[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6614-6622]
[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 resume consideration of H.R. 1105, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Ensign amendment No. 615, to strike the restrictions on the 
     District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 615

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in reference to an 
amendment which I believe will be included in the list of amendments by 
the Republican side. It relates to the DC voucher program. Senator John 
Ensign of Nevada is offering an amendment that will be part of our 
consideration on Monday or Tuesday relative to the future of the DC 
voucher program. The DC voucher program was created 5 years ago at a 
time when the Republicans were in control of the White House and of 
Congress. What they offered to the District of Columbia was an offer 
they couldn't refuse, a substantial amount of money--I believe it was 
$14 million--for the public schools of the District, another $14 
million for the public charter schools, and about $14 million to create 
a DC voucher program. The theory behind the DC voucher program is that 
they would award this Federal money to families with children in 
voucher schools, private schools, not public schools. They could use 
this money to pay for tuition to send their children to these schools.
  This is the first of its kind where the Federal Government would 
directly provide money to parents to send children to private schools. 
It is an experiment. It was described as such. It was initiated 5 years 
ago when the Republicans were in control. It came through the 
Appropriations Committee. Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio was one of its 
strong proponents.
  We considered several amendments in the committee. I came to this 
with mixed feelings but skepticism, mixed feelings because I am not an 
opponent of private education. My wife and I sent our three children to 
Catholic schools. That was our choice. We continued to pay our property 
taxes to support public schools. I have openly supported public school 
referenda in my community. I have done everything in my State to make 
sure there was adequate funding for public schools, but we made a 
personal family decision, based on a number of circumstances, to send 
our children to the local Catholic schools. That was our decision at 
our expense. I have no prejudice against private education. If I 
entrusted my children to it, I certainly believe in it.
  But the question always came up in my mind: Who should pay for it. We 
were prepared as a family to pay for it. It was an extra sacrifice we 
were prepared to bear.
  The argument behind DC voucher schools is that some families can't or 
won't bear that burden of the cost of private education. So they should 
have direct Federal subsidy, Federal payments to defray or defer any 
cost of tuition. That was the theory behind it.
  My skepticism had a lot to do with the fact that I think our first 
obligation is to the public school system. The DC public school system 
is struggling. Credit the new Mayor, Mr. Fenty; he has hired Michelle 
Rhee, an extraordinarily talented young woman, to be chancellor of DC 
schools, and she is intent on improving the quality of the public 
schools. That is something we should invest in, something we should 
support.
  The debate 5 years ago was interesting. I offered three amendments. 
The first amendment said that any building used as a school under the 
DC voucher program had to pass the life safety code, had to be 
inspected as being safe for children to go to school. I guess one could 
say it goes back to 50 years ago, my memory of the terrible Our Lady of 
Angels fire at the school in Chicago that killed so many children and 
nuns in the building and led to changes and stricter enforcement of the 
life safety code for school structures in Illinois.
  My goal in the DC voucher program was to establish at least a 
comparable standard for the safety of buildings used for DC voucher 
students as buildings used as public schools. I don't think that is 
unreasonable. Every parent should have the peace of mind that their 
child is safe in that building.
  I offered the amendment in the Appropriations Committee. It was 
defeated by those who argued we could not restrict or hamper DC voucher 
schools. As a consequence, they wanted to defeat my amendment. 
Incidentally, a GAO study, in November of 2007, on the DC voucher 
program showed the sites of some of the schools and specifically noted 
that two of the schools operated without a certificate of occupancy as 
private day schools--just what I feared.
  These are buildings--one looks like a private residence, the other 
like a commercial building--that do not look like schools at all, and 
they did not pass the basic standards for health and life safety that 
we require of schools in the District of Columbia. So my amendment was 
defeated.
  The second amendment I offered said teachers in the DC voucher 
schools had to have a college degree. Now, that is a basic requirement 
of any teacher in public schools in DC or most States in the Union. The 
amendment was defeated, and the argument was made: No, no, no. DC 
voucher schools have to be ``creative.'' We have to open this to people 
who do not have college degrees to teach.
  Well, I am afraid of the mischief that would result from that, but my 
amendment was defeated.
  The third amendment I offered said DC voucher schools had to have the 
same test administered in terms of student achievement as the DC Public 
Schools so at the end of the day we could compare performance and 
output. Are the kids in voucher schools doing better or worse than the 
kids in DC Public Schools? If they are not doing any better, it 
challenges the premise of this DC voucher program. My amendment was 
defeated, rejected. ``People in the DC voucher schools should not be 
restricted to the kind of achievement tests they offer.''
  Now, those three amendments, I thought, waved three red flags: the 
buildings did not have to be as safe as public schools, the teachers do 
not have to have college degrees, and the schools would not be 
subjected to the same achievement tests. Now, that does not say to me 
the people creating the DC voucher program had a lot of confidence in 
what they were doing. They just wanted to make their point of 
establishing a DC voucher program.
  So 1,700 students now in Washington, DC, have benefited from this 
voucher program and are at private schools. Some are Catholic schools; 
some are not. Some are private. There are a wide variety of them. Some, 
they say, are world-class schools, and others, frankly, are not.

[[Page 6615]]

