S. 542Senate111th Congress (2009-2011)Introduced

A bill to repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

SenateCalendars Latest Action

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 29.

March 9, 2009

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

March 6, 2009

SenateCalendars

Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2866)

March 6, 2009

SenateCalendars

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 29.

March 9, 2009

Floor Debate

21 members

What members said about S. 542 on the floor

+16

9 Republicans11 Democrats1 Independent

Sen. Richard J. DurbinD-IL · Mar 10, 2009

Mr. President, later this afternoon, the Senate will consider an amendment by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, relative to the DC Voucher Program. Senator Ensign has been on the floor several…

Mr. President, later this afternoon, the Senate will consider an amendment by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, relative to the DC Voucher Program. Senator Ensign has been on the floor several times today to discuss this program. I wanted to make certain the record was clear on both sides as to the issue before us.

This was an experimental program that was started 5 years ago. At that time, under the Bush administration, with a Republican Congress, they made a proposal to the District of Columbia. They basically said: We will give you somewhere in the range of $14 million to $18 million for your public schools--which any school district would gladly accept--and another $14 million to $18 million for your charter schools if you will use a similar amount to start a DC voucher program. So we started this program 5 years ago and had some $14 to $18 million, and it was said to the District of Columbia, we will pay tuition, we will give families up to $7,500 to pay the tuition of children who want to attend private schools.

The argument was made that the DC Public Schools were not as good as they should be; that many of these children would have a much better opportunity if they attended these voucher schools. So this was an experiment. It had never been tried before. There was some controversy associated with it. I offered amendments in the Appropriations Committee to try to establish what kind of standards there would be at these DC voucher schools. In fact, I thought my amendments were rather straightforward--the kind of amendments most people would take for granted.

The first amendment I offered in the committee said: I hope all the teachers in the DC voucher private schools will have college degrees. That amendment was defeated. The argument was made that we shouldn't restrict the teachers in those schools, who may be nontraditional. They may not have a college diploma. Though we require in the public schools that all teachers have college degrees, they didn't want to require that in the DC voucher schools.

The second amendment I offered said the buildings where the DC voucher schools are being conducted should meet the basic life safety codes--health and fire safety code of the District of Columbia. That was rejected as well because these would be nontraditional buildings. Now what kind of comfort does that give a parent whose kids are going to school--whether it is a public school, a charter school or a voucher school--if there is any question of safety? But my amendment was rejected.

The third amendment I suggested was one I thought was only fair. If we are trying to create a private school voucher so students can have a better learning opportunity, at the end of a year or two we need to measure success. The only way to measure success is if the DC Public Schools and the voucher schools use the same achievement test so we can see if a fourth or fifth grader in one school or the other is doing better. That was rejected too. They wanted no comparison.

Excuse me if I am suspicious of this program if you can't mandate bachelor's degrees for teachers, if you can't mandate the buildings pass the health and safety code of the District of Columbia, and you can't mandate they have the same basic tests so we can compare them. So I went into this skeptical. I thought the fix was on. They were going to create this program with few, if any, rules and take it or leave it.

Well, it went forward and it was funded. After a year or two, the Department of Education and the General Accountability Office took a look at it and they raised serious questions about all this money-- these millions of dollars coming into this program in a hurry--and whether they had the proper management techniques, whether they were handling the money right, whether they were giving it out properly, and whether the right families were receiving it--some fundamental accounting and bookkeeping issues which we should ask of every program, particularly those using taxpayers' money. So there was a question of the administration of the program. Then they went on to find some things which were troubling. For example, the GAO report said schools that didn't traditionally charge tuition were now being funded. In other words, they were free schools before we created this program and now they were charging tuition.

What does that mean? For the school year 2006-2007, they offered scholarships to about 30 students in one of

these schools, and a school that traditionally had asked only for a small monthly fee as a sign of commitment to the school. They raised their money from charity and donors. Now, since the Federal Government was here with this DC voucher scholarship program, they decided that 30 of their students should qualify for these scholarships. Well, that comes out to $210,000 being spent by the Federal Government in a school that traditionally didn't even charge tuition. Does that raise a question? It raised a question in my mind.

They also found out there were a number of schools that lacked these occupancy certificates. Even after I offered this amendment raising a question about the safety of the schools, the schools went on to operate without filing the adequate certificates with the District of Columbia--the City of Washington, DC--that they were safe and that they, in fact, offered the kind of facilities they said they did. The GAO report said District officials provided documentation indicating that 3 of 18 schools the GAO selected for review lacked certificates of occupancy--3 out of 18. Six of them had permits that did not specify their use as a private school, child development center or before and after school care center, and 7 of the 18 appeared to have occupancy permits that designated use as child development centers with before and after school care.

It turned out there wasn't a consistent presentation by these schools of what they were. They included in the GAO report photos of two of these schools. One of these schools looked like a single-family residence in a neighborhood where they were supposedly holding school in the basement. Another one looked like some kind of commercial building. It didn't look like a school at all. It raised a question in my mind as to why we would allow them to get by with this. If they were receiving Federal money to sustain their program, at a minimum they ought to have teachers with a bachelor's degree, they ought to meet the requirements of safety, and they ought to have a test they can compare with the DC Public Schools. They didn't.

Now, what happened? The program was 5 years in duration. It was described as a pilot program--an experimental program--and the idea was, at the end of the day, to take a measurement as to whether this worked: Did this provide better education for the millions of dollars we put into it? Well, if we followed the law, that program would have expired in June of this year. I was in charge of the Appropriations Committee for the District of Columbia, and I decided that wasn't fair to the 1,700 students currently in the DC voucher scholarship program. To cut them off as of June of this year, without any certainty as to what is going to happen the next year, I thought was unfair to the students and their families. So instead of ending the program, which would have happened without an authorization, I extended it 1 year so it will cover the students in these programs for the school year 2009- 2010.

