Floor Statements

Madam President, earlier today I came to the floor to talk about transparency and the bright sunshine of public service and how foundational it is to that service being open. It is impossible to do the people's business if we do not allow the people to see what we are doing.

I remember sound and fury coming from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle when they believed there were decisions being made about the health care bill behind closed doors, sound and fury that somehow someone wasn't telling the public everything that was going on. Meanwhile, dozens and dozens of nominees to do the work of our government have piled up under the heading of a ``secret hold.''

I don't really understand how the secret hold came about. I don't really understand why one would ever need a

hold to be secret. Why does it need to be a secret? Is there something going on that you are not proud of? Is there a problem you don't want people to find out about?

I have to tell my colleagues, I kind of admire the Senator from Louisiana, who boldly spoke out that he is holding a general and not allowing this general to get another star, after a unanimous vote of the Armed Services Committee, because he wants a special project for his State that hasn't been authorized and hasn't been appropriated-- bold but not unheard of, unfortunately, around here. People are constantly making deals for pork. Pork is an important part of the dealmaking around this place. Way too much of it goes on behind closed doors. But at least the Senator from Louisiana and I think earlier the Senator from Alabama--at least they were willing to publicly say they were holding a nominee because they wanted some pork for their States.

What I am most worried about is how many people out there are holding these nominees for secret reasons, and there are secret negotiations going on about what they want to get in order to release the hold. That is what everyone should be uncomfortable with.

Because we were uncomfortable with it, the Senate passed a bill. We passed a bill that was signed into law by President Bush, and I think this bill was passed 90-something to 4. In that bill, in section 512, it lays out what we thought was going to be an end to the secret hold. In the bill, it says that once someone makes a unanimous-consent request for a nomination to proceed, then that is the starting gun. The clock begins ticking. In that law, it says that when the motion is made, the Member of the Senate who has a secret hold must notify their party leader of the reasons why the nomination is being held; further, that the hold must be published, and the reasons for it, in the Congressional Record within 6 days.

Well, this morning I began the process of making that clock tick so that secret holds come out in the open where we can all identify them. Keep in mind that all of the names I am trying to begin the clock ticking for under secret holds came out of committee without an objection. In fact, we even went so far as to go back in the record and see if there was a voice vote, and even if there was a voice vote against the nominee, we didn't include them in this list. So these literally are people who have been nominated to do important things in our government, such as putting criminals in jail, sitting on the bench, moving prisoners around the country, an ambassador to a country that is incredibly important to the stability of the Middle East and our national security. All of these people have not had anyone speaking out in opposition to them. Yet they are held in secret.

So it is important to begin this process so that Senators can proudly explain what exactly--I think there are many examples, probably, of what the Senator from Louisiana was trying to do. The man he is holding has nothing to do with the project he wants. The man he is holding can't even deliver the project he wants. He is just telling that agency: You are not going to get what you want until I get what I want. I have to tell my colleagues that is not the way the American people want this place run.

While the vast majority of these are secret holds by our friends from across the aisle, there are also a handful that are being held by Democrats, and that is just as wrong. This is a bipartisan issue. It is about good government, transparency, and doing the people's business in public instead of in secret.

I wish to clarify a point made earlier today in an exchange I had with the Senator from Arizona. The Senator asked why I did not include Calendar No. 208, John Sullivan, a member of the FEC, on my list. As I stated earlier, my list consists of those nominees who have secret holds. It is my understanding that the Democratic Senator from Wisconsin raised his objection to Mr. Sullivan publicly and put out a public statement on his opposition to Mr. Sullivan on June 30, 2009.

If any of these names I am going to proceed to try to get unanimous consent on--if any Member has, in fact, put out a public statement on their opposition, then obviously they just need to speak up. That is what we are looking for here. We are looking for people to speak and own up to their objection. There is nothing wrong with holding a nominee if you have an objection. There is something wrong if it is secret. There is nothing wrong with debating a nominee. There is if it is secret. There is nothing wrong with voting no on a nominee. That is public. It is the secrecy we have to get at here.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 652, the nomination of Michael Mundaca, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Madam President, when someone fails to clear someone they are holding--and they have a right to do that--this is not a debate over whether people have a right to hold. I assure the Senator from Arizona that the leader is very aware these motions are being made. These motions are being made simply for the purpose to allow the rule to operate the way we wrote the law. We have a bad habit. I can just whisper into somebody's ear and hold a nomination. That is why we put these provisions in the law--to stop the bad habit of somebody saying: If you give me that bill, I will let that guy go or, if you give me that levee, I will let that guy go or, if you give me something I want, I will let the guy go. That is why this law was written--to stop the bad habit of somebody being able to stop a nomination without having to say why or even who.

So this is only an attempt--this is not to say all of these nominees will go through. I am not naive. I know they all will not move through this afternoon by unanimous consent, but this is notice to the American people that we are going to try to begin to enforce the law we wrote.