  Now, here we are coming up on the fifth anniversary of the passage of 
this legislation and, in fact, the program was supposed to expire. It 
was an experimental program. The authorization ended.
  Well, I faced that when I wrote this appropriation for this year and 
said: I will tell you what I will do. I will extend the life of the DC 
voucher program 1 additional year, and in that additional year, I think 
we should have two things occur. First, the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, under Senator Joe Lieberman's 
chairmanship, should have a hearing and consider reauthorization 
legislation. What will be the next phase of the DC voucher program? 
What requirements will we impose on these schools in the next 
reauthorization? How are they doing? What mistakes were made?
  I can tell you, the Government Accountability Office, in their survey 
back in 2007, found some serious issues in terms of the DC voucher 
program. The Washington Scholarship Fund, the group that runs the 
program, was a small operation, until they were given the 
administration of this program. The Government Accountability Office 
said they did not believe they were fully prepared to handle a program 
with millions of dollars.
  The GAO also had serious concerns about the accounting and check-
writing process. Is it legitimate for us to ask questions about whether 
taxpayers' dollars, subsidies to parents for DC vouchers, are being 
spent appropriately? Well, I hope so. Accountability should be demanded 
of all of us in all programs. But those who are for the voucher program 
apparently do not want to go through this kind of investigation. Well, 
I do not believe that is a right approach.
  The GAO said the processes are not integrated for accounting and 
check writing, and the WSF--at the time in November 2007--had to set up 
a new system. They had concerns with information security. The 
Washington Scholarship Fund used temporaries for data entry, had 
inadequate password security--the list goes on and on. Some of these 
things are easily corrected. Others go to the heart of the 
administration of this program.
  There were programmatic concerns too. On average, the Government 
Accountability Office found that students met income requirements, but 
less than 50 percent came from ``in need of improvement schools.'' See, 
the idea was these kids would leave schools that were not good-
performing schools and go into voucher schools. Well, it turns out over 
half the kids were in schools that were doing a good job, at least by 
the standards of public education. So that raised a question on the 
program.
  They also noted students are clustered in a small number of schools. 
Mr. President, 16 out of 60 schools enrolled 60 percent of the voucher 
students. In 7 schools, over 50 percent of the students enrolled 
received vouchers. So it was a handful of schools that were really the 
subject of the voucher program.
  The Washington Scholarship Fund is supposed to conduct site 
inspections and look at the financial stability of the school. Based on 
the information provided to the GAO at the time of this report, it is 
unclear whether they conducted these thorough site visits.
  So we said to the Lieberman committee--and, incidentally, Senator 
Lieberman is favorably disposed toward this program. I do not recommend 
it to him or refer it to him or suggest he consider it believing he is 
prejudiced against it. He is not. He wants to support it, but he wants 
to make sure it is running well.
  So we include a provision: Keep the program alive for another year. 
Protect all the students in the program. In the meantime, we should 
have an authorization. The committee should investigate how it is being 
managed and decide what the future will be. What will the next 5 years 
look like?
  The legislation that created this said to the Department of 
Education, specifically: The Secretary may make grants under this 
section for a period of not more than 5 years to the Washington 
Scholarship Fund. We extended it for 1 year. They knew creating the DC 
voucher program it was a 5-year program. We gave them an additional 
year so they could review this program and see how effective it might 
be.
  Now, there is a second part I put in this legislation which 
apparently rankles some on the other side. Here is what it says: The 
Washington Government, the DC City Council, has to vote to continue the 
voucher program. How unreasonable is that?
  I heard this morning on NPR Senator Ensign say: Well, we know they 
are opposed to it, so we want to take away local control of this school 
program. I have not heard that very often from the Republican side nor 
from the Democratic side. I would not want to live in a political 
jurisdiction where someone imposed a program on families and students 
without asking whether it was a reasonable thing to do, and in this 
case, whether the DC Public School System should, in fact, absorb a 
voucher program.
  But on the Republican side of the aisle, most of whom voted against 
the idea of giving DC voting rights in Congress, want to impose this. 
This is their laboratory. This is where they want to have their 
experiment on voucher schools, and they do not want close scrutiny. 
They do not want an investigation. They do not want a reauthorization. 
They want to continue this program indefinitely, funding millions of 
dollars into a program that has been found to have significant 
deficiencies.
  Until this bill that is before us today, there was no requirement 
that teachers in DC voucher schools have college degrees, but I put 
that requirement in the law. I lost that issue 5 years ago, and I think 
it is only reasonable we have that requirement today. So for the next 
year they are going to have to have teachers with college degrees, and 
the buildings have to be inspected. What is wrong with that? Would 
anyone want to send their kids to a school building that is dangerous 
or potentially dangerous? Apparently, some do. They want us to step 
away, not to have any scrutiny or any oversight over these school 
buildings. I am not one of those, and I could not in good conscience 
allow this program to continue without having that requirement.
  Now, I will be honest with you. I backed off of the achievement test 
requirement after speaking to Chancellor Rhee. I said: Why don't they 
have the same test?
  She said: They should. But if you are only going to allow this 
program to continue under the law for 1 year, and it is uncertain what 
happens after that, don't impose on them the costs of changing 
achievement tests. It costs millions of dollars. So let them stay with 
the current achievement test, even though they cannot be compared to DC 
Public School students with that achievement test.
  So I deferred that, saying: Why impose a $2 or $3 million cost on 
them? Let the authorization committee decide whether that ought to be 
the case. I will certainly argue for it.
  So now we have the Republicans saying: We do not want the program 
investigated. We do not want it reauthorized. We do not want the people 
of the District of Columbia to have any say as to whether it will be 
part of their public school system. That is the Republican position. I 
think it is unfair. I think it is unwise. I think it is bad policy.
  If this program is good, it will stand on its own feet. If it is a 
program that needs improvement, let's make the improvement. If it is a 
program that has failed, let's move on and try something that will 
succeed. We are talking about the lives of children.
  I might also say, Chancellor Rhee, I think, comes to her job with the 
DC Public Schools with a fresh, positive attitude. We need to make sure 
all the kids in DC, whether they are in voucher schools or not, have a 
high-quality education. The same goes for my State of Illinois and the 
State of Virginia. That is our first obligation. So that is where we 
stand today.
  The Ensign amendment is going to be offered. At that time, we will 
have a chance to debate it even further. But we have funded the program 
through the next school year. Senator Lieberman has given his word to 
me and those who support the program on the other

[[Page 6616]]

side that he will have a timely hearing so we can get on with this 
review and reauthorization in a reasonable way.
  Two separate studies by the Department of Education have clearly 
demonstrated that the Washington voucher program has no statistically 
significant impact on student academic achievement. We knew this 
program was going to expire in 5 years. We need to ask whether the 
money might be better spent on some other approach, whether it is in 
the DC Public Schools or into charter schools. It is time we take time 
for careful and deliberate consideration of this program.
  For those who have written in several publications: Durbin is just 
out to kill this program, I had a chance to do that, and I did not. I 
extended the program beyond its authorization for an additional year, 
gave them adequate funds to continue serving the students who are 
currently in the program, with the understanding, at least in the bill, 
that we would take the time to carefully study the DC voucher program.
  For those who believe in the voucher program, do not be afraid. Do 
not be afraid to step forward and let people take a look at what has 
happened. Let's see what the successes and failures of this program 
have been and then decide how to go forward. I think that is a critical 
objective we can achieve.


