additional plant 
closures, and more employees have lost their jobs.
  As we work in Congress on ways to get our economy back on track and 
create new jobs, I stand ready to help and take bold action that will 
deliver real, workable solutions to families. And I am committed to 
working with our State leaders to do everything we can to bring 
opportunities to West Virginia.
  It is very important that we in Congress do everything possible to 
uphold the public trust, protect taxpayer dollars, and show with our 
actions and not just our words that we take seriously our obligation 
and honor to serve the people.
  One of the ways the legislation before us today, H.R. 1105, the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, does that is by prohibiting the 
annual cost-of-living pay adjustment, COLA, for Members of Congress 
from taking effect in calendar year 2010. This is a good, small, but 
important step, and I thank our leadership for including this important 
provision. Now is not the time for an increase in the COLA for Members 
of Congress.
  I represent constituents who earn $25,000 to $35,000 annually, and 
the notion that we in Congress would allow a COLA increase for 
ourselves, while they are just trying to put food on the table and make 
ends meet, is completely unacceptable. Given the state of the economy, 
and the income and job losses across this Nation, I strongly oppose a 
congressional pay increase in this bill.
  I also strongly support efforts to suspend permanently the automatic 
congressional COLA. It will be some time before our economy turns 
around and the American people feel a sense of financial security 
again. And especially in a recession, any congressional pay increase 
should be subject to an up-or-down vote each year, and not simply occur 
automatically.
  That is why I am glad to be a cosponsor of S. 542, legislation 
introduced by Majority Leader Reid to repeal the provision of law that 
provides automatic COLAs for Members of Congress. I do not believe we 
should amend the pending bill to do this--the amendment, like so many 
others offered by the minority over the past week, is really a Trojan 
horse to kill or delay the Omnibus Appropriations Act, which is already 
overdue and meets our basic obligation to keep the government running. 
But the issue is an important one, deserving of immediate action and I 
appreciate the leader's commitment to act quickly on it.
  I believe having transparency, accountability, and an up-or-down vote 
on the COLA every year makes a lot of sense--both for Congress and the 
American people. The American people deserve to be represented by 
Members of Congress who are in touch with the everyday struggles of the 
very people

[[Page S2953]]

who elected them. Just like their family budgets, Congress has to 
budget and live within our means and make careful spending decisions 
based on our most pressing priorities.
  I support this bill today because it is the absolutely right thing to 
do and West Virginia families deserve no less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act and encourage my colleagues to vote for cloture.
  This bill provides additional resources so our Government will be 
better able to meet the challenges of the economic crisis we face 
today.
  I would remind my colleagues that without enactment of this bill, the 
Securities and Exchange Commission will not get the additional funding 
it needs to increase the integrity of the financial markets. The 
Federal Housing Administration will have to stop helping families 
facing foreclosure to refinance into affordable mortgages at the worst 
possible time for such a stoppage to occur.
  The Food and Drug Administration will not receive the funding it 
needs to significantly increase the number of food and medical product 
safety inspections, both domestic and overseas, that it could otherwise 
perform.
  If the Omnibus is not enacted, $550 million less would be provided 
for the FBI to protect our Nation and our communities from terrorism 
and violent crime. Not passing this bill means 650 fewer FBI special 
agents, and 1,250 fewer intelligence analysts and other professionals 
fighting crime and terrorism on U.S. soil.
  In conclusion, I ask the fundamental question: Will the United States 
be better off in the next year, and will the Federal Government be in a 
better position to help lead our country out of this deep recession, if 
we pass this bill? The answer is obviously, yes. It is in America's 
best interests to close the book on the last administration and to help 
the new administration hit the ground running.
  Now is not the time to relitigate past policy battles. Now is the 
time to clear the decks and look to the future. For all these reasons, 
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting cloture on H.R. 1105.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know the hour is a bit advanced, so I 
will not take much time. I think it is pretty clear what the outcome of 
this vote will be, so I will not take a lot more time of this body. I 
have spent a lot of time on the Senate floor in the last week or so 
talking about this legislation before us.
  I think there are a couple things that need to be mentioned again. 
Somehow it seems to be accepted around here that earmarks are a 
standard practice and that they have been going on forever, and it is 
somehow the purview of the Appropriations Committee to do these 
earmarks, which Americans have become pretty familiar with, I am happy 
to say, in the last week or so.
  That is not so. It is not so. In 1991, there was a total of 537 
earmarks for the entire appropriations process. This evil has grown, 
and it has grown, and it has grown--to the point where we now have 
close to 9,000 earmarks. All we are asking is to authorize. We have 
talked a lot about the individual earmarks. But the fact is, they are 
not authorized. I heard one of my colleagues today, on this side of the 
aisle, say: Well, the authorizing committees are too busy. Really? 
Really? So all we are asking is to go back to what this body had done 
and the Congress had done for a couple hundred years; that is, 
authorize the projects.
  So what has happened? It has grown and grown and grown. Today, a 
former staffer on the Appropriations Committee pled guilty in Federal 
court. What did it have to do with? It had to do with earmarks, and we 
have former Members of Congress now residing in Federal prison because 
of this gateway drug, as my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, 
calls it.
  So last November the American people, as I am keenly aware, voted for 
change. They voted for change, and somehow we are saying: This is last 
year's business--only this is funding this year's operations.
  So we will vote to pass this bill, and the message is, my friends and 
colleagues, that it is business as usual in Washington, while 
unemployment is 8.1 percent and employers have to cut another 651,000 
jobs.
  So if the President were serious about his pledge for change, he 
would veto this bill. He will not. Now, he will say we are going to 
outline a process of dealing with this problem in a different way. I 
quote from Mr. Gibbs:

     . . . 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.

  Well, the first chance we get to show people change is business as 
usual in the Senate and the House. It is very unfortunate. It is very 
unfortunate. We should not be astonished at the low approval ratings we 
have here when Americans see the expenditure of their hard-earned tax 
dollars in the projects we have talked about in the past without 
scrutiny, without authorization, and certainly not in a fashion the 
American people want their tax dollars spent. So we will invoke cloture 
and we will move forward. The bill will go to the President's desk, he 
will sign it, and the signal to the American people is: You voted for 
change, but you are not getting any change today.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, before yielding the time so we can vote, 
I wish to commend and thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for 
his leadership of the Appropriations Committee, particularly in our 
negotiations that we have had with Members of the other body. We are 
not legislating in a vacuum. These proposals and provisions of this 
bill have been carefully reviewed by our committee. In this case, it 
includes I think about seven bills that were individually written and 
proposed to the full committee by the subcommittees, after a series of 
hearings reviewing the administration's requests for funding, listening 
to outside groups that had opinions and views about the level of 
appropriations for many accounts and programs. But our true leader who 
deserves praise for this final work product, as I said, is the 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Has all time been used, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the order that is now in effect indicates 
that if there are 60 votes on this cloture vote, there will be just a 
voice vote on final passage. I ask the Chair if that is factual.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered on the 
measure.
  Mr. REID. So that is the understanding we have. If that, in fact, is 
the case, then we would--this will be the last vote today.
  People are asking: What are we going to do the rest of the week? 
First of all, we are going to spend the rest of this week on 
nominations. We are going to try to get one up tomorrow that we can 
debate and hopefully vote on. We may not be able to do that.
  I would say to everyone there has been a lot of pent-up desire to 
come out and give speeches on other issues. I think we will have plenty 
of time to do that tomorrow. So we will set aside a couple hours, at 
least, tomorrow for morning business. I look forward to this vote and 
ending this long process on this appropriations bill.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1105, the 
     Omnibus Appropriations Act:
         Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Bernard Sanders, Tom Udall, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Ron Wyden, Christopher J. Dodd, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Mark R. Warner, John

[[Page S2954]]