I thought that was fair. And I said in that period of time Congress had to do its job. We had to go in and ask these questions about the schools: Are they working? Are they worth the money spent? Are the teachers doing a good job? Are the students better off at the end of the day?

Senator Ensign has brought some impressive photographs of young students who have been successful using this program, but we have to ask about 1,700 students and what is working and what isn't.

The second thing we said in the bill which we are considering is that this is a program that affects one public school district--Washington, DC--that is managed by the DC City Council. I believe that if they are going to extend this program beyond next school year, the government of Washington, DC, should decide whether they want it in their school district. I wouldn't want it in Chicago--which I am proud to represent, or in Springfield, IL, my hometown--to have someone come in from the Federal Government and say: We are creating a new school program here. We don't care what the local voters say or the local school board says. We are from the Federal Government; we are only here to help you.

I don't buy that logic. So we said those two things are required: Reauthorize the program, have the DC City Council approve the program, and then we can consider going forward. Now, the committee that considers this reauthorization is not a hostile and angry committee. It is chaired by Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, who has expressed his support for the DC voucher program. So it isn't as if I am sending it to a committee that is going to deep six it and forget it. He is going to have a hearing about the future of the DC voucher schools. Senator Ensign, who comes to the floor and argues we should not ask the questions, we should not demand reauthorization, we should not ask the DC City Council whether they want the program to continue, is also a member of that committee. So he will have his chance under the bill that is before us to make this evaluation.

Now, let me be very candid about this. Half the students are in Catholic schools. The archdiocese of Washington is offering education to many of these students. I have had teachers and parents and others who have come to me and said it is working. A lot of these kids who otherwise wouldn't be getting a good education are getting a good education. I don't believe the archdiocese and schools should be frightened by this examination. If they are doing what they say they are doing--and I trust they are--this examination is going to prove it, and they are going to find out, at the end of the day, that the money is being well spent.

In the recent version of the Catholic newspaper here, which was published in the Washington, DC, area--and I will not read it in detail--there was some language about how a reauthorization could take years. Well, that is not the fact. It can be done on a very expeditious basis by the committee. Senator Reid, the majority leader, has said he will bring this matter to the floor for consideration.

Let us assess where we are with this DC voucher program, which would have expired in June of this year. We have extended it another year. We have said the 1,700 students are protected. They can continue to go to the schools they are attending right now. We have said that in that period of time Congress will take a look at the program and decide if the money is well spent and then report a bill if they want to reauthorize the program to the Senate floor for consideration. I think that is fair.

I hope those who are opposed to my language in this bill can come before the Senate and explain the alternative. If we are going to continue this program, literally for millions of dollars each year, and never ask any questions, it is not only unfair to taxpayers, it is unfair to the students. We have to make sure this is working and working effectively.

I had it within my power, I believe, to have ended this program, as promised, in June of 2009. I didn't do it. I extended it for an additional year. So those who argue the language in this bill kills this program are ignoring the obvious.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 665, Withdrawn

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum call the time remaining between now and the time the vote is scheduled be evenly divided between the two sides.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Cornyn amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

On January 30, President Obama issued Executive Order 13496 to inform Federal contractor employees of their rights under Federal labor law. Under the Executive order, there are 120 days of rulemaking to prescribe the size, form, and content of this notice to be posted. In other words, it is underway at this moment.

I am opposed to this amendment because we didn't restrict the ability of former President Bush to inform employees of Federal employers of their labor rights. We should allow President Obama the same opportunity.

I urge Members to vote no.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) is absent.

Madam President, 5 years ago we created an experimental pilot plan for 5 years that would expire in June of this year. Rather than let it expire and these 1,700 students and their families be disadvantaged, we extended it for a year in this bill. What is going to happen in the course of that year? Senator Lieberman's committee is going to take a close look to see if the over $70 million we spent on this program has worked. Are the students getting a good education, better than they would in public schools, better than in charter schools? Are the teachers competent in this program? Are the schools they are learning in safe buildings?

These are fundamental questions we should ask of every school program. I do not understand reluctance on the other side to have an honest evaluation of the program that has cost us over $70 million in taxpayer funds.

At the end of the day, those schools that are doing a good job will be given good grades. Those that are failing in this process do not deserve to be renewed. I have extended this program for a year in the bill, and the other provision, which I am going to allow Senator Schumer to address, gives to the DC City Council the same thing you would want the Las Vegas City Council to have if Congress tried to impose a program on them.

I yield my remaining time to Senator Schumer.

I announce that the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Sen. Jon KylR-AZ · Mar 17, 2009

Madam President, I would like to discuss the legislation before us, the so-called public lands bill and, in particular, four of the amendments that have been offered by Senator Coburn. I think four…

Madam President, I would like to discuss the legislation before us, the so-called public lands bill and, in particular, four of the amendments that have been offered by Senator Coburn.

I think four of these amendments are--I have not concluded my study of the other two, but four of these amendments I would commend to our colleagues and suggest that at least a couple of these amendments should not deter passage of the bill. If they are adopted by my colleagues--and I think they should be--they are in no way a poison pill. They should not cause the House of Representatives to reject the bill in any way. The bill should go on to the President. So for those who are supportive of the legislation, I think these amendments simply improve the bill, and they are offered, I know, by Senator Coburn for that purpose.

If I could discuss each of these amendments--I am sorry I do not have the numbers for them, but I will describe them briefly.

One is an amendment that would specifically strike out spending in four or five specific areas that are earmarked in the bill. It would save about $25 million. This is symbolic, but $25 million is still a lot of money to some of us anyway.

They are five specific areas: to celebrate St. Augustine's birthday, a party for that purpose; botanical gardens in Hawaii and Florida; salmon restoration in California; Alexander Hamilton's boyhood estate in the Virgin Islands; and something called the Shipwreck Exploration Program.