It has been pointed out to me: Well, you didn't put an enforcement mechanism in there. Do we have to make it a misdemeanor for a Senator to claim a hold? Do we have to say you can go to jail if you don't identify your hold? You would think that Senators passing

by a large margin and signed by a Republican President of 90-some to something, that that alone would be enough that people would, in fact-- I would hope the people I named this morning--the people holding them have already notified the Senator from Arizona or the Senator from Kentucky that they are, in fact, the ones holding these nominations and why. This is the only purpose of this exercise--to make the law work that we voted for, that I am confident the Senator from Arizona voted for, and that the leader from Kentucky voted for and the entire Republican leadership voted for.

I appreciate my friend's comments. I understand he is not someone making secret holds, and he is objecting on behalf of others. There is not a problem with that. I want to make the point that, under the law, it is technically not a hold until this unanimous- consent request is made. So there is no obligation under the law for someone to identify their hold until this request is made. I would think that after these requests are made, everybody will be on notice to follow the law and stop with the secret hold business because it is going to slow us down to have to constantly come to the floor and make these unanimous-consent requests.

Wouldn't it make more sense for everybody to own it, if they are going to stop somebody's life--a lot of these people have given up other jobs and are out there in limbo. Wouldn't it make more sense to own it and not go through these games?

At this time in the Bush administration we had five backed up. We have 80-some now.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 705, the nomination of James P. Lynch, to be Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements regarding the nomination be printed in the Record as if read.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 722, the nomination of Judith Ann Stewart Stock, to be Assistant Secretary of State; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record, as if read.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 726, the nomination of Patricia A. Hoffman, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record as if read.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 728, the nomination of Gloria M. Navarro, to be U.S. district judge for the District of Nevada; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record as if read.

Pardon me while I consider the irony that the assistant leader of the other party wants to save time. I find that slightly ironic under the circumstances of how many of these nominations have been blocked up all these months.

Having said that, it is my understanding that this law requires the motion to be made on each individual. I don't want there to be any question as to whether each individual unanimous-consent request has been made, so that everyone understands that the clock is ticking. I think it is very important that there is a very clear signal. I don't believe this procedure has ever been undertaken before under the new law we passed in January of 2007. I want to make sure after the fact-- because I am worried that perhaps somebody is going to think if we didn't make the request, they can tag team and withdraw their secret hold and put another one in. I am trying to make sure that doesn't happen.

In the spirit of moving things along and getting cooperation to move things along, which I hope is something that becomes a trend, I will be happy to read off all the names and then make the motion en bloc, with one objection to be heard for the record, and we hopefully will get letters flowing into the office from the persons having secret holds. I will begin to read the names:

Calendar No. 729, Jon E. DeGuilo, to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Indiana;

Calendar No. 730, Audrey Goldstein Fleissig, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Missouri;

Calendar No. 731, Lucy Haeran Koh, to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California;

Calendar No. 732, Tanya Walton Pratt, to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Indiana;

Calendar No. 740, Marilyn A. Brown, to be a member of the board of directors, Tennessee Valley Authority;

Calendar No. 741, William B. Sansom, to be a member of the board of directors, Tennessee Valley Authority;

Calendar No. 742, Neil G. McBride, to be a member of the board of directors, Tennessee Valley Authority;

Calendar No. 743, Barbara Short Haskew, to be a member of the board of directors, Tennessee Valley Authority;

Calendar No. 759, Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, to be U.S. district judge for the Souther District of Indiana;

Calendar No. 775, Brian Anthony Jackson, to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Louisiana;

Calendar No. 776, Elizabeth Erny Foote, to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of Louisiana;

Calendar No. 777, Mark A. Goldsmith, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Michigan;

Calendar No. 778, Marc Treadwill, to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Georgia;

Calendar No. 779, Josephine Staton Tucker, to be U.S. district judge for the Central District of California;

Calendar No. 780, William N. Nettles, to be U.S. attorney for the District of South Carolina;

Calendar No. 781, Wilfredo A. Ferrer, to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida;

Calendar No. 782, Michael Peter Huerta, to be Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration;

Calendar No. 783, David T. Matsuda, to be Administrator, Maritime Administration;

Calendar No. 784, Michael F. Tillman, to be member, Marine Mammal Commission;

Calendar No. 785, Daryl J. Boness, to be member, Marine Mammal Commission, reappointment;

Calendar No. 787, Earl F. Weener, member, National Transportation Safety Board;

Calendar No. 788, Jeffrey R. Moreland, to be director, Amtrak board of directors;

Calendar No. 789, Larry Robinson, to be Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce.