                         Omnibus Appropriations

  Mr. President, I would like to say one other word about the pending 
legislation, the omnibus bill. I have listened to so many speeches on 
this floor about earmarks. I made a point yesterday in television 
interviews back in Illinois to make it clear what I was talking about 
in terms of projects coming back to our State that were earmarks.
  I do not think I can be any more transparent about earmarks. What we 
do in my offices is to put on our official Web site every request I 
make for earmarked funds, congressionally directed spending from 
appropriations bills. For every single request, I indicate who is going 
to be the recipient, how much money was asked for, what is the nature 
of the request, and clearly make a statement that I have no conflict of 
interest involved in making the request. I think that is required by 
law, and it is certainly a valuable requirement.
  Then we go through the process of the Appropriations Committee 
choosing those earmarks they can put into a bill. At the end of the 
day, we not only send out press releases in terms of those projects 
that have been approved, we make it clear, so people know, start to 
finish, every step of the way.
  So when I was on the news yesterday, I said to some of the local 
newscasters: The word ``earmark'' has such a negative connotation, but 
the word ``earmark'' should be remembered in this context: I have 
millions of dollars in this bill that will go to communities in the 
suburbs of Chicago that have been dealing with serious flooding 
problems for decades. We have made significant progress. I worked with 
Mayor Tony Arredia in Des Plaines, IL, before he gave up the office 
recently, and we protected many parts of his community that used to be 
regularly, annually devastated by floods--earmarks in appropriations 
bills for flood control.
  The metropolitan area and sanitary district has this deep tunnel that 
we put money into by earmark year after year after year, so that storm 
water can be collected there and will not run off to integrate with the 
sanitary sewer system and will not cause degradation of Lake Michigan 
and rivers and tributaries nearby. That is one area.
  The second area I focused on in the earmarks has been transportation. 
There are specific earmarks in this bill for the expansion of the 
Chicago Transit Authority and other transit systems in our area. They 
are struggling to survive with the recession. We are trying to make 
sure passengers do not have to pay outrageous amounts of money for them 
to continue to be successful in their operation.
  Another earmark: $4 million in this bill goes for the Chicago 
shoreline on Lake Michigan. When they surveyed the people of Chicago a 
few years ago and asked: What is the most important thing we have in 
our city that you are proudest of, they said: Lake Michigan, 
overwhelmingly. And they should. It is a beautiful expanse of water. 
Aside from the scenery and the beauty of it, it is part of the Great 
Lakes, one of the greatest sources of drinking water supplies in the 
world.
  So what we have done is to address a 100-year-old shoreline that was 
crumbling and falling apart. I sat down with Mayor Daley. We entered 
into an agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers. With this 
agreement, the city put money up-front. We came in with money on the 
Federal side. We have reduced the overall cost of the project and 
accelerated by years--as you drive along that lakefront, you can see 
they are building a modern lakefront that will serve us for decades to 
come. It is an earmark. It is an earmark in the bill.
  When I hear people come to the floor saying: This is an outrage that 
all these earmarks are in the bill, I think to myself: There is nothing 
outrageous about this. We bragged about it. We have had press 
conferences about it. The people of our city think it is money well 
spent.
  There is money in here as well going to hospitals to buy critical 
equipment. It is all listed--every single hospital, every single 
dollar--whether it is for research, cancer research, Alzheimer's 
research at universities, for example, or if it is buying critical 
equipment for hospitals that many times don't have the resources to do 
so. I try to help them out if I can. I think that is part of my job.
  I listened to these overall criticisms of earmarks and I don't doubt 
that pouring through the thousands that may be in here, we are going to 
find some that are questionable. That is natural. One Congressman and 
one Senator may think something is important to his district, his 
community, his State; others may question it. That is part of the 
process. They should be questioned. But at the end of the day, to say 
that when you take 1 percent of this bill and allow Members of Congress 
to zero in on specific issues in their States, in their districts, that 
there is something inherently evil, wicked, criminal or wrong with it, 
it is not the case.
  I wish to salute Senator Inouye, who is our chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, for what he and Congressman David Obey, the 
House Appropriations Committee chairman, agreed to do, which is to 
dramatically cut back the overall cost of earmark projects. Under the 
Republican leadership a few years ago, about 4 to 5 percent of an 
appropriations bill would be earmarked. They have brought it down to 
just over 1 percent. The goal is 1 percent. I don't think that is 
unreasonable, that 1 percent of the spending bill would be 
congressionally directed in a transparent and open process; otherwise, 
what happens, we give the money to the agency downtown and they decide 
where to spend it. It isn't as if the money would not be spent; oh, it 
will be spent, but it may not be spent as effectively or for projects 
that are as valuable as many of us who represent these areas believe.
  We could have given the money to the Army Corps of Engineers for the 
Lake Michigan shoreline. I can say what would have happened. It would 
have cost more, there would have been less local contribution, and it 
would have taken many more years to get started. We avoided all that 
with the earmark process. I know there is going to be a lot of debate--
some even this morning on this--but my feeling is we are reaching the 
right balance of disclosure, transparency, and limiting the number of 
earmark projects so the taxpayers can have confidence that, at the end 
of the day, there is a process here and the scrutiny that there should 
be when it comes to taxpayers' dollars. At the end of the day, some of 
my colleagues will never be satisfied. They just will not be satisfied 
until every earmark is removed. I hope that doesn't happen. I think we 
can make the process better.


                              U.S. Economy

  Mr. President, I also wish to say a word about the state of our 
economy today, if I can, and set it apart in the Record because this is 
a historic anniversary week. As you may know, 76 years ago this week, 
exactly, on March

[[Page 6617]]

