Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish today to discuss the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court and share the reasons why I will cast my vote in favor of her confirmation.

For me, the single most important consideration in deciding whether to provide my consent to a judicial nomination is an assessment of whether the judge will bring an ideology to the bench, seeking to advance a set agenda regardless of the facts a case presents and the laws and precedents at hand. I believe--as most Nebraskans and Americans believe--that a political agenda belongs in the political branches, and thus activists and would-be policymakers should seek legislative or executive office if they want to make laws and set policy.

Judges, on the other hand, must show respect for the laws and Constitution of The United States and deference to settled law and precedent. The role of a judge is to adjudicate impartially; and the impartial application of justice should be devoid of personal views and political agendas.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's education and legal career show that she is a brilliant woman with a breadth and depth of legal experience. She has been a prosecutor, an attorney in private practice, a trial court judge, and an appellate judge. I am particularly impressed by her record on the bench, where she has earned a reputation as tough on crime, fair on the facts and the law, respectful of precedent, and mindful of the limited role of the judiciary.

Judge Sotomayor has pledged fidelity to the law, and her extensive record of upholding the law as a trial and appellate judge is a concrete example of how she has carried out this pledge. Her 17-year record provides evidence of a restrained and mainstream judicial philosophy and shows that she has not been an activist. An objective review of Judge Sotomayor's record shows a fair, impartial, and humble judge.

For example, in addition to achieving a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest rating possible, Judge Sotomayor has won praise for

her judicial restraint. Of particular importance to me was this statement by the ABA Committee: ``Judge Sotomayor's opinions show an adherence to precedent and an absence of attempts to set policy based on the judge's personal views. Her opinions are narrow in scope, address only the issues presented, do not revisit settled areas of law, and are devoid of broad or sweeping pronouncements.''

In addition, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service analyzed her record as a judge and concluded: ``Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics appear to include what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role.'' This is high praise indeed, for those of us like me who value a limited role and eschew judicial activism.

Having discussed some of the reasons why I believe Judge Sotomayor is fit to serve on the High Court, I would like to take a moment to respectfully address some of the concerns and criticisms that some of my constituents and a certain few of my colleagues have raised about Judge Sotomayor.

Foremost, I believe that actions speak louder than words. Throughout this confirmation process, certain comments Judge Sotomayor has made outside of the courtroom have been the subject of much criticism. Indeed, some of these remarks could be cause for concern if they proved to slant the judge's approach to the law or impede her ability to render an unbiased opinion. But after examining her record, meeting personally with her, and observing the Judiciary Committee hearings, I am convinced that Judge Sotomayor will approach the Supreme Court with the same unbiased fidelity to the law that has marked her distinguished career thus far. Simply put, I see no significant evidence that she has manipulated the facts of cases or interpretations of the law in the courtroom to alter the outcome of a case.

In addition, some have singled out a handful of decisions the judge has participated in as grounds for disqualification. Mr. President, I do not expect a judge to agree with me all of the time, just as I do not agree with all the laws or all the precedents on the books; however, I firmly believe that disagreeing with a law or a precedent is not grounds for a judge to rewrite the law as he or she sees fit. And while I may not personally agree with the outcome of every single case Judge Sotomayor has decided, it is clear to me that her opinions were informed by facts, bound by precedents, and faithful to the law.

Judge Sotomayor has decided more than 3,000 cases as a member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Only 13 of these have been reviewed by the Supreme Court; only 5 have been reversed. Of the opinions she authored, five were reviewed, her opinion was upheld in two, and she was reversed or vacated in three. This compares favorably with recent Supreme Court reversal rates and with recent Supreme Court nominees.

My approach to confirmation of judicial nominees has not changed during my time in the Senate. I have voted to confirm the overwhelming majority of nominees to come before us--including both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito for the Supreme Court--and my standards for what I consider a qualified judge have not changed since my days in the Governor's office, when I appointed 81 judges, including the entire Nebraska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. I wish I could say the same for the way the Senate considers judicial nominations, which to my disappointment has just become increasingly political and partisan. In the 1990s, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with only three dissenting votes, Justice Stephen Breyer with only nine dissenting votes. Yet recent nominations show that rising partisanship has affected both the tenor of the debate and the outcome of the vote. The Senate confirmed Chief Justice Roberts with 22 dissenting votes, and Justice Alito was confirmed with 42 dissenting votes.