I am sure the authors of those provisions will come to the floor and describe in detail why these are such important programs and should be included in the legislation, and I will look forward to those explanations. Perhaps they will be persuasive. At this point, without further explanation, they look like the kind of thing that should not be a part of an omnibus bill such as this and could be stricken, as a result of which I am inclined to support my colleague's amendment to save $25 million by striking those particular items.

The next deals with the subject of eminent domain. The Federal Government acquires a great deal of land under this legislation for different purposes, including wilderness areas. There are other provisions to protect other kinds of property short of wilderness areas. The point of Senator Coburn's amendment on the use of eminent domain is to just ensure that in no case is private property being taken against the wishes of the private landowner.

I think we would all agree that if the Government is acquiring a piece of property for a public purpose--let's say for a military base-- the use of eminent domain is appropriate in that case. The Government has to establish that there is no reasonable alternative to the taking of the particular private property, and then if it can establish that, it can take possession of the property and then a trial ensues as to what amount of money is the proper compensation to the owner for the land. That is the usual and appropriate use of eminent domain.

However, we are told that with respect to this legislation, it is not necessary to use eminent domain to acquire land in that way. The reason is because in every case--at least my staff advises me--the land that is owned by private landowners that would become publicly owned under this legislation has the approval of the private landowner. Specifically, a staff report says that:

None of the component parts of the omnibus land bill

anticipate the use of eminent domain, and all land exchanges

and conveyance provisions include willing seller-buyer

provisions, or were advocated by the private landowners in

each specific provision of the bill in which they are

involved.

It is further noted by the staff of the committee that:

Great attention was given to private property rights

issues. They were addressed on a case-by-case basis.

This omnibus bill is comprised of tens or scores of individual bills that were then added together into this one giant omnibus bill. So we are told that:

On a case-by-case basis as to each particular bill, private

property rights were protected and respected. In many

instances, the land designations only affect land that is

already publicly owned so it is not even an issue, and for

those bills that may affect privately owned land, some of the

purchases were actually authorized at the request of the

landowner and some contain language that allows land to be

purchased only from a willing seller.

My point is that apparently, at least according to the minority staff, great attention was taken to ensure that the Government in no case in this bill is taking land against the wishes of the landowner. The point of Senator Coburn's amendment is to ensure that that is the case, that he would prohibit the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of land under the bill. So if it is true, as the staff suggests, that none of this land needs to be acquired by eminent domain, there is absolutely no harm in including the language that prohibits the use of eminent domain. The language in the bill is very brief. I think it is one or two sentences long. In fact, let me read it. It simply says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or

amendment made by this Act, no land or interest in land other

than access easements shall be acquired under this Act by

eminent domain.

That is it, short and sweet.

The reason I think it is important is that it establishes an important principle: that the Congress will not allow land to be taken against a landowner's wishes for purposes other than the usual purposes for which eminent domain is used, where the Government has to have the property. There is no other alternative, as in a military base, as I said, where you are simply acquiring property because it is a good idea. You want to protect a particular riparian area of a river, for example. What we do there is we acquire that land either by purchasing it from a willing seller or engaging in a land exchange. Those are the two typical ways of accomplishing this--both very appropriate. But it is not a case where the Federal Government has to have the land in the public's interest, as with the military base. So we don't use eminent domain ordinarily in a case such as this.

All Senator Coburn is trying to establish here is that we are not going to change that principle and that the Senate adheres to the principle we have had in the past. We want to establish this precedent and continue to live by it--that eminent domain isn't used in circumstances such as this.

I think that is a worthy amendment, and I think, frankly, if we reject it, it raises a question of why. Why would we want to preserve the right to use eminent domain if apparently there is no reason for us to do so? It, as I said, leaves hanging the question of whether we might use eminent domain in a situation where otherwise it wouldn't be called for.

There is another amendment that I think clearly ought to be approved by my colleagues. I don't know why this hasn't been done--I know it was done a long time ago and it needs to be done again--and that is to simply require a report that details the amount of Federal land we have. This would be a public report that would be done--it would be updated each year, and it would detail Federal land ownership and the cost to maintain that land and the relative percentage of that land to the total, which would be very helpful information.

I understand Senator Coburn has added one other amendment to this because there was a question raised about the fact that some Federal land serves a military purpose or an intelligence purpose which cannot always be disclosed publicly. So, correctly, he provides for a classified annex that would provide the ownership of the lands used for classified purposes. Members who are entitled to see that would be able to see it, but it wouldn't be available to the public generally, and that is frequently the way that classified material is handled. So I think that is a good amendment. There is no reason to oppose this. It is important for us to know how much land the Government owns.

Let me put it this way: You are a landowner. Somebody says, How much

land do you own? You know exactly how much land you own. You know where it is, what it does, how much it costs to own it, what the taxes on it are, and so on. It is important, if the Federal Government is going to be a good steward of both the land and taxpayer money, that it know what it owns--what we own. Do we need it all, would be one of the questions. Are there pieces of land that could be sold? The Government could use the money. Maybe we could dispose of some of this. In fact, there has always been a list of disposable lands owned by the U.S. Government, and frequently we acquire land in trades and so on, and there is a lot of buying and selling going on, and that is perfectly appropriate. So let's have an inventory of what we own and we can make decisions better as to whether some of that land could be sold or whether we need to retain it all, but at least we will know how much it costs to retain it and how much we have.

I think that is a very good amendment. I can't imagine anyone voting against it. And, if it is adopted, it in no way should affect the legislation being passed by the House of Representatives. I know there is an intention that when the bill passes here in the Senate--assuming it does--it would immediately be taken up in the House and would be passed in the House in the form passed by the Senate and then would go to the President for his signature. There is nothing in here requiring a report of Federal lands that would upset that issue.