4, 1933, the President, Franklin Roosevelt, took the oath of office for 
the first time. He faced an America broken to its knees--not by a war 
or an invasion but by a depression which had broken the confidence of a 
proud nation.
  It is hard for many people today to even imagine how frightened 
Americans were the day after he became President. Jonathan Alter, a 
news analyst for Newsweek, who comes from Chicago, recently wrote a 
book about the transition and beginning of the F.D.R. Presidency called 
``The Defining Moment.'' He sketched the picture very well. He said at 
that time America has experienced its gravest crisis since the Civil 
War.
  The American economic system had gone into a state of shock. Days 
before the F.D.R. inauguration, the New York Stock Exchange suspended 
trading indefinitely and the Chicago Board of Trade bolted its doors 
for the first time since it opened in 1848. In the 3 years since the 
crash of the stock market, 16 million jobs had disappeared in 1933 and 
business investment had dropped 90 percent. America's official 
unemployment rate was 25 percent. In some areas, it went as high as 80 
percent when it came to adult men. More than 5,000 banks had failed. 
People who were unlucky enough to put their money in them had lost 
everything.
  The great economist, John Maynard Keynes, was asked by a reporter at 
the time if there was any precedent for what happened to the world 
economy. He replied: Yes. It lasted for 400 years. It was called the 
Dark Ages.
  In his first inaugural address, Franklin Roosevelt told a shaken 
nation: ``Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the 
moment.'' But then he went on to reassure America and said: ``The only 
thing we have to fear is fear itself--'' that famous phrase--
``nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed 
efforts to convert retreat into advance.''
  F.D.R. said we needed to abandon the failed ideas that led us into 
economic crisis and try something new and bold. The Federal Government, 
the President said, will treat the task of economic recovery ``as we 
would treat the emergency of a war.''
  What America needed, the new President said, was ``action, and action 
now'' to put Americans back to work and restore strength to our economy 
and rebuild people's faith in the future. He assured us: ``This is no 
unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously.''
  Where are we today, 76 years later, 76 years after F.D.R. took that 
oath of office on March 4, 1933? Another new President has inherited 
the worst economic crisis since that historic day in 1933. This crisis 
is not another Great Depression, thank the Lord, but it is grave. It is 
dangerous. It is unlike any crisis we have seen in our lifetime. Sadly, 
it appears to be getting worse at this moment. America lost more jobs 
last year than at any time since World War II. Manufacturing is at a 
28-year low. Many businesses can't borrow or make payroll. Many workers 
and retirees are seeing their life savings disappear. People have seen 
the values of their homes and retirement plans plummet, and a large and 
growing number of Americans are uncertain and anxious about the future.
  President Obama, sworn into office on January 20 of this year, has 
been in office a little over 6 weeks. He has made it clear we need to 
act and act quickly; otherwise, he says, the recession could linger on, 
unemployment could continue to grow, we could lose a generation of 
promise and potential as millions of Americans have to forgo college 
and a chance to train for jobs of the future. We could lose our 
competitive edge in the world if we don't act. In short, an already bad 
situation could get worse. He proposed to Congress, soon after he was 
sworn in, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the most sweeping 
in history.
  Similar to Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln--another President 
who inherited a major economic crisis during the Civil War--this 
President has said we must put our American house in order, put 
Americans back to work, and invest in America's future. He has said the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act represents not just new policy 
but new thinking; a new approach to meeting our most urgent challenges. 
It will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next 2 
years while investing in priorities such as health care and education. 
It enables us to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure--the roads, 
the bridges, the schools.
  The economic recovery plan also includes help for States. My State of 
Illinois is in deep debt. We are hoping this recovery plan will help 
them get through this difficult period. Also, it has a tax cut for most 
working families. Ninety-five percent of them will receive this tax cut 
as soon as next month. It is a smart plan that invests in things that 
work. Congress, the President, and respected economists agree now is 
not the time to create new bureaucracies and new Government agencies. 
We should use existing programs wherever possible to make sure the 
recovery funds are invested quickly and efficiently to stabilize this 
economy. We are relying on experienced and knowledgeable Government 
professionals, but as most of us know, there is no playbook you can 
pick up at the library or find on a Web site. We are trying to make 
wise decisions based on economic experience.
  I think this program we passed is a start, but the bill before us is 
equally important. This bill continues the function of Government. This 
bill allows many Federal agencies to continue with funding that is 
necessary so they can perform valuable services. If we don't pass this 
bill, we will reduce the amount of money that is being spent by these 
agencies at a time when our economy needs the spending to create the 
jobs to move us forward.
  We are going to lose about $1 trillion in purchasing of goods and 
services this year. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, along 
with this piece of legislation, will try to provide some jump-start to 
this economy, a catalyst for more economic recovery and growth, which 
is something we desperately need.
  There is more that is needed as well. Next week I am going to, after 
we finish this bill, be talking about the housing crisis we face. I 
have been pushing for 2 years for a change in the bankruptcy law to 
allow the courts, as a last resort, to rewrite a mortgage. Last night, 
that measure passed in the House of Representatives. I hope we can take 
it up. We are in the process of working out the details of our Senate 
version now, and I hope that by next week we will be prepared to 
present it to our colleagues. We need their help. Some of them were 
skeptical when I last offered it. Many Democrats voted against it. They 
said: Well, we think this can work itself out. Some of those same 
Members have come to me since and said it didn't work. We thought the 
voluntary approach was what was needed; it didn't do the job. There are 
too many foreclosures. It is not only hurting the lives of those who 
lose their homes but the people who live next door.
  I think it was Secretary Geithner who used the analogy at a hearing 
this week of someone who lives next door to a man who smokes in bed. 
Well, because of that unwise conduct, the man's house catches fire, and 
because of that fire in a closely packed neighborhood it endangers all 
the houses nearby. Now, you can shake your finger and say you never 
should have smoked in bed or you can pitch in and try to put out that 
fire because, if you don't, it could affect your home too. The same 
thing is happening here. Whether the right decisions were made at the 
outset, whether people borrowed when they shouldn't have, whether 
people were the victims of predatory lending, that will eventually work 
itself out and we will know more about it; but in the meantime, we need 
to stabilize this housing market.
  I listen to some of the great sources of information in America and 
one of them is Jon Stewart with the ``Daily Show.'' He had a program 
earlier this week that was a classic. It involved a fellow named 
Santelli who, on a CNBC cable show, went into this what he called 
himself, a rant over the idea that we would help people facing mortgage 
foreclosure. He was critical of the