In 2005, the nomination process became so polarized that I joined with 13 of my colleagues to form the Gang of 14 to prevent the shutdown of the Senate over partisan positioning with respect to appeals court nominees. I commend the Judiciary Committee for presiding over a cordial and fair hearing process for Judge Sotomayor, but as in all things, I wish the Senate could return to a more bipartisan approach to our constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent.

As a Senator, I have taken very seriously my role to responsibly, thoughtfully, and thoroughly review a nominee's qualifications and record. After examining her record, meeting personally with her, and observing the Judiciary Committee hearings, I am convinced that Judge Sotomayor's approach on the Supreme Court will demonstrate the same fidelity to the law that has marked her distinguished career. In the years ahead, I believe she will make an important contribution on the Supreme Court. I wish her well in her new role.

I thank the Senate for this opportunity to offer my perspective on this historic nomination.

Madam President, when the stimulus bill was being debated, I advocated that any package include a robust investment in rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. While the stimulus takes a big step in the right direction to address the needs of our aging transportation system, many more steps need to be taken.

I believe that the issues that we face with the solvency of the highway trust fund is an opportunity to make sure that more funding from the stimulus is directed towards our Nation's roads, while not adding new spending and increasing the Federal deficit. I would encourage any unobligated funding that is redirected as a result of the passage of the amendments offered today be in addition to any stimulus funding already provided for road projects; especially in the case of local road projects. Road projects at the local level will be vital part of the engine that drives our Nation's economic recovery in communities across the country and not maintaining funding for those projects would be a step in the wrong direction.

Finally, an investment in our Nation's roads is a two-for-one: it creates jobs while helping to rebuild our infrastructure. By making sure the highway trust fund remains solvent and continuing to invest in important transportation projects, we can rededicate our efforts to addressing our transportation system needs.

Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment I propose serves to address the government's significant ownership and puts the Senate on record and makes absolutely clear that the Federal Government is a temporary shareholder in General Motors and Chrysler and should divest its shareholder position as expeditiously as possible.

It is pretty clear no one ever wanted the government to be in the car business, but the alternative was worse and the turmoil in the auto industry extends far beyond Detroit, as most Americans know.

Dealerships across my State of Nebraska, and I am assuming across your State as well, are feeling the impacts of decisions made by automakers following their bankruptcies. Chrysler has terminated franchise agreements with 9 dealerships in Nebraska, and GM is terminating franchise agreements with 21 dealerships in Nebraska. These decisions are affecting dealerships, their employees, and communities across my State.

However, now that investment has been made, we owe it to the American taxpayer to be clear about what will happen with their money. My amendment states that the Federal Government is only a temporary stakeholder in the American automotive industry and should take all possible steps to protect American taxpayer dollars and divest its ownership interests in such companies as expeditiously as possible.

The government should not be involved in day-to-day operations, and as soon as the auto companies have regained their financial footing, the government must divest.

Further, this resolution calls on the Government Accountability Office and inspector general for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, to continue to provide oversight and report to Congress on the automakers' progress so the Federal Government may complete divestiture without delay.

This is not a partisan issue. We have had Presidents of both political parties recognize the need to address the current downfall of the auto industry and recognize the need to remove government involvement as quickly as possible.

Our sense-of-the-Senate resolution affirms what the President has already made clear. Taxpayers should be protected and the government should get out of the auto business as soon as possible. Through this amendment, the Senate leaves no question about the government's future role in the U.S. auto industry. In the event there has been an uncertainty about that ownership, this resolution will clear that up.

I yield the floor.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 1764, better known as the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. I wish to express my appreciation to Senators Schumer and Chambliss for their leadership and excellent work on this issue and acknowledge the outstanding support and contributions of Senators Bennett and Cornyn, whose involvement has improved this bill and whose ongoing support will help us enact it into law. This effort has been constructive and bipartisan all the way, as evidenced by our list of 58 bipartisan cosponsors, and I am very proud of the bill we have produced.

