[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.

                          ____________________