The final amendment is technical and it may be considered to be a minor matter, but it is an improvement in the law we have. Again, I think it does no damage to the overall piece of legislation--the omnibus lands bill. It corrects a little piece that needs correcting, and here is what it does. We all know that if you take fossils or other valuable artifacts or rocks from a national park, for example, and you collect that or you try to sell it, you are guilty of a very serious crime, and we intend to prosecute people who do that. We have had far too many thefts of valuable things, including fossils, petrified wood, Indian artifacts, and that sort of thing from our Federal lands, and it is important to have legislation that continues to criminalize that. However, if I take my grandkids on a vacation and one of them picks up a rock and brings it home to show his buddies and it may or may not contain--maybe it is a little teeny piece of petrified wood, for example, should he be prosecuted in the same way that a person who is deliberately doing this to sell would be prosecuted?

The law is sufficiently unclear on this. The underlying bill attempts to correct that problem and it comes within one word of correcting it properly. What it says is that the Secretary ``may'' write rules that allow for the casual collection of these items; and that is a good thing, for the Secretary to write rules that provide some exception if a little child happens to pick up a rock and it has theoretically some value to it. In order to ensure that this is done, Senator Coburn simply changes the word ``may'' to ``shall,'' that the Secretary ``shall'' write rules that allow for the casual collection of these kinds of rocks. That makes sure it gets done. It doesn't tell the Secretary what he has to do, how he has to do it, or anything else. The Secretary could theoretically write a rule that says the only time this ever happens is if it is exactly midnight on a Tuesday or something such as that. So we are not telling him he has to make this a widespread thing; we are not saying he should not protect our precious assets--and indeed we want him to--but we do want him to write these rules so that a casual collector would not be penalized under the relatively harsh penalties that exist in the law today, and as I said earlier, appropriately so. It is a technical change. It is a minor chink. It should not cause anyone to not vote for the larger bill if, in fact, the amendment is adopted.

So those are the four amendments. As I say, my colleague has two other amendments and I need to study them more carefully to know whether I will support them, but I urge my colleagues to support these four amendments of Senator Coburn. I think they all make an important contribution to the bill. I am delighted he has been able to offer the amendments. I appreciate the cooperation of the majority leader in agreeing for him to be able to do that.

My understanding is we will continue to debate these amendments this afternoon and this evening and then tomorrow there will be votes on all of these amendments prior to the vote on final passage of the bill, which I think is supposed to occur tomorrow evening, but in any event, in the not too distant future. So I urge my colleagues to consider these amendments.

If you have questions about them, I urge you to talk to Senator Coburn so he can explain in detail what they are and are not intended to do. If you think in any way that they are deficient or need to be modified in some way, approach him with regard to that. I did that last night and he responded to some of my suggestions about, for example, adding the provision in the report that would allow a classified annex for those portions of the land that need to be protected. I am sure he will be willing to listen to folks if they have any concerns about his amendments, but don't vote against them on the theory that you don't care to know what is in them or if there is any change to this bill, it won't pass the House. That is not true. These are important amendments and, in some cases, benign amendments and I think they deserve our attention. I hope my colleagues would be willing to give these their serious consideration when the amendments are voted.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Sen. Harry ReidD-NV · Mar 10, 2009

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:15 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with the time until 4:15 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, that the Bunning amendment No. 665 be withdrawn as soon as this order is entered: Cornyn No. 673; Cornyn No. 674; Thune No. 662; Sessions No. 604; Ensign No. 615; that there be 4 minutes equally divided and controlled prior to the Ensign vote; and Vitter No. 621; provided further that prior to the vote in relation to amendment No. 621, the majority leader be recognized, and that the time the majority leader consumes not count as time against the debate time previously provided under the orders of March 6 and 9; further that the other relevant provisions of those previous orders remain in effect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 673

Madam President, I ask the Senate to allow me to make a statement prior to this next vote.

Madam President, I pause to honor the senior Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He will cast his 13,000th vote.

(Applause.)

This is a remarkable tally that few men or women in the hallowed history of this Chamber can match. But I guess what we note most about our friend from Vermont--I think I can say ``we''--is not the quantity of his votes so much as the quality. In his 3\1/2\ decades of service in the Senate, Pat Leahy has been a reliable friend in the cause of justice.

Pat was elected to the Senate at the age of 34. Few gave this young prosecutor from Burlington much of a chance to win. After all, not a single Democrat had ever been elected to the U.S. Senate from Vermont. And, of course, Vermont was one of our early States.

Senator Leahy recalls that the Republican Senator George Aiken was asked by some to resign his seat a day early to give Senator Leahy a headstart in seniority among his fellow freshmen, which you could do. Senator Leahy recalls Senator Aiken replying:

If Vermont is foolish enough to elect a Democrat, let him

be number 100.

On the contrary, the people of Vermont acted wisely by sending Patrick Leahy to Washington and sent him again and again and again and again.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy has been a national leader for an independent judiciary, the promotion of equal rights, and the protection of our Constitution. He also has been chairman in the past of our Agriculture Committee, where he did remarkably good work protecting the State of Vermont and all agricultural interests. As a senior member of the Appropriations committee, Senator Leahy has ensured that all communities throughout Vermont and across America have access to the tools they need to grow and to prosper. Senator Leahy is a leading voice for conservation and environmental protection. He has led the charge to expand broadband access to rural communities.

Senator Leahy is also a leader on foreign policy, working to protect human rights across the world while ensuring our men and women in uniform have the training, equipment, and respect they need and deserve.

This is a fine man, and it can best be shown as a result of his wonderful wife Marcelle. I am fortunate to call Senator Leahy my friend. I am fortunate I have had the good fortune of being able to serve in the Senate with this senior Senator from the State of Vermont, Patrick Leahy.

Congratulations, Patrick, on your 13,000th vote as a U.S. Senator.

(Applause.)

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, last week the junior Senator from Louisiana offered an amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill that would change the way the cost-of-living adjustments are given to Members of the House and the Senate. The bill before us, which has already passed the House, ensures there will be no cost-of-living adjustment in 2010. Most Senators, me included, have indicated support for that provision that is in this bill.

