[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 520-533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   DESIGNATING CERTAIN LAND AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS 
                 PRESERVATION SYSTEM--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume the motion to proceed to S. 22, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the bill (S. 22) to designate 
     certain land as components of the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and 
     activities in the Department of the Interior and the 
     Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes. I have conferred with the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Coburn, who was scheduled to speak first. That is satisfactory with 
him. I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be recognized 
at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                        Report on Foreign Travel

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak 
briefly about foreign travel which I undertook over the past recess, 
focusing principally on the Mideast and on Europe.
  My group arrived in Jerusalem on December 26, late in the evening on 
Friday. The next day, the hostilities arose in Gaza. I had an occasion 
to discuss this matter with a number of officials in Israel and also 
with Prime Minister Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority.
  As is well known from the news reports, the Israeli action was taken 
in response to shelling by Hamas on Israel over a protracted period of 
time. Israel's action was legal under international law, Article 51 of 
the United Nations charter which expressly recognizes the right of 
self-defense under circumstances where a nation is attacked. And that 
was the factual matter there. In speaking to Israeli President Peres 
and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, the point was made that Israel was 
taking this action only as a last resort to protect Israeli citizens.
  It is highly significant that the Palestinian Authority, which has 
had its differences with Hamas, has backed the Israeli position. We had 
a discussion with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Fayyad, who said 
that the Palestinian Authority was convinced that Israel had acted 
properly and that the Palestinian Authority would do what it could to 
maintain quiet within the Palestinian Authority's jurisdiction in the 
face of any demonstrations which might occur.
  It is worth noting that Egypt has backed the Israeli action, noting 
the aggressive stand taken by Hamas, and Saudi Arabia, too, has noted 
Hamas's inappropriate conduct.
  We visited in Vienna with Ambassador Schulte and discussed at some 
length the International Atomic Energy Agency efforts to conduct 
inspections on what is going on in Iran with respect to any efforts by 
Iran to create a nuclear weapon.
  A year ago, I had an opportunity to meet with IAEA Director Mohamed 
ElBaradei. He was out of town when we were there. I had a conversation 
with him by telephone on the issue of the efforts by the IAEA to 
conduct the inspections and that at the moment Iran is not cooperating 
and, further, international action needs to be taken to be sure Iran 
does meet its obligations under international agreements and that there 
are adequate safeguards to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear 
weapon.
  When we were in Syria, Iran's activities on that subject were 
discussed with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad. On the Iranian subject, 
President Asad urged that action be taken to try to get the 
inspections, and that would be a more productive line than challenging 
whatever rights Iran had asserted.
  In our discussions with President Asad, the subject of a potential 
Israel-Syria peace treaty was discussed. The Syrians have made it plain 
that they are interested in a return of the Golan Heights. Only Israel 
can decide for itself whether it is willing to give up the Golan with 
respect to whatever strategic advantage the Golan may have. Obviously, 
it is a different world strategically today than it was in 1967 when 
Israel captured the Golan Heights.
  It is my view that there could be substantial advantages for Israel 
in terms of Syrian concessions in a number of directions to leave 
Lebanon as a sovereign nation without efforts to destabilize Lebanon 
but withdrawing any Syrian support from Hezbollah and also from Hamas. 
When we discussed with President Asad the issue of Hezbollah and Hamas, 
he said if the Palestinian issue could be resolved, those other matters 
would fall into place.
  There is also the potential advantage of trying to move Syria away 
from the influence of Iran. That is not an easy matter. But if there 
were to be an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty--and I think that can happen 
only with the participation of the United States--the prospect would be 
present of improving that situation of trying to separate Syria from 
Iran.
  In Brussels, we had a meeting with General Craddock, who is the NATO 
commander there. We discussed a variety of subjects, as described in a 
more extensive report that I will ask to have printed in the Record.
  With respect to our discussions with General Craddock, the key point 
was the issue of what is going on in Afghanistan. General Craddock made 
the point that there cannot be a military victory in Afghanistan but 
the military can be successful in securing the situation, that there 
will have to be improvements in the Afghanistan Government in dealing 
with the people of Afghanistan. General Craddock commented that he 
thought it would be a protracted period of time where we would have to 
have substantial NATO forces, in addition to those provided by the 
United States, to find a resolution of the issues in Afghanistan.
  I was accompanied on my trip by my legislative director, Chris 
Bradish, my military escort, Phil Skuta, and by Dr. Ronald Smith, all 
of whom did an excellent job. A very comprehensive trip report has been 
prepared by Mr. Bradish. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record, as if stated in full on the floor, the trip report.

[[Page 521]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Report on Foreign Travel

       Mr. President, as is my custom, when I return from foreign 
     travel, I file a report with the Senate.
       From December 25, 2008 to January 5, 2009, I traveled to 
     the United Kingdom, Israel, Syria, Austria, Belgium, Norway, 
     and Iceland. I was accompanied by my wife, Joan, my 
     Legislative Director, Chris Bradish, my military escort, Phil 
     Skuta, Colonel, USMC, and Dr. Ronald Smith, Captain, USN.


                                 ISRAEL

       I departed the United States on December 25th and made a 
     brief stop in London en route to Israel. We arrived in Israel 
     on the evening of December 26th. This was my twenty-sixth 
     visit to Israel since joining the Senate in 1981. Almost 
     exactly a year after my previous visit to Israel, the 
     domestic political landscape had changed significantly. Prime 
     Minister Ehud Olmert tendered his resignation on September 
     21, 2008, and general elections are set for February 10, 
     2009. One of the major questions being posed to the major 
     parties is how best to approach the peace process.
       A 6-month truce between Israel and Hamas ended on December 
     19, 2008. United Nations data showed that fewer rockets were 
     fired at Israeli towns in the initial few months following 
     the onset of the truce on June 19, 2008. The New York Times 
     reported on December 19 that, ``more than 300 rockets were 
     fired into Israel in May [2008], 10 to 20 were fired in July. 
     . . . In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 
     10.'' However, as reported by The Washington Post on December 
     23, 2008, Israeli towns were faced with an increasing barrage 
     of fire as the truce neared its end: ``[H]undreds of rockets 
     and mortar shells . . . have been fired at Israel in the past 
     month.''
       The day after my arrival, Israel launched air strikes on 
     Gaza in response to the rocket attacks by Hamas.
       The rockets launched from Gaza as well as those from 
     Hezbollah pose a major threat to Israel's security. To 
     counter this threat, I have long supported full funding for 
     the Arrow Anti-Missile System, the David's Sling Weapon 
     System, and the Counter Terrorism Technical Support Working 
     Group. During my tenure, I have worked to secure more than 80 
     billion for Israel, to include $1.4 billion for the Arrow 
     Anti-Missile System.
       On December 28th, I had a working breakfast with the U.S. 
     Ambassador to Israel, James Cunningham. It is worth noting 
     that Ambassador Cunningham is a product of Allentown, 
     Pennsylvania. Ambassador Cunningham's prior posts, notably at 
     the United Nations, provided him a broad experience in 
     dealing with many of the regional players. He briefed me on 
     the situation in Gaza, the upcoming elections in Israel, 
     Iran's influence in the region, and the prospects for peace 
     agreements with Syria and the Palestinians.
       Following our meeting we departed for Beit Hanassi to see 
     President Shimon Peres. He updated me on the Gaza situation 
     and stated, ``We didn't do it with great pleasure. We didn't 
     have any choice.''
       I asked if negotiations on a peace agreement could come to 
     fruition with the Palestinian Authority with Hamas in the 
     position it is in. Peres believed it was possible. We 
     discussed the four outstanding issues that need to be 
     addressed to achieve an agreement: security, borders, 
     refugees and Jerusalem.
       When asked about the prospect for an agreement with Syria, 
     President Peres did not express enthusiasm, citing Syria's 
     troubling alliance with Iran and the concern that Damascus 
     may not be sufficiently interested in a peace agreement. He 
     stated that Syria cannot have Lebanon and the Golan at the 
     same time.
       I asked the President about what can be done on the Iran 
     front. His best advice was to keep the price of oil low as 
     that will generate lower revenues for Tehran. Broader energy 
     independence is critical. Peres stated, ``Kill the oil, kill 
     your enemies . . . . Oil produces pollution and craziness . . 
     . . don't shoot at mosquitoes, dry the swamp.'' Peres advised 
     us not to deal with Tehran until after Iran's May elections.
       I have pushed for greater consideration of the Russian 
     proposal to enrich Iran's uranium. President Peres indicated 
     that there is a broader opportunity for the U.S. to engage 
     Russia. He indicated Russia is concerned about American's 
     missile defense activities in Europe and regional hegemony. 
     He suggested using missile defense as an avenue to turn the 
     U.S.-Russian problem into cooperation against Iran.
       Peres shared with me his views on future economic issues 
     and stated there will be five great industries: energy, 
     water, stem cells, homeland security and education. I asked 
     what Israel hoped for in the new U.S. President. Peres 
     replied that he wanted him to be a great President for the 
     United States.
       On the afternoon of December 28th, I met with Prime 
     Minister Ehud Olmert. I asked Olmert where Israel and Syria 
     stood on their proximity talks. He said they chose the Turks 
     as mediators because they are good liaisons who are trusted 
     by both sides. Olmert said there had been four rounds in 
     which the issues to be discussed in a potential dialogue were 
     presented such as borders, terrorism and Iran. He said of 
     Syrian President Asad, ``I know what he wants from me and he 
     knows what I want from him.''
       He expressed disappointment that Syria did not provide 
     clear signals that they were willing to acknowledge what 
     Israel wanted. It was his view that Syria was waiting for a 
     new U.S. President to assume office before seriously 
     engaging. Nonetheless, he said he was committed to carrying 
     out the process.
       I asked the Prime Minister if Iran knows how dangerous it 
     is for them to obtain a military nuclear capability. He 
     replied, ``Iran feels the weakness of America.'' He suggested 
     the U.S. apply more pressure on Iran by ending business and 
     commerce exchanges, particularly from the European Union. 
     Olmert believes that there are plenty of options between the 
     extremes of doing nothing and utilizing military force. On 
     the question of when to engage Tehran, Olmert's view differed 
     from Peres': ``The sooner the better.''
       Following my meeting with the Prime Minister, I traveled to 
     our consul general's residence for a briefing on Israeli-
     Palestinian relations and an update on the Gaza situation. 
     The recent reports indicated there were 280 dead and 600 
     injured--a figure that would climb. He stated there were 
     demonstrations across the Arab world and clashes in Hebron 
     and the West Bank.
       We discussed concerns over the potential for a humanitarian 
     crisis in Gaza. The consul general informed me that Israel 
     had provided 40 truckloads of humanitarian aid but a 
     cessation of attacks did not appear imminent. We discussed 
     the financing of Gazans who rely on the UN, Palestinian 
     Authority salaries and Hamas to survive.
       The consul general told us that the economy in the West 
     Bank has improved under the direction of Salam Fayyad 18 
     months ago. Payrolls are being met and tourism is getting 
     better due to a spillover from increased tourism in Israel.
       We were then joined by Prime Minister Fayyad. I asked about 
     the prospects for peace with Israel. The PM indicated that 
     the peace process should be pursued and while it has not 
     happened as quickly as some would like, the Bush 
     Administration deserves credit for some of their efforts.
       He stated that U.S. support of the Palestinian Authority 
     has had a good impact in terms of helping them govern and 
     provide services and draw support away from Hamas. I pressed 
     him on how the money was being spent and was told it was 
     going toward economic development projects and 
     infrastructure. As a result of the PA's success in 
     controlling expenditures and obtaining more revenue, they 
     anticipate lowering their dependence on foreign assistance by 
     35 percent. He cited some of the efforts: reducing their 
     payroll from 190,000 to 150,000; improving revenue 
     collections such as utility bills; and installing prepaid 
     meters, of which he noted that the city of Janin is using 100 
     percent prepaid meters.
       He indicated that the private sector needs to be enhanced, 
     but that it would only be possible when more mobility is 
     permitted in the West Bank. Fayyad stated that the 
     Palestinian Authority must be seen as competent and able to 
     provide for their people.
       On Gaza, Fayyad indicated that the sentiment is against 
     Hamas because they know this would happen if they continued 
     to launch rockets into Israel. Fayyad said he was upbeat 
     about the prospects for improving life and the situation for 
     Palestinians.
       The Prime Minister told me that it is very important to 
     deal with Syria and that it cannot be ignored if one is 
     looking for tranquility in the region. We discussed how Syria 
     hosts terrorist entities and acts as a conduit for Hezbollah. 
     He stated that this is a problem and that Iran was also a 
     problem for the region. He believes that Israel will not 
     allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. He 
     suggested engaging the Russians to make them a real partner 
     in engaging Iran--something President Shimon Peres told me 
     earlier in the day. He said it is not effective for the U.S. 
     to yell at Iran. However, if others such as Russia started 
     getting Iran's attention, it may change Tehran's calculus.
       On December 29th I traveled to the Knesset to meet with 
     Benjamin Netanyahu. Joining us in the meeting was Yural 
     Steinitz, a member of the defense and foreign affairs 
     committee, and Silvan Shalom, a former foreign minister.
       On Hamas, Netanyahu stated it would be very difficult to 
     peacefully engage them as their goal is to see Israel 
     destroyed. I asked what could be done to minimize civilian 
     casualties in Gaza. He replied that Gaza should not host 
     terrorists. He further stated that both Abu Mazen and 
     President Mubarak said the Israeli action was the 
     responsibility of Hamas.
       On Syria, Netanyahu reminded me of when I carried a message 
     from him to President Asad in 1996. There was a concern at 
     the time about troop amassments on the border. I was able to 
     carry the message and according to Netanyahu and Syrian 
     Foreign Minister Muallem, may have helped to prevent a 
     military conflict. He expressed doubt about a potential deal 
     with Syria, citing the difficulty of engaging them while they 
     play host to terrorist entities and do not make any effort

