[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 139 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9959-S9969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--CONFERENCE REPORT--
                               Continued

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will come to order.
  The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the rule XXVIII 
point of order to be raised by Senator McCain against the Legislative 
Branch appropriations bill.
  I voted against this bill the first time it came through the Senate 
and now it is even worse. In fact, we violated one of our new ethics 
rules we talk so much about in the Senate and in the House where these 
conference bills cannot contain a provision that was not part of either 
the House or Senate bill. We call that ``air dropping.'' But we air-
dropped some significant things into this bill, violating our own 
ethics rule.
  First, we added a 1-month continuing resolution that funds our 
government since we haven't finished our work here in the Congress, but 
we also added a $4 billion bailout for the Postal Service into this 
conference report bill, again, violating our own ethics rule. The air-
dropped provisions are undemocratic. There was no debate or 
transparency. Like earmarks, it is another tactic politicians use to 
have an end run around our constitutional limits.
  It is also wrong for Congress to fund itself while allowing all other 
government agencies to operate under a short-term continuing 
resolution. In 1995, President Clinton vetoed the legislative branch 
bill for this reason:

       Congress should not take care of its own business before it 
     takes care of the people's business.

  If we are going to pass a continuing resolution, it should cover the 
entire government until we can have a transparent process that the 
American people can see. The only reason these tricks are pulled is 
that politicians don't want people to see what we are doing.
  Even worse than the process that has been used for this legislation 
are the policies contained within it. Around the country, families and 
businesses are having to tighten their belts because of the recession. 
Many are out of work. At the same time, we are increasing our budgets 
dramatically here. This legislative branch bill itself has increased 
nearly 6 percent versus last year, despite the growing debt and the 
serious economic problems we are having as a country.
  Just a couple of statistics from the bill: We have increased spending 
128 percent for the House office buildings; a 155-percent increase for 
the Government Printing Office; a 6.2-percent increase for the Senate 
whip offices; a 4.3-percent increase for Senate leader offices; a 4.1-
percent increase for Speaker Pelosi's office; a 4.3-percent increase in 
the Vice President's office; and don't forget a $200,000 earmark for a 
museum in Nebraska.
  If we were in prosperous times and had plenty of money, surpluses, 
then perhaps some of these increases would make sense, but not at a 
time when we see all Americans hurting and having to tighten their 
belts.
  This is one of the smaller increases compared to the ones that have 
gone through in the last couple of weeks. We are spending our Nation 
into bankruptcy. Our debt is almost as large as our entire economy, and 
growing by $1 trillion every year. Long-term deficits for Medicare and 
Social Security are more than $100 trillion. We have no idea how we are 
going to keep our promises to seniors. When will all this end?
  The head of the World Bank, a former U.S. Trade Representative, is 
questioning whether the U.S. dollar will long remain the world's 
reserve currency because of our spending and because of our debt. A few 
weeks ago I noted that some officials in Zimbabwe were concerned about 
America, our spending and our debt, and what could happen to our 
currency. They have good reason to. A friend of mine who returned from 
Zimbabwe brought me one piece of their currency. This is a 100 trillion 
dollar bill from Zimbabwe. It is so worthless he gave it away as a 
souvenir. They are worried about our debt. We need to be worried about 
it too.
  This bill also includes a $4 billion bailout for the Postal Service, 
the third bailout they have gotten in 8 years. But the money is not 
contingent on any reforms within the Postal Service, so the underlying 
waste will continue and require another bailout in the next year or 
two. Why would we bail out the Postal Service without any requirement 
that they reform their policies, the policies that have led to this 
mess? There are some very obvious things we could do. We could save $50 
million by stopping paying employees an average of 45,000 hours of 
standby time. We could close unnecessary post offices. There is a long 
list of things we could do to reform the Post Office so that we don't 
continue to bail them out with taxpayer money, but there is nothing in 
this bill about doing that. It is only another bailout, another 
giveaway. So simply bailing them out will only prolong the problems and 
cost the taxpayers more money.
  In sum, if we look at the legislative branch bill, it is bad policy, 
it has followed a bad process, and it continues this out-of-control 
spending and debt for our country. It does not deserve our vote.
  I thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nebraska 
withdraw his request?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Without objection, yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a little bit of time today 
talking to my colleagues and the American people about where we are. I 
don't know of a better description of where we are than this sign. The 
President said and some in the House have said that certain facts about 
health care reform are indisputable, but nobody will dispute this one: 
Forty-three cents out of every dollar we spend this year, we borrow 
against the future of our children; 43 cents out of every dollar the 
Federal Government spends. What does that come to per family? What that 
comes to is $15,603 per family--every family in this country--we 
borrowed against this year.
  The reason I came down to the floor--I have a lot of problems with 
both the CR and this bill, but I want to know where the leadership is 
in America today. We are in tough times, and if

[[Page S9960]]