We owe it to our men and women in uniform to protect their right to vote. And for military and overseas voters, that right is only as good as their ability to cast a ballot and have it counted. For years, we have known of the obstacles these brave Americans face in exercising their right to vote, often when far from home and in harm's way. I firmly believe this legislation will make a huge impact in empowering our military and overseas voters to have their votes counted, no matter where they find themselves on election day.

Simply put, the status quo for these voters is unacceptable. It is hard for military families to keep their voter registration information current, and it is often difficult to deliver ballots to overseas voters in enough time for them to vote and return the ballot by the time the polls close.

The poor results from recent elections speak for themselves. In 2008, statistics from the seven States with the greatest number of deployed troops show that one in four military and overseas voters were unable to have their vote counted. In 2006, the situation was even worse: according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, up to two-thirds of ballots requested by voters under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting Act were either not cast or not counted.

We discussed these numbers and heard testimony from State and local officials at a hearing in the Rules Committee earlier this year. The challenges we face are significant, but a number of very excellent recommendations were made at that hearing, and Senators Schumer and Chambliss and I immediately got to work on a commonsense bill to improve and streamline the process for these voters. The bill we came up with was amended and reported unanimously by the Rules Committee last week. The product of that effort is now before the Senate as an amendment to the Defense bill.

I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I will push for it to be enacted into law in this bill, because as State and local election officials know, voting reforms need to be put in place well in advance. The way they see it, the next Federal election is right around the corner. Now is our chance to make a difference for 2010.

This legislation harnesses technology to speed up the voting process by allowing registration and ballot requests to be sent electronically. It ensures that military and overseas voters have time to vote by requiring ballots to be sent out 45 days before the election and allowing blank ballots to be sent electronically. It also provides some flexibility to States that cannot meet the 45-day deadline, as long as they come up with an alternative plan to ensure time to vote. In addition, it will harness the creativity of States and local officials by authorizing pilot projects to test new voting technology, with appropriate safeguards for privacy and security. The legislation also requires the Department of Defense to play a more significant role in facilitating voter registration and in collecting and returning voted ballots in cooperation with the Postal Service.

The MOVE Act, as we call it, has the support of the Alliance for Military and Overseas Voting Rights, which is a coalition of over 30 military associations, nonprofit organizations, elected officials, and student groups dedicated to ensuring that Americans abroad have an equal right and opportunity to vote. We also have the support of many other groups, including the National Association of County Officials, which is especially important because having the support of State and local officials means that our efforts are endorsed by the people who actually carry out elections in this country, which can often be a thankless job.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all 57 of the amendment's cosponsors, especially Senators Schumer and Chambliss and the others I mentioned who have shown real leadership on this issue. This amendment is bipartisan, noncontroversial, and necessary to solve a persistent problem that has dogged our troops and overseas voters for years. We tackle those problems head-on, and I think we will see real, tangible results from this legislation.

Mr. President, it is our responsibility to ensure the right to vote for the men and women of our Armed Forces and others serving overseas; they protect our rights, and we have an opportunity today to return the favor by passing the MOVE Act. I urge the amendment's adoption.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Navy Command Master Chief Jeffrey James Garber who passed away aboard the USS Eisenhower on June 20, 2009.

Originally from Hemingford, NE, Master Chief Garber enlisted in the Navy in December 1983. His career was an impressive one. At sea his assignments included time aboard the USS Worden, USS Nimitz, USS Portland, and Strike Fighter Squadron 34; and he had been assigned to the USS Eisenhower since June 2008. The Eisenhower is currently operating in the Arabian Sea in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and maritime security operations.

Master Chief Garber's military awards include the Meritorious Service Medal: Navy/Marine Corps Commendation Medal; Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal, six; Meritorious Unit Commendation; Good Conduct Medal, five; Navy Expeditionary Medal; National Defense Service Medal, two; Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, two; Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, six; And Navy Recruiting Service Ribbon.

On June 20, Command Master Chief Jeffrey James Garber was found unresponsive in a berthing space aboard the carrier, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. When he was found unresponsive in his stateroom at approximately 8:15 A.M. local time, a medical emergency was declared; and medical personnel were on the scene within minutes. Sadly, all efforts to revive him were unsuccessful, and Master Chief Garber was pronounced dead of natural causes at 8:23 A.M. He was 43 years old. Command Master Chief Garber has been posthumously awarded the Legion of Merit medal, recognizing his accomplishments as Command Master Chief and his 24 years of service to our Nation.

