Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

What is the order, please?

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a couple issues. The first is to add my voice to the outrage over the bonuses to people who to say don't deserve it is an understatement. I used to work on Wall Street a very long time ago. You got a bonus when you did something good, when you brought business in, when you did well for the company, not when you brought the company down. It is disgusting, disgraceful. We are hearing outrage from all quarters of society, which means we are going to do something about it. I wanted to make sure I am on the record as saying the bonuses ought to be returned voluntarily and, if not, they ought to be taxed as close to 100 percent as we can get. I will be supporting that.

It is time to change the culture in corporate America. If you are going to turn to taxpayers for help, then don't squander their money. Work to pay it back as fast as you can and get back on your own. It is such an obvious point. I wish to praise the President for being clear on this point.

I also came to talk about the upcoming debate we will be having on the budget. I was a long-time member of the Budget Committee and then moved off to take other assignments. But I have always respected the work of that committee because the budget is truly a roadmap to the priorities of a nation. When we look at a budget, surely there will be certain items in it we may not want to agree with. We may want to trim it here and there. I don't agree with everything in the Obama budget. There are a few I will work to change. In general, at this time when we are suffering so economically, the priorities laid out are good for America and good for the State of California. I wish to talk about a couple of these priorities.

We know the Obama administration inherited an economic nightmare from George Bush's administration: 4.4 million jobs lost in the last 14 months; an unemployment rate that is soaring--in my State it is in double digits--12.5 million Americans unemployed, and a Federal debt that is going upward very quickly.

What is so interesting to me is that when Bill Clinton handed over the keys to the White House to George W. Bush, our budget was actually in a surplus. We actually had discussions in my household about the fact that the debt is going down so fast, we may not have the opportunity to buy any more Treasury bonds. Let's not forget what happened in 8 years. A budget surplus turned into outrageous deficits. The economy took a terrible turn for the worse. The debt began to soar.

Now we have a new President who ran on a platform of change. As I watch my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, save a few, they are fighting for the status quo. My belief is, if you fight for the status quo, that is not a passive act. It is a hostile act. Because the status quo has to change so we can relieve some of the pain in America. What President Obama does with this budget, very wisely, is to continue the economic stimulus he started with his economic stimulus bill.

He focuses on three priorities: education, health care, and clean energy. Everyone knows--and I know my friend in the chair has a young son--what President Obama said is true. Countries that outteach us today will outcompete us tomorrow. His young son and my grandchildren, if they don't get the education they deserve, will not have a chance to get that dream we had the opportunity to get in our generation. For every dollar invested in education, there is a $4 to $9 return in higher earnings, higher employment rates, less crime, less welfare, and in better health. The Obama plan will double the number of children served by Early Head Start and will expand Head Start. He will provide resources

to reward effective teachers and effective principals. He will increase the capacity of our young people to go to college on Pell grants. When we have a President who invests in education, we know we should support him because every dollar we invest comes back ninefold.

Then the President invests in health care. We know the biggest cause of bankruptcy in America is when a family is hit with a catastrophic health problem and they are uninsured or their insurance is capped. We know premiums have grown four times faster than wages in the last 8 years. Our President is going to finally take on the issue of health care. We should stand with him. Does that mean we will support every little thing he recommends? It may not. We may agree on 90 percent. But we will move on health care because not to do so, again, is a hostile act because the current situation is unsustainable. The cost to families today is unsustainable. The fear families have--what if somebody gets a catastrophic illness, what will happen--is unforgivable.

Lastly, we see our President investing in clean energy. What he is doing is looking at the future and recognizing that the old energy is not going to sustain us. If we want to lead the world, we have to do what Thomas Friedman suggests in his book ``Hot, Flat, and Crowded''-- step out and invent the new clean energy technologies. In doing that, we will lead the world in green jobs. We will lead the world in exports. If we adopt the cap-and-trade plan that is recommended by our President, we will see a robust economy because, once you put a price on carbon, all the other alternatives come up behind it, and it will lead us out of this economic morass.

I believed it important to come to the Chamber today to speak to these two issues. We cannot abide by the outrageous bonuses in a company led by people who took the company down. We can't abide by that. In addition, we need to work with our new President and bring about the change he promised in his campaign. That change is reflected in his budget.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, during consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, members of the minority party attempted to attach amendments in an effort to delay passage of this important bill. Because further delay in passing this bill could have resulted in the shutdown of the Federal Government, I voted against all amendments to the bill.

I believe that this omnibus bill is important for job growth and will help revitalize our economy. That must be our concern at this critical time.

I would like to clarify my position of some of these amendments:

Amendment 630 would have required the Secretary of State to report on whether additional military aid to Egypt could be used to counter the illegal smuggling of weapons into Gaza. The omnibus bill already explicitly authorizes the use of military aid provided to Egypt for border security programs so the amendment was completely unnecessary.

Amendment 631 would have prohibited funds for reconstruction efforts in Gaza unless the administration certifies that the funds will not be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. The Omnibus bill and permanent law already prohibit any funds from being provided to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas so this amendment was also completely unnecessary.

Amendment 634 would have prevented funds in this bill from going to companies that assist Iran's energy sector. While I have long supported tough action against Iran for its illicit nuclear program, sending this provision back to the House of Representatives could have endangered final passage of the bill.

Amendment 613 would have cut off all U.S. funding for the United Nations if it imposes any tax on any United States person. The U.N. has never imposed a tax, is not a taxing organization, and if the U.N. ever decided it wanted to impose a tax the U.S. would veto it. This amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 604 would have extended the E-Verify worker identification program for an additional five years. The omnibus bill already contains a 6-month extension of this program.

