Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12 - MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING S

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15559-15581]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 2009--CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2346.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate will resume consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 2346, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Conference report to accompany H.R. 2346, an act making
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, a motion to waive
all applicable points of order under rule XLIV is considered as having
been made by the majority leader.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, if it is appropriate, I ask unanimous
consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Health Care Reform

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, every year I hold a constituent
listening session, or townhall meeting, in every county in Wisconsin.
After 1,188 of those sessions, I have heard a lot from my constituents
on pretty much every issue you can imagine. But one issue in particular
stands out, as it has consistently been one of the top issues raised
throughout the past 17 years. That issue is, of course, health care.
Again and again--not just in listening sessions but in conversations
and phone calls and letters and e-mails--Wisconsinites have talked to
me about their struggles to obtain and afford health insurance
coverage. Their stories have stayed with me and have been the
foundation of my work to push for comprehensive health reform
throughout my career in the Senate.
As a freshman Senator, I worked to increase access to long-term care
and home and community-based services in the Wisconsin tradition during
the 1994 attempt at health reform because I knew how valuable these
programs were to my constituents. I continued to fight for real and
fair access to affordable prescription drugs by speaking up for seniors
during the debate on creating Medicare Part D. I ended up not voting
for Part D because I knew it would help pharmaceutical companies before
it helped seniors. For years I have tried to get the Senate to address
the issue that was foremost in the minds of my constituents.
Frustrated by the inaction, I teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham
to introduce legislation that sought to break the logjam blocking
health care reform legislation. While Senator Graham and I have had
very different ideas about how reform should look, we agreed further
delay was unacceptable. I know some of my colleagues are now arguing
that health care is being rushed through the Senate.
Well, that is not my experience, and I think the Wisconsinites who
have been talking about the need for reform for years would agree. That
is why I am so excited that the Senate is preparing to consider health
reform legislation, and I look forward to reviewing the bills the HELP
and Finance Committees are expected to report shortly.
As this debate goes forward, I remain committed to reforming our
health care system so every single American is guaranteed good,
affordable health care coverage.
Today, I wish to talk about one of the most important elements of any
reform, and that is a strong public health insurance option. Frankly, I
am disappointed this has become a topic of so much controversy because
it is such a fundamental part of making sure we provide the reform my
constituents and all Americans deserve. Some have even suggested
scrapping a public option in the interests of passing a bill with
bipartisan support. Well, I want to pass health care reform, and I hope
very much we can do it with bipartisan support, but I am not that
interested in passing health care reform in name only. I am not
interested in a bill that allows us to somehow tell our constituents we
have done something but doesn't address their concerns they have had
for so very long. We need real reform, and real reform means a strong
public option.
Americans want a health insurance option. According to a recent poll
by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, over three-fourths of those polled
said they would like the ability to choose between public and private
health insurance plans. Providing a public health insurance option does
not discriminate against those with preexisting conditions and
illnesses, and it will significantly improve the ability of people to
access health care.
There are millions of Americans who will tell us their current so-
called ``competitive'' market didn't work so well for them because they
were denied coverage from the outset, or they were given a benefit plan
that covers everything but the diseases they actually have. Health
insurance should not be a privilege, but in today's insurance market
that is actually what it is. Those who are healthy enough to be
approved for coverage, or wealthy enough to afford it, are too often
the privileged ones who receive health care. We must shift the
competition back to where it should be--on the health insurers
competing to provide better coverage at a more affordable rate.
A public health insurance option, if done right, will help shift the
insurance market so plans focus on what is best for the patient to
thrive instead of plans simply focused on the bottom line.
Just a few weeks ago, Geri Weitzel from Durand, WI, shared her story
with me. Geri's husband suffers from renal failure. His medicine costs
hundreds of dollars each month, and the family has thousands in medical
debt. Geri is doing her best to make ends meet for her family but
sometimes has to choose between paying the mortgage on their home or
her husband's medical care, without which he will die. Geri told me she
came to Washington to share her story because her husband ``is choosing
death over debt.'' She worries that they will lose their home, and they
have already lost their savings, but above all, she worries she will
lose her husband.
With a strong public health insurance option, we can help ensure that
Geri and her husband can afford policies that cover their medical bills
and can focus instead on getting well.
A strong public health insurance option is one the public can depend
on to be available, regardless of preexisting conditions, place of
residence, income, age, sex, health status, or job status. It is an
insurance option that will be focused on helping the sick get the
treatment they need instead of just turning the biggest profit for
shareholders. It is also an insurance option that will help the public
invest in wellness, disease prevention, primary care, and chronic
disease management. A public option will help ensure no matter what,
people have access to a health insurance plan that actually meets their
needs.
One of my priorities in the health care reform debate--and one of my
priorities throughout my whole time in

[[Page 15560]]

the Senate--has been fiscal responsibility. It is not enough to pass a
bill that expands coverage; we need to do so in a way that reins in
runaway health care spending and ensures taxpayer dollars are not
wasted. That is another reason we need a strong public health insurance
option: because it will help keep costs down for individuals, for
employers, and for the government.
Citizen Action Wisconsin estimates that a strong public health
insurance option operating in a health exchange could save Wisconsin
employers--both private and government--over $1.1 billion each year.
For the average Wisconsin family, currently paying around $13,500 a
year in health care premiums, this translates to a 33-percent savings,
lowering their premiums to just over $9,000 a year.
Now this is real savings. It would have made a big difference to
Danine Spencer of Rhinelander, WI. Danine has had a tough 4 years,
recovering from multiple conditions which doctors expected to leave her
a quadriplegic for life. Danine credits the medical professionals at
Froedert Hospital in Milwaukee with helping her reclaim her mobility
and, in many ways, her life. While Danine has already made incredible
progress, she still has a long way to go.
Fortunately, Danine qualified for disability and Medicaid benefits to
cover her medical costs, but she wants to be independent. She wrote me
a letter in which she said she ``wants to get off disability very, very
badly. I am horribly ashamed that I collect a government check every
month. But as it stands, I simply cannot afford private health
insurance.''
Danine writes that she has ``heard a public option health insurance
plan would sharply lower costs for people like me. Please put
everything you have into making sure it is part of the health care
reform bill.''
Danine has already overcome incredible challenges. She wants to
purchase health insurance but is denied that benefit by the existing
system. So a public health insurance option would help ensure that
Danine is guaranteed--guaranteed--affordable, high quality health care.
Too often Americans are at the mercy of the insurance companies when
it comes to paying premiums and out-of-pocket costs and deductibles.
While I commend the growing efforts of select insurers to increase
transparency, for the most part consumers have little idea how much
procedures cost, where premium dollars go, and whether they are truly
getting the best value for their dollar. A public health insurance
option would serve as a benchmark competitor for premiums,
administrative costs, and benefits packages.
A strong public health insurance option is consistent with a healthy
private market and effective private insurance plans. We have several
insurers that operate in my home State of Wisconsin that provide great
health coverage for their beneficiaries. Responsible insurers should
have no trouble competing with a public insurance option on the merits
of their plans, but a strong public health insurance option will
provide a powerful incentive for less responsible insurers to
reevaluate their own cost sharing and benefit plans to ensure that they
are actually an attractive option for consumers.
There is another benefit of a public health insurance option which
hits particularly close to home. My hometown of Janesville, WI, has one
of the highest unemployment rates in the State. Recently, our GM
assembly plant ceased production, and other related businesses
throughout the community are struggling to stay afloat during these
tough economic times. Of course, these challenges are shared by many
other communities across the State of Wisconsin. A public health
insurance option would be invaluable to families in Janesville and
other parts of the State who have recently been laid off because it is
a guaranteed, affordable option that can travel with an individual from
job to job.
A public health insurance option would also make a tremendous
difference to our small business owners who face crippling health care
costs while trying to keep their business open.
Health care reform cannot wait. The President has said he wants a
health reform bill on his desk by this fall, and I will work hard with
my colleagues to make sure we send him a good bill that guarantees
every American high-quality, affordable health insurance, and that
includes a strong public health insurance option. After so many years
of delay and inaction, now is the time to act.
Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I withhold.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise to speak on the supplemental. Did
the chairman wish to speak?
Mr. INOUYE. No, go ahead.
Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to the chairman if he wishes.
Mr. INOUYE. Please proceed.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, first off, this is a very important piece
of legislation. I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member,
Senator Cochran and Senator Inouye, for bringing it forward. It is
critical that we adequately fund our troops in the field. This is our
first responsibility as a government when we have troops in the field
in harm's way--to give them the resources they need in order to protect
themselves and defend our liberties. So this is a very important piece
of legislation, and it must pass. It simply must pass.
However, ironically, as occasionally occurs around here--but in a
piece of legislation that is this important to our troops shouldn't
occur--this legislation had air dropped into it by the House of
Representatives something that has nothing to do with our troops
fighting in the field, and that is a bill called the cash for clunker
bill.
I have no personal or philosophical disagreement with the concept of
purchasing automobiles that are high-mileage vehicles, and they use a
lot less gas, and exchanging them for lower mileage vehicles as an
attempt to revive the economy and the auto industry and at the same
time, hopefully, accomplish some environmental protections. I would
simply note, however, that this bill that was air dropped into this
legislation doesn't accomplish that.
Basically, this is a bill that was drafted in the House without the
input of the Senate. There was a much better bill in the Senate--
Senator Feinstein and Senator Collins had it--which would have actually
meant some mileage differential would have occurred, but it was not
allowed to be put in because the bill, as it was put into the
conference report, was unamendable.
So the bill itself is flawed because it basically only allows--it
allows you to exchange your car and get money for your car, but the
increased mileage on the new car you buy only has to be a mile or two a
gallon, which is virtually nothing. It has virtually no impact.
So the philosophy of the bill itself is flawed. But the real problem
with this bill, besides the fact it is in a piece of legislation it
shouldn't be in, is the fact that it is totally unpaid for. It is $1
billion of new costs put on our children's shoulders. It is $1 billion
of new spending put on the Federal debt. We already know the Federal
debt isn't sustainable. Almost every day we are hearing international
purchasers of our debt--whether it be China or whether it be Russia or
whether it be international economists or economists in the United
States--saying the American debt situation has gotten out of control,
and that we are at risk as a nation of having a situation where the
cost of our debt will go up dramatically because we are putting so much
debt on the books.
Under the President's budget, the deficit of the government will be a
trillion dollars a year, on average, for the next 10 years. We will be
running deficits of 4 to 5 percent of gross national product. The
deficits will equal 80 percent, and we will have a debt that will equal
80 percent of the GDP. Just within the next 3 years, it will be 60
percent of the GDP. At the end of 10 years, it will be 80 percent.
What does that mean? It means we will have a debt and a deficit
situation

[[Page 15561]]

that will lead us down the road to having a government we cannot afford
and our children cannot afford. Ironically, as I said before, our debt
is getting so out of control and our deficits are getting so high and
out of control that if we as a nation tried to enter the European
Union, which is a group of industrialized countries that has rules as
to what a country can do in the area of debt and deficit for solvency
reasons, we could not get in because their rules say you cannot have a
debt or deficit of more than 3 percent, and your debt-to-GDP ratio
cannot exceed 60 percent. Latvia or Lithuania or some other nation
might be able to get into the European Union, but we could not.
Our debt is an incredibly serious problem for us as a nation and for
our children. The irony is, the bill that was airdropped into the
defense bill, designed to pay for the troops in the field, came on the
exact same day that the President of the United States and the
Democratic leadership of the Congress met down at the White House to
announce they were going to reinstitute the pay-go rules. What are the
pay-go rules? The pay-go rules require that when you spend a dollar,
you pay for it; when you create a new program, you pay for it. The
President, with great fanfare, said the Democratic leadership of this
government--the President and leadership of the Congress are going to
put into place the pay-go rules. All future spending will be subject to
pay-go rules, with a few exceptions he listed, which were pretty big
exceptions.
He didn't list this bill, which spends a billion dollars and is not
paid for.
After that press conference, which occurred around 12:30 in the
afternoon, the House of Representatives passed the cash for clunkers
bill, which spent $4 billion dollars, and it wasn't paid for. That bill
added $4 billion of new debt to our national debt--debt which will be
paid by these young people up here, who are pages today, when they get
jobs. What excuse do we have as a government for passing a bill to
purchase cars today and sending that bill to our children and
grandchildren as part of the debt we are passing onto them? It is
inexcusable. It would be easy enough to pay for this bill. There are
innumerable places in the government, which is spending trillions of
dollars a year, to find a billion dollars to pay for this bill if it
was a priority.
Clearly, if the President and the Democratic leadership are going to
call on us to follow pay-go rules, we should follow them--at least for
a day. They couldn't even get through a day without violating the rules
they said they were going to follow--a billion dollars of new spending,
which is unpaid for. Whether you agree with the policy of the bill or
not--this cash for clunkers bill--the issue is it spends a billion
dollars and doesn't pay for it and adds it to the national debt, which
is out of control. The American people know it is out of control, and
it is inexcusable that this Congress cannot discipline itself.
I have made a point of order that doesn't bring down the bill and
doesn't harm our ability to fund the troops in the field. I made a
point of order under a new point of order that was put into place at
the beginning of this Congress by the Democratic leadership of this
Congress in the Democratic body. This was a good rule. It was put into
place by a bill entitled the ``Honest Leadership and Open Government
Act.'' Again, it is the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Its
primary sponsor was Senator Reid, and its second sponsor was Senator
Durbin, along with Senator Schumer and Senator Stabenow.
The bill was structured for the purpose of not allowing what happened
with this defense bill, which is that people airdropped it into special
interest legislation--unpaid for in this case. It is called rule XLIV,
and I believe it is section 8. It says, essentially, that in a
conference you cannot put in new language that was not part of that
conference and which is targeting direct spending for the purpose of
benefitting some defined group--in this case, for the purpose of
passing the cash for clunkers bill. You cannot put it in. The rule says
that. Why was it created? Because too often around here, this type of
mismanagement of our finances occurs. People go into a conference and
they know they have a train that is going to leave the station and, in
this case, everybody wants to support the troops in the field and we
are going to fund them. So they put in the conference all sorts of
extraneous things that are inappropriate to that bill. It has become a
pandemic. The Democratic leadership, much to their credit, passed the
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. They put in rule XLIV,
section 8, which says that exactly what happened with this language
should not happen.
I congratulate the chairman of the committee, Senator Inouye, because
he has resisted, aggressively, allowing this type of action to occur.
But in this case, the House of Representatives gave him no option. They
put the language in over, I presume, some debate.
So this motion will knock out this language. It doesn't defeat the
bill. The bill can be sent back to the House and it can pass. It would
take another couple hours, at the most, to pass it. If people want to
bring back the cash for clunkers bill, they can do it as a freestanding
bill and, hopefully, they can do it by paying for it. That is the way
it should be done. It violates another rule, which is the pay-go rule.
So this motion to waive is going to be the first test of this
Congress on three critical issues. First, are we going to do something
about the debt of this Nation? Are we going to start paying for new
programs that we know are politically attractive? Every auto dealer in
America wants this language included in the bill. Are we going to pay
for it? Second, are we going to live by the rules that were put into
place by the Democratic leadership in the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act? Third, are we going to live by the statement made by
the President, surrounded by the Democratic leadership of the Congress,
that pay-go would be the new way we will enforce fiscal discipline?
Those are three major issues that will be addressed by this vote.
Members who vote to waive this rule will be voting to pass a billion
dollars of debt on to our children, on top of the trillions we are
already putting on their backs. They will be voting to waive a rule
that was put in by the Democratic leadership for the purpose of
avoiding this type of action--this exact type of action. They will be
voting to override the pay-go rules, which many Members have so wrapped
themselves in as the way they are going to fiscally discipline this
place.
I hope people will not vote to waive this point of order, sustain
this point of order, move forward on the supplemental, fund the troops;
and let's not add a billion dollars of unnecessary debt on an
extraneous program to the troop funding.
I yield the floor, and at the appropriate time, I will yield to
Senator Grassley such time as he may desire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference
agreement on H.R. 2346, the supplemental appropriations bill.
The compromise agreement, which has been worked out in a full and
open conference between the two Houses, represents the hard work of our
conferees.
As has long been the tradition of the Appropriations Committee the
compromise package before the Senate reflects the deliberations of our
twelve subcommittees. Each subcommittee has items in this measure and I
am pleased to note that all of our subcommittees were able to reach
agreement with their House counterparts.
As such, the bill before us represents a balanced compromise between
the issues and funding recommended by the House and by the Senate.
As in any compromise neither body, nor individual Member, received
everything he or she sought.
The House has agreed to support funding for the International
Monetary Fund and the Senate has agreed to compromise language on how
we deal with the detainees at Guantanamo. But, it is a fair compromise
which I believe all Members should support.
At $105.9 billion, the conference agreement is $14.6 billion above
the