Command Master Chief Garber leaves behind his wife Amy, (Vogt) Garber, and his three children, Tayler, Paige and Josh, all of Virginia Beach; his parents Larry and JoAnn Kuester of York, NE; and his brothers Joel and Jon. Throughout his career, those who knew him, admired Master Chief Garber's professionalism, but also, genuinely liked him. He will forever be remembered by his family and friends as not only the epitome of what a command master chief should be, but primarily a loving husband, father, and son. I join all Nebraskans today in mourning the loss of Command Master Chief Garber and offering our deepest condolences to his family.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my disappointment that the Senate failed to take advantage of an opportunity to debunk a false argument against the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. If it were up to me, the debate never would have gone in this direction, but since it has I have tried to do my best to address the concern--though I believe it to be unfounded--that this legislation protects ``pedophiles.''

Some, including some constituents of mine in Nebraska, are concerned that a term used in this legislation, ``sexual orientation,'' could be interpreted as including ``pedophiles.'' This is obviously not the intent of the bill, nor is it possible that any of the categories protected by the bill could be read to include pedophiles. In short, nothing in this legislation is intended, nor can it be construed, to protect pedophiles.

The Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the United States, has rejected the argument that this bill covers pedophiles. In fact, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, explicitly asked Attorney General Eric E. Holder a question for the record of the Judiciary Committee's hearing on this bill, which makes clear that the bill, as written, could not possibly be read to include pedophiles. As the Attorney General stated:

Proposed U.S.C. Sec. 249(a)(2) would cover violent crimes

motivated by bias against the ``actual or perceived religion,

national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,

or disability of any person.'' This legislation would only

cover groups falling under these categories. The Department

[of Justice] does not believe that any group falling under

these categories should be excluded. The Department does not

believe that any of the listed categories could possibly be

read to include pedophiles, and therefore we do not believe

an amendment to exclude pedophiles is necessary.

Despite this assurance, my colleague from South Carolina offered just such an amendment, and I signed on as a cosponsor to express sensitivity to the concern he raises, even though I do not believe this legislation protects pedophiles in any way.

Existing Federal law, codified at 28 U.S.C Sec. 534 defines sexual orientation as consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality. A similar definition can be found in any dictionary of the English language. That and nothing more is what we are addressing in this bill.

I might add that in my view to claim that this law could somehow be used to protect pedophiles shows a lack of confidence in and respect for local law enforcement, and the groups, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the National District Attorneys Association, which are strongly supporting this bill and asking us to pass this legislation to help them do their jobs in investigating and prosecuting these heinous crimes.

In order for the hate crimes law to be used in the manner some groups claim it could, a chief of police or local sheriff would have to decide, in conjunction with the county attorney or district attorney, that it was in their best interest and the best interest of the community to bring such a prosecution, in contravention of existing Federal laws that protect children from predators. Federal law enforcement, which serves as a backstop to local efforts under this bill, would also not use the law in this way because the Department of Justice has already stated their policy that this legislation does not protect pedophiles. As I quoted above, the Attorney General, the Nation's top law enforcement official, made the Department's policy crystal clear in Congressional testimony: ``the Department does not believe that any of the listed categories could possibly be read to include pedophiles.''

We can have an honest debate about this bill. I have heard several arguments of reasons why this bill should be opposed, and I appreciate and respect the concerns which underlie those arguments. However, I feel the need to reaffirm that in no way is this bill intended to, or can be construed as, protecting pedophiles.

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

Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Republican time be preserved.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have about 6 minutes to address the body on national defense.

Madam President, I wish to begin my comments on this year's national defense authorization by first thanking all the members of the Personnel Subcommittee. And I particularly would like to thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Lindsey Graham. He and I have worked together for several years on this subcommittee, changing the chairmanship back and forth, and I have always found our time on the subcommittee is decidedly nonpartisan, bipartisan, regardless of who currently chairs it.