Amendment 662 would prohibit the use of funds by the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate the fairness doctrine. On February 26, 2009, I voted in favor of an amendment offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina to prevent the FCC from promulgating the fairness doctrine. This amendment passed the Senate as part of S. 160, the Washington, DC voting rights bill. Also, there are no provisions in the omnibus bill related to the fairness doctrine, making this amendment unnecessary.

Amendment 604 repeals the provision of the Legislative Reorganization Act which grants Members an automatic pay adjustment each year. The amendment would take effect beginning December 11, 2010, and would require the enactment of new legislation to grant Members a pay raise. I believe the junior Senator from Louisiana was doing nothing more than playing politics with his amendment, as he objected to passing a stand- alone bill offered by the Senate majority leader that would have accomplished the same goal as the Vitter amendment. I would have supported passing the majority leader's bill.

Mr. President, Senator Vitter wants to bring this bill down. He wants to score political points. Do you know what is in this bill? We stop our pay raise from next year. He wants to bring this bill down. We stop our pay raise in this bill. Senator Reid offered a unanimous consent request. All of us could have gone right down the aisle here together saying every year we vote on a cost-of-living raise. So don't be fooled by this. The people need our help, the help that is offered in this bill. People are unemployed. There is funding in this bill to get them back to work, to do the business of government. This bill stops our pay raise. This is a cheap shot, in my opinion. We ought to vote no.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues the memory of a remarkable man, Mr. Wyman Hicks of Marin County. Mr. Hicks passed away on February 4, 2009, at the age of 90. Mr. Hicks was a passionate activist, educator, and inventor who contributed selflessly to the military, government, and his community.

Wyman Hicks was born in Oakland, CA, on June 25, 1918. A bright child whose family experienced the hardships of poverty, Mr. Hicks developed a strong sense of justice and community service early in life. While attending the University of California at Berkeley, Mr. Hicks spent his summers in Alaska helping laborers and workers form a union.

In 1938, Mr. Hicks traveled to Germany, where he helped German Jews find sponsors to help them escape to America. After receiving warnings from the U.S. consul that the Gestapo wanted to arrest him, Mr. Hicks returned to California to help farm workers in the Central Valley.

During the Second World War, Mr. Hicks enlisted in the Army. He became a captain in the Signal Corps serving in New Guinea and the Philippines, and worked to rebuild Japan after the war. Mr. Hicks returned to Berkeley on the GI bill, where he received his bachelor's and master's degrees in economics. Later, as the director of new product development at Crown Zellerbach, Mr. Hicks contributed to the development of the strap-handled shopping bag.

Wyman Hicks demonstrated a lifelong dedication to education, community governance, and civil rights. He served on the Sausalito City Council and the Bay Area Air Quality District Board, and was an active member of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Congress of Racial Equality. Mr. Hicks served as president of the Marin County Day School, and later became a professor in the management department of Sonoma State College. In 1987 he married Diana King.

From 1988 until 1991, Mr. Hicks was a member of my staff. His service to the U.S. Congress was invaluable, and for that I am grateful. Mr. Hicks was a generous man who dedicated his life to public service. He will be deeply missed.

Wyman is survived by his wife Diana King; his sons Kevin Hicks and Todd Hicks; his wife's sons Avi Rappoport and Richard Haven, and his five grandchildren.

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

Mr. President, we have a series of votes. I believe the first one will be the Murkowski amendment. I rise to speak against it. I think if you vote for the Murkowski amendment, what you are endorsing is a process that is something that should not be encouraged, which is a President in the waning hours doing a midnight regulation to overturn a law.

Let me repeat that. What Senator Murkowski is doing is she is removing language in this bill that reversed two midnight regulations the Bush administration put into place, without proper hearing, without going through the comment period the way they should, ignoring the public, ignoring the science, and, in essence, doing a backdoor repeal of the Endangered Species Act.

Now, that is not right. It happens to be that one of these dealt with the polar bear, which, as you probably know, was listed as a threatened species by the Bush administration. But then people looked at the Endangered Species Act and said: My goodness, we do not know what can happen if we now declare that the polar bear is not only threatened but endangered. We better take away the protection of the Endangered Species Act from the polar bear.

Whether you care about the survival of the polar bear, as do I, or whether you do not, it seems to me what the Murkowski amendment does is to say that we approve of the President of any party, acting in a capricious way, overturning a law that was passed by Republicans and Democrats.

She not only deals with the polar bear, but she also deals with another very important rule that says, before there is a major development, Federal agencies have to check with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make sure we are not destroying God's creation.

I do not understand the thinking behind it. We have laws in place to protect endangered species. If we do not like the Endangered Species Act, if we have decided we do not care about polar bears or we do not care about bald eagles or we do not care about any of this, we want to do away with it, let Lisa Murkowski and any of my colleagues come and move to overturn and

overrule and abolish the Endangered Species Act.

But let's not send a signal tonight that Presidents of either party can, at the waning hours of their Presidency--and I do not care if it is a Democrat or Republican--can willy-nilly, with the stroke of a pen, decide to do away with the protections of an act that was a landmark environmental law.

If you do not like the law, come here, tell me why, let's talk. Maybe we can fix parts of it, maybe we cannot. Maybe we can rework parts of it, maybe we cannot. But let's not allow Presidents to simply do away with these laws when they may prove to be inconvenient.