[[Page 15562]]

amount recommended by the Senate. However, it is important to point out
to my Senate colleagues that nearly half of this increase represents
additional funding for swine flu. This funding was included in response
to a budget amendment submitted by the administration following Senate
passage of this bill.
The managers of our Labor HHS subcommittees have responded to the
potential need for additional swine flu resources by providing more
than $7 billion in funding, of which nearly $6 billion is contingent
upon the administration submitting additional requests for funds. We
have been advised that funding may be required this summer to prepare
for an outbreak next fall in the United States if the virus mutates
over the next few months.
If that occurs, the American public can be assured that we will be
ready. I can also promise my colleagues that our Labor-HHS subcommittee
will be monitoring the flu virus and closely watching the
administration's efforts to respond to this potential crisis.
Regarding the remaining increase above the Senate bill, the
conference agreement funding levels are between the amounts recommended
by the two bodies.
The bill includes the funding level sought by the House for the
Department of State and ``splits the difference'' in the amount
recommended by both bodies for defense and military construction.
One provision of note that was deleted from the measure relates to
the public release of photographs of detainees. The Senate agreed to
drop this provision only after the President sent a letter to Chairman
Obey and myself assuring us that he would not release the photographs
in question.
While many of us support the intent of this amendment, it was clear
that including the amendment would jeopardize passage of the bill in
the House. That result would not have been an acceptable outcome.
Mr. President, this is a fair compromise and one which is worthy of
the support of every Member of the Senate.
I understand that there may be one or two items that not all Members
agree with, but I would remind my colleagues that this is a must pass
bill. The funding in this bill is critical to the Defense Department in
continuing to support our servicemen and women fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
I would point out that if we cannot pass this bill, we will shortly
run out of funds to pay our service members and to ensure funds are
available to support the readiness of all our forces, not just those
serving in Southwest Asia.
I want to thank my vice chairman for his counsel and support as we
have worked through several difficult issues.
We have forged this agreement together. I would note that there were
30 Senate conferees on this measure and 27 signed the conference
agreement.
Finally, I wish to thank all of our subcommittee chairmen and ranking
members and their staffs for their hard work. This conference agreement
would not have been possible without their efforts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Treatment of Committee Witnesses

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, there was a disturbing
occurrence on the other side of the Capitol that I believe needs to be
brought to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate.
On Tuesday, June 9, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on allowance
allocations policies in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. One of
the witnesses who volunteered to testify before the subcommittee was
David Sokol, chairman of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, based in
my State of Iowa, in the capital city of Des Moines.
We are all very well aware there are very divergent opinions on the
so-called cap-and-trade program advocated by Chairman Waxman and
Subcommittee Chairman Markey. Hearing witnesses are typically invited
to share different positions and offer different perspectives on
prospective policies. That was the case with the MidAmerican CEO. His
company supports the cap on emission reductions in the bill but
strongly opposes the trading component.
In Mr. Sokol's testimony, he made clear his position that the trading
mechanism in the Waxman-Markey bill will impose huge costs on
customers. The costs will come in two ways: First, to pay for emission
allowances, which will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and then
for the construction of new, low, and zero carbon powerplants that will
actually reduce emissions. So in those two ways, customers pay. He
indicated MidAmerican's customers would see an increase in electricity
rates of somewhere between 12 percent at the low end and 28 percent at
the high end under the climate bill now before the other body.
It appears that Chairman Markey did not appreciate the criticism
leveled at his bill by Mr. Sokol. During the hearing, a letter was sent
by Chairman Markey's office to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
requesting information about MidAmerican's investment and other
activities since the 2005 repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company
Act--the short term around here, or acronym, is PUHCA.
The six-page letter also requested a reply from FERC within 2 days,
``in order to better inform the Subcommittee's deliberations on this
matter.''
However, the 2005 repeal of PUHCA has absolutely nothing to do with
Chairman Markey's climate change bill. It appears it is more than a
coincidence that Chairman Markey was firing off a six-page letter
concerning MidAmerican while the CEO was making critical comments on
his bill before his committee. This appears to be a blatant use of
power to intimidate a witness whose opinions differ from the chairman.
It has recently been reported that Chairman Markey was unaware that
the letter was being sent at the time, and I would accept his position
on that. Once the letter was brought to his attention, Chairman Markey
realized how inappropriate it was and subsequently sent another letter
to FERC clarifying his inquiry. This seems to indicate that there are
unnamed committee staff who are trying to intimidate and prevent
detractors from speaking against their climate bill. These types of
strong-arm tactics should not be tolerated.
What lengths are proponents willing to go to if they are willing to
intimidate people who disagree with them? Are they so unsure of their
own position that they have resorted to apparent retribution to silence
their critics? Quite frankly, those in the Senate should be skeptical
of legislation that is advanced with such zeal that witnesses are being
threatened with intimidation if they oppose it, whether that is by
staff writing a letter or any other way.
Policymaking is a very complicated process. It is one that depends on
the honest and forthright input of outside experts and stakeholders to
give information; obviously, not to twist arms. After this incident, it
seems the process going on in the House of Representatives is not open
and fair to those who are critical of the Waxman-Markey bill. We owe it
to the American public to restore this process to a more dignified
level and assure all witnesses before Congress that they will be
treated fairly and with respect, regardless of whether they agree or
disagree with the chairman and/or staff.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 15563]]

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
during the quorum call be equally divided between the two parties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, what is the time agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 36 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cash for Clunkers

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, one way to stimulate a key part of our
economy--auto sales--is to establish a so-called fleet modernization or
cash for clunkers program that would provide a voucher for purchase of
new vehicles to those turning in their older less fuel efficient
vehicles. This program will encourage people to purchase new more fuel
efficient vehicles and will both stimulate the sale of new vehicles and
reduce overall fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By
providing incentives for the purchase of new more fuel efficient
vehicles, this program will provide a much-needed boost to the
struggling auto industry, including manufacturers, dealers, suppliers
and other related industries.
New vehicle sales of all auto companies in the world continue to
suffer as we weather this unprecedented downturn in the U.S. economy.
Since the end of last year, we have seen a decrease in sales of 30 to
40 percent over the same period a year ago. Therefore, it is imperative
that we turn around this sales decline, and one way to help is with
incentive programs such as the cash for clunkers program. Legislation
to implement such a program was first passed by the House of
Representatives as a stand-alone measure and has now been included as
part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act before the Senate.
Including this measure in this critical legislation will allow this
program to be implemented quickly and begin to have a positive effect
on the economy.
There is strong evidence that this type of program will work. Nearly
every major industrialized country in the world with an auto industry
has now some kind of vehicle scrappage program in place and there is
documented evidence of increased sales. Germany has seen an increase in
new vehicle sales of 25 to 40 percent since its program was implemented
earlier this year. China saw an increase in new vehicle sales of 15
percent in March after its program was implemented. France has seen an
increase in vehicle sales of 8 percent since its program was
implemented at the end of 2008. Other countries--such as Japan and
Korea--have more recently followed suit and implemented programs like
this. It is too early to have sales data for these countries, but they
are expected to show similar positive increases in sales of new
vehicles.
Under the legislation passed by the House and included in the
supplemental, an individual would be able to bring in an eligible older
and less fuel efficient vehicle and receive a voucher for a new more
fuel efficient vehicle. To be eligible to be turned in, the old vehicle
would need to have a fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less,
or in the case of a work truck, be older than a 2002 model. The
individual turning in the old vehicle would then receive a voucher for
a new vehicle. The minimum threshold for the new vehicle purchased
would be 22 miles per gallon fuel economy for new passenger cars, 18
miles per gallon fuel economy for new light duty trucks, and 15 miles
per gallon fuel economy for new large trucks.
The amount of the voucher received for a new purchase would depend
upon the incremental improvement in fuel economy of the new vehicle
over the old vehicle. Individuals would receive a voucher of no less
than $3,500 toward purchase of the new vehicle, but could receive as
much as $4,500 based upon the fuel economy value of the new vehicle.
Higher fuel economy, therefore, would bring higher savings--thereby
creating a positive incentive for individuals to buy the most fuel
efficient vehicles available. To ensure that the older less fuel
efficient vehicle would not be used on the road again, the old vehicle
would be taken to a registered disposal facility where it would be
destroyed by dismantling the drive train and engine block. Any value of
other used car parts would be protected, however, as these parts could
be sold separately by the disposal facility.
The compromise before the Senate provides a well-crafted and balanced
fleet modernization program. It will accelerate national economic
recovery by stimulating up to an estimated 1 million new vehicle sales
while at the same time pushing consumers toward purchase of more fuel
efficient vehicles. This legislation is based upon months of work to
develop a compromise among the administration, the auto companies,
environmental organizations, and auto dealers. It provides a reasonable
compromise and establishes a solid program that will give consumers
with older vehicles an immediate cash incentive to purchase new more
fuel efficient cars and trucks. By including a hierarchy of cash
vouchers for purchase of new vehicles that increases the amount
available for the most fuel-efficient new vehicles, this legislation
will both stimulate the economy and encourage consumers to purchase
more fuel-efficient vehicles. This legislation strikes the appropriate
balance between economic stimulus and fuel efficiency.
The proposal before us today keeps the focus on the primary purpose
of this effort--to stimulate the U.S. economy by providing an incentive
for individuals to turn in their older less fuel efficient vehicles and
purchase a new more fuel efficient vehicle. It provides the proper
balance--it encourages consumers to purchase more fuel efficient
vehicles by including a hierarchy of incentives that offer a greater
amount for a more fuel efficient vehicle. Stimulating vehicle sales
while also getting older less fuel efficient vehicles off the road is
surely an important national goal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the senior
Senator from Michigan.
I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be charged
equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget
Committee's official scoring of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009.
The conference report includes $105.9 billion in discretionary budget
authority for fiscal year 2009, which will result in outlays in 2009 of
$30.5 billion. Of this budget authority, $90.7 billion is designated as
being for overseas deployments and other activities pursuant to S. Con.
Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
This results in new outlays of $27 billion in 2009. The conference
report also includes $16.2 billion in emergency discretionary budget
authority, which results in outlays of $3.5 billion in 2009. Finally,
the conference report includes rescissions of existing budget authority
and other changes that result in -$1 billion in regular budget
authority and -$37 million in 2009 outlays.
The conference report includes several emergency designations each of
which is subject to a point of order established by section 403 of the
2010 budget resolution. In addition, the conference report includes
language relating to credit scoring that is within the jurisdiction of
the Budget Committee and as a result is subject to a point of