Calendar No. 790, VADM Robert J. Papp, Jr., to be Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of admiral;

Calendar No. 791, RADM Sally Brice-O'Hare, to be Vice Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of vice admiral;

Calendar No. 792, RADM Manson K. Brown, to be Commander, Pacific Area of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of vice admiral;

Calendar No. 793, RADM Robert C. Parker, to be Commander, Atlantic Area of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of vice admiral;

Calendar No. 794, Arthur Allen Elkins, inspector general, Environmental Protection Agency;

Calendar No. 795, David A. Capp, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Indiana;

Calendar No. 796, Anne M. Tompkins, U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina;

Calendar No. 797, Kelly McDade Nesbit, U.S. marshal for the Western District of North Carolina;

Calendar No. 798, Peter Christopher Munoz, U.S. marshal for the Western District of Michigan;

Calendar No. 799, Carolyn Hessler Radelet, Deputy Director of the Peace Corps;

Calendar No. 800, Elizabeth Littlefield, president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation;

Calendar No. 801, Lana Pollack, to be Commissioner on the part of the United States on the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada;

Calendar No. 802, Victor H. Ashe, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors;

Calendar No. 803, Walter Isaacson to be a member and chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors;

Calendar No. 805, Michael Lynton, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors;

Calendar No. 806, Susan McCue, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors;

Calendar No. 807, Dennis Mulhaupt, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors;

Calendar No. 808, S. Enders Wimbush, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors;

Calendar No. 809, Bisa Williams, Ambassador to the Republic of Niger;

Calendar No. 810, Raul Yzaguirre, Ambassador to the Dominican Republic;

Calendar No. 811, Theodore Sedgwick, Ambassador to the Slovak Republic;

Calendar No. 812, Robert Stephen Ford, Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic;

Calendar No. 814, Gary Scott Feinerman, U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois;

Calendar No. 815, Sharon Johnson Coleman, U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois;

Calendar No. 816, Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York;

Calendar No. 817, Noel Culver March, U.S. marshal for the District of Maine;

Calendar No. 818, George White, U.S. marshal for the Southern District of Mississippi;

Calendar No. 819, Brian Todd Underwood, U.S. marshal for the District of Idaho.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the calendar numbers as read; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that any statements relating to the nominees be printed in the Record.

Madam President, finishing up, hopefully, we do not have to do this again. Hopefully, we have turned a page on a new day and secret holds are going to go away.

Let me once again give kudos to Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley. They worked on this issue for years trying to clean up secret holds and thought they got it done when we passed S. 1 back in 2007. Similar to a bad habit that is hard to break, this one evidently has been very hard to break in the numbers I just went through. Those are all the people who have secret holds right now. Hopefully, by the end of the week, we will learn who it is in the Senate who does not want them to be nominated, who it is who does not want them to be confirmed, and that they are willing to speak out about their objections so we can answer them, move forward, and get these people to work for the people of this great country.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. will meet on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, at 4:00 p.m., to conduct its organization meeting.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Derron Parks on 202-224-6154.

Mr. President, I am confused about why the hearing we had scheduled this afternoon cannot go forward. The subject matter of this hearing is oversight of the contract that is engaged in police training in Afghanistan in the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight. This is a hearing that is getting to the heart of the matter; that we have a real problem with the mission part in Afghanistan on police training because of problems with these contracts--problems with oversight at the State Department.

We have now canceled the hearing because we have been told we can't have it. The witness from the State Department has been canceled, the witness from the Defense Department has been canceled, and the inspectors general who were coming to testify about a GAO report that just came out last week that was damning in its criticism in the oversight of these contracts.

I don't get it.

Mr. President, we have had a lot of that childhood story we all learned of ``Chicken Little.'' We have had a lot of Chicken Little around this building in the last few months: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. You know, I woke up this morning, I looked up and the sky was not falling. Every day that goes by in America people are going to realize the sky is not falling. In fact, as time goes on that sky is going to get bluer and brighter because people in America are going to realize this bill is not full of booby traps, it is full of good things that will reform health care.

I rise this afternoon to take a couple of minutes to talk about a new low of obstructionism, taking game playing to a whole new level. In 10 minutes I was supposed to convene a hearing on the contracts for police training in Afghanistan. This is a very important part of our mission in Afghanistan, the training of local police departments. There was a witness who was going to be there from the State Department, a witness there from the Defense Department, the Inspectors General were going to be there.

Just last week GAO wiped out a contract that had been let on police training because of problems in the way the contract was competed. So this hearing was timely and it is important. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan if we do not have effective police training. These contracts are problematic. The State Department is supposed to be overseeing them. We have hundreds of millions of dollars not accounted for.

So what do I find out this morning? The Republican party is not going to let us have the hearing. What in the world? Why in the world are we not being allowed to work this afternoon? Why in the world are we not able to ask questions at a hearing in a few minutes as to why the police training is not going well in Afghanistan and how we can do better?

Our men and women are over there and they are at risk if we do not get this right. I don't get it. I don't get what the purpose of saying no is. I don't get what we accomplish. We are sent here to work. We are paid by the people of this country to work. The idea that I had to call these witnesses and say go home because the Republicans will not let us have a hearing--

somebody has to explain this to me. Disagree with us, debate, vote no-- but let us work. I implore you: Let us work.