there ought to be one bill the Congress passes with no increase in 
spending, it ought to be the bill that pays for the things we do. The 
reason it ought to be that bill is because we ought to lead by example. 
What we are saying with this legislative branch bill is that, you know 
what, there is just not 5 percent to cut in our efficiency. Nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  Every year I have been here, I have been allocated a certain amount 
of money for my office. In no year have I turned back less than 18 
percent of that money, 460-some thousand bucks. We didn't spend it 
because we know how to run things efficiently and effectively.
  That is a misnomer for the Federal Government, as led by the Senate, 
as exampled by this bill.
  So what have we done so far this year? Here is what we have done. 
Here is where the 2009 increases were, and here is what we are 
proposing this year. This doesn't take into account any of the money we 
spent in the stimulus or any of the money in the emergency 
appropriations we passed or that we wanted to increase the baseline.
  Last year, we increased our own budget by 10.88 percent. Inflation 
was minus last year; there was a negative inflation. So we had an 
infinity, as far as recognizing the increase of our own budgets, 
because, in fact, the costs actually went down in America. CPI 
declined. This year, we are at a 1.4-percent CPI increase year over 
year, from September 30 to September 30.
  Legislative branch is almost three times what inflation is; Homeland 
Security, four times inflation; Energy and Water--because they got such 
a large bump with the stimulus bill, we only increased it 1.41 percent. 
Every other bill, such as Agriculture, is 12.68 percent; but if you 
look at it, it is almost 22 percent. The THUD bill is 22.54 percent. 
Interior is 16.28 percent. Here is the inflation rate, 1.6 percent.
  Where is the leadership? That is what the American people ought to 
ask. I don't fault the chairman. He is given a number and he is 
supposed to meet it. I fault our leadership. Things are never going to 
change until we model the behavior that will set the example to cause 
everything else to change. When we don't have the self-discipline and 
the courage to make hard choices in the running of our own offices and 
our own facilities, how can we ever expect anybody else in the rest of 
the government to do that?
  You heard Senator DeMint talk about what kind of shape we are in. Our 
debt today is $11.790 trillion. That is going to double in the next 5 
years. It is going to triple in the next 10 years. Medicare is an 
unfunded liability. For Medicare alone, it is $89 trillion. What are we 
doing? Why are we not--Democrats and Republicans alike--saying the 
problem is in our leadership? The problem is the example we set. We 
can't even hold our own expenses flat at a time when the rest of the 
country is making the most difficult choices. Every family and every 
business is in tough times, and we are flying through it because we 
don't have to lead by example. We don't want to make hard choices.
  There is something lacking in America today. It is sorely lacking. 
The trouble we are in isn't partisan. It is not one party or the other. 
It is the combined leadership of this country that fails to recognize 
the depth and severity of the problems before us, and then it is 
compounded by not making the hard choices and leading by example to 
give us a result that will change that path. No other appropriations 
bills have passed Congress. There have been no conference reports 
passed for this year. The one that we are going to pass is the one for 
us. That doesn't fit with any sense of reality to the average family in 
this country.
  Today, it was released that we have a 16-percent approval rating. 
That is way too high. That is way too high. Leadership is about 
sacrifice, giving up something so somebody else can gain. We have none 
of it in any of these appropriations bills we have passed. But they 
have not gone to the President because we don't have conference 
reports. Then we have the gall to bring in our budget at three times 
the inflation rate for us and pass it as the only one. Everybody else 
will be frozen, with minor exceptions, in the CR. Everybody else--the 
rest of the government--cannot plan. They don't know what they can do. 
But we are going to make sure we take care of us. That is exactly why 
we have a 16-percent approval rating.
  I struggled a long time with whether I would seek my seat in the 
Senate again. Quite frankly, I came down to the fact that, other than 
three or four of us, nobody in the Senate is speaking about the real 
long-term problems. Nobody is thinking long term. What we are thinking 
about is short-term parochial instances such as the $200,000 the 
chairman put in for his own State. It may be a great project, but now 
is not the time to do that. It sends a signal to the rest of America 
that I am going to take care of me and the heck with you. It is the 
wrong message. Yet we are going to do it anyway. We are going to say: 
Oh, well, never mind. It is a good cause, $200,000 doesn't matter.
  When we are growing up, our parents try to teach us a lot of things. 
It becomes the small things that are important. This legislative branch 
bill is a small bill compared to all the others we are going to pass. 
But it is big on symbolism because this is never going to change until 
we change. The symbolic act of passing this bill, where we are 
increasing our own expenses three times the rate of inflation, when 
most people in this country are spending less money on everything they 
do, some by choice, some out of fear, and some out of absolute 
circumstances that they have no control over--yet we pass a bill for us 
that makes us look absolutely foolish in Americans' eyes. America gets 
it. We don't. This is an embarrassing time for us as a country. The 
reason is because there is a difference between what the American 
people expect and want out of Congress and what we are delivering. It 
is not about Republicans or Democrats. People are scared. What is the 
future going to be like? I can tell you. If, in fact, we don't 
reestablish frugality and common sense in how we fund our expenses and 
every other aspect of the Federal Government, what we will see is the 
diminishment of the greatest magnitude of freedom this country has ever 
seen. We are starting to see it. Where do you think we got the 43 
percent we are borrowing? We got most of it from people outside this 
country. They now have an influence over our ability to remain free 
because they control the money strings.
  This isn't just a rhetorical statement. We know--and I put it on the 
floor 10 times--nobody disputes that there is at least $350 billion 
worth of waste, fraud, and duplication in the Federal Government. Not 
one time in any of the bills that have come through this Chamber have 
we addressed the significant causes of those problems or addressed 
fixing it to right them. When we make amendments, they are defeated but 
not on party-line votes; they get defeated by the appropriators. The 
greatest power in the Senate is not Senator Harry Reid, it is the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Consequently, when we try to fix the problem, we have a united front 
that says parochialism and short-term thought is much more important 
than the long-term future of the country, and our political positions 
are more important than the health of this Nation. Consequently, 
tonight, even after points of order will be raised--and I plan on 
raising some myself--we will pass this. Everybody will say the shower 
from Coburn is over and we can keep on doing what we have done.
  America, don't let us get away with this. Don't let us lead by this 
poor example. Don't let us not sacrifice in our own offices so we can 
create the kind of leadership that is necessary to right this ship. 
This is the worst display I have seen in my years of service in the 
Congress. It is not about the details. It is the very fact that we have 
the audacity to take care of us before we take care of the rest of 
America. We have the audacity to increase our own budgets, which are 
fat.
  If I can turn back the large amount of money I turn back every year, 
and every office could do the same thing, we could cut significant 
moneys from this bill. But we don't have the courage, the spine or the 
backbone that every American family has today--the actual guts to make 
hard choices. So we ignore them because it is so easy to take the 
credit card and say charge it to the next generation.
  Yesterday, I heard Senator Schumer go after several members on the 
Finance Committee over Medicare. He

[[Page S9961]]

said: You can't be against this. You are for Medicare, aren't you? 
Sure, Medicare is great.
  The only problem is, the unfunded liabilities with Medicare are going 
to cripple our economy starting in 2017. Alexander Tyler said all 
republics die, all republics fail. They fail at that moment in time 
when the vast majority of the citizens of the republic figure out they 
can vote themselves something from the Public Treasury.
  Is it morally acceptable for us to continue to steal from our 
children? Is it morally acceptable to take opportunity away in this 
great land of freedom? Or will we sit back some day and tell our 
grandchildren about what it used to be like to be free in this country? 
All republics fail because all republics become deficit ridden.
  It does not have to be that way for our country. Real leadership, 
real courage, real clarity of character says that now is the time, 
whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, to lead on the issues that 
will solve the problems in front of this country. This bill doesn't do 
it. As a matter of fact, this bill conditions more apathy and less 
confidence in the country and rightly so. We are not going to see that 
level of confidence come back to the Congress until we start paying 
attention to the long-term needs of this country and making those 
decisions in a way that doesn't have any consideration of our political 
position whatsoever, but every consideration about the truth, welfare, 
and long-term viability of our country. This bill doesn't do it.
  The fact that this bill is used as a vehicle to fund the rest of the 
government, and we put us ahead of everybody else, to me, sends a very 
clear message to America: It is time to change who is here. It is time 
to send new people here. It is time to have people who are more 
interested in the country than their political careers or their party.
  We example the worst of Washington politics and the worst of 
parochialism when we put us first and our desires first and our careers 
first, rather than the long-term viability of this country.
  The CR contained in this bill violates the budget resolution--
violates 311 of the Budget Act. It is all over the place. Even though 
we will raise points of order, we probably will not win. But when we 
don't win on that, America, you ought to ask why didn't we win. It will 
be because the Members of this body think more about their budgets than 
they do yours. They think more about their comfort than they do yours. 
They think more about their future than they do yours. It is very easy 
to solve this situation. What should happen is the legislative branch 
should be frozen like everybody else in the country, and we should pass 
bills coming out of conference committee as soon as we can, and we 
ought to work hard on doing that. Then we ought to pass a CR tonight 
that is free of this, that doesn't violate the Budget Act.