[[Page 522]]

     to halt transshipment of fighters and weapons through their 
     territory.
       With regard to the current situation with Iran, the group 
     suggested a review of what happened with Libya. They stated 
     it was not just sanctions or diplomacy, but rather the Libyan 
     calculus that the U.S. and UK would attack. The threat of 
     force, according to them, was the critical factor. Their 
     conclusion was clear: Iran will only give up its nuclear 
     weapons aspirations if the threat of military force is severe 
     enough.
       Following my meeting at the Knesset we departed for Tel 
     Aviv for our flight to Syria.


                                 SYRIA

       We arrived in Damascus on the night of December 29th and 
     were met by Charge d'Affaires Maura Connelly. This was my 
     18th visit to Syria.
       On December 30th, I received a briefing from Charge 
     Connelly prior to the day's meetings. Later that morning, we 
     traveled to President Asad's palace.
       President Asad began the meeting by expressing his concern 
     with the situation in Gaza. I asked him if Hamas would ever 
     change its policy or position towards Israel and Jews. Asad 
     indicated that Khaled Mashaal, the head of Hamas who is 
     located in Damascus, has said his group would accept the 1967 
     borders and that constituted recognition. Asad believes that 
     Hamas has changed, that Mashaal is a moderate within Hamas 
     and the best way to resolve border issues is for the 
     Palestinians to have a referendum.
       I told President Asad that Prime Minister Olmert had said 
     he would like to see the time come when he could stay at the 
     Four Seasons in Damascus. Asad responded that going back to 
     the pre-1967 border is the key Olmert needs to access such a 
     hotel room and that, ``the Golan is everything for us . . . 
     in every bargain, I put Golan first.''
       In May 2008, Israel and Syria announced indirect peace 
     negotiations through Turkish mediators. According to a June 
     25, 2008 article by David Ignatius in The Washington Post, 
     ``The channel opened in the fall of 2006, just after the 
     summer war in Lebanon that had made both Damascus and Tel 
     Aviv nervous about the destabilizing role of Hezbollah, 
     Iran's proxy in Lebanon.'' I was first told about the secret 
     talks in 2007 by officials in the region.
       He shared with me the Syrian view on the proximity talks 
     with Israel that have been facilitated by Turkey. He said 
     that they were still at the stage of trying to get a set of 
     principles in place which would allow for discussions but 
     that the violence in Gaza would place this effort on hold.
       I expressed my concern about Syria's involvement in 
     Lebanon, the prospect of a nuclear Iran, the statements made 
     by President Ahmadinejad regarding his desire to wipe Israel 
     off the map and the transshipment of weapons through Syria to 
     terrorist entities. I told Asad that Damascus has a role in 
     these issues and has the opportunity to act positively.
       On Lebanon, Asad said they had a positive role in 
     supporting the formation and functioning of a government. 
     According to an October 15, 2008 PBS report, ``In August 
     [2008], Lebanese President Michel Suleiman made an official 
     visit to Damascus, where he and Asad agreed to solidify ties 
     and demarcate their contentious border.'' We discussed the 
     October 15, 2008 agreement signed by Syrian Foreign Minister 
     Walid al-Mouallem and his Lebanese counterpart, Fawzi 
     Salloukh, which formalized diplomatic ties between Syria and 
     Lebanon for the first time since the two nations gained 
     independence, Lebanon in 1943 and Syria in 1946. Syria has 
     pledged to provide an ambassador by the end of 2008, however 
     one had not yet been sent. He stated that their mission in 
     Lebanon had been established and staffed with diplomats and 
     that they are deciding on whom to send to lead the embassy.
       On Hamas and Hezbollah, Asad suggested that a comprehensive 
     peace would resolve the issues associated with these 
     organizations. Despite reports to the contrary, Asad stated 
     that Syria is not being used to funnel weapons to these 
     groups.
       On Iran, the President said that Iran is an influential 
     player in the region and one that has supported his efforts. 
     This, combined with no support from the West, leaves him no 
     option but to have positive relations with Tehran. However, 
     he did indicate that Syria has told Iran that it does not 
     support a military nuclear program in Iran should one be 
     active.
       On the nuclear question, I expressed my concern that the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has not had 
     sufficient access to Iran and Syria. He responded by saying 
     that Iran is ready for inspectors but that the approach taken 
     to engage Iran is viewed a political game. He indicated Iran 
     is open to inspections but the west must recognize Iran's 
     right to enrich. Asad believed the way to resolve this issue 
     is through some type of broad package. Nonetheless, you 
     cannot discuss the right to enrich with Iran, but you can 
     discuss monitoring.
       After indicating that a nuclear Iran would not be tolerable 
     and that I would like to see this matter resolved 
     diplomatically, Foreign Minister Walid al Muallem told 
     President Asad of my work during the 1990s to prevent and 
     resolve conflict between Israel and Syria.
       I again brought up the fate of the missing Israeli 
     soldiers: Gilad Shalit, Guy Hever and Ron Arad. I reiterated 
     my interest in seeing President Asad work to help secure the 
     release of Gilad Shalit, who has been held in Gaza since June 
     25, 2006, and in determining the fate of Guy Hever, the 
     Israeli soldier who disappeared from the Golan Heights in 
     August 1997, and Ron Arad, the Israeli Air Force weapons 
     systems officer whose plane went down in 1986. In December 
     2007, I asked President Asad for his assistance in securing 
     the release of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, two Israeli 
     soldiers who were captured by Hezbollah in July 2006. 
     Regrettably, their bodies were returned to their families in 
     July 2008.
       As I told Gilad Shalit's father in a meeting in Washington 
     this past summer, I remain committed to doing whatever I can 
     to help secure the return of captured Israeli soldiers or, 
     where they have perished, to obtain their remains. I have 
     also requested the assistance of Egyptian President Hosni 
     Mubarak.
       I also followed up numerous letters I had written to Asad 
     requesting he allow a prayer to be said over the grave of Eli 
     Cohen. He rejected the idea, claiming it would not be 
     possible given that Cohen was hanged as a spy and that Israel 
     remained a Syrian enemy.
       Following my meeting with the president, I was scheduled to 
     meet with various social and civic leaders. In prior visits, 
     and as recently as last year, I had the opportunity to meet 
     with these leaders. However, I was not able to during this 
     visit as it has become increasingly difficult for Syrians to 
     meet with westerners for fear of retaliation. It is troubling 
     that one year ago, I was able to have a dinner with Syrian 
     citizens and have a meeting with Riad Seif, and twelve months 
     later, Seif is in jail and others did not feel comfortable 
     meeting with me.
       On the issue of political prisoners, it was apparent that 
     there had been an even greater crackdown. In October, Syria 
     sentenced 12 prominent `dissidents' to 2\1/2\ years for 
     calling for democratic reforms and an end to the Baath 
     Party's monopoly on power. The so-called dissidents are part 
     of the Damascus Declaration National Council and are among 
     Syria's leading intellectuals and opposition figures.
       According to the U.S. State Department's March 2008 report 
     on Syria's human rights practices: ``Although the number of 
     political prisoners and detainees remained difficult to 
     determine due to a continuing lack of official government 
     information, various local human rights groups estimated 
     during the year that a total of somewhere between 
     approximately 1,500 and 3,000 current political prisoners, 
     including accused Islamists, remained in detention. 
     Authorities refused to divulge information regarding numbers 
     or names of people in detention on political or security-
     related charges.''
       Since 2006 the government has tried some new political 
     detainees in criminal court, and once convicted on political 
     or security related charges, they are treated like common 
     prisoners. The government did not permit regular access to 
     political prisoners or detainees by local or international 
     humanitarian organizations. Human rights groups reported that 
     many political prisoners serving long-term sentences remained 
     in prison after the expiration of their sentences.
       Following my meeting with the President, Foreign Minister 
     Walid al Muallem hosted me for a working lunch. The Foreign 
     Minister discussed the situation in Gaza as he was preparing 
     to depart the following day for a meeting of Arab countries. 
     He indicated that 44 children and 80 women had been killed in 
     Gaza as a result of Israel's action.
       I raised the issue of foreign fighters traversing through 
     Syria. The Foreign Minister said that Syria used to cooperate 
     with the United States but that after the Hariri 
     assassination, and the souring of relations that resulted, 
     cooperation ceased. Muallem asked why Syria should cooperate 
     with the U.S. when the U.S. sanctions Syria. He indicated 
     that Syria and Iraq have cooperated and claimed that Syria 
     had stopped 1,200 fighters.
       I pressed the Minister on the arrests of what are referred 
     to as ``dissidents.'' He indicated that they had contacts 
     with Syria's enemies and provoking action against the regime.
       Muallem indicated he had just met with Hamas leader Khaled 
     Meshaal to discuss a possible ceasefire and if Hamas would 
     stop rocket attacks should Israel agree to a cessation of 
     bombing. He said he had also been in contact with EU foreign 
     ministers on the matter. He indicated that Hamas' morale is 
     high given the 2006 war with Hezbollah, but that Hamas and 
     Islamic Jihad are willing to consider a ceasefire.
       I pressed him on the possibility of a peace agreement with 
     Israel. He expressed, as he has in the past, that the issues 
     on both sides are understood. However, the bombing in Gaza 
     has made it so Syria ``cannot jump to peace with Israel.'' I 
     asked what could be done to move the process forward. He 
     replied that each side must respect the interests of one 
     another and that dialogue is needed.
       On Iran, Muallem stated that Iran has the right to enrich, 
     and that the world needs to acknowledge that, but that Syria 
     does not approve of Iran having a nuclear weapon. He

[[Page 523]]

     stated that the U.S. missed opportunities when Rafsanjani and 
     Khatami were in power.