Mr. President, today I congratulate a special group of students from my home state of Missouri. The Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestra has earned the honor of performing in New York City at the 2010 Instrumental Music Festival at Carnegie Hall, which is being held from March 26 through March 29. The Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestra is one of three instrumental groups throughout the Nation to be honored with this remarkable opportunity. These students have my admiration and my sincere congratulations. I know they will be great ambassadors for all students in Missouri.

It is clear that this notable achievement is a direct result of the students' discipline and dedication to their musical talent. Under the direction of orchestral program director Patrick Jackson, these young musicians are locally renowned and have earned national acclaim for their work. Particularly noteworthy was their performance at the 2008 Heritage Music Festival in New York City. That performance, which received perfect marks from the judging panel, was so stirring that more than one judge was moved to tears. It is a fitting advance in the storied history the students of the Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestra are writing that they would be invited to play in the world- famous Carnegie Hall.

As you can imagine, becoming a member of this elite ensemble is not easy. Members of the Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestral Program make a 9-year commitment that begins in 4th grade and continues through the students' senior year in high school. Mr. Jackson has directed the symphonic orchestra for two decades. During that time, participation has grown from 19 students to more than 300. As a testament to Mr. Jackson's commitment to his students, he has been honored by former students in Who's Who Among American High School High School Teachers 17 times.

Moreover, the resounding support for the symphonic orchestra from the communities of Kirkwood and Saint Louis has been inspiring. In order to make the trip, the students reached their fundraising goal of $72,000 with the help of local radio, TV stations, and newspapers promoting their yearlong ``Road to Carnegie Hall.'' Inspired by these young musicians, members of our own Saint Louis Orchestra were moved to volunteer their time and expertise with the students in advance of their performance.

Mr. President, I understand how difficult being a kid in this day and age can be. All too often, we read and hear negative stories about America's children that seem to suggest a generation in crisis. These Kirkwood students make it clear that this is not so. I am proud to shine a light on this group of young people who strive for greatness and embrace the fact that the greatest heights can be achieved through hard work and discipline.

On behalf of myself and the people of Missouri, I congratulate the Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestra and wish them the best of luck during their time at Carnegie Hall.

Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Pryor amendment and in favor of the Sessions-McCaskill amendment on us trying to get our fiscal house in order.

Right now in America, most families are figuring out where they can cut the budget. Most families are figuring out what the extras are that even though we don't want to give them up, we have to give them up. That is what America is doing right now. Most local governments are doing the same thing. They are sitting around rooms trying to figure out where they can cut budgets because their revenue is down.

In Missouri, the Governor has had to cut the budget significantly. Even with the stimulus money we sent to Missouri to help them balance their budget, they are cutting programs. They are cutting employees. They are doing what they have to do to balance the budget. Then we get to Washington. Everybody in America is cutting back except Washington.

We came very close a few weeks ago--59 votes--to a very modest baby step. We are not talking about something that is earth shattering here. We are talking about limiting the size of growth. We are not cutting anything. The Sessions-McCaskill amendment cuts nothing. All it does is limit the size of growth, of discretionary spending in both the defense budget and the domestic budget. We had 59 votes to limit the growth of discretionary spending.

Would it be great if we could do the same thing with mandatory right now? I think it would be. I think it would be terrific if we could limit the size of growth of mandatory spending right now. Could we, in fact, roll back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest? I would be for that. The bottom line is we have 59 votes for a baby step.

So what happens around here when we have 59 votes for a baby step? We come up with an amendment, frankly, that is more cover than substance. It is time to take a hard look in the mirror. If we can't do Sessions- McCaskill, what can we do around here? What can we do to show the American people we understand that government can't continue to grow when revenues aren't? We have done some big, bold things--and I have been supportive of all of them--to bring us back from the brink of a recession. They were very important. But I have been so discouraged by what has been going on around here the last few days: the circling of the wagons.

This amendment, with all due respect--and he is my friend; we have worked together on many things--but 50 votes to waive, are you kidding? You have to have 60 votes now to waive, and they are lowering it to 50. The only changes we have made to the Sessions-McCaskill amendment since that 59-vote margin we got a few weeks ago is we moved down how many votes you have to have for emergency spending. It is no longer subject to a 67-vote point of order. This was done to address the concerns that some Members had about Congress's flexibility to respond to emergencies, though it is very hard to find any emergency in history that Congress hasn't addressed with more than 67 votes. We moved that number down. Now the caps only cover 3 years. A 1-percent growth over the next 3 years, when every other government in America is cutting? A 1-percent growth over 3 years. Is that so hard? There are no caps on this year in this amendment and no caps for 2014. The Pryor amendment only has 1 year of caps and it can be waived with 50 votes, and then it purports to try to mandate that the fiscal commission do some things. By the way, if the fiscal commission doesn't do it in time, then none of this counts.