  I want to make one more point talking about the $4 billion and the 
postal provisions. There are a lot of great people who work for the 
U.S. Postal Service. There is no question about it. They are a victim 
of technology today more so than anything else. The fact is we use 
electronics rather than the mail, and the first-class mail volume and 
the volume for second and third-class items is going to go down. There 
is nothing the post office is going to be able to do to turn that 
revenue around. There is nothing. And that is not the average postal 
worker's fault. But the postal portion that came out of the Homeland 
Security Committee contained a very key component that has been ignored 
in this CR, and that was this: the negotiation of labor rates in this 
next round. Heretofore, they have never taken into consideration the 
financial health of the post office. Some of us find that kind of 
strange, but they never have. But there was an amendment that was 
agreed to in the committee that said: This time, when you arbitrate the 
language for the postal service employees, you have to consider the 
health of the post office, because that is where the revenue comes. 
Well, that has been conveniently left out of this CR. It passed out of 
committee. Yet we didn't put it here.
  What does that mean for the post office? That means when we go to 
negotiate the labor agreements, the fact the post office is going to 
lose $8 billion or $10 billion next year--they will lose at least $8 
billion this year, maybe even $12 billion or $14 billion next year--
there won't be any consideration given in evaluating the labor 
contracts. Any other business whose revenue is declining rapidly that 
ignores the revenue side and ignores expense increases is sure to fail.
  As Senator DeMint said, this is the third time in 5 years we have 
tried to put a patch on the U.S. Post Office, and this patch is only 
going to last for 1 year. It is not going to solve anything. We are 
going to ignore the hard choices that need to be made both by the 
postal employees and the post office in order to fix this so it is not 
a drain.
  That is what I am talking about--the failure to lead. We duck the 
hard problems. We don't want to offend anybody. What we have to do is 
to start thinking long term. We have to start being about a vision of 
America that is financially healthy, and we have to swallow the hard, 
tough medicine of getting there.
  We are setting an example with this bill that says we don't care; it 
doesn't matter. So America is disgusted. And that is what it is when 16 
percent have confidence in us. I guarantee a large percentage don't--84 
percent. A good portion of that is disgust with us. You know what. I am 
disgusted too. I know the individuals in this body. They are great 
people. But there has to be a change in the dynamics of the thought and 
the reasoning or we are going to suffer the consequences. Actually, we 
are not; our kids are. They are going to suffer the consequences.
  I will end with this point. If you were born today--September 30, 
2009--in this country, the first present you get for your birthday is 
an IOU for $400,000. Because when you take all our unfunded liabilities 
and apply to it the living segment of Americans over the next 70 years, 
their portion of our indiscretion is $400,000. It just takes simple 
math: Take 5 percent interest--and none of us can probably borrow any 
money at 5 percent interest--and that is $20,000 a year for the first 
20 years of their life they are going to have the pay the interest on. 
So what does that come to, 20 years times $20,000? Now we are at 
$800,000 before they are out of college.
  How in the world will they ever own a home? How will they ever send 
their kids to college carrying that kind of load? There is one of two 
answers to it: We either enter into the real world and start making the 
hard decisions and fixing the programs that are broken and eliminating 
the waste, fraud, and abuse, or we devalue our currency and everybody's 
assets in this country are going to shrink by about another 30 percent 
in terms of their real value.
  That is the answer.
  But those are inconvenient truths. We don't want to talk about them. 
We don't want to talk about the consequences of our actions. A former 
President said: Freedom is a precious thing. It's not ours by 
inheritance alone. It is never guaranteed. It has to be fought for and 
defended by each and every succeeding generation.
  How do you fight for freedom when you owe $800,000 and you are not 
out of college yet? How do you do that? When will we start to take the 
shackles off the next two generations? When will we start to eliminate 
the burden of our excesses on our children?
  We are not far from a time when it is going to be too late to reverse 
this course. The international financial market is signaling that now. 
Wouldn't it be wise for us to lead with courage, to make tough choices, 
and truly secure the freedom of our children and grandchildren?
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during the quorum call be equally divided between the majority and the 
minority.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S9962]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  South Pacific Earthquake and Tsunami

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before I turn to the Legislative Branch 
appropriations bill and the continuing resolution that is under 
discussion, I wish to take a couple of brief moments to speak about the 
very devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit American Samoa, also 
Samoa, Tonga, and the other islands that are in the region, and offer 
my thoughts and prayers to those who have lost loved ones in this 
disaster.
  As we saw yesterday, an earthquake in the range of 7.9 to 8.3 in 
magnitude occurred about 120 miles from American Samoa. It was followed 
by three aftershocks, all of about 5.6 in magnitude. These are 
incredible earthquakes we are seeing. Even the aftershocks are 
enormously significant. When we think back to the earthquake that hit 
Alaska in 1964, it was about 7.9 on the Richter scale. We in Alaska 
remember that most vividly.
  To appreciate what American Samoa and the islands in the region have 
been hit with--it is incredible. According to the media reports, these 
earthquakes caused four tsunami waves approximately 15 to 20 feet high. 
They struck the island 25 minutes after the quake, reaching up to 1 
mile inland. There are reports from residents on the island that the 
quake lasted 2 to 3 minutes. That is an eternity when the earth is 
rocking underneath you, and then to know that these tsunamis came in so 
quickly after those earthquakes. I understand that as of this morning 
there are 24 confirmed deaths in American Samoa and many more in Samoa, 
Tonga, and the other islands. This number is likely to rise as many 
individuals remain missing and unaccounted for. The President has 
declared American Samoa a major disaster area, and we have FEMA teams 
that are heading to the area now.
  To those who have family members and loved ones in American Samoa, 
the White House and FEMA will be holding a teleconference this evening 
at 7 o'clock p.m. eastern time. Hopefully, we will have more 
information available at that time. I understand that few landlines are 
working and getting updates has been difficult. As far away as Alaska 
is from American Samoa, we have a surprisingly large Samoan and Tongan 
population in my State, so I know there are people at home in Alaska 
who are worried about their families and their loved ones. Hopefully, 
we will have more updates on that.
  Again, my thoughts and my prayers go out to those who have lost loved 
ones and to those in American Samoa affected by this terrible event.
  Mr. President, I want to speak this afternoon on the conference 
report that is accompanying H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch 
appropriations bill, as well as the continuing resolution for fiscal 
year 2010.
  Before I speak to the specifics of the legislative branch agreement, 
I would like to make clear my very strong objection that this 
continuing resolution that will be part of this was made part of the 
legislative branch conference report. This was done at the last minute. 
It was done at the direction of the House majority. It precludes 
amendments and careful consideration of all the issues.
  The conferees were not offered an opportunity to concur in this 
process. This is what is known around here as air-dropping, where new 
material, new matter is inserted into a conference agreement that has 
not been considered by either body. We didn't take it up in the Senate. 
They didn't take it up in the House. What we have in front of us is a 
pretty onerous example. We have rules here in the Senate against air-
dropping. I think we have good reason for those rules.
  While it has been said that this is a clean CR, certainly there are 
items that are contained within this CR that represent important policy 
decisions and go beyond simply funding the Federal Government for 
another month. Provisions in this so-called clean CR include one 
relating to the Postal Service. This is Postal Service reform. The 
authorizing committee has been working on this for some time. There is 
another example related to the extension of surface transportation 
reauthorization.
  We had time a week ago to take a freestanding continuing resolution 
through the normal process in both the House and in the Senate. We 
would have been able to present that bill to the President before the 
end of today, before the end of our fiscal year. I am very disappointed 
that normal process was not followed.
  As I understand it, the reason this occurred was the House majority's 
desire to prevent its minority from offering motions to recommit the 
bill.
  So here we are, last day of the fiscal year, and we clearly have to 
continue the critical operation of the Federal Government. But I do 
want to make clear this was not the right process for us to follow.
  I have enjoyed the opportunity I have had to work with my chairman on 
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. We worked hard to 
produce an appropriations bill that we believed was reasonable and fair 
and balanced. We greatly reduced the scope of the budget, and we 
finished our work in a timely manner. We had some very substantive 
committee hearings. It was a good process. I was pleased in that 
process.
  So it seems more than a little bit troublesome that we, with a very 
small appropriations bill coming out of the Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee, working quite concertedly to make sure we did work the 
committee process in an appropriate manner, should be hung with the 
continuing resolution at the very end. It is more than just a bit 
ironic.
  At this time I would like to speak to the Legislative Branch portion 
of this conference report. Again, I want to thank my chairman, Senator 
Nelson, for his work. I also want to recognize and thank the full 
committee chairman, Senator Inouye, and our ranking member, Senator 
Cochran, for the support they provided in getting the Legislative 
Branch conference put together.
  Aside from the continuing resolution I just mentioned, I think it is 
fair to say our conference was without controversy. The final agreement 
meets the high priority needs of our legislative branch.
  Now, Senator Nelson and I are both new to the Appropriations 
Committee, and we worked well together on this. We did our best to see 
that the legislative branch served as a model for others within the 
Federal Government. We worked to tighten our belt wherever possible. We 
funded only the highest priority initiatives.
  In looking at the appropriations bill itself, funding for the 
legislative branch totals $4.65 billion, and while the agreement is $44 
million over the level the Senate passed, the increase is due to items 
that the House had included. We were able to make reductions below the 
Senate-passed level in certain areas, such as our Senate office 
budgets.
  The bill is about 4 percent over fiscal year 2009. This is a big 
improvement, considering that when they came to us initially with the 
request for the legislative branch it was about a 15-percent increase. 
So we were able to scale it back.
  The conference agreement enables us to meet the highest priorities 
that have been identified by the Architect of the Capitol, in looking 
at health and safety, building improvements, particularly in the 
Library building and the projects that reduce the deferred maintenance 
in our buildings.
  We recognize if we do not address deferred maintenance, it does not 
go away; it continues and, unfortunately, that pricetag continues as 
well.
  The bill continues the efforts of the Architect of the Capitol to 
improve energy efficiency with over $14 million in funding designated 
for this purpose. Also, within the Library of Congress, we managed to 
include funding to begin to update the agency's information technology 
infrastructure.
  For about a decade, there have been no increases to IT within the 
Library. Yet most of the users of the Library are virtual users. I had 
an opportunity, a couple of weeks ago, to meet with Dr. Billington, the 
Librarian of Congress. He was showing me some of the incredibly 
historical documents, old maps