[[Page 6618]]

wisdom of these people in entering into mortgages when they should have 
known better, making guesses about their economic future that turned 
out to be so wrong. Mr. Stewart, in a style which I find very 
entertaining and amusing, then proceeded to replay the statements made 
by economists on CNBC who downplayed the thought of a recession, who 
suggested that many of the great banking houses that have failed were 
going to do fine. He tried to make the point that even some of the 
people who were screaming at those who entered into mortgages they 
shouldn't have entered into got it all wrong when they tried to analyze 
the economy and give advice to America.
  People do make mistakes. They should be allowed to recover from those 
mistakes in a situation where continued mortgage foreclosures could 
jeopardize housing markets and the value of everyone's home for years 
to come. That issue will come up before us next week. I look forward to 
it.
  At this point, I yield the floor and 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. REID. 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.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1105, the 
     Omnibus Appropriations Act.
         Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Bernard Sanders, Tom Udall, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Ron Wyden, Christopher J. Dodd, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Mark R. Warner, John D. Rockefeller 
           IV, Debbie Stabenow, Patty Murray, Richard Durbin, 
           Edward E. Kaufman, Jim Webb, Mark Begich, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Roland W. Burris.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum be waived.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of 
amendments in this agreement be the only first-degree amendments 
remaining in order to H.R. 1105; that no amendment be in order to any 
of the listed amendments prior to a vote in relation thereto; that the 
amendments must be offered and debated Friday, March 6; Monday, March 
9; or Tuesday, March 10; further, that upon disposition of the 
amendments and the Senate has voted on a motion to invoke cloture on 
H.R. 1105 and cloture having been invoked, all postcloture time be 
considered yielded back, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate 
proceed to vote on passage of the bill.
  Here is the finite list of amendments: Ensign amendment No. 615, 
which is pending; Vitter amendment No. 621; Sessions amendment No. 604; 
McCain amendment No. 593--he is in the Chamber now waiting to offer 
that amendment--Thune amendment No. 662; Barrasso amendment No. 637, 
which I understand he will offer on Monday; Enzi amendment No. 668; Kyl 
amendment No. 631; Kyl amendment No. 629; Kyl amendment No. 630; Kyl or 
designee amendment--we have a copy of the proposal--Cornyn amendment 
No. 673; and Bunning amendment No. 665.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken with the Republican 
leadership, and we are going to try to have four of these votes 
starting at 5:30 on Monday evening.


           Unanimous Consent Agreement--Continuing Resolution

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if and when the 
Senate receives from the House a joint resolution which provides for 
the continuation of Government funding until March 11, 2009, if it is 
identical to the measure which is at the desk, it be considered read 
three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table; that if it is not identical, then this order be null and void.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. This will get us teed up to work next week. I made my 
statement this morning. The Senate is the body that it is. It is 
sometimes difficult for even those of us who serve here to fully 
comprehend. But I think this Congress has reached a point in time where 
we are working together, when adversaries work together. It doesn't 
mean we always agree, but I think we all have the end in mind to try to 
help the country and move legislation forward.
  I appreciate the work of my leadership, Senator Durbin. He spent the 
evening with me last night. We finished about midnight. He is such a 
good friend. I appreciate the conversation I had with Senator McConnell 
and the many conversations I have had with Senator Kyl.
  Everyone is working in good faith, and this Senate agreement 
indicates that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment for the purpose of calling up three amendments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 631

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the first Kyl amendment is numbered 631.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 631.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of State to certify that funds made 
 available for reconstruction efforts in Gaza will not be diverted to 
                 Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas)

       On page 942, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:


                          gaza reconstruction

       Sec. 7093.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be made available to aid 
     reconstruction efforts in Gaza until the Secretary of State 
     certifies that none of such funds will be diverted to Hamas 
     or entities controlled by Hamas.


                           Amendment No. 629

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the next amendment I would like to call up is 
amendment No. 629.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 629.

  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that no funds may be used to resettle Palestinians 
                   from Gaza into the United States)

       On page 942, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:


  prohibition on use of funds for resettlement into united states of 
                         palestinians from gaza

       Sec. 7093.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be made available to resettle 
     Palestinians from Gaza into the United States.


                           Amendment No. 630

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the third amendment is numbered 630.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 630.

  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page 6619]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require a report on counter-smuggling efforts in Gaza)

       On page 942, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:


              report on counter-smuggling efforts in gaza

       Sec. 7093.  Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in 
     consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, 
     shall submit to Congress a report on whether additional funds 
     from Foreign Military Financing assistance provided annually 
     to the Government of Egypt could be expended--
       (1) to improve efforts by the Government of Egypt to 
     counter illicit smuggling, including arms smuggling, across 
     the Egypt-Gaza border; and
       (2) to intercept weapons originating in other countries in 
     the region and smuggled into Gaza through Egypt.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, until Senator McCain arrives, let me briefly 
describe these three amendments.
  Amendment No. 630 requires a report on countersmuggling efforts in 
Gaza. Within 90 days of the enactment of the Act, the Secretary of 
State, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, 
shall submit a report to Congress on whether additional funds from our 
military foreign financing assistance, provided annually to the 
Government of Egypt, could be expended, No. 1, to improve efforts by 
the Government of Egypt to counter illicit smuggling, including arms 
smuggling across Egypt and the Gaza border, and No. 2, to intercept 
weapons originating in other countries in the region and smuggled into 
Gaza through Egypt. This amendment requires a report to ensure the 
Egyptian Government can be even more effective in dealing with this 
difficult problem.
  Amendment No. 629 is a prohibition on the use of funds in this bill 
for resettlement into the United States of Palestinians from Gaza. 
There has been a suggestion that perhaps that might be permitted, and 
we simply want to make it clear that will not be permitted with any 
funds in this bill.
  Finally, related to Gaza reconstruction, amendment No. 631 provides 
that none of the funds available in this bill may be made available to 
aid reconstruction efforts in Gaza until the Secretary of State 
certifies that none of such funds will be diverted to Hamas or entities 
controlled by Hamas. The reason for that, of course, is that in 
providing money to people in Gaza, it is very difficult to ensure that 
money doesn't go to terrorists, and we want the Secretary of State to 
ensure that doesn't happen. That is what this amendment would provide.
  Mr. President, that is the explanation of these three amendments, and 
I now yield to my colleague from the State of Arizona, Senator McCain.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 593

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 593, which is at 
the desk, and I ask unanimous consent for its consideration, 
understanding that under a previous unanimous consent agreement the 
vote on the amendment will be on Monday.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the pending 
amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 593.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be suspended.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds provided in the bill)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC _. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.