                                AUSTRIA

       We departed Damascus on December 31st for Vienna, Austria. 
     The United States has three missions in Vienna: the bilateral 
     mission to the Republic of Austria, the mission to the 
     Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 
     and the mission to the United Nations. During my stop in 
     Vienna, I called on all three U.S. Ambassadors stationed in 
     Vienna.
       After arriving in Vienna, Ambassador David Girard-diCarlo 
     hosted me for dinner. He briefed me on the mission's dealings 
     with the Austrian government and some of the views and issues 
     of broader Europe. We discussed how the financial crises has 
     impacted Europe as well as the United States. I shared with 
     Ambassador Girard-diCarlo my recent trip to Damascus and 
     Israel and efforts to have the United States more 
     aggressively engage in the peace process in the region.
       I have known Ambassador Girard-diCarlo for many years. 
     David is a graduate of St. Joseph's University and Villanova 
     University School of Law. He served at Blank Rome LLP for 16 
     years as managing partner and CEO prior to becoming chairman 
     in 2000, and he also served as chairman and CEO of Blank Rome 
     Government Relations LLC, headquartered in Washington, DC.
       Ambassador Girard-diCarlo was Pennsylvania Governor Richard 
     L. Thornburgh's appointee to the Board of Directors of the 
     Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, SEPTA, 
     from 1979-1982 and served as its chairman of the board. In 
     1981, he was elected as chairman of the American Public 
     Transit Association, APTA, for a 1-year term. Ambassador 
     Girard-diCarlo was appointed by former President George Bush 
     in 1990 to serve as a member of the board of the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation, AMTRAK, a position he held 
     until 1993.
       In addition to Ambassador Girard-diCarlo's professional 
     responsibilities, his experience over the past 3 decades 
     involved his active participation in the business and 
     cultural organizations within the communities in which he 
     lived and worked. He served in leadership positions at the 
     Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, the Philadelphia 
     Orchestra and Academy of Music, the Walnut Street Theatre, 
     The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and the 
     Arizona Heart Foundation--to mention a few. In 1999, he 
     received the Judge Learned Hand Human Relations Award from 
     the American Jewish Committee. He served on the board of 
     Villanova University School of Law, from which he received 
     the Gerald Abraham Award for Distinguished Service in 2003. 
     Also in 2003, Pope John Paul II conferred upon him the 
     Pontifical Honor of Knight of the Order of St. Gregory the 
     Great for his work with Business Leaders Organized for 
     Catholic Schools.
       Established as an independent organization under the United 
     Nations in 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency 
     represents the realization of President Dwight Eisenhower's 
     ``Atoms for Peace'' speech to the U.N. General Assembly in 
     1953. President Eisenhower proposed the creation of an 
     international body to control and promote the use of atomic 
     energy. Today, the IAEA is at the center of the ongoing 
     standoff with Iran over its nuclear program.
       On January 1, 2008, I met with Ambassador Schulte, the 
     United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
     Office in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and 
     other international organizations in Vienna.
       Ambassador Schulte updated me on the IAEA's efforts on Iran 
     and their reported pursuit of a military nuclear capability. 
     He expressed the mission's desire to have Iran respond to 
     directives provided by both the U.N. Security Council and the 
     IAEA to suspend enrichment activities and allow inspections.
       We discussed how Iran's failure to declare its facility at 
     Natanz has created a significant trust deficit not only in 
     the United States, but internationally. The facility, 
     combined with the revelation that Iran had outside assistance 
     from the A.Q. Khan network, which it previously denied, has 
     compounded the problem. Ambassador Schulte stated that by 
     violating the Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran has given up its 
     rights under the treaty. He further stated that Iran's claims 
     that their efforts are geared towards civilian purposes do 
     not make sense from an economic or infrastructure capability 
     perspective.
       He was very interested in my recent stop in Damascus and my 
     dialogue with Syrian officials during my tenure. Ambassador 
     Schulte briefed me on the IAEA's response after the reported 
     attack on Syrian infrastructure. He said Syria still denies 
     the facility was of a nuclear nature, but that the IAEA 
     inspectors believe it was. He expressed concern that the 
     international community must ensure that Syria, and other 
     actors, know that this type of behavior will not be tolerated 
     and not forgotten. Ambassador Schulte revealed that Syria's 
     tactics in responding to the IAEA have a stark resemblance to 
     the response Iran has shown.
       On the evening of January 1st, I spoke with IAEA Director 
     General Mohammed El-Baradei, who I visited last year in 
     Vienna. He updated me on his efforts on Iran and briefed me 
     on the situation vis-a-vis Syria. We discussed how the U.S. 
     and the International Community may better address Iran and 
     resolve the nuclear issue.
       While in Vienna, I hosted a meeting with Ambassador Julie 
     Finley, the U.S. representative to the OSCE.
       The OSCE is a major forum for issues of peace, security and 
     human rights in Europe and Central Asia. A legacy of the 
     historic 1975 Helsinki accords, it is the only fully 
     inclusive trans-Atlantic/European/Eurasian political 
     organization. Every state from Andorra to Kyrgyzstan is 
     represented among its 56 participating States. Over more than 
     30 years, commitments to democracy, rule of law, human 
     rights, tolerance, pluralism and media freedoms were hammered 
     out at the OSCE and its predecessor mechanisms--and agreed to 
     by all the participating states.
       Ambassador Finley briefed me on her view of the Georgian-
     Russian conflict earlier this year. She indicated that the 
     OSCE has had a mission in the region since 1992 to aid civil 
     society, enhance education and address environmental issues.
       Ambassador Finley and I discussed the bilateral 
     relationship between the U.S. and Russia and how 
     organizations like the OSCE can better be used to address 
     regional and international matters. As relations between the 
     U.S. and Russia are increasingly strained, Ambassador Finley 
     pointed out that the OSCE could be a forum to positively 
     engage Russia as this is the only regional security 
     organization in which Russia is a full and equal member.
       We discussed U.S. policy more broadly and how diplomacy 
     could be enhanced to pursue positive outcomes. Ambassador 
     Finley confirmed my belief that dialogue is critical to 
     addressing the challenges we face.
       We departed Austria the following morning for Belgium.


                                BELGIUM

       We landed in Brussels, Belgium on January 2nd. I hosted a 
     meeting with Charge Kate Byrnes and Defense Advisor Randy 
     Hoag. They briefed me on the major issues we are working with 
     NATO: Afghanistan, reinvigorating the alliance, dealing with 
     Georgia and Ukraine, the Balkans and emerging security 
     threats such as cyber attacks and piracy.
       Burden-sharing remains a concern as it was when I began 
     visiting NATO in the 1980s. During my first visit to NATO in 
     1981, 3 percent GDP spending on defense was the goal for all 
     member countries. Today, only five nations spend more than 2 
     percent: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, 
     Greece and Turkey. This is a concern not only from the 
     standpoint of the Alliance's health and ability to address 
     issues, but also from the perspective that some are carrying 
     more weight than others.
       The only time Article V has been invoked was following the 
     September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. NATO 
     declared that this attack was indeed an attack on the 
     alliance. Today, there are currently 70,000 troops in 
     Afghanistan--51,000 are part of the NATO-led International 
     Security Assistance Force, ISAF. The U.S. provides 20,000 to 
     ISAF. There are concerns that some NATO members are only 
     providing civil or peacekeeping support for Afghanistan and 
     are limiting what their militaries are permitted to do.
       We discussed the NATO-Russia relationship with a focus on 
     how expansion and missile defense impact the relationship 
     between NATO and Russia as well as the U.S. and Russia. I was 
     told that some member countries view missile defense as 
     provocative and as the alliance progresses that is something 
     that will have to be considered. I was briefed on NATO 
     missile defense as well as U.S. missile defense in Europe and 
     the future of missile defense on the continent.
       I was told that NATO still has an open door policy, 
     codified in Article X of the charter, which states a nation 
     may appeal for membership provided it meets the requirements 
     and shares NATO values. I was briefed on the expansion 
     opportunities with Albania and Croatia and the potential for 
     nations such as Georgia, Serbia, Macedonia and Ukraine to 
     join the alliance. There is considerable fatigue in Europe 
     over expansion--both at the NATO and EU level. While NATO has 
     26 members and the EU has 27, only 18 members are party to 
     both structures. There are some EU countries which, while not 
     party to NATO, do support the alliance and its efforts--
     namely Sweden, Finland, Ireland and Austria.
       We then had the opportunity to discuss the U.S.-Belgian 
     bilateral relationship with Robert Kiene, our First Secretary 
     to the mission. He said the relationship has improved since 
     2003 when the U.S. took military action against Iraq.
       When we left Washington, D.C., Yves Leterme was the Prime 
     Minister. When we landed in Belgium it was Herman Van Rompuy. 
     On our day of arrival, Van Rompuy received backing from the 
     parliament by a vote of 88 to 45. Belgium like so many other 
     nations is facing an economic crisis to include recession and 
     bank disintegration.
       Mr. Kiene discussed the recent political changes that 
     occurred in Belgium. He informed us that Belgium, while under 
     the 2 percent GDP spending NATO goal, is very keen on 
     enhancing their ability to contribute to the alliance. We 
     discussed how

[[Page 524]]

     Section 1206 ``Global Train and Equip'' funds could be used 
     to reward and encourage Belgium as well as enhance forces 
     outside NATO.
       Belgium played a key role in helping to obtain an EU-wide 
     agreement on arrest warrants and in facilitating extradition 
     of terrorist suspects. A Brussels trial of al-Qaeda-related 
     defendants ended in September 2003 with sentences for 18 of 
     the 23 accused, with another 2004 terrorist-related trial 
     resulting in eight more guilty verdicts. Belgium operates 
     within UN and EU frameworks concerning the freezing of 
     terrorist assets, but has yet to develop a domestic legal 
     framework to act independently. In support of Operation 
     Enduring Freedom, Belgium contributed a navy frigate in the 
     Mediterranean, Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) crews for 
     surveillance flights over the United States, as well as 
     aircraft for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. Since 
     2002, Belgium has contributed ground troops to the 
     International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, the UN 
     Security council sanctioned peacekeeping mission in 
     Afghanistan. Belgium currently has 420 troops assigned to the 
     ISAF.
       Mr. Kiene discussed the efforts of the Belgian government 
     to combat terrorism. On December 11, 2008, Belgian 
     authorities arrested 14 people suspected of Al Qaeda links. 
     The following day, six of the individuals were charged with 
     membership in a terrorist group. The remaining eight were 
     released due to insufficient evidence. As reported by the 
     Christian Science Monitor, ``According to Belgian federal 
     officials, at least some of the detained suspects had 
     traveled to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border for training and 
     were said to have been affiliated with ``important people'' 
     in Al Qaeda.'' According to a December 12, 2008 Associated 
     Press article, the six charged included one who may have been 
     plotting a suicide attack. While Belgium faced with terrorism 
     issues at home, it is also contributing to NATO efforts in 
     Afghanistan.
       On the afternoon of January 2nd, I hosted General Craddock, 
     Commander of the United States European Command. We discussed 
     Afghanistan, the NATO-Russian dynamic, NATO expansion, the 
     EU-NATO relationship, Kosovo, AFRICOM, and missile defense, 
     among other topics.
       General Craddock reported that the government and civil 
     society in Afghanistan have not come along fast enough to 
     support and rule the people of Afghanistan. He briefed me on 
     the challenges, from criminal to insurgency to corruption, 
     faced in the various regions of Afghanistan. We discussed how 
     the money from narcotics are fueling those opposed to the 
     U.S. and coalition forces. General Craddock cited a UN report 
     which indicates as much as $500 million in revenue from the 
     drug trade is supporting those opposed to our objectives.
       General Craddock confirmed the reports that fighters are 
     moving back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan and 
     that the FATA region in Pakistan is hosting our enemies. 
     General Craddock indicated that if tensions between India and 
     Pakistan flare up, especially as a result of the recent 
     bombing, Pakistan may pull resources from their Western 
     border to engage India to the east. He estimates that 
     Pakistan would need 50,000-100,000 additional troops on their 
     western border to improve the ability to engage enemies in 
     the FATA region. Further, he stated that whatever forces 
     Pakistan uses in the west, they must remain there and hold 
     the territory and prevent it from being re-ceded to 
     combatants.
       We discussed the proposal of an additional 20,000 troops 
     being deployed to support efforts in Afghanistan, but General 
     Craddock indicated that these forces are contingent upon 
     forces being drawn down in Iraq. This is also true for 
     allies, such as the UK, who may be adding troops to 
     Afghanistan.
       General Craddock made it clear that the military cannot 
     ``win'' Afghanistan. Rather, it can provide the right 
     security conditions for a civil government to stand up. The 
     government in Afghanistan needs to remove corruption, 
     establish reliable police forces capable of providing public 
     safety, create jobs and provide services such as clean 
     drinking water. He predicted that a presence will be needed 
     in Afghanistan for the next 30-40 years.
       On Iran, General Craddock stated that Iran does not want to 
     see the Taliban come back to power, but that they do desire 
     the U.S. to remain tied down in the region. Iran's eastern 
     border with Afghanistan remains a major transshipment point 
     for drugs, weapons and oil.
       General Craddock is dual hatted in Brussels, as he heads 
     NATO and the U.S. European Command. On the latter, he 
     presented three challenges moving forward: (1) Convincing 
     allies to better assist and engage in regional and 
     international problems; (2) define a national strategy vis-a-
     vis Russia; and (3) resolve European missile defense issues.