[[Page 15564]]

order under section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. Finally, the
conference report includes several provisions that make changes in a
mandatory program--CHIMPS--that result in an increase in direct
spending over the 9-year period, 2011-2019. Each of these provisions is
subject to a point of order established by section 314 of the 2009
budget resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget
Committee scoring of the conference report be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 2346, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 CONFERENCE REPORT
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas
deployment and Regular Emergency Total funding
other activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
Budget Authority................ 90,730 -1,048 16,169 105,851
Outlays......................... 27,029 -37 3,530 30,522
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleagues for their
support of my amendment to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with
respect to the preemption of certain interest rate limitations that are
applicable to the State of Arkansas. The adoption of this provision in
the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act will aid in the economic
recovery of Arkansas as demonstrated in the various letters from
Governor Beebe, the Arkansas congressional delegation and the related
data and communications that are to be printed in the record after my
remarks.
With regard to the amendment itself, it is the intention of the
drafters and the Senate, that despite the ordering of its paragraphs,
the language concerning the uniform accessibility of provisions of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are to apply to all
bonds and obligations issued under that act for all purposes for which
bonds under the act may be issued and are not limited to matters
associated with housing. Without this amendment, Arkansas may not have
ready access to the same Federal programs to which our sister States
have access. Again, thanks to my colleagues for recognizing that the
economy of and commerce in Arkansas affects and is affected by every
other State and their respective commerce.
I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in
the Record as supporting documentation of the intent and reasoning
behind this important provision: (1) a letter from Arkansas Governor
Mike Beebe dated May 14, 2009, (2) a letter from Arkansas Governor Mike
Beebe dated March 14, 2008, (3) a letter from the Arkansas
Congressional Delegation dated May 14, 2009, (4) a letter from the
Council of Development Finance Agencies dated May 29, 2009, and (5)
Presentation to the Arkansas House Committee on State Agencies and
Governmental Affairs regarding a proposed State constitutional
amendment to deal with this issue. The inclusion of these documents
serves to make clear our intent regarding this important provision.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

May 14, 2009.
Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA) provides the first significant improvements to
the federal public-finance legislation in decades. The
municipal finance industry, cities, counties, and state
finance agencies will have until 2011 to utilize the new
authority given by Congress.
Unfortunately, governmental entities in Arkansas are still
subject to provisions in the Constitution of Arkansas that
impose interest-rate limits and restrict our use of the ARRA
funds. The State is currently taking steps to amend our
Constitution with respect to interest-rate controls, but such
changes, if approved, will not become effective in time for
the State to be able to fully participate in the National
Recovery by utilizing these new financing tools,
In light of the negative impact of the current restrictions
in the Arkansas Constitution, we respectfully request a
temporary federal preemption of State interest-rate limits
until January of 2011 for those federal programs that deal
with public-finance matters addressed in ARRA.
The amendments and modifications in ARRA provide for more
participation from investors, from private industry, and from
governmental entities. We need temporary relief from the
controls in Arkansas so that our State may participate fully
in the development activities and the improved finance
capacities enjoyed by the rest of the country. Thank you for
your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely,
Mike Beebe.
____

March 14, 2008.
Senator Blanche Lincoln,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Senator Mark Pryor,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Representative Marion Berry,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Representative Mike Ross,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Representative John Boozman,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Representative Vic Snyder,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Friends and Colleagues: As you know, Arkansas is the
only state that has a prescriptive usury provision in its
constitution. With regard to some commercial transactions,
this usury provision poses a problem for those entities that
are not removed from its authority via federal preemption.
In recent years, Congress has enacted several laws
preempting the Arkansas usury provision for Arkansas banking
institutions, auto finance companies, and other similar
entities, However, the usury provision is still applicable to
certain transactions involving governmental entities, as a
federal preemption has not been granted in their favor.
The recent reduction of the primary credit discount rate by
the Federal Reserve Bank in its efforts to stimulate the
economy has exposed the negative effects that the Arkansas
usury provision can have on particular governmental entities.
While the rate reduction may benefit the overall economy, it
also has resulted in the reduction of the Arkansas usury
limitation to 8.5 percent currently, with a likely decrease
to 8 percent in the near future. This low usury limitation
makes it exceedingly difficult for transactions that are
mandated by the federal government or that are for the
purpose of implementing federally established programs to
take place.
Specifically, due to the Arkansas usury limitation, the
Arkansas Student Loan Authority (ASLA) is finding it more and
more difficult to finance activities that allow it to make
student loans available for Arkansas students. Current
distresses in the financial markets and the recent changes to
the federal student loan program have greatly impacted the
student loan industry. The credit market situation is
predicted to worsen before experiencing improvement. Although
ASLA has financial stability, it will need additional capital
to fund loans when they reach the point that they are unable
to continue recycling loan funds. The Arkansas usury
provision is currently acting as a barrier to additional
capital, as banks are not willing to accept bonds that may be
limited by the current low usury rate. This is a problem that
not only plagues ASLA, hut also affects the manner in which
the Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA) implements
its single-family mortgage program and its multi-family
programs, as well.
Accordingly, I am asking you to consider enacting
legislation that would grant a usury preemption provision in
those instances when either a governmental or a private
entity, such as ASLA or ADFA, is responsible for carrying out
federally mandated programs or implementing federally
established programs. We believe that when so expressed, the
Congress's ability to preempt state usury laws under the
commerce clause is broad enough to cover the federal
preemption suggested. Representatives of both ASLA and ADFA
have been working on a draft usury-preemption provision, and
they, along with a representative from my office, will be
contacting your office regarding this issue. I am hopeful
that this can be

[[Page 15565]]

accomplished in a manner similar to the preemption granted to
Arkansas banking institutions through the Gramm-Leach-Biley
Act.
This is a developing matter of some urgency, and I very
much appreciate your cooperation and consideration with
regard to this issue.
Cordially,
Mike Beebe.
____

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2009.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Leaders Reid and McConnell: As members of the Arkansas
delegation, we are requesting your support for an amendment
we will be offering to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights
Act of 2009 (H.R. 627) during Senate consideration. This is a
critical legislative proposal that will provide temporary
relief for an Arkansas-specific interest rate problem that is
having a severe impact on Arkansas students, consumers, and
businesses, as well as our municipalities and state
government.
Arkansas is the only state in the nation with a
constitutionally-defined, artificially low interest rate
limit that is tied to the Federal Discount Rate. Under
current law, the interest rate on special-revenue bonds and
non-bank consumer loans may not exceed five percent above the
Federal Discount Rate, currently set at .50 percent. Other
bonds are capped even lower, at 2 percent above the Federal
Discount Rate. As a result, Arkansas' state and local
governments, public universities, and utilities in search of
financing for construction and improvement projects are
severely hampered by the current limit; as are Arkansas
consumers, who are facing a lack of credit availability.
Practically speaking, the current interest rate limit in
Arkansas on all non-bank lending is no higher than 5.50
percent. Not surprisingly, this low rate of interest has
contributed to bond investors looking to other states across
the country where their yields will be much higher, as well
as credit rationing by non-bank lenders that have been forced
to restrict funds to consumers, particularly now when capital
is hard to come by.
Although we understand the Federal Reserve's actions in
recent months to continue lowering the Federal Discount Rate
were intended to combat the economic crisis and stave off a
further decline in our financial markets, their actions have
only exacerbated the economic challenges faced in our state.
Additionally, many of the tools put in place in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act earlier this year to jumpstart
our economy, such as the Recovery Zone Bonds and the Build
America Bonds, are not available in our state because of our
lack of competitiveness in the bond market. As stated in a
recent Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article on this issue:
``The bond market has responded to the Build America
program. Since its introduction, investors have purchased $8
billion in offerings, providing the bulk of activity in the
taxable-bond sector. Arkansas is not in position to take
part.''
This is an issue that impacts Arkansas alone and Arkansas
does indeed intend to fix the problem. However, we can't do
so immediately because this archaic clause in Arkansas law
must be rectified through a statewide ballot initiative.
Therefore, a proposal to permanently modify this outdated law
will be voted on by the people of Arkansas, but not until the
next statewide ballot in 2010. Unfortunately, the economic
challenges our nation now faces are magnified in our state
because of this problem and immediate, emergency intervention
is essential.
There is precedent for Federal action on this issue, as the
U.S. Congress enacted an Arkansas-specific provision to
exclude Arkansas bank lenders from this exact interest rate
limit in 1999, The amendment we are offering today is more
limited in scope, allowing only a temporary relaxation of the
current interest rate limit to a more reasonable level, not
to exceed 17 percent; and it would only be in effect until
the state ballot initiative is considered. This is merely a
bridge to get us through the immediate crisis and to a point
when our state can permanently address the problem next year.
This is a matter of great urgency for our state. We hope we
can count on your support and look forward to discussing
further if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Blanche L. Lincoln,
U.S. Senate.
Mark Pryor,
U.S. Senate.
Marion Berry,
Member of Congress.
Vic Snyder,
Member of Congress.
John Boozman,
Member of Congress.
Mike Ross,
Member of Congress.
____

Council of

Development Finance Agencies,

Cleveland, OH, May 29, 2009.
Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lincoln: The Council of Development Finance
Agencies (CDFA) respectfully urges support and passage of the
temporary federal preemption on municipal interest rates
until December 31 of 2010 for those federal programs dealing
with public finance matters addressed in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This preemption was
proposed by Senator Lincoln as an amendment to H.R. 2346, a
supplemental spending bill. It is a measure that would
provide significant benefits to the State of Arkansas.
Most of the ARRA provisions only have a two-year window.
Unfortunately, the governmental entities in Arkansas; state
agencies, state bond authorities, cities and counties are
still governed by the provisions in the Constitution of
Arkansas that control interest rate limits. The State of
Arkansas is taking steps to amend their Constitution with
respect to interest rate controls. HJR 1004 has been referred
by the State Legislature to the Arkansas voters during the
2009 legislative session. HJR 1004 is a proposed
constitutional amendment that will remove the ceiling on
interest rates for governmental units. That vote will be
decided at the general election in November of 2010, which
would essentially prevent Arkansas from utilizing the two-
year provisions, including Build America Bonds.
CDFA is a national association dedicated to the advancement
of development finance concerns and interests. We have a long
history of working with Arkansas agencies that would be
positively impacted by this amendment, including the Arkansas
Development Finance Authority (ADFA). They have been a
longtime member and active on our Board of Directors. ADFA is
one of the leading development finance agencies in the
country and was recognized as having the best industrial
development bond program in 2006 by CDFA. ADFA is also one of
10 organizations highlighted as case studies in CDFA's
recently published book, the Practitioner's Guide to Economic
Development Finance.
In light of the negative impact of the restrictions
embedded in the Arkansas Constitution, CDFA respectfully
requests a temporary federal preemption on interest rates
until December 31 of 2010 for those federal programs dealing
with public finance matters addressed in ARRA. This exemption
would allow ADFA and other Arkansas agencies access to
financing tools that would allow them to issue debt and
finance new projects at significant cost savings to Arkansas
taxpayers.
Sincerely,
Toby Rittner,
President & CEO.
____

Proposing a Constitutional Amendment To Remove From the Constitution
Interest Rate Limits on Bonds Issued By and Loans Made By or To
Governmental Units

legal highlights

The proposed amendment eliminates constitutional interest
rate limits currently applicable to governmental units.
The proposed amendment provides that the General Assembly
shall have the power to establish interest rate limits.
The proposed amendment removes the interest rate limit on
city and county bonds backed by taxes (such as sales,
property, and hotel/restaurant taxes) which must be voter
approved. Amendment No. 62 sets the limit at 2.00% above the
Federal Discount Rate on the date of the election approving
the bonds. The Federal Discount Rate is currently .50% which
produces an interest rate limit of 2.50%.
The proposed amendment removes the interest rate limit on
revenue bonds. Amendment No. 65 that authorizes revenue bonds
to be issued without an election states that Amendment No.
60's interest rate limit is to apply to revenue bonds. That
limit is 5.00% above the Federal Discount Rate when the
contract or bond purchase agreement is signed. The Federal
Discount Rate is currently .50% which produces an interest
rate limit of 5.50%.
Any agreement that provides for an interest rate that is
variable over its term is currently controlled by the initial
limit established when a contract is signed, without regard
to market changes over the term of the agreement.
The proposed amendment removes the interest rate limit on
loans made by governmental units, including State Agencies
that have project loan programs such as the Arkansas
Development Finance Authority and the Arkansas Natural
Resources Commission. The Amendment No. 60 limit mentioned
above applies to such programs (5.00% above the Federal
Discount Rate on the date any program loan agreement is
signed, currently 5.50%).
The proposed amendment removes the interest rate limit on
short term financing for cities and counties. Amendment No.
78 that authorizes short term financings sets a limit based
upon one year U.S. treasury obligations. The limit changes
quarterly.