           D. Rockefeller IV, Debbie Stabenow, Patty Murray, 
           Richard Durbin, Edward E. Kaufman, Jim Webb, Mark 
           Begich, Byron L. Dorgan, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, 
           Roland W. Burris.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 
1105, an act making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     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
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johanns
     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 
35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the staff of the 
Senate Committee on Appropriations. Since I assumed the chairmanship of 
the committee less than 2 months ago, on January 21, the staff of the 
committee has accomplished some extraordinary things.
  The committee held a markup on the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act less than a week after I assumed the gavel, on January 27. We 
passed the Recovery Act on Februay 10, held an open conference with the 
House and then passed the conference report on February 14. On February 
17, the President signed the Recovery Act into law.
  The committee then moved immediately to take up the 2009 Omnibus Act, 
which we have passed today. I want to recognize the many late nights, 
the weekends, and the lost family time that have all been sacrificed by 
staff in order that we might accomplish the passage of two significant 
appropriations bills in less than 2 months.
  As is our tradition, the committee operated in a fully bipartisan 
fashion in all of our efforts, and our nonpartisan support staff did 
their usual superb job of allowing the policy staff to complete their 
work under such tight deadlines.
  Without the hard work, dedication and extraordinary effort of all the 
staff members of this committee, we would not have passed the Recovery 
Act or the 2009 omnibus. As the chairman of this committee, and on 
behalf of the American people who they serve so well, I thank them for 
their exceptional efforts and for providing me such an outstanding 
start to my time as leader of this committee.
  I submit the names of all of the staff members of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee for the Record.
  The list is as follows:

       Carrie Apostolou, Arex Avanni, Michael Bain, Dennis 
     Balkham, Gabrielle Batkin, Katie Batte, Ellen Beares, Rebecca 
     Benn, Suzanne Bentzel, Lisa Bernhardt, Jessica Berry, Rob 
     Blumenthal, David Bonine, John Bray, Dale Cabaniss, Art 
     Cameron, George A Castro, Doug Clapp.
       Roger Cockrell, John J. Conway, Erin Corcoran, Carol 
     Cribbs, Margaret Cummisky, Teri Curtin, Allen Cutler, Scott 
     Dalzell, Rebecca Davies, Nicole Di Resta, Mary Dietrich, 
     Drenan Dudley, Fitz Elder, Kate Eltrich, Christina Evans, 
     Bruce Evans, Alycia Farrell, Erik Fatemi, Kate Fitzpatrick.
       Leif Fonnesbeck, Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick, Lauren 
     Frese, Brad Fuller, Barry Gaffney, Colleen Gaydos, Paul 
     Grove, Katy Hagan, Adrienne Hallett, Diana Hamilton, Ben 
     Hammond, Jonathan Harwitz, Lila Helms, Stewart Holmes, 
     Charles Houy, Doris Jackson, Virginia James, Rachel Jones.
       Jon Kamarck, Dennis Kaplan, Kate Kaufer, Charles Kieffer, 
     Peter Kiefhaber, Jeff Kratz. Mark Laisch, Richard Larson, 
     Ellen Maldonado, Nikole Manatt, Stacy McBride, Matthew 
     McCardle, Meaghan McCarthy, Rachel Milberg, Mark Moore, 
     Fernanda Motta, Ellen Murray, Scott Nance.
       Hong Nguyen, Nancy Olkewicz, Scott O'Malia, Thomas 
     Osterhoudt, Sudip Parikh, Melissa Petersen, Brian Potts, 
     Dianne Preece, Bob Putnam, Erik Raven, Gary Reese, Tim 
     Rieser, Peter Rogoff, Betsy Schmid, Rachelle Schroeder, Chad 
     Schulken.
       LaShawnda Smith, Renan Snowden, Reggie Stewart, Goodloe 
     Sutton, Rachael Taylor, Bettilou Taylor, Christa Thompson, 
     Marianne Upton, Chip Walgren, Chris Watkins, Jeremy Weirich, 
     Augusta Wilson, Sarah Wilson, Brian Wilson, Franz 
     Wuerfmannsdobler, Michele Wymer, Bridget Zarate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, cloture having been 
invoked, all postcloture time is yielded back. The question is on the 
third reading and passage of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 1105) was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is on passage of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 1105) was passed.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

                          ____________________