       None of the funds in this Act may be used for any project 
     listed in the statement of managers that is not listed and 
     specifically provided for in this Act.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. It would prohibit funds to be spent on the thousands 
of earmarks that are listed in the statement of managers but that are 
not included in the bill text.
  We have seen a remarkable evolution over the past number of years 
here in the Senate and House as to how we do business, and I think 
there is no greater example of it than what we are considering and 
have, fortunately, not passed. This is the legislation. In itself, it 
is 1,122 pages. You can thumb through it anywhere, and you will find 
moneys to be spent on various projects, none of which--or very few of 
which have ever been authorized or examined by the committees that have 
jurisdiction. That in itself is interesting.
  This is a funding mechanism to keep the Government in business. It 
also happens to be an 8-percent increase in spending over last year. It 
also happens that the majority, the Democrats on the majority side last 
year, chose not to pass these appropriations bills because they knew, 
or expected, that they would have a larger majority in the Senate and 
House and they would be able to increase spending, which is exactly 
what happened--an 8-percent increase.
  Here on the other side of my desk is ``statement of managers.'' That 
statement of managers is 1,844 pages. Guess what it is filled with. The 
same earmarks and porkbarrel projects that are in the bill itself. The 
statement of managers used to basically just be a statement of the 
managers of the bill saying this is a bill that is being put forward 
and the reasons for it, the rationale for it. It used to be just a few 
pages. Now it is 1,844 pages. Remarkable. And guess what it is filled 
with. It contains part of the 9,000 earmarked porkbarrel projects in 
this bill, none of which have been authorized--or very few have been 
authorized, let me put it that way. I am sure there are some funds in 
here that have been authorized. But the earmarks in it are exactly 
that: they are unauthorized projects.
  What does that mean to the average citizen? They hear about earmarks 
and pork, but they do not really understand what it means. Well, the 
way the Congress is supposed to work is, there are two parts to 
legislating. One is to review legislative proposals--both policy and 
funding by committees--and they say: OK, we will authorize this 
project, we will authorize $1.7 million for a honey bee factory in 
Weslaco, TX. I don't particularly think that is necessary, but at least 
it is authorized. And then it is supposed to go to the appropriating 
committee, and they figure out how much money there is and then they 
appropriate the money. That system is completely broken. It is 
completely short-circuited. Now we have bills this size, statements of 
managers this size, and no one has ever seen or heard of many of these 
projects until it appears on the Members' desks. The system is 
completely broken.
  So when I hear my colleagues stand up and defend these ``porkbarrel 
projects,'' when they defend $300,000 for the Montana World Trade 
Center, which may be necessary, why didn't they ask for it to be 
authorized because of the need and then compete with all other projects 
that are necessary and that Members of the Senate and the House believe 
are necessary for their districts or States?
  Mr. President, 20 or 25 years ago, I can tell my colleagues, an 
earmark was an unusual event. It was an unusual occurrence. But the 
evil grew and grew and grew. Like any other evil, it grew and grew and 
grew, so that now we are presented with legislation such as this, with 
9,000 of them. And I can guarantee you that none of my colleagues fully 
read this bill or the statement of managers. Now, some people say: 
Well, it is not very much. It is not very much. Well, our estimates are 
that it is about $8 billion. Now, $8 billion to the average citizen is 
a fairly good sum of money.
  Another egregious pattern of behavior which has crept into this is 
that there are policy changes that are put in, again fundamental 
changes in policy written in, which, of course, the Senate does not 
then have an opportunity to debate. One example is to do away with the 
voucher system in the Washington, DC, school system. Another one has 
been noted this morning

[[Page 6620]]