[[Page 15566]]

TS18JN09.001

[[Page 15567]]

TS18JN09.002

[[Page 15568]]

TS18JN09.003

[[Page 15569]]

Arkansas's Interest Rate Restrictions Impact on State Agencies

EFFECT ON ARKANSAS STUDENT LOAN AUTHORITY

The Arkansas Student Loan Authority (``ASLA'') provides
student loans to Arkansas residents and students at
Arkansas's universities and colleges. ASLA also provides
liquidity for Arkansas banks participating in the Federal
Family Education Loan Program. ASLA raises the money from
which it makes and purchases student loans by issuing bonds
in the capital markets.
The maximum amount of interest that ASLA may pay a bond
investor under the Arkansas interest rate restriction is
determined at the time bonds are issued, and this rate cannot
change even if the market changes over the 25-30 year life of
the bonds. The current maximum interest rate under Arkansas
law is 5.50%. The interest rate limit is determined by adding
5 percentage points to the Federal Discount Rate. The current
Discount Rate is 0.50%.
ASLA was forced to redeem approximately $80 million in
bonds in 2008 due to the bond interest rates exceeding limits
established at the time bonds were initially sold to
investors. These funds would have normally been used to make
or purchase student loans.
Previously, ASLA and other student loan issuers accessed
funds in the capital markets primarily by issuing Auction
Rate Bonds. The interest rate limit was a nuisance when
issuing Auction Rate Bonds but was not an impenetrable
barrier. The Auction Rate Bond market has collapsed and is
not expected to return.
The most likely vehicle through which ASLA will access the
capital markets is through Variable Rate Demand Bonds, which
require a ``liquidity bank''. The banks who typically act as
liquidity providers are unwilling to do business in Arkansas
due to the artificial interest rate ceiling placed on bonds
issued by governmental agencies in the state.
The interest rate restriction affects much more than
student loans; it is having a negative effect on Arkansas
cities, counties, non-profits and State governmental agencies
that depend on the issuance of revenue bonds to gain access
to funding. Such agencies use revenue bonds to finance
facilities for water, sewer, industrial development,
education, recreation and other important projects that serve
the needs of the citizens of Arkansas.

effect on other arkansas state agencies

The inability of State of Arkansas bond issuers to lock in
long-term interest rates for governmental, student loan,
housing, economic development and 501(c) 3 projects puts
Arkansas at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the
world. Arkansas borrowers who need fixed rate financing for
their long-term assets are being subjected to interest rate
risk and higher transaction costs due to refinancing, because
the bonds are only able to be sold with shorter term
maturities, if they can be sold at all.
Following this page is information on two example
transactions completed to support economic development that
were impacted by the existing constitutional interest rate
limit. The bond issues were for the Hewlett Packard
facilities in Conway and Sage Foods in Little Rock.
Fortunately, these issues were completed before the Federal
Discount Rate was lowered to its current level of .50%.
Otherwise, the negative impact could have been greater.
Lenders located outside the borders of Arkansas that
provide liquidity and credit enhancement to bond issues will
not be extending credit if interest rates in Arkansas do not
float up and down with the market. These out-of-state lenders
do not want to take interest rate risk on bond issues for
their manufacturing clients that are located in Arkansas.
Arkansas governmental agencies that make loans and manage
revolving loan funds need proper compensation for lending
risks, making it easier to build sustainable pools of lending
capital for the State of Arkansas.
Taskforce on the 21st Century Economy: (Web site--http://
taskforce21.arkansas.gov/)
One charge of the 21st Century Taskforce: Define the
programs and services needed for the state and its
communities to be globally competitive within the role and
scope of 21st Century economic development.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--Build America Bonds

With rates currently capped at 5.5%, Arkansas will not be
able to participate in this taxable bond financing program in
a very meaningful way. Current federal law limits these new
bond issues to years 2009 and 2010. Many other substantive
changes were also made to federal tax law. Arkansas issuers
will not be able to take full advantage of these changes.

CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, AR--TAXABLE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS
[Sage V Foods, LLC Project]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
$4,455,000...................... $1,545,000........ $5,000,000
Series 2008 A................... Series 2008 A-2... Series 2008 B
Dated: November 1, 2008......... Dated: December 1, Dated: December 1,
2008. 2008
S&P: A.......................... S&P: A............ S&P: A
ADFA Guaranty................... ADFA Guaranty..... ADED Guaranty
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sage Foods, LLC (the ``Company'') is in the business of
producing rice-based ingredients for the food industry. The
Company operates a rice flour mill and a rice cooking
facility in Freeport, Texas. The Company recently built a new
flour mill and extrusion plant in Stuttgart, Arkansas. The
Company needed $11,000,000 to build a 90,000 square foot
industrial facility for the production of instant rice and
frozen rice in the Little Rock Port Industrial Park. The
Bonds were originally structured to have $6,000,000 issued
with an Arkansas Development Finance Authority (``ADFA'')
Guaranty and $5,000,000 with an Arkansas Department of
Economic Development (``ADED'') Guaranty, with level debt
service and a final maturity of 2023.
Because of Arkansas interest rate limits, the true interest
cost (TIC) on the Bonds is limited to 5% over the federal
discount rate the day the bond purchase agreement is signed.
The discount rate was lowered to 1.75% on October 8th, which
meant the TIC couldn't exceed 6.75% on the Bonds. With this
limitation, $4,455,000 of the ADFA Guaranteed Bonds were sold
on October 28th with a final maturity of 2023. The Borrower
needed the final series of bonds issued by year end. With the
change in the discount rate to 1.25% on October 29th, the
structure of the remaining Bonds had to be shortened to 2014
with the bulk of the bonds maturing in the final year. These
bonds were sold in early December, a week before the discount
rate was lowered to .50%.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just about 1 month ago I voted against
the emergency supplemental spending bill and stated my reasons for
doing so at some length. I will not repeat what I said then, but my
concerns also apply to the conference report we are considering. While
the President has provided a timeline for redeployment of our troops
from Iraq, I remain concerned that we may see upwards of 50,000 U.S.
troops remain in that country. Leaving such a substantial number of
troops in Iraq could undercut the benefits of redeployment, and might
result in a significant uptick in violence against U.S. troops.
I am also concerned that this supplemental pads the defense budget
with items not needed for the war and outside the normal appropriations
cycle.
Finally, and even though President Obama has a plan to focus the
government's attention and resources where they are most needed--on
Afghanistan and Pakistan--I am worried that the current strategy does
not adequately address, and may even exacerbate, the serious national
security problems we face in that part of the world. Those problems
could be made worse, not better, by sending 21,000 more U.S. troops to
Afghanistan and they may be further aggravated if there is not an
adequate response to the nearly 3 million Pakistanis who have recently
been displaced.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection,
it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will soon vote on a motion to waive a
point of order. In the last Congress, we heard our colleagues say
things such as:

I cannot understand how we can claim to support our troops
and yet put them in increased jeopardy as a result of our
failure to act.

Here is another:

It is so irresponsible to tell these young men and women
who are serving in uniform with the orders of their Commander
in Chief that you're not going to give them the necessary
ability to defend themselves. In my view it's terribly
misplaced priorities.

And another:

It is time to put politics behind us and support our troops
with the funds they need.

Each of these quotes were spoken by Republicans when a Republican was
in the White House. Today, with a Democrat in the White House, some
Republicans threaten to stand in the way of our efforts to support our
troops. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines have done everything we
have asked of them and more. As always, our troops and commanders have
gone above and beyond. The least we can do is give them the basics they
need to fight this war against terrorists. This bill does that. It
gives our brave troops, including more than 1,000 men and women from
the State of Nevada, the resources they need to do their jobs and to
return home safely. It provides $80 billion for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

[[Page 15570]]

In this important piece of legislation, we are also dedicating
billions of dollars to make sure we are prepared for and to respond to
a potential flu pandemic. We must be ready. There is no other
opportunity than this legislation to be ready by this fall. We are also
dedicating billions of dollars in this legislation to strengthen the
security along our borders, and we are also dedicating billions of
dollars to support counterterrorism programs both at home and abroad.
This is very important.
But in this bill are not merely numbers. This legislation also
contains our commitment to strengthen our military, rebuilding our
relationships with key allies around the world and reducing key
security threats.
Rather than restoring our standing in the world, some Republicans are
standing in the way, period. I repeat, rather than restoring our
standing in the world, some Republicans are standing in the way. They
are threatening to block this entire bill and the good it does because
of one small but significant part of it. That small but significant
part is actually a tremendously important and good program. It is
called cash for clunkers.
This is a program that has been tested in other places. In Germany,
it has been tremendous for their economy. It helps our economy and our
environment. Here is how it works. If you trade in your car over the
next 4 months, we will give you up to $4,500 toward a new car that is
more fuel efficient. That sounds pretty good. Everybody benefits, the
environment and the economy. Those who oppose this may not think it is
a worthy goal, but they should not hold hostage the equipment and
training our troops need because of this small provision in the bill.
They should not let less than 1 percent of this entire important bill
sink the whole thing, but that is exactly what some of our colleagues
are planning to do.
Are they doing it to embarrass the President? Are they doing it
because they don't think the troops need the resources to fight those
two wars? Why are they doing this?
Because everyone should understand, if this point of order is not
waived, this bill is finished. The House had a difficult time passing
this legislation because the House got no support from Republicans. The
question is whether these Senators still agree we must never walk away
from our troops or if they only believe it when their party is in the
White House. I sincerely hope Senate Republicans do not follow the lead
of the House Republicans. Out of 435 Members of the House of
Representatives, 5 Republicans voted to support our troops. They had a
different excuse in the House. What they said was: We are not going to
do this because there is a small amount of money in there for the
International Monetary Fund. There hasn't been a word raised in this
body over that because it is so important. It is supported by Democrats
and Republicans over here, that particular provision in the
supplemental.
In the Senate, they have raised another issue, cash for clunkers.
Some are saying: Well, cash for clunkers isn't bad, but I don't like
this version of it. I think we could do a version that would be more
environmentally friendly and so, as a result, I am voting against it.
Everyone should understand, especially those who care about our armed
services--and I know the American people support them 100 percent--all
the American people should understand, if there is not a waiver of this
point of order, the troops will not get their money. Secretary Gates
has been very good. He has not sent out any blue slips telling them
they are going to lose their jobs, to civilian employees first, and
then the pink slips to others that they will lose their jobs
permanently. But that time is fast approaching. We cannot simply
revitalize this bill in a matter of a few minutes. We have to do it
today. There are provisions in this bill that are important to our
standing in the world. We have to support our troops.
I, personally, with 5 children and 16 grandchildren, am a little
concerned about the flu pandemic that all scientists, with rare
exception, are telling us is going to hit in the fall. We are spending
this money at this time so we can be ready for that and have shots that
people can get to stop them from getting sick or not getting as sick.
Our troops, each and every one of whom volunteered for duty, are the
last people who should be caught in the crossfire of political
gamesmanship.
I hope the point of order will be waived and that the money for the
troops will be on its way in a matter of hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his
statement. I know there is controversy involved in this so-called cash
for clunkers, which is a humorous name for a very serious proposal.
Let's be real honest about where we are in America today. We have seen
the largest decline in automobile sales in 50 years. Sales are down 29
percent. Automobile production is down 46 percent from where it was
just 17 months ago. Plummeting auto sales have reduced production, and
it has had a ripple effect across the economy, forcing dealerships and
factories to close. We have lost 280,000 American jobs in the
automobile industry. That is what this is about, 280,000 American jobs
that are lost and more that will be lost if we do nothing.
Some would have us do nothing. While the automobile industry is
roiling from job losses and declining production, many consumers in the
market for new cars are waiting. They are holding back. The purpose of
this legislation is to put some movement into the purchasing of new
automobiles. It is a targeted way to give incentives to Americans to
buy cars, get them back in the showrooms, back on the lots buying the
cars that start moving the inventory, creating demand, and creating a
more positive feeling about the automobile industry. Are there better
ways to have written this? Yes. I think I could have sat down with
others and spent more time. But that is the case in almost every bill
that comes before us.
Some have argued: Listen, this just came up in the conference
committee. It passed the House of Representatives before it was brought
up in the conference committee. I will concede that I wish that bill
would have been debated and passed here, but we didn't have the
opportunity to do it. We literally did not. This is a matter of seizing
an opportunity that could make a profound difference.
Has this concept of giving cash incentives to customers to buy cars
ever been tried? It turns out it has. It was tried in January of this
year in Germany, where they offered $3,300 to consumers to replace old
cars with new ones. At the end of the program's first month, car sales
in Germany dramatically increased by 21 percent. The bad news? That
same month automobile sales in the United States went down by 41
percent. Germany knew how to create a surge in purchasing by consumers
with similar legislation to what is being brought to the floor.
Let's be honest about the automobile industry. Next to the housing
industry, it is at the base of our economic pyramid. We need to make
sure a strong auto industry is available to America so we can rebuild
out of this recession and start creating jobs. Those who want to kill
this provision are walking away from incentives to put people back to
work in dealerships selling cars, servicing cars, and producing cars
across America.
I beg those who oppose this to understand what we will face if we do
nothing, which is what they want to do, nothing. I think that is a
terrible outcome. If we want to stand behind recovering from this
recession and restoring consumer confidence, if we want to move old
cars off the road, the so-called clunkers, and bring new cars on the
road with higher gas mileage, this is our opportunity. Let's not get
caught up in some procedural tanglement. Keep our eye on 280,000
Americans out of work in this industry, more to follow if we do
nothing. This is going to be an important measure for us in the long
run. We need to build on it. First, we need to pass this today.