[[Page S9963]]

from the 1800s from Russia where they were mapping Alaska. Some 
documents we looked at, the only way I would ever have an opportunity 
to view them is if I were able to visit the Library of Congress.
  Well, now, most of that, much of that incredible history is available 
through the Internet. So Alaskans, in a classroom thousands of miles 
away, can access the treasures we have within our Library of Congress.
  The information technology infrastructure was clearly Dr. 
Billington's highest priority. I believe this investment will ensure 
that millions of people who access the Library through its Web site 
will be able to find what they are looking for. It is phenomenal.
  Similarly, within GPO, the Government Printing Office, we funded the 
final increment for updating GPO's Web site to ensure that government 
publications can also be easily accessed and searched.
  Also, the bill provides the final increment of funding to complete 
the merger of the Library of Congress Police into the Capitol Police. 
This is a project that was initiated years ago by Senator Bennett when 
he was chairman of the subcommittee about a decade ago. It has been 
promoted by each of the successive chairs and ranking members to 
improve the security of the Capitol Complex. Today, the Library of 
Congress Police officially join with the Capitol Police in a ceremony 
that is taking place this afternoon at the Library.
  So this is good news for them. Congratulations need to go out to the 
men and women of the Capitol Police and the Library Police who worked 
very hard to ensure that this initiative happened relatively 
seamlessly.
  So there are good initiatives within Legislative Branch 
appropriations. I am pleased to have been able to work with Senator 
Nelson closely on these, and I am pleased with the product we have 
moved through our subcommittee.
  Were it not for the add-on that we had just last week, I would be 
standing before you and saying this is almost a perfect product. We 
recognize we must deal with the ongoing funding of our Federal 
Government. It is the last day of the fiscal year, and a continuing 
resolution must advance.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent the time be divided equally between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor essentially to 
oppose the McCain amendment to the Defense appropriations bill, which 
would stop production of the C-17 Globemaster III Airlifter.
  The McCain amendment would cut funding approved by the Appropriations 
Committee to maintain an important national asset in the C-17 program.
  Without the inclusion of this funding, the production line would 
begin to shut down this year, and the last plane would roll off the 
line in mid 2011, as opposed to mid 2012 if these additional 10 planes, 
which are in the Defense bill, are, in fact, funded.
  I believe the funding is important, and the risk of losing the 
production line without filling the C-17 need is real. The concern is 
timing. If this amendment passes, suppliers will be notified within 
months that their contracts have been terminated. It will become 
virtually impossible to restart production.
  By then it will be too late to take into account the impending 
Quadrennial Defense Review, the QDR, and a Mobility Capabilities 
Requirement Study which will assess whether, in fact, we truly have 
enough C-17s in the fleet. It is my view that failure to fund this 
aircraft would be a tremendous blow to the future readiness of the 
military.
  Now, why do I say that? The C-17 has been essential to our combat 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as humanitarian missions 
worldwide.
  It is the most flexible and versatile transport in the U.S. military 
today and the only one capable of flying troops and cargo directly from 
air bases here to the front lines of Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Even more important is what the C-17 carries on the way back from the 
front line. It is a vital component of aeromedical evacuations of our 
troops to Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.
  Finally, it should not be forgotten that the C-17 contributes to 
peacekeeping and humanitarian relief missions worldwide. It has become 
a welcome site to victims of the tsunamis in Asia and the victims of 
hurricanes along the gulf coast. But that alone is not enough to 
justify it. Simply put, as former Air Force Chief of Staff, GEN Mike 
Moseley, has said: ``The C-17 is worth its weight in gold.''
  With so many capabilities and so many complimentary things said about 
it, it is no surprise the Air Force has been ``flying the wings off the 
C-17.''
  To make this point, let me read from the House committee report for 
the 2010 Defense appropriations bill.

       The C-17 is the workhorse of the theater, flying 50 percent 
     of all sorties for the U.S. Transportation Command over the 
     last 24 months. While the aircraft is designed to fly 1,000 
     hours per year over 30 years, over the last 10 years the C-17 
     fleet has averaged 1,250 hours per aircraft, with some 
     aircraft flying in excess of 2,400 hours in a single year.

  That is over 200 percent more. This heavy usage is reducing the 
expected service life of the aircraft.
  So what does this mean? It means C-17s are being utilized much more 
than anticipated. It means the C-17 is carrying more of the workload 
than expected. It means C-17s flown today may not be available for as 
long as we thought they would.
  This brings us to the second issue. If not the C-17, what are the 
other options available?
  The C-17 is a complement to a decades-old military transport, the C-
5. The oldest C-5As are an average of 39 years old and will require 
literally billions of dollars in engine and avionics upgrades to keep 
flying. We don't yet know the exact cost, but as with many 
modernization programs, it will likely only go up.
  The GAO clearly stated last year that DOD would need to fully 
modernize seven C-5s to attain the equivalent capability achieved from 
acquiring one C-17 and the cost would be three times more. So we need 
to modernize seven C-5s at three times the cost of a new C-17 to get 
the equivalent capability of one C-17. This makes no sense to me.
  The C-5A has been unreliable, with a readiness rate barely over 50 
percent. The Air Force has been asking for years for authorization to 
retire some of the aircraft. As those aircraft are retired, the C-17 
will be expected to cover the gap left behind.
  So we have to ask: How are taxpayer dollars better spent? Are they 
better spent maintaining and upgrading a 40-year-old, unreliable 
aircraft at three times the cost, or are they better spent adding C-17s 
to an already overtaxed fleet? I believe the answer is clear.
  Those in Congress who advocate for shutting down the line are doing 
so prematurely.
  Later this year, a Mobility Capability Requirements Study will be 
released that will address the future airlift needs of the military. 
One thing we know this country lacks is strategic lift. By that I mean 
to rapidly move troops and equipment to wherever those troops and 
equipment are needed. The staging of a military operation takes time 
because we lack strategic lift.
  The Department of Defense is also actively working on the next 
Quadrennial Defense Review which will take a comprehensive picture of 
what tools our forces will need in the coming years.
  Previous studies that have analyzed our airlift needs did not take 
into account planned increases in the number of Army and Marine Corps 
personnel.
  We have more troops that need to be moved, including 30,000 
additional personnel authorized by the Senate during consideration of 
the Defense authorization bill in July. These studies also did

