[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6103-6128]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1105, which the clerk 
will report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as following:

       A bill (H.R. 1105) making omnibus appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other 
     purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1105, the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. This is a measure that should have 
been completed last year but was not because of the previous 
administration's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith. But today we 
have the opportunity to put partisanship behind us and to continue the 
task of rebuilding our economy, reinvesting in America and, frankly, 
making our Government work again.
  I want to point out that today is March 2. We are now almost halfway 
through the fiscal year. Except for Defense, Veterans, and Homeland 
Security, our executive branch agencies are all still operating on a 
continuing resolution.
  Under the continuing resolution, no new programs can begin. Funding 
levels are held to last year's level. This means that even things such 
as price increases due to inflation and the cost of civil servant pay 
raises must be absorbed within the existing agency funding levels.
  Many worthy initiatives which were approved by the Appropriations 
Committee are being held at artificially low spending totals. And, as 
we all know, the continuing resolution will expire on Friday--this 
Friday.
  It is not in the best interests of the taxpayer or the agencies we 
are funding to operate the Federal Government on autopilot. A yearlong 
continuing

[[Page 6104]]

resolution does not allow a Federal agency any flexibility to address 
changing priorities. Passage of H.R. 1105 begins the process of 
returning our Departments and agencies to a more regular order. We 
simply must complete this bill this week--in fact, this Thursday.
  The 2009 omnibus bill has strong support from both sides of the 
aisle, including the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Thad Cochran. Further, the distinguished minority leader was 
accurate with his comments in January that this bill has been fully 
vetted and is ready for immediate passage.
  This measure is not, as some have suggested, duplicative of the 
spending provided by the recently enacted American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act. This argument misses the point entirely. The purpose 
of the recovery package is to jump-start economic growth by making 
significant investments above the annual budget. The omnibus is the 
baseline budget.
  But equally important to the funding contained in the bill is the 
fact that the omnibus bill will provide much needed guidance to 
executive branch agencies that have been operating without such 
guidance under the continuing resolution. In addition, there are a 
number of new initiatives across the Government that cannot be 
implemented without passage of this bill.
  So it is my sincere hope this is the last omnibus bill we will see 
for some time to come, as it is my intention as chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee to pass each of our annual appropriations 
measures through the regular order. But having said that, it is clearly 
impossible for fiscal year 2009, and for all the reasons mentioned 
above, there is no doubt that this bill is far superior to yet another 
continuing resolution.
  The $410 billion in spending contained in this measure will 
accomplish a number of objectives, including giving extra momentum to 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by funding additional 
projects and, therefore, saving thousands of additional jobs. In this 
time of economic crisis, nothing is more important than keeping America 
working.
  I will offer a few examples of the kinds of initiatives that I 
included in this 2009 omnibus.
  Energy security: There is perhaps no issue more critical to the 
future safety and prosperity of our Nation than energy security. This 
omnibus bill invests in America's security by prioritizing research and 
development of renewable energy and energy efficiency, including solar 
power, biofuels, vehicle technologies, energy-efficient buildings, and 
advanced energy research.
  Law enforcement: In the absence of strong support for law 
enforcement, the current economic downturn threatens to increase 
violent crime throughout our Nation. As cash-strapped States struggle 
with tight budgets, this bill will help keep Americans safe by 
supporting the Community Oriented Policing Services or the COPS 
Program, and the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, which help State and 
local law enforcement fight and prevent crime in communities across 
America.
  Public health and safety: In the wake of disturbing incidents of 
compromised food safety that have jeopardized the health of our 
citizens, we have significantly increased investments for the Food and 
Drug Administration to strengthen the Food Safety and Inspection 
efforts. This bill will also protect the health and well-being of 
Americans by cleaning our air and our water. It contains investments 
significantly above the former administration's inadequate request for 
clean drinking water and wastewater, cleaning up hazardous waste and 
toxic sites, and for the implementation of the Clean Air Act.
  Health care: Millions of Americans are struggling to gain access to 
quality affordable health care, particularly during these difficult 
economic times. This measure will give scores of Americans better 
access to health care through State access health grants and State 
high-risk insurance pools and by supporting community health centers 
and rural health facilities.
  Education: As our economy struggles to regain its footing, millions 
of Americans are understandably fearful they will not be able to afford 
to pay for their children's college education. This measure provides 
$1.9 billion to support student financial aid programs, including 
Perkins loans and Federal supplemental educational opportunity grants.
  Every day, thousands of Americans are losing their jobs--every day. 
Every day, State and local governments see increased demand and 
decreased resources. Every day, projects that could provide good jobs 
for working Americans are delayed or canceled due to an inability to 
properly fund them.
  This Omnibus appropriations act will provide resources, guidance, and 
new initiatives at a time when they are desperately needed. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this measure.
  Mr. President, I have two documents, one relating to reasons why this 
omnibus bill should be enacted and the other a copy of a press release 
made a few weeks ago. I ask unanimous consent that these two documents 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          25 Reasons Why the FY 2009 Omnibus Should Be Enacted


             Funding Impacts on Existing Critical Programs

     Safety of consumer goods and products
       (1) Food and Medical Product Safety Inspections: H.R. 1105, 
     the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, would provide the 
     Food and Drug Administration with an increase of nearly $325 
     million, of which $150 million is included in the current 
     Continuing Resolution (CR). If H.R. 1105 is not enacted into 
     law, the proposed increased funding level for the FDA would 
     be reduced by $175 million. This reduction in funding would 
     significantly decrease the number of food and medical product 
     safety inspections, both domestic and overseas, that FDA 
     could perform. [Division A--AGRICULTURE]
       (2) Consumer Product Safety: H.R. 1105 would provide the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) with an increase of 
     $25.4 million, or 32 percent, above the FY 2008 enacted 
     level. Without this funding increase, the CPSC would not be 
     able to implement many of the reforms and new directives 
     contained in the newly-enacted Consumer Product Safety 
     Improvement Act of 2008 to make children's products safer, 
     such as the consumer complaint database, an overseas 
     presence, and increased Inspector General staffing, and CPSC 
     staffing generally. [Division D--FINANCIAL SERVICES]
     Keeping families in their homes
       (3) Families Will Lose Housing: H.R. 1105 includes over $15 
     billion for the renewal of Section 8 Tenant-Based vouchers. 
     This program provides housing for eligible families that 
     cannot afford housing. As the economy has worsened, an 
     increasing number of families are in need of affordable 
     housing options. The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill 
     would provide an increase of $340 million over the FY 2008 
     enacted level. If H.R. 1105 is not enacted into law, nearly 
     45,000 families could lose their housing from the Section 8 
     tenant-based account being flat-funded. [Division I--
     TRANSPORTATION/HUD]
       (4) The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will have to 
     stop helping families facing foreclosure to refinance into 
     affordable mortgages: The FY 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill 
     would increase the volume cap for FHA loan guarantees to $315 
     billion, from the FY 2008 enacted level of $185 billion. In 
     the absence of this increase, FHA's increasingly central role 
     in addressing the foreclosure crisis will cause it to reach 
     the lower cap before the close of the current fiscal year. At 
     that point, new homebuyers, and distressed current homeowners 
     needing to refinance, will be unable to access safe, 
     affordable FHA-guaranteed home mortgages. [Division I--
     TRANSPORTATION/HUD]
       (5) Single-Family Guaranteed Housing Loans: The CR provides 
     for a level of $5.2 billion for Section 502 guaranteed rural 
     housing loans. H.R. 1105 would provide for a level of $6.2 
     billion. Demand for this program is rising at a substantial 
     rate. Given the role of housing markets in the current 
     economic downturn, increased funding for these housing loans 
     will help ease the credit shortfall by allowing current 
     borrowers to refinance existing Rural Housing Service (RHS) 
     loans, and to refinance non-RHS loans if the borrower would 
     now be eligible for an RHS direct loan. The additional $1.0 
     billion in guaranteed rural housing loans also would increase 
     the availability of funding for potential borrowers seeking 
     home ownership, thereby removing existing vacant housing from 
     the market which will in turn help to

[[Page 6105]]

     stabilize the overall housing market. [Division A--
     AGRICULTURE]
     Fighting crime
       (6) Federal Law Enforcement Efforts through the Department 
     of Justice (DOJ): H.R. 1105 would increase funding to the 
     Department of Justice by $2.7 billion above the enacted 
     level. If the FY 2009 Omnibus is not enacted, $550 million 
     less would be provided for the FBI to protect our Nation and 
     our communities from terrorism and violent crime. The FBI 
     would have to institute an immediate hiring freeze of agents, 
     analysts, and support staff. This will mean 650 fewer FBI 
     special agents, and 1,250 fewer intelligence analysts and 
     other professionals fighting crime and terrorism on U.S. 
     soil. In terms of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 
     failure to pass the FY 2009 Omnibus would result in $52 
     million less for the DEA to target and stem the flow of 
     illegal narcotics seeping into our Nation and our 
     communities. The DEA would have to institute an immediate 
     hiring freeze of agents, as well as a 13 day furlough of all 
     agents. As a result, DEA will carry out 90 fewer raids 
     against drug production and trafficking organizations. 
     [Division B--COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE]
       (7) Anti-terrorist Enforcement Programs at the Department 
     of Treasury: Funding of $153.3 million, an $11 million 
     increase above the FY 2008 enacted level, for the Office of 
     Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and the Financial Crimes 
     Enforcement Network will make key enhancements to tracking, 
     detection and prevention of terrorist financing, enforcement 
     of economic sanctions against terrorist networks, and 
     coordination of enforcement with other countries. [Division 
     D--FINANCIAL SERVICES]
     Protecting the public
       (8) U.S. Attorneys: H.R. 1105 would provide an additional 
     $76.5 million for our U.S. Attorneys. If the FY 2009 Omnibus 
     is not enacted into law, the lack of increased funding would 
     require layoffs of 850 positions, including 451 attorneys, or 
     furloughing all U.S. Attorney staff for 16 days. Either 
     option would result in U.S. Attorneys cutting prosecution 
     caseload by 11,275 cases. U.S. Attorneys are the Nation's 
     prosecutors responsible for prosecuting violent gun, drug and 
     gang crimes, child exploitation, public corruption, money 
     laundering and terrorism cases before U.S federal courts. 
     [Division B--COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE]
       (9) Security Requirements for Protecting the President and 
     Vice President: The FY 2009 Omnibus bill would provide an 
     additional $100 million in urgently needed funding for the 
     U.S. Secret Service to meet the increased security 
     requirements for President Obama and Vice President Biden. 
     Funding is provided for additional agents, intelligence 
     personnel, associated training, and for improved White House 
     and Secret Service communications. [Division J--FURTHER 
     PROVISIONS]
       (10) Enforcement of Securities Laws: Inadequate resources 
     for the Securities and Exchange Commission would hamper their 
     ability to undertake vigorous enforcement of securities laws 
     to help bolster the integrity of the financial markets, just 
     when such enforcement is needed most. [Division D--FINANCIAL 
     SERVICES]
       (11) Worldwide Security Protection: H.R. 1105 would provide 
     $1.12 billion for the Department of State's (DOS) Worldwide 
     Security Protection for non-capital security upgrades, an 
     increase of $355 million above the FY 2008 enacted level. 
     This account funds all the Diplomatic Security agents at 
     every post world-wide, armored vehicles, and training. If 
     H.R. 1105 is not enacted into law, DOS would be unable to 
     hire additional personnel to increase protection at high-
     threat embassies overseas or to add oversight of security 
     contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel-West Bank. 
     [Division H--STATE]
       (12) Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs: H.R. 1105 would 
     increase funding for the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration's nuclear nonproliferation programs by $146 
     million over FY 2008. This increased funding is critical to 
     the United States' efforts to secure weapons grade nuclear 
     material around the world that could be used by terrorists. 
     [Division C--ENERGY]
     Environmental and natural resources
       (13) Fixed costs associated with programs of the Department 
     of Interior (DOI) and the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA): H.R. 1105 would provide an additional $1.0 billion in 
     funding for the programs included under the Interior title of 
     the Omnibus appropriations bill. Of that amount, 68 percent 
     is attributable to fixed and other inflationary costs. If 
     H.R. 1105 is not enacted into law, DOI, EPA, the Forest 
     Service and the Indian Health Service would be required to 
     cut current services further to absorb those fixed costs. 
     [Division E--INTERIOR]
       (14) Weather and Climate Satellites: H.R. 1105 would 
     provide an increase in $309 million in funding for the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 
     weather and climate satellites. Without this increase in 
     funding, there will be $235 million less in funding for the 
     next generation of weather satellites to provide warnings and 
     protect communities from severe weather. The procurement for 
     these critical new satellites would have to be paused in 
     2009, delaying construction of the new satellites and 
     resulting in severe gaps in forecasting coverage in future 
     years. This means that communities would not get accurate 
     weather reporting, and would not be warned of incoming 
     natural disasters. Further, there would be $74 million less 
     in funding for satellite climate sensors. There will be no 
     funding under a full-year CR to restore critical climate 
     modeling equipment that was removed by the previous 
     Administration from the next generation polar orbiting 
     satellites. These sensors will help us better understand and 
     predict changes in the Earth's climate. [Division B--
     COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE]
       (15) Diesel Emission Reduction Act Grants: The FY 2009 
     Omnibus would provide $60 million for the national Diesel 
     Emission Reduction Act grant program, a 22 percent increase 
     over the FY 2008 enacted level of $49 million. These grants 
     are used to replace or retrofit aging diesel engines, 
     particularly for heavy trucks and school buses, reducing air 
     pollution and improving public health. [Division E--INTERIOR]
       (16) Hazardous Fuels: The FY 2009 omnibus would provide 
     $531 million for the Forest Service and Department of the 
     Interior to fund hazardous fuels reduction projects, an 
     increase of $21 million over the FY 2008 enacted level of 
     $510 million for both agencies. These funds are used for 
     forest thinning projects on Federal lands that reduce the 
     frequency and severity of catastrophic wildfires, protecting 
     public safety and natural resources. These funds will also 
     help reduce the skyrocketing cost of fighting wildfires; last 
     year, the Federal government alone spent nearly $2 billion 
     fighting wildfires. [Division E--INTERIOR]
     Health
       (17) Influenza Pandemic: H.R. 1105 would provide 
     approximately $500 million to prepare for and respond to an 
     influenza pandemic. Funds are available for the development 
     and purchase of vaccine, antivirals, necessary medical 
     supplies, diagnostics, and other surveillance tools. 
     [Division F--LABOR/HHS]
       (18) Global Health and Child Survival (GHCS): H.R. 1105 
     would provide $7.114 billion for Global Health and Child 
     Survival, an increase of $737 million above the FY 2008 
     enacted level. Without the additional resources proposed in 
     the FY 2009 Omnibus, USAID would not be able to expand the 
     malaria programs in Africa where a million people, mostly 
     children, die from malaria annually. In addition, without the 
     Omnibus bill, funding for family planning services would be 
     reduced by $63 million, limiting access for poor women. 
     Further, funding for life-saving immunization programs would 
     be reduced by $48 million, resulting in higher maternal and 
     infant mortality for entirely preventable illnesses. 
     [Division H--STATE]
       (19) HIV/AIDS: The FY 2009 Omnibus would provide a total of 
     $5.509 billion for programs to combat HIV/AIDS, $459 million 
     above the FY 2008 level. Without the additional funding in FY 
     2009, the United States will not be on target to meet the 
     goals set in the PEPFAR Reauthorization Act to increase 
     treatment to 3 million people (up from 2 million people 
     currently served), 12 million infections prevented (up from 
     10 million) and care for 12 million (up from 10 million), 
     including 5 million Orphans/Vulnerable Children (up from 4 
     million). [Division H--STATE]
     Science and research and education
       (20) America Competes Act--Department of Energy's (DOE) 
     Office of Science: H.R. 1105 would provide an increase of 
     $754 million above the FY 2008 enacted level for DOE's Office 
     of Science. The funding level provided in the FY 2009 Omnibus 
     is in response to passage of the America Competes Act, and 
     the expressed goal of doubling the U.S. investment in science 
     over 10 years. Without this funding increase, Congress would 
     fail to advance the bipartisan vision of the America Competes 
     Act. [Division C--ENERGY].
       (21) America Competes Act--the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Science 
     Foundation (NSF): H.R. 1105 would provide an increase of $426 
     million in funding for activities authorized by the America 
     Competes Act, of which $63 million in funding would be for 
     NIST and $363 million in funding would be for NSF. Without 
     the funding increase for NIST, the United States' ability 
     both to keep up with advancements in industry technology and 
     to compete in the global economy are hampered. Without the 
     funding increase for NSF, fewer research grants will be 
     awarded, engaging a smaller workforce of scientists, 
     technicians, engineers, and mathematicians. [Division B--
     COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE]
       (22) Development of the next U.S. Human Space 
     Transportation Vehicle: H.R. 1105 would provide an additional 
     $650 million above the level of funding provided by the CR 
     for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
     (NASA) Constellation program, which is the development of the 
     next U.S. human space transportation vehicle (called Orion 
     and Ares). Without this increase in funding, NASA will be 
     required to cut over 4,000 jobs in 2009. Layoff notices for 
     employees in Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, and 
     Louisiana will be mailed in March, and layoffs will begin in 
     May. In addition, the lack of increased funding will have 
     long term impact on the actual development of Orion and Ares 
     which will be delayed by over 6 months, exacerbating the 5-

[[Page 6106]]

     year gap in time during which the United States will not have 
     its own vehicle to access space after the Space Shuttle is 
     retired. [Division B--COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE]
     Infrastructure and workforce investments
       (23) Endangering Continuation of Amtrak Route and Wage 
     Agreement: A full year CR would hold Amtrak operating 
     assistance at $475 million instead of the $550 million 
     provided in the FY 2009 Omnibus. This funding reduction could 
     endanger the continuation of all existing Amtrak routes and 
     would eliminate funding for the labor settlement payment owed 
     to all Amtrak wage employees under their collective 
     bargaining agreement. [Division I--TRANSPORTATION/HUD]
       (24) Worsening the Shortage of Fully Trained Air Traffic 
     Controllers: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) faces 
     a crisis in maintaining an adequate workforce of trained air 
     traffic controllers. Without the increases provided in the FY 
     2009 omnibus, the FAA would be forced to freeze or reduce the 
     number of new air traffic controllers the agency can bring on 
     board and train--worsening the experience shortage we already 
     have in our air traffic control towers. [Division I--
     TRANSPORTATION/HUD]
       (25) Committee funding for U.S. Senate: At the beginning of 
     the 111th Congress, Democratic Leadership committed to 
     holding the minority harmless at the FY 2008 funding level, 
     and using that funding level as the FY 2009 baseline for 
     funding a 60/40 Democratic/Republican split. This agreement 
     would prevent significant reductions in force throughout the 
     Republican Committee structure. The FY 2009 bill provides an 
     additional $8.4 million in committee funding. Without this 
     funding increase, minority staffing levels will need to be 
     reduced. [Division G--LEGISLATIVE BRANCH]
                                  ____


House and Senate Appropriations Committees Announce Additional Reforms 
                      in Committee Earmark Policy


Initiatives Build on Unprecedented Transparency Instituted in the 110th 
                                Congress

             (For Immediate Release, Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009)

       Washington.--Today, Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI), Chairman of the 
     House Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-
     HI), incoming Chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
     Committee, announced three significant changes to further 
     increase transparency and reduce funding levels for earmarks, 
     building on reforms brought about in the last Congress.
       Previously implemented reforms:
       2007 Moratorium: In January of 2007, Democrats imposed a 
     one-year moratorium on earmarks for 2007 until a reformed 
     process could be put in place.
       Rules for Transparency: Under the 2007 rules, each bill 
     must be accompanied by a list identifying each earmark that 
     it includes and which member requested it. Those lists are 
     available online before the bill is ever voted on. In the 
     House, each earmark on those lists is backed up by a public 
     letter from the requesting member identifying the earmark, 
     the entity that will receive the funds and their address, 
     what the earmark does, and a certification that neither the 
     requesting member nor their spouse will benefit from it 
     financially. In the Senate, each Senator is required to send 
     the committee a letter providing the name and location of the 
     intended recipient, the purpose of earmark, and a letter 
     certifying that neither the Senator nor the Senator's 
     immediate family has a financial interest in the item 
     requested. The certification is available on the internet at 
     least 48 hours prior to a floor vote on the bill.
       Significant Reductions: In the 2008 bills, the total dollar 
     amount earmarked or non-project-based accounts in 
     appropriations bills was reduced by 43%.
       Other Measures: Earmarks produced by conference committees, 
     not in the original House or Senate bills, are clearly 
     identified with an asterisk. Members are able to offer floor 
     amendments on earmarks under the rules of the House and 
     Senate.
       In our continuing effort to provide unprecedented 
     transparency to the process, new reforms to begin with the 
     2010 bills include:
       Posting Requests Online: To offer more opportunity for 
     public scrutiny of member requests, members will be required 
     to post information on their earmark requests on their Web 
     sites at the time the request is made explaining the purpose 
     of the earmark and why it is a valuable use of taxpayer 
     funds.
       Early Public Disclosure: To increase public scrutiny of 
     committee decisions, earmark disclosure tables will be made 
     publically available the same day as the House or Senate 
     Subcommittee rather than Full Committee reports their bill or 
     24 hours before Full Committee consideration of 
     appropriations legislation that has not been marked up by a 
     Senate Subcommittee.
       Further Cuts: Earmarks will be further reduced to 50% of 
     the 2006 level for non-project-based accounts. In FY 2008, 
     earmark funding levels were reduced by 43% below the 2006 
     level. Earmarks will be held below 1% of discretionary 
     spending in subsequent years.
       ``Today we build on the unprecedented reforms made to 
     earmarks since Democrats took control of the Congress in 
     2007,'' said Obey and Inouye. ``These reforms mean that 
     earmarks will be funded at a level half as high as they were 
     in 2006, face greater public scrutiny, and members of 
     Congress will have more time and access to more information 
     before they vote on bills and as they prepare amendments.''