[[Page 15571]]

As Senator Reid has said, it is an important provision in the House
of Representatives. Without it, we are not sure we can pass this
supplemental bill, which has so many other important provisions, not
the least of which is providing for our troops in the field. It is a
delicate balance that brings this to the floor. I hope those who oppose
it don't want to stand back and do nothing as this recession continues,
understand the gravity of this automobile industry being flat on its
back at this point in time, and realize that we owe President Obama
passage of this supplemental legislation. President Obama did not want
to ask for this bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But,
unfortunately, the previous President made us fund these wars on an
emergency basis. So we had to come in with a supplemental
appropriations bill to pay for the war. That will not happen again.
Next year, President Obama is putting it in the regular budget. This
is one of the last things we have to do to clean up a situation left
for this President by President Bush. This bill for automobiles--this
one that has a broad cross section of bipartisan support--includes
support of business and labor: the United Auto Workers, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the
National Automobile Dealers Association, as well as more than a dozen
Governors.
It is important we defeat this procedural objection to this program,
that we put this money into our economy, give people a chance to buy a
new car that is more fuel efficient, and put people back to work across
America, so we can start digging ourselves out of this recession hole.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first off, I appreciate the assistant
majority leader clarifying the situation unalterably; that this waiver
issue is solely about the issue of cash for clunkers--a piece of
legislation which has absolutely nothing to do--nothing to do--with
funding our troops in the field and was airdropped into a conference
without being paid for, adding $1 billion of new debt to our children's
backs. That is what this waiver is about.
The majority leader has said this waiver will, in some way, harm the
ability to fund the troops. I believe that to be totally inaccurate.
This motion comes out of a piece of legislation which the majority
leader and the assistant majority leader authored. They wrote the bill
called the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. That bill created
this point of order specifically to address this type of situation,
where in a conference one or the other of the two bodies sticks into a
bill that is a must-pass bill language which has nothing to do with
that bill and which is not paid for.
In this case, it is $1 billion of spending not paid for which has
nothing to do with the troops in the field. The reason they structured
the rule this way was so it would not harm the underlying bill, so that
if this point of order is successful, this bill goes back to the House
and they can vote for it and send it to the President and fund the
troops.
Is it the position of the assistant leader that this cash for
clunkers bill is so important that the House of Representatives would
not fund the troops if the language was not in the bill? Is he saying
the Democratic leadership of the House is holding the funding of the
troops hostage to spending $1 billion on an extraneous program, which
creates virtually no environmental improvement in our fleet and which
is simply part of the economic effort to revive the auto industry--
which we have already spent $83 billion on, by the way. Is that what he
is saying?
That seemed to be the implication of his language: that the House
will not pass the funding for the troops if we take it out of it--under
a rule created for the purpose of disciplining ourselves this way, a
rule created by the majority leader and by the assistant majority
leader; authored by them and designed specifically to address this type
of situation, where a conference is truly abused relative to funding
and spending money which we do not have.
I do not believe that is realistic. I do not believe the Democratic
membership of the House is going to vote against this bill if the cash
for clunkers language is taken out on a surgical strike under a
procedural right which was created by the Democratic leader and the
Democratic assistant leader.
In addition, of course, there is the fact that pay-go is being
violated. There is the great irony that the President of the United
States, surrounded by the Democratic leadership of the Senate and the
House, held a very dramatic press conference at the White House, at
12:30 in the afternoon, saying they were going to reestablish the pay-
go rules for future spending, that new programs would have to be paid
for. And then that House leadership went back up to Capitol Hill, and
on the same day, passed this cash for clunkers bill, which was not paid
for and violated the pay-go rules. The hypocrisy of it is so
extraordinary that it cannot even be described. But that is what
happened.
And then, in order to protect this bill, which was an unpaid-for
violation of the pay-go rules, they stuck it into the conference report
to fund the troops. How outrageous is that? So a pay-go point of order,
which might take down this whole bill, is not appropriate to make. But
it is appropriate to make this very targeted point of order, which will
only eliminate the cash for clunkers language.
The policy of cash for clunkers is debatable. Maybe it makes sense;
maybe it does not make sense. But it certainly should not have been put
into this Defense bill, which is necessary for funding our troops. If
it is a strong idea, let it stand on its own two feet on the floor of
the Senate. Let it be debated. Let it, hopefully, be paid for. But at
least let it be amended so those of us who think it should be paid for
can propose ideas for paying for it.
Under the bill as it is being handled now, there are no amendments
allowed. We have to take this $1 billion of new debt, like it or not,
whether we support the program or not. We have to pass a bill which is
going to add this $1 billion of additional debt on our children's
backs. It is a totally inappropriate way to legislate.
My effort is not to slow down or to stop or to marginalize in any way
the funding for our troops--I voted for every troop funding bill that
has come through this Congress, and I intend to continue to vote for
them--but it is to take out this language, which is inappropriate, to
live by the rules the majority leader passed, the assistant majority
leader put in place--rule XLIV--to live by the pay-go rules, to not, in
the name of addressing a special interest group, spend $1 billion for
which we will pass the bill on to our kids and our grandchildren.
Why should our grandchildren have to pay for cars we are going to buy
today? Does that make any sense, that for the next 20 years we are
going to end up paying these bills? Of course, it does not make sense.
So we should take this language out. It is not going to slow this
bill down, not at all. This bill will go back to the House. It will be
passed, and it will be sent to the President. It will be an act of
fiscal responsibility, and we will be limiting the amount of debt we
will be putting on our children's backs, which is the way we should be
approaching legislation.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
How much time is there available?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes on the Republican side; 10
minutes on the majority side.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from
Oklahoma wish to have?
Mr. INHOFE. Twelve minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Well, Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my
time. I see the Senator from Michigan on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me communicate that we are talking
about a motion to waive less than 1 percent of this bill. It is an
emergency

[[Page 15572]]

bill. It is a supplemental. It is less than 1 percent. In terms of the
overall scope of what is before us, it is small. But I can tell you, in
small towns and cities all across America, this is a big deal.
We have up to 3 million people who, in some way, work with our
automobile industry. We have small businesses all across this country
that are looking at this vote. We have had colleagues come to the
floor. We have had hearings held, letters, and press releases about
helping dealers at this time. This is the moment. This is the moment
and the vote as to whether we will do that.
I am very grateful for the chairman of the committee and his
graciousness in working with us on this issue and to our leadership.
We know that while this has not come through the regular process in
the Senate, in the House it went through the committee. It was reported
out of committee. It was passed on the House floor, with 298 votes from
Republicans and Democrats. Over two-thirds voted for this.
The reason it has been moved into this emergency supplemental is
because it is an emergency, because we are seeing dealers that have
been told they are going to have to phase out who have inventory to
sell. We are seeing dealers all across America that are seeing sales go
down and down and down; and the question is, How long are they going to
be able to hold on?
The average dealer hires 53 people in their dealership. These are
small businesses. I grew up on a car lot. My dad and my grandfather had
a car dealership. I know what this is about for a small town.
When we look at the fact that from January to May every automobile
company--for GM, it has been a 41.8-percent reduction in sales; for
Toyota, it has been a 39-percent reduction in sales; and there are the
reductions in sales for Ford, Chrysler, and Honda. All across the
board, these sales are down.
This may not seem like an emergency to people here, but I can tell
you, this is an emergency for families and small businesses, for an
industry that has been the backbone of our economy for a generation,
with up to 3 million people working in this industry. This, in fact, is
an emergency and worth our time to put this into this bill as less than
1 percent--less than 1 percent--of the emergency spending that is in
front of us.
Every other country with an automobile presence has, in fact, done
something to help their industry. Germany found that in the first
month, in January, when they put a similar kind of incentive plan in
place, they raised sales 21 percent--21 percent at the same time our
sales were falling 40 percent.
We have seen similar plans in China, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Great
Britain, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Romania, and
Slovakia--Mr. President, Slovakia. But the United States has not yet
acted on a program that has been effective around the world, when we
have so many small businesses right now, literally, whose futures are
hanging in the balance.
This is something supported by business and labor, by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and,
of course, the auto dealers.
I am also very pleased it is now supported by the Sierra Club. We
know that, from an environmental standpoint, there is always more we
can do. But we know this moves us in the right direction. In terms of
the environment, this is a win with every single new car that is sold.
Every car or truck sold under this program will be more fuel efficient,
will be cleaner than the car or truck it replaces. That is a fact.
This bill will save 133 gallons of gasoline per vehicle per year and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.45 million metric tons.
In 2010, vehicles from model year 1998 or earlier will account for 25
percent of the miles driven but 75 percent of all the tailpipe
emissions.
So if we are able to get older vehicles, vehicles that are worth
$4,500 or less, off the road--they are scrapped when they are turned
in, so they can no longer pollute--and people buy a vehicle that gets
22 miles a gallon or more, or if it is 10 miles per gallon better than
their old car, they get a $4,500 voucher. That seems to me to be a step
in the right direction.
Is it all it could be? No. It never is here. We work hard. We take
one step. We take two steps. We take three steps. But this is certainly
a step forward.
This bill is about jobs. This is a bill about jobs. It is about small
business. It is about the environment as well. We will see immediate
reductions in fuel use, carbon emissions, and air pollution. Our
constituents, from the major business organizations to labor and the
Sierra Club, are supporting this effort. Not only are carmakers
interested in this, as I have said already, but the people who work in
the offices, the engineers, the designers, the clerks, the office
managers, the salespeople, the mechanics, the car washers, the
printers, the advertisers, local newspapers, television, and radio, who
all depend on their local dealer. This is a program that has been
successful around the world. There has been a tremendous amount of
effort that has gone into this.
I thank the bill's sponsor in the House, Congresswoman Sutton, who
introduced the first bill and worked so hard and introduced the bill
that was finally passed. I thank all of those who worked together on
both sides of the aisle to put together something that passed
overwhelmingly in the House. It comes to us now in a bill labeled
``emergency spending.''
This bill goes way beyond just helping the automakers. It would
particularly benefit dealers, auto suppliers, State governments,
workers, communities, and consumers in every State in the country. I
wanted to clarify for the record that this legislation is meant to
include dealers in every State in the country. Although, the term
``State'' is used in several definitions of title XIII, I would like to
clarify that the CARS legislation is intended to have the same meaning
as the term ``State'' defined in 49 USC 32304(a)(14) to ensure coverage
of the program in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other U.S.
territories, just as it applies to the 50 States.
On behalf of the auto dealers, large and small, across this country,
the people who depend upon these businesses, depend upon the making of
these automobiles, the selling of these automobiles, I would ask my
colleagues to please give us the opportunity for a short-term stimulus.
This is a matter of a few months. It is less than 1 percent of this
entire bill, which is an important bill for our country and our defense
and for our troops. This is a small piece of what is in front of us,
but for small businesspeople and Americans working hard every day
across this country, it is a big deal and it is a chance to help. I
hope we will.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. GREGG. And on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the Senator from
Oklahoma, but before I do, I wish to take just 30 seconds to respond
quickly to the Senator from Michigan.
The idea that we haven't done anything for the automobile industry is
really hard to accept, $83 billion having been spent on the automobile
industry. The idea that $1 billion is just a small amount of money is
also very hard to accept; $1 billion of new debt is $1 billion that our
children are going to have to pay, and it is not a small amount of
money, and it compounds. We fly in the face of the procedures which the
Democratic leader set up around here to have pay-go and to have the
Open and Honest Leadership Act, we fly in the face of that by putting
in this bill this special interest piece of legislation, unpaid for,
and it is totally inexcusable.
This has nothing to do with funding the troops--nothing. The fact
that $1 billion is being spent and not paid for is totally
irresponsible. It is debt our children do not need to receive.
At this point, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page 15573]]

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask to be made aware when I have 1
minute remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on June 16, the House passed the bill we
have been talking about here. I have concerns that have not been
discussed in the last few minutes.
Although the Senate voted 90 to 6 on a bipartisan amendment to
prohibit funding for the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United
States, the supplemental appropriations conference report deleted that
language. That language came from an amendment that was authored by
myself and my good friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, but they
stripped that language. The Senate's bipartisan amendment would have
effectively prevented the closing of the terrorist detention facility
at Gitmo. Since President Obama announced that he intended to close
Gitmo, it has become widely circulated that these detainees could be
transferred to American prisons for prosecution in U.S. criminal courts
and potentially released in the United States.
In February of this year, I led a delegation--I have been there
several times--a delegation that had never been down to Gitmo, and they
saw the fine treatment the detainees get down there and saw the rooms
where torturing supposedly is going on. Not one incident of torture has
ever been documented.
After I returned, I introduced S. 370 to prevent the detainees at
Gitmo from being relocated anywhere on American soil. Since that time,
it has been called to our attention that the administration is talking
about maybe 17 locations in the United States to put these terrorists.
One of those locations was Fort Sill in my State of Oklahoma. I went
down there, and I found out that would not be at all workable. In fact,
Sergeant Major Carter, who is in charge of the prison at Fort Sill,
said: Why in the world would they close a place like Gitmo? It is the
ideal place to keep these people.
Currently, even though they are talking about putting them in
supermax prisons, the only supermax facility is located in Florence,
CO. According to the Bureau of Prisons, as of May 21, only one bed has
not been filled at supermax. Obviously, this isn't going to work. The
rated capacity of BOP facilities at the beginning of this month was
13,648 inmates, while the total prison population of those facilities
was far more than that--exceeding 20,000.
Despite claims by Senator Durbin that supermax prisons in the United
States are ready to receive detainees, the supermax prisons in the
United States are at or above their maximum capacity.
Additionally, the civilian prisons do not meet the same standard as
currently exists at Gitmo. In 2002, an entire wing of a jail in
Alexandria, VA, was cleared out for the 9/11 ``20th hijacker,''
Zacarias Moussaoui, to be housed in the jail. That was just one
detainee. For one detainee, they are talking about clearing out the
entire wing. So moving detainees to the United States would not be
reasonable.
It would also place America and its citizens at risk in inevitably
creating a new set of targets. This is the problem we have. We have 17
places in the United States where we would be putting these people. We
have 17 magnets to draw in terrorists located around the country.
Three weeks after I called for President Obama and my Senate
colleagues to go see firsthand the facility at Gitmo, Attorney General
Eric Holder--he is our new Attorney General appointed by President
Obama--went down there, and he came back with a glowing report that the
facility is well run by its current military officers. This affirms
what I have been saying all along; that is, Gitmo is a state-of-the-art
facility that provides humane treatment for all detainees and is fully
compliant with the Geneva Conventions.
When the war supplemental came to the floor in the Senate, I was
extremely pleased that Democrats and Republicans in the Senate joined
together and announced they would not include the $80 million in the
war supplemental to close Gitmo. Sadly, this bipartisan initiative has
fallen victim to partisan politics without any regard for our national
security or the wishes of the American people.
Senator Reid, Harry Reid, declared--and I agreed with him--in a press
conference after my bipartisan Senate amendment was passed that, ``We
will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.'' I
think that is a good statement. I agree with it. He went on to say,
``We don't want them around the United States. I can't make it any
clearer than the statement I have given you. We will never allow
terrorists to be released in the United States.'' Well, that sounds
real good, and I agree with him and I hope he is right. However, the
problem is, if you try to try these people in our Federal court system
where the rules of evidence are different in terms of admissibility of
evidence, many times we would not be able to get a prosecution and they
would be turned loose.
Finally, Senator Durbin said the feeling was at this point that we
were defending the unknown, we were being asked to defend a plan that
hasn't been announced. Well, I have to say it still hasn't been
announced.
Two weeks ago, the Obama administration again went against the will
of Congress and the American people by transferring the first Gitmo
detainee to the United States for his trial in New York City. This was
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. This is a guy, if you remember, who is the
terrorist responsible for the bombing at the American Embassies in
Tanzania and in Kenya. He was later captured in Pakistan in 2004 while
working for al-Qaida preparing false documents and facilitating a
transport of arms to insurgents across the Afghan and Pakistan border.
Intelligence shows that Ghailani met both bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed in Afghanistan and remained in close association with al-Qaida
until his capture in 2004. Now this bona fide terrorist will have the
privilege of a U.S. civilian court trial in the United States. Ahmed
Ghailani was just 1 of 239 detainees housed in the state-of-the-art
facility at Gitmo.
According to the Wall Street Journal today, a government official has
said that well over 50 detainees have been approved for transfer to
other countries and that negotiations were continuing with Saudi Arabia
to take a large group of Yemen detainees. Attorney General Eric Holder
estimated yesterday that more than 50 detainees may end up in trial by
U.S. authorities. This news comes as more and more Americans are
growing opposed to the closure of Gitmo. In fact, I would have to say
this: Recently, we have had more and more polls taken, and it is now
about a 3-to-1 ratio that people don't want these people tried in the
United States, they don't want to have them housed in the United
States.
So we have a very serious problem. Not only are we talking about
detainees down there, we are also talking about an increase in the
surge in Afghanistan, and even though Afghanistan does have two
prisons, they won't take any detainees unless they are Afghans. So if
they are from Yemen or from Djibouti, they won't take them. So this is
the problem we have right now.
The views of Congress haven't changed. In 2007, the Senate voted 94
to 3 to a nonbinding resolution to block detainees from being
transferred to the United States, declaring:

Detainees housed at Guantanamo should not be released into
American society nor should they be transferred stateside
into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.

In 2009, the Senate voted 90 to 6 to again keep detainees out of
America.
The views of the American people have not changed. I mentioned the
polls. The polls are all conclusive that the American people do not
want to have these people turned loose into the United States, which is
exactly what could happen.
While the quality of the facility of Gitmo has not changed, it is the
only facility of its kind that is currently--it has six levels of
security from the different levels of security. It has one doctor for
each two detainees, and, as everyone agrees, it is the ideal place.

[[Page 15574]]

I might add that this is one of the few good deals we have in
government in that it only costs us $4,000 a year. We have had this
place since 1903, and it is something we can't get rid of. The only
reason I mention this now is because I have the bill that is filed,
which is S. 370, that meets the will of the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
So this bill I have, S. 370, will give people in this Chamber an
opportunity to vote to keep the detainees--to keep the terrorists--out
of the United States of America.
I would say this: If there are some people who would be voting for
the supplemental as it is right now, at least they would have another
opportunity to express their will, as they have expressed on two other
occasions, that we don't want the detainees, we don't want the
terrorists tried in America or to be detained within the United States
of America.
So with this, it is my hope the majority will allow an immediate vote
on the bill I have filed, S. 370.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the Senate takes up legislation
today on emergency funding for combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, U.S. forces overseas can be reassured by this: unlike some
of our previous recent debates, broad bipartisan agreement now exists
in support of the proposition that the efforts of our service men and
women should be funded and supported.
The supplemental agreement we are considering today includes nearly
$80 billion for the Defense Department. This funding will allow General
Odierno and our uniformed men and women in Iraq to preserve the
security gains they achieved during the surge, continue the transition
to greater Iraqi control and capability, and deny refuge to al-Qaida in
Iraq.
These funds will also be used to support a surge of forces in
Afghanistan. And to those of us who ignored previous calls for
arbitrary withdrawal dates in Iraq, it is particularly encouraging to
see that President Obama has accepted the recommendations of General
Petraeus for sending additional forces into Afghanistan. Success there
isn't assured. Looking ahead, we can expect continued challenges
associated with the upcoming Afghan national elections, the need to
continue the expansion of the Afghan National Army and Police, and the
need to combat corruption within the Afghan ministries. But the
President was right to direct a surge of forces, appoint a new
commander, and refocus our efforts on a broad counterinsurgency
strategy to combat the Taliban.
Republicans support this surge and understand that broad security
gains in Afghanistan cannot be achieved without the sustained
improvement of the Afghanistan National Army and police forces. But
this strategy will also require a sustained effort on the part of the
government, the people, and the military forces of Pakistan to deny the
Taliban, al-Qaida, and associated groups sanctuary in the tribal areas
of Pakistan.
Just 2 months ago, the situation in Pakistan appeared to be so dire
that the Secretary of State openly voiced concern that ``the Pakistani
government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to extremists.''
Since that time, the Pakistani military has moved in force into the
Swat Valley to combat this threat. Our commitment to helping Pakistan
prevail in this fight, which must be conducted as a counterinsurgency
if it is to succeed, must be sustained. Fortunately, the supplemental
contains funds to allow it.
Another important issue that must be addressed is the effort by some
to force the release of photos depicting the alleged mistreatment or
mistreatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am afraid that
those encouraging the release of these photos fail to appreciate the
potential consequences of such a release. The United States has
painfully come to learn that al-Qaida and the Taliban are sophisticated
communicators who exploit the airwaves and the internet. That is why
the concerns expressed by our military commanders over the release of
additional photos depicting the alleged mistreatment of detainees were
of equal concern to our allies and friends. Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries deal each
day with the threat of militant radicals. They know how these images
can be exploited by terrorist groups, and the bitter consequences that
could follow. Senators Lieberman, Graham, and McCain should be
commended for making these concerns their own and carrying them to the
American people.
Senator Graham noted on the floor yesterday that he believes the
President shares the Senate's concerns about the potential dangers of
releasing these photos. Last evening we passed legislation that would
prevent any additional strategic harm from the release of photographs
like these. Now the House must act.
Although Republicans support the President's support in the
supplemental for our operations and overall objectives in Iraq and
Afghanistan, a bipartisan majority disagree with the President in one
important respect--and that is the administration's request for $80
million from Congress for the purpose of closing the detention facility
at Guantanamo Bay before the administration even has a place to put the
detainees who are housed there, any plan for military commissions, or
any articulated plan for indefinite detention or for transferring
detainees in a manner that ensures the safety of the American people.
During January of this year, by Executive order, the President
established an arbitrary date for closing the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay. In April, the administration submitted its funding
request to close Guantanamo as part of this supplemental bill, and the
Senate voted 90-6 against including that funding. But it is worth
reminding the Senate that the defense budget request for fiscal year
2010 includes a similar funding request, so the Senate will consider
this matter again in the near future.
Bipartisan majorities of both Houses and the American people oppose
closing Guantanamo without a plan, and several important questions
remain unanswered: why was it necessary to bring detainees to the
United States for prosecution, rather than using the courtroom at
Guantanamo? If these terrorists are found to be not guilty by a
civilian court, will they be returned to detention or released? What
threat assessments were conducted prior to the recent transfers of
detainees to Iraq, Chad, and Saudi Arabia?
The task force established by the President to review the closure of
Guantanamo is scheduled to conclude its work in July, so Congress may
learn of the administration's plans later this year. But this
conference report requires the President to report to the Congress
concerning the threat any further detainees who are released or
transferred pose to the American people and our service members
overseas. This will be of increasing importance as the task force
decides the fate of detainees from Yemen.
As I said, Republicans supported the President when he reconsidered
his plan to withdraw forces from Iraq. It is our hope that he will show
similar openness when it comes to his arbitrary deadline for closing
Guantanamo. The Senate has spoken clearly on this issue repeatedly. It
is our hope that the administration heeds the wishes of the American
people as expressed through their elected representatives when it comes
to releasing and transferring dangerous terrorists.
As the arbitrary closure date approaches, we will continue to press
this issue forward.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed a great strain on our
combat forces, the weapons and equipment that they need to succeed and
on the training base that helps to keep the force ready. This bill
continues the Senate's support for this force, and for the dangerous
missions that they undertake on our behalf, and therefore it deserves
our support. It is not perfect, but it meets the needs of our
commanders in the field. America remains

[[Page 15575]]

a nation at war. Our forces fighting these wars deserve our support,
and the funding in this bill.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the chairman wishes to close,
so I will just speak and then yield back the remainder of our time, and
so the chairman can make his closing comments.
I just have to reemphasize how much of an afront it is to the process
which we set up at the beginning of this Congress to try to have fiscal
discipline if we do not support this point of order. This point of
order was specifically put in to address this type of situation, where
there is an extraneous piece of legislation airdropped into a
conference report by one House or the other House, and in this case, it
is $1 billion of spending which will go directly to the debt of this
country.
We have heard from the Chinese that they are getting worried about
buying our debt. They are the ones who are financing us. We have heard
from our own experts and economists that the American debt rating,
which is AAA-plus, may be at risk. We know we are running up debt at
such an extraordinary rate right now--$2 trillion this year, over $1
trillion next year, $1 trillion a year on average for the next 10
years--that our debt is going to double in 5 years and triple in 10
years.
Where do we start to discipline ourselves? Well, one would hope we
would start to discipline ourselves with something that so obviously
violates the rules we set up here for fiscal discipline. It violates
pay-go. It is not paid for, even though the President calls for pay-go.
This is a new program, unpaid for, and it violates the new rule put
in under the Openness in Government and Honesty in Leadership Act,
authored by Senators Reid and Durbin, and Senator Stabenow was a
cosponsor. It said don't put into a conference report things that are
extraneous and aren't paid for. Yet this does exactly that. Will it
affect the troops in the field? No. This bill will pass now. If this
point of order is sustained, this bill will pass this House and fully
fund the troops. Then it will go back to the House of Representatives.
I cannot believe, under any scenario, that the House of
Representatives is not going to vote to fund the troops, that they are
going to hold the funding of the troops in the field hostage to
spending $1 billion and adding new debt on an extraneous program that
has to do with buying old cars. Nobody is going to do that. That
doesn't even pass the smell test as being credible.
The bill will pass the House and be sent to the President probably
before the day is out. That is the way it should be. That is why this
point of order was put into place. That is why the Senator from
Illinois, working with the Senator from Nevada, the leaders on the
other side of the aisle, created this very good and appropriate rule,
so things like this could be addressed in a surgical way, so they would
not lead to adding $1 billion--in this case--which is a lot of money.
A couple of Members have said it is just a little bit. In New
Hampshire, $1 billion will run our State government for a considerable
period of time. That is a lot of money. I have never seen it. It is a
lot of money.
There is no reason to pass on to these young pages that debt. If we
think the cash for clunkers idea is a good one, let's pay for it. There
are a lot of places we can find $1 billion in a $2 trillion-plus
budget. So let's pay for this. Let's budget effectively. Remember the
words of the chairman of the Budget Committee because they are
prophetic: The debt is a threat. It is a threat to this Nation.
We have a chance to do a little bit--$1 billion worth, which is a
significant amount--to try to address the debt problem by supporting
this point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I find it very difficult to be on the
opposing side of my dear friend from New Hampshire. There has been a
lot of discussion on the premise that conferees did not pay for the
cash for clunkers bill.
Technically, that is correct. But I believe my colleague should be
advised that under the Congressional Budget Office scoring, the
conferees are scored with a savings of $1.47 billion in discretionary
spending in this bill.
In title 14 of the bill, the conferees included a provision which
mandates that more than $1 billion in discretionary spending in
rescissions shall be allocated as savings in the bill not used as an
offset.
While the conferees were required to designate the Cash for Clunkers
title as an emergency for technical reasons, it is also true that we
included a $1 billion offset in discretionary spending which for all
practical purposes offsets the spending for Cash for Clunkers.
So while much of the debate about this matter has involved the fact
that the conferees didn't pay for this provision, that is not
completely accurate.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the last page
from the scorekeeping document of the appropriations committee on the
supplemental which shows $1 billion $47 million in savings.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

FISCAL YEAR 2009 SUPPLEMENTAL CONFERENCE AGREEMENT
[Amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Request House Senate Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET RECAP

Scorekeeping adjustments:
O&M, Navy transfer to Coast Guard:
Defense function.................... -$129,503 ............... ............... ...............
Overseas deployments and other ............... -$129,503 ............... ...............
activities.....................
Non-defense function................ 129,503 ............... ............... ...............
Overseas deployments and other ............... 129,503 ............... ...............
activities.....................
O&M, Defense-Wide transfer to Department
of State:
Defense function.................... -30,000 ............... ............... ...............
Overseas deployments and other ............... -30,000 ............... -$30,000
activities.....................
Non-defense function................ 30,000 ............... ............... ...............
Overseas deployments and other ............... 30,000 ............... 30,000
activities.....................
Department of State transfer to other
accounts:
Diplomatic and Consular programs.... -137,600 ............... ............... ...............
Overseas deployments and other ............... -157,600 -$135,629 -137,600
activities.....................
Other United States department or 137,600 ............... ............... ...............
agency.............................
Overseas deployments and other ............... 157,600 135,629 137,600
activities.....................
SPR Petroleum Account transfer to SPR
account:
Non-emergency function.............. ............... -21,586 -21,586 -21,586
Overseas deployment function........ ............... 21,586 ............... ...............
(Emergency)......................... ............... ............... 21,586 21,586
Dept of Education account transfer to
CTAE:
Non-emergency function.............. ............... ............... ............... -10,000
(Emergency)......................... ............... ............... ............... 10,000
Less emergency and contingent emergency. 1,125,000 -799,836 -2,743,251 -16,168,838
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, scorekeeping adjustments....... 1,125,000 -799,836 -2,743,251 -16,168,838
===================================================================
Total (including scorekeeping adjustments).. 93,270,120 95,917,135 88,539,868 89,682,711
Amounts in this bill.................... (92,145,120) (96,716,971) (91,283,119) (105,851,549)