[[Page S9964]]

not take into account new combat vehicle programs for the Army as well 
as the needs of the new Africa command.
  All of this has to be figured into this mobility review. In fact, the 
GAO has expressed concern about the calculations used by the Defense 
Department's previous studies and recommended significant changes for 
the next mobility capabilities study.
  The GAO also found that because the Department of Defense did not 
identify specific airlift requirements in its previous mobility 
capabilities study, it could not determine how the DOD concluded that 
the current number of C-5s and C-17s was adequate. That is the basis on 
which the Pentagon has weighed in saying we will do with what we have, 
in essence. The GAO is saying that no specific airlift requirements in 
the previous study were even considered on which one could base a 
recommendation such as ``leave it as it is.''
  To me, this indicates we are not in a position to shut down the last 
strategic airlift production line in the country.
  I understand this has been identified as a congressional jobs 
program. To a great extent, I disagree with that view. There are many 
of us who have followed the C-17 program for years. We know what a 
mistake it would be to end production of this aircraft prematurely.
  The distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Inouye, agrees. Therefore, the committee has added these 10 
planes, $2.5 billion in the bill for these 10 additional C-17s.
  In his introductory statement for this bill, he identified other 
times the Defense Department was wrong to determine a program 
termination, and he listed the F-117 stealth fighter, which was a great 
tool in fighting in the Gulf War and Bosnia; the V-22 Osprey, now a 
favorite of the Marine Corps; and Central Command, which the Department 
proposed eliminating.
  It is clear the Department of Defense doesn't always get it right. 
Already we know we may be faced with a White House request to add 
another 40,000 troops that will need to be air lifted to Afghanistan. 
Whether that happens or not, I don't know. But I do know we have a 
remaining 8,000 to complement the 60,000 already there who need to get 
to Afghanistan before the end of the year.
  Earlier this year, the administration fought hard against programs 
they felt were not necessary. This included aircraft such as the F-22 
which, it was argued, was not being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Instead they advocated for systems that support the current missions of 
the military. That is what the C-17 does.
  The C-17 is being used at 125 percent of its anticipated flying hours 
in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the only aircraft 
capable of flying many of the missions the Air Force is asked to fly. 
That is exactly the kind of system we need more of. It takes troops, 
supplies, equipment directly to the front lines where it can land on 
unpaved runways and on runways nearly half the length of those needed 
to land a C-5. That is a real asset because it means we get closer with 
the troops, the supplies, the equipment to where they need to go.
  Finally, from a business perspective, keeping the line open preserves 
the option for several other countries to purchase C-17s of their own.
  Other governments are actively pursuing contracts to buy C-17s. The 
opportunity to maintain good-paying U.S. jobs would be lost if the line 
is shut down. Ten planes, one plane a month, essentially keep the line 
open for approximately an additional year over when it would shut down 
otherwise.
  When I think where our military investment should go, I agree it 
should go toward ensuring we have the capability to bring our troops 
and supplies to where they must fight and where they are needed, to 
bring our injured servicemembers to the medical care they require, and 
to maintain a program that sees heavy use in supporting the wars we are 
fighting today.
  This is exactly the wrong time to remove these 10 C-17s which are 
already in the Defense appropriations bill. The future is uncertain. It 
is uncertain with respect to Afghanistan, with respect to Pakistan, 
with respect to Iran, with respect still to Iraq, with respect to a 
number of other places in the world.
  Where we are short is strategic airlift. The most efficient, most 
effective airlifter we have is the C-17. I strongly support its 
inclusion in this bill, and I thank the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      praising nicole nelson-jean

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise once again to recognize the 
service of one of America's great Federal employees.
  In recent months, President Obama has spoken of his vision of a world 
free from the threat of nuclear weapons. While nuclear disarmament 
remains a long-term project, there are important steps already being 
taken right now toward that goal.
  The public servant I will speak about today has already distinguished 
herself as a top-notch negotiator on nuclear proliferation issues for 
the Department of Energy.
  When Nicole Nelson-Jean was just 28 years old, she led a delegation 
of Energy Department negotiators in an effort to secure Russian nuclear 
materials in Siberia. Based out of our Embassy in Tokyo, Nicole had to 
overcome the skepticism of her Russian counterparts, who were not 
accustomed to negotiating with someone her age. Remember, she was 28. 
But she quickly won their respect and developed a working relationship 
that enabled them to move forward on technical assistance and create a 
joint training and service center in the Russian Arctic for securing 
nuclear material.
  After this achievement, Nicole was made director of the Department of 
Energy's Asia Office. She distinguished herself in that position for 2 
years, also serving concurrently as energy attache to our ambassador in 
Japan.
  In 2006, Nicole was tapped to head the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative for North and South America which runs projects in over 90 
countries to remove radiological material from nuclear reactors and 
reconfigures them from processing weapons-grade highly enriched uranium 
to those processing the type used for peaceful purposes.
  Following her success in that role, Nicole was appointed to serve as 
Director of the United States Mission to the International 
Organizations in Vienna, Austria. While there, she helped secure 
passage of the IAEA's Nuclear Security Resolution, which is now the 
central international statute used to prevent nuclear terrorism.
  When asked about her work as a public servant, Nicole said: 
``Personally, I don't think that there's anything more important than 
the national security of our country,'' and that ``service is in my 
blood.''
  Earlier this summer, Nicole returned to the United States to begin a 
10-month program at the National Defense University as a counter-
terrorism fellow.
  She is just one of countless Federal employees who, even though they 
are highly educated and experienced, continue to immerse themselves 
academically in their career fields.
  As I have stated before from this desk, our Federal employees combine 
great intellect and a passion for service. The result is a Federal 
workforce that excels.
  Without Nicole and those like her, our government could not carry out 
the policies, such as nuclear arms control, that keep the American 
people safe and free.
  I call on my fellow Senators to join me in thanking Nicole Nelson-
Jean and all the outstanding men and women of the Department of Energy 
for their contribution to our Nation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S9965]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, during the intervening time allowed that I 
have been allocated, I intend to speak on two issues. One is the point 
of order under rule XXVIII against the pending legislation, H.R. 2918, 
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The 
other issue I wish to speak about is the amendment I have pending that 
calls for the $2.5 billion that has been appropriated for the 
acquisition of unneeded and unwanted C-17 aircraft to be allocated to 
operations and maintenance which has been cut by some $3 billion, 
which, obviously, is vitally important to the men and women who are 
serving in the military so they have the proper equipment and 
capabilities to defend our Nation in the two wars in which we are 
engaged and around the world.
  First, I will raise a point of order--and I will formally raise it 
when the manager chooses for me to do so--so this legislation is not 
permitted to proceed to full consideration. Specifically, as is known, 
rule XXVIII is a rule that precludes conference reports from including 
policy provisions that were not related to either House or Senate 
versions of the legislation as sent to conference. This $4.7 billion 
piece of legislation was bloated enough; however, conferees took this 
opportunity to airdrop into the bill's conference a ``continuing 
resolution'' to continue funding the operations of the government 
through October 31, having, obviously--certainly not according to the 
rules of the Senate--any relation to the appropriations bill. By 
including a CR or continuing resolution, we are precluded from offering 
amendments to modify it.
  That is why we have the rule that you don't put these things in 
conference reports because it then inhibits and actually prohibits 
Members from trying to amend and perfect the legislation. So it is a 
direct assault on how we do business in the Senate, by adding a very 
mammoth piece of legislation to what is a very small piece of 
legislation designated to allow the legislative branch to receive the 
funding it needs.
  It is particularly troublesome, since conferees are treating the 
resolution as a Christmas tree--reauthorizing and extending several 
programs; forgiving billions of dollars of the Postal Service's debt; 
increasing funding for the Census Bureau--and not simply just a stopgap 
measure to allow the government to continue operating at last year's 
levels. Specifically, the continuing resolution provides $3.9 billion 
more than last year for the Census Bureau; $3.85 billion more than last 
year for the Veterans Health Administration; it frees up funds for the 
Postal Service that is severely in the red by lowering the payment it 
must make into the trust fund intended for future retiree health 
benefits, which are obligations, to $1.4 billion from $5.4 billion last 
year. It extends the authorization for the highway program; 
intelligence program; stop-loss payments to U.S. troops; restrictions 
on funding to Guantanamo Bay; housing assistance programs; flood 
insurance programs; religious worker, physician, and investor VISA 
programs; use of e-verify and much more.
  I wish to warn my colleagues: If we allow this kind of procedure to 
go forward in the Senate, it will deprive every single Member of the 
Senate of his and her right to amend legislation because, unless this 
point of order is upheld, we have only two choices: a ``yea'' vote or a 
``nay'' vote, up or down. That flies in the face of the fundamentals 
upon which the Senate functions.
  You may be in favor of all these programs. You may think we need, 
right away, $3.9 billion more for the Census Bureau. You may think we 
need--and we probably do--more money for the Veterans Health 
Administration. Who is going to oppose more money for the Veterans 
Health Administration if it is brought up as a single bill? Certainly 
not this Member and not anybody I know. But what we are doing here, by 
putting the continuing resolution as part of the least controversial of 
all appropriations bills, is setting very dangerous precedence for this 
body. My colleagues should have no doubt about it.
  There is a little book we give out all the time. We give it out all 
the time. We send it to schoolchildren all over America. It is called 
``How Our Laws Are Made.'' On page 43 it says:

       The House conferees are strictly limited in their 
     consideration of matters in disagreement between the two 
     Houses. Consequently, they may not strike or amend any 
     portion of the bill that was not amended by the other House. 
     Furthermore, they may not insert new matter that is not 
     germane to or that is beyond the scope of the differences 
     between the two Houses.

  Let me tell my colleagues what else we tell schoolchildren and young 
people all over America:

       A report that contains any recommendations which extend 
     beyond the scope of differences between the two Houses is 
     subject to a point of order in its entirety unless that point 
     of order is waived.

  So why don't we--if I am defeated here--and I may be--why don't we 
change this book. Why don't we have a resolution from the Senator from 
Nebraska who put this in, along with his $300,000 museum, to change 
this book so we don't mislead schoolchildren all over America in a 
pamphlet that says how our laws are made.
  There is no reason why the majority can't bring the continuing 
resolution to the floor as a stand-alone piece of legislation. A 
Christmas tree of funding increases and authorizations deserves floor 
consideration and discussion, rather than a process by which the 
appropriators unilaterally decide how, when, and where what is 
deserving of getting a 30-day extension and which programs are able to 
expire. The American people deserve better.
  Just this morning, Politico, a newspaper published here in 
Washington, wrote a story: Lawmakers jack up spending for themselves: 
$500,000 for townhalls.
  The article goes on to say:

       Congress is on the verge of giving itself a bump in its 
     annual budget--even as local governments, families, and 
     businesses across the country are tightening their belts in 
     the worst recession in decades.
       The measure includes a hodgepodge of new funding for 
     lawmakers: a $500,000 pilot program for Senators to send out 
     postcards about their town hall meetings--

  Is there any Member of Congress in the Senate who needs to send out a 
postcard to tell our constituents that we are having a townhall 
meeting? Really: $500,000.

       --$30,000 for receptions for foreign dignitaries and $4 
     million for consultants.
       There's $15.8 million for salaries for the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee--plus an extra $950,000 for the 
     committee's administrative expenses.

  So here we are with people not--Americans can't have an office 
because they have lost their jobs, and conferees have included $50 
million to refurbish congressional offices. While millions of American 
families risk losing the roof over their head, appropriators have set 
aside millions to replace the roof of the Rayburn House Office 
Building. While millions of Americans have seen their income and 
household budgets decrease significantly this year, Congress has 
provided a 5.8 percent increase over last year to cover Congress's 
expenses and salaries. Millions of small businesses across America have 
been forced to shut down or severely cut expenses. Somehow, Congress 
sees fit to provide itself with a 5.8 percent increase. Incredible. 
Millions of Americans are seeing their hours cut or their salaries 
slashed. This conference report includes an 8.4 percent increase over 
fiscal year 2009 for salaries--for salaries.
  According to the House committee report, this is to:

       Allow for compensation improvements beyond inflation for 
     the staff of Member offices, especially among younger staff 
     where current salaries are often less competitive.

  I have had no difficulty with people applying for work in my office. 
Maybe the managers of the bill have.
  If this weren't enough, the conference report retains an earmark from 
the Senate bill of $200,000 to support a photo exhibit at the Durham 
Museum in Nebraska. So people who are having trouble making mortgage 
payments and putting food on the table are probably a little bit 
surprised, although maybe they shouldn't be. National unemployment is 
at almost 10 percent, public debt is close to $2 trillion, the deficit 
is projected to hit $1.6 trillion

[[Page S9966]]

this year, and we go on spending. We go on spending.

  I ask my colleagues, in supporting this point of order, to block this 
bill from full Senate consideration and allow Congress to rethink its 
priorities.
  So I raise a point of order that the legislation violates rule 
XXVIII.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I move to waive all applicable 
rule XXVIII points of order and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, now I wish to make some final remarks 
about the amendment that cuts $2.5 billion that the Defense 
Appropriations bill uses to fund 10 C-17 Globemaster aircraft, planes 
which the Secretary of Defense says the Pentagon doesn't need and that 
the President didn't ask for, and restores that money to the critical 
operations and maintenance accounts that support military training, 
readiness, flying and steaming hours and depot maintenance that is so 
crucial to our Armed Forces in wartime.
  Let me make it clear to my colleagues what I am doing. We are taking 
the $2.5 billion that has been appropriated for the purpose of 
procuring 10 additional C-17s and transferring that money back to the 
operations and maintenance account I described--training, readiness, 
flying, steaming hours, et cetera--to make up for the cuts--or at least 
mostly to make up for the cuts--that have been made in O&M funding.
  I understand a budget point of order will be lodged against the 
amendment. Let me make it clear to my colleagues: We will have an up-
or-down vote on this amendment. So if it fails, I will have two more 
amendments, separate amendments, one that cuts the C-17 and one that 
adds funding to operations and maintenance funding if this pending 
amendment of mine is challenged on a technical basis.
  I agreed with Secretary Gates when he said the military has no more 
need to buy more C-17s. The fact is, the Air Force and the U.S. 
Transportation Command: ``Have more than necessary [strategic airlift] 
capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years.
  Mr. President, I received a letter from the Secretary of Defense. 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:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The President's defense budget request 
     has requested no additional C-17s. This position is based on 
     the Department's firm judgment that we have acquired 
     sufficient number of C-17s to meet the nation's military 
     needs. The C-17 airlifter remains a valuable military asset 
     that will serve as the backbone of the nation's strategic 
     airlift fleet for decades to come. However, continuing to 
     purchase C-17s in numbers beyond what is required simply 
     diverts limited resources from other more pressing military 
     needs. More specifically, the $2.5 billion it will cost to 
     purchase 10 additional C-17s plus the $100 million per year 
     it will cost to operate them will invariably result in a 
     reduction in critical warfighting capability somewhere else 
     in the defense program.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert M. Gates.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will quote partially from the letter:

       The President's defense budget request has requested no 
     additional C-17s. This position is based on the Department's 
     firm judgment that we have acquired a sufficient number of C-
     17s to meet the Nation's military needs.

  Let me point out what is really important about this letter:

       More specifically, the $2.5 billion it will cost to 
     purchase 10 additional C-17s, plus the $100 million per year 
     it will cost to operate them, will invariably result in a 
     reduction in crucial warfighting capability somewhere else in 
     the defense program.

  So the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, all of our military leaders, and the highly respected Secretary 
of Defense say not only that they don't want any more C-17s, but if we 
spend this $2.5 billion and the $100 million annually required to 
maintain them, there will be a reduction in critical warfighting 
capability somewhere else in the defense program.
  We are in two wars. We have 68,000 young Americans in Afghanistan--
and most likely more to come--and 120,000 in Iraq, and we are going to 
buy 10 more C-17s when they need their equipment maintained and they 
need to be replaced and they need to fly and they need to have the best 
capability in combat.
  President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. 
It is not the military industrial complex anymore; it is the industrial 
complex. You cannot walk through the hallways without bumping into a 
lobbyist from Boeing. Of course, there are subcontractors all over 
America, absolutely. But this is really egregious because they have 
taken money from the operation and training capabilities and readiness 
capabilities--that is what operations and maintenance money is all 
about--and cut it below the request our military and the Secretary of 
Defense and the President think is vitally needed, and they added 10 
additional aircraft that no one in the military--the Air Force 
included--believes is needed.
  This is a young Presidency, and this will be a defining moment in the 
Presidency. If I am defeated by Boeing today, then it will be up to the 
President to decide whether to veto this bill. If we don't turn this 
down here, then we will be sending a signal to every lobbyist in this 
town--and there are thousands--that if you lobby hard enough and you 
have enough subcontractors, you can do anything.
  This is a very important amendment at this particular time in our 
history, while we are fighting two wars and we have a new 
administration. If we defeat this amendment, we will also be 
contradicting the opinion of perhaps one of the most highly regarded 
individuals in America, and, of course, that is our Secretary of 
Defense.
  Mr. President, I have already asked for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment. I believe we can do a better job for the American people and 
the men and women in the military than what is being attempted by the 
Defense Appropriations Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the 
comments of the Senator from Arizona on rule XXVIII and on the issue of 
planes. I also want to point out that we are violating the budget this 
body has with this bill.
  I understand the situation in which the Senator from Nebraska finds 
himself. His bill is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and people 
threw a lot of baggage on it, and it was inappropriate that it was 
thrown on.
  One of the most inappropriate things is a $4 billion bill that is 
being sent to the taxpayers of America to bail out the Postal Service. 
This wasn't a surprise. This didn't come on as, oh, my gosh, we don't 
have $4 billion to pay our pension funds. This occurs because of 
something that occurred in 2006, when we bailed out the post office the 
last time. Everybody knew it was coming. This train has been coming 
down the track, the track has been straight, and we have seen it for a 
long time. So suddenly this bailout, which the taxpayers will have to 
pay for, gets thrown on the Senator's bill. I regret that. It makes his 
bill out of whack relative to the budget.
  This is the last day of the fiscal year. We have already spent all 
the money. In fact, we spent a little bit more too, but we spent all of 
the money in the budget. We are over outlays and all of the BA has been 
spent. Suddenly, out of the clear blue sky, on the last day of the 
budget, we are going to spend another $4 billion.
  We passed the budget, so let's stick with the budget. That is the 
idea. I think the American people are getting tired of us spending 
money we don't have, especially since it is theirs and their 
grandchildren's. It goes right on the debt, by the way. All I am asking 
this body to do is live by the budget we passed.
  I intend to make a point of order under rule 311 of the Budget Act, 
which says you cannot exceed what you said you budgeted for. It is a 
simple Budget Act. We pass a budget, and if you go over it, there is a 
point of order that

[[Page S9967]]

you should not waive. So we should not spend $4 billion we don't have.
  Again, this was not the doing of the Senator from Nebraska. He plays 
no role in this other than being the unfortunate baggage car passing 
through Congress when somebody decided to stick this on his bill.
  At this point, I will make a point of order that the pending 
conference report would cause the aggregate level of the budget 
authority and the outlays for fiscal year 2009 as set out in the most 
recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget, S. Con. Res. 
13, to be exceeded. I raise a point of order under section 311(a)(2) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that 
act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will simply note that there were two 
other Budget Act points of order against this item in the bill. I 
presume he is asking on behalf of leadership to waive them all.
  It is really inappropriate that we should waive the whole Budget Act 
and spend $4 billion we don't have on the last day of the fiscal year. 
So I hope Members will look at this. This can be corrected in other 
ways. We can find ways to offset this money. It can be done on another 
bill with the proper offsets. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will 
sustain what they passed, which was the budget for this year, on the 
last day of the budget enforcement for the year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. 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. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
motion to waive the rule XXVIII point of order being made against the 
conference report for containing a continuing resolution provision 
allowing the government to maintain normal operations until October 31, 
2009.
  Today is the last day of the fiscal year. As I noted earlier, our men 
and women in uniform are fighting on two fronts. On the homefront, our 
economy is at a critical stage in its recovery.
  Our Federal agencies provide essential services every day of the year 
to our men and women in uniform, to our veterans who have returned from 
war, to homeowners and workers struggling to recover from the downturn 
in our economy, and to businesses and maritime commerce reliant on 
weather forecasts and data. These are just a few examples of a 
multitude of critical services we must maintain by passing this 
conference report with the continuing resolution provision included and 
having it sent to the President for his signature.
  This point of order is made and raised against the conference report 
based on the fact that this continuing resolution was added to it 
without being included in either the House or Senate versions of the 
bill. While the vice chairman and I are not inclined to add provisions 
outside the scope of the conference, there are occasions when it is 
necessary. This is one of those times.
  As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have worked diligently 
with my colleague and vice chair, Senator Cochran, to return the 
appropriations process to regular order.
  When we finally received the administration's budget--and may I ask 
my colleagues to recall that it was in May of this year--we worked 
nonstop, holding budget hearings with the agencies, analyzing their 
budget proposals, and marking up and reporting out all 12 bills in 4 
months. Eleven of them were reported out before the August recess. I 
might add that the Senate Appropriations Committee reported nine of 
these bills by a vote of 30 to 0--unanimous--and the other three by a 
vote of 29 to 1--one vote in opposition. The Senate is currently 
considering the Defense bill, the seventh appropriations measure to 
come to the floor.
  We have made great progress in our efforts to return to regular order 
and pass individual bills, but we are not there yet. We need to pass 
this continuing resolution so that our agencies can continue to operate 
while we conclude our business. In fact, today we had our second and 
third conferences with the House, and I am happy to report that both 
conferences have concluded in harmony and a report will be forthcoming 
to the Senate floor. Several more are scheduled for the rest of the 
week. This short-term continuing resolution, which is clean and does 
not contain what I consider controversial matters, will give us time to 
consider a good number of appropriations bills under regular order.
  For my colleagues who may be interested in specific details regarding 
the impact of a government shutdown, here are just a few examples:
  For veterans who have served, all nonemergency health care, including 
elective surgeries, would be deferred. This means that those veterans 
whose medical needs are not life-threatening or an emergency would have 
to wait to see their doctors. The end result would be rationing health 
care, causing significant waiting times for appointments, which would, 
of course, spill over after the shutdown has ended.
  A government shutdown would suspend much of the work Treasury staff 
is doing to promote economic recovery and would impact transportation 
funding that also plays an important role in supporting the economic 
recovery and putting people back to work.
  A government shutdown could derail the 2010 census, for example. Even 
a brief shutdown could jeopardize the accuracy and timeliness of the 
constitutionally mandated 2010 census, which everybody is depending 
upon for numbers. Specifically, the Census Bureau could be forced to 
abandon or delay the hiring of tens of thousands of temporary 
enumerators. Under a government shutdown, the census would be unable to 
continue setting up field operations needed to count our citizens.