All the Members of the Personnel Subcommittee strive to do what is right by servicemembers and their families, and any disagreements we have are minimal, and are always focused on how best to serve those who serve us.

The annual National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation that Congress passes every year. It provides authority for everything the Department of Defense does, from the ships and planes it buys, to the pay and compensation of servicemembers, to retirement and disability benefits. So I look forward to this year, once again, passing a Defense Authorization Act for the 48th year in a row.

As in past years, the committee has focused heavily on personnel issues, including taking care of the families of servicemembers. There is an old axiom in the military that you recruit the soldier but you retain the family. So providing support to those families is more important now than ever before. I am happy with the bill, and I recommend it to my fellow Senators. I wish to emphasize that the committee also voted this bill out of committee unanimously.

The bill before us authorizes $135.6 billion for military personnel, including pay, allowances, bonuses, death benefits, and permanent change of station moves. The bill contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform and their families.

First and foremost, the bill would authorize a 3.4-percent pay raise, which is half a percent higher than the increase in the Employment Cost Index and the administration's request and reauthorizes over 25 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment and reenlistment.

The bill also addresses the administration's request to increase the permanent end strengths of all the services over last year's authorization. The bill authorizes fiscal year 2010 end strengths of 547,400 for the Army; 202,100 for the Marine Corps; 331,700 for the Air Force; and 328,800 for the Navy. The Active Duty end strength of every service will increase over last year's levels. Moreover, the bill authorizes additional Army Active Duty end strength in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, if needed.

The bill also authorizes pay for travel and transportation expenses for Reserve component members to go home when training has been suspended at their temporary duty station. Operation Airlift, as we call it, came to my attention when members of the 110th Medical Battalion, based in Lincoln, NE, were stranded at Fort Lewis, WA, when training was suspended and the base was shut down for the holidays. Military rules prohibited using military funds to pay for their travel back to Nebraska until training resumed. This measure addresses this problem which has occurred in many other States and to many other reservists and guardsmen and demands that the military commands appropriately plan and schedule training exercises.

The bill also supports the continued provision of world-class health care to our servicemembers and their families, authorizing $27.9 billion for the Defense Health Program.

The bill authorizes TRICARE standard coverage for National Guard and Reserve retirees previously in an uncovered so-called gray area. The TRICARE gray area retiree measure ensures nearly 225,226 eligible retirees nationwide will have the opportunity to purchase coverage under the military's TRICARE health care program.

In support of our increasing number of wounded warriors, the bill authorizes special compensation for caregivers for the time and assistance they provide to servicemembers with combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living. Additional support is provided through this bill which authorizes travel and transportation allowances for nonmedical attendants of very seriously wounded, ill or injured servicemembers.

To ensure we continue to increase the care of our wounded warriors, this bill requires the establishment of a task force to assess the effectiveness of the policies and programs to assist and support the care, management, and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers.

To help resolve the dire shortage of physicians needed to care for the mental health of combat proven servicemembers, the bill authorizes the service Secretaries to add up to 25 officers each year as students at accredited schools of psychology for training leading to the degree of doctor of psychology in clinical psychology. In an effort to ensure our servicemembers get the mental health care they need and to help overcome the stigma associated with seeking mental health care, the bill requires person-to-person mental health assessments at designated intervals for servicemembers deployed in connection with contingency operations.

The bill also requires initiatives to increase the number of military and civilian behavioral health personnel at the Department of Defense.

Continuing our efforts to support wounded warriors and their families, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of military deployment on dependent children of servicemembers, and a review of the mental health care and counseling services available to military children.

Finally, the bill authorizes $45 million in impact aid to local school districts, including $5 million for educational services for severely disabled children, and $10 million for districts experiencing rapid increases in the number of students due to rebasing, activation of new military units or base realignment and closure.

These are just some of the highlights. There were over 60 legislative provisions affecting personnel policy, pay, end strength, health care, and family support. It is paramount we take care of our servicemembers by ensuring their pay and compensation is what it should be, and needs to be, to sustain the All-Volunteer Force and enable them to fight and win the Nation's wars and to take care of them and their families when they return home injured and wounded.