[[Page 15576]]

Scorekeeping adjustments................ (1,125,000) (-799,836) (-2,743,251) (-16,168,838)
===================================================================
Total mandatory and discretionary..... 93,270,120 95,917,135 88,539,868 89,682,711
Mandatory............................... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Discretionary........................... 93,270,120 95,917,135 88,539,868 89,682,711

Overseas Deployments and Other ............... 99,280,821 89,227,551 90,730,504
Activities (ODOA)......................
Fiscal Year 2009 ODOA Cap (S. Con. ............... (90,745,000) (90,745,000) (90,745,000)
Res. 13) (Sec. 104(21))............
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ODOA versus Fiscal Year 2009 ODOA CAP... ............... 8,535,821 -1,517,449 -14,496

Discretionary (less ODOA)............... 93,270,120 -3,363,686 -687,683 -1,047,793
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a
report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items

I certify that the information required by rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate related to congressionally
directed spending items has been identified in the statement
of managers which accompanies the conference report on H.R.
2346 and that the required information has been available on
a publicly accessible congressional website at least 48 hours
before a vote on the pending bill.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the motion
to waive all points of order under rule XLIV.
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 36, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

YEAS--60

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

NAYS--36

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--3

Byrd
Ensign
Kennedy
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are
36. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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, we have had a long conversation with the
Republican leader. Senator McCain is going to speak for a while. After
that, it is my understanding we will have a vote on passage of the
supplemental conference report. The matter to follow that is the
tourism bill, which is so important to every State. The managers of
this bill are Senators Dorgan and Martinez. What we will do is start
with five amendments--Republicans can have three, and we will have
two--see if we can work through this bill before we have to do anything
procedurally.
This is a heavily bipartisan bill. I don't know if there has been a
bill this whole Congress that is more bipartisan. The reason it is
bipartisan is tourism is so important.
The Presiding Officer's State ia a beautiful State to go to--Aspen,
to Vail, all the many things they have in the national parks. Nevada,
people think it is the bright lights of Las Vegas and Reno, and it is,
but it is a lot more. People don't realize Nevada is the most
mountainous State in the Union, 314 mountain ranges. We have 32
mountains over 11,000 feet high, one 14,000 feet high. Every Senator
here could boast about why people should visit their State. I have been
to virtually every State in the Union. They are all beautiful. All work
promoting tourism.
In our country, we do not promote tourism. We are the only
industrialized Nation that does not. Some nonindustrialized nations
promote their countries; we don't. We need to have people come here.
Since 9/11, the number of people coming to the United States has
dropped significantly because of 9/11. They haven't been told it is the
safest place in the world to come. People should come here. So this
public-private partnership that is in this legislation will have
programs set up.
Frankly, it is comparable to what happens in Las Vegas with the Las
Vegas business authority. They have done such a remarkable job of
bringing people to Las Vegas. This should be done nationwide. I didn't
draft the bill, but they did copy a lot that has made Nevada
successful.
I hope we can work our way through the amendments and, in the
process, do something good for the country. I don't believe there is
anyone who wants to deep-six this bill. But I hope people who are
offering amendments will offer amendments that are relative and
germane. If they don't, they have a right to do that, and we will be
happy to take a look at them. I have no concern whether the legal
jargon of germaneness may not apply. I would rather not have to file
cloture on this bill. Because of the supplemental, I guess there has
been a lot of concern by the Republicans, but that should be gone now.
I think we have satisfied all their demands on the supplemental.
Hopefully, we can move forward with this and a number of nominations.
There will be more votes tonight. Maybe it will only be one more
vote, but we will have one vote on passage of the supplemental. Then we
will see what we set up for tomorrow and next week.

[[Page 15577]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, here we have a supplemental appropriations
conference report, supposedly, ostensibly to fund the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and to make sure the men and women who are serving
have the necessary equipment and wherewithal to pursue those conflicts
with the utmost efficiency. It is business as usual in our Nation's
Capital. It is business as usual in the Congress of the United States.
Instead of legislation to fund our troops and efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, we have a bill that includes such things as $2 million for
freeze-dried platelet and plasma development, $35 million for the FBI
to investigate mortgage fraud, predatory lending, financial fraud and
market manipulation, $13.2 million for payments to air carriers for
participation in the essential air service program.
Of course, one of the most remarkable feats of legerdemain I have
seen in my many years here, cash for clunkers. Someone should at least
attempt to explain how cash for clunkers has any relation whatsoever to
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It bribes Americans to trade in less
fuel-efficient vehicles, considered clunkers, despite the fact that the
car could have been bought yesterday, for a voucher worth up to $4,500
toward the purchase of a new car that must get at least 18 miles per
gallon, at least 18 miles per gallon--18 not 38? It is estimated to
cost about $1 billion, but some economists have declared the real cost
will be between $3 and $4 billion. I predict it will be a lot closer to
$3 to $4 billion than it will be to $1 billion.
A giveaway of this nature will be obviously something that will be
irresistible to many.
Here we are considering a supplemental appropriations conference
report totaling $105.9 billion, $13 billion less than the President's
request, $9 billion more than the House-passed bill, and $14.6 billion
above the Senate-passed bill. So what we have done is, we pass a bill
over here, they pass a bill over there, and we add to the sum of both.
The conference report provides crucial funding for ongoing military,
diplomatic, and intelligence operations. It provides emergency funding
to strengthen response to the H1N1 influenza outbreak and the borrowing
authority for the International Monetary Fund and, as I mentioned,
vouchers for consumers to trade in old cars for new, ``old'' meaning as
short a time as 1 year.
The majority of the conference report contains urgently needed
funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, our
military is engaged in an effort that can and must succeed. It also
contains important assistance for the Government of Pakistan, including
funding for the Pakistan counterinsurgency fund. The provision of this
funding should send a message to the people of Pakistan that the United
States has made a long-term commitment to stand by their side in the
region and at home as they battle domestic insurgents and extremists.
However, the conference report also contains billions of dollars in
unrequested spending that is largely unjustified and certainly
nonemergency.
President Obama's message to the Congress was to keep funding focused
on the needs of our troops and not to use the supplemental to pursue
unnecessary spending and to keep earmarks and other extraneous spending
out of the legislation. Despite the President's insistence not to
include unnecessary spending in the supplemental, the conference report
contains a number of earmarks and unrequested congressional program
additions.
I am disappointed the majority chose to use the supplemental as a
vehicle to add billions in unrequested funding and policy proposals
which should have been fully vetted and considered on their own merits,
while at the same time stripping out the Senate-passed detainee photo
provision offered by Senators Lieberman and Graham. The conference
report is also being used by the appropriators as a back door for
funding fiscal year 2010 ``base'' requirements.
The House allocations for 2010--commonly referred to as 302(b)
allocations--cut defense spending by $3.5 billion and reduced
international affairs funding by $3.2 billion. In other words, the
sleight of hand of adding nonemergency program funding to supplemental
appropriations is becoming all too familiar as a way of skirting fiscal
discipline by increasing discretionary spending above congressional
discretionary caps outlined in the budget resolution. In other words,
we are continuing what was, unfortunately, common in the previous
administration. Again, about cash for clunkers, it is remarkable.
On June 16, 2009, Citizens Against Government Waste wrote a letter to
all Members of the Senate stating that this provision ``is really
another bailout for the auto industry. American taxpayers have already
spent $85 billion.''
We now own two automotive companies, we and the unions. Why do we
need another bailout for the auto industry?
The ``Cash for Clunkers'' provision has no place in a bill
that provides emergency war funds.

I couldn't agree with Citizens Against Government Waste more.
The Wall Street Journal wrote in a June 11, 2009, editorial:

Congress wants to pay you to destroy your car . . . as
economic policy, this is dotty. It encourages Americans to
needlessly destroy still useful cars and then misallocates
scarce resources from another, perhaps more productive, use
in order to subsidize replacement. By the same logic, we
could revive the housing market by paying everyone to burn
down their houses, to collect the insurance money and build
new ones . . . The proposal is really intended to help
Detroit out of a recession by subsidizing new car purchases .
. .

Maybe that is why the president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers wrote asking all Senators to support this program, as
well as the United Auto Workers legislative director, who called this
provision ``the single most important step Congress can take right now
to assist the auto industry.''
Hasn't Congress done enough for the auto industry? When is $85
billion not enough for the auto industry?
Lastly, this provision is a lemon, according to a June 13, 2009,
article from the LA Times that stated:

Critics say the improvements required in the trade--as
little as 1 mile per gallon for certain light trucks--

In other words, you trade in your old light truck and buy another one
that is 1-mile-per-gallon more fuel efficient. So you can swap one gas
guzzler for another.
So for $1 billion, this provision doesn't achieve the environmental
goals its authors set forth either. My colleagues, Senators Feinstein
and Collins, argued such in an opinion piece published in the Wall
Street Journal on June 11, 2009, and also wrote that this provision
``being pushed by the auto industry is simply bad policy,'' that it is
``designed to provide Detroit one last windfall in selling off gas
guzzlers currently sitting on dealers lots because they're not a smart
buy.''
This unrelated provision is an unwise use of taxpayers' hard-earned
money and bad environmental policy. It doesn't belong in this bill, and
I strongly disagree with its inclusion.
There are a few more earmarks I would like to highlight: $2.2 billion
in unrequested funding for eight C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft.
Currently, we have either bought or ordered 30 more C-17 cargo aircraft
than is the military requirement. This is not a jobs program, as the
backlog of C-17s is so great that Boeing will not begin building these
eight aircraft for another 3 to 5 years. While Secretary Gates called
the C-17 ``a terrific aircraft,'' he stressed that the military users
``have more than necessary capacity'' for airlift over the next 10
years. These are, again, testimonies to the power of the military
industrial congressional complex in Washington, DC.
An unholy alliance between manufacturers, Members of Congress, and
lobbyists brings these things about. There is $504 million in
unrequested funding for seven C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft. In
testimony on May 14, 2009, Secretary Gates said:

[[Page 15578]]

We have over 200 C-130s in the Air National Guard that are
uncommitted and available for use for any kind of domestic
need.
All I know is that I have a great deal of unused capacity
in the C-130 fleet.

That is what the Secretary of Defense says. So we are going to spend
$504 million more for seven C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft.
There is $3.1 billion in unrequested funding for international
affairs operations and programs. The additional funding added by the
House majority and agreed to in conference is to offset the $3.2
billion reduction recently made by the Congress to the base budget
request.
There is $49 million in unrequested funding for hurricane damage
repairs to the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant. This funding was
added even though the Army advised the managers of this bill there are
no storm-related repairs required at the plant--so we are going to
spend $49 million to repair a plant that does not need to be repaired--
and that no valid military requirement exists for the funding.
Mr. President, $186 million is provided above the President's request
for lightweight howitzers built in Mississippi for the Marine Corps.
The additional funding is not requested in the Future Year Defense
Plan, nor was it on the fiscal year 2009 or fiscal year 2010 Marine
Corps Unfunded Requirements Lists. In other words, the Marine Corps
does not need it. The Department of Defense says it is not needed, but
we are going to spend $186 million additionally for howitzers built in
the State of Mississippi.
Mr. President, $150 million is included for Air Force A-10 Warthog
aircraft wing kits and installations. While Davis Montham Air Force
Base is in my State of Arizona and additional wing kits would be
welcomed, the additional funds were not requested by the
administration, and I oppose this $150 million.
It end runs the Defense Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process
by prohibiting the Secretary of Defense from carrying out a 2005 BRAC
decision to discontinue the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
I was very disappointed the House Democrats succeeded in their
efforts to strip from the supplemental spending bill the detainee photo
provision offered by Senators Lieberman and Graham. This provision,
which would support the President's efforts to bar the release of
photos of past detainee abuse, would help protect our troops from the
inevitable recriminations that these photos would incite. Releasing the
photos would not supply new information about the issue of detainee
abuse, but, rather, expose evidence of alleged past wrongdoing and put
our fighting men and women in greater danger.
That is not my view. It is that of our leading military commanders,
including GENs David Petraeus and Ray Odierno. Both of these
distinguished military leaders have stated that the release of these
images could endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers and make our
counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan more difficult.
That is why I commend the leadership demonstrated by Senators
Lieberman and Graham, both of whom have steadfastly demanded that this
crucial provision be addressed now by the Congress. Their efforts
culminated in the passage, by unanimous consent, of stand-alone
legislation that will help prevent the release of these damaging
images.
So there are other troubling aspects of detainee policy included in
this supplemental bill. Provisions in this bill attempt to address
detainee policy in a piecemeal way that fails to constitute a
comprehensive plan for what to do with detainees at Guantanamo and
those terrorist suspects captured off the battlefield in Afghanistan.
It does not include the $80 million requested by President Obama to
close Guantanamo. This is a serious rebuke by Congress and reflects a
bipartisan backlash against the idea of announcing a date for the
closure of Guantanamo while failing to provide a plan for what comes
next.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the fiscal year 2009
supplemental earmarks and unrequested congressional add-ons be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