                                 NORWAY

       On January 3rd, we arrive in Oslo, Norway. The last time I 
     visited Norway was in 1994 during a meeting of the North 
     Atlantic Assembly. This time, I met with representatives from 
     our mission, Deputy Chief of Mission Kevin Johnson and 
     defense attache Don Kepley.
       I was briefed on the U.S.-Norwegian relationship and some 
     of the difficulties we have had this decade over foreign 
     policy disputes, such as Iraq and our approach to 
     Afghanistan. I was briefed on the status of Norway's decision 
     to buy Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and the 
     current political situation in the country. Norway, like the 
     U.S., has a significant global presence and has a history of 
     being active on many foreign policy fronts from Middle East 
     peace to Sri Lanka.
       Norway is a member of NATO and is contributing to the 
     mission in Afghanistan. They currently have 500 troops 
     deployed which, while not large by number, is significant 
     given their population. In addition to military support, 
     Norway has contributed senior diplomats and significant aid 
     to assist in the building of Afghanistan.
       We discussed the Norwegian Government's plans to fight the 
     global economic crisis. While its large sovereign wealth fund 
     lost a significant amount of money in the stock market, 
     especially after the fall of Lehman Brothers, Norway is 
     expected to do better than other Nordic and European nations 
     during the economic downturn. Norway, which the CIA estimates 
     has the world's 21st largest oil reserves, will tap into some 
     of its saved oil wealth to provide the country with an 
     economic stimulus. Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg 
     said on December 19, 2008 that the stimulus package, ``will 
     include an ever greater increase in funding for public works 
     and construction, and maintenance.''
       On the day of my arrival, a protest of an estimated 1,000 
     Norwegians was occurring in front of Parliament and the 
     Israeli embassy. The protestors, who had a similar gathering 
     last week, were expressing their opposition to Israel's 
     actions in Gaza. While Norway was long a strong ally of 
     Israel, the bilateral relationship has soured since the Oslo 
     Accords.
       The following morning I met with Benson Whitney, the U.S. 
     Ambassador to Norway. We discussed our bilateral 
     relationship, U.S. foreign policy, and our bilateral 
     relationship with Russia and its impact globally.
       Following the meeting we departed for Iceland.


                                ICELAND

       On January 4, 2009, we arrived in Reykjavik, Iceland, where 
     we were met by Neil Klopfenstein, our Deputy Chief of 
     Mission.
       The following morning I met with Prime Minister Geir 
     Haarde. Prime Minister Haarde graduated from Brandeis 
     University and earned two master's degrees from Johns Hopkins 
     University. We discussed a broad range of topics: Energy; the 
     recent financial crisis and its impacts on the U.S. and 
     Iceland; the situation in Afghanistan; and our relations with 
     Russia.
       Following the collapse of Iceland's three main banks in 
     October 2008, Iceland was cast into financial turmoil. A 
     December 13, 2008 article in The Economist makes clear the 
     magnitude of the problem: ``[T]he scale of what confronts . . 
     . Icelanders is only just becoming clear. According to the 
     [International Monetary Fund], the failure of the banks may 
     cost taxpayers more than 80 percent of GDP. Relative to the 
     economy's size, that would be about 20 times what the Swedish 
     Government paid to rescue its banks in the early 1990s. It 
     would be several times the cost of Japan's banking crisis a 
     decade ago.'' According to the IMF, Iceland's GDP is expected 
     to contract by nearly 10 percent in calendar year 2009.
       The Prime Minister was practical in terms of the outlook 
     for 2009 but was optimistic that Iceland would see a 
     turnaround in 2010. He indicated that Iceland has agreed to 
     financing from the International Monetary Fund. The Prime 
     Minister and I shared what each of our respective countries 
     were looking to do in the form of economic stimulus.
       Prime Minister Haarde thanked me for my work on the 
     judiciary committee and our efforts to ensure businessmen 
     have visas which permit them the freedom to work and meet in 
     the United States. Citing his personal experience during his 
     6 years as a student in the United States, Prime Minister 
     Haarde asked that we do more to ensure those who wish to 
     study in the U.S. have the opportunity. I concurred and feel 
     that it is in our interest to have foreigners, and potential 
     future foreign leaders, spend time and be educated in the 
     United States.
       We returned to the United States on January 5, 2009.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I know Senator Coburn is near the floor 
and should be appearing shortly. But until he does, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for what time I might consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 525]]

  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we had an interesting day yesterday. We 
brought a lot of people to work, I believe unnecessarily, to adopt a 
motion to proceed that we could have voted on today.
  I want to spend some time today outlining what our new, soon to be 
President, President-elect Obama, said during his campaign and what he 
said to me personally several times about how we fix what is wrong with 
our country. If you go to his Web site or what his transition team has 
said, what you will find are some very significant things that both he 
and I have worked on over the past 4 years.
  He has a plan. It is called the Obama plan for restoring fiscal 
discipline. It is a good plan. What does it include? It includes 
conducting an exhaustive line-by-line review of Federal spending and 
eliminating Government programs that are not performing or are wasteful 
or are obsolete or are duplicative, paying for new spending 
commitments--new spending commitments--by cutting other programs--let 
me say that again--paying for new spending commitments by cutting other 
programs, slashing porkbarrel spending, rooting out redundancy, and 
requiring all Federal contracts over $25,000, including earmarks, to be 
competitively bid, to truly measure program performance without 
ideologic slant, and enforcing goals and demanding that new initiatives 
be selected on the basis of merit, not a political process that rewards 
lobbyists and campaign donors and makes Members of Congress just look 
good at home.
  That is President-elect Obama. I don't know anybody outside of 
Washington who would not embrace that message. That is a great message 
for our country. It is a message that our country needs to heed. It is 
one that we need to accomplish. Unfortunately, the first week we are 
back in session, we are doing exactly the opposite. Here we have 
President-elect Obama who next week will become President Obama, and 
one of his main goals we are working to undermine in the Senate today.
  I am going to be an ally of the President-elect on these issues. 
Every opportunity when we are not doing what he suggested we be doing, 
I am going to be raising questions about it. We are going to work hard 
for the hope and change he promised the American people he would 
deliver.
  We have before us a lands package. It is not really a lands package. 
It has all sorts of stuff in it--165 bills. Initially, it spends $1 
billion, but that is not even honest because after 10 years it spends 
$2 billion to $3 billion more on one program alone. CBO has not even 
scored this new package. The last package they scored, if appropriated, 
would be $8 billion. So we have $10 billion to $12 billion in new 
spending.
  The opportunity to offer amendments on that has been foreclosed.
  So I thought, in light of what this bill is and in light of what 
President Obama said he would like to see us do, that I would highlight 
some of the amendments I would have offered had the minority, the 
Republican Party, the Republican Members of the Senate, been given an 
opportunity to amend this bill.
  The best tradition of the Senate--the best tradition of the Senate--
is where the best ideas get debated, the back and forth goes on, and 
then we settle on what is almost always a compromise but a compromise 
that is thoroughly debated and where an individual Senator has to put 
their stamp of yea or nay on ideas to either make it better or not. 
That is not available in this bill. As a matter of fact, it hasn't been 
available for 124 days. It has been available once to Republican 
Members of the Senate in 184 days.
  So if we are to accomplish, or at least move in the direction that 
our soon-to-be President would like for us to, one of the things that 
is going to be required for that is taking tough votes. The idea we 
don't want our Members to have to take tough votes is the height of 
inside political baseball and it wreaks of a lack of courage. As a 
Senator from Oklahoma, if I can't go home and defend my votes in a 
cogent and reasonable manner, I shouldn't be sent back up here. That is 
all there is to it. If Oklahoma citizens believe I have not stood on 
the principles of which I told them I would try to represent them in 
this body, they should not send me back to the Senate. But to not have 
the votes in the first place, so we don't have to defend anything, goes 
against not just the culture of the Senate but it goes against the very 
courage that this whole country was based upon and that is the freedom 
to express and work and try to accomplish what you think is best for 
the country in the long run.
  One of the great qualities of our country is this freedom to get out 
and express. Until recently, that freedom has been available in the 
Senate. But this didn't start with Harry Reid. It goes all the way back 
to George Mitchell and Trent Lott and Bill Frist. It has been perfected 
under our current majority leader. My thought would be that maybe we 
ought to take the hard votes rather than ruin the institution. Maybe we 
ought to do what the American people would expect us to do.
  Now, my intent has never been, in all my proceedings on the floor, to 
extend debate. I mean, I think I could accomplish a filibuster if I 
wanted to do that. Having delivered 4,000 babies, I know how to stay up 
all night. My goal is to have the opportunity to do amendments and to 
have a vote on them. As most people know, agreements to time on 
amendments are easily obtained, and limitation on amendments are most 
often very easily obtained.
  So the fact is we find ourselves on a $12 billion bill that has lots 
of good things in it and has lots of mediocre things that probably 
would be a priority if we didn't find ourselves with a $1.8 trillion 
deficit this year and getting ready to pass an $800 billion stimulus 
package that is about $2,700 per man, woman, and child in this country, 
or about $10,000 per family, none of which is going to be paid for--
none of which is going to be paid for. It will ultimately be paid for, 
and here is how it will be paid for. When we look toward our 
grandchildren, what we are going to find is that not so many of them 
get to go to college because they will not be able to afford to. When 
we look toward them owning a home, regardless of the housing crisis we 
find ourselves in now, 30 years from now the ability to earn an income 
big enough to be able to afford a mortgage is going to be limited 
because we have been poor stewards with their taxpayer money. So we 
will have shackled our grandchildren.
  So let me spend a minute talking about eliminating wasteful programs, 
or things that are not a priority, and go over a couple of the 
amendments we were going to offer simply to point out that we are doing 
the opposite of what I believe the intent of our new President is going 
to be. I might also add, it wasn't that long ago that all of us were 
paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline. There is no question in my mind 
that a good portion of that price was because of speculation of the 
very rich in this country asking the very poor to pay out of their 
disposable income while they made millions upon billions of dollars 
manipulating the futures markets. But nevertheless, in this bill, we 
are putting a patch over our eye and limiting our ability in the future 
to increase our energy independence by taking millions of acres of land 
and forever closing them to any source of energy. It would not matter 
what any new technology might be, and it would not matter if we could 
do it totally without any environmental impact, we are closing that 
completely off.
  That set aside, one of the amendments we were going to offer in this 
bill was to strike $3.5 million to go to the city of St. Augustine, FL. 
Now, you might ask, what for? Well, they are going to have a birthday 
party in 6 years to recognize the 450th year of St. Augustine's 
existence, the longest Colonial outpost on this continent. I would say 
maybe that might be a St. Augustine, FL, responsibility or maybe the 
State of Florida, but when we are running a deficit in this country of 
$20,000 per family per year, it seems ludicrous to me that we would 
send $3.5 million for a party. How does that set with priorities? How 
does that set with eliminating wasteful spending? It