We are outsourcing our responsibilities here. I was for the fiscal commission. I was a cosponsor. I think we have to be honest about what this body is capable of doing and what it is not capable of doing. But did I think this body was not capable of 1 percent of growth for 3 years in discretionary spending? I had no idea this body wasn't capable of that. The pressure that is being put on Members as part of that 59 is depressing to me.

This is one of those moments where I separate from leadership of my party. I am proud to separate from leadership

of my party, because this is the right thing to do right now. America doesn't think we get it, and you know what. They are right. We don't. A 1-percent growth in government in discretionary spending for the next 3 years is a reasonable approach to what we are looking at in terms of both our deficit and our debt.

I am sorry leadership does not agree with me on this. I am sorry leadership does not think this is good public policy. But I have to tell you, we worry around here about elections. I will tell you, the folks who are thinking this side by side is somehow going to cover them from the wrath of the American people when it sinks in that we are not even willing to limit growth in a meaningful way in this country--when I am in the grocery store when I go home on the weekends, that is what I am constantly told when I run into people: It just doesn't feel like you guys get it. If we end up with less than 59 votes today, if we go backward rather than forward, do you know what I am going to have to tell them when I see them in the grocery store this weekend? You are right, the majority of my party does not get it.

By the way, I am willing to stand right now and cosponsor anything we want to limit the growth in mandatory. I am for that too. I am for doing whatever we need to do to make sure we look at the revenue side. I am for that also.

But this is a baby step, and if we cannot take the baby step right now at this moment in history with this mess we are facing in terms of finances, then I think we are in a world of hurt, just a world of hurt.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, there are those in this body who will say vote for the side-by-side because it does more.

It does not. It is cover. It is very weak; 50 votes to waive. Everybody would love to go after mandatory spending. We do not have the will to go after discretionary spending. It is a joke if anybody thinks this body is ready to take on mandatory spending.

This is a very baby step to control growth by 1 percent beginning next year for 3 years. When you look at what State governments are doing and local governments are doing and what America's households are doing, and we cannot control growth of 1 percent for 3 years? We are cutting nothing. We are cutting nothing. Everyone in the country is cutting but here, where we print money.

This is a reasonable approach. If we cannot take this baby step, then we have got to admit to the American people we do not get what they are going through; we are completely out of touch.

At the risk of predicting bipartisanship is going to break out at every corner of this place, I saw my friend was on the floor and I wanted to take a minute to come and talk about what this amendment represents on several levels. First, it is truly a bipartisan effort. My friend from Alabama, with whom I have worked closely on this amendment, is right. There is plenty of blame to go around and we spend a whole lot of time on the blame game on this floor. This is a moment we can get beyond that. This is a moment we can support our President, we can speak to fiscal accountability, which many of my friend who are in my party and many of my friends in the other party like to talk about. But there is the talk and then there is the walk. We have a lot of talk about fiscal accountability but so often we kind of do not want to walk the walk. This is a moment we can walk the walk.

The President wants to do this. In fact, as my friend pointed out, the President's spending freeze goes further than this amendment. It goes further than what we are proposing to do. This is not an unreasonable amendment. In fact, it leaves out emergency spending, which we have talked a lot about this year. It leaves out this year because of the kind of critical economic situation in which we find ourselves. It leaves out wartime spending for those conflicts the Congress has authorized. But everybody else is in the pool. Everybody else is in. We have to look at, over the board, the kind of spending freezes where 1 to 2 percent is enough in light of the deficit we are facing.

We are so close to passing this. We are so close. I am not sure if we succeed in passing it that confetti is going to drop from the sky or balloons are going to come down, but they should, because it will be a moment, maybe the first moment in a long time, that the American people, if they were paying close attention, would think to themselves: You know, maybe they get it, just maybe they get it.

If we fail to pass this modest, appropriate path to fiscal responsibility--if we fail to pass this, then I don't blame the people for whom I work. I do not blame them if they shake their heads in wonderment. What is it going to take? How much money are we going to pretend we have, year after year, handcuffing the greatness of this Nation? Because if we are honest about it, this Nation has been great for many reasons: our values, the strength of our military, but at the end of the day, this Nation has been great because we were an economic power. We were the country everyone looked to about how we did our economy, how we promoted entrepreneurs, how the free market lifted all boats. We will not be able to survive in economic greatness if we do not figure this out.

In fact, if we look over our shoulder right now, there are a couple of big guys coming up on us and they hold our debt. They hold our debt.

I know I have some fence sitters particularly on my side. I say to all the

fence sitters, this is not as aggressive as the President has laid out. Support your President. Freeze spending at a reasonable level, leaving out emergencies, leaving out wars that we have in fact signed off on in Congress, and let's get busy showing the American people once and for all that we get it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this amendment is one of those opportunities where we get to walk the walk. There is an awful lot of talk about how we have to do something about spending. There is a lot of misinformation out there about this amendment.