Senator Vitter's amendment would require the House and the Senate to vote every year on cost-of-living adjustments rather than having those adjustments take effect immediately. I

agree with Senator Vitter that cost-of-living adjustments for Members of Congress should not be automatic. That is why I introduced a freestanding bill last week that would do just that. That is why we seek consent to pass this bill before we are scheduled to vote on the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana.

By passing this legislation as a stand-alone, it can become law without threatening completion of this appropriations bill. If Senators want to demonstrate their support for the proposed automatic cost-of- living adjustments, they can and should support my stand-alone legislation. It is fiscally responsible, responsible to the state of our economy, and will allow us to continue the good progress we have made toward passing this bill.

Objecting to this request will have two negative results: It will jeopardize our ability to pass legislation ending the automatic COLAs, and it will deal a serious blow to our efforts to pass this appropriations bill. Any Senator who wishes to end the automatic COLA should support this consent request I will shortly make. Likewise, any Senator who wishes to move forward with the omnibus will support my request. The only way to accomplish these objectives is to support my request, take up and pass the stand-alone pay adjustment bill.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this unanimous consent pay request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 29, S. 542, a bill which repeals the provisions of law to provide for an automatic pay adjustment to Members of Congress; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

This is a serious piece of legislation. It accomplishes what the Senator from Louisiana obviously wants to accomplish. I would hope we can do this tonight. It would end all discussion on autopay adjustments. We should do that.

Mr. President, it is obvious that this is an important issue. We have an economy that is in distress. That is why we should pass this. I have not gotten commitments from anyone in the House. But it seems to me there is tremendous movement to get this accomplished.

I say to my friend from Louisiana, this is an important piece of legislation. We should go ahead and pass this. We know there are not going to be any amendments to the appropriations bill that I can get through the House. That is clear.

Everyone read in the newspaper what happened there Thursday night. So I would hope that in good faith this is not an effort to avoid anything, this is not an effort to try to play any legislative games. This is important legislation, I repeat for the third time, that we should adopt, and the House will take care of this itself.

Now, for me to stand and say what the House is going to do--I think it is pretty clear that with what is going on around the rest of the country, there is going to be significant support for this legislation, as I hope there is here in this body.

I will certainly yield to my friend from Michigan.

Mr. President, I did not block his amendment last week. I never heard from him until we were here Thursday night, late. I have had a number of Republicans come to me--as I look through this crowd here, there were a number of Senators who came to me and said: We would like our amendments to be offered. There was general agreement Thursday night after final passage did not take place; Senators told me they wanted to offer amendments. They talked during the week the same way.

So I did not block his amendment. The Democrats did not block it. No one knew he wanted to offer it, that I know of, on this side of the aisle.

I am using leader time so no one feels constrained.

I say to my friend from Michigan, it is clear as the daylight hour that my friend from Louisiana doesn't want the underlying bill to pass. Common sense dictates the best way to go is by adopting this consent agreement I made.

Let me also say this: I will be happy to ask consent--I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 29, this legislation, S. 542, tomorrow, March 11, at 3 p.m. I make a commitment that I will bring this bill up. If there are people who don't want to agree to this tonight, assuming the Senator from Louisiana is that person, I will bring it up some other time. I am committed to doing this.

Mr. President, to show how--what is the right word--how Senator Vitter is not serious, he knows that I can't represent what the Speaker is going to do. She doesn't know I am here doing this. She runs her little show over there, and I do my best to have some input on what happens here. But I can't make that kind of commitment.

I can't imagine why anyone would object to our passing this. It would move this down the road a long way. I am sorry the Senator from Louisiana obviously is not serious about passing this legislation, because I have asked that we do it right now. I have asked that we go to it tomorrow. He objects.

The Senator from California is absolutely right. If this bill goes down, the work we have done, in keeping with Senator Feingold--that is, to not have a cost-of-living adjustment next year-- we would have to start all over. This is wrong. We should move forward and defeat this amendment.

I move to table the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes prior to the cloture vote be reduced to 10 minutes, to be divided as previously ordered, with the remaining provisions of the previous order in effect, meaning that Senator Inouye will control 5 minutes and Senator Cochran will control 5 minutes.

Let me say this, Mr. President: I simply want to tell everyone-- Democrats and Republicans--this has been very difficult, but I think it has been good for this institution. And I, frankly--I do not want to lay out all of my dirty laundry, but I think it has been good for me. I think the situation that has developed on the Republican side--I had a number of Republican Senators come to me and say: We need a few more amendments, and I had enough votes to pass it, and I ignored them. That will not happen in the future. I am going to try to be more aware of trying to create a better feeling in this body, not necessarily count 60 or 51, whatever it is.

So I appreciate what everyone has done here, but especially do I appreciate the two managers of this bill. This has been extremely difficult for them. All of the difficult issues had to be resolved by them. I think people looking at this Senate today should know how fortunate we are as a country to have two people such as Dan Inouye and Thad Cochran being the managers of this bill. These are two of the best, and I want to personally extend my appreciation. I applaud and commend both of them for doing an excellent job on a very difficult piece of work.

I have spoken to both of them. Everyone should understand, we are going to move into an appropriations process we can all be proud of. No more of these big, lumpy bills. We are going to move forward and try to do a bill at a time.

Again, thanks for everyone's cooperation.

Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent request pending.

Has all time been used, Mr. President?

Mr. President, the order that is now in effect indicates that if there are 60 votes on this cloture vote, there will be just a voice vote on final passage. I ask the Chair if that is factual.

So that is the understanding we have. If that, in fact, is the case, then we would--this will be the last vote today.

People are asking: What are we going to do the rest of the week? First of all, we are going to spend the rest of this week on nominations. We are going to try to get one up tomorrow that we can debate and hopefully vote on. We may not be able to do that.

I would say to everyone there has been a lot of pent-up desire to come out and give speeches on other issues. I think we will have plenty of time to do that tomorrow. So we will set aside a couple hours, at least, tomorrow for morning business. I look forward to this vote and ending this long process on this appropriations bill.