 in the Washington Post, called ``Truck Stop.''
  When we signed a free-trade agreement with Mexico--I believe it was 
14 years ago--part of the deal was that Mexican trucks, provided they 
met all the safety standards and all the requirements, would be able to 
come into the United States, with reciprocal access to each other's 
markets. Thanks to the influence of the unions and others, there is an 
amendment in this bill that basically kills that. Now, you can take 
either side of that issue. Maybe there are a lot of Americans saying--
even though these Mexican trucks are inspected, even though they meet 
the safety standards, even though we promised in the North American 
Free Trade Agreement that they would have access to our markets--maybe 
we shouldn't do that. But should we be doing it in an appropriations 
bill, in a bill this thick, in a statement of managers this thick? 
Should we be making policy changes in here?
  By the way, I will talk a little more about this later on, but the 
Mexican Government is in an existential threat with the drug cartels in 
Mexico. Phoenix, AZ, has now become the kidnapping capital of America. 
There is violence on the south side of our border which is spilling 
over onto our side of the border. The President of Mexico, President 
Calderon, has staked everything on taking on the drug cartels, and the 
corruption he is fighting is at the highest levels of Government. So 
what have we done in this appropriations bill? We have just sent a 
signal to the Mexicans that we are not going to keep our agreements 
with them. We are not going to stand by our solemn pledges to them. 
And, by the way, we are going to do it in an obscure provision in one 
of these either 1,122 pages or 1,844 pages.
  So I hope the American people and our colleagues understand what it 
is that is so badly broken here. They say: How in the world do we--when 
unemployment today is at 8.1 percent and people can't afford their 
health insurance premiums, are losing their jobs, are being moved out 
of their homes--afford $951,000 for Sustainable Las Vegas; how do we 
afford $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama?
  You will note that there are always locations associated with these 
earmarks. I had a discussion with a Member of Congress about one of the 
provisions having to do with tattoo removal--tattoo removal--because it 
helps when combating gangs. Maybe tattoo removal needs to be funded, 
but, of course, this earmark was directed to a specific geographic part 
of the country. So while the American people are suffering under the 
worst recession since the Great Depression, we here in Congress not 
only are doing business as usual, we are wasting taxpayer money at an 
incredible rate, and these 9,000 earmark projects are part of that.
  By the way, there are also 13 projects in this bill, which total 
approximately $9 million, that were the result of the efforts of an 
outfit called PMA. PMA is a lobbying group, the head of which was a 
former staff member in the U.S. Congress, and PMA has been raided and 
shut down by the FBI. They are under active investigation for 
corruption, and they were ``listed'' as those responsible for these 13 
projects. We can't even take those out. We can't even take those out.
  It is really remarkable. On Thursday, the media reported that in 
discussions with Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi took the position 
that if a single amendment to this omnibus bill was made by the Senate, 
she would refuse to resubmit the bill as amended to the House but 
would, instead, put the rest of the Federal Government under a 
continuing resolution for the remainder of the year.
  I think we should be on a continuing resolution as we have been and 
examine each one of these appropriations bills individually, debate 
them, and decide what various appropriations should be and how they 
should be funded and what the priorities are.
  By the way, we also have proved that we can pass another continuing 
resolution because we just did. The insistence that not a single change 
could be made or it would shut down the Government and jeopardize even 
the most essential Government services was high drama at its best, used 
to sway Members to oppose even the most commonsense proposals, such as 
insisting contracting be fair and subject to open competition and 
restricting funding that was achieved through a lobbyist organization.
  By the way, it is my understanding that last year this same 
organization, PMA, which has shut its doors, was raided by the FBI. The 
home of the head of it was raided by the FBI, and last year they got 
$300 million worth of earmarks in an appropriations bill.
  What I am saying is, this system has become a corrupt practice. That 
is why we have former Members of Congress now residing in Federal 
prison. That is why we have continuing indictments of people who were 
involved in the Abramoff scandal, which all had to do with obtaining 
these earmarks in appropriations bills which were not authorized and 
nobody knew anything about. We even had a situation last year where a 
couple of items were put into an appropriations bill after the 
President signed it--after the President signed the bill. They were 
inserted. Investigation of that is still going on.
  It seems to be the Speaker's position that the Senate should have no 
voice in a $410 billion appropriations bill that funds every agency in 
the Federal Government other than Defense, Homeland Security, and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. I have been deeply disappointed by many 
things this new Congress and this new administration have begun. After 
all the campaign promises of changing the culture of Washington, 
bringing hope for a new era, bridging differences between people, 
parties, and ideology, what we have actually seen and what has been 
delivered to the American people is far different: first, in the $1.2 
trillion stimulus bill and now in this massive $410 billion 
appropriations bill, which would, in a normal year, be the largest 
appropriations bill the Congress would pass. There has been no serious 
effort at bipartisanship. There is no serious effort to hear opposing 
views, to have an honest debate, to balance carefully the policy 
implications of our actions. We should engage in serious debate and 
vote on amendments without the false threat of a shutdown of the 
Federal Government or an out-of-the-hand rejection of all amendments.
  The President has said, and the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget has said, this bill is last year's business. This bill is to 
fund the functions of Government this year--not last year, this year. 
To say somehow that this is ``last year's business'' because we are 
voting on funding for the operations of Government for this year is 
disingenuous at best.
  I have talked to Members on both sides. I have talked to people who 
said: Yes, we need to do something about this earmarking, and we would 
like to sit down and do something about it. We would like to reduce it. 
That is like saying you would like to reduce any other evil. You want 
to eliminate it.
  There is a simple way, I say to my friends who say they are unhappy 
with the way this explosion of earmarking and porkbarrel spending is 
taking place. There is one simple solution: Authorize it. Send it 
through the authorizing committees. Then, if I have a problem with the 
Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY, for which I am going to 
spend $190,000 of our taxpayers' dollars, then fine. I may not like it, 
but at least we will have gone through a process of scrutiny, of 
proposal, of authorization, and the Buffalo Bill Historical Center 
would be in competition with other proposals for other historical 
centers throughout the country if they are needed.
  Maybe we need to improve blueberry production and efficiency in 
Georgia. It is $209,000 to improve blueberry production and 
efficiency--in Georgia. Maybe not in Maine, maybe not other places 
where blueberries are grown, but in Georgia.
  We want to spend $400,000 for copper wire theft prevention efforts. I 
would like to prevent copper wire theft as well, but maybe it should 
happen across the country. And I am sure the Alaska PTA needs $238,000, 
but so do PTAs all over this country. Why should

[[Page 6621]]

we earmark $238,000 for the Alaska PTA? The list goes on and on.
  As some of my colleagues may know, I have begun to twitter. We have 
been tweeting for the last week with ``Top Ten Earmarks,'' every day. 
We could go on for days and days. I would like to mention some of them. 
We began last Friday.
  No. 10 was $1.7 million for a honeybee factory in Weslaco County, TX; 
$300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center; $870,000 for wolf breeding 
facilities in North Carolina and Washington; No. 7 was $332,000 for the 
design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, TX; No. 6 is 
$1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah; No. 5 was $650,000 for . 
. . management in North Carolina and Mississippi; No. 4, $2.1 million 
for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York; No. 3 was $6.6 million 
for termite research in New Orleans; No. 2 was $2 million for the 
promotion of astronomy in Hawaii; and No. 1, on our first day, was $1.7 
million for pig odor research in Iowa.
  Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune had an editorial entitled ``Whoa.'' It 
goes on to say:
       The Obama administration and Democratic leaders of the 
     House and Senate are blowing the lid off of spending 
     restraint. But they're finally meeting some resistance within 
     their own party.
       Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), in an essay published Wednesday in 
     The Wall Street Journal, ripped a spending bill passed by the 
     House last week as ``a sprawling $410 billion compilation of 
     nine spending measures that lacks the slightest hint of 
     austerity from the federal government or the recipients of 
     its largesse.''
       He said he will vote against it, and he urged President 
     Barack Obama to veto it if it passes the Senate. We second 
     that motion.
       Politico.com reported Tuesday that 15 senators--14 
     Democrats and one independent--met behind closed doors this 
     week to share concerns over the cost and reach of Obama's 
     proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
       House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry 
     Reid and the Obama team are pushing a gaudy expansion of 
     deficit spending.
       A $787 billion ``stimulus'' package. A $410 billion 
     spending bill. A $3.55 trillion budget.
       Their reasoning: we need to do this in response to the 
     economic crisis. But it's sure sounding like business as 
     usual in Washington. When in doubt, spend. When not in doubt 
     . . . spend.
       The $410 billion bill hikes discretionary spending by 8 
     percent and includes at least 8,570 earmarks worth $7.7 
     billion. ``Such increases might be appropriate for a nation 
     flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but 
     America is neither,'' wrote Bayh. ``Families and businesses 
     are tightening their belts to make ends meet--and Washington 
     should too.''
       The Obama folks have tried to dismiss this huge spending 
     bill as a little cleanup work. ``Last year's business,'' said 
     Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
       Last year's business? No, this is the nation's business 
     right now. We're going to borrow this money right now and 
     carry the debt for decades.
       The administration says Obama will sign this bill. 
     Hopefully, enough Democrats like Evan Bayh will join 
     Republicans in the Senate to put the brakes on this. Let 
     everyone catch their breath and rethink this spending spree. 
     Right now, Democratic leaders look like they're getting dizzy 
     from all the dollars they think they have to throw around.