First of all, it exempts emergencies. It exempts mandatory spending, such as UI and COBRA. It exempts our wars. It exempts emergency spending. It is less aggressive than the President's spending freeze that he has laid out for next year. It does not apply until the next fiscal year.

This is the moment we can walk the walk instead of just talking the talk and show the American people we get it. Two percent is not unreasonable in terms of increases every year when we look at the pile of debt we have to deal with in the coming decades.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(G)(3) of the statutory Pay-As-You-Go

Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am not prepared with some of the questions I would like to ask because, frankly, I am surprised. I would like to be able to ask you and compare the numbers in Missouri, the number of families who are going to find out tomorrow morning that even though we have appropriately extended unemployment benefits, that now we are not going to. I think they are going to be as surprised as I am. It is easy to get out of touch in this place. People are deferential to you around here. They open doors for you and bow and scrape. It is easy to forget what people are going through, what families are feeling right now, how hard it is for them to look to the future and still see that American dream on the horizon.

Really, 30 days of unemployment? Really? Have we gotten to that? Have we gotten to the point that that is going to be a political football? I think we have to take a hard look in the mirror, if it comes to this-- 30 days of unemployment insurance for families who want to work, who deserve to work, who are trying to work.

By the way, let me ask the Senator from Illinois, if the unemployment runs out, where do those families go? What happens then? Where do they go?

I am assuming if they get to the point, then it is food stamps, right?

There is other governmental assistance that is available to them. Maybe they will have to lose their homes. They would have to go to homeless shelters.

What I am trying to get at is there is a cost to this. It is not like all of a sudden the government is not going to get any cost if these people stop getting unemployment insurance. If they lose their health insurance, it is not as though they are going to not get treated in the emergency room if they get hit by a car on Monday. We are going to take care of them in the emergency room. We are all going to pay for it.

This is wrong. I hope the Senator sticks around and renews this motion for a while. I hope some of us stick around and help.

The American people need to realize how out of touch this place has gotten.

Mr. President, we have been talking about whether tax cuts were paid for. Let's talk about

other things that weren't paid for. That is what this is about. As the Senator knows--in fact, I know the Senator from Illinois gets irritated at me sometimes because I am constantly trying to figure out ways that we can be more fiscally responsible around here. Sometimes I swim upstream on some of those things. I was one of the cosponsors of pay- go. In fact, pay-go was in place in the 1990s, and it was allowed to expire in Congress. It was 2000, or 2001, or 2002, in the early years of the Bush administration, when the Republicans had the majority. They let it go. They said they didn't need pay-go anymore. This is probably the most glaring example, and it gets in my craw, because I now hear so much about fiscal responsibility, and as we struggle with this health care bill, making sure that we pay for it, I look back at Medicare Part D. Now that is a lallapalooza right there, Medicare D.

I am wondering if the Senator from Illinois remembers what the vote was on the motion to waive the Budget Act on Medicare D.

Well, it is interesting. It was a big majority to waive the Budget Act. I have the vote here. There were 61 votes to waive the Budget Act, including our friend from Kentucky. I think the CBO score on that was around $450 billion, as I recall.

Not a dime of it paid for--not one dime. It is all on the credit card, one big blob of red ink.

Is the Senator aware how many of our friends on the other side of the aisle have new religion--this is new religion about balancing the budget--and how many actually voted for Medicare D? It was a brandnew entitlement program, a massive government entitlement program, a government-run health care-related government program, and not one dime was paid for? Do you know how many on the other side, who are still serving today, voted for this new entitlement program?

It was 24. Do you know who the Senators were who voted for this massive, government-run entitlement program that added hundreds and billions of dollars to our debt--not tax cuts? We can argue about whether tax cuts create jobs. Clearly, those didn't because we inherited a big mess in terms of job creation. But do you know who the Senators serving on that side are who now want to preach about fiscal responsibility and pay for programs--how many were willing to put that kind of program on the credit card? They were Senators Alexander, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Chambliss, Cochran, Collins, Cornyn, Crapo, Enzi, Grassley, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kyl, Lugar, McConnell, Murkowski, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, Snowe, and Voinovich.

All of it was a massive government entitlement program run out of Washington--big government, big bill, not paid for, and there was not one word about it needing to be paid for. And we fast forward to now. That is a big part of our deficit. We now figured out on Medicare D that we transferred a bunch of taxpayer money straight to the bottom line profits of the pharmaceutical companies. I wasn't here then, but maybe the Senator can enlighten me. My recollection is that the biggest people in favor of Medicare D were pharma.

They have made a fortune on the backs of taxpayers.

In that bill, they even outlawed the ability of the government to negotiate for lower prices based on volume. Those are ``good business practices''--make sure we cannot get a good deal based on how many drugs we are going to buy. We cannot even lower the cost of this massive government entitlement program by negotiating for lower prices based on volume. They outlawed that.