Cloture Motion

Sen. Daniel K. InouyeD-HI · Mar 10, 2009

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 662, an amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. This amendment would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating…

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 662, an amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. This amendment would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the fairness doctrine.

This amendment is totally unnecessary. There is no funding in this bill for the FCC to reinstate the fairness doctrine. This bill does not contain any provisions directing the FCC to reinstate the fairness doctrine.

Further, President Obama does not support reinstating the fairness doctrine. The FCC repealed this doctrine in 1987, and has no plans to bring it back.

Finally, last week, 87 Senators, including myself, voted to include a similar amendment to the voting rights bill that would prevent the FCC from reinstating the fairness doctrine, which is exactly what this amendment would do. So there is no question about Democratic support for the position being proposed by the South Dakota Senator.

I wish to take a few seconds and talk about the history of this issue. The

fairness doctrine, which was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949--60 years ago--is a concept that broadcasters should cover issues fairly, allowing for different viewpoints to be presented in a balanced way.

I agree with the goals the fairness doctrine advanced, but the need for this policy today has become obsolete. In the 1950s, there were only three nationwide broadcast stations--NBC, ABC, and CBS. There was a legitimate public concern that the small number of media outlets could abuse their power and present a biased public agenda. At that time, the fairness doctrine was the right answer to a small and heavily concentrated media world.

A lot has changed since the 1950s. Technology has exploded. There are more ways than ever to hear a variety of perspectives and opinions on any number of issues. There are hundreds of channels on cable TV. We have public broadcasting, which was nonexistent at that time. We have more than 14,000 AM and FM radio stations, and hundreds of satellite radio stations. We also have the Internet.

As I stated earlier, the FCC repealed the provision in 1987, and has no plans to reinstate this doctrine. The amendment is simply an attempt to take an issue on which a vast majority of the Members of this Chamber voted in agreement last week and offer it to an unrelated bill of significant importance to the day-to-day operation of our Government.

It does not belong in this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this matter so we can send the bill to the President of the United States.

Amendment No. 604

Mr. President, if I may, I wish to speak on another amendment. This is amendment No. 604.

The bill before us, the Omnibus appropriations bill, would provide funding for the majority of the Federal Departments which have been funded under a continuing resolution since October of 2008.

This bill, the omnibus bill, is not an authorization bill. At the request of both the chairman and ranking member of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, this bill includes a simple 1-year extension of the E-Verify employment verification system, known as the Basic Pilot Program, and includes a simple extension of the EB-5 program.

The Appropriations Committee chose not to include the controversial authorization measures associated with the E-Verify Program. Rather, the extension provided in the Omnibus appropriations bill provides the authorizing committee ample time during this session of Congress to consider the 6-year authorizing legislation contained in this amendment.

The continuing resolution expires at midnight this Wednesday, March 11 and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this controversial authorization language, particularly since this bill provides time to the authorizing committees to address this issue through the authorizing process.

I oppose that amendment.

Amendment No. 674

Mr. President, now, if I may, I wish to speak on another amendment. This is amendment No. 674, which would prohibit the use of funds to implement Executive Order 13496 which was issued on January 30 of this year.

This Executive order requires Federal contractors to post a notice informing workers of their existing labor rights under Federal labor laws. The pending amendment, however, prohibits President Obama's order from being implemented unless it uses the same exact language as a prejudiced order issued by former President George W. Bush in 2001.

The Bush Executive order required Federal contractors to post a Federal labor rights notice, but that notice only provided one-sided material about the right to not join a union or pay certain union dues. Unlike President Bush's order, President Obama's executive order does not limit the notice to pro- or anti-union material, and it does not dictate what specific language must be used. It simply requires the Department of Labor to issue guidelines within 120 days from January 30 of this year about the notice, and for the notice to be more comprehensive and informative than the Bush Executive order.

Mandating that the one-sided Executive order from the previous administration be restored defies logic. Many new federally funded projects to improve our Nation's infrastructure are underway and productive labor relations are more important than ever. Ensuring that workers are aware of their rights promotes better working relationships between labor and contractors.

Federal law gives the President discretion to determine what is in this notice. President Bush exercised that right during the 8 years he served as President, and issued an Executive order on this matter that many of us in this Chamber believed to be one sided. President Obama deserves the same authority and discretion that was afforded to President Bush to issue Executive orders. The Congress should not take steps to intercede on this matter by adopting this amendment and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this amendment is unnecessary. There is no funding in the bill to reinstate the fairness doctrine. The bill does not contain any provisions directing the FCC to reinstate the doctrine. President Obama does not support it. The FCC has no plans to reinstate the doctrine. Opposition to the amendment is not based on substance, it is based on fact. It does not belong in the bill.

Things have changed since the fairness doctrine was adopted in 1949. Today, there are more ways than ever to hear a variety of opinions on any issue. We have hundreds of channels on cable TV, over 14,000 AM and FM stations, and we have the Internet. Therefore, we don't need it.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Omnibus Appropriations Act and encourage my colleagues to vote for cloture.

This bill provides additional resources so our Government will be better able to meet the challenges of the economic crisis we face today.

I would remind my colleagues that without enactment of this bill, the Securities and Exchange Commission will not get the additional funding it needs to increase the integrity of the financial markets. The Federal Housing Administration will have to stop helping families facing foreclosure to refinance into affordable mortgages at the worst possible time for such a stoppage to occur.

The Food and Drug Administration will not receive the funding it needs to significantly increase the number of food and medical product safety inspections, both domestic and overseas, that it could otherwise perform.

If the 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. Not passing this bill means 650 fewer FBI special agents, and 1,250 fewer intelligence analysts and other professionals fighting crime and terrorism on U.S. soil.

In conclusion, I ask the fundamental question: Will the United States be better off in the next year, and will the Federal Government be in a better position to help lead our country out of this deep recession, if we pass this bill? The answer is obviously, yes. It is in America's best interests to close the book on the last administration and to help the new administration hit the ground running.