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield 
to the vice chairman of this committee with the understanding that I 
will hold the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend, the 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii, in presenting the 2009 Omnibus 
Appropriations Act to the Senate. This bill contains the nine regular 
appropriations bills that have not been enacted and accounts for nearly 
half of all regular discretionary spending for the 2009 fiscal year.
  I am supporting the approval of this bill by the Senate even though 
the process that has brought us to this point has left a lot to be 
desired.
  I also share with those on my side of the aisle the concerns about 
the level of discretionary spending contained in this bill, which is 
$20 billion over President Bush's request.
  I voted against the budget resolution that established the 
discretionary spending allocations for this bill, and I voted in favor 
of Senator Gregg's motion to instruct the conferees on the budget 
resolution to lower the discretionary caps to more modest levels. That 
motion was defeated by one vote, and the conference report on the 
budget resolution was adopted.
  I commend my distinguished friend from Hawaii for resisting pressures 
to add controversial new policy matter to this bill. This is new 
legislation as opposed to a conference report, and as such any number 
of policy riders could have been included in the bill. A few 
provisions, such as language dealing with the Endangered Species Act, 
were included, but, largely, the bill stays within the legislation 
represented by the House and Senate bills.
  Of the nine bills in this omnibus measure, none were ever considered 
on the floors of the House or the Senate. Two of the bills were never 
marked up in the Senate committee, and six of the bills were not marked 
up in the House committee. But I can assure the Senate that the content 
of the legislation before us is consistent with the parameters 
established by the individual House and Senate bills, even though some 
of those bills were never presented formally to either body.
  Previous omnibus bills have been comprised of individual bills 
reported by the House and the Senate committees, and generally of bills 
that were passed by at least one of the legislative bodies. The bill 
before us today is a new kind of legislative document which I hope we 
will not see replicated in the future.
  Last year, the bicameral leadership made a conscious decision not to 
engage President Bush on spending issues and to avoid taking votes on 
extending the ban on Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing. 
Perhaps that decision had some political benefits for some Members, but 
procedurally and substantively, it had detrimental impacts.
  First of all, the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas 
leasing has been removed from the Interior appropriations bill. Second, 
for the last 6 months, most Federal agencies have been compelled to 
operate at funding levels very similar to those they would have 
received had we simply enacted the individual bills in a form that 
President Bush would have signed.
  Today, we could be discussing the merits of supplemental 
appropriations if they had been needed rather than starting from 
scratch halfway through the fiscal year. Had we enacted the 
appropriations bills last fall, agencies would have been carrying out 
their responsibilities with approved levels of funding.
  Funding for buildings, roads, trails, and water projects would have 
provided jobs and would have been obligated by now. To the extent those 
activities

[[Page 6107]]

might have helped stimulate the economy, they would have been very 
beneficial. Instead, due to inaction by Congress, agencies have been in 
a holding pattern for nearly half of the fiscal year under the terms of 
the continuing resolution.
  Two weeks ago, Congress sent to the President a huge stimulus bill. 
It contains some $311 billion in appropriations for a variety of 
programs. We had a vigorous debate about the bill in the Senate, and it 
passed with the minimum number of votes required. I voted against the 
stimulus bill in part because the bill included large amounts of 
funding for programs that are not immediately stimulative such as 
health information technology and broadband deployment. These would 
have been more appropriately considered in the context of a 
Presidential budget and at the more measured pace of the annual 
appropriations process. We will be living with the impacts of these 
decisions made in the stimulus bill--all made in great haste--for years 
to come. It is fair to ask to what degree does the omnibus bill 
duplicate the stimulus bill.
  There is no question that the order in which we are considering the 
stimulus and the omnibus is exactly backward. We should have used the 
stimulus bill to supplement regular appropriations, not the other way 
around.
  There are a number of accounts and programs funded in this omnibus 
bill that are also funded in the stimulus bill. In most cases the 
omnibus funds those programs at or near prior year levels, and one can 
argue the stimulus funding for those programs was a deliberate 
supplement. In other cases, the omnibus funds the same accounts 
contained in the stimulus but for different purposes. There are a few 
programs in the omnibus that, quite frankly, should have been scaled 
back based on the contents of the stimulus bill. So despite the 
unconventional and unfortunate process by which this bill was produced, 
it does represent a product that was fairly negotiated.
  Some would like us to enact a continuing resolution for the remainder 
of the year that holds programs to their fiscal year 2008 funding 
levels, thereby saving billions of dollars. But knowing the impact that 
a full-year continuing resolution would have on individual programs, I 
don't think the majority would propose such a measure, and I don't 
think the President would sign it either.
  Another possible outcome would be a modified continuing resolution 
similar to that enacted for fiscal year 2007--something that would 
eliminate all manner of congressional directives and oversight 
mechanisms but spend no less money than we are currently considering. 
Surely there are other possible outcomes. But, in my view, continued 
uncertainty in the day-to-day operations of the Federal Government at a 
time of national crisis is not worth the marginal and highly 
speculative gains that might come from defeating this bill.
  We now have received a preliminary budget from the new President. In 
a few weeks, we will be considering the budget resolution for fiscal 
year 2010, and we will be debating such things as appropriate 
discretionary spending levels. I look forward to a debate on that as 
there is much in the President's budget request worth debating.
  But it is time to put the fiscal year 2009 budget to rest. I am 
committed to do everything in my power not to repeat the dismal process 
that has brought us to this juncture, and I know the chairman of the 
committee, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, shares that 
commitment. Neither of us wants to deny Senators the opportunity to 
help shape appropriations bills in the early parts of the process 
through amendment and discussion of alternatives. Neither of us wants 
to hide anything from the scrutiny of the legislative process, and 
neither of us wants Members to have to pass judgment on nine 
appropriations bills all at once rather than individually.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for the job he has done 
as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is leading the 
committee through a trying time, but he is doing it in the very best 
sense of bipartisanship and establishing working relationships that 
will serve the interests of not only the Senate but of the American 
people. These are relationships our committee can contribute to in the 
future, and I know they will under his leadership. I look forward to 
continuing to work with him to achieve timely and open consideration of 
other appropriations bills.
  I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding to me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my distinguished vice chairman for his remarks.
  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 
     explanatory statement offered by the Chairman of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     which accompanies the bill H.R. 1105 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. Additional information is provided below to 
     augment or correct the explanatory statement. 

                                                                             CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Account                                                                Project                                                         Funding                   Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
 
Animal, Plant, Health           State of Delaware's Department of Agriculture, Dover, Delaware, for a full-service, fully functional, modern           $69,000  Kaufman
 Inspection Service.             animal health diagnostic laboratory.
Special Research Grants.......  University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, to upgrade Delmarva's avian flu diagnostic and biocontainment                $94,000  Kaufman
                                 facilities to combine Delaware and Maryland's laboratory information management system.
Special Research Grants.......  University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, to continue the work of the Institute for Soil and Environmental             $70,000  Kaufman
                                 Quality (ISEQ) by supporting programs and acquiring equipment that is essential for Critical Zone research.
Special Research Grants.......  National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium, (of which Cornell University is a part), to analyze beef          $655,000  Gillibrand
                                 records of seedstock cattle throughout the country.
Special Research Grants.......  Agribusiness research through the Viticulture Consortium, Cornell University and University of California...        $1,454,000  Gillibrand
Special Research Grants.......  Apple fire blight, Cornell University/New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Michigan          $346,000  Gillibrand
Special Research Grants.......  Virginia Tech Research Grant--Biodesign and Processing......................................................          $868,000  Warner
Research Education/Federal      High Value Horticulture and Forestry Crops (VA).............................................................          $502,000  Warner
 Admin..
Special Research Grants.......  Aquaculture.................................................................................................          $139,000  Warner
Special Research Grants.......  Fish and Shellfish Technologies (Virginia)..................................................................          $331,000  Warner
Special Research Grants.......  Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Resources--Virginia Tech University.........................          $485,000  Warner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
 
Procurement, Acquisition and    University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, for a real-time satellite receiving station.......................          $750,000  Kaufman
 Construction/National Oceanic
 and Atmospheric
 Administration.
COPS Technology/Department of   City of Newark Police Department, Newark, Delaware, for video surveillance cameras in downtown area.........          $115,420  Kaufman
 Justice.
COPS Technology/Department of   Delaware State University, Dover, Delaware, to continue work on the Crime Scene and Evidence Tracking               $2,000,000  Kaufman
 Justice.                        Project which develops and tests day-to-day law enforcement and public safety application.
COPS Technology/Department of   Delaware State Police, Dover, Delaware, to perform preliminary engineering assessments before message                 $100,000  Kaufman
 Justice.                        switcher upgrades.

[[Page 6108]]

 
COPS Technology/Department of   Delaware State Police, Dover, Delaware, for the purchase and installation of in-car cameras and related               $500,000  Kaufman
 Justice.                        equipment.
COPS Technology/Department of   Delaware State Police, Dover, Delaware, for the purchase of a mobile gunshot locator system.................          $250,000  Kaufman
 Justice.
COPS Technology/Department of   New Castle County Police Department, New Castle, Delaware, for a program to increase the efficiency and               $200,000  Kaufman
 Justice.                        effectiveness of license plate scanning technology.
Juvenile Justice/Department of  Jobs for Delaware Graduates, Inc., Dover, Delaware, to expand services delivered to at-risk middle and high         $1,353,000  Kaufman
 Justice.                        school students.
Juvenile Justice/Department of  University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, for the Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies, to continue a                   $65,000  Kaufman
 Justice.                        statewide survey of youth that provides estimates and trends in student substance abuse, crime, and
                                 gambling.
National Institute of           Nanoscale fabrication and measurement project at the University at Albany (SUNY), College of Nanoscale              $1,000,000  Gillibrand
 Standards and Technology.       Science and Engineering (CNSE).
Byrne Discretionary Grants/     Real Estate Fraud Unit in the Kings County District Attorney's Office for the investigation and prosecution           $875,000  Gillibrand
 Department of Justice.          of deed theft, mortgage fraud, and related real estate-based crimes, Kings County, New York.
COPS Methamphetamine/           City of Rochester, Rochester, New York, to intensify patrols, improve the tracking of narcotics shipments,            $675,000  Gillibrand
 Department of Justice.          provide technical support and enhance local crime prevention programs for at-risk youth.
National Aeronautics and Space  Binghamton University to develop a focused research and development initiative on large area flexible solar           $500,000  Gillibrand
 Administration.                 cell modules, Binghamton, New York.
Byrne Discretionary Grants/     Information-sharing database to analyze gang related crime in the Oneida County District Attorney's Office,           $215,000  Gillibrand
 Department of Justice.          Utica, New York.
COPS Technology/Department of   Countywide interoperable public safety communications system, Rockland and Westchester Counties, New York...        $1,670,000  Gillibrand
 Justice.
COPS Technology/Department of   City of Yonkers Police Department to reduce non-emergency 3-1-1 calls through the creation of a new public            $400,000  Gillibrand
 Justice.                        hotline.
Byrne Discretionary Grants/     Oliver Hill Courts Building security upgrades...............................................................          $400,000  Warner
 Department of Justice.
Juvenile Justice/Department of  City of Chesapeake gang deterrence program..................................................................          $100,000  Warner
 Justice.
Operations, Research and        Assistance to MD/VA watermen affected by Blue Crab harvest restrictions.....................................       $10,000,000  Warner
 Facilities/National Oceanic
 and Atmospheric
 Administration.
Byrne Discretionary Grants/     Northern Virginia Gang Task Force...........................................................................        $2,500,000  Warner
 Department of Justice.
Byrne Discretionary Grants/     Northwest Virginia Regional Drug Task Force.................................................................          $750,000  Warner
 Department of Justice.
COPS Technology/Department of   City of Radford Police Force relocation.....................................................................          $250,000  Warner
 Justice.
COPS Technology/Department of   Virginia State Police SWVA Drug Task Force..................................................................          $250,000  Warner
 Justice.
Juvenile Justice/Department of  An Achievable Dream Newport News............................................................................          $700,000  Warner
 Justice.
Science/National Aeronautics    NASA Wallops Island Flight Facility--Launch Pad Improvements................................................       $14,000,000  Warner
 and Space Administration.
Space/National Aeronautics and  NASA Wallops Island Flight Facility--Small Satellites and unmanned aerial systems...........................        $5,000,000  Warner
 Space Administration.
Operations, Research and        Oyster Restoration in Chesapeake Bay........................................................................        $2,000,000  Warner
 Facilities/National Oceanic
 and Atmospheric
 Administration.
Operations, Research and        VIMS--Virginia Trawl Survey.................................................................................          $150,000  Warner
 Facilities/National Oceanic
 and Atmospheric
 Administration.
Cross Agency Support/National   Accomack and Northhampton Counties--Broadband deployment (Eastern Shore)....................................        $2,000,000  Warner
 Aeronautics and Space
 Administration.
Operations, Research and        Virginia Institute of Maine Science, Virginia Trawl Survey, Glouchester, VA.................................          $150,000  John Warner, Webb
 Facilities/National Oceanic
 and Atmospheric
 Administration.
Byrne Discretionary Grants/     City of Vancouver, new records management system, Vancouver, WA.............................................          $500,000  Murray only
 Department of Justice.
Byrne Discretionary Grants/     National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Child Abuse Training Programs for Judicial Personnel:           $920,000  Reid, Ensign, Reed, Schumer,
 Department of Justice.          Victims Act Model Courts Project, Reno, Nevada.                                                                                 Sessions, Smith, Voinovich,
                                                                                                                                                                 Whitehouse, Wyden, Bennett,
                                                                                                                                                                 Biden, Hatch, Kennedy, Kerry,
                                                                                                                                                                 Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy
Byrne Discretionary Grants/     National Crime Prevention Council, Arlington, Virginia......................................................          $500,000  Kohl, Leahy, Reed, Crapo,
 Department of Justice.                                                                                                                                          Whitehouse only
Byrne Discretionary Grants/     Safe Streets Campaign, Pierce County Regional Gang Prevention Initiative, Tacoma, Washington................        $1,000,000  Murray
 Department of Justice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
 
Investigations................  Army Corps of Engineers Wave Data Study Coastal Field Data Collection Project, Delaware, for the collection           $500,000  Kaufman
                                 and analysis of coastal weather and sea condition data.
Investigations................  Army Corps of Engineers Christina River Watershed Feasibility Study, New Castle County, Delaware, to                  $287,000  Kaufman
                                 continue investigations for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, water quality control, and other
                                 related purposes.
Investigations................  Army Corps of Engineers White Clay Creek Flood Plain Management Services study, New Castly, Delaware, to              $200,000  Kaufman
                                 continue a study to evaluate flooding and flooding damage as a result of tropical storms.
Operation and Maintenance.....  Army Corps of Engineers Harbor of Refuge project, Lewes, Delaware, to perform stability analysis, condition           $235,000  Kaufman
                                 surveys, and repairs.
Operation and Maintenance.....  Army Corps of Engineers Indian River Inlet and Bay project, Sussex County, Delaware, to survey and analyze            $235,000  Kaufman
                                 scour holes.
Operation and Maintenance.....  Army Corps of Engineers Intracoastal Waterway project, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay in New Castle              $13,710,000  Kaufman
                                 County, Delaware, for maintenance and dredging (Multi-State; Delaware request was $5,150,000).
Operation and Maintenance.....  Army Corps of Engineers Mispillon River Project, Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware, for maintenance                  $249,000  Kaufman
                                 dredging and field inspections.
Operation and Maintenance.....  Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Harbor project, Wilmington Harbor to Newport, Delaware, for aggressive           $3,479,000  Kaufman
                                 management and capacity restoration of federal disposal areas and chemical sediment testing.