[[Page 526]]

doesn't. Yet it is in here, and we don't have the opportunity to try to 
take it out.
  There is $12 million in the bill to build a new facility in Maryland 
for orchids for the Smithsonian. We may need to do that, but we 
certainly don't need to do that right now. That is a luxury item. Every 
family in this country today is making a reassessment because everybody 
is afraid, and they are going through their budgets and saying: What is 
necessary? What is excess? What can we do without? Should we be putting 
money away in case X happens? Everybody in the country is doing that 
except the Congress. So here we have a new orchid building, costing $12 
or $14 million, I don't remember exactly which, that we are going to 
put in this bill, and we are going to say this is a priority.
  Now, some will say: Well, we might not appropriate it. We appropriate 
$300 billion a year for things that are not authorized anyway, and most 
of those things are not priority as well. But the fact is, it is a clue 
to the American public that we don't get it; that in this time of 
significant economic downturn, in this time of significant debt laying 
on to the next generations, we continue to want to do things the 
average person of common sense would say: How can that be a priority? 
Well, it can't.
  There is $5 million in here for new botanical gardens in Hawaii and 
Florida. I don't doubt that could be a great thing that we could do. 
No. 1, I would ask the question again: Why isn't that a State 
responsibility instead of a Federal responsibility? If the State of 
Florida and the State of Hawaii think that is a priority, they ought to 
fund it. No. 2, if it is our priority, if it is our responsibility, is 
that something we should be funding now; that we should be authorizing; 
we should be saying it is okay to do this?
  We are in perilous times. Yet we act like nothing is going on out 
there; that the average family isn't getting hit hard, that people 
aren't worried about their jobs; that 573,000 people didn't lose their 
jobs last month. That is how we are behaving.
  One of the other amendments we would have offered is to prohibit the 
use of eminent domain both in the national trails, the wilderness 
areas, the new heritage areas, and the new national parks area. It is 
one thing for the Government to have its land; it is totally different 
for it, through the force of law, to take your land away from you and 
tell you what they are going to do with it. There is minimal 
prohibition in this bill for the protection of property rights in this 
country--a fundamental freedom guaranteed to every American. This bill 
steps all over those property rights.
  We offered a total of 13 amendments, and we would have probably 
accepted 5 or 6, with less than an hour debate on each one of them. We 
could have been finished with this bill. We could have accomplished it 
last Thursday or Friday. But because we don't want to have to take 
tough votes or we want to protect a Member from a vote on some piece of 
pork that was put in a bill, we have decided to have no votes, no 
debate on any amendment will be the standard for this body. It is not a 
good day for the Senate. More importantly, it is a terrible day for 
this country because we are saying that, even though we have great hope 
and promise of change by an incoming President, his own party is going 
to step on that--the careerists, the people who think politically only, 
the people who think short term only about political gain, instead of 
thinking about what is in the best long-term interests of our country.
  It is interesting to know we have 108 million acres of wilderness in 
this country right now--more than anywhere else in the world. That 
number is actually greater than the amount of developed land we have in 
this country, which is 106 million acres. It is also interesting to 
know the Government already owns 653 million acres, and we are going to 
take, at a minimum, another 2.2 million acres and totally wall it off--
can't ride a dirt bike through it, minimal access, can't hunt on it, 
can't do the things you have always done. If you happen to be 
unfortunate enough to have property next to it, you fall peril to 
having the National Park Service fund organizations that are going to 
take your property rights away, to limit your ability on the land you 
have that is abutting these areas.
  As we come into next week, we approach the celebration of a very 
great milestone in our country, something that speaks volumes about the 
American system: the installment and swearing in of the first African-
American President, one who leads on these issues while we in the 
Senate say we are going to keep doing it the way we have been doing it 
regardless of the tremendous hope that he brought to the American 
people, the hope for change, that we would operate differently. We hope 
he will lead a Government that operates differently--and I believe he 
will try. He is a very dear friend of mine. I believe he is going to 
try to do that as here we sit in the Senate, worrying about the 
political consequences of taking a few votes on amendments because we 
might not look good enough at home.
  Talk about the lack of courage; talk about the decline that will be 
manifested in our country if we continue to have leadership that 
operates on the basis of fear instead of courage.
  My challenge and my hope is that this is the last time we are going 
to see this tactic brought forward in the Senate. My pledge to the 
majority leader is I will not delay anything if I get an opportunity to 
amend it. But if I get no opportunity to amend it, I will delay 
everything because the lack of an opportunity to amend says that over 
half of the people in this country, the 160 million who are represented 
by my side of the aisle, have no voice in the matter. It says, if we 
don't get it, our voice doesn't count.
  I look forward with great hope to the leadership we are going to see 
at the other end of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. My prayer is that the 
leadership in this body can come up to the same level of character and 
courage that I believe we will see demonstrated at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                  TARP

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity of sharing 
some thoughts this afternoon. We are going to be moving forward, 
presumably even this week, with the second tranche. That is the second 
portion of $350 billion of the Wall Street bailout, the TARP money.
  And we will have that coming up, and there will be an attempt to move 
that through. I have believed from the beginning that it was unwise for 
this Congress to allow one individual, the Secretary of Treasury, to 
disburse $700 billion. The way this is set up, and even with the way 
the votes might occur in Congress, is very troubling. The whole $700 
billion will be spent by the two Secretaries of Treasury, without any 
real accountability, without any real responsibility.
  I think Congress is beginning to see the lack of wisdom that we 
displayed, the lack of fidelity to the responsibilities of the Senate, 
when we passed that bill with so little control. We do not even know 
where the money is going, and whether Secretary Paulson, who is a Wall 
Street guru, is moving money around among friends for friendship 
reasons, or meritorious reasons, or even if he can tell in this rush-
rush effort to put out money, who is deserving and who is not 
deserving. It is not being done in an open and transparent way.
  It is an indication and further proof that we in the Senate and the 
Congress were not rigorous enough when we passed it. I would add one 
more thing about that. It is something we ought not to forget. I hoped 
not to bring it up, but Secretary Paulson announced that he was going 
to buy toxic mortgages, bad mortgages from banks, in

[[Page 527]]

order to get those off their books. He said that most of them would be 
good and eventually they could be sold for a profit and the taxpayers 
would not lose any money, and that would be the way we would do this.
  Well, within a week--and he was specifically asked at one hearing if 
he thought we should buy stock in private banks, and he said, no. 
Within a week or so, he had already changed his mind on that. Instead 
of buying toxic mortgages, he was now going to buy stock in private 
American companies. And, in fact, he has now spent over $100 billion in 
one company, AIG, the insurance company.
  AIG is competing with other American companies. How should they feel, 
I ask you, that the U.S. Government is now providing $100 billion-plus 
to their competitors? What about the banks who did things right and 
were cautious and managed their money well? How should they feel about 
the Government injecting capital into their competitors by buying 
stock?
  And what about those of us who are not of the socialist bend? What 
should we think about the idea of the U.S. Government buying stock in a 
multitude of banks, at tens of billions of dollars, and now buying and 
investing in automobile companies? Someone said the newspapers are 
next. Well, I guess they are in trouble. They are not doing well 
financially. They can write a lot of editorials. I mean, maybe we ought 
to make them happy and give them money. What I am saying is, where does 
it end?
  Out of that background, I want to have a little discussion of the 
possibility of a stimulus bill that would add some $800 billion to the 
current level of deficit spending we already have. $800 billion.
  There is no doubt that our economy is not performing well. We know 
that economies historically are cyclical; they go through good times 
and bad times. They normally respond. We are clearly going through a 
very difficult recessionary period. The unemployment rate is 
increasing, and businesses are struggling. We had a hearing before the 
Budget Committee last Thursday. The Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office testified, and he predicted that this would be a 2-year 
recession. Someone later asked him: Well, did that include the stimulus 
package? And he said, no.
  Well, would the stimulus package help? Spending another $800 billion, 
would that help? He said: Well, it might. That is a little less than a 
ringing endorsement. He did not say that if we did not pass this bill 
the economy would never recover and we would continue on a downward 
spiral forever. So I would say that.
  But I do think the Government can play a positive role in helping to 
shorten the length of the recession that we are in.
  There are some things I am prepared to discuss and see if we can 
agree on. I know President-elect Obama feels very strongly about this. 
He has been out campaigning, and he made promises to do all he could to 
recover this economy. He intends to do something, and he promised to do 
something. He is going to do something.
  Now, President Bush has already done some things that I also did not 
approve of. Doing something can be good. But doing something may not be 
so good if you do the wrong things. So I am aware that the new 
administration wants our country to prosper, and so do I. If there are 
reasonable, commonsense steps we can take to do that, I say let us do 
so without delay.
  But I want to share some thoughts with you about the fundamental 
truths that I think all of us in this country know, and especially the 
area where I come from. One of them is that there is no free lunch. 
Nobody can get a lunch and say someone did not have to work to put it 
on the table. There is nothing free. When something is given, somebody 
pays for it.
  There is another thing that is a truism: one way or the other, debts 
have to be repaid.
  You say: Well, you know, sometimes people go bankrupt, you do not get 
paid back. But the whole system is damaged when debts are not paid 
back. The next guy may have to pay higher interest rates because his 
neighbor did not pay his debts and the bank lost money and the bank has 
got to charge higher interest rates to account for that higher risk.
  So there are costs out there, and nothing is free in this country. I 
wish to focus on this question first. What is the best thing we can do 
for America in the long run? What should we, the responsible Senate, 
where we're supposed to be the saucer that cools, what should we do and 
how should we approach this issue?
  Let's be frank. The stimulus bill, the recovery bill as some are 
calling it now, may well provide some stimulus to the country. I am not 
sure. But I would say this: at its face, it is a spending bill. It 
spends money in order to create projects that might create jobs, and 
this is the theory behind the effort to stimulate the economy.
  We spend the money to try to create jobs. So it relies on the theory 
that ramping up government spending will flood the country with money, 
$800 billion worth, acting like a booster shot for a sick economy.
  This is not a new theory. It has been tried before all over the 
world. Many economists say this type of spending-stimulus simply does 
not work. They have cited examples of it throughout history.
  President Bush tried it in February last year, less than a year ago, 
when he began the process to send out a $600 check. I think there is a 
general consensus now that the plan that was sold to Congress as a 
stimulus for the economy did not have the desired effect.
  I wish it were not so. I wish it had. I would point out that I did 
not think at the time that it would work. I did not vote for it. There 
were not many of us who did not vote for it, but I was one of the few. 
But it did not work, in my opinion. It cost $168 billion. Every penny 
of that $168 billion, since we were in a deficit and it was new 
spending on top of what we planned to spend, and we knew we were there, 
is a deficit added to the deficit. As a result, it basically, in one 
piece of legislation, doubled the annual deficit last year.
  Then we had some more spending that went on later on in the year. I 
will show this chart in a minute that sort of dramatizes where we are.
  So I would say both parties have some fingerprints on some policies 
that have not been very helpful. We did not ask enough tough questions 
when President Bush proposed his agenda, and we also did not ask enough 
questions when they passed the $700 billion bailout in October, in my 
opinion. I hope we do not make the mistake again of rushing to approve 
the second phase of that along with this $800 billion stimulus package.
  We need to ask the right questions. We should not be intimidated by 
it. We should not be panicked. The bill does not have to be passed in 1 
day, or else the country is going to be permanently damaged. We need to 
try to improve the economy without wasting money or creating long-term 
problems for the Nation.
  So there is this effort to continue what Secretary Paulson promoted, 
a rhetoric that says we have got to do something and we have got to do 
it in a hurry. We have got to do it now. We are still hearing that. 
Well, I think we don't need to be afraid to say, let's slow this down a 
little bit.
  When something of such historic proportions is on the table, a bill 
of this magnitude, the Senate has a responsibility to carefully 
scrutinize it and to insist on accountability and responsibility of 
every single dime. That is why we exist. That is why taxpayers send us 
here. Someone has to ask the tough questions. I do not want to dampen 
anybody's spirits. We have a wonderful new President. He has a positive 
attitude. He is proposing a lot of things and nobody wants to ask a lot 
of grim questions.
  I am going to ask a few, though, because it is my duty to do so. 
First, how big is this plan? How much will it cost? We have heard some 
general numbers. It has been stated, although we still haven't seen any 
details, that it might be between $800 billion and $1.3 trillion, which 
is one thousand three hundred billion dollars. That is a lot of money. 
It would be the single largest Government expenditure of all time. 
Consider