  A government shutdown would halt highway, transit, and motor carrier 
safety programs, which would disrupt State and local efforts to 
maintain and improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and 
would impact upon commuters and movers of goods.
  A government shutdown would lay up NOAA's entire fleet of ships, 
including the hydrographic vessels, which would stop any current 
nautical charting operations for the purpose of navigation. Even 
navigation service conducted by the private sector under NOAA contracts 
would cease and any data processing would be put on hold.
  Our Nation's physical oceanographic real-time system would not be 
maintained, eliminating live environmental information, such as tides 
and currents that coastal pilots rely on when safely guiding huge 
vessels in and out of our ports. Imagine what would have happened if 
this shutdown was in place at this moment. The knowledge that we have 
of the Samoan disaster would not be available to us, simply put.
  Maritime commerce, which accounts for 90 percent of our Nation's 
imports and exports, would be dramatically slowed and the risk of an 
environmental disaster would be heightened.
  Mr. President, I could continue on with other services being impacted 
by the shutdown, but I think you have got the gist of it.
  Twice in the past 4 years--in 2006 and 2007--the Congress passed a 
similar type continuing resolution as a provision to a conference 
report. Yes, they had CRs in the conference report in 2006 and 2007. In 
2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a continuing resolution 
provision by a vote of 100 to 0. In 2007, a Democratic-led Senate 
passed a conference report with a continuing resolution by a voice 
vote--unanimous. It is not a partisan issue and it should not be a 
partisan issue today.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote to waive any point of order 
against the Legislative Branch conference report because of the 
continuing resolution.
  Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and 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:

[[Page S9968]]

         Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items

       I certify that the information required by rule XLIV of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate related to congressionally 
     directed spending items has been identified in the conference 
     report which accompanies H.R. 2918 and that the required 
     information has been available on a publicly accessible 
     congressional website at least 48 hours before a vote on the 
     pending bill.

  Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that upon disposition of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2918, the Senate then stand in recess until 6:30 p.m. today; that 
upon reconvening at 6:30 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 
3326 and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to 
the McCain amendment No. 2558, with the time equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form; with no amendment in order to the 
amendment prior to the vote; that upon the use of the 2 minutes, the 
Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement 
be modified so that after the first vote, the following votes be 10 
minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive any points of 
order under rule XXVIII. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 300 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

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

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 61, the nays are 39. Three-fifths 
of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, 
the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida.) The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is a very simple point of order. It 
simply says: A budget was passed. This is the last year of the budget. 
We have spent all the money under the budget. We should not add another 
$4 billion to the budget that is going to go directly to the debt our 
children will have to bear.
  So let's vote in favor of supporting the budget that we passed. Let's 
vote against adding $4 billion of more debt to our childrens' backs. We 
can correct the problem this issue confronts without adding to the 
deficit and the debt, and we can correct it without doing violence to 
the budget which was passed by the majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, it is important that this 
motion pass just like the previous one. If we do not get this done, we 
are sitting with a continuing resolution that will not be in effect, 
and we will be in trouble moving forward.
  So just as the other one, I ask my colleagues to vote aye on it as 
they have in the past.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield the 
remaining time to me?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I will yield.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 20 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 12 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is correct 
that this should not have been done this way and that the Postal 
Service needs fundamental reform. But the fact is, the Postal Service 
cannot afford to pay the $5.4 billion that is due on October 1.
  The CBO says this provision has no budget impact. So I urge a vote 
against the Judd Gregg point of order.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if it had no budget impact, the point of 
order would not lie. It actually does have a $4 billion budget impact. 
That will be added to the debt. It can be corrected. We can still pass 
the continuing resolution by supporting this point of order.
  I ask Senators to vote no on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 301 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

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

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing to the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2918.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:

[[Page S9969]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 302 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

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

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before we recess--I know there is an 
order--I ask unanimous consent that I have 1 minute and Senator Inhofe 
have up to 2 minutes to address the Senate on an issue unrelated to the 
conference report that was just adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to let colleagues know on both 
sides of the aisle that Senator Inhofe and I are working very closely 
together as chair and ranking member of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee to resolve an issue which, if we do not resolve, is 
going to result in job losses. Senator Inhofe will expand on that.
  We have to repeal a recision that was put into the last highway bill, 
SAFETEA-LU. We know what we want to do. We know how we are going to 
fund it. It will be deficit neutral. It will keep people working. It 
will help our States. If we do not do it, we are going to see layoffs, 
and nobody wants to see layoffs when we are in this difficult economic 
time.
  So I am very pleased to be here to inform colleagues we are working 
very hard, and we have very few objections, if any. We will get back to 
colleagues later in the evening on this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and will listen with great interest 
to my colleague from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the chair of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee--a position I held at one 
time, but I am the ranking member for the minority. This is a huge 
issue. This is one we cannot let go unattended. Tonight at midnight 
this thing expires. So we have to do it. Let me compliment Senator 
Boxer in being willing to go to some extremes that, quite frankly, I 
did not know she would be able to agree to.
  What is at stake right now is about $500 million of projects that 
will have to be canceled. If you cancel these projects--these contracts 
have already been let--we are talking about lawsuits. We are talking 
about around 17,000 jobs being lost unless we are able to fix this 
recision thing and to get it offset. Well, that is what is going to 
happen.
  We are drafting an amendment right now. I know the hour is late. I 
know we are going to come back for a vote at 6:30. But I think this 
absolutely has to be done, and I think it will be done. I am looking 
right now for any of the Republicans who might be objecting to this so 
I can talk to them. Quite frankly, I do not think there will be 
objection on our side.
  The highway money at risk would put people to work, unlike much of 
the so-called stimulus. So I think we have an opportunity now to do 
this, and it is only going to be done because of the cooperation 
between the chairman of this committee and myself as ranking member.
  So let's do everything we can. I say to the Senator, I think you have 
come up with a solution. We have, together, come up with a solution. 
Let's make it happen.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

                          ____________________