[[Page 6109]]

 
Department of Energy--Energy    Delaware State University, Dover, Delaware, for the Center for Hydrogen Storage Research for research and           $1,427,250  Kaufman
 Efficiency and Renewable        development of a hydrogen storage system.
 Energy.
Department of Energy--Energy    University of Delaware Lewes Campus, Lewes, Delaware, for a wind turbine model and pilot project for                $1,427,250  Kaufman
 Efficiency and Renewable        alternative energy.
 Energy.
Expenses......................  Delaware River Basin Commission, (headquartered in) West Trenton, New Jersey, for water quality, monitoring           $715,000  Kaufman
                                 and assessment, habitat restoration, drought coordination, public sewer water supply protection, and
                                 integrated water resource planning.
Investigations................  Army Corps of Engineers to manage the Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York..............................           $96,000  Gillibrand
Construction..................  Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point for the New York Hurricane Protection and Storm Damage Reduction Project.        $2,010,000  Gillibrand
Department of Energy--Energy    Landfill Gas Utilization Plant Count of Chautauqua at the county landfill in Ellery, New York...............        $1,903,000  Gillibrand
 Efficiency and Renewable
 Energy.
Department of Energy--Office    For work to be done in Otsego, New York, on supercapacitors at Sandia National Laboratories.................        $1,500,000  Gillibrand
 of Science.
Investigations................  Army Corps of Engineers' Forge River Watershed Project, Long Island, New York...............................          $119,000  Gillibrand
Operation and Maintenance.....  Appomattox River............................................................................................          $527,000  Warner
Construction..................  Combined Sewer Overflow Lynchburg...........................................................................          $287,000  Warner
Construction..................  Combined Sewer Overflow Richmond............................................................................          $287,000  Warner
Construction..................  James River Deepwater Turning Basin.........................................................................          $766,000  Warner
Investigations................  Upper Rappahannock River (Phase II).........................................................................           $96,000  Warner
Investigations................  AIWW--Bridge Replacement at Deep Creek......................................................................          $478,000  Warner
Investigations................  Chowan River Basin, Virginia................................................................................           $96,000  Warner
Investigations................  Dismal Swamp and Dismal Canal...............................................................................           $59,000  Warner
Operation and Maintenance.....  Norfolk Harbor and Channels.................................................................................        $9,808,000  Warner
Construction..................  Norfolk Harbor and Channels--Deepening......................................................................          $478,000  Warner
Operation and Maintenance.....  Rudee Inlet.................................................................................................          $344,000  Warner
Investigations................  Vicinity of Willoughby Spit, Norfolk VA.....................................................................          $287,000  Warner
Construction..................  Virginia Beach Hurricane Protection.........................................................................        $1,340,000  Warner
Investigations................  Belle View/New Alexandria Flood Plain Management Services Program Studies...................................          $200,000  Warner
Investigations................  Four Mile Run Restoration...................................................................................          $239,000  Warner
Construction..................  Roanoke River (Upper Basin).................................................................................        $1,029,000  Warner
Department of Energy--Fossil    Center for Advanced Separation Technologies.................................................................        $2,854,500  Warner
 Energy Research and
 Development.
Investigations................  Clinch River Watershed......................................................................................           $96,000  Warner
Construction..................  Grundy Flood Control Project................................................................................        $8,000,000  Warner
Investigations................  New River, Claytor Lake.....................................................................................           $96,000  Warner
Construction..................  Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery..............................................................................        $2,000,000  Warner
Construction..................  Non-Native Oyster EIS.......................................................................................          $328,000  Warner
Construction..................  Tangier Island, Accomack County.............................................................................  ................  Warner
Construction..................  Village of Oyster Northampton County VA.....................................................................  ................  Warner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
 
Small Business Administration,  New Castle County Chamber of Commerce for an Emerging Enterprise Center, business incubator.................          $499,000  Kaufman
 Salaries and Expenses.
Small Business Administration,  Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology, Mine safety technology and communication improvements, Herndon,          $237,500  Warner
 Salaries and Expenses.          VA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
 
Environmental Protection        City of Wilmington, Delaware, for the Wilmington Wastewater Treatement Plant Headworks Upgrade..............          $300,000  Kaufman
 Agency, State and Tribal
 Assistance Grants Program.
Environmental Protection        Government of New Castle County, New Castle Delaware, for Old Shellpot Interceptor upgrades.................          $698,000  Kaufman
 Agency, State and Tribal
 Assistance Grants Program.
Forest Service, State and       Delaware Department of Agriculture--Forest Service, Camden, Delaware, for the purchase of forestland to be          $2,000,000  Kaufman
 Private Forestry (Forest        added to Redden State Forest.
 Legacy Program)-.
Environmental Protection        Town of Onancock Wastewater Treatment Plant.................................................................          $500,000  Warner
 Agency, State and Tribal
 Assistance Grants Program.
Forest Service, Land            Appalachian Trail Right of Way and Greenway Acquisition--(Listed as ``land acquisitions in the George               $1,775,000  Warner
 Acquisition.                    Washington and Jefferson National Forest''.
National Park Service, Land     Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation...................................................................        $1,985,000  Warner
 Acquisition.
Fish and Wild Service, Land     Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge..........................................................        $1,500,000  Warner
 Acquisition.
Environmental Protection        City of Lynchburg Combined Sewer Overflow...................................................................          $500,000  Warner
 Agency, State and Tribal
 Assistance Grants Program.
Environmental Protection        City of Opa Locka, Wastewater System Improvements...........................................................          $500,000  Nelson, Bill
 Agency, State and Tribal
 Assistance Grants Program.
Environmental Protection        Palm Beach County, Lake Region Water Treatment Plant........................................................          $500,000  Martinez
 Agency, State and Tribal
 Assistance Grants Program.
Environmental Protection        Southwest Florida Water Management District, Upper Peace River Restoration of the West-Central Florida Water          $500,000  Martinez
 Agency, State and Tribal        Action Restoration Plan.
 Assistance Grants Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
 
Elementary & Secondary          Delaware Department of Education, Dover, Delaware, for the Starting Stronger for Student Success program to           $190,000  Kaufman
 Education (includes FIE).       eliminate school-entry readiness gaps.
Elementary & Secondary          Delaware Department of Education, Dover, Delaware, to increase the English proficiency of English Language            $190,000  Kaufman
 Education (includes FIE).       Learners by providing high quality instructional programs.
Elementary & Secondary          Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League, Wilmington, Delaware, to expand the ``Achievement Matters!'' project            $190,000  Kaufman
 Education (includes FIE).       to more students.

[[Page 6110]]

 
Centers for Disease Control     Delaware Division of Public Health, Dover, Delaware, to assist in implementing several key recommendations            $190,000  Kaufman
 and Prevention (CDC).           of a state task force on infant mortality.
Health Resources and Services   Beebe Medical Center, Lewes, Delaware, for the construction of a new School of Nursing......................          $476,000  Kaufman
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.
Health Resources and Services   Christiana Care Health System, Wilmington, Delaware, to renovate and expand Wilmington Hospital's Emergency           $285,000  Kaufman
 Administration (HRSA)--Health   Department.
 Facilities and Services.
Health Resources and Services   St. Francis Hospital Foundation, Wilmington, Delaware, to make capital infrastructure improvements..........          $285,000  Kaufman
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.
Health Resources and Services   University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, for the Delaware Biotechnology Institute for high-end, state-of-            $190,000  Kaufman
 Administration (HRSA)--Health   the-art research equipment.
 Facilities and Services.
Health Resources and Services   Wesley College, Dover, Delaware, for the expansion of the nursing school program............................          $333,000  Kaufman
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.
Health Resources and Services   Westchester County Department of Labs & Research, Valhalla, New York, for construction, renovation, and               $809,000  Gillibrand
 Administration (HRSA)--Health   equipment.
 Facilities and Services.
Administration on Aging (AOA).  Town of North Hempstead, New York, for the Project Independence naturally occurring retirement communities            $333,000  Gillibrand
                                 demonstration project.
Health Resources and Services   Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, New York, for construction, renovation, and equipment for           $476,000  Gillibrand
 Administration (HRSA)--Health   the emergency department.
 Facilities and Services.
Employment and Training         United Auto Workers Region 9, Local 624, New York, for incumbent worker training............................          $428,000  Gillibrand
 Administration (ETA)--
 Training & Employment
 Services (TES).
Employment and Training         Manufacturers Association of Central New York, Syracuse, New York, to improve employment and training in the          $285,000  Gillibrand
 Administration (ETA)--          manufacturing sector.
 Training & Employment
 Services (TES).
Health Resources and Services   Greater Hudson Valley Family Health Center, Inc., Newburgh, New York, for construction, renovation, and               $476,000  Gillibrand
 Administration (HRSA)--Health   equipment.
 Facilities and Services.
Institute for Museum and        George Eastman House International Museum of Photography and Film, Rochester, New York, for educational               $381,000  Gillibrand
 Library Services.               programs.
Health Resources and Services   Catholic Health System, Buffalo, New York, for telemedicine equipment for acute stroke assessment...........          $143,000  Gillibrand
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.
Higher Education (includes      Dowling College, Oakdale, New York, to create and establish a school of Banking and Financial Services......          $190,000  Gillibrand
 FIPSE).
Higher Education (includes      Union Graduate College, Schenectady, New York, for program support of a Masters degree in Emerging Energy             $285,000  Gillibrand
 FIPSE).                         Systems.
Higher Education (includes      St. Bonaventure University, St. Bonaventure, New York, for the Father Mychal Judge program, which may                 $285,000  Gillibrand
 FIPSE).                         include student scholarships and travel costs for student exchanges and visiting professorships.
Administration for Children     Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc., Hempstead, New York, to provide legal services to            $381,000  Gillibrand
 and Families (ACF)--Social      low-income victims of domestic violence.
 Services.
Health Resources and Services   Niagara University, Niagara Falls, New York, for the Nursing Leadership project.............................           $95,000  Gillibrand
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.
Health Resources and Services   Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, for The Women's Cancer Genomics Center.........          $714,000  Gillibrand
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.
Higher Education (includes      Virginia Department of Correctional Education--Transition Program for Incarcerate Youth.....................           $95,000  Warner
 FIPSE).
Health Resources and Services   Hampton University--Proton Beam Therapy Facility--Cancer Treatment Initiative...............................          $571,000  Warner
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.
Substance Abuse and Mental      Arlington Mental Health and Substance Abuse Crisis Intervention and Diversion Program.......................          $143,000  Warner
 Health Services
 Administration (SAMHSA)--
 Substance Abuse Treatment.
Elementary & Secondary          Boys & Girls Club of Greater Washington (Virginia Clubs)....................................................           $95,000  Warner
 Education (includes FIE).
Elementary & Secondary          Child and Family Network Centers--Leveling the Playing Field (SEFS).........................................           $95,000  Warner
 Education (includes FIE).
Health Resources and Services   Inova Health System; Claude Moore Health Education Center...................................................          $523,000  Warner
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.

[[Page 6111]]

 
Employment and Training         NW Works--Autism Inclusion Initiative.......................................................................           $95,000  Warner
 Administration (ETA)--
 Training & Employment
 Services (TES).
Elementary & Secondary          Dinwiddie County Public Schools Library/Media Program.......................................................           $95,000  Warner
 Education (includes FIE).
Elementary & Secondary          The Institute for Advanced Learning and Research--The STEM Mobile Learning Laboratory Project...............           $95,000  Warner
 Education (includes FIE).
Higher Education (includes      Dickenson County Industrial Development Authority Clintwood, VA.............................................           $95,000  Warner
 FIPSE).
Health Resources and Services   Norton Community Hospital--Women's Center/Technology Enhancement Project....................................           $95,000  Warner
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.
Substance Abuse and Mental      Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services, Richmond, VA, to              $285,000  Warner
 Health Services                 provide treatment services for addiction to prescription pain medication.
 Administration (SAMHSA)--
 Substance Abuse Treatment.
Health Resources and Services   Eastern Shore Rural Health System--Onley Community Health Center............................................          $476,000  Warner
 Administration (HRSA)--Health
 Facilities and Services.
Higher Education (includes      The Virginia Foundation for Community College Education--Great Expectations Program.........................           $95,000  Warner
 FIPSE).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
 
Buses and Bus Facilities......  University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, for an Automotive-Based Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Program..............          $475,000  Kaufman
Interstate Maintenance          Delaware Department of Transportation Newark Toll Plaza, Newark, Delaware, to improve the toll facility to          $2,375,000  Kaufman
 Discretionary.                  incorporate highway speed E-Z Pass toll lanes.
Interstate Maintenance          Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover, Delaware, to add a fifth lane to I-95/SR-1 interchange........        $1,900,000  Kaufman
 Discretionary.
Transportation, Community and   Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover, Delaware, to replace the bridge along SR-1 over the Indian            $1,900,000  Kaufman
 System Preservation.            River Inlet.
Economic Development            Delaware Children's Museum, Wilmington, Delaware, for construction..........................................          $190,000  Kaufman
 Initiatives.
Economic Development            Easter Seals Delaware & Maryland's Eastern Shore, New Castle County, Delaware, to expand the existing                 $142,500  Kaufman
 Initiatives.                    facility.
Economic Development            St. Michael's School and Nursery, Wilmington, Delaware, for HVAC replacement................................          $285,000  Kaufman
 Initiatives.
Economic Development            Ministry of Caring, Wilmington, Delaware, for handicap accessibility to a women's homeless shelter..........          $475,000  Kaufman
 Initiatives.
Economic Development            Wilmington Housing Authority for exterior facade repair of fire damage to low-income housing................          $475,000  Kaufman
 Initiatives.
Transportation, Community and   Main Street Multimodal Access and Revitalization Project, Buffalo, New York.................................          $950,000  Gillibrand
 System Preservation.
Economic Development            Development of a pedestrian bridge in Poughkeepsie, New York................................................          $950,000  Gillibrand
 Initiatives.
Federal Lands (Public Lands     New York State Department of Transportation for the Fort Drum Connector (I-81 to Fort Drum North Gate), New         $1,425,000  Gillibrand
 Highways).                      York.
Surface Transportation          Establishment of railroad quiet zones in the Town of Hamburg, New York......................................          $475,000  Gillibrand
 Priorities.
Buses and Bus Facilities......  Niagara Falls International Railway Station/Intermodal Transportation Center, City of Niagara Falls, New              $950,000  Gillibrand
                                 York.
Surface Transportation          Campus loop road extension for St. John Fisher College, Monroe County, New York.............................          $475,000  Gillibrand
 Priorities.
Alternatives Analysis.........  New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Project.        $1,900,000  Gillibrand
Surface Transportation          New York State Department of Transportation for New York State Route 12 in Broome, Chenango, Madison,                 $475,000  Gillibrand
 Priorities.                     Oneida, and Herkimer Counties, New York.
Surface Transportation          Town of Clarkstown, New City Hamlet, New York, to revitalize South Main Street..............................          $475,000  Gillibrand
 Priorities.
Capital Investment Grants.....  New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the Second Avenue Subway--Phase I, New York, New         $277,697,000  Gillibrand
                                 York.
Capital Investment Grants.....  New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the Long Island Rail road East Side Access, New          $209,623,898  Gillibrand
                                 York.
Surface Transportation          Gate and Intersection Improvements at Fort Lee, VA..........................................................        $1,425,000  Warner, Mark
 Priorities.
Interstate Maintenance          I-95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange, VA.................................................................        $1,900,000  Warner, Mark
 Discretionary.
Surface Transportation          Route 1/Route 123 Interchange Improvements, VA..............................................................          $950,000  Warner, Mark
 Priorities.
Transportation, Community, and  US 17/Dominion Blvd Widening (Cedar Rd to Great Bridge Blvd) and Drawbridge Replacement (over Atlantic                $237,500  Warner, Mark, Webb
 System Preservation.            Intercoastal Waterway), Chesapeake, VA.
Federal Lands--Highways.......  US Route 1/VA Route 619 Traffic Circle/Interchange, at the entrance of USMC Quantico Marine Corps Base,             $1,187,500  Warner, Mark
                                 Prince William County, VA.
Capital Investment Grants.....  VRE Rolling Stock, VA.......................................................................................        $5,000,000  Warner, Mark
Buses.........................  Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) Bus Replacement, VA.................................................          $617,500  Warner, Mark
Buses.........................  Southside Bus Facility Replacement in Hampton Roads, VA.....................................................        $1,235,000  Warner, Mark
Buses.........................  WMATA Bus and Bus Facility Safety Initiative, MD............................................................          $475,000  Warner, Mark
Capital Investment Grants.....  Dulles Corridor Metrorail, VA...............................................................................       $29,100,000  Warner, Mark
Capital Investment Grants.....  Norfolk LRT, VA.............................................................................................       $23,592,108  Warner, Mark
Capital Investment Grants.....  Largo Metrorail Extension, DC/MD............................................................................       $34,700,000  Warner, Mark
Capital Investment Grants.....  Improvements to the Rosslyn Metro Station, VA...............................................................        $2,000,000  Warner, Mark
Capital Investment Grants.....  BRT, Potomac Yard-Crystal City, City of Alexandria and Arlington County, VA.................................        $1,000,000  Warner, Mark
Economic Development            Boys and Girls Club of Fauquier County, VA, for facility renovations in support of the new building,                  $198,000  Warner, Mark
 Initiatives.                    including making the building handicap accessible.
Economic Development            Newport News, VA, for acquisition, demolition and relocation activities, and capital improvements of                  $432,250  Warner, Mark
 Initiatives.                    dilapidated housing.
Surface Transportation          Railroad Grade Separation Undercrossing, Livingston, MT.....................................................          $332,500  Tester
 Priorities.

[[Page 6112]]

 
Buses and Bus Facilities......  Greater Minnesota Transit Capital, MN.......................................................................        $2,850,000  Klobuchar
Transportation, Community, and  Pinon Hills Boulevard East and Animas River Bridge, NM......................................................          $895,375  Bingaman
 System Preservation.
Airport Improvement Program...  Des Moines International Airport, Runway 13R/31L Land Acquisition, IA.......................................          $475,000  Grassley
Interstate Maintenance          Pedestrian Bridges over I-80, Iowa City, Johnson County, IA.................................................          $475,000  Grassley
 Discretionary.
Surface Transportation          Highway 169 Corridor Project Environmental Assessment, Preliminary Engineering and Planning, Humbodlt, IA...          $760,000  Grassley
 Priorities.
Surface Transportation          Wapsi Great Western Line Trail, Mitchell County, IA.........................................................          $570,000  Grassley
 Priorities.
Transportation, Community and   24th Street/23rd Avenue Corridor Improvement, Council Bluffs, IA............................................          $237,000  Grassley
 System Preservation.
Transportation, Community and   4-Laning of US 20 from Sac-Calhoun County Line to Molville, IA..............................................          $570,000  Grassley
 System Preservation.
Transportation, Community and   Mississippi Drive Corridor, Muscatine, IA...................................................................          $475,000  Grassley
 System Preservation.
Surface Transportation          North Access Road at Jacksonville International Airport, FL.................................................          $570,000  Martinez
 Priorities.
Transportation, Community and   Design and Construction for the Widening of US 331, Walton County, FL.......................................          $237,500  Martinez
 System Preservation.
Transportation, Community and   I-12 Interchange at LA-16, Denham Springs, LA...............................................................          $950,000  Vitter
 System Preservation.
FTA Priority Consideration....  Gainesville-Haymarket Virginia Railway Express (VRE), VA....................................................  ................  Webb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are looking right now at a $410 billion 
piece of legislation approved by the House last week, largely on party 
lines, that we are beginning to debate today. It is 1,123 pages. It is 
interesting that it is accompanied by a 1,844-page statement of 
managers. Put them together, and we have 2,967 pages of legislation. 
Not surprisingly, the measure has unnecessary and wasteful earmarks. So 
much for the promise of change. So much for the promise of change. This 
may be--in all the years I have been coming to this floor to complain 
about the earmark, porkbarrel corruption that this system has bred, 
this may be probably the worst--probably the worst.
  I just went through a campaign where both candidates promised change 
in Washington; promised change from the wasteful, disgraceful, 
corrupting practice of earmark, porkbarrel spending. We have former 
Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. We have former 
congressional staffers under indictment and in prison. So what are we 
doing here? Not only is this business as usual, but this is an 
outrageous insult to the American people.
  Today we find out that the unemployment rate in the great State of 
California just went over 10 percent. It just went over 10 percent. So 
what are we going to do? We are going to spend $1.7 million for pig 
odor research in Iowa. We are going to spend $2 million for the 
promotion of astronomy in Hawaii. Why do we need--I ask the Senator 
from Hawaii: Why do we need to spend $2 million to promote astronomy in 
Hawaii when unemployment is going up and the stock market is tanking? 
Do we really need to continue this wasteful process?
  This includes $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 
million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York. You will notice 
there is a State or a district or a town or a location associated with 
all of these projects. You will notice that because that is what it is: 
$1.7 million for a honey bee factory in Weslaco, TX. Forgive me if I 
mispronounced the name of the town in Texas.
  So here we are. Here we are promising the American people hope and 
change, and what do we have? Business as usual. What does the 
administration say? What does the administration say? Mr. Peter Orzag--
an individual I don't know--brushed off questions during his appearance 
on ``This Week'' about whether the President would sign a spending bill 
that contains 9,000 earmarks--9,000 earmarks. Noting that during the 
campaign President Obama said he would work to limit earmarks and make 
them more transparent, his response was: This is last year's business. 
We want to just move on.
  Last year's business? The President will sign this appropriations 
bill into law. It is the President's business. It is the business of 
the President of the United States. It is the business of the President 
of the United States to do what he said. When we were in debate seeking 
the support of the American people, he stated he would work to 
eliminate--eliminate--earmarks.
  Last September, President Obama said during the debate in Oxford, MS:

       We need earmark reform and when I am President, I will go 
     line-by-line to make sure we are not spending money unwisely.