  What we should be doing is not passing this legislation now. Go back 
to the drawing board. Go through the appropriations bills and authorize 
them as necessary and figure out how much we need to spend rather than 
have a bill that is like this and like this, which nobody has read.
  Also, if the Congress goes ahead and passes this bill, then the 
President should veto it. The President should abide by the commitment 
he made in the campaign, the debate in Oxford, MS. The President of the 
United States, then-candidate Senator Obama, stated it clearly. He 
said: I will go line by line through these bills, and I will veto the 
ones and scrub the ones that are not necessary.
  The President, then-Senator Obama, made a commitment to the American 
people. He can keep that commitment by vetoing this pork-laden bill.
  The list goes on and on of these projects. I mentioned the 13 
projects of PMA.
  I want to return to something that is very disturbing, and that is 
the provision concerning free trade with Mexico. I would again like to 
quote from the Washington Post editorial today that says ``Truck 
Stop,'' entitled ``Congress Flashes a Yellow Light on Free Trade With 
Mexico.''

       President Obama seems to have resolved, for now, an 
     incipient dispute with Canada over ``Buy American'' rules in 
     the stimulus package. The law would have hurt Canadian steel 
     exports to the United States, but, at the White House's 
     insistence, Congress appended language that blunted the worst 
     protectionist consequences. Now, however, Congress has turned 
     on Mexico, the United States' other partner in the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement. A $410 billion omnibus 
     spending bill contains a provision that would pretty much 
     kill any chance that long-haul freight trucks from Mexico 
     could operate in the United States, as had been promised 
     under NAFTA.
       Economically, giving U.S. and Mexican trucks reciprocal 
     access to each other's markets makes a lot of sense. 
     Currently, Mexican rigs can drive in only a small zone on the 
     U.S. side of the border, where they must offload their goods 
     onto U.S. trucks. The process wastes time, money and fuel, 
     harming the U.S. environment and raising the cost of Mexican 
     goods to U.S. consumers. Yet access for Mexican trucks has 
     been bitterly resisted by U.S. interests, most notably the 
     Teamsters union--which claims that poorly regulated trucks 
     from south of the border would be a menace on U.S. highways.
       In an effort to disprove that, the Bush administration 
     promoted a pilot project under which Mexican trucks, screened 
     by U.S. personnel, could operate freely within the United 
     States. The Mexican trucks compiled a safety record 
     comparable to that of American rigs. Mexican participation 
     was limited, however, because of the political uncertainty. 
     And safety was always a smokescreen for the Teamsters' real 
     concern--economic turf--anyway. Now the Democratic majority 
     on the Hill has slipped into the omnibus bill a provision 
     killing the program. The provision seems certain to survive, 
     given that the president supported such a measure when he was 
     a senator; his transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, backed 
     it as a member of the House.
       When the U.S. economy needs all the help it can get, this 
     legislation perpetuates inefficiency and invites Mexican 
     retaliation against U.S. exports. To a world looking for 
     signs that Democratic rule in Washington would not mean 
     revived protectionism, this can only be a disappointment.

  So you not only have these earmarks that are in the thousands, you 
not only have companies that are under FBI raids and shut down by the 
Government, adding porkbarrel projects, but you also have policy 
provisions in the bill which can damage relations with a country we 
need good relations with, given the fact that the drugs we are creating 
a demand for flow through their country.
  As I mentioned earlier, the Mexican Government, under the courageous 
leadership of President Calderon, is in an existential struggling with 
the drug cartels. He needs to win. He needs to win for a variety of 
reasons, including the direct effect the flow of drugs from Colombia 
and other places, through Mexico into the United States, has and the 
damage it does to our young people and others who are using drugs.
  This amendment, as I stated, simply says that all these provisions, 
which are in 1,884 pages, some thousands of earmarks that are in the 
``statement of managers,'' not be prohibited from being spent because 
they are not included in the bill here. It is a pretty straightforward 
amendment. I hope my colleagues will approve it.
  Finally, I would like to say again, if the President of the United 
States wants to fulfill his promise to the people of this country if 
this bill is passed, he will veto the bill and he will send it back and 
tell us to clean it up. These are tough times in America. These are 
tough times. We cannot afford to do business as usual in the Senate and 
the House of Representatives. It is time the President led, veto this 
bill, if we pass it, and let's get down to the business of saving the 
taxpayers' dollars, rather than the profligate spending spree we have 
been on for so long which has mortgaged our children's futures and has 
committed generational theft.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the Senate voted on an 
amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn. The 
amendment would have cut funding for thirteen congressionally directed 
projects. Eight of these projects are from the Energy and Water 
Development section of the bill.
  Senator Coburn claimed these projects were included at the request of 
a firm that is under investigation. But every project named in his 
amendment

[[Page 6622]]

was included in this bill at the specific written request of a Member 
of Congress.
  In fact, thanks to reforms we made in the last Congress, anyone can 
go online and see exactly who requested these projects and where the 
funding is going. We have gone to great lengths to make the process as 
transparent as possible. Members of Congress who request funding for 
projects also have to file a letter with the Appropriations Committee 
to certify that they and their family members have absolutely no 
financial interest in the earmark.
  Let me be clear, I did not personally sponsor any of these projects.
  In fact, all of the projects in the Energy and Water Development 
section of the bill that were targeted by Senator Coburn's amendment 
were included by the House in their version of the fiscal year 2009 
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. The Senate also 
carried one of the eight in our version of the bill.
  So while I did not sponsor any of these projects, I find these 
projects are consistent with the work performed by the Department of 
Energy, and I saw no reason to eliminate them.
  Let me briefly describe the sorts of projects that we are talking 
about.
  One of the projects would provide $951,000 for the direct methanol 
fuel cell. This type of fuel cell has the potential to meet low power 
needs, less than 1 kilowatt, with increased performance and improved 
storage ability.
  Another project is focused on solar energy, providing $951,000 to 
improve the efficiency of home windows, with the same goal--reducing 
net energy consumption.
  As I said, every project on this list was requested by one or more 
Members of Congress. The process is fully transparent and the Members 
of Congress who requested this funding are fully accountable. That is 
why I opposed the Coburn amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________