So, again, I would like to thank Senator Graham and all the members of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. I look forward to working with our colleagues to pass this extremely important legislation as we continue the process of authorization of the parent bill.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Heather Blackwell, an Air Force major who is a military fellow in my office this year, be granted the privileges of the floor during the pendency of S. 1390.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a good friend and great Nebraskan, Jack Eberspacher, who passed away on July 5, 2009, at the tender age of 55 after a short but courageous battle with cancer. Jack was a very special friend to all who knew him, dedicating his professional life to the advancement and betterment of the agricultural industry and the agribusiness community.

A native of Seward, NE, Jack received his bachelor of science degree from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. After several years working in various agribusiness positions throughout the United States, Jack was named the chief executive officer of the National Grain Sorghum Producers Association, headquartered in Lubbock, TX. He is credited with growing that association by 300 percent and with developing balanced association programs on policy, plant science and utilization, and for placing the association on the national legislative and regulatory scene.

In 1998, Jack accepted the position of chief executive officer of the National Association of Wheat Growers here in Washington, DC. Under his leadership, the organization experienced a financial turnaround, with Jack leading the group out of a negative budget in net earnings to a positive one in just over 2 years.

Jack was appointed president and chief executive officer of the Agricultural Retailers Association in 2001, where he remained until his passing. In this capacity, he increased the annual association dues revenue by more than 100 percent. In February 2002, he was the only commodity leader invited to address the National Governors' Conference, where he discussed the importance of the 2002 farm bill and the state of the agricultural economy.

Jack was also a political activist and volunteer; an active member of the Bennett Roundtable of the Farm Foundation of Chicago, Illinois; and a recipient of the Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity Brother of the Century Award.

I offer my most sincere condolences to Jack's wife Jinger and their family. Jack's passion for service, dynamic leadership, and unwavering dedication to the greater agribusiness community will remain a source of inspiration to all those who knew him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 175; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that an amendment to the resolution, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that an amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; finally, that a title amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I thank the Chair.

I object.

Mr. President, if I might have a second to respond, I think this is something the good Senator from Tennessee and I might be able to work out. But until we have the details worked out as to how this would be considered in both cases, I object.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the clerk to report the bill.

Mr. President, we are returning to the Legislative Branch Committee bill for further consideration today. It is my understanding that my colleague from Oklahoma has an amendment he would like to offer. He was here. Perhaps he will rejoin us shortly.

To recap, this is the legislative branch bill, which has a number of different important issues in it, not the least of which is the fact that when you compare the percentage of increase this year with previous years, it is an effective 2.4-percent increase. We controlled the growing costs associated with the new Visitor Center, which were significant in the last budget.

Let me, at this point, yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

I know of no further debate on the amendment.

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

There is no objection.

Madam President, I make a point of order against the DeMint amendment that it is legislation on appropriations.

My colleague from Arizona is right. It is a wonderful, an outstanding museum.

As a quick refresher for my colleagues, this is a project that was requested by the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE. This is a well-respected, not-for-profit organization with a longstanding and close relationship with the Library of Congress.

The $200,000 requested in this bill for the Durham Museum to begin the preservation and digitization of the museum's photo archive collection will preserve our history and improve access to these priceless treasures.

The museum will provide a public service of Federal interest making it appropriate to promote a public-private partnership. This truly is a public-private partnership--the funding for the project in this bill is only 10 percent of the total cost. The Durham Museum will privately raise the remaining 90 percent and incur all ongoing operating costs.

The Library of Congress is an expert in the area of digitization and preservation of fragile photos and images. Taking that into consideration with the fact that the library enjoys ``a remarkable long-term relationship with the Durham Museum,'' to use the words of the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, it makes this partnership worthy of support and further makes this funding appropriate in this legislation.

To reiterate some of the points I made prior to the recess, this project is more than just a ``photo exhibit.'' In addition to making these images available to the public, the Durham will work with and assist the Library of Congress to establish conservation and preservation training programs, and on incorporating digitized primary source materials into school curricula.

While I understand my colleague and I may disagree on the larger philosophical issue about the role of Congress to set spending priorities, I note that this project relates explicitly to the goals and purposes of the Library to expand access to our Nation's most treasured documents and artifacts. It will, through this partnership, make these historical images accessible nationally. It is funded here for that reason.