  That is the quote of the promise the President of the United States 
made to the American people in a debate with me in Oxford, MS.
  So what is brought to the floor today? Nine thousand earmarks, 
billions and billions of dollars of unneeded and wasteful spending, and 
the President's budget person says: This is last year's business. We 
want to just move on. That is insulting to the American people.
  White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel appeared on ``Face the 
Nation.'' According to the New York Times, Mr. Emanuel said:

       Mr. Obama was not happy with the large number of earmarks 
     in this bill, but--

  Mr. Emanuel said--

       the President kept lawmakers from adding a single earmark 
     to this $287 billion stimulus package and a $32.8 billion 
     plan to the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

  By the way, that statement is disingenuous on its face.
  So I guess we are doing last year's business. Does that mean last 
year's President will sign this porkbarrel bill? I wish to freely 
acknowledge--I wish to freely acknowledge that Republicans were guilty 
of this as well. I have said time after time there are three kinds of 
Members of Congress: Republican Members, Democrat Members, and 
appropriators.
  If it sounds as if I am angry, it is because I am. The American 
people today want the Congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner, 
and they don't want us to continue this corrupting practice.
  My colleague from Oklahoma is here. He calls it a gateway drug--a 
gateway drug. I am not going to pick up this managers' package. Look at 
this. Look at this. Look at this. Have we had a

[[Page 6113]]

single one of these projects authorized? Has any of them gone through 
the authorizing committee? Have any of these projects been examined for 
whether they are better or worse or more meritorious than others? No. 
They are in there because of the political clout and seniority of 
Members of Congress. That is what this is all about--political 
influence.
  Maybe one could argue when this economy was good and we were in a 
surplus this kind of wasteful spending could be brushed aside; that it 
was somehow, in the view of some, acceptable. It is not now. It is not 
now. There are millions of Americans out of work, unemployment is 
climbing, and the stock market is tanking.
  So what do we do in response to that, as every American family is 
having to tighten their belts, sitting around the kitchen table 
figuring out how they are either going to keep a job or get health 
insurance, keep their families together and stay in their homes? We are 
going to spend $333,000 for the design and construction of a school 
sidewalk in Franklin, TX. Now, maybe that Franklin, TX, school needs a 
sidewalk. Maybe other places need a sidewalk too.
  We are going to spend $951,500 for a sustainable Las Vegas. What does 
that mean? What does sustainable Las Vegas mean?
  We are going to spend $143,000 for Nevada Humanities to develop and 
expand an online encyclopedia.
  Is there no place besides Nevada that they need to expand an online 
encyclopedia? There hasn't been a lot of coverage on the $200,000 for a 
tattoo removal violence outreach program in the L.A. area. Is that 
program also needed in other areas? Why did we pick out L.A.? There is 
$238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu, HI. We have 
$238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu, HI, when 
people are out of a job. There is $100,000 for the regional robotics 
training center in Union, SC. There is $238,000 for the Alaska PTA. 
There is $150,000 for a rodeo museum in South Dakota.
  Americans are angry, Mr. President, and they are going to know a lot 
more about this bill before we have a final vote. They are going to 
know a lot more about it. Americans are going to be angry. Americans 
are angry now at what we have done. The approval rating of Congress is 
incredibly low. So we will be going through a lot of this.
  By the way, there is an outfit called PMA. A lot of Americans haven't 
heard of PMA. It is a lobbying organization. Contained within this 
legislation are 14 earmarks that the managers of the bill put in, and 
these 14 earmarks total nearly $9.7 million. Guess to whom they are 
directed--clients of the PMA Group. The PMA Group, for the benefit of 
my colleagues, is a lobbying group, a firm recently forced to close its 
doors after being raided by the FBI for suspicious campaign donation 
practices. The firm is under investigation. So what did they do? They 
went out and got $9.7 million worth of your taxpayer dollars, totaling 
$9.7 million, after being raided by the FBI for suspicious campaign 
donation practices. They remain under investigation. Do you think maybe 
we could take that out?
  I have long spoken about a broken appropriations process, vulnerable 
to corruption and abuse, and the allegations against the PMA Group and 
some Members of Congress stand as a testament to the urgent need for 
reform. How could we allow these provisions to move forward while their 
principal sponsor is under Federal investigation? How do we do that?
  Mr. President, we will be talking a lot more in the days ahead as we 
go through this legislation. I hope the American people will rise up 
and demand that what we need to do is just have a continuing 
resolution, continue with the spending levels that were part of the 
continuing resolution. If this is a ``change,'' then let's start 
implementing change.
  If there is any testament to business as usual here in the Congress 
of the United States, it is this bill before us. Americans all over 
this country hope for change. They hope the corruption, earmarking, and 
porkbarrel practices will stop. What are we giving them? We are giving 
them a slap in the face, that is what we are giving them.
  I know my colleague from Oklahoma is here. I will be glad to hear the 
explanation from my colleagues, the distinguished managers of the bill, 
as to why 14 earmark projects obtained by the PMA Group, which has been 
shut down and is under FBI investigation, why we need $1.7 million for 
pig odor research in Iowa, and why we have 1,100 pages of the managers' 
statement. A managers' statement is supposed to be a description of the 
bill. What has happened over the years is that we have stuck in more 
and more provisions in the managers' statement which then, according to 
the agencies of Government, have the force of law. So we get tens of 
billions of dollars of unnecessary and wasteful earmarks. So much for 
the promise of change.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii is 
recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, before we get started----
  Mr. INOUYE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes, I am happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. INOUYE. Is the Senator going to propose an amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. I will not at this time.
  Mr. INOUYE. Thank you.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is interesting--and the American people 
ought to pay attention to this--what we have right now is a bill that 
is $410 billion. It is $363 million a page. And now we have 
instructions from the majority leader that no amendments are allowed to 
be offered. That is what the intent of the quorum call was. That is why 
the honorable chairman asked me that question. The only way I can talk 
on the floor is if I agree not to offer an amendment to $410 billion 
worth of spending, at $363 million per page. What are we coming to? Now 
we can't offer amendments. I reached out to Senator Reid and said I 
would work with him on packaging amendments in a way that would not 
delay this bill, in a way that we can still have a good debate and lots 
of amendments offered. My goodness, you have 57 votes. You can win 
almost any vote here. Why do you not want to have amendments? They 
don't want to have amendments because they really don't want the 
American people to know what is in this bill. That is why.
  This bill represents the spending for all of these agencies we have 
not sent the money to this fiscal year. But it also represents the 
worst excesses of Congress. It represents parochialism ahead of 
principle. It represents putting politicians first and putting the 
people last. That is what this bill represents. It represents the exact 
opposite of what our President said he wanted, which was ``change you 
can believe in.'' Now we have change that is exactly what we saw before 
President Obama became President. We have the same standard of 
behavior. Tons of earmarks are in this bill. That is a totally 
different question. This bill has grown by over $32 billion from the 
same period last year, of which we just increased most of these 
agencies on an average of around 80 percent with the stimulus bill. Now 
we are going to increase it another 8.4 percent, and we are not 
supposed to offer amendments. We are not supposed to take out things 
that are obviously quid pro quo in terms of earmarks and campaign 
contributions, as the Senator from Arizona just mentioned, from the 
donors we are seeing who are being investigated right now.
  The way to get our Government back is to have free and honest debate 
in the greatest deliberative body in the world, which is supposed to be 
the U.S. Senate. Now we cannot offer amendments on a bill that is 
almost half of the entire discretionary spending of the country because 
we are not sure they want

[[Page 6114]]

to take a vote on a bill. I have not been bashful about what I want to 
do.
  There is an Emmett Till bill that we passed under controversy here. 
We got it passed. There is not one penny for funding for the Emmett 
Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes in this bill, which your side totally 
promised would be in this spending. You are abandoning Alvin Sykes and 
all these families who had unsolved civil rights crimes over the last 
30, 40 years in this country and reneging on a promise that said you 
would put the money in the Justice Department. Yet there is not a penny 
there. We are high and mighty when it comes to authorizing and when we 
promise we will do the right thing. But when it comes down to it, we 
would rather give earmarks for pig smell than fund the solution for 
unsolved civil rights crimes. I tell you, by doing that, I think we 
have dishonored a great number of people who worked hard to make sure 
that bill got passed, the least of which is not Alvin Sykes, a man who 
has dedicated the last 10 years of his life to seeing that justice was 
not denied to these families. Here we have a bill which we made promise 
after promise that we would take care of, and we have done nothing. Of 
course nobody wants to change this bill. They don't want to change the 
bill because we are running up to a deadline we have known about since 
the fiscal year started. No, you cannot change the bill because we will 
have to extend the CR. There are a lot of benefits to extending the CR: 
One, we save our grandkids $38 billion--that is one of the benefits--
and two, we don't reward behavior that causes us to be less than 
honorable.
  There are 8,570 earmarks in this bill. I am not opposed to earmarks 
if they are authorized and go through a committee and Senators say they 
are a priority. But the average American, when they look at all these 
earmarks, is going to say: How in the world is that a priority? Yet we 
spend $7.7 billion out of that $30 billion--increased spending--so we 
can help Senators get reelected and so they will look good at home.
  Mr. President, I worry about our Republic. You should be worried too. 
In the face of the greatest economic difficulty we have seen in over 
half a century in this country, the status quo has not changed in the 
Senate. We have not called up the courage to do what is best for this 
country. What we have done is relied on what is best for the 
politicians. I worry about what our kids are going to see, what 
standards of living they are going to have, because it is exactly this 
behavior that will mortgage their future, and it is not just the 
dollars, it is the misdirection of funds against a standard that common 
sense would say is not a priority now. We ought to be doing what is 
most important for this country first and what is best for the 
politicians last. This bill has it wrong. It has it backward.
  I told the majority leader a moment ago that I would work with him to 
make sure we didn't obstruct. But maybe we should obstruct this bill, 
we should stop this bill. Based on the waste in it, the lack of 
oversight, lack of metrics in the programs, the earmarks in it, and the 
outright greed for the special class in this country--and that special 
class is the connected class of the politician. That is who benefits 
most from this bill. It makes me want to vomit.
  You should worry about process in this Chamber because process is the 
thing that creates transparency. The American people are going to get 
to see--if we get an opportunity to offer amendments--what is really in 
this bill.
  I will finish my rant by saying that I wonder what the Senators 
before us, 50 and 100 years ago, would say about what is going on with 
process in this Chamber right now. You have the votes to defeat 
anything. Yet you don't want to have an amendment that you have to take 
a vote on that says this is a priority or this isn't a priority.
  To me, I think that lacks honor, I know it lacks courage, and it 
lacks the dignity this institution deserves.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, does the Senator from Texas wish to 
speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished bill managers 
for the opportunity to speak by unanimous consent as in morning 
business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Texas Independence Day

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of Texas 
Independence Day, March 2. On this date in 1836, delegates from 59 
Texas settlements in what was then Mexico declared their independence 
from that country and their determination to live in liberty. The 
delegates who met in this small town known as Washington-on-the-Brazos 
were a diverse group. Two of the delegates were native Mexicans, Jose 
Francisco Ruiz and Jose Antonio Navarro. The rest were immigrants from 
Europe, from Mexico, and, yes, from the United States. Two-thirds of 
the delegates were less than 40 years old.
  Several of the delegates had political experience, men such as Sam 
Houston, who had been Governor of the State of Tennessee. He, Robert 
Potter, and Samuel Carson had all served in the Congress. Richard Ellis 
had participated in the constitutional convention of the State of 
Alabama, and Martin Parmer had done the same in Missouri.
  These delegates, and the people they represented, had a clear goal. 
They wanted freedom. In this case, the freedom guaranteed to them under 
the Mexican Constitution but which had been lost under the dictatorship 
of then-President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
  The Texas delegates modeled their declaration of independence on the 
one signed in Philadelphia 60 years earlier. They expressed their 
grievances, their determination to protect their freedoms, and their 
vision for a new nation--the Republic of Texas.
  The ``Unanimous Declaration of Independence by the Delegates of the 
People of Texas'' was signed by those 59 delegates on March 2. Five 
copies were sent to the towns of Bexar, Goliad, Nacogdoches, Brazoria, 
and San Felipe. Because there were no printing presses in Washington-
on-the-Brazos, the printer in San Felipe was ordered to print 1,000 
copies in handbill form. The original copy was sent to the U.S. 
Department of State in Washington, where it would stay for six decades 
before being returned to the State where it was written.
  Even as the delegates signed this historic document, they knew their 
love of liberty might demand the ultimate sacrifice. At that moment, 
less than 200 miles to the west, Santa Anna's army was laying siege to 
the Alamo. Just days earlier, its young commander, William Barret 
Travis, sent out this letter. He wrote:

       Fellow citizens & compatriots--I am besieged, by a thousand 
     or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a 
     continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not 
     lost a man--The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, 
     otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the 
     forth is taken--I have answered the demand with a cannon 
     shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls--I shall 
     never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name 
     of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American 
     character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy 
     is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to 
     three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is 
     neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as 
     possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due 
     to his own honor & that of his country--Victory or Death!

  Madam President, death came to the defenders of the Alamo, but 
victory came to the people of Texas shortly thereafter. On April 21 of 
that year, Sam Houston and about 900 Texas soldiers defeated the larger 
Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto. The surprise attack was so 
successful. It lasted all of 18 minutes, and the next day, Santa Anna 
himself was captured. By this victory, Texans won the independence they 
had declared less than 2 months earlier.
  Sam Houston went on to serve as President of the Republic of Texas, 
after serving as Governor of Tennessee, a Member of the House of 
Representatives from Tennessee, then as President of the Republic of 
Texas. And

[[Page 6115]]

after statehood, he served right here in the Senate as one of the first 
two Senators from our State.
  I am honored to hold the same seat in this body that was first held 
by Sam Houston. He served here for 13 years. He was a champion of 
Native Americans and raised his voice against secession and Civil War.
  Today, Texans honor the courage and sacrifices of those who won our 
independence and those who have followed in their footsteps to this 
day.
  In the past year alone, I have had the honor to present a Bronze Star 
to a native of Harlingen, TX, who helped lead the breakout from a 
beachhead in Anzio during World War II. I was honored to present a 
Purple Heart to a resident of Seguin who was severely wounded by mortar 
fire in Korea. I have seen tears of sorrow and of pride of those who 
have lost loved ones in Iraq. And I have honored young men and women 
who even now are completing their first year of study at our Nation's 
service academies.
  All these heroes and their families have paid the ultimate tribute to 
those who stood for freedom 173 years ago. In remembrance of all those 
who have risked their lives to keep Texas and the United States a land 
of liberty, I close with the words of our State song:

       God bless you Texas! And keep you brave and strong, That 
     you may grow in power and worth, Thro'out the ages long.

  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam 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. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 592

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 592.

 (Purpose: To continue funding at fiscal year 2008 levels through the 
                        end of fiscal year 2009)

         Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONTINUING 2008 FUNDING LEVELS.

         Section 106(3) of Public Law 110-329 is amended by 
     striking ``March 6, 2009'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     2009''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. Instead of the bloated, earmark-filled $410 billion 
Omnibus appropriations bill and statement of managers totalling 2,967 
pages that no Member could possibly have read given the sheer volume, 
this amendment would provide for a long-term CR to fund the Federal 
Government through the end of this fiscal year. It is a one-page 
amendment. It approaches fiscally responsible discipline in an 
expeditious way which is why just 2 years ago we agreed to nearly the 
exact same approach when we agreed by a vote of 81 to 15, on February 
14, 2007, to revise the continuing appropriations resolution 2007.
  I note no Member of the majority voted in opposition to that approach 
which, similar to the amendment I am proposing, funded nearly all the 
agencies of the Federal Government, except the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Homeland Security which had been enacted as 
regular appropriations bills. The only difference today is the MILCON-
VA funding was approved last year and is not part of this continuing 
resolution, that and the fact that the majority is in control of the 
House, Senate, and White House.
  When are we going to grasp the seriousness of the economic situation 
confronting us? We learned Friday that the GDP sank 6.2 percent in the 
last quarter of 2008, far worse than what was expected. With the 
economy contracting by the fastest pace in a quarter century, this 
needs to serve as a wakeup call. We cannot afford literally to continue 
under this same status quo.
  Let's consider some cold, hard facts. The current national debt is 
$10.7 trillion. The 2009 projected deficit is $1.2 trillion. The total 
cost of the economic stimulus enacted 2 weeks ago is $1.24 trillion. 
That is $789 billion plus interest. TARP I and II, $700 billion; TARP 
III, $250 billion to $750 billion or more; the President's budget 
request for 2010, $3.6 trillion. And now here we are debating a pork-
filled $410 billion Omnibus appropriations bill to fund the Federal 
Government through the second half of the fiscal year at a funding 
level that is nearly 10 percent greater than spending for the last 
fiscal year, which, according to the ranking minority of the House 
Appropriations Committee, represents the largest increase in annual 
discretionary spending since the Carter administration.
  Combine the total costs of this omnibus with the Defense and Homeland 
Security and Military Construction bills passed last year, and spending 
for fiscal year 2009 will top $1 trillion.
  Now let's consider the impact of the funding increases in this bill, 
combined with the billions of dollars provided to these agencies in the 
stimulus. According to a document prepared by the House Appropriations 
Committee minority, the combined cost of the omnibus and the recently 
passed stimulus bill results in the following increases in this year's 
spending in billions of dollars: Agriculture, the percent increase over 
last year is 45 percent. That is $26.1 billion. Commerce, State and 
Justice--this is with the stimulus and the bill before us, with its 
1,100 pages of managers' statement--is a 41 percent increase. Energy 
and water, a 151 percent increase; financial services, 43 percent; 
Interior, 45 percent; Labor-HHS, 91 percent; legislative branch, 12 
percent; State and foreign ops, 13 percent; Transportation, 139 
percent--a total of an 80-percent increase over last year's spending.
  We are committing generational theft because we are going to ask our 
kids and our grandkids to pay this bill.
  While I wish to say it is time to put a halt to business as usual, I 
find myself thinking this level of funding defies that description. It 
is beyond anything I have ever witnessed and is extremely alarming. 
That is why we should adopt this long-term continuing resolution that 
will effectively freeze spending to last year's level and eliminate 
wasting an additional $7.7 billion on more than 9,000 wasteful 
earmarks.
  Just as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, 
said during the February 2007 debate on a continuing resolution, it is 
a fiscally disciplined resolution, and so is this one. During the week, 
there will be many discussions on the floor about the questionable 
funding contained in this omnibus spending bill. It is difficult even 
for me to grasp the level of unnecessary spending proposed in this 
bill. It may be the most egregious pork-barrel spending I have 
witnessed in all my years here.
  Over the past few days, I have been listing a top 10 each day of some 
of the most stunning provisions. I have been twittering. Remarkably, it 
would take me almost 3 years to list every earmark--if I continued to 
list the top 10--until all the more than 9,000 were mentioned. I state 
this to put some perspective on the enormity of this level of 
earmarking.
  I have been through some of them before, but they make you laugh and 
they make you cry: $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in 
Cody, WY; $951,500 for the Oregon Solar Highway.
  Some of these projects may be worthwhile. They may be projects we all 
need. If they are, they should go through the process of authorization 
and appropriation. They are not. They are inserted in an appropriations 
bill in a fashion that no Member of this body has read this managers' 
statement or this bill. That is what is wrong with it.
  There will be arguments in favor of a certain earmark. There will be 
an argument for $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans. Then 
why didn't it go through the proper authorizing committee and then have 
the funds appropriated? That is what is required by the procedures of 
the Senate, which have been violated more and more and more. And 
unfortunately, what happens when you commit any egregious