Now is not the time to relitigate past policy battles. Now is the time to clear the decks and look to the future. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting cloture on H.R. 1105.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the staff of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Since I assumed the chairmanship of the committee less than 2 months ago, on January 21, the staff of the committee has accomplished some extraordinary things.

The committee held a markup on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act less than a week after I assumed the gavel, on January 27. We passed the Recovery Act on Februay 10, held an open conference with the House and then passed the conference report on February 14. On February 17, the President signed the Recovery Act into law.

The committee then moved immediately to take up the 2009 Omnibus Act, which we have passed today. I want to recognize the many late nights, the weekends, and the lost family time that have all been sacrificed by staff in order that we might accomplish the passage of two significant appropriations bills in less than 2 months.

As is our tradition, the committee operated in a fully bipartisan fashion in all of our efforts, and our nonpartisan support staff did their usual superb job of allowing the policy staff to complete their work under such tight deadlines.

Without the hard work, dedication and extraordinary effort of all the staff members of this committee, we would not have passed the Recovery Act or the 2009 omnibus. As the chairman of this committee, and on behalf of the American people who they serve so well, I thank them for their exceptional efforts and for providing me such an outstanding start to my time as leader of this committee.

I submit the names of all of the staff members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for the Record.

The list is as follows:

Carrie Apostolou, Arex Avanni, Michael Bain, Dennis

Balkham, Gabrielle Batkin, Katie Batte, Ellen Beares, Rebecca

Benn, Suzanne Bentzel, Lisa Bernhardt, Jessica Berry, Rob

Blumenthal, David Bonine, John Bray, Dale Cabaniss, Art

Cameron, George A Castro, Doug Clapp.

Roger Cockrell, John J. Conway, Erin Corcoran, Carol

Cribbs, Margaret Cummisky, Teri Curtin, Allen Cutler, Scott

Dalzell, Rebecca Davies, Nicole Di Resta, Mary Dietrich,

Drenan Dudley, Fitz Elder, Kate Eltrich, Christina Evans,

Bruce Evans, Alycia Farrell, Erik Fatemi, Kate Fitzpatrick.

Leif Fonnesbeck, Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick, Lauren

Frese, Brad Fuller, Barry Gaffney, Colleen Gaydos, Paul

Grove, Katy Hagan, Adrienne Hallett, Diana Hamilton, Ben

Hammond, Jonathan Harwitz, Lila Helms, Stewart Holmes,

Charles Houy, Doris Jackson, Virginia James, Rachel Jones.

Jon Kamarck, Dennis Kaplan, Kate Kaufer, Charles Kieffer,

Peter Kiefhaber, Jeff Kratz. Mark Laisch, Richard Larson,

Ellen Maldonado, Nikole Manatt, Stacy McBride, Matthew

McCardle, Meaghan McCarthy, Rachel Milberg, Mark Moore,

Fernanda Motta, Ellen Murray, Scott Nance.

Hong Nguyen, Nancy Olkewicz, Scott O'Malia, Thomas

Osterhoudt, Sudip Parikh, Melissa Petersen, Brian Potts,

Dianne Preece, Bob Putnam, Erik Raven, Gary Reese, Tim

Rieser, Peter Rogoff, Betsy Schmid, Rachelle Schroeder, Chad

Schulken.

LaShawnda Smith, Renan Snowden, Reggie Stewart, Goodloe

Sutton, Rachael Taylor, Bettilou Taylor, Christa Thompson,

Marianne Upton, Chip Walgren, Chris Watkins, Jeremy Weirich,

Augusta Wilson, Sarah Wilson, Brian Wilson, Franz

Wuerfmannsdobler, Michele Wymer, Bridget Zarate.

Sen. Robert MenendezD-NJ · Mar 10, 2009

Mr. President, I rise to engage my colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, in a colloquy. And as I do, let me start off by saying, we want to take a moment to discuss some important…

Mr. President, I rise to engage my colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, in a colloquy. And as I do, let me start off by saying, we want to take a moment to discuss some important provisions in the omnibus bill. I discussed these provisions at length last week on the Senate floor, and I want to give an update as to where things stand today.

As I discussed last week, 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 gone to the Foreign Relations Committee, they have not been subject to a vote in either body, and these modifications deserve a full examination. This has not taken place. Instead, this body would have been forced to swallow these changes in the crudest process I can imagine, without analysis, and without inclusion.

Since we have been unable to debate the substance of these provisions, I have asked for a clarification, along with my colleagues, to the Secretary of the Treasury on the implementation of these provisions and expressed my concern for their possible implications and the unproductive signals they might send to those who are fighting for democratic change on the island.

We did this to get clear, first, of what might have been major loopholes that could have been exploited by individuals or organizations seeking to circumvent the longstanding and necessary economic embargo. In response, Secretary Geithner has provided me with two letters that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

Section 620 liberalizes individual travel regulations to Cuba for the promotion of agricultural and medical sales. This provision would systemically broaden the category of licenses available and allow individuals, in a self-policing manner, to travel to the island under the auspices of selling such supplies.

While I am sympathetic to the U.S. agricultural industry, I remain concerned that provision was written with the aim not of benefitting the private sector but, rather, of undercutting the current travel regulations for individuals and putting a wedge in a broader issue of denying our currency to the Castro regime. Depending on how this provision was implemented, it could encourage a radical break in existing travel regulations and provide the Castro regime with enhanced financial benefit in the pursuit of its repressive policies.

As a result, we asked Secretary Geithner specifically how the provision would be implemented. Secretary Geithner assured us in his letter dated March 5, 2009:

Regulations promulgated pursuant to that provision,

[Section 620] will seek to ensure that only travel for

credible sales of food and medical products is authorized.