I hope we will vote against the Murkowski amendment, whether we want to protect the polar bear or we do not, whether we care about the bald eagle or we do not. That is up to us to decide. But let's not say tonight in this vote that we approve of an Executive doing away with the protections of Federal law with the stroke of a pen without a hearing, without the comments, without the scientists, without working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

I hope we will have a strong vote against the Murkowski amendment.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I am sorry to take back the time so quickly, but I want to place in the Record a number of editorials from around the country that have come out against the Murkowski amendment. One is from the Miami Herald entitled ``Who needs those pesky scientists?'' Another is entitled ``Endangered Process, Proposed rule changes to the Endangered Species Act could do lasting harm in the natural world.'' ``Unnecessary ESA Rewrite,'' that is from the Bangor Daily News. ``Gutting the law'' is from St. Louis Today. ``Endangered law: Bush rule change ignores science--again.'' That is from the Salt Lake Tribune. Here is one from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: ``Endangered species: A 9-second rewrite.'' ``A complete sham, Public comments given curt review in rush to dilute the Endangered Species Act.'' That is from the Las Vegas Sun. ``Shredder is overheating in Bush's final months.'' That is from the Virginian Pilot. These editorials were written when George Bush issued the executive orders.

Senator Murkowski's amendment would say: Fine, let it stand. The underlying bill reverses these midnight regulations and goes back to the status quo ante and back to the regular order.

I ask unanimous consent the editorials be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 613

Mr. President, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill would provide $5 million for design and real estate activities and pump supply elements for the Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant and for activities associated with the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge. I want to clarify that nothing in the language is intended to: (1) override or otherwise affect the final determination that was effective August 31, 2008, and published in the Federal Register on September 19, 2008, of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act that prohibits the use of wetlands and other waters of the United States in Issaquena County, MS, as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged or fill material for the construction of the proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project, (2) create or imply any exception with respect to the project to the requirements of the Clean Water Act, including any exceptions from the prohibitions and regulatory requirements of the Clean Water Act under section 404(r); or (3) affect the application of any other environmental laws with respect to the project.

As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act and authorizations for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers, I believe it is critical that our environmental laws be adhered to in the planning, construction, and operation and maintenance of all Corps of Engineers' projects.

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 think it is a good time to take stock of where we are on this bill and to give my thoughts and feelings to my colleagues on why it is so important to get it done and move it swiftly.

The bill that is before us is unfinished business. It is an Omnibus appropriations bill that finishes up the funding for this year. The reason we are in this situation is for a variety of reasons, including an election, and the appropriations bills did not get done. Some of them did, but most of them did not get done. This bill wraps them up in a package, and here is where we are. We have two choices: Either we pass this bill the way it is or we go back to the continuing resolution which takes us back a year and a half ago.

It is very important for us to consider that point because a year and a half ago, life in America was very different. A year and a half ago, we were not in the jam we are in now economically. We did not see homes being lost at such a rapid rate. We did not see unemployment figures going into the double digits in some of our States, including California, which I am so proud to represent, my State. But it has over 10 percent unemployment at this time. If we go backward, as Senator McCain is suggesting, and other colleagues, if we go backward to the continuing resolution approach where we ignore everything that has happened, then we have a budget for this year that is irrelevant in many aspects.

Why do I say that? In this particular omnibus bill--which I am sure has flaws, because nothing in life is perfect--we do address the housing crisis. In this omnibus bill, we do give the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the funding it needs to move against these Ponzi schemes and these frauds that are being perpetrated on the people. In this bill, we do more for education. We do more for health care. In this bill, we step up to the best of our ability to address some of these problems.

We know that if any of these amendments are adopted, it is going to weigh this bill down because the House has acted and said basically: This is last year's business; we don't want to get bogged down with it. Either take it or leave it. That is where we are.

As I have said often on this floor, we usually do not have a chance to get the perfect bill around here. It is very difficult to get the perfect bill, unless each of us wrote it his or her own way. Then it would be perfect for us.

Clearly, there are issues with this bill. But I want to say again, if you were sitting with your family and you went back to last year's budget and all of a sudden you realized that in the last 12 months, things had radically changed in your family--let's say you had a child who got sick with a terrible disease, let's say that your grandma had to go into a nursing home and she needed certain things--you would realize that last year's budget does not fit what your requirements are. You would have to address your child's health, your grandma's situation to be relevant for the year.

It doesn't always mean spending more money. I am not suggesting that at all. But this omnibus bill does respond to the needs of our people. Put that together with the stimulus bill, which is finally beginning to bear fruit out there--and I am excited about it because we are starting to see the funding flow to our States, we are starting to see people get back to work. Once we do this, it is another boost to the people of our great country.

These amendments that are coming at us at the end of the day, I believe many of them are meant to weigh this bill down, to take this bill off course. I am going to talk about a couple of those amendments.

Senator Coburn has an amendment for he says, the worst projects in the world--whatever he calls it. He is going after them. And one of those projects that he picks is one I was proud to get in here. So I want to talk about it because I am proud of it. The way Senator Coburn describes it, you wouldn't know what I did.

He says there is money in the bill for the Great Park in Orange County. But what he doesn't say is there is funding in here, and it is not that much funding compared to a lot of these items--$475,000 to restore the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station hangar No. 244. This hangar was opened in 1943 to house aircraft during World War II. The hangar is being renovated. It is being turned into a military history museum and a welcoming center for the park.

This particular $475,000 is not going for anything other than the renovation of this hangar to bring it back to life, to serve as a tribute to our veterans and to their military service. It will be on the site of what used to be a leading military installation on the west coast. Millions of U.S. military personnel during World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War passed through El Toro. This base reuse project honors our military history and the service and the sacrifice of our military men and women.

This is not the first time my Republican friends have gone after veterans. I had another funding request. We were able to win that one, and we will win this one, too. I believe it. They were going after a program to help disabled veterans get back to a normal life. They actually did that. But we beat them then, and we will beat them now.

The hangar needs a number of repairs and upgrades to make it suitable for public use. This deals with the upgrade of electricity, fire safety systems. And 100 jobs will be created. Not bad. Mr. President, 100 jobs will be created through the rehab of this building, and another 10 to 20 full-time jobs will be created to staff the facility when it is built.