[[Page 6116]]

breach, when you engage in activities that are unethical, they grow and 
they grow. And I say--and I say again--this is serious stuff. We have 
former Members of Congress and their staffs residing in Federal prison.
  The Senator from North Dakota and I spent a couple of years 
investigating Mr. Abramoff, and we did so under the authorizing 
committee of the Indian Affairs Committee--what some view as an obscure 
committee--and we uncovered these egregious activities of ripping off 
Native Americans of millions of dollars; of the incestuous relationship 
between staffers and Members of Congress and this process. We confined 
our activities to Native Americans. There was much more evidence of 
wrongdoing. But because we were the Indian Affairs Committee, we kept 
our investigation to those.
  I don't know how many people are now in prison, but I know recent 
indictments have come down. So this is not trivial stuff we are talking 
about. This is corruption. And when we do things such as this, then it 
encourages a practice.
  I asked earlier in my comments how in the world could we appropriate 
items which had been lobbied for by a group called PMA, whose offices 
were raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation? How can we insert 
their earmarks into an appropriations bill? I don't get it.
  My amendment is simple. It goes back to a continuing resolution and 
funds the activities of the Government at last year's levels, which 
obviously were sufficient last year. We need to do some belt 
tightening, I don't think there is any doubt about that. We are asking 
every American family to do that today. And every American family is 
having to do it today as we face an unprecedented economic distress 
which is affecting literally every family in America. It is a great and 
ongoing tragedy. It seems to me that we, as a Congress, can at least 
not increase the spending over last year's level as Americans have lost 
at least half of their savings in the stock market in the last year.
  I hope we will approve this amendment, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee for the chance to speak at this time. I am going to talk a 
bit about the cause of health care reform, and I know the chairman has 
been a leader in this area lo these many years.
  For some time, the planets have started to align for the cause of 
health reform, and today the President put in place some stars in 
Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle for key assignments in this 
health reform effort. Both of them bring extraordinary qualifications 
to their positions.
  Kathleen Sebelius is a renowned expert on the cause of insurance 
reform. This is going to be especially important because the insurance 
model today is fundamentally flawed. It is all about cherry-picking--
taking healthy people and sending sick people over to government 
programs more fragile than they are. Under Kathleen Sebelius, I am of 
the view we will reinvent that insurance system. Private insurers will 
compete on the basis of price, benefit, and quality.
  I believe we will have bipartisan support for that effort. The 
President has talked about it. Chairman Baucus has it in his white 
paper. Chairman Kennedy has long advocated this very different model of 
private insurance. I am pleased to say in our bipartisan Healthy 
Americans Act, which Senator Bennett and I have sponsored, we include 
it as well. With Kathleen Sebelius and her expertise in the insurance 
field, we will be in a position to get it done and get it done with 
bipartisan support.
  Nancy-Ann DeParle brings the same qualifications to the task of 
fixing health care. She is an expert in health care numbers. She was 
involved what was then the Health Care Finance Administration. But what 
I like the most about Nancy-Ann DeParle is that she has always 
understood that enduring solutions to big questions--such as fixing 
health care--are going to require that we bring together bipartisan 
support for those efforts.
  To his credit, the President has emphasized how important it is to 
have bipartisan support for this challenge. I believe at this point 
Democrats and Republicans can come together and end the gridlock over 
health care reform. I think we are now seeing emerge a bipartisan 
consensus that each party has been right on fundamentals with respect 
to health care.
  Democrats have been right about the proposition that you cannot fix 
the system without covering everybody. If you don't cover everybody, 
the people who are uninsured shift their bills to the insured, and they 
shift the most expensive bills. So my view is my party has been right 
on the question of coverage, and it is time to get all Americans good 
quality, affordable health care.
  I also believe Republicans have contributed significantly because we 
do need a strong private sector, one that encourages innovation, one 
that steers clear of price controls and a one-size-fits-all Federal 
solution. So I think there is opportunity now for private sector 
choices as well as expanding coverage. Again, President Obama has 
included that kind of thinking, Chairman Baucus has, Chairman Kennedy 
has, and we have it in the Healthy Americans Act as well.
  Some are saying--and we have heard this repeatedly in recent weeks--
that our country, with our fragile economy, can't afford health care 
reform. I am of the view that our economy can't afford the status quo. 
If you think about what is going on in North Carolina, the reason 
people's take-home pay doesn't go up is because it is all going to 
health care. The fact is that fixing the economy and fixing health care 
are two sides of the same coin. The Obama administration--particularly 
Peter Orszag, the Budget Director--has long recognized this.
  The President was right to say that after 60 years of talking about 
health care, he didn't want to wait until year 61 to get something 
done; he wanted to do it this year. Today, by appointing Kathleen 
Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle, he got these efforts off to a very 
strong start.
  This Thursday we will have a health care summit. Proponents, 
opponents, and those of differing views will be around the table. 
Again, the President has made the right call by inviting some who 
haven't been advocates for health care reform in the past. But I think 
we are seeing a dramatic departure from a lot of the positions of the 
past, and that is what is going to make Thursday's session very 
exciting and I believe very productive.
  For example, in 1993 and 1994, when our country debated health care 
reform under the Clinton plan, the business community said, We can't 
afford to fix health care. Now the business community--businesses small 
and large and of all philosophies--are saying, We can't afford the 
status quo. Chairman Baucus and Chairman Kennedy and their ranking 
minority members, Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi, have a long record of 
being able to work in a bipartisan fashion to build on those new 
sentiments coming from the business community.
  I believe Senator Bennett and I, with the 13 Senators who are part of 
the Healthy Americans Act coalition, can bring to the President, can 
bring to our chairs and ranking minority members, some ideas that can 
pick up bipartisan support. They know we are anxious to work with them 
and to work with them quickly. To stick to the President's timetable is 
going to require that kind of bipartisan goodwill, and I believe it is 
now there.
  I believe that the health care challenge in this country, with 
exploding costs and demographics that are relentless, requires a lot of 
the old thinking be set aside. I believe it is doable. In the course of 
the last 2 years, I have had a chance to visit more than 80 of our 
colleagues in their offices, to listen to them, to get their thoughts 
on what needs to be done in health care, and to a person, I found a 
desire to act and to act now.
  I think, as the President knows, you can't have a town meeting--
whether it is North Carolina or Oregon, or anywhere else in this 
country--without

[[Page 6117]]

health care dominating the discussion. So this Thursday provides an 
opportunity to bring people together. We will have the nominations of 
Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle going forward. I am certain 
they are going to be approved with very substantial bipartisan support, 
and then we will be down to the task of writing legislation.
  On the key issues there is agreement among reformers. Clearly, you 
have to cover everybody to stop cost shifting. You have to change the 
insurance model so that instead of spending time scouring out the bad 
risks and taking only healthy people, there is a different model of 
private insurance where plans compete on the basis of price, benefit 
and quality. We are going to come together and make sure we are 
purchasing value for our health care dollar.
  Dr. Orszag has pointed out on many occasions that something like 30 
percent of the health care dollar goes for services of little or no 
value. That is these services don't help patients get healthier. 
Chairman Baucus and Chairman Kennedy have some good ideas for changing 
that as well.
  I think, finally, there will be a very sharp new focus on prevention 
and wellness. When Senator Bennett and I were talking about the Healthy 
Americans Act, we thought there were a number of key areas we felt 
strongly about. But what we felt most strongly about was getting a new 
emphasis on prevention and wellness. That is why we called it the 
Healthy Americans Act--because to a great extent, Madam President, we 
don't have health care at all in this country. We have sick care.
  Medicare Part A, the biggest health care program in our country, will 
pay thousands of dollars for senior citizens' hospital bills, and 
Medicare Part B, on the other hand, will not do anything to award 
prevention and to keep people healthy. So in the Healthy Americans Act 
we say seniors who make efforts to lower their blood pressure or lower 
their cholesterol will get lower Part B premiums.
  The fact is, the entire health system does little to encourage 
prevention. For example, with the typical workers changing their jobs 
every few years--right now the workers, by the time they are 40, change 
their jobs 11 times--there is not a great incentive for private 
insurers to invest in prevention. So what the President seeks to do--
and Chairman Baucus, Chairman Kennedy, Senator Bennett, myself, 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee who is part of 
our legislation--we are saying let's make health coverage portable so 
you can take it from place to place as you change your job, and in the 
future private insurance companies will have an incentive to invest in 
wellness and prevention and good health care because people will be 
staying with them. In today's system, when workers jump from one job to 
another every year or year and a half there is no incentive for the 
insurance company to invest in your health.
  Madam President, I said the planet was aligning for the cause of 
health reform. With the appointment of two true stars, Kathleen 
Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the President took another significant 
step toward achieving our goal today. I believe, after 60 years of 
bickering about this subject--it literally goes back to the 81st 
Congress with Harry Truman--there is new momentum for an enduring fix 
for the challenges of American health care. To make an enduring 
solution to those challenges requires that Democrats and Republicans 
come together. I think that is going to be possible with both parties 
having the ability to secure major objectives they have worked for in 
the past.
  With Thursday's summit coming up, I think the American people will 
see that now the hard work is going to go forward. This time, after 
years and years of polarizing debates, there is going to be an 
opportunity to come together. I believe the Congress, with the 
leadership of President Obama, is going to take that opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  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. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would like to speak to the fiscal year 
2009 appropriations bill, or what we call the Omnibus appropriations 
bill, that is before us right now, beginning with a general discussion 
and then some of the concerns that many of us on the Republican side 
have with this legislation.
  As I think most folks know, this is the second half of funding for 
the fiscal year we are in right now. The first half went through 
March--or basically through the end of this coming week--and then the 
second half of the year we said we would do late, and that is this 
legislation. I will discuss more of the process later, but the reason 
this was done in two pieces, I think, is twofold.
  First of all, the majority was not able to get the entire bill done 
last year, either intentionally or because it represented a lot of 
work--although that is the way we do it every other year--and second, I 
think there was a feeling there was a good likelihood they would add to 
their numbers on the majority side and potentially have a Democratic 
President, and so there may be some policy changes and other changes 
they would want to make in the legislation that they would have an 
easier chance to get passed than if they had done that when there were 
more Republicans in this body, for example, and a Republican President 
who could veto the bill.
  I say that because some of the things that are in this bill clearly 
represent changes from what was going to be the funding for this fiscal 
year until this special process was indulged. I do think and hope my 
colleagues on the Democratic side appreciate one of the reasons 
Republicans have concerns about this are these changes that have been 
made.
  In general terms, the $410 billion funding level is $32 billion or 8 
percent higher than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. At a time when 
we are suffering from pretty tough economic times, this is a pretty 
healthy increase in spending over last year. According to the House 
Republican appropriators, if you exempt the 9/11 funding in the bill, 
it is the largest increase in annual discretionary spending since the 
Carter administration. The bill is long--it is 1,124 pages long--and in 
addition to that there is a 1,000-page joint explanatory statement.
  I confess I have not gotten through all of those things. But staff 
have tried to read through it and have identified some of the things I 
want to discuss this afternoon.
  If you add the bills we did pass to fund the Government for the 
entire year--the Defense bill, Homeland Security and Military 
Construction--then the total of the discretionary funding for the year 
will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in the history of the United 
States.
  So it is a big spending bill. The total, as I said, is about $21 
billion above President Bush's fiscal year 2009 request.
  Some of the spending concerns specifically are the following: 
Probably the biggest is the fact that when we did the so-called 
stimulus bill, we spent almost $1 trillion. Much of that was spent on 
programs that are actually imbedded in this Omnibus appropriations 
bill. Constituents may be a little bit confused on that point. We know 
they know we have an appropriations bill that got us started on the 
year 2009.
  They know we had this $1 trillion-plus so-called stimulus bill. So 
why are we doing an Omnibus appropriations bill on top of that? It is a 
good question, especially in those areas where there is duplicative 
funding, which there is a lot of. There are 122 programs that already 
received hundreds of billions of dollars in the stimulus bill. You 
would think they would not be included in this bill, so that you had 
duplicate spending.
  But, no, they were both in the stimulus bill and also in this bill. 
According

[[Page 6118]]

to, again, the House Appropriations Committee Republicans, the omnibus 
and stimulus together include $680 billion for new programs. There are 
also program expansions, there is one-time spending. If you add all 
these things together, you have an 80-percent increase in the funds for 
those accounts over the 2008 level. Think of that, an 80-percent 
increase.
  Now, you can even rationalize maybe a 6- or 8-percent increase over 
the previous year. But an 80-percent increase? That is obviously way 
too much. Just a couple of examples of things that got into this bill. 
There is $15 million for beginning of a study for a new House office 
building. I served time in the House of Representatives, and actually 
worked in two different office buildings in the House. Working in the 
Rayburn House Office Building, a beautiful new building, there is 
plenty of room.
  I think we would all like bigger space, but is that something we want 
to be spending money on this year, given our current economic 
environment and the fact that we just got through funding the new 
Congressional Visitor Center, which was massively over budget?
  But more important than some of these spending items are the policy 
concerns. These are the areas of the bill that certainly Republicans 
would not have agreed to as part of the process: School Choice for the 
District of Columbia. This bill effectively eliminates the School 
Choice Program by prohibiting any student from participating in the 
program after the 2009-2010 school year unless Congress reauthorizes 
the program and the DC Council approves the bill. So you are setting up 
two big roadblocks to the continuation of what has been a very popular 
program for folks in the District of Columbia.
  A provision on greenhouse gas emissions. This bill, with this 
provision, taxes a large step toward allowing the Endangered Species 
Act to literally be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, although 
it was obviously never intended for that purpose.
  Specifically, it allows the Interior Department to withdraw two 
specific Endangered Species Act rules within 60 days of enactment 
without any public notice or comment. The practical effect of this rule 
withdrawal is that any acts that increase carbon dioxide or greenhouse 
gas emissions, which means almost anything we do, since, of course, we 
breathe carbon dioxide, would be subject to a lawsuit if it did not 
first consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on mitigation against 
potential impacts of climate change and harm to polar bears. That is 
the specific rule we are talking about.
  Examples of actions subject would include construction projects, 
energy production, agricultural practices, to name a few. This is a 
radical departure from anything we have done in the past. It is a 
policy change that most Republicans simply cannot agree with.
  There is something called nominal drug pricing, which would allow 
Planned Parenthood and other organizations to buy certain drugs for 
nominal prices and then resell those drugs at a profit. This is not 
what they are in business to do.
  There is a very controversial section on family travel to Cuba. 
Section 620 and 621 of the Financial Services Division weakens the 
existing travel restrictions to Cuba. Now, that is the kind of serious 
policy which we need to have a serious policy debate about in this 
Congress. Is that the kind of thing we want to include in this 
appropriations bill? I think not.
  The so-called Kemp-Kasten: Section 7079(b). This is a section we have 
had in the law forever. This particular section includes language which 
would undermine this longstanding Kemp-Kasten language. I said 
``forever.'' It has been since 1984. It is a provision that denies 
Federal funding for organizations that are involved with coercive 
abortions. While the Kemp-Kasten provisions are still intact in the 
omnibus, an exemption is created for a very important organization, the 
U.S. Population Fund or the UNFPA, which is a controversial program 
that the United States has not funded in the past due to its past 
involvement with China's one-child policy. Again, it is a very 
important change in policy. If we are going to do things such as that, 
we should debate it on the floor of the House and Senate and make a 
decision, not just fold them into an appropriations bill.
  Finally, we hear a lot on the earmarks these days. I was surprised to 
learn this bill includes earmarks totalling about $7.7 billion, 8,750 
earmarks, allegedly. Nobody argues that every single expenditure 
Congress directs is inappropriate, especially if they have already been 
authorized. But I suspect that in these 8,750 earmarks, there is an 
awful lot that does not represent authorized spending by the Congress.
  I would note that the three security-related appropriations bills 
enacted last fall added another $6.6 billion in earmarks, which would 
bring the total in this bill to $14.3 billion in disclosed earmarks. 
That is not acceptable.
  The President supported an amendment to the budget resolution for 
2009, the so-called DeMint amendment, with Senator McCain and Senator 
Clinton, to establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2009. The 
vote on that failed 29 to 71. But I would hope the President, as a 
result of his position on this, would weigh in.
  Finally, I mentioned in the very beginning the process, how we got to 
this point. Why are we considering, after a recordbreaking stimulus 
bill of over $1 trillion, why are we passing another appropriations 
bill now, before we have done a budget for this year and before we do 
the appropriations bills for the coming year? Well, it is because last 
year the Congress did not fund the entire year of Federal agency 
funding. Congress only funded the first 6 months.
  Some people like to blame President Bush for this. President Bush had 
nothing to do with it. He was the President. He does not write the 
appropriations bills. He does not pass the appropriations bills in the 
Congress. I really think, as I said, it was a combination of factors.
  For one thing, some bills, at least one that I know--well, two--the 
Interior bill and the legislative branch bill--were never passed out of 
committee. President Bush had nothing to do with that. It is a failure 
of Congress to get these bills passed out of the committee. Remember 
that the Interior bill never got out of Committee in either the House 
or Senate because the majority was worried about taking the offshore 
drilling, the so-called oil shale and OCS oil exploration and drilling 
votes.
  That bill got out of neither committee. It had nothing to do with the 
President. Given the delay in bringing the omnibus bill to the floor; 
in other words, waiting until the very week in which the resolution 
that funded the first half of the Government expires, we are clearly 
taking a chance that either we are going to rush through this and not 
give it appropriate time or we are going to have a continuing 
resolution of at least some length of time. I presume it should not 
have to be for very long, but I would find it very doubtful that we 
could pass this bill, especially with the other things we have to do 
tomorrow, before the end of Thursday evening of this week. So there 
will be a lot of amendments, obviously, proposed to it. I think we 
should expect right now we will have to at least extend for a few days 
the funding for the second half of the year.
  My own thought would be we should actually have something like a 
continuing resolution for the remainder of the year, especially if the 
price for not doing that is to adopt these many policy changes which 
are serious, significant, and require a lot more debate on the Senate 
floor than simply having been included in an appropriations bill, that 
would not enable them to get the kind of debate that I think ordinarily 
would attend to them.
  This is the outline of the bill we have before us. Obviously, we are 
going to have a lot of amendments to it. Some will deal with the 
amounts of money in the bill, others will deal with the policy that is 
embedded in the bill. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
would be willing to allow this debate, a fulsome debate, with the 
amendments that need to be offered, in order to conclude the bill in a 
responsible fashion.