In his letter dated March 9, 2009, Secretary Geithner wrote:

The regulations promulgated pursuant to that to provision

[Section 620] would provide that the representatives of only

a narrow class of business would be eligible, under a new

general license, to travel to Cuba to market and sell

agricultural and medical goods. Any business using the

general license would be required to provide both advance

written notice outlining the purpose and scope of the planned

travel and, upon return, a report outlining the activities

conducted, including the persons with whom they met, the

expenses incurred, and business conducted in Cuba.

Section 622 concerns cash in advance payments. This provision would strip the ability of the Department of the Treasury to enforce a 2005 amendment that defined the term ``cash in advance.''

In his March 5 letter, Secretary Geithner wrote that the U.S. Treasury ``believes that this change likely will have no influence on current financing rules. The term `cash in advance' is in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 and therefore private parties are and will continue to be statutorily required to comply with those payment terms. Because the bill's language does not modify or negate the statutory requirement in the 2000 Act, exporters will still be required to receive payments in advance of shipment and will not be permitted to export to Cuba on credit other than through third-country banks.''

Which is the law today.

This comes particularly at a moment that is very important. The Paris Club recently announced that Cuba has defaulted on over $9 billion of obligations. At a time that we are facing challenges in the United States in terms of our financial institutions and credit, in general, to be giving credit to a country that has not only a repressive policy but has $30 billion in default is not, in my mind, good policy.

President Obama said:

My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word:

Libertad----

Which 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.

I could not agree more with President Obama on this point, and I fully support him in moving forward in this direction.

Finally, I know some of my colleagues might be confused about my persistence with this issue over the last couple of weeks. So let me clarify what, for me, is a principled position.

First, I have many citizens in New Jersey whose personal stories speak powerfully to the repression of the Castro regime. Many of them have spent 10 to 20 years of their lives in a prison cell. Their only crime was trying to seek peaceful change in their country. They are now proud U.S. citizens. But they languished in a jail for a decade or two decades simply for seeking to make peaceful change. Many of them were tortured in that process. They are a powerful reminder to me every day, when I am back in New Jersey, of that reality.

Second, let me propose that for some it is difficult to imagine the deep personal significance these changes have for the human rights and democracy activists on the island who fight for the ability to speak freely and think freely, as well as my own personal convictions on this issue that my family has both lived under and died trying to change.

Changes in our Nation's policy toward Cuba, such as changes in our Nation's policy toward any nation our country determines a state sponsor of terrorism--such as Iran, Sudan, and Syria--are extremely delicate policy issues. Any such changes in our policy with these countries deserve a democratic debate and careful deliberation. It is simply undemocratic to tuck them in the middle of a large unrelated but must-pass spending bill.

I thank Secretary Geithner for his understanding of the sensitivity of these issues, working with Senator Nelson and myself to ensure that the spirit of the legislation is carried out

in a responsible manner. I also thank my colleagues in the Senate who have worked with us on this and others who have understood and Majority Leader Reid for working with me on getting clarification on the implementation of these provisions. It is disappointing that the process unfolded in this way. We will look just as unkindly upon any future attempts to make significant foreign policy decisions of any sort, not only about Cuba, in this type of secretive and undemocratic manner. Instead, I wish to work with my colleagues in an open and transparent manner to deliberate the substance before we get to this point, even though, at the end of the day, we may still not find common ground. I would, of course, prefer that the provisions not be in this bill at all. But the assurances I have received from Secretary Geithner have allayed my most significant concerns, and I will vote in favor of the Omnibus appropriations bill.

I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, who has been an ally in this effort to ensure that the clarifications needed were there. He is a tremendous advocate for freedom and democracy for the people of Cuba. I was privileged to work with him in getting the clarifications and making sure we are in a position so human rights activists and political dissidents in Cuba still have their opportunity to create change.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Let me now make some broader comments about the omnibus, having expressed my concerns. And, again, in recognition and in light of the assurances we have received on the matter that Senator Nelson, Senator Martinez, and I have discussed, I have come to the floor today to support the omnibus bill.

It is an important measure to help our economy recover and keep essential public services running. It includes important funding for my home State of New Jersey, including everything from an initial burst of capital for a new trans-Hudson tunnel--incredibly important to move large numbers of people across the Hudson River to New York, and also for reverse commutes, for economic opportunity, access to hospitals, a whole host of critical issues in a way that is promoting mass transit and does so not only in terms of economic opportunity and an enormous number of jobs that will be created as a result of that but also as it relates to the quality of life and the environment by moving a lot more people in a high-speed, nonpolluting process versus through a car--to support for flood control and protection of our shore--which is incredibly important in terms of the tourism and fishing industry and the economy of New Jersey--to grants that allow local law enforcement to have the latest technology to help the police officer on the beat.

This bill invests in education, strengthening our commitment to science over the next decade so we can have a workforce that can compete on a global playing field and be second to no one in terms of that ability in those fields that are going to be the competitive future opportunities for our citizens and for our Nation.

It makes strong advances in health care. It includes more than $30 billion for lifesaving research so that the National Institutes of Health leaves no stone unturned in the search for treatment for cancer, for diabetes, and the Alzheimer's that I have watched take over my strong and proud mother.

The bill allows us to immunize an additional 15,000 children against debilitating diseases. And it funds the Patient Navigator program I established to help citizens make their way through a complicated health care system.

The legislation puts resources toward revitalizing local communities and keeping families in their homes--because the housing crisis is at the root of our overall economic crisis. It funds community and economic development in over 1,000 cities and towns, gives competitive grants to revitalize neighborhoods, and renews section 8 vouchers to help nearly 45,000 families keep a place to call home.

In short, the omnibus makes a broad range of the kind of worthy, needed investments that will help our economy recover and our citizens get through this difficult time. I am happy to see the Senate move forward on this vitally important legislation. Although I know I am not the only Senator to have felt frustration in this process, I wish to take this opportunity to express that I am always open to discussions with my colleagues, and I hope we can work together in the future to make sure in the greatest deliberative body in the world we will all do our part to deliberate before we take significant action.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Show 8 more