[[Page 528]]

the enormity of a trillion dollars. It is the equivalent of paying for 
the Korean, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf wars at once.
  Then, my next question is: Where will the $800 billion to $1.3 
trillion come from? Where will we get it?
  As I indicated, we are in a deficit now. So we are talking about 
spending another $800-plus billion. Where does it come from? We will 
have to borrow every single penny of it from whomever will lend us the 
money, private investors or foreign countries. We have been depending, 
frankly, too much on foreign countries. We didn't budget for this $800 
billion. We don't have any money in the bank that we can get and pay 
for it. We don't have any savings we can draw on. All $1 trillion will 
have to be borrowed. Since loans have to be repaid and you have to pay 
people to borrow their money--that is what borrowing money is, you 
borrow it from somebody or some country, and they are not going to give 
the money for nothing--you have to pay them interest. Every bit of it 
will have to be paid back. Every American over the years, for 
generations to come, will have to sacrifice to pay off the debt we 
incur today.
  The United States is, indeed, deeply in debt already, about $10.6 
trillion. My generation probably will not be the one to pay most of 
that back, nor will even our children. It will probably be our 
grandchildren who will begin to feel the heavy burden of this debt. We 
should consider that.
  Then I will ask this question: What impact will the Obama plan have 
on the Federal deficit and the national debt? This spending program, 
virtually all of it, will increase the deficit, which is the difference 
between the money the Government takes in each year and what we spend. 
We spend more than we take in, so we have a deficit right now. To fund 
that deficit, we borrow money. Each year we have been running a 
deficit, and each year the deficit gets added to the total national 
debt. One might ask: How do these deficits and debts affect me? Well, 
when politicians are responsible and deficits are kept small as a 
percentage of the gross domestic product, we probably don't notice the 
impact. Interest rates remain low, and debt payments are easier to 
make. But when we have a sustained and systemic habit of growing 
deficits, the United States becomes a riskier investment for people who 
might like to loan us money. Interest rates will go up, and more debt 
at higher interest rates means the taxpayers have to pay a larger 
percentage of GDP towards interest on the debt. The most likely way 
those high payments would be met is by a tax hike. I am not sure that 
is the most likely, but one way those higher interest payments and 
higher debt payments will have to be paid back might be a tax hike.
  In 2004, President Bush was criticized because, under his tenure 
after 9/11, after the economic slowdown, he had a big stimulus package, 
and it led to a deficit of $412 billion. He was savaged for a $412 
billion deficit. I thought he did deserve criticism for that. Although 
it is not well known to most Americans, some work was done in the next 
years to bring that deficit down. By 2007, it was down to $160 billion, 
a lot better than $412 billion. That amounted to 1.2 percent of the 
gross domestic product.
  This chart reflects that. We had a $413 billion deficit in 2004. This 
was the largest deficit since World War II. President Bush was roundly 
criticized for it. A lot of people felt strongly about it. The next 
year the deficit dropped to $318 billion; the next year, it was 248. 
The year before last, 2007, it dropped to $161 billion. We were heading 
in the right direction.
  Then we had the economic slowdown. Those things have a number of 
different ramifications, one of which is, when the economy slows down, 
people don't make as much money, so they don't pay as much taxes. So we 
lost about $200 billion; we expect to lose about $166 billion in 
revenue this year, according to the CBO, as a result of the slowdown. 
But last year, including the $160 billion stimulus package, sending out 
checks, the deficit jumped to $455 billion, the highest we have had 
since World War II as a percentage of the gross domestic product. That 
is a huge number.
  We had a hearing last Thursday with the Congressional Budget Office 
Acting Director. A longtime professional budgeteer by the name of Mr. 
Sunshine did a fabulous job, but his remarks weren't so bright and 
encouraging. The Congressional Budget Office projects that even without 
any stimulus package, under current law, the deficit this fiscal year, 
the one we are already in--we passed the first quarter of it, and it 
ends on September 30 of this year--will be $1.2 trillion. Remember, 
last year it was $455 billion, the highest ever. This year we are 
looking at $1.2 trillion. Senator Conrad, chairman of the Budget 
Committee and a Democratic leader in the Senate, a good American, 
called that number jaw dropping. What else can one say?
  That does not even include the stimulus package. If we add the 
numbers as proposed in the stimulus package, according to Mr. Sunshine, 
that will reach almost $1.8 trillion. So we are talking about a deficit 
more than three times the largest amount ever. It may sound fine as a 
businessman. I heard today a very prominent American businessman on Joe 
Scarborough's show. They asked him about spending and the deficit. He 
said: Well, we have to do it. They asked: Isn't this going to create 
financial problems in the future? And the only answer he could give 
was: Well, we will worry about that later.
  I think it is a little late to worry about spending an extra $800 
billion. It is a little late to worry about it later. We need to worry 
about it when we, the entity responsible for appropriating money, are 
deciding how much to appropriate and for what purpose. We ought to be 
thinking about it now, before we vote. This includes some of the 
expenditures for the TARP that they project. That is the $700 billion 
bailout and some other things, some of which are one-time expenditures. 
They project next year the deficit will be $871 billion. It might look 
like we made progress, but $871 billion is twice what this number is, 
almost. The next year, 2011, it will $572 billion.
  Those numbers still are not the full number because they do not 
include, for example, about $40 billion a year for the alternative 
minimum tax fix and several other things. So these are numbers based on 
existing law, and each year we have not allowed the alternative minimum 
tax to go up. There are other things we extend each year. It does not 
include extensions of the current Bush tax cuts which would expire in 
2010. He is not projecting they will be extended, but some of them, I 
am sure, will be. Those numbers are correct, technically, but in 
reality they are going to be larger, in all probability.
  This deficit, almost $1.8 trillion, amounts to 8.3 percent of the 
entire value of the American economy, the gross domestic product. That 
would be the highest in real dollar numbers maybe ever. As a percentage 
of the economy, it is the highest since we were in a life-and-death 
struggle in World War II, with millions of soldiers deployed all over 
the world putting their lives on the line for this country. We were 
building airplanes and ships and tanks with all the capacity this 
Nation had.
  Today Mr. Sunshine told us the debt payment we are paying each year 
out of tax receipts is $200 billion just to pay the interest on the 
money we already owe. Let me say a little bit about that. Interest 
rates are oddly at a very low rate today. It is inevitable, though, 
that people will stop loaning money to anybody, the U.S. Government or 
anybody else, for 1 or 2 percent. They are going to demand higher 
interest rates. That is what is going to happen.
  The CBO predicts that interest rate amount will balloon in a few 
years to $450 billion a year annually. So the Congressional Budget 
Office says, as a result of our profligate spending and huge deficits, 
we now are heading in a few years to a point where we will be spending 
$450 billion a year only on interest. I ask, how big is $450 billion?
  I will give a couple examples to provide perspectives that are fair 
to consider. The 5 years of the Iraq war cost $500 billion. We are 
creating a permanent interest rate payment every year

[[Page 529]]

that will have to be paid by our children, by our constituents. Our 
constituents today will be paying $450 billion every year, just on 
interest, because we had to spend so much today and last year for 
responses to crises I am not sure justified this kind of spending.
  I certainly think many of our programs deserve to be reformed, 
eliminated, or increased in efficiency, and a lot of savings could 
occur. We have not been doing that. All we have been doing is spending 
more and more, adding to our debt.
  Madam President, $450 billion is the equivalent, as I said, of the 
Iraq war. It is about one-third of the discretionary spending for our 
country every year. My recollection is that our general fund 
discretionary spending, including the Department of Defense, is about 
$1.5 trillion. I think that includes the $200 billion or so for 
interest now. So that number goes up to $450 billion. It would be about 
a third of that amount.
  We spend more on Social Security and Medicare and entitlement 
programs. That is on a separate accountability factor. But just on the 
Defense Department, Homeland Security, our salaries, highways, 
everything we spend money on--our interest on the debt would be that 
high. It is not a little bitty matter. It is a big deal.
  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that by 2019, the share of 
Federal expenditures allocated to debt payments will increase from 6 
percent to 13 percent of the entire economy. That does not include the 
stimulus plan the President will be sending to us.
  So the next question. A trillion dollars is a staggering sum of money 
to borrow and pay back with interest. How do we know it will be spent 
in the most efficient way to jump-start our economy and get the most 
productivity for the taxpayers?
  Well, the truth is, we do not. We know this proposal will have two 
components. The so-called tax credits and direct spending. Now, I have 
to tell you, a good bit of this tax cut is temporary and a good bit of 
it is a sales job. Tax cuts, tax credit: What does that mean? Well, 
some say 40 percent of that will go to people who do not pay taxes. So 
how do you get a tax cut if you do not pay taxes? The Government sends 
you a check from the Treasury just as they did last spring. They got 
$600. So you get a check from Uncle Sam that is supposed to stimulate 
things and somehow help the economy.
  The Congressional Budget Office, really under the supervision of the 
Congress--and the Congress is under the control of our Democratic 
colleagues; they have the majority now--the CBO rightfully scores these 
provisions not as a tax cut but as direct spending. What else can it 
be? It is a direct spending of taxpayers' money to send individuals a 
check to make them happier for the short term. What kind of long-term 
impact will there be on them, their children, and the economy in the 
years to come? What will this unwise prospect create?
  The Wall Street Journal has pointed out many of these ideas are 
temporary and that temporary tax cuts do not result in positive 
economic behavior. But a more permanent change, when people know it is 
permanent, does have more of an impact in helping our economy.
  Permanent tax relief, including--I have to say, please, do not think 
this is a way to pander to big business. But the corporate tax rate in 
America is one of the highest in the world: 35 percent. In Ireland, I 
think it is 11 percent. Most European nations--only one or two nations 
have as high a tax rate on the corporate community, which gets passed 
on as a cost of doing business and makes those corporations less 
competitive in the world marketplace.
  We would be in a lot better shape if we could reduce that in a more 
permanent way. Then those companies could see, well, I am saving on my 
corporate tax rate. I will not have to lay off as many people. I can 
keep this company going. Maybe we can invest and be more competitive 
when we export because I do not have as much of a burden on me, and it 
would help this economy. So I want to say many economists truly believe 
the corporate tax is not that, if reduced, would actually encourage 
economic growth and create more jobs.
  So we know that just rapid expenditures of huge amounts of money have 
never been a very effective way to grow the economy. Are these spending 
programs--this $800 billion plus--is that going to end cold turkey in 2 
years? I have doubts about it. I want to tell you, I have my doubts 
about the wisdom of our idea that we can jump-start the economy by 
pumping $800 billion into it.
  So they are talking about--you have heard these numbers--well, we are 
going to spend a good bit of money on the infrastructure. Everybody 
likes highways. Everybody knows they are there for generations to come. 
Highways and bridges have good things that can be said about them and 
can make our lives better. There is always a line formed whenever there 
is highway money with people wanting to build more highways and more 
bridges. Currently, the Federal Government, which spends a lot of money 
on highways, spends, according to Mr. Sunshine, around $40 billion a 
year on highways. OK. States match it on a 20-percent basis; 80 percent 
Federal, States 20 percent. In some areas it is 90 percent Federal, 10 
percent State. We use this matching mechanism to fund highway 
construction in this country, and it amounts to $40 billion a year.
  We are talking about $300 billion in 2 years? You take the $300 
billion, and cut it in two, that is $150 billion each year. So now we 
go from $40 billion a year for highways to $150 billion? Well, let's 
say you only spend $100 billion on it. With $200 billion, that is $100 
billion more per year for highways, 2\1/2\ times what we are currently 
spending.
  I would suggest those kinds of figures are unrealistic. When the 
chips are down, I doubt we are going to see anything like that much 
money being allocated to highways because it cannot be spent. There are 
not enough asphalt mixers, there are not enough concrete mixers, there 
are not enough dump trucks to actually spend that much money. That is a 
fact. You cannot triple the amount of work. And if you do, the bid per 
mile and the cost per mile is going to go way up. There is going to be 
a shortage dealing with everything in construction.
  We simply cannot throw money at road construction and infrastructure. 
It has to be understood that since some of this is dropping off as a 
result of economic slowdowns, we can put that back on, and maybe a 
little on top, and keep this thing going at a more healthy rate. That 
may be possible, and I am willing to discuss that. But we ought not to 
sell the stimulus package that is being discussed that somehow the 
biggest chunk of it is going to get spent on highways. Right? So $800 
billion. Maybe $30 billion a year extra; so $60 billion out of $800. So 
$740 billion. Where is the rest of it going to be spent to stimulate 
the economy, I ask? ``Shovel ready'' they say. I do not know what that 
means. But I know you could not start off in the next few months and 
triple the number of highways built in America. There are not enough 
engineers. There is not enough heavy equipment. There is not enough 
material to do that. If you were to even try, it would drive up the 
cost, and so we would spend a lot of money, a lot more. We would make 
it much more expensive per mile to build highways in America. We have 
to be careful about that.
  Well, they also talk about how there is going to be more money in 
this bill for the automobile companies, and maybe a bailout for State 
governments. They need more money too, don't they? So why doesn't the 
Federal Government--which sort of prints money--why don't we bail out 
our good friends at the State level? Unemployment insurance is going to 
need to be expanded. And some are talking about expanding broadband, 
and, of course, hiring an additional 600,000 Government employees. That 
is part of what is being discussed here.
  As the Washington Post said, of course, many of these items were 
featured in President-elect Barack Obama's campaign pledges. There was 
a fine column by Mr. E. J. Dionne, who is openly a good, liberal 
columnist and has been a pro-Obama writer throughout. Mr. Dionne said 
it has been rather