Lastly, not all treasures are located inside the beltway. The Durham Museum seeks to preserve a significant collection of images and photos that document the western expansion of this great Nation. These images will include, among others, a number of wonderful images of Presidents Roosevelt, Kennedy, and others; growth and development of the transcontinental railroad--the Union Pacific is headquartered in Omaha,

Madam President, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding that there is an amendment already at the desk.

Madam President, I rise today to present the fiscal year 2010 legislative branch bill. I want to start by thanking Senator Murkowski and her staff for their help in putting this bill together. I am very grateful for her support on this subcommittee. This was truly a bipartisan effort from start to finish. I thank her and I note that her health is improving because her leg is improving and she is getting to places on her own now.

This bill funds the salaries of the very dedicated public servants who support the legislative branch of government. The legislative branch is home to not only all of us here in the Senate and the House, but the Capitol Police, the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, the Government Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Compliance, and the Open World Leadership Center.

In crafting this bill, it was our firm belief that the legislative branch should lead by example, funding only the most critical needs of our agencies and being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. This proved to be quite a challenge when we were presented with a budget request that reflected a 15-percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. However, after several hearings, many meetings, and countless hours of staff negotiations, I am proud to say that we did exactly what we set out to do in writing this bill.

The bill before us today totals $4.6 billion, which is a 4.7-percent increase over the current year. The bill includes House-related items solely considered by that body which totaled $1.475 billion. It is important to note that the Senate Legislative Branch appropriations bill, which did not include House-related items, over which we had no control, represented only a 3.3-percent increase over fiscal year 2009 and was significantly below the budget request. If you include the $25 million that GAO received in the stimulus bill, then this is only a 2.4-percent increase over current year funding levels.

The fiscal year 2010 bill provides $934 million for the Senate, which is an increase of 4.3 percent over the current year. This funding will provide for annual salary and operating increases for Senate offices, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and other agencies that support the operation of the Senate.

The bill includes $331 million for the Capitol Police, which is an 8- percent increase over current year. This includes $15.4 million to fully implement the merger of the Library of Congress Police with the Capitol Police, providing seamless security throughout the entire Capitol complex.

The bill also provides for 10 additional civilian positions to help resolve management issues, including the constant increase in the demand for overtime. The committee did not provide the 76 new officers requested in fiscal year 2010, but does direct GAO to work with the Capitol Police to ensure that they are getting the most efficient use of their nearly 1,800 officers currently on board, by far the biggest this force has ever been.

The Architect of the Capitol is funded at $445 million, which is a decrease of $18 million, or 4 percent below current year. The amount includes $48 million in deferred maintenance projects, including $16.8 million for continued work on asbestos abatement and structural repairs in the utility tunnels. I am happy to say that the utility tunnel work is on schedule and significantly below original cost estimates. The bill also includes over $14 million in energy and sustainability projects across the Capitol campus.

The Library of Congress funding totals $638.5 million, which is a 4- percent increase over the current year. This amount includes $8.5 million for technology upgrades to allow for increased digitization of the Library's collections and full funding for the Digital Talking Book for the Blind project.

The Government Accountability Office is funded at $553.6 million, which is a 4-percent increase over current year, and provides all salary and inflationary increases for GAO's current staff level.

The Government Printing Office is funded at $147 million, which is a 4-percent raise over current year, allowing for the continued implementation of GPO's Federal Digital System and other technology upgrades.

The Congressional Budget Office is funded at $45 million, a 2-percent increase over the current year. Combined with the $2 million included in the supplemental, CBO will have adequate funding and FTEs needed to perform the critical work associated with health care spending, the current financial crisis, and global climate change.

The Office of Compliance is funded at $4.4 million, an increase of 8 percent above current year to cover inflationary changes and to allow the Office to hire an Occupational Safety and Health Program supervisor.

Last, but not least, the Open World Leadership Office is funded at $14.4 million, which is a 4-percent increase over the current year.

I believe the bill before the Senate is sound, prudent, and fiscally responsible. Taking into account the calculations I have given, it is a 2.4-percent increase over the current with those calculations. I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Vitter amendment to fund the legislative branch agencies at current year levels, which would result in a reduction actually of $101 million below the level that Senator Murkowski and I have proposed in the bill we are considering.