[[Page 6119]]


  Mr. INOUYE. 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. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Peaceful Reunification of Cyprus

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the last few decades we have seen 
historic changes around the world--the end of apartheid in South 
Africa, the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union, the dismantling of 
the Berlin Wall, a wave of democratization across Eastern Europe and 
Latin America. My mother's homeland, her land of birth, the country of 
Lithuania, was once occupied by Nazis and then the Soviets. Today, it 
is a free, prosperous, democratic nation. These have all been moments 
of hope and inspiration. Yet, sadly, despite so much progress, we 
continue to be challenged by a number of longstanding internal 
conflicts in different corners of the world. From Sudan, to Kashmir, to 
Sri Lanka, internal divisions in the historical grievances have led to 
divided people and unnecessary human suffering.
  Recently, during the Presidents Day break 2 weeks ago, I had the 
opportunity to visit one such impasse that today shows at least the 
promise for resolution--the island of Cyprus. U.N. peacekeepers first 
came to Cyprus in 1964 due to intercommunal fighting. Since 1974, 
Cyprus has been divided into the government-controlled two-thirds of 
the island and the remaining one-third of the island which is 
administered by Turkish Cypriots. The Republic of Cyprus, which joined 
the European Union in 2004, continues to be the only internationally 
recognized government on the island.
  Tragically, Cyprus has been divided now for more than 30 years, with 
the U.N. buffer zone separating the entire island, the so-called green 
line. Violence today is rare, thank goodness, but the long-term impacts 
of the separation are stark--displaced people, memories of family 
members killed in earlier violence, and lost property rights. Quite 
simply, a people who share a common island have been unnecessarily 
divided for far too long.
  In recent years, a number of important steps have been taken to 
improve relations toward eventual reunification. Crossing points 
between the two sides have opened. Thousands of people pass peacefully 
between the two sides of the island without incident.
  A Committee on Missing Persons comprised of scientists from both the 
Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities has been established. Of all the 
things we visited during the course of the 48 hours, an intensive 
visitation on the island of Cyprus, it is a cruel irony that one of the 
most hopeful was this Committee on Missing Persons. This is what they 
do. They have identified some 2,000 missing people, in some 40 years or 
more, 1,500 on the Greek side, 500 on the Turkish side, and they are 
trying to find the remains of their loved ones who have been gone for 
so long. They take DNA samples from all members of the family, and then 
they wait for anonymous, confidential reports of grave sites. They send 
their archeologists out to excavate the grave sites, bring the skeletal 
remains into a laboratory, where scientists, both Turkish and Greek, 
try to reassemble skeletons and then take DNA samples and link them 
with families who reported missing persons. So far, over 130 of those 
missing persons have been identified. They have been brought back to 
their families. There has been a moment of closure and peace.
  One would think, because these people disappeared in the most 
tumultuous and violent times, that, in fact, this would be another 
excuse, another opportunity for exploitation politically. But it 
doesn't happen. These families, after waiting for decades, have finally 
come to closure with the death of their loved one and really want to 
look forward. It is a very sober and dignified program and one that 
gives me some hope for this island, that people whose lives have been 
touched with violence can still find their way to peaceful resolution 
in their own minds when they finally are given the remains of someone 
they love. Thus far, no politician has taken advantage of these 
identifications to further more division or mistrust.
  Most importantly, today there are two leaders who are extraordinary. 
Demetris Christofias is the President of the Republic of Cyprus. Mehmet 
Ali Talat leads the other side of the island on the Turkish side. They 
are engaged in serious negotiations to reunify the island. I had a 
chance to meet with both of them, speak to them at length. At great 
political risk, they are sitting down to try to work out their 
difficulties. They need help. They need the support of the Greek and 
Turkish Governments because although they may not have a direct 
presence--in the case of Turkey, their troops are there, and there is a 
direct presence--there is a community of interest between the Turkish 
Cypriots and Turkey and the Greek Cypriots and Greece. The support of 
those two nations can be very helpful in bringing the peaceful 
reunification of the island.
  Christofias and Ali Talat are friends. They have made a peaceful and 
lasting agreement, or at least they have worked for one which unifies 
the island their top priority, and it should be one we encourage and 
support. Their efforts are brave and forward-thinking. They are to be 
commended for working to make history for the people of Cyprus.
  While the negotiations are a Cypriot-led process, the United Nations 
has a representative and special adviser, Alexander Downer, whom I met 
with and who is trying to find ways to bring the two sides together. He 
is an important symbol of the world's interest in the effort to find 
lasting peace on the island. We need to support his work.
  After visiting Cyprus, I had the opportunity to visit both Greece and 
Turkey, two key NATO allies and friends of the United States. I was 
heartened there by leaders in both countries expressing hope for the 
peaceful reunification of the island of Cyprus.
  These are important and inspiring steps forward, but there is still a 
great deal to be done toward final agreement. Many issues still need to 
be negotiated, and there is room for more confidence-building measures 
such as the Committee on Missing Persons and the opening of more 
crossing points. I am also concerned that failure to reach some kind of 
agreement this year may result in missing one of the most hopeful, 
perhaps last great opportunities in recent times to reunify the island.
  For more than a generation, the situation in Cyprus has left an 
island and a region divided. People have died. Families have been 
separated. There has been a great deal of pain inflicted on the people 
of this island.
  Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey are all friends of the United States and 
important to the region. While this is a Cypriot-led process and 
negotiation, I wish to express my strong hope and support for the 
current negotiations to bring peaceful and enduring settlement to the 
island.
  One of the last visits I made, as I left Turkey, was to stop in 
Istanbul and meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch, the leader of the 
Greek Orthodox church. The Patriarch represents a church that has been 
in Istanbul for 17 centuries. There are now about 5,000 Greek Orthodox 
left in Istanbul. It is a small and dwindling community. But Istanbul 
as a city has a great symbolic importance to the patriarch and his 
church. He told me one of his highest priorities was the closing of the 
Halki Seminary 38 years ago. I told him I would reach out to the 
Turkish side in the hopes that they would meet with the patriarch and 
reopen discussions about this issue. I recently spoke to Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton about this as well. I know she is headed to the 
Middle East. I hope she will raise it.
  This gentle man, the Ecumenical Patriarch, is asking for a chance for 
a seminary class so that his priests and bishops can be trained and 
prepared for

[[Page 6120]]

the priesthood and for the hierarchy of his church. It is not an 
unreasonable request. I hope there is a way we can find within the 
constitution, within the laws, within the treaties involving Turkey to 
give them this opportunity. This gentle man, who prays for peace every 
day, should be rewarded with the reopening of his seminary. I hope the 
leaders of Turkey in Ankara, who were kind enough to meet with me, will 
find a way after decades to reopen these negotiations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Realities In Cuba

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, there will be parts of my comments 
that, for historical purposes, will be said in Spanish, and then I will 
translate them into English, so I ask unanimous consent that be 
permitted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, February 16 of this year marked 50 
years since the revolution in Cuba that brought Fidel Castro and his 
brother, Raul, to power. Some have used this anniversary as an 
opportunity to put forth some romantic views of the revolution. So I 
have come to the floor to talk about the realities of the situation in 
Cuba. The reality is that this golden anniversary for the Castros is an 
impoverished anniversary for the rest of the country.
  Over the course of 50 years, the tides of romanticism have come and 
gone, but they have always crashed hard against the rocks of reality. 
All the pictures of Che Guevara on T-shirts cannot hide the brutality 
of the declaration he made before the United Nations in 1964. He said 
then:

     hemos fusilado, fusilamos y seguiremos fusilando mientras sea 
     necesario--

  Translated that means:

       [W]e have executed people, we execute people now and we 
     will continue executing people for as long as we deem 
     necessary.

  No words better sum up the character of the revolution. The Cuban 
regime has bent and gilded the spirit of their people over a rotten 
core of brutality, depravation, and fear.
  Here are the realities of the last five decades on the island:
  According to the Free Society Project of the Cuban Archive, which has 
verification for every case, the number of people the regime has 
murdered or abducted numbers in the thousands, if not the tens of 
thousands. Hundreds of thousands of children have been separated from 
their parents. Millions of men, women, and young people have been 
forced into the fields to cut sugarcane and perform other hard labor 
against their will.
  Here are the realities of Cuba today:
  The Government is, pure and simple, a brutal dictatorship. Every now 
and then, the regime stages meaningless elections with 609 candidates, 
all 609 chosen by the regime, vying for only 609 seats in a National 
Assembly that does not do anything without the approval of the Castro 
brothers.
  Despite fertile soil and perfect climate, as well as significant 
financial assistance, access to food is tightly rationed. The average 
Cuban worker lives on an income of less than $1 a day.
  World Bank statistics show that fewer people have telephones, 
televisions, computers, and cars than in almost any other country in 
Latin America. The regime makes sure as few people as possible can use 
the Internet, so that the percentage of people who have access in Cuba 
is less than in Haiti.
  The regime's claims about great progress in health care and education 
are immediately undermined by the costs paid--in lives lost, economic 
opportunities stolen, and freedoms denied. The island was not rich in 
1959. Yet Cubans have fewer opportunities to get ahead than they did 50 
years ago.
  Across a wide variety of indicators of human development, Cuba has 
watched other countries in Latin America make similar or even greater 
gains. This poverty has an enormous cost. The widespread desperation of 
families has forced far too many young girls and boys into becoming sex 
workers, even though defenders of the revolution constantly cite the 
elimination of prostitution as one of its supposed accomplishments. In 
fact, a few years ago, Cuba was listed by Voyeur Magazine as the sex 
tourism hotspot of the world. So much for that success of the 
revolution of eliminating prostitution.
  The Castro revolution has been most adept not at spreading education 
and prosperity but at instilling penetrating fear and terror, 
perpetuating their own power through a Stalinist police state.
  The Cuban security forces were trained to torture by the dreaded 
Stasi of East Germany and carry on that legacy today. If you doubt 
that, ask Senator McCain about one of his torturers in Vietnam, a Cuban 
agent.
  The world has expressed outrage at the treatment of detainees in the 
prison at Guantanamo Bay, and President Obama announced he would close 
it within a year. When the news of that decision reached Juan Carlos 
Herrera Acosta, who has spent more than 6 years in jail for his 
political views, he said:

       Cuando el mundo abrira sus ojos y dira que hay 
     que cerrar los otros guantanamos que existen en Cuba?

  Translated that means:

       When will the world open its eyes and say that it's time to 
     close the other Guantanamos in Cuba?

  There is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the 300 other prisons 
on the island, prisons that make Guantanamo Bay look tame by 
comparison.
  Armando Valladares, who wrote the prize-winning book ``Against All 
Hope,'' was imprisoned in the infamous Isla de Pinos in 1960 for his 
opposition to communism. He lived through the hell of Castro's jail, 
suffering violence, forced labor, and solitary confinement.
  His writings were smuggled out, read throughout the world, and he was 
finally released after intense international pressure, 22 years after 
he was taken prisoner. Here are some of his memories of his captivity:

       I recall the two sergeants, Porfirio and Matanzas, plunging 
     their bayonets into Ernesto Diaz Madruga's body. . . . 
     Boitel, denied water, after more than fifty days on a hunger 
     strike, because Castro wanted him dead; Clara, Boitel's poor 
     mother, beaten by Lieutenant Abad in a Political Police 
     station just because she wanted to find out where her son was 
     buried. . . . Officers . . . threatened family members if 
     they cried at a funeral.
       I remember Estebita and Piri dying in blackout cells, the 
     victims of biological experimentation. . . . So many others 
     murdered in the forced-labor fields, quarries and camps. A 
     legion of specters, naked, crippled, hobbling and crawling 
     through my mind, and the hundreds of men mutilated in the 
     horrifying searches [they went through].
       Eduardo Capote's fingers chopped off by a machete. 
     Concentration camps, tortures, women beaten. . . .
       And in the midst of that apocalyptic vision of the most 
     dreadful and horrifying moments in my life, in the midst of 
     the gray, ashy dust and the orgy of beatings and blood, 
     prisoners beaten to the ground, a man emerged, the skeletal 
     figure of a man wasted by hunger with white hair, blazing 
     blue eyes, and a heart overflowing with love, raising his 
     arms to the invisible heaven and pleading for mercy for his 
     executioners.
       ``Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.'' 
     And a burst of machine-gun fire ripping open his chest.

  Those are Armando Valladares' live memories of the 22 years he spent 
in Castro's jails.
  This has been going on since 1959, but, unfortunately, it is not a 
thing of the past.
  In 2003, armed security forces raided 22 libraries and sent 14 
librarians to jail with terms of up to 26 years in prison, simply 
because they established a library in their community. Oh how dreadful 
is the power of a book that could cause those people who created 
libraries to spend a quarter of a century in prison.
  That year, it rounded up 75 journalists, human rights activists and 
opposition leaders and gave them summary trials and sent them to jail 
for up to 28 years.
  To put a human face on this, because sometimes we talk about 
dictatorships and the consequences of their actions and we talk about 
people in mass numbers--but these are the faces: Oswaldo Paya; Marta 
Beatriz Roque; Oscar Espinosa Chepe; Armando Valladares, whom I quoted; 
and others who actually languish inside the jails in Cuba and who have 
been beaten and/or who ultimately have been harassed in the pursuit of 
peaceful civil society movements.

[[Page 6121]]

  In 2003, Fidel Castro ordered one of the most sweeping, brutal 
crackdowns on opposition figures in years--a roundup of 75 dissidents 
and their summary trials.
  In that black spring, his agents took away Marta Beatriz Roque. She 
is an economist, a leader of a group called the Assembly for Promoting 
Civil Society, a coalition of nongovernmental organizations dedicated 
to peaceful democratic change on the island. In 2003, she was sentenced 
to 20 years behind bars for the crime of wanting peaceful change, for 
the crime of speaking her mind.
  In prison, her diabetes and blood pressure made her so ill that the 
regime let her leave her tiny cell. But they did not let her go far. 
Two years later, the Government sent a mob to attack her as she was 
traveling to meet a U.S. diplomat. They beat her. And when she tried to 
leave to get medical care, they trapped her in her home. She was 60 
years old.
  Now, every day of her life, she knows she could wake up and be thrown 
in a cell once more, left to die for the crime of thinking independent 
thoughts, for the crime of asking for change.
  During the crackdown in the spring of 2003, Fidel Castro also 
arrested Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Dr. Biscet founded the Lawton 
Foundation for Human Rights, one of the first independent civic groups 
in Havana.
  On February 27, 1999, he was arrested for hanging the national flag 
sideways at a press conference, and he was sentenced to 3 years in 
jail. He was protesting the forced abortions he was ordered to perform. 
After his release, he organized seminars on the Universal Declaration 
of Human Rights for Cubans. And he was arrested again in December of 
2002 for organizing these seminars.
  In April of 2003, he was sentenced to 25 years in jail and sent to a 
special state prison. I have, in the Chamber, this picture of his jail 
cell. His dark, damp cell is barely bigger than he is. In 2007, he was 
awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor 
this country gives to anyone. But he still has not won something far 
more important: his own freedom. He still languishes in a cell like 
this.
  It is a myth that detentions of activists has dropped off since Raul 
Castro, Fidel Castro's brother, took power. More than 1,500 were 
rounded up last year, according to the Cuban Commission on Human Rights 
and National Reconciliation, an independent observer group. They may be 
released temporarily, but they are always subject to rearrest.
  Multiple human rights organizations confirm that the Cuban regime is 
still holding more than 200 political prisoners whom we know of--
independent journalists, economists, human rights workers, and doctors 
all jailed for speaking their minds.
  In the United States, we saw an election last year that was all about 
a powerful call for change. The year before, 70 young Cuban youth were 
walking down the streets of Havana and detained simply for wearing a 
white wristband that has one simple word on it: ``CAMBIO''--``Change.'' 
All they did was wear a simple, white wristband to express what they 
wanted to see.
  While in the United States, the mantra of change can get you elected 
to the Presidency of the United States. In Cuba, the mere suggestion of 
change can get you arrested. What an irony.
  The dictatorship maintains a network of spies on every single block. 
It is called ``El Comite por la Defensa de la Revolucion.'' It is a 
block-watch organization in every city, in every village, in every 
hamlet. If they suspect you, first, you will find yourself quietly 
demoted at work. Then you will lose your job. You will wake up one 
morning and your house will be covered in graffiti calling your family 
worms. You will walk outside and four former friends will now spit in 
your path.
  The case of Adolfo Fernandez Sainz could hardly be more 
representative. He is a journalist forced to spend 15 years of his life 
behind bars, in part for the crime of owning the novel by George 
Orwell, ``1984.'' Fifteen years of his life behind bars.
  But the saddest proof that a country is operated like a prison is 
when people are shot trying to escape. It was a hallmark of Soviet 
Russia and East Germany, Communist Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but 
today the Caribbean is the Cuban's Berlin Wall. All boats and building 
materials belong to the State, so taking a shipment to the waters or 
even building a raft can be considered crimes, often punishable by 
death. Cuban planes have attacked ships from the air. The Cuban Navy 
has attacked ships from the sea, surrounding boats, sinking them, 
sending men, women, and children to the bottom of the ocean.
  The Cuba Archive has documented almost 250 cases of assassinations as 
people fled, in addition to the countless thousands who have died at 
sea, either drowning or being killed by sharks. Those Florida Straits, 
as people searched for freedom, are the burial grounds of so many that 
we don't know.
  Cubans know the risks, and yet they continue to seek freedom. Since 
2005, the Washington Post cites the number who have fled to America or 
sought to flee to America at 80,000--some of the country's best and 
brightest, risking arrest and death, leaving under the cover of 
darkness. Since 1959, according to the Center for the Study of 
International Migrations, nearly 1.7 million Cubans have been forced 
into exile.
  For those who cannot leave, there is another sign of despair on the 
island. The World Health Organization data reveals a sad fact: that 
Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the hemisphere.
  For over five decades we have seen democracy take hold in every 
country on the Western Hemisphere but one--one island, suspended in the 
past, resisting the tide of history, its people waiting for something 
to change. In 1962, the United States restricted commerce within travel 
to Cuba. It stands as a legal, political, and moral statement that we 
reject the dictatorship's abuses and it serves as a way to weaken the 
regime. At the beginning, it was embargoed in name only. U.S. foreign 
subsidiaries were allowed to freely commerce with Cuba and it wasn't 
until the mid-1980s that these loopholes were closed. The Cuba 
Democracy Act and later the Libertad Act caused the Cuban regime to 
downsize what had become the third largest military per capita in the 
Western Hemisphere. That was good for the Cuban people and good for the 
hemisphere because Castro could no longer send his troops to promote 
revolution and to destabilize Latin American countries.
  But that came about not out of ideological change by the Castro 
brothers; it came about as a result of economic necessity. The U.S. 
dollar--the most hated symbol of the revolution and illegal to own for 
quite some time--is now eagerly sought by the regime, creating a divide 
in Cuba. It is a divide between those who have access to U.S. dollars 
from their families and can use them at state-run dollar stores with 
prices that gouge those Cubans--and millions who have no family to send 
them dollars and chafe at that disparity. They question a regime that 
doesn't allow the freedom to work at jobs such as tourism and others, 
that might give them access to those dollars. This conflict exists 
because these circumstances came about not as a change in Castro's 
ideology; they came about because of economic necessity. Economic 
necessity, not ideological change, further drove the regime to accept 
international investment--specifically, in tourism and mining--
something that was also previously illegal. This has created resentment 
by Cubans who are sent to work at these establishments by a state 
employment agency; and where the Cuban who goes to work at these 
foreign companies, their labor is sent there, they have to go work 
there, they get paid in worthless Cuban pesos, while the state gets 
paid in dollars for their labor. They get a fraction of the cost of 
their labor.
  In addition, foreign companies summarily fire workers without 
recourse and get new workers from the state employment agency--no 
questions asked. Cubans have been denied access to visit these hotels 
in their own country and now--only now--are they told they can do so if 
they can pay hundreds of dollars a night when they make less than a 
dollar a day.