[[Page 530]]

fortunate for the Obama campaign that he can utilize--and I am 
paraphrasing now, but I think this is close to the heart of what he 
said--it is very fortunate for President-elect Obama that all the 
spending he promised can now be justified, and they can call it a 
bailout or a stimulus package and not just a big spending program.
  So I think we have to ask questions about that. Can we justify this? 
Fundamentally, every dollar we spend as part of regular Government 
spending programs or this stimulus program should result in an 
effective return to the taxpayers. We have no money to waste. We are in 
a time of unprecedented, incredible deficits. We ought not to waste a 
single dollar. Cannot we all agree on that?
  Finally, my question would be, how will we Americans pay the trillion 
dollars back? There are three ways: cutting spending in the future. I 
do not hear anybody saying we need to be cutting spending, not on the 
majority side here. We talk about education, health care, highways, 
expanding the number of military personnel. All these things cost 
money. I do not see any realistic prospect we will see any huge 
reduction in spending, I have to tell you.
  You could raise taxes. But I do not like raising taxes. I have tried 
to oppose that throughout my career. President-elect Obama says he 
wants to give everybody a tax break. Who is going to raise taxes in any 
significant way? Oh, you can tax the rich and get a little out of them 
when the economy is doing pretty good. When the economy goes down and 
the rich income drops dramatically, the country's tax revenue also 
drops dramatically. So I do not think we are going to get a lot of 
money from that.
  One way for it to happen and would be a result more pernicious than 
many have thought about would be where we would basically debase the 
currency. We would weaken the value of the dollar. So you borrow $100 
billion from somebody, and you pay them back $100 billion, but you 
printed a lot more dollars, so the dollars they get paid back are less 
valuable than the ones they gave you when you borrowed it. That is a 
pretty slick deal, isn't it? That is what you call inflation. There are 
huge ramifications from that kind of policy that are very damaging to 
the long-term health of America. We do not need to debase our currency. 
That is why the price of gold jumped. People get scared the dollar is 
not going to be worth anything.
  So I think the debate we are about to begin is really about 
individual responsibility and governmental responsibility. We do need 
to resist the cries of many who have self-interests in this stimulus 
package.
  I heard one prominent businessman make a speech recently. He said: We 
are going after this money. Well, if we put it out there, every 
business is going to go after it and be happy to get it. So we have to 
be responsible. We need to scrutinize it. We need to act in the long-
term interests of America.
  I believe Congress so far has not done well in responding to the 
economic crisis we are going through. I think everybody pretty well 
universally has agreed that the $160 billion send-out-the-checks 
program did not benefit the economy. I heard a group of well-known 
economists recently agree that the first $350 billion--remember, the 
entire Iraq war has cost us $500 billion--that $350 billion in the 
first tranche of money that has gone out has not helped the economy. So 
I think we have to be careful. I hope Congress will not fail our 
constituents again, by making sure that the fiscal illness we are 
living with now does not damage our children.
  I know people are hurting. I know people are worried that their job 
might not exist in the months to come. If you are working at the 
clothing store, I am not sure some of these jobs are going to be that 
helpful to you. But at any rate, that is the kind of thing we are 
dealing with. People are worried. We are going through a serious 
downturn. As the CBO expert told us, we are going to come out of this 
in 2 years, in his opinion--and he was firm about it--whether we did 
anything or not. He said a stimulus package might help. Another member 
of the panel said, well, it should help, but neither one said it was 
critical to us coming out of the recession.
  So whatever we do, whatever monies we spend--and I am not against 
every idea for stimulating the economy--let's just be sure it is 
productive. Approving $1 trillion in deficit spending could do more 
harm than good if we don't do it right.
  It is time that we as a Nation stop living beyond our means. We need 
to get our house in order. We need to know there is no free lunch; that 
debts will have to be repaid one way or the other--raising taxes, 
cutting spending in the future, debasing the currency. That is 
basically the way we can reduce the debt, and those are the only ways 
we can. We are putting a burden to the future. I know some money 
invested now might make a positive difference. Let's talk about that 
and let's see what we can do. But the numbers being floated out and the 
rapidity with which the program is being proposed creates in my mind a 
great danger that much of the money will not be stimulative, as it has 
failed to be in the past, and that much of it will not produce the kind 
of tangible benefit to which the taxpayers are entitled.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.


                   Congratulating the Florida Gators

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the task happily falls to 
some of us Senators each year in which we can chronicle the success of 
the national champion in college football. Of course, there were tens 
of millions of Americans watching TV last Thursday night as the No. 1 
and No. 2 teams ranked in the country in college football played for 
the BCS National Championship. Of course, in that game, with two high-
powered offenses, the University of Florida Gators prevailed.
  I will be offering a resolution for the Senate to pass to present to 
the University of Florida and to its coach and to the team. They will 
be coming here for the traditional visit to the White House to visit 
with the President later on this year. I am joined--although the Senate 
rules prohibit Albert the Alligator from appearing on the floor of the 
Senate, and as my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, over there is 
giving the Gator chomp, the University of Alabama rolling tide having 
been the victims of the Gator chomp in the SEC championship game--I 
make note that Albert the Alligator, the University of Florida's 
mascot, is safely ensconced back in the cloakroom since the alligator 
is not allowed onto the floor of the Senate. But all of us are 
celebrating this tremendous victory.
  I also wish to mention that since the BCS National Championship 
rotates among the major bowls, this year it was the turn for the Orange 
Bowl to have not only the Orange Bowl on January 1 but then the 
national championship game. The entire Orange Bowl Committee, of which 
the two Senators from Florida are privileged to be ex-officio members, 
had conducted such a magnificent event, had done it with great aplomb 
and excellence, great hospitality to the two teams involved, to the 
university administrations, and it was all around a very positive 
experience.
  For the national champion Gators, I wish to quote a couple of 
articles. From the columnist Greg Cote and the Miami Herald:

       The Gators flat-out won this game and this title, and all 
     the more impressively because it was less by quarterback Tim 
     Tebow's magic (though he was voted game MVP) than by his 
     defense defusing the other team's epic offense.

  Then I quote from the columnist of the Gainesville Sun, Robbie 
Andreu:

       The Florida Gators apparently were right after all. 
     Oklahoma obviously had not seen a defense like Florida's this 
     season. And Tim Tebow? There's no way he is the fourth-best 
     quarterback in the Big 12. With the defense coming up with 
     critical stops when it had to, and with Tebow, Percy Harvin 
     and the offense generating points when the game was on the 
     line, the Gators were clutch in the second half and beat the 
     Sooners 24-14 Thursday night at Dolphin Stadium to give 
     Florida its third national championship, and second in three 
     years.

  Coach Meyer is quoted:


[[Page 531]]

       This is one of the best teams in the history of college 
     football.

  So we celebrate that.
  Now, since we are dealing with these weighty problems and here we are 
taking up a stimulus bill--we are taking up this TARP legislation this 
week--it is good to have a little levity. Indeed, before this game, I 
went to the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, and I said: Would you 
like to have a little friendly wager?
  What we decided was that the losing team's Senator would sing a song 
in front of the winning Senator's constituents, and we agreed in 
advance that the songs would be that I would sing ``Oklahoma'' if the 
Sooners won, and Senator Coburn would sing ``Rocket Man'' by Elton 
John--a favorite of this Senator--if the Gators won.
  So next Wednesday, 2 days from now, circa noontime, we are going to 
have a gathering of Florida constituents for Senator Coburn and me. I 
suggested to Senator Coburn that I would even graciously sing a few 
bars of ``Oklahoma.'' Also, if he couldn't follow the words--and we are 
going to play ``Rocket Man'' for him--if he couldn't follow the words, 
clearly we could sing a few bars of the Florida alma matur, the Florida 
fight song, ``We Are The Boys From Old Florida.''
  It is good to have this levity. It is good to have a wholesome sport 
that is uniquely American that we can get enthused about. It is good 
that we have athletics that add so much to a university setting, that 
bring out more of a university personality in addition to the studies, 
the academics, and the research we are so privileged to have in our 
American universities.
  So, indeed, this Senator is here to say: All hail, Florida, which 
comes from the alma matur. All hail, Florida. This time, again, the 
Gators are the national champions.
  Madam President, 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.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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.
  The Senator from Michigan.