Here is the thing. Orange County, in which this particular project resides, is a Republican county. Registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by 235,000 voters, and they voted for this project 58 to 42 percent in an election where 500,000 votes were cast. Yet I have a Senator who comes on the floor and tries to say this is some frivolous, horrible project. I resent it, and so do the veterans resent it.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of letters from veterans very concerned about Senator Coburn's amendment.

Mr. President, here is one letter. It is to Members of Congress signed ``Semper Fi, Clifton Wallace.'' He is a retired marine. He says:

I'd like to publicly add my emphatic support for the

project to renovate Hangar 244 at the former Marine Corps

Station El Toro, California now the Orange County Great Park.

I served as a pilot . . . from 1977 until I retired in 1999

and feel it is extremely important that Hangar 244 be

renovated and restored to its historical condition.

Hangar 244 is an original hangar from the 1940s and the

last remaining historic hangar at the Great Park. It must be

renovated and preserved to not only preserve the building but

also the heritage of five decades of service to our nation's

defense. . . .

He says:

On October 2, 2008, the Orange County Great Park

Corporation conducted an ``El Toro Homecoming'' event which

honored veterans from World War II that were stationed at

[this base]. Several hundred WWII veterans attended this

historically important and emotional tribute conducted in

Hangar 244 resulting in rich memories and moving stories by

the men and women who served our nation during this time of

great need. I strongly encourage support for the Hangar 244

renovation project and strongly request that the funds [be

there].

That is one. And this goes on veteran after veteran. Senator Coburn comes to the floor and talks about the Great Park and the free balloon rides that the kids have there. What does that have to do with this line item that turns this hangar into a museum for those who put their life on the line? I will say, Senator Coburn has gotten them so riled up and so worked up and so upset. For what reason? None that I can see.

So here is a circumstance where we have a line item our veterans want. One of them talks about visiting Europe and saying how much more the Europeans have preserved these memories of their fighting men and women compared to our country and he begs Senators not to strip this out.

Here we have a circumstance where Senator Coburn is saying I have a line item that is about ``the Great Park,'' but he does not say what the purpose of the line item is: to restore the hangar and turn it into a military museum and a visitor center to celebrate those who have given so much to our Nation.

Then we have another amendment by Senator Murkowski. What she wants to do is go back to the bad old days of the Friday night midnight rules that the Bush administration took at the very end of their days here. The midnight rules were put in place and ran roughshod over the rights of the public to participate in the rulemaking process.

The language in the bill goes back to the status quo ante. In other words, it goes back to before the Bush administration issued its midnight rules.

On December 11, 2008, almost 35 years to the day after the Endangered Species Act became law, and after the Republicans lost the election, the Bush administration issued a midnight rule which allows Federal agencies to decide unilaterally that consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service are not necessary when there is any type of development proposal. That midnight rule made a mockery of the process we are supposed to follow.

According to press reports, a Department of Interior e-mail indicated the Fish and Wildlife Service received 300,000 comments on the proposed rule. The agency reviewed 200,000 of these

comments in 32 hours. This is an average of 6,000 comments every hour. Let's face it, Mr. President, I don't care how many people you had looking at these comments, it is not possible that they could have reviewed the outcry from all over the country.

Now, who agrees with me? Dozens of groups. I am going to read some of the groups that said: No, don't do this. Yet they did it anyway:

The Audubon, American Rivers, Arizona Wilderness Coalition,

Californians for Western Wilderness, Center for Biological

Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered Species

Coalition, Friends of Red Rock Canyon, Friends of the

Missouri Breaks Monument, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, the

Trust for Public Land, the Wilderness Society, Union of

Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, Partnership for

the National Trails System, Natural Resources Defense

Council, Oregon Natural Desert Association, National Trust

for Historic Preservation . . .

I am not reading them all, Mr. President, so I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire list.

Mr. President, you have the Bush administration, after they lost the election, take this step, not even looking at the peer- reviewed scientific evidence. The CRS--the Congressional Research Service--said there appears to be little additional protections by this act.

So they had two of these midnight rules. One dealt with the consultations they are supposed to have with environmental agencies before permits are given; the second one had to do with the polar bear. The Bush administration determined that the polar bear is a threatened species, and we all know, just from a little bit of reading or watching TV, that the polar bear is endangered or, I would say, certainly threatened because the ice habitat is melting literally under their feet. The Endangered Species Act applies to the polar bear. Oh, no, the Bush administration said, we are going to deny key protections for the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. So they unilaterally decided by a rule that the only thing that will apply to the polar bear is marine mammal protection, not the Endangered Species Act, and the Bush administration put in this special rule without any notice or comment. They simply decided they wanted to eliminate the ESA's protections for the polar bear, and once again they ran roughshod over the process.

So in this omnibus bill, this is all we do. We say let's go back to regular order. Let's go back to the status quo ante. Let's go back to the way it was before these midnight rules were passed. I am very disappointed we have to vote on this because I think it is a matter of common sense and pride in the place we work. We need to follow a process.

It has nothing to do with how one feels about the polar bear. Frankly, I am heartbroken when I see what is happening to the polar bear. Other people may not be moved by it, may not be touched by it. But it doesn't matter how one feels about the polar bear. What matters is that we stand for the laws we passed in this great country under Republican and Democratic administrations, and the Endangered Species Act was one of those. If we see it isn't working, we can take steps, but let's not shortcut the process. So I hope we will oppose the Murkowski amendment.

Again, not everybody will agree with me the polar bear deserves protection under ESA. Not everybody will agree with me that before a permit is granted there ought to be consultation with Fish and Wildlife. Frankly, I think that is a very modest and moderate position to take and a commonsense position. But don't support an amendment which just says: To heck with what the public says. We don't care. It doesn't matter. Cut it short. Remove the Endangered Species Act. Remove the consultation process. That is not a way to go, and especially for the Bush administration to do it after the election, on one of those late-night announcements. Let's give this administration a chance to take a look at both of these rules, take a look at making sure the scientists are listened to, the public is listened to.