[[Page 6122]]

  Notwithstanding these economic challenges that have created pressure 
for change in Cuba, opponents of the embargo are quick to point out 
that it has been in place for many years and the Castros remain in 
power. They seem very confident that allowing more American money to 
flow into Cuba will magically topple the regime. The truth is their 
prediction about cause and effect runs completely contrary to what has 
actually happened there. Over the years, millions of Europeans, 
Canadians, Mexicans, South and Central Americans, among others, have 
visited Cuba, invested in Cuba, spent billions of dollars, signed trade 
agreements, and engaged politically. And what has been the result of 
all of that money and all of that engagement? The regime has not opened 
up; on the contrary, it has used resources to become more oppressive. 
Foreign funds often temporarily reach the hands of Cuban families, but 
they are then forced to spend those dollars in government-run dollar 
stores so that the money ultimately winds up in the hands of the Cuban 
Government and many suspect in the secret bank accounts of the 
Communist Party elite.
  So allowing Americans to sit on beaches which Cubans cannot visit 
unless they work there; smoking a Cuban cigar for which a worker gets 
slave wages, sipping a Cuba libre, which is an oxymoron, will not bring 
the Cuban people their liberty. When the government isn't manipulating 
international aid, it sometimes rejects it altogether, as it did during 
last year's hurricane season, further punishing its people.
  So I ask those who argue that lifting the economic embargo on Cuba 
means the demise of the Castro regime--nothing I would want to see 
more--why, then, has lifting the embargo been the No. 1 foreign policy 
objective of the Castro regime? Does it seek its own demise after 50 
years? Certainly not. What it seeks is the economic viability to 
continue to perpetuate itself.
  But beyond the practical realities, I think there is also a broader 
principle at stake. Now, as power has passed somewhat--because Fidel is 
still alive--from Fidel to Raul, from one dictator to another, are we 
to declare that their tyranny outlasted our will to resist it? When a 
murderer escapes the police and is a fugitive, do we declare them 
innocent after a few years because we haven't caught them? Should we 
suddenly say it is too much for the Cuban people to be able to decide 
for themselves what course their nation will take? Should we decide to 
suddenly legitimize the behavior of the regime and strengthen its 
ability to continue perpetuating crimes? Which one of the freedoms we 
seek for the Cuban people as a condition of our full engagement as a 
country are we willing to deny them? Which one--free speech, free 
association, freedom of religion, freedom to politically organize and 
elect their own leadership? Which one? Which one of those freedoms that 
we are willing to say to the Cuban people they cannot enjoy are we 
willing to give up?
  I have also heard the suggestion from opponents of legal restrictions 
on Cuba that the United States has dealt with other brutal 
dictatorships more openly than this one. Those who make that argument 
must have a strange definition of a successful policy. If we consider 
prison camps and child labor, forced abortions and slavery, violent 
suppression of protest, Tiananmen Square, ethnic cleansing of Tibet, 
and denial of human rights, be it in China or anywhere around the 
world, anywhere these violations are happening, if we are willing to 
accept that as successful engagement, I believe we are deeply mistaken. 
The disregard of human rights violations for the sake of economic gain 
in the past is never an argument to do it again in the future.
  A full and open discussion of the real situation in Cuba is timely 
for more reasons than the fiftieth anniversary of Castro's revolution. 
It is timely because in this Omnibus appropriations bill that we have 
before us there are some who have attempted to sneak in changes to our 
current policy. But perhaps the greatest irony of all is that this bill 
includes three important foreign policy changes with respect to Cuba 
that have not been subjected to debate in this body. They have not been 
questioned for their impact on both our national interests and our 
national security. They have not gone through the Foreign Relations 
Committee. They have not been subjected to a vote on the floor of 
either the House of Representatives or the Senate. These modifications 
deserve a full examination. They should be subjected to vigorous 
debate. We should gather evidence, bring a wide range of voices to the 
table, and make careful and thoughtful considerations of their 
implications. But this isn't what is taking place. Instead, this body 
is being asked to swallow these changes in the crudest process I can 
imagine: without analysis, without inclusion, and without debate.
  Now, supporters of these modifications claimed that they are carrying 
them out in the hopes of fostering democratic change in Cuba, even as 
they do so in a way that silences democratic debate in our country. The 
United States cannot claim to be a model for democratic process and 
inclusive change if we find ourselves resorting to such undemocratic 
means. Jamming these foreign policy changes in an Omnibus 
appropriations package by a handful of Members at the exclusion of the 
rest of this body, not to mention the rest of the other body, and not 
to mention the executive branch, whose jurisdictions these changes fall 
within, is simply not democratic.
  These changes come in the same week that the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee's ranking member, and my very dear, distinguished colleague 
from Indiana, Senator Lugar, produced a staff trip report. I have seen 
it quoted as the ``committee's report.'' It is the staff trip report, 
and I respect that it has some value, but it is not the full 
committee's undertaking and approval.
  The memo suggests some of the very things we see in this omnibus. But 
instead, in my view of a responsible report, this document presents a 
loose set of recommendations based upon a few days of observations on 
the island by a single source, and none of it quotes the fact that 
there was an engagement with one human rights activist, with one 
political dissident, with one democracy activist, with one independent 
journalist--not one.
  Now I ask my colleagues: Does it make any sense that we would see 
such a basis for a report based upon what are clearly superficial 
observations, followed by sweeping and untested recommendations about 
how we should engage with the last totalitarian dictatorship in the 
Western Hemisphere? Let me point out a few of the main contradictions 
in that report.
  First, the lack of focus on democracy and human rights in the memo 
was astonishing to me. In a literal and in a legal sense, support for 
Cuba's prodemocracy movement is at the core of United States policy 
toward Cuba. It is represented in law under the Cuban Liberty and 
Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996. The report doesn't even mention the 
centrality of representative democracy in United States policy toward 
Cuba and the entire hemisphere. By the same token, the memo does not 
even mention that the United States of America is the world's--the 
world's--largest provider of humanitarian assistance to the people of 
Cuba through both individual assistance and nongovernmental 
organizations.
  This fact makes it indisputably clear: The focus of United States 
policy is the Cuban people--not its regime--advocating for their 
freedom and empowering them to bring change.
  The way the memo addresses the economic situation on the island is no 
less of an enormous flaw. On the one hand, this memo claims that 
economic sanctions have been ineffective, but on the other hand, it 
says: ``Popular dissatisfaction with Cuba's economic situation is the 
regime's vulnerability.''
  What a contradiction. But it would be even more of a contradiction 
for the United States to do anything to rescue the regime by improving 
its economic portion, therefore neutralizing its vulnerability. This 
report says that ``popular dissatisfaction [that people's 
dissatisfaction] with Cuba's economic situation is the regime's 
vulnerability.'' But it would be even more of a contradiction for the 
U.S. to do anything

[[Page 6123]]

to rescue the regime by improving its economic fortunes, therefore 
neutralizing its vulnerability.
  Yet that is exactly what one of the recommendations in the memo that 
is included in the omnibus would do. That suggested policy change would 
give the Cuban regime financial credit to purchase agricultural 
products from the United States. On its face, that would seem like a 
concession to American farmers. We certainly want to see American 
farmers sell all over the world. But let's think about this for a 
moment.
  Anyone applying for even a small loan in our country right now has to 
undergo--if their credit record is poor, they would be rejected for 
that loan. Well, Cuba's credit history is horrible. The Paris Club of 
creditor nations recently announced that Cuba has failed to pay almost 
$30 billion in debt. Among poor nations, that is the worst credit 
record in the world. So I ask: If the Cuban Government has put off 
paying those it already owes $30 billion, why does anybody think it 
would meet new financial obligations to American farmers?
  Considering the serious economic crisis we are facing right now, we 
need to focus on solutions for hard-working Americans, not subsidies 
for brutal dictatorships.
  We should evaluate how to encourage the regime to allow a legitimate 
opening--not in terms of cell phones and hotel rooms that Cubans can't 
afford to own, but in terms of the right to organize, the right to 
think and speak what they believe.
  However, what we are doing with this omnibus bill is far from 
evaluation. The process by which these changes have been forced upon 
this body is so deeply offensive to me and so deeply undemocratic that 
it puts the Omnibus appropriations package in jeopardy, despite all the 
other tremendously important funding this bill would provide.
  The real reason why so many--and we have seen this barrage of reports 
that come particularly from outside of this body, whose work, by the 
way, is often subsidized by business interests--advocate Cuba policy 
change is about money and commerce; it is not about freedom and 
democracy.
  It makes me wonder why those who spend hours and hours in Havana 
listening to Fidel Castro's soliloquies cannot find minutes for human 
rights and democracy advocates. It makes me wonder why those who go and 
enjoy the sun of Cuba will not shine the light of freedom on its jails 
full of political prisoners. It makes me wonder how they advocate for 
labor rights in the United States but are willing to accept forced 
labor in Cuba. They talk about democracy in Burma, but they are willing 
to sip rum with Cuba's dictators.
  There is another report that came out last week, which I hope this 
body does not vote on the omnibus bill without reading. It is the State 
Department's 2008 Human Rights Report. I want to read from it at 
length, in case my colleagues don't have the opportunity. It says, 
referring to Cuba's human rights situation:

       The government continued to deny its citizens their basic 
     human rights and committed numerous, serious abuses. The 
     government denied citizens the right to change their 
     government. . . . As many as 5,000 citizens served sentences 
     for ``dangerousness,'' without being charged with any 
     specific crime. The following human rights problems were 
     reported: beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners, 
     including human rights activists, carried out with impunity; 
     harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including 
     denial of medical care; harassment, beatings, and threats 
     against political opponents by government-recruited mobs, 
     police, and State security officials; arbitrary arrest and 
     detention of human rights advocates and members of 
     independent professional organizations; denials of fair 
     trials; and interference with privacy, including pervasive 
     monitoring of all private communications.

  It goes on to say:

       There were also severe limitations on freedom of speech and 
     press; denial of peaceful assembly and association; 
     restrictions on freedom of movement, including selective 
     denial of exit permits to citizens and the forcible removal 
     of persons from Havana to their hometowns; restrictions on 
     freedom of religion; and refusal to recognize domestic human 
     rights groups or permit them to function legally. 
     Discrimination against persons of African descent, domestic 
     violence, underage prostitution, trafficking in persons, and 
     severe restrictions on worker rights, including the right to 
     form independent unions, were also a problem.

  That is the end of the quote from the latest State Department Report 
on Human Rights--in this case talking about Cuba.
  President Obama often repeats what Martin Luther King understood--
that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The people 
of Cuba have never given up on their aspirations for democracy and 
economic freedom. Now is not the time to give up on them. Because we 
can't do everything doesn't mean we should not do everything we can.
  A new American President does mean an opportunity for change. 
President Obama, who saw repression in Indonesia when he was a child, 
promises us this. He said this in a speech in Florida as a candidate:

       My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: libertad 
     [that means freedom]. And the road to freedom for all Cubans 
     must begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the 
     rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; 
     and it must lead to elections that are free and fair.

  So here is what I think we can do to help that happen. Much has been 
written about seeking change in our policy. Let me offer some changes 
as well, as someone who has followed this his whole life.
  In exchange for more liberal remittances to Cuban families, let us 
insist that the Cuban regime not charge 20 percent of every dollar sent 
to Cuba. Say I have family in Cuba and I want to send them money to 
help them out in desperate times, and I send them $100. The Cuban 
regime takes $20 of that. Why? If you go to Western Union and send 
money anyplace in the world, it's maybe 3, 4, or 5 percent--not 20. The 
regime is taking money for itself, denying Cuban families the very 
opportunity to have more.
  Let us also allow remittances, via license, to human rights 
activists, democracy activists, and other civil society advocates.
  Some suggest that there be cooperation with Cuba on narcotics 
trafficking. Well, let them hand over the 200 fugitives from the United 
States that the FBI knows are in Cuba, including JoAnne Chesimard, the 
convicted killer of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. Let her 
come back to the United States and face justice. There are 200 of them.
  In exchange for more frequent visits from Cuban-American families who 
bring money and resources to the island, let us insist that the Cuban 
regime permit those who want to travel to Cuba and visit human rights 
activists, democracy activists, independent journalists, and other 
civil society advocates, be given visas as well.
  Today, Members of Congress and others who want to promote democracy 
and human rights in Cuba, as we do in organizations throughout the 
world, are routinely denied entrance into Cuba. Those who want to sit 
with Castro and let him speak for hours about the revolution get a 
visa. Those who want to go talk to these people in the photos, who 
languish inside either Cuba's jails or are detained in their homes and 
are struggling to create democracy, no, you cannot get a visa. They are 
happy to accept those who bring dollars but not those who speak truth 
to power.
  Let us have the United States offer more visitor and student visas 
for eligible Cubans to come to the United States to see and live our 
way of life. Having Americans travel to Cuba could never be as powerful 
as having Cuban youth see the greatness of our country and its 
pluralistic, diverse representative democracy. That taste of freedom 
would be infectious.
  In return, we simply seek a commitment from Cuba to accept their 
citizens' return, and to guarantee the issuance of exit permits for all 
qualified migrants.
  Cuba is one of the few countries in the world that will not permit 
its citizens to travel even when they have a legitimate visa to do so. 
And when they give them license to leave, they must pay to do so.
  If we want to facilitate the sales of food to Cuba, let us insist 
they be sold in open markets, available to all Cubans, without it being 
part of Castro's

[[Page 6124]]

food rationing plan--a plan meant to further control the Cuban people.
  For those who disagree with our policies toward Cuba, let them ask 
themselves:
  What are they doing to promote democracy, human rights, and civil 
society in Cuba?
  What are they doing to support Antunez, Oswaldo Paya, Marta Beatriz 
Roque, and Oscar Elias Biscet?
  What are they doing to cast an international spotlight on Cuba's 
valiant human rights activists, Cuba's equivalents of Aleksandr 
Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel, or Lech Walesa?
  Do they sit back as they languish in jail or are harassed or do they 
invite them to their embassies in Cuba, to speak in their countries 
about their struggles for freedom? Do they raise the issue of human 
rights in Cuba with the Castro regime? Do they cast a spotlight on 
these people, as we did in Poland with Lech Walesa, or in the former 
Czechoslovakia with Vaclav Havel, and with Solzhenitsyn?
  In pursuing any proposal or policy change, we have to recognize, as 
President Obama made clear to repressive regimes throughout the world 
in his inaugural address, that we extend a hand if they are willing to 
unclench their fist. However, if the omnibus bill is signed by the 
President as is, he will be extending a hand while the Castro regime 
maintains its iron-handed clenched fist.
  During his Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama promised this. 
He said:

       I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the 
     leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: If you 
     take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the 
     freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to 
     begin normalizing relations.

  He said:

       That's the way to bring about real change in Cuba--through 
     strong, smart and principled diplomacy.

  That was the policy that Americans understood he would pursue when 
they voted for him.
  I believed then that Candidate Obama meant what he said, and I 
believe now that President Obama intends to remain true to his word.
  Following our conscience and our laws, we simply cannot let up our 
pressure on the regime without seeing symbols of progress.
  The United States and the international community must continue to 
work diligently to help bring freedom to Cuba. But we cannot forget how 
many valiant efforts have come within Cuba itself, how decades of fear 
and repression have also led to acts of courage. I stand here today in 
solidarity with all of those brave Cubans who have sacrificed and shown 
remarkable courage so that one day the Cuban people will finally know 
the basic blessings of liberty that we are entitled to as human beings 
and that we in this Nation enjoy.
  Just days ago, 130 Cubans kept vigil outside of the Placetas 
Hospital, waiting for news about the condition of a young activist, 
Iris Tamara Perez Aguilara, who had gone into hypoglycemic shock after 
a hunger strike to protest the regime.
  This is not the best picture, but it is what we got out of Cuba. It 
is a picture of some of them talking about:
  In this home live those who are having a hunger strike for peaceful 
change and for respect for human rights and specifically talking 
against the torture of one of their colleagues.
  She has been joined in her hunger strike by her husband Jorge Luis 
Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' along with Segundo Rey Cabrera and Diosiris 
Santana Perez. They have avowed to continue their protest until the 
torture of political prisoner Mario Alberto Perez Aguilera, held at the 
Santa Clara Provincial Prison, ceases immediately. They will continue 
their protest until he is taken out of a tiny solitary confinement 
cell, until he is no longer beaten and forced to starve, until the 
regime allows Antunez's sister, Caridad Garcia Perez, to rebuild her 
home destroyed by the hurricanes last year, which they have not allowed 
as further punishment to these activists.
  Imagine that: Your home is lost in a hurricane. You want to rebuild 
it, and the regime stops you from being able to rebuild the home as 
further punishment because of your peaceful efforts to try to create 
change and respect for human rights in the country.
  When Iris emerged from the hospital the other day, the Cuban citizens 
waiting outside surrounded her to express their thanks and support for 
what she was doing. They hoped she would keep up her work for an 
organization named after an American pioneer they deeply admire. It is 
called the el Movimiento Feminista de Derechos Civiles Rosa Parks--the 
Rosa Parks women's civil rights movement.
  The hundreds of political prisoners and all Cubans who live with the 
daily chains of political repression have shown their commitment that 
Cuba will change, and this change will come from within, from the Cuban 
people. But they need our help. We must continue to fight here to do 
what we can to empower them. We must continue to acknowledge them when 
they empower themselves.
  Let me close with what President Obama has quoted. He quoted Jose 
Marti who once wrote:

       It is not enough to come to the defense of freedom with 
     epic and intermittent efforts when it is threatened at 
     moments that appear critical. Every moment is critical for 
     the defense of freedom.