I have a couple more questions. I wasn't here when the major tax cuts went through in the Republican Congress with President Bush--the tax cuts that were supposed to bring about great prosperity and job creation in our country. Of course, they didn't. We have had record job losses. As President Bush left office, my recollection is that we were having between 600,000 and 700,000 job losses every month. Clearly, the plan that these tax cuts would be a time of wine and roses for all didn't work out. My recollection is that that tax cut was done by reconciliation, wasn't it?

I think it was. Reconciliation only lasts for so long and then they sunset. I think that was one of those things where a massive amount of government liability was incurred through reconciliation at that time.

Let me also ask a couple questions about the stimulus. I know the Senator from Kentucky was offered a chance to have an amendment paid for by the stimulus. I don't think that we have talked enough about what is left of the stimulus money and what it is for. It is my understanding--and correct me if I am wrong--that a big chunk of the stimulus that is left is in fact the tax cuts for working families. In fact, the tax cuts were a 2-year period. So, of course, that was about one-third of the money, and only half of that has been paid out because we have only been through a year of the stimulus. We still have money waiting to go out in the form of tax cuts to 95 percent of America--in fact, the exact opposite folks who got the tax cuts under George Bush.

Is that my understanding about what is remaining in the Treasury as it relates to stimulus?

Tax cuts for working folks.

These are working folks. They are not--frankly, my family is very blessed. The tax cuts that were passed helped my family. It didn't help some of the families out there now struggling with unemployment.

The rest of the stimulus that is out there--I have been interested in Missouri. In fact, I wrote a letter to the

budget chairs in Missouri because they were kind of puffing up about how they were going to be able to balance the budget this year. I looked into it and realized that the only way they were balancing the budget this year was because of the stimulus money. It is, in fact, the stimulus money that has gone to Kentucky, gone to Illinois, gone to Missouri, gone to Oregon, gone to Alaska, and gone to Rhode Island. That is what is allowing these State legislatures to keep from making massive layoffs of public school teachers. There would be massive cuts in education in Missouri this year, and, frankly, no cuts in public education would be popular in Missouri.

I asked the Missouri legislators. I said: Some of you have been talking about doing away with the stimulus, pulling back the stimulus. In fact, some of our friends across the aisle said we should get rid of the rest of the stimulus. I asked the State legislators: What will you cut if we pull the stimulus? Tell me how Missourians will be hurt if we decide to pull the rest of the stimulus and maybe spend it on other things, such as perhaps this emergency bill dealing with unemployment insurance. They would not tell me. They want the people of Missouri to think they are balancing that budget with fairy dust. They don't want the people of Missouri to know that, in fact, the stimulus is what is out there helping these States balance these budgets because their revenue has dropped off the charts, just like our revenue has, which is causing some of the deficit and which is certainly contributing in a great way to the debt as it relates to a drop in revenue, an increase in unemployment expenses, and then the programs that have been passed in the previous administration not paid for.

I have 20,000 Missourians--20,000--who are going to find out sometime in the next 48 hours that they are done with unemployment. I cannot help but believe that if we have this kind of crisis at the other end of the income scale, that all of a sudden we would not have this newfound religion that this is the moment, this is the hour, this is the day that we are going to find new religion about deficits. It is the wrong time.

I am a cosponsor of pay-go. I am a cosponsor of the fiscal commission. I don't take earmarks. I voted against the omnibus. I voted against many budget bills because I think there was too much fat in them. I voted against a lot of fiscal measures in this body. But this is not the time to do this on the backs of these families. It is the wrong time.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Rhode Island all came here in the same class. The Senator from Oregon just arrived in January. So we have not been here for a long time to watch how the Senate works and how the Senate traditionally has worked. I know it appeared to my pal from Tennessee that this looked like some organized ambush of the Senator from Kentucky. I have to tell you the truth, we are not that well organized. If we were that well organized, we probably would have been doing more of this a long time ago.

I honestly came down to the Senate floor understanding a deal had been made to give Senator Bunning a vote on his amendment. I expected that vote to occur. I had not talked to my office. I was surprised when I got to the floor and realized that Senator Bunning, which he can do under the rules, was going to hold it.

I walked up as I was finishing voting on the third bill, and I said to Dick: Are you going to stick around and make him object again?

He said: You know, I think I am going to stick around for a while. I just do not feel right going home.

At that moment I thought: I do not feel right about going home either. I think it is time, if we are going to do an objection every 5 minutes, and if we are going to have holds--if this was a hold on a nominee, it could wait until Monday. But when Senator Bunning decided to do this, it came at a risk. And the risk it came with was that there were going to be Senators who were going to speak out about it. There were going to be Senators who were going to disagree with him, and they were going to publicly say that this is not the moment.

This $10 billion, with all of this deficit spending that has gone on for the last decade, this is not the moment to have one Senator say: I can stop it. So I felt like I wanted to talk about it. But nobody organized this. Nobody said: Jeff Merkley, can you stay? This is just some of us decided we wanted to stay and talk about it.

Here is what I ask. Have there been this many objections and holds traditionally in the Senate?