So, again, in closing, I want to say this in summing up. Senator Coburn has attacked the veterans in my State by calling a line item in this bill one of the worst projects in this bill. He actually did. The veterans in my State are up in arms, and I put the letters in the Record and I hope we will vote against the Coburn amendment. The way he has presented it is so unfair to my veterans. He talks about free balloon rides and the Great Park. The funding here is simply to refurbish a historic hangar, the only hangar at El Toro that can be preserved to remember these veterans. So I hope we will vote that down, and I hope we will vote down the Murkowski amendment because if you vote for her amendment, friends, what you are saying is the process should be truncated; that it doesn't matter who the President is-- President Obama.

In other words, if you vote for this as a process, you are saying to this new President: Well, we support your being able to just decide whatever you want; to ignore the public comments, ignore the scientists; just get up and do whatever you want at midnight. I think that is wrong, and I don't care if the President is Republican or Democrat, we shouldn't do it that way. It isn't the right way to do it.

So I hope we will take a stand against that kind of government, and I hope we will take a stand in favor of my veterans. I hope we can, in fact, pass this bill and get on with our business because the option is to go back to a bill that was written--basically, it goes back to the old budget, before we had all the problems we have now. I think it is looking backwards. I think it is putting our government in reverse at a time when we need to move forward with confidence. I believe passing this bill is an important part of what we need to do this week.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I have not seen those modifications.

Now I am being told they are very minor. In that case I will not object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 9 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Where Were the Watchdogs? Systemic Risk and the Breakdown of Financial Governance.''

Mr. President, President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry'' on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance--Obtaining the Names of U.S. Clients with Swiss Accounts.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 562.

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

Mr. President, I have been listening to the various colleagues on the Republican side who are continuing to be the party of ``nope'' instead of the party of ``hope.'' I came to the floor to say that it is very easy to say no to this and no to that. But I have to tell you, the American people need leadership. When you say ``nope, nope, nope,'' it means you are in fact endorsing the status quo, and the status quo is a major problem.

I see my friend from Washington on the floor. I know she had intended to speak. I will be glad to stop at this time and ask unanimous consent that following her remarks, I be recognized.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on the other side for giving us this little extra time. I intend to speak about 5 minutes. If the Chair will tell me when I have a minute to go, I would appreciate it.

Mr. President, before Senator Murray leaves the floor, I wish to thank her for her very clear explanation as to the choice that is before us. If I could restate it in my own way, it is a choice right now that Senator McCain is giving us through his particular amendment, which would give us an option to go back to the budget of 2008 instead of moving forward with a current budget that reflects the needs and priorities of our Nation right now.

I do not have to tell you what has happened to our country in the last several months and in the last year. We are seeing an unprecedented recession. My personal belief is we are going to get out of this. My personal belief is there are some signs out there even in my State, which is struggling mightily with an over 10 percent unemployment rate, we see some small signs here of life. For example, sales of existing homes in California went up 100 percent in January over the year before. I might say these are mostly sales of foreclosed homes. This is a good thing. We are looking for a bottom. But if we go back to old policies, if we go back to a budget that doesn't reflect the realities we face now, we are going backward.

So we passed a stimulus package--and I am so grateful we did that. Our President led us in that. Democrats stuck together. We got three independent-thinking Republicans to join us, and we challenged the status quo and we passed it.

And now today we are facing another such choice between a budget of the past offered to us by Senator McCain, and a budget of the present. Senator Murray was eloquent in going through all of the things--not all of the things, but some of the things. I am going to talk about a couple of others.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission gets an increase. If we go back to the old bill, as Senator McCain wants, we do not get that increase. What are we doing over there in the Consumer Product Safety Commission? Protecting our children from dangerous toys.

Senator Murray talked about families losing housing. That will be the reality if we go with the McCain approach to a continuing resolution. The FHA will have to stop helping families facing foreclosure. Senator Murray pointed that out.

Here is one I will point out, enforcement of security laws. Inadequate resources for the SEC. This would hamper their ability to finally undertake investigation enforcement against these Ponzi schemes. Do we want to go back to the old budget before we knew about these Ponzi schemes? I think it would be irresponsible. It would be more of the party of nope; nope, we cannot fix this, nope, we cannot do that. I want to stand for hope, not nope.

We talked about the air traffic controllers. There are also food and medical product safety inspections. We would provide the FDA with an increase of $325 million so they can make sure we do not see people getting sick from eating peanut butter that is contaminated.

There is so much more Federal law enforcement effort through the Department of Justice. In the FBI, there would be 650 fewer FBI agents. Is this a time we want to do that, as we are continuing the war against terror?

In my last 2 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that I have an additional 2 minutes.

We see in this bill, brought to us by the Appropriations Committee, and I might say, in a bipartisan fashion--am I right on that--Senator Inouye, working hard with the senior members of the committee, such as my colleague, Senator Murray--we see a bill that is relevant to the problems of today, not an old bill that is offered up by Senator McCain going backward, looking backward, going in reverse. It does not make any sense. If you sit down with your family today to discuss the issues of the day, and you avoid talking about the fact that one child has gotten very ill and requires a lot of changes in your family budget, then your family budget is not going to accommodate for what has happened to your family. America is a family. This is a Government of, by, and for the people.