  This year, 50 years later, Cuba is still in the cold winter of 
poverty and oppression. But I hold up hope that people all around the 
world, and most importantly within Cuba itself, will use this 
remarkable moment and every moment, as they are doing, as these men and 
women are doing, to bring about a new birth of freedom, to rise up in a 
groundswell that will thaw the frost of tyranny and bring about a 
spring of hope and change--change the Cuban people can believe in, 
change that they are praying for.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I have 
had the opportunity to listen to not all but 80 percent of what he 
said. I had meetings going on in my office, and I had not been able to 
watch it all.
  As the distinguished Senator from New Jersey knows, I have locked 
arms with Congressman and now Senator from New Jersey for many years. 
In fact, my votes in years past have not always been in the majority, 
but they have always been something I felt comfortable doing and still 
feel comfortable doing.
  I appreciate the statement made by my friend from New Jersey. I am 
committed to work with him to see what we can do to resolve the 
injustice that is taking place 90 miles off the shore of America and, 
once and for all, give those people who live in Las Vegas--people do 
not realize the largest number of Cuban Americans live in Florida, next 
is New Jersey, and, surprisingly, next is Nevada.
  I worked with my friends there, Tony Alamo and many others, over the 
years to try to bring justice to an unjust system. I appreciate very 
much the statement made by my friend from New Jersey. I look forward to 
working with him on all other issues.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a 
moment?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I wish to thank the distinguished majority leader for 
his longtime support for the Cuban people, for taking the votes and 
positions when it is not within the popular mainstream. And I 
appreciate his expression of support today as a continuation of that 
long history. He has my personal admiration. More importantly, those 
who are struggling for freedom and democracy inside Cuba appreciate it 
as well.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Virginia, Nevada, New Jersey, and the other 
47 States are well served by my friend from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, tomorrow I will rise to offer a pro-life 
and pro-child amendment to the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations 
Act. But more than that, it will be an amendment that is profreedom 
that follows in

[[Page 6125]]

the line of reasoning of my friend and my colleague from New Jersey. It 
is anti-oppression, prowoman and anticoercion.
  My amendment tomorrow will restore the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion 
population control provision that has been a fundamental part of our 
foreign policy for almost a quarter of a century.
  Since 1985, the Kemp-Kasten provision has denied Federal funding to 
organizations or programs that, as determined by the President, support 
or participate in a program of coercive abortion or involuntary 
sterilization. Should my amendment be adopted, then President Obama 
would be able to make an official determination as to whether 
organizations engage in such coercive practices.
  The Kemp-Kasten amendment has been included in appropriations bills 
without substantial changes for 23 years, until today. Perhaps at this 
point it would be helpful to my colleagues if I outlined the 
differences between the Mexico City policy and the Kemp-Kasten 
provision.
  Already, as one of his very first acts as President, President Obama 
chose to nullify the so-called Mexico City policy. The Mexico City 
policy said the United States would not federally fund groups that 
promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning. According 
to a Gallup poll released last month, overturning this pro-life policy 
was the least popular of the President's actions in his first week in 
office. Only 35 percent supported funding groups that promote or 
provide abortions as a method of family planning, and 58 percent oppose 
this new Obama administration policy.
  I disagreed with President Obama on his Mexico City policy. I think 
most Americans, frankly, disagree with President Obama on this Mexico 
City decision. I think most Americans would rather not spend taxpayer 
dollars on international organizations that promote abortion as a 
method of family planning.
  Having said that, I am not surprised by the President's decision. He 
ran, frankly, as a pro-abortion candidate. Senator McCain ran as a pro-
life candidate. I think the decision in the election came down to other 
issues. Elections have consequences, but can we not all agree that 
forced abortion is wrong? Can we not all agree that coerced 
sterilization is wrong? That is what Kemp-Kasten has stood for for 
almost a quarter of a century.
  Regardless of how Senators come down on the pro-life or pro-choice 
debate, can we not all at least agree on this one proposition, that the 
United Nations should not be able to spend American tax dollars on 
coercion in the name of family planning? That is the issue dealt with 
in Kemp-Kasten, and that is the only issue addressed in my amendment.
  Here is what the bill language currently does. It purports to retain 
Kemp-Kasten, but then goes on to direct funds to the United Nations 
Population Fund ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law''--these six words, in 
effect, nullify the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion provision. It is either 
contradictory or purposely deceptive that one portion of the omnibus 
bill purports to retain Kemp-Kasten while another paragraph has the 
real effect of gutting Kemp-Kasten.
  One might inquire: Why does the majority party not trust a President 
of their own party to make a determination about whether U.N. funds are 
provided to coercive abortion programs? Surely a majority of this body 
does not favor funding UNFPA even if the organization is engaging in 
coercion. Surely we can all agree on that. Perhaps not.
  The truth is, the U.N. Population Fund, UNFPA, has actively 
supported, comanaged, and whitewashed pervasive crimes against women in 
the guise of family planning. Just last year, the U.S. State Department 
found, once again, that the UNFPA violated the anticoercion provision 
of Kemp-Kasten and, accordingly, reprogrammed all funding originally 
earmarked to the UNFPA to other maternal health care and family 
planning projects.
  The most recent State Department report on UNFPA activities in China 
shows that UNFPA funds are, indeed, funneled to Chinese agencies that 
coercively enforce the one-child policy.
  What has changed in less than a year? Are we to believe that all 
these organizations have suddenly shifted their policies? This bill 
gives UNFPA a 25-percent funding increase and a deadly exception.
  What has really changed is that we have a new administration with a 
pro-abortion agenda. I don't think coerced abortions were what the 
American people voted for last November. Creating this exception 
specifically for UNFPA makes a mockery of longstanding U.S. policy to 
protect human rights abroad. If we cannot stop the abuse in other parts 
of the globe, at the very least we should not be encouraging abuse with 
U.S. funds. We should be pressing the UNFPA to conform to human rights 
standards, instead of trying to change human rights standards to 
conform to the oppressive Chinese population control program.
  By creating a loophole for UNFPA, we regrettably send a message to 
oppressive governments that coercive abortion is not a serious concern 
for American citizens. This message could not be further from the 
truth.
  I urge my colleagues tomorrow to support the Wicker amendment and 
continue our longstanding policy against coercive abortion. Let's 
continue the time-honored Kemp-Kasten policy.
  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. THUNE. 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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two amendments 
that I have filed at the desk to H.R. 1105 be called up and made 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INOUYE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. President. If I might speak to one or both 
of these amendments, one in particular right now that I would like to 
reference, let me start by saying that H.R. 1105, which is under 
consideration now by the Senate, is yet another voluminous document, 
not unlike the stimulus bill we considered a couple of weeks ago. This 
one actually is 1,122 pages long and represents over $400 billion of 
spending by our Government. The fact that it is this long and 
represents several hundred million dollars per page here of spending 
would suggest that it ought to be legislation that is given a lot of 
consideration in the Senate, on which many amendments can be offered 
and different points of view expressed. It would appear that process is 
going to be short-circuited on this bill and that we are not going to 
have the opportunity to offer amendments to it.
  With regard to the general bill itself, I would simply point out what 
a number of my colleagues already have; that is, this appropriations 
bill, although having passed a trillion-dollar stimulus bill a couple 
of weeks ago, still represents over an 8-percent increase over the 
previous year's level.
  So 2009, fiscal year 2009, which we are currently in, this is work 
that did not get completed last year by September 30, which is the end 
of the fiscal year. So we passed a continuing resolution that expires 
on March 6; therefore, the reason we have to be before the Senate 
trying to pass nine appropriations bills that were not completed in the 
form of this 1,122-page Omnibus appropriations bill. But an 8.3-percent 
increase over the same nine appropriations bills that were passed last 
fiscal year, after having already passed over $1 trillion in the 
stimulus bill, much of which will be directed to the agencies that will 
receive the plussed-up funding under this bill. But over 8 percent is 
more than twice the rate of inflation. So having passed a trillion-
dollar stimulus bill, we are now coming on the heels of that and taking 
up a piece of legislation

[[Page 6126]]

that is going to increase Federal spending by over 8 percent over last 
year's spending level.
  That would suggest that this is something we ought to take a little 
time with because many of the agencies that are funded under this 
appropriations bill already received huge infusions of new funding in 
the stimulus bill. The Labor, Health, and Human Services-Education 
bill, along with the stimulus bill, and the funding that is included in 
this bill, will receive a 99-percent increase in funding over last 
year. There is another appropriations account that will get a 150-
percent increase over last year's appropriated level. These are 
gargantuan increases in funding.
  It would seem to me that we ought to at least be able to bring this 
appropriations bill in at last year's level. There is going to be an 
amendment, perhaps one already offered by Senator McCain, to extend the 
continuing resolution which would save taxpayers over $32 billion 
because that would represent the 8.3-percent increase that is included 
in this bill on top of all the additional funding that many of these 
agencies are going to receive as a result of the stimulus bill.
  I regret the fact that the majority is not going to allow us to offer 
amendments to this bill. It would appear they want to move this 
quickly. I can see the rationale for that, when you are spending this 
amount of money in this short of a time period. The more the American 
people have an opportunity to see what is in it, the more concerned and 
the more resistance would build and you would see a tremendous at-the-
grassroots level movement to try and stop this kind of spending spree 
we have seen in Washington. I would hope the process will be opened 
whereby Members on both sides can offer amendments to this bill that 
can be considered and perhaps voted on and maybe even bring some fiscal 
sanity to it by getting us back into a form that actually would save 
the American taxpayers a significant amount of money, after we have 
just asked the American taxpayers and our children and grandchildren to 
fund a stimulus bill to the tune of over $1 trillion with interest and 
much more than that, over $3 trillion, if much of the spending in that 
bill is continued and not terminated in the 2-year period for which it 
was intended.
  I wanted to speak to an amendment that I have filed at the desk and 
asked to have made pending, which was objected to by the majority--
again, an indication of how amendments are going to go on this piece of 
legislation. I offer this amendment because last week 87 Members of the 
Senate voted to uphold our first amendment rights by supporting a 
statutory prohibition of the so-called fairness doctrine. This 
amendment was accepted as part of the DC voting rights bill, which is 
currently awaiting action by the House of Representatives.
  My concern is that once the House considers this bill, whenever it 
may be that the Senate and House versions get conferenced together, 
that provision will no longer be part of the final DC voting rights 
bill. I am hopeful the DeMint amendment is retained in the final 
version of the DC Voting Rights Act, but I am fearful it will be 
stripped out behind closed doors.
  I filed an amendment at the desk to the Omnibus appropriations bill 
that would prohibit the FCC from using any funds to reinstate the 
fairness doctrine during the remainder of fiscal year 2009. If this 
amendment is accepted to the omnibus bill, the 87 Senators who last 
week supported this prohibition will have assurances that the fairness 
doctrine will not be reinstated for the remainder of this year, 
regardless of whether the DeMint amendment remains part of the DC 
voting rights legislation.
  By way of background, many of my colleagues heard this discussion 
last week, but the so-called fairness doctrine has a long and infamous 
history. The FCC promulgated the fairness doctrine in 1949 to ensure 
that contrasting viewpoints would be presented on radio and television. 
In 1985, the FCC began repealing the doctrine after concluding that it 
actually had the opposite effect. They concluded then what we all know 
today: that the fairness doctrine resulted in broadcasters limiting 
coverage of controversial issues of public importance. Recently, many 
on the left have advocated reinstating the doctrine, arguing that 
broadcasters, including talk radio, should present both sides of any 
issue because they use the public airwaves. However, recent calls to 
reinstate the fairness doctrine fail to take into account several 
considerations.
  The first is, in reality the fairness doctrine resulted in less, not 
more, broadcasting of issues of importance to the public. Because 
airing controversial issues subjected broadcasters to regulatory 
burdens and potentially severe liabilities, they simply made the 
rational choice not to air any such content at all.
  Second, the number of radio and TV stations and the development of 
newer broadcast media such as cable and satellite TV and satellite 
radio have grown dramatically in the past 50 years. In 1949, there were 
51 television and about 2,500 radio stations. In 1985, there were 1,200 
television and 9,800 radio stations. Today there are nearly 1,800 
television and nearly 14,000 radio stations. There is simply no 
scarcity to justify content regulation like the fairness doctrine.
  The third observation is that the development of new media, social 
networking, and access to the Internet has changed media forever. 
Supporters of government-mandated balance either ignore the multiple 
new sources of media or reveal their true intention, which is to 
regulate content of all forms of communication and ultimately stifle 
certain viewpoints on certain media such as talk radio.
  The fourth observation I would make is this: Broadcast content is 
driven by consumer demand. Consumers of media show whether they are 
being served well by broadcasters when they choose either to tune in or 
turn off the programming that is being offered. The fairness doctrine 
runs counter to individual choice and freedom to choose what we listen 
to or see on the air or read on the Internet. The fairness doctrine 
should not be reinstated.
  Last week, the Senate acted in a strong bipartisan manner in 
opposition to the fairness doctrine. What I am asking the Senate to do 
is to consider one additional measure to ensure that our first 
amendment rights are protected and that consumers have the freedom to 
choose what they see and hear over our airwaves. This amendment ensures 
that the FCC does not use any resources to reinstate the fairness 
doctrine through the end of the fiscal year until a more permanent 
solution can be reached through a statutory prohibition.
  It is a very straightforward amendment and one that follows along the 
lines of the debate held last week. I wish I was confident that the 
prohibition on reinstatement of the fairness doctrine that was included 
last week in the DC voting rights bill would be retained in the 
conference with the House. I have reason to believe that will be 
stripped out, and this is one additional way in which this body can 
weigh in and ensure that the fairness doctrine is not reinstated, not 
put back into effect, and that American consumers have the freedom to 
choose what they want to see and what they want to hear over our 
airwaves.
  I hope at some point I will be able to get it pending, to perhaps 
have a vote on it. It would be unfortunate on a bill of this 
consequence and magnitude, when, again, we are talking about 1,122 
pages of this legislation, all of which is spending another $400-some 
billion--$410 billion or thereabouts in additional spending on top of 
the $1 trillion stimulus passed a couple weeks ago--that we would have 
an opportunity at least to offer amendments, to debate amendments, to 
get amendments voted on, and this is one that I would like to have a 
vote on. It would certainly be my sincere hope that the majority at 
some point would open the door to those of us on both sides who would 
like to have amendments voted on which, frankly, could improve the 
bill. There will be others that will be offered and, hopefully, 
considered which will get at the overall size and cost of the bill 
which, as an 8.3-percent increase over last year's appropriated

[[Page 6127]]

level, last year's spending level, a $32 billion increase over last 
year's level, is an enormous amount of money in light of all the 
spending that is going on around here.
  I might mention as well, that is the largest 1-year hike in annual 
appropriated spending since the Carter administration. What we are 
talking about is 8 percent, over 8 percent, more than twice the rate of 
inflation, but also the largest 1-year hike in annual appropriated 
spending since the Carter administration. That is, again, on the heels 
of $1 trillion spent a couple of weeks earlier, much of which was 
directed at these very same agencies of Government that will receive 
funding under this 1,122-page bill.
  We need to open this process. We need to be able to offer amendments. 
We need to get amendments voted on. It would certainly be my hope that 
would be the case.
  I have one other amendment which I will speak to perhaps tomorrow 
which would move some money from one account to another to fund 
something that was a very important priority the Congress established 
last year during the PEPFAR debate. I offered, along with Senators 
Dorgan and Kyl, Senator Clinton and a number of others, an amendment 
that carved a couple billion out of that $50 billion authorization for 
needs on Native American reservations; specifically directed to law 
enforcement, which is a security issue; to health care, which is 
something that is desperately lacking on many reservations; and at 
water development--all critical needs and all important priorities and 
things we ought to be concerned with.
  I would move money from another account in this bill to actually 
provide funding for the authorization that Congress created as part of 
the PEPFAR bill a year ago. This ought to be a priority for the 
Congress. We are talking about spending this amount of money and 
funding all these various accounts and agencies. We certainly ought to 
find room to fund some of the priorities that were created as a result 
of the PEPFAR legislation.
  I will be offering that amendment as well and will also be requesting 
that it be made pending and that we have an opportunity to vote on it. 
It would seem to me that many of the other amendments that Members on 
our side would like to offer, as well as Members on the other side 
would like to offer, ought to be able to be put before the Senate and 
voted upon in an attempt to try to make this bill stronger and better. 
We all have different ideas about how to make this a better bill. I 
hope the majority will allow us to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
resumes consideration of H.R. 1105 tomorrow, Tuesday, March 3, the time 
until 11:45 a.m. be for debate with respect to the McCain amendment No. 
592, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators 
Inouye and McCain or their designees, with no amendment in order to the 
amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that at 11:45 
a.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment No. 
592.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while I have two of my Republican colleagues 
on the floor, and others, of course, listening, I have been told by the 
Republican leadership there is a number of extremely important 
amendments from the minority's perspective. No. 1 is this amendment 
that Senator McCain has offered. Another one that comes to my mind is 
one that a number of people on the other side of the aisle have talked 
about often, which would lower the amount of spending to the CR level. 
I do not how much money that is. So we are waiting for someone to offer 
that.
  We heard a presentation made by Senator Wicker this afternoon that he 
has an abortion-related amendment. We understand Senator Vitter has an 
abortion-related amendment. I have had several conversations today with 
Dr. Coburn, and he has been very constructive in working with us in 
coming up with four amendments, none of which I like. But there are 
four amendments, and we are going to work our way through these, where 
people have ample time to talk about them, as soon as we can.
  But I thought it was important, before we have our caucus tomorrow, 
to at least get this one amendment the minority feels very strongly 
about. We will work our way through this and see what happens tomorrow.
  There is no end to amendments that could be offered on this bill. 
This is a very big bill. It is nine subcommittees. I hope everyone 
would focus on what would happen if we could pass this bill. It would 
be good for the institution. We could get back to a process where we do 
12 individual appropriations bills. That would be so important because 
this is not the way to legislate, having these great big bills. We have 
done it in the last several years, and it is not in keeping with--I am 
no longer a member of the Appropriations Committee, but I was on the 
Appropriations Committee for a quarter of a century, or something like 
that. It is a wonderful committee. But it has not been doing the job it 
is supposed to do for this institution.
  So I hope we, by the end of this week, can pass this omnibus bill. I 
want to make sure the minority has the opportunity to offer amendments. 
But as I have indicated, there will come a time sometime when we will 
have to stop amending and try to get the matter passed. But that will 
come at a later time.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I will simply ask, through the Chair, if I 
might: The leader talked about being able to offer amendments. I have 
filed a couple amendments. Is there some point at which--you mentioned 
the one amendment you have an agreement on now that will be voted on 
tomorrow--where other amendments will be able to be made pending and 
voted on, that Members will be able to get their amendments actually--
  Mr. REID. The answer, through the Chair to my friend from South 
Dakota, is, yes, we are going to try to get to as many amendments as we 
can. With a bill as complex as this, we cannot stack up endless 
amendments, so we are going to have to work out a process where if we 
stack amendments, they will have to be few in number. And ``few'' is in 
the eye of the beholder. But the answer to the Senator's question: 
There is no reason that I know of--I do not know the subject matter of 
the Senator's amendment or amendments--but I have no reason to believe 
that we should not be able to get to his amendment.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REID. The point I am trying to make is, we are not trying to 
avoid voting on tough amendments. I have outlined to you some pretty 
difficult amendments. Dr. Coburn did not think up his amendments riding 
the subway over from his office in one of the office buildings. A lot 
of thought has gone into his amendments, and they are very difficult 
amendments. I would like to avoid them, but I do not see any reason how 
I can do that. So in answer: I repeat, there will be time for 
amendments. It is just a question of when there will be enough time. 
Certainly tomorrow. And I hope we can work through these on Wednesday 
and have a better feel where we need to go.
  Mr. THUNE. Through the Chair, I thank the leader for his answer. And 
I will be available. Mine are filed, and I would love to get them 
actually up.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I understand the majority leader may 
want to close, and I am happy to wait until he does, if he wishes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been told we can do what we call 
wrap-up. It will take a minute or two. If my friend from Tennessee 
would withhold, we will rip right through this.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will be delighted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

[[Page 6128]]



                          ____________________