FY 2009 Supplemental Earmarks and Unrequested Congressional Adds

$2.2 billion not requested by the President for 8 Air Force
C-17 aircraft.
$1 billion not requested by the President nor included in
the Senate or House-passed bills for vouchers of $3,500 or
$4,500 to be applied toward the purchase or lease of a new
fuel efficient automobile or truck.
$504 million not requested by the President for 7 Air Force
C-130 aircraft.
$439 million not requested by the President for barrier
island restoration in Mississippi.
$150 million not requested by the President for Air Force
A-10 aircraft wing kits and installations.
$150 million not requested by the President for Army
Stryker vehicles.
$117 million above the President's request for Lightweight
Howitzers built in Mississippi.
$100 million above the President's request for UH-1Y and
AH-1Z helicopters.
$94 million above the President's request for Defense
Education Agency programs.
$61 million not requested by the President for Link 16
aircraft communications equipment.
$49 million not requested by the President for an Army
ammunition plant in Mississippi.
$26.7 million not requested by the President for the Navy's
Saber Focus program.
$20 million not requested by the President for additional
Air Force Reserve flying hours.
$20 million above the President's request for Navy expenses
related to countering piracy.
$17.9 million above the President's request for Marine
Corps Manned Reconnaissance Systems.
$15.9 million not requested by the President for Army
tethered surveillance balloons.
$15.5 million not requested by the President for the Air
Force's Project Liberty program.
$4 million not requested by the President for a Vision
Center of Excellence in Maryland.
$2.2 million not requested by the President for Afghan
intelligence and surveillance infrastructure.
$1.2 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) not
requested by the President to offset the $3.2 billion
reduction made by the Congress to the President's FY 2010
base budget request. The increase is to pre-fund 2010 base
budget requirements for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Mexico and
Lebanon.
$404 million in Diplomatic and Consular program funding not
requested by the President to offset the $3.2 billion
reduction made by the Congress to the President's FY 2010
base budget request.
$135 million in Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) funding not
requested by the President to offset the $3.2 billion
reduction made by the Congress to the President's FY 2010
base budget request.
$150 million in Global Health and Child Survival funding
not requested by the President.
$700 million for a new Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund not requested by the President. Funds are not
needed in 2009 because the conference report provides the DoD
$400 million for the same purposes in 2009. Funding is
intended to pre-fund FY 2010 programs.
$400 million in international food assistance not requested
by the President.
$98 million in International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
funding not requested by the President to offset the $3.2
billion reduction made by the Congress to the President's FY
2010 base budget request.
$57 million in Migration and Refugee assistance funding not
requested by the President.
$23 million in Embassy Security, Construction and
Maintenance funding not requested by the President.
$40 million in Disaster Assistance funding not requested by
the President.
$2 million not requested by the President for Freeze Dried
Platelet and Plasma Development.
$40 million not requested by the Administration for the
Economic Development Administration to provide grants under
Trade Adjustment Assistance to communities and firms
adversely impacted by trade.
$60 million not requested by the Administration for the
Department of Justice for detention costs due to increased
enforcement activities along the US-Mexico border.
$10 million not requested by the Administration for the
U.S. Marshals Service for enhanced judicial security in
districts along the southwest border, the apprehension of
criminals who have fled to Mexico, and to upgrade
surveillance equipment used to monitor drug cartels and
violent gang members.
$35 million not requested by the Administration for the FBI
to investigate mortgage fraud, predatory lending, financial
fraud and market manipulation.
$20 million not requested by the Administration for the DEA
to expand its Sensitive Investigation Unit program in Mexico.

[[Page 15579]]

$10 million above Administration's request for the ATF for
upgrade technology for ballistics evidence sharing with
Mexico and Project Gunrunner firearms trafficking activities
along the Southwest border.
$10 million not requested by the Administration to meet
increased workloads resulting from immigration cases and
other law enforcement initiatives.
$8 million not requested by the Administration for the
necessary expenses of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
established in the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of
2009.
$10 million not requested by the Administration for
necessary expenses for investigations of securities fraud.
$46.2 million not requested by the Administration for
salaries and expenses, including the care, treatment and
transportation of unaccompanied alien children and border
security issues on the Southwest border of the U.S.
$5 million not requested by the Administration to respond
to border security issues on the Southwest border of the
United States.
$66.8 million not requested by the Administration for the
care, treatment and transportation of unaccompanied alien
children and border security issues on the Southwest border.
$139.5 million not requested by the Administration for
expenses to support Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom for the operation and maintenance of
vessels, law enforcement detachments, port security units and
salaries for the Coast Guard Reserve on active duty.
$30 million not requested by the Administration for
Operation Stonegarden to assist State and local law
enforcement agencies which may be impacted by the increased
violence in Mexico and to help prevent its spillover into the
U.S.
$2 million for the Congressional Budget Office not
requested by the Administration for salaries and expenses.
$13.2 million not requested by the Administration for
payments to air carriers for participation in the essential
air service program.

Mr. McCAIN. So in what the American people believed was a time of
change, the American people now should know that it is business as
usual. A combination of lobbyists, industry campaign contributions,
unnecessary spending continues completely out of control. This was a
piece of legislation that was supposed to fund the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. So now we add billions of dollars for things such as cash
for clunkers, unneeded and unnecessary and unwanted military equipment
that is made in the home States of certain powerful Members of
Congress.
It is not good. Sooner or later, the American people will demand that
it comes to an end.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to be heard briefly.
We heard Senator McCain attack this bill that is before us that
primarily funds two wars, takes care of our wounded warriors, invests
in new hospitals for them to be treated for their brain injuries, helps
them with their childcare, and essentially starts us on the path of
bringing our troops home from Iraq--something President Obama promised
to do--and changes our focus in Afghanistan, which has been very
scattered, and focuses us on routing out the Taliban, who make it
possible for al-Qaida to thrive. So this bill protects the American
people.
I have been very clear, I have said I want to see our Afghanistan
policy work. I said I am going to give it this year for that to happen,
and I hope it does happen. Because we were attacked by al-Qaida. We
were attacked by Osama bin Laden. We were attacked because al-Qaida had
sanctuary in Afghanistan. And instead of going into Afghanistan, the
way we should have, we shortchanged that mission that I voted for and
turned around and went into Iraq. We had President Bush, with his
constant focus on Iraq, lead us to a very dark period--very dark
period--in our history, where we lost thousands of our soldiers,
thousands more were wounded--and you all know the story of the torture
and all the rest that accompanied this--and led us to a place where
America has lost its standing in the world.
This President inherited two wars. Yes, he is trying to end one and
refocus another. He inherited the worst recession since the Great
Depression. I call it the ``Great Recession.'' And he also had to cope
with threats from North Korea, Iran, from pirates on the open seas,
instability in Pakistan. And then, on top of it all, he is facing, and
we are facing, a health threat from the swine flu, the H1N1 virus. So
he comes to us with an emergency spending bill.
Do I like everything in this bill? I do not. This is about a
compromise. I do not like everything in this bill. But to tear down the
attempt of what we are trying to do here, which is to begin moving our
troops out of Iraq, refocus our effort in Afghanistan, focus on the
wounded warriors, focus on global AIDS reduction, focus on the world
recession--that is another thing we are doing. I think it has to be
done. I would much rather do it all in the normal budget process. That
is why President Obama has said this is the last war supplemental we
will have. I compliment him on that. President Bush sent supplemental
requests to Congress year after year after year. This President says
this is the last time, and I take him at his word.
I think it is important, instead of being so terribly negative, to at
least give a balanced overview. Many of the funds in the bill for
Afghanistan will go to help the women and the children of Afghanistan.
It is very hard for me to understand how anyone could oppose that. We
have women who have acid thrown in their face if they do not obey their
husband or they take off a face covering. We have children being
stoned--girls--on their way to school. It seems to me that we ought to
give it a chance before we leave these women high and dry. I, for one,
cannot do that.
Again, I have said we have to do this right, and we have to do it
quickly. Because I am not going to give my vote to an open checkbook
for another war. But I believe this administration gets it and I
believe they are training the troops in Afghanistan and I believe they
are working to build a civil society there. Because, at the end of the
day, we cannot be the policemen of the world. We have to make sure the
people we are helping want to be helped and want to run their own
societies. That is our hope in Iraq, finally. That is our hope in
Afghanistan.
As I look around and I look around the world and I look around this
country and I see the pain and suffering in this country--this
recession--we have to understand we are in a global economy. That is
why the President wanted those IMF funds: So we can avert a depression
out there in the world.
There are peacekeeping funds in this bill. Anyone who is following
what is happening in Africa--whether it is Darfur or the Democratic
Republic of Congo or other places--understands the brutality that is
going on. We need to help end the brutality, particularly--and I know
my colleague in the chair knows this--the brutality against the women,
where in these countries rape is used as a tool of war and rape is used
as a tool of ethnic cleansing. We cannot allow that to happen. It is an
obligation we have as the leader of the free world.
I guess I wish to say to my colleague from Arizona, I totally
understand his frustration with spending. I have to tell him, this
Democratic Congress is going to wrap its arms around spending. We did
it before under President Clinton. We had horrible deficits that
President Clinton inherited from the other George Bush, and we got our
act in order. We had pay as you go. We are going to do that with this
President.
But let me tell you, this President has been in office for five
months, January through June, and we have averted economic disaster and
we have a foreign policy on the right track. There was an election in
Lebanon where the Lebanese people elected a pro-Western government. We
have other things happening around the world today that indicate people
hear now. In very high-tech ways, they are learning that freedom is
valuable. But it does not come to us free.
Yes, I do not like everything in this bill. I could go through my
list too. Because each one of us would write a different bill. But I
will tell you what I like less, the loss of jobs, the threat of the
swine flu, the threat of AIDS, the threat of world instability, the
spread of weapons.

[[Page 15580]]

So I say, we should vote for this bill, as flawed as it is, sending a
clear message to our President that we agree with him, but that this
should be the last war supplemental. Let's do these things on budget.
Let's go back to pay-go. Let's wrap our arms around fiscal
responsibility, the way we did in the 1990s.
Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who are
ranting and raving about deficits, under their President we had the
most outrageous deficits, the most outrageous debt. We Democrats, under
Bill Clinton, got a balanced budget in place, and we had a surplus--not
a deficit, we had a surplus--and we had the debt going down. It was
going to be eliminated. Then George Bush came in. He started this war
in Iraq--a war with an open checkbook, no end in sight, no checks and
balances on it, and tax breaks to the people who earn $1 million or
more. It drove us into the ground. That is what brought us to this
January, when our new President took all this on his shoulders and
shared the burden with the Democratic Congress. I think we have averted
the worst of it. We have a long way to go. I think this supplemental
will help us get the rest of the way. Coming at us is pay as you go.
Coming at us is fiscal responsibility. Coming at us is a challenge. We
are going to have to make those difficult choices. That is one of the
reasons we want to take care of health care and energy because, at the
end of the day, those will help our economy.
The challenges are great. There is plenty of stuff in this bill I
don't like, but I think, overall, this bill moves us in the right
direction, in terms of helping our men and women in uniform, helping
our national security, helping our public health, helping the global
recession, and moving us toward a better day.
So I will support this bill. I thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Juneteenth Independence Day

Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, next month, the Fourth of July, this
Nation will pause to remember the moment when we asserted our
independence and declared ourselves free from tyranny. It is a day all
Americans hold dear, and rightly so.
But on the 19th of this month, which will be tomorrow, many in this
country observe another independence day. It echoes the ideals laid
down in that first declaration. It celebrates liberation from a more
oppressive tyranny. It marks a ``new birth of freedom'' for the slaves
who had been excluded from the promise of the American dream.
That is why I have submitted this Senate resolution observing the
historical significance of that day--Juneteenth Independence Day.
Slavery officially ended in the Confederate States of America when
President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1,
1863. But many slaves did not learn of their freedom until much later.
Finally, on June 19, 1865, more than 2 years after the Emancipation
Proclamation, Union soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger
arrived in Galveston, TX. They brought news that must have been almost
unbelievable to all who heard it--especially those who had known no
existence outside of bondage. The Civil War was over, they announced,
and all slaves were free.
From that day on, former slaves in the Southwest celebrated June 19
as the anniversary of their emancipation.
Over the past 144 years, Juneteenth Independence Day celebrations
have been held to honor African-American freedom. But this date has
come to hold even greater significance. Throughout the world,
Juneteenth celebrations lift up the spirit of freedom and rail against
the forces of oppression.
At long last, Juneteenth is beginning to be recognized as both a
national event and a global celebration. The end of slavery marked a
major step towards achieving equal rights for every American,
regardless of race, creed or color.
Just as the Fourth of July marks the beginning of a journey that
continues even today, we must not forget that the long march to freedom
that started on June 19 is far from over.
Our progress along this path and our progress as a Nation can be
measured in many ways, but none so dramatic as the popular election of
an African American to the Presidency of the United States.
America has come a long way since that first Juneteenth, and yet we
have a long way still to go.
Juneteenth should be a day of reflection--a day to remember those who
came before, who fought and suffered and died. But it should also be a
day of action; a day for all of us to stand together and hold up the
liberties we hold so dear; a day to look ahead to the future, to
continue the fight for freedom and equality; a day to think of our
children as much as our forefathers.
Together, we must ensure that our sons and daughters know an America
that is even more free, more fair, and more equal than the America we
live in today.
When we leave this place, let us share in the joy of those who
greeted General Granger's arrival into Galveston on that fine June day
more than 140 years ago. And let us stand with our forefathers to
continue this journey in our own lives.
Madam President, I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting
this resolution observing the historical significance of Juneteenth
Independence Day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
the leader, that no further points of order be in order during the
pendency of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2346, and that at
4:40 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference
report, with the time until then equally divided and controlled in the
usual form. That is the consent request, which would have been offered
earlier but a Senator had the floor so it was not. The hour of 4:40
having arrived, it is now the time specified for commencement of the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 5, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

YEAS--91

Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts

[[Page 15581]]

Rockefeller
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--5

Coburn
DeMint
Enzi
Feingold
Sanders

NOT VOTING--3

Byrd
Ensign
Kennedy
The conference report was agreed to.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________