The last point I want to make, Senator Coburn has been on the floor bashing the congressional priorities that are in this bill, and he happened to hit on one of mine. I want to set the record straight. We have a county in our State, Orange County. It is the biggest Republican county in the State. The voters voted, 58 percent, to take a former Marine Corps air station and turn it into what is called a great park. It is going to be a diverse development. In this bill, we have answered the call of the local veterans group that wants to protect the great history of El Toro, and they want to convert an old hangar that was opened in 1943 into a military history museum and a welcoming center for the park. This response to that request will put people to work refurbishing this old Air Force base. So the Senator from Oklahoma has railed against it. He attacks a balloon ride for children. That is not what we are funding. We are funding a military museum.

Let's listen carefully. I hope we will support our leaders on the Appropriations Committee and vote down the continuing resolution as an option.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak about a terrible thing that happened in his home State. I am going to be asking unanimous consent at the appropriate time to move a bill, H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act. I will preface it first by saying to my friend, Senator Lieberman, that in his State there was a horrific attack.

Yes. It was an attack by a nonhuman primate--a chimpanzee in this case--that was a household pet, against a woman. Without going into the terrible details, I think the whole country was shocked at what occurred there.

Many of us have been saying for a long time that we need to fix this problem. In 1978, importing nonhuman primates to the U.S. for pet trade was banned by the CDC in regulations. But now you can still trade these primates in the pet trade and sell them for use as pets. We say it is time to end that.

I know Senator Coburn is going to object to our moving this bill which was passed by the House quickly and in a bipartisan way with just a handful of ``no'' votes. Can't we come together on this? The fact is, our bill says we are going to ban pet trading of these nonhuman primates, and we are going to get this done one way or another. We will not get it done today because Senator Coburn will object for his reasons. I believe it is important to state that our bill--and this is a Boxer-Vitter bill--has no impact on trade or transportation of animals for zoos or scientific research facilities or other federally licensed and regulated entities. All we are saying is that it is dangerous to keep as a pet a nonhuman primate. We saw this in Connecticut, but that was not the only time. There have been many examples. When we get this done, we will list those. We have been trying to get this passed for a long time. Senator Coburn objected. We will get around it at some point in time.

Primates can harbor many infectious diseases that can readily jump from species to humans. As a result, the CDC, back in 1975, said: No, no importation of those nonhuman primates unless it is for medical reasons or a zoo or to a Federal body that is going to oversee it. Listen to how many people have been injured. More than 150 people. How about children? Do you care about children? Forty children were injured by these nonhuman primates between 1995 and 2009. Nineteen States, including my own, have prohibited these animals as pets. Fourteen States restrict or partially ban their use as pets because many of these animals move in interstate commerce.

Federal legislation is needed. You would think this is a no-brainer-- you would think. Who supports this legislation? Well, the House of Representatives just passed it overwhelmingly on suspension of the rules. It wasn't even a problem over there. The Humane Society of the United States supports it. The American Veterinary Medical Association supports it. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums supports it. The Jane Goodall Institute supports it. The Wildlife Conservation Society supports it. That is a very small portion. I cannot believe I actually had to come out here today.

With all due respect to my friend, he will have his reasons, but, honestly, I hoped that once in a while we could work together on a bill that is so obvious in its need.

We know these nonhuman primates have not been bred and domesticated over thousands of years like dogs or cats. It is a whole different world there. That is why the veterinarians support us. Nobody loves pets more than the Humane Society. Nobody loves pets more, but they know what can happen. A woman got her face ripped off.

So I am not going to go into the details of the attack at this time, but if I have to I will to get the votes of colleagues.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act, which was received from the House; and, further, that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes following my friend from Oklahoma, and then I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sanders have 15 minutes on his subject.

Madam President, while my friend was speaking, I went back to my staff because this is not the first time we have had a problem on it. We had it in the big Coburn package of bills, and I remember my friend at that time made it the centerpiece of his objection. My staff has talked with his staff over and over again. The Republican staff on my committee, from where this bill came, has talked to the Senator over and over again.

I am happy to sit down with my friend. Maybe we can work this out. But here is the point. My friend says that what happened to this woman is unfortunate. No, what happened to this woman is a tragedy.

We do not go in and take away pets from anybody, if you read this bill. If you have a pet, you have a pet as long as you are living within the laws of your State. We ban the interstate trade because that is how this thing is moving forward. People get these pets, and they sell them across State lines. That is how we ban a lot of bad in this country. It is the way we have done it for a long time.

I just want to say to my friend, I didn't know this rose to the level where he and I should speak. I am delighted to sit down and talk with him. But the fact is, our staffs have been working with his staff for a very long time on this issue. Senator Vitter's staff and Senator Inhofe's staff have been working with the Senator's staff to try to get a breakthrough.

I hope the two of us can sit down, and maybe without our staffs-- maybe the problem is our staffs. I have a great staff. I am sure Senator Coburn does too. But maybe there is something that got in the way of their being able to resolve it. But I think he and I should sit down, and I will try to see if I can move this again, maybe with some kind of way we can fix it that doesn't give the Senator heartburn.

Honest to God, I say to my friend, we have made sure nobody is going to be invaded by a police force and lose their pet. That is not in here. Only if you try to move it across State lines, you wouldn't be allowed to sell your pet so that pet can injure somebody. Nobody is taking away anybody's pets. Nobody is stopping the zoos from getting these pets. Nobody is stopping research facilities from getting these pets. That is why we have such strong support for this legislation.

I am not a person who says my way or the highway, believe me. I have been here too long. I have gotten too many

bills passed. I will sit down with my friend. He is right that 90-some people on the other side voted no, but 300-some people voted aye. So we must have done something right here when we got over 300 votes in a body that has a hard time getting bipartisanship.

I say what we did right is we have a balanced bill. We allow these pets to be used for that which helps humanity, but we will, in effect, stop the interstate trade, the profitable pet trade which is leading us into a situation where we have seen so many injuries of children--40 children, about 100 adults injured between 1995 and 2009.