                           Economic Stimulus

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this 
evening to respond to some of the comments that we have been hearing 
from colleagues on the other side of the aisle expressing great concern 
about the spending of a recovery package for America, as we are talking 
about today.
  I find it quite extraordinary when I hear colleagues talking about 
objecting to spending Federal dollars right now--Federal dollars that 
would add to the deficit--given where we have come from in the last 8 
years. I find it quite extraordinary.
  I remember back when I was in the House of Representatives, serving 
with the distinguished Presiding Officer, when in 1997 we took some 
very tough votes and did a lot of hard work under President Clinton. 
Actually, we balanced the budget for the first time in 30 years. That 
put us on a course to eliminate the deficit, to strengthen the country, 
to create the right kinds of priorities for the American people.
  As a result of that action, in 2001, when I came into the Senate as a 
new member of the Budget Committee, we were debating what to do with 
the biggest surplus in American history, $5.7 trillion. How should we 
address the largest surplus we had seen in the Federal budget. At the 
time, the Democrats on the committee proposed that we divide that 
surplus into three parts: one, for tax cuts geared to the middle class; 
two, for investments to create jobs, invest in education, and future 
opportunities; and three, to help strengthen Social Security. That was 
rejected. Instead, as we all know now, a very large supply-side tax 
cut, trickle-down economics, was passed. My constituents, in January 
2009, are still waiting for it to trickle down to their pockets. But 
that was put in place, which began a process that has now led us to the 
highest deficits in the history of the country in just 8 years. That 
was coupled with a war that was not paid for, over $10 billion a month, 
and certainly the most important thing has been the loss of life. Then 
we saw just at the end of the year an effort to provide $700 billion in 
what has been dubbed the bailout of Wall Street--to date, I suggest, 
not very effective and at times outrageous in terms of what has 
happened with that money.
  So it is not that the Federal Government has to spend money, it is 
not that colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not supported 
spending. They supported spending for 8 years. The question is, What 
are we going to spend it on and for whom? Many Americans have seen 
their standard of living go down, their jobs go away, their houses go 
away, their opportunities go away, while some have done very well under 
a particular kind of spending over the last 8 years. What I suggest is 
this is not about whether we spend or invest or use Federal dollars; it 
is about our values and priorities. In whom are we going to invest? 
Where are we going to spend the dollars? I have had so many people in 
Michigan say to me, with all the debates going on: Where is my bailout? 
I am sure you heard that, Mr. President: Where is my bailout? Small 
business owners: Where is my bailout? Individuals. I suggest what we 
are debating is the American people bailout, the investment in America.
  The people of this country have resoundingly rejected the policies of 
the last 8 years that have gotten us to where we are today. That is 
what elections are about. People have said very loudly: We don't want 
the same policies; we don't want the same people espousing the same 
policies going forward as we have seen in the last 8 years.
  Where have those policies over the last 8 years gotten us? Over the 
last 8 years, we have not seen a commitment to manufacturing in this 
country. Some people say that is only a narrow special interest for a 
certain number of States in the country. I suggest it is a foundation 
of the middle class in this country. The fact that we have lost 4.1 
million manufacturing jobs due to the policies of the last 8 years--
750,000 of those jobs just last year--that totally relates to where we 
are in terms of jobs in this country, what is happening in this 
country, and what is happening to middle-class people. The economic 
activity in the manufacturing sector has fallen to its lowest level in 
60 years. That absolutely equates to the challenges we are currently 
having in this economy.
  In 2008, 2.6 million jobs just in general were lost, the worst year 
since 1945--8 years of policies put forward by the current 
administration and supported by many people who have been on the floor 
since we came back into session arguing we should not do something 
different; we should not try a different kind of investment policy; we 
should not focus on jobs in America, the middle class, and so on; we 
should keep doing it the way we have been doing it. That is basically 
what we are hearing on the floor, the same kinds of things that have 
gotten us to these numbers--1 million jobs lost last month. Last month, 
1 million Americans. As of December, 11.1 million people were 
unemployed. And we wonder why they cannot pay their mortgages and their 
homes are going into foreclosure. The jobless rate is the highest in 16 
years, and we know it is not going to get better quickly. We know at 
least the first half of this year--possibly the entire year--is going 
to be very tough. We know that. But common sense would say that we do 
not embrace the same policies that have gotten us to this point if we 
want to get out of the hole.
  It is exciting that next week we are going to swear in a wonderful 
new President who has policies, working with us, working with all of us 
together, that will stop digging the hole and begin to bring us out of 
the hole, even though we know it is a deep hole, and he has certainly 
stressed that, wisely, with the American people. We are going to begin 
to come out of this hole.
  Over and over again in the last week, we have been hearing colleagues 
objecting to a change in economic policy

[[Page 532]]

and proposing the same old thing. The same old thing has put us in a 
situation where the U.S. median home price fell 13 percent in the last 
year, which is the fastest pace since the 1930s. That is what the kinds 
of policies we are hearing on the other side of the aisle have 
achieved.
  Mr. President, 3,100 foreclosures happen every day. Today, as we have 
been in session, 3,100 families have seen their homes foreclosed upon. 
Tomorrow, there will be another 3,100 families; the next day, 3,100 
families. That is what the policies--action and inaction--of the last 8 
years have done. One in ten homeowners with a mortgage is either in 
foreclosure or delinquent on payments.
  Pension plans, if you are fortunate enough to have had a job, worked 
hard all your life, and put money into a pension--maybe you did not 
take a pay raise in order to make sure you had that pension--have 
suffered their steepest 1-year drop in 20 years. The average pension 
fund now is holding assets that would cover only about 75 percent of 
what had been promised to workers.
  I could go on and on with the numbers, and you know them as well. The 
good news is the American people have looked around at what has 
happened, the trickle-down economic policies of the last 8 years--the 
idea that we can't afford to invest in education for the future or 
health care or focus on jobs for the future--they have looked at those 
policies and said, no more, no more. We have had enough.
  So that brings us to this point, and we will have the opportunity in 
the next few weeks to bring forward an economic recovery plan that 
focuses in a very different way. If we are going to do tax cuts, we 
want tax cuts for middle-class families and those working hard to get 
into the middle class to benefit from those and that is the policy we 
will see coming forward.
  We are going to see policies that will create jobs rebuilding 
America. I have heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: 
Oh, my gosh, they want to not only talk about roads and bridges and 
water and sewer systems, but they want to talk about broadband--the 
idea of connecting rural communities and small businesses to the 
Internet so they can sell around the world, just like big business 
does. Oh, my goodness, you mean they want everybody to have access to 
the Internet, not just some people? Yes, that is true. We believe the 
new highway, the information highway, that power needs to be available 
to every child, to every small business, to every farmer at the end of 
the road. Just as we built the electricity systems, the telephone 
systems of the past, we need to make sure we are building for the 
future in America so everyone has access to these new technologies to 
have opportunity for jobs and income and education.
  I am also very involved in making sure we can computerize our health 
care system so we can cut costs from unnecessary paperwork; that we can 
also provide the very best quality of health care in every hospital, 
large and small, whether you live in a small rural area or an urban 
hospital is where you would go or a suburban hospital.
  We need to focus on jobs rebuilding America and reinvesting not only 
in the upfront construction jobs but in what that will mean to the 
assets that will be there afterwards, which is very much a part of this 
recovery plan. We know we want to see alternative energy jobs, and 
certainly I am very involved in the whole effort to create green jobs. 
I am very proud that last year in the budget resolution we included my 
green-collar jobs initiative, which now our new President-elect and his 
team are working to fund as a part of what we need to do to create the 
new battery technology. This is not just the research but to build the 
batteries here in the United States; and not only to have wind energy 
but to build the wind turbines here and create the jobs; and not only 
to have the solar power but to build the solar units or the solar 
panels, to have the equipment, to have the storage from the batteries 
all done here. That is a part of our vision for a recovery package for 
the future.
  Because I have been working so closely with advanced manufacturing in 
the auto industry, I know an interesting statistic is that if everyone 
had an electric car today--and we would certainly like that to happen 
from an environmental standpoint--we would blow up the electrical grid 
in this country, poof. We would be in deep trouble. So part of what we 
need to have happen is to upgrade so we have a better electric system 
to be able to handle those new vehicles. We need to create a new kind 
of infrastructure so that when you pull up in your vehicle, which would 
get 40 miles per--what shall I say? It is not 40 miles per gallon 
because it is not a gallon. It is 40 miles on the road to a charge. 
Wouldn't it be great to be able to pull up and charge it in a parking 
lot or at a parking meter as you went into the store?
  There are so many ways we need to build and rebuild America for this 
new technological world we are in, this new green alternative energy 
world we are in. That is our hope: Jobs, rebuilding America, and 
building for the future. We not only can achieve very important goals 
of energy independence and tackling in a real and meaningful way the 
serious issue of global warming, but we can create jobs in America, 
good-paying jobs in America. That is what this recovery plan does, and 
I am very excited to work with the incoming administration and to see 
their vision and their commitment to working with us.
  There are so many pieces of this that will be addressed. I will 
mention one other, and that is when I talked earlier about the numbers 
regarding unemployment and housing and pensions and what is happening 
to people, we have seen now close to a decade--8 years--of neglect, of 
not paying attention to those who have been hurt by the policies that 
have been in place. So it is very important that we, in fact, recognize 
that we have more people out of work than there are currently available 
jobs--people who have worked all their lives, people who want to work, 
who recognize the dignity of work but in the short run need some help. 
Part of this package needs to address this as well, whether it is 
unemployment insurance, whether it is food assistance, whether it is 
help with health care during a transition or whether it is addressing 
those who have lost their jobs because of trade. Those priorities 
represent the best of America and who we are, our real values and 
priorities as Americans, understanding that we are in a global economy 
and that transition, at best, even if everything was going well, even 
if every policy was going well, has created pain and suffering for 
those caught in the middle.
  Unfortunately, because of a series of policies, whether it is not 
enforcing our trade laws fairly, whether it is not addressing health 
care or seeing the cutbacks in education, and so on, too many people 
have been hurt and need some help. Too many people have been hurt in 
the last 8 years. So a very important part of this recovery plan as 
well is to make sure those families know we see them, we hear them; 
that, as Americans, we care about them and want to make sure they have 
the temporary assistance they need while we are creating these jobs in 
the new economy.
  There is a lot of work to do, as we all know, and I would conclude by 
saying that while we may not know how long it will take for us to move 
out of this deep hole we have been placed in, in terms of job loss and 
deficits, and so on, here is what we do know: The same thing has been 
tried for 8 years and things have only gotten worse every year. So 
those who would argue that we should have more of the same I think find 
themselves in a difficult position because the American people want 
change. They have voted for change, and they expect us to change the 
values and the priorities of this country so that we are, in fact, 
investing in our people and in a strong America again.
  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.

[[Page 533]]


  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture 
time on the wilderness bill be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the motion to proceed is agreed to.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 22) to designate certain land as components of 
     the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize 
     certain programs and activities in the Department of Interior 
     and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.


                            Amendment No. 15

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I now ask 
that the clerk report the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 15.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end insert the following:
       The provisions of this bill shall become effective 5 days 
     after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                  Amendment No. 16 to Amendment No. 15

  Mr. REID. I now call up my second-degree amendment which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 16 to amendment No. 15.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment strike ``5'' and insert ``4''.

  Mr. REID. I now move to commit the bill with instructions and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                            Amendment No. 17

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to commit.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the bill 
     to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with 
     instructions to report back forthwith with the following 
     amendment numbered 17:

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       This title shall become effective 3 days after enactment of 
     the bill.


                            Amendment No. 18

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment to the motion at the desk and I ask 
that it now be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 18 to the instructions of the motion to commit S. 
     22.

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

       In the amendment, strike ``3'' and insert ``2''.

  Mr. REID. I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                  Amendment No. 19 to Amendment No. 18

  Mr. REID. I now call up my second-degree amendment which is also at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 19 to amendment No. 18.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``2'' and insert ``1''.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  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 S. 22, the 
     Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009:
         Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Bernard Sanders, Jon Tester, Tom Harkin, 
           Kent Conrad, Byron L. Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Daniel K. Akaka, Ken Salazar, Mary L. 
           Landrieu, Ron Wyden, Patrick J. Leahy, Robert Menendez, 
           Bill Nelson.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum required under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________