The fiscal year 2010 bill reflects, as I have mentioned and said, only a 2.4-percent increase over fiscal year 2009 spending when you take GAO's stimulus funding into account.

When we started drafting this bill, the budget request we received sought a 15-percent increase over fiscal year 2009. From the outset, my ranking member and I have been committed to holding this bill to the lowest possible funding level, and to lead by example in being good stewards of the taxpayers' money.

My intention was to hold this bill at the rate of inflation, if we could, and it frankly pained me to even have to go as far as 2.4 percent over current year. But the reality is there are expenses in the legislative branch that we are responsible for.

As a former Governor, I am used to hearing individuals assert the desire to make budget cuts without actually offering any specifics. So I am used to what we are seeing here tonight. I say to my colleague, if he has specific suggestions about what types of cuts would be prudent-- he has told us what not to cut, but if he has some specific suggestions about the types of cuts, I would be happy to talk about them. Speaking in generalities will not get the job done. I can appreciate the desire to keep spending restrained. However, if the Senator wishes to make specific suggestions of the $100 million cuts that he is, in fact, proposing, I would welcome it, as I would have welcomed hearing any of the Senator's suggestions during the weeks and months it took to create this bill.

As a matter of fact, I have visited with my colleague Senator Johanns about the increases in this budget this year, and have suggested to him that if there are other areas we should cut, then we would take his thoughts into consideration and make any adjustments that would make sense.

But, to my knowledge, I have not received any note of concern from the Senator, the sponsor of this amendment, about any of the items included in this bill while it was being created. We are all concerned about fiscal responsibility.

Let's talk a little bit about this bill and what this amendment would mean. We now have a fully operating Visitor Center here in the Capitol that costs money to operate and to secure, recently completed. There are still costs associated with bringing it up and into the running process. The Visitor Center has provided increased amenities for our constituents when they make the trip to Washington to visit. But it does cost money.

I have already outlined the bill in my opening statements, so I will not go through all of that again.

This is the first time through this process as chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, and I must say I was honored when Chairman Inouye tasked me with the enormous responsibility.

This committee funds the agencies Congress relies on to provide them with timely information pertaining to the oversight of the Federal Government. For example, last year the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, as it is referred to, received over

1,200 congressional requests and testified at over 300 congressional hearings. Their work produced hundreds of improvements in government operations and produced significant financial savings for the American taxpayer.

The Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, also funded in this bill, actually received emergency funding in the supplemental that passed last week to further strengthen their workforce, allowing for timelier production of analyses for congressional offices.

I do not know how a spending freeze can be proposed to an agency that desperately needed this kind of help to do their job here so we can do our jobs here in Congress.

It does not make sense. I know for a fact that my colleagues depend on the CBO, that office, perhaps now more than ever before, for analysis related to health care costs, energy, and the current financial crisis.

The agencies funded in this legislative branch work for Congress. Quite simply, if you reduce their funding, you will reduce the service we receive here in Congress at an important time when we are facing important legislation. So we are a little spoiled here. But that is because of the great service we are used to receiving from the Government Printing Office to the Congressional Research Service to the Capitol Police who maintain our security, and the security of those who are in our buildings and on our grounds. These are agencies and staff that also support Congress. That is their mission. I think we owe it to them to at least to fund the cost-of-living increase for these dedicated public servants. The vote will determine whether you think your staff deserves a cost-of-living adjustment in 2010, and whether you think our Capitol Police deserve to be paid overtime with the long hours they work, risking life and limb to keep us and the thousands of Americans who visit here each year safe in the Capitol complex.

Every elevator operator, every construction worker, every plumber, every electrician, every maintenance person, every parking lot attendant, virtually every employee you encounter here in the Capitol complex, including staff present here today, is paid from this appropriations bill.

I could go on and I could go on. But I have to admit, I did not realize what a lot of those folks did until I started working on this bill. But now I do.

It is my responsibility, and the responsibility as well of the ranking member, to do what we think is right by these employees and these agencies.

I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion.

How much time does the Senator need in response?

I yield the Senator 3 minutes.

Madam President, I move to table the Vitter motion and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam 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.