I am encouraged that my friend wants to work with me. I am going to go right over there as soon as I finish these remarks and figure out a way we can work on this issue because we do not want to wake up another day and read about somebody having an injury that is so horrific and horrible that they will never have a normal life when it is in our power to do what is right here and move forward.

I will not renew my request, but I will another day at a date, hopefully, when I have the support of my friend.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a dedicated public servant, SGT Greg Hernandez of the Tulare County Sheriff's Department. Sergeant Hernandez's life was tragically cut short on February 6, 2009, as a result of injuries from a vehicle accident that occurred while he was on duty.

Sergeant Hernandez dutifully served the citizens and communities for 24 years as a valued member of the Tulare County Sheriff's Department. Sergeant Hernandez demonstrated a passion for law enforcement and commitment to helping others, qualities that earned him the respect of his colleagues at the Tulare County Sheriff's Department. Sergeant Hernandez shall always be remembered for his devotion to serving the public and his friendly nature.

Sergeant Hernandez is survived by his mother Rosa Hernandez of Farmersville and his daughter Kristina Marie Hernandez of Porterville. When he was not spending time with his family and friends, Sergeant Hernandez was a devoted sportsman who enjoyed fishing, softball, and golf.

Sergeant Hernandez served the county of Tulare with honor and distinction, and fulfilled his oath as an officer of the law. His selfless contributions and dedication to law enforcement are greatly appreciated and will serve as an example of his legacy.

We shall always be grateful for Sergeant Hernandez's service and the sacrifices he made while serving and protecting the people of Tulare County.

Mr. President, what is the current order?

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I am going to speak about Hilda Solis, someone I know very well, and someone I am very proud of.

I could not help but hear the comments of Senator Sessions about this borrowing, and I do not know where Senator Sessions has been over the past 8 years, when we saw the debt go from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. And that was George Bush's program, supported by the Republicans. It went to Iraq. It went to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. All of a sudden, there is this newfound worry because we believe it is time the American people, who work for a living and who are struggling, get a hand out of this recession.

As we will hear tonight from our new President, he understands that there is a time to stimulate this economy and then, of course, in the long term, as we Democrats did under Bill Clinton, get back to a balanced budget.

In a moment.

We did it. We did it without one Republican vote. We passed the Clinton budget. I have the names of the Senators. I was fortunate enough to have a good researcher give me those. What they said when we passed that budget--we passed that budget under Bill Clinton because Al Gore, the Vice President, broke a tie. We couldn't get one Republican vote. And here is what they said, to a person: This budget is going to set us on the course of a recession. This budget is going to set us on the course of deficit spending. Guess what. They couldn't have been more wrong. That budget set us off on a course of the best economy known to humankind in peacetime--23 million new jobs and a balanced budget with a surplus. I remember looking at my children--because the debt was on the way down so fast at that time under Bill Clinton and the Democrats--and I said: What are we going to do? We can't buy Treasury bonds. There won't be any more. We won't have to borrow anymore. So it is extraordinary to me that my colleagues come up here now and they say: We can't spend this money.

Yes, it is true people are hurting. My State has over 9 percent unemployment. There are pockets, I say to my friends, of 18 percent unemployment. I think the American people know there are no panaceas here. They know it is going to be hard. They know we may make mistakes, but they also know this: They want us to present hope to them--hope. Frankly, I wish to be associated with hope, not nope: Nope, we can't do this; nope, we can't do that; nope, it would be better not to do this. The American people--and I see what they are saying to people who ask them--are patient, and they know it is going to take some time. Yes, we may have to inject some funds into this economy because $1 trillion was lost out of this economy due to the recession. So yes, we are, in fact, injecting hope into this economy. We will pay it back. We will get back onto a balanced budget. We will do it in time, and we will do it responsibly.

I am happy to yield to my friend without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, I will take that as a question: Do I support President Obama's commitment to wrap his arms around the deficit and to do it with us, Republicans and Democrats? You bet I do, because I did it before under Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, then, we couldn't get one Republican vote. I praise my friend for showing the deficits under George Bush. I do. But I have to simply say--and this is a fact, this is a proven fact--that we didn't hear much from that side of the aisle when we had an open checkbook for Iraq. In fact, we didn't hear anything. They kept it open. We didn't hear much when they kept giving tax breaks to people who earn over $1 million, and that is what got us into this fix.

Right now, as a temporary measure, yes, we are going to have to spend some. As I know President Obama will lay out tonight, he wants to jolt and jump-start this economy. We are going to do it.

I am so proud we were able to reach across party lines in this Senate and get three Republicans to join us. I am so pleased that in my home State, we got six Republicans to join the Democrats and pass a budget there because when I went home--I went to Sacramento, our capital, and they were in deadlock. I think one of the things that helped me and others make the case was that we had to put party aside. We had to put ideology aside. We had to put egos aside. We did it with the stimulus bill because we only had three options there and they only had three options for the budget in California.

One option is do nothing and be the party of nope instead of the party of hope. Do nothing. Do nothing. Well, when you do nothing, that is not a passive act. Doing nothing is, it seems to me, a hostile act. It is a hostile act on the working families of this country and of my State. So doing nothing, I believe, is irresponsible.

Now, the other thing one could say in light of the stimulus or a budget one doesn't like is: I want to do it my way. My way or the highway. Here is my bill. I have written it. It is great. I have the perfect solution. Well, clearly, I am going to be able to write the perfect bill for me. My friend from Delaware can write the perfect bill for him. My friend from Georgia, I know he can write the perfect bill for Georgia. They love him there, and he would reflect everything they want. But at the end of the day, it doesn't work that way. That is also saying nope.

So the only answer, it seems to me--the only answer--is for us to compromise. That is what we did on the stimulus. That is what my State Republicans did, six of them.

By the way, they got censured by the party in my State. I just can't believe it. I just can't believe it. There was anger because they said they would never raise taxes and they signed a pledge. Well, you have to understand we are in uncharted waters with this downturn. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every month. We all want to keep our pledges, but once in a while you have to look inside yourself and say: How can I help the people of my State?

So I say to those Republicans here who helped us, I say to the Republicans at home in the State of California who helped us: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Because there are moments when we do have to take a risk in life for the greater good.

I am looking forward to hearing the President tonight because I think what he is going to do--because I have watched him--he is going to give us an honest assessment of where we are as a nation. He is not going to sugarcoat where we are. He is going to tell it like it is, but then he is going to offer hope. He has a lot to say on that because we did get that first piece of the economic recovery bill through, the stimulus

bill--very important. I think he is going to show us through the housing plan he has that it is going to help ordinary people. My friend from Georgia is here, and he worked so hard to get a tax credit in the stimulus bill for new home purchases. These are the kinds of things we need to embrace, regardless of political party. I certainly embrace it.

Then he will talk about the banks. Speaking just for myself, I don't want to nationalize a bank. I really do not. If you go back to the Great Depression--I am reading a good book called ``The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days.'' There was a big move not by the President but by a lot of people to nationalize the banks, and FDR said: No, we shouldn't be running the banks. So I am very hopeful that we will be able to do some things by converting preferred stock to common stock, to help get these banks on their feet and doing what they need to do, which is to lend.

I have spent some time talking about our current situation, and needless to say, what we have seen in the past 8 years or so--and especially the past few years--is we have seen a real decline in the quality of life of our working families. Their voices have not been heard enough. That creates an imbalance in our lives.

Everybody talks about the powerful unions. The unions that represent working men and women are representing fewer and fewer, and the voices of working men and women have gotten softer and softer. I think President Obama understands this, and he has given us a voice for working men and women in selecting Congresswoman Hilda Solis to be the Secretary of Labor.

I wish to say to my friends who may not know Hilda as I know her--she is from my State and is an ally and a friend--she is one of the best people you will ever meet. She is one of the most humble people you are ever going to meet. She is one of the most intelligent people. She has knowledge of politics and how to get things done. She knows how to reach out to people who don't agree with her. She has a strong understanding of the struggles of working families because she has seen it in her district in California.

Jobs lost since the beginning of the recession in December of 2007: 3.6 million. Jobs lost in the last 3 months: 1.8 million. The nationwide unemployment rate is at 7.6 percent. In my State, it is 9.3 percent. Long-term unemployed Americans: 2.6 million. That is why the stimulus was so important--to give them a little extra help getting through this nightmare. Underemployed Americans--that means Americans who are working at jobs for which they are overqualified--7.8 million Americans are working at jobs for which they are overqualified. So we can see this is not a recession that is just hitting a few pockets of America; it is hitting hard and it is hitting deep.

Throughout her entire career, Congresswoman Solis has been a forceful advocate for working men and women in California and throughout the Nation.

She was born and raised in the San Gabriel Valley in southern California. She was instilled with the values of hard work. Her father emigrated from Mexico, and he worked as a Teamsters shop steward. Her mother came to the United States from Nicaragua and worked at a local factory.

She was the very first Latina elected to the California State senate. She led efforts there to pass a much needed increase in California's minimum wage. I can tell my colleagues this because I worked closely with her on this issue.

In the 1990s, when she discovered that toxic sites were disproportionately located near minority and low-income neighborhoods, she wrote an environmental justice law to guarantee protections for those communities. For her dedication to this cause, she became the first woman ever honored with the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

She was elected to represent California's 32nd congressional district in the year 2000. I have worked with her very closely on many environmental issues, on worker issues, and it is a delight to work with her. I have worked with her on veterans issues. Before she got tapped to be Secretary of Labor, Hilda and I sat next to each other on the plane, and she was telling me about an event she had where she holds a fair for the veterans in her community, in her district, and she brings together all of the various entities in the Federal Government that could help those veterans. This is a woman with a heart of gold.

So I am confident that Hilda Solis will turn the many challenges we face into new opportunities for the American people. As Secretary, she will continue to promote policies that will invigorate our economy, protect our jobs, retrain our workforce. She will work for a sustainable energy future, which is going to mean lots of jobs and new technologies. She will ensure safe working conditions. She will enforce fairly the wage and hour laws we have on the books. We don't need more laws on the books; we have laws on the books for wage and hour. She will protect against worker discrimination. She will strengthen the middle class. Yet I think in her way she will make the case that people in the workplace should have a right to be represented. She will argue that. She also plans to improve skills development and job search assistance for unemployed workers and create new career opportunities for at-risk youth and our military heroes, as I mentioned.

I am so thrilled she was picked for this job. I was very surprised because I had no clue President Obama was going to tap her. But when he did, I said to my family that this is a great choice. I think as Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle get to know Hilda, they will soon trust Hilda. They will know they can talk to her about any subject, that she will listen, and that she will understand their point of view. After all, this is a woman who has been in elected office and she understands, as we all do, that there are differing viewpoints. She is not going to come in there and say: It is my way or the highway, Senator, so don't bother explaining to me. She will work with Senators. I know it because I have worked with her.

If anybody needed a personal recommendation for Hilda Solis today, I hope they will trust me because you know me, and I don't stand up for every nominee, but I am so proud to stand for this one. I urge each and every one of my colleagues--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--to please support her nomination.

I thank my friend from Georgia, who I know has been waiting. I yield the floor.

Projects in economically distressed communities are a high priority in this legislation and those projects should be addressed on an expeditious basis under applicable Federal requirements.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI(2) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, Senator Isakson and I ask, unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised November 1999, be printed in the Congressional Record for the 111th Congress. The committee procedural rules for the 111th Congress are identical to the procedural rules adopted by the committee for the 110th Congress.