Have we had this many? Have there been this many obstructions to the regular order of the Senate traditionally?

Well, I guess what I am trying to ask the Senator is--I do not think most Americans think the Senate is working very well right now. I think most Americans think we are behaving sometimes like children. I think most Americans are not sure what the rules are and what the difference is between a cloture, a filibuster, a motion to proceed, and a motion to recommit; what is the difference between a reconciliation and a conciliation or all of the other terms we throw around here.

But there is one thing I think we all need to come to grips with; that is, if we are going to try to stop the place, we need to be proud to own it. I think that goes on both sides of the aisle. If a Senator wants to hold a nomination, I do not think they should be allowed to keep it secret for 10 seconds. If somebody wants to try to hold a bill or wants to object to something, I think this nonsense that they have had in the Senate forever that it is a secret for a while is the stupidest thing that I can possibly imagine.

If you are big enough to get elected to the Senate, you ought to be big enough to own what you do with your rights when you get here. Senator Bunning has stood up strong tonight, and he has explained his position. A few of us stuck around and talked about our positions. I think that is about the healthiest thing we can do. I think it is a heck of a lot healthier than running around behind closed doors placing holds that nobody knows are there or why.

I make a pledge tonight that if I am ever going to hold anything, the minute I decide to do it, I am going to say what it is, why it is, and I am going to own it. I think it is time that all of us do that. If somebody is not willing to own it, then I hope someone comes to the floor and does to them what we are doing tonight.

I think the sooner we own what we are doing with our rights in the Senate, the sooner we wear them like a proud coat of bright-colored feathers, the better off we are going to be in terms of getting things done around here. This is not about making the other side fail. That is not what this is supposed to be about. This is supposed to be about us working together like you are trying to do.

My friend, the Senator from Tennessee, you are doing the right thing. You are trying to find common ground and work hard, and there are plenty of us who want to do that. I hope that whatever is motivating you to work as hard as you are working in a bipartisan way, I hope it is contagious because if you can spread it around a little, I think the American people would be so proud that we would quit this nonsense of political holds and political ``gotcha'' amendments.

By the way, I am the first to admit this has gone on on both sides. This is an equal opportunity Senate. But it is time that we try to make this place work better.

I have to tell you honestly, my dear friend, I think tonight helps. I do not think it hurts. I think it is a good thing, and I am proud to have participated in this tonight. I think the Senate would be a healthier place if we did it more often.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for yielding for this time, and I thank him for sticking around as long as he has, so at least we now know what has happened and why.

Madam President, I wish to take a minute to speak in favor of this amendment. This should not be as hard as it appears. All this amendment is doing is asking us to live up to our vote last year on the budget bill. What we all decided to do last year on the budget bill was set some limits on spending for the next few years. All we are doing with this amendment is saying we are going to have to live up to our vote. It has 2 percent increases every year.

People have said there is going to be a problem because of the 67- vote threshold. Well, I have looked over the emergency votes we have had in this Chamber and there has not been a time when we haven't gotten them--on Katrina or other things. It exempts anytime Congress authorizes force. I wish to emphasize that for my colleagues. Anytime Congress has authorized force of our military, it exempts it.

Somebody spoke about the veterans. Do my colleagues think we can't get 67 votes for the veterans in this Chamber?

Seriously, it is time we begin to live up to what we say, and in the budget bill we all voted to do this. So let's put it in the law as we had in the 1990s. Don't ask me why we let it expire in 2002. I wasn't here. But we had both pay-go and this kind of freeze in the 1990s and we balanced the budget and we created a surplus. Let's go back to that time for the sake of our grandchildren.

Madam President, I yield the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I acknowledge my colleague, Senator Sessions from Alabama, and welcome the opportunity to join him in an attempt to restore some sanity in Congress about spending.

I come from a State where there is a requirement of a balanced budget, although, over the last couple years, I am not sure how they would have done that without incredible pain if it hadn't been for the help the Federal Government sent them. There is no question that the fact that we don't have to balance the budget in Washington has led to some very bad habits.

I was thinking about spending over the weekend, as this week there are a number of provisions we will debate that I have sponsored or am a big supporter of, including the fiscal task force amendment which went down this morning by a narrow vote, and obviously pay-go, which I have been the lead Senate sponsor on over the last several months. These are all things with which we are trying to fight something that you encounter all the time as a parent. How much easier it is to say yes than no. My kids hate when I give them that lecture because they are always wanting me to say yes. I always say the easiest thing to do is to say yes--yes, you can have that outfit; yes, you can take my car; yes, you can go see your friends, even though I am not sure you finished whatever chores you had around the house. It is always easier to say I will go along with it, it is a good cause.

That is what happens around here. It is not like we are spending on evil stuff. We are spending on stuff we believe in--education, highways, our parks, our military--and we are spending on things that make it even harder to say no.

The time has come that we all have to feel the pain of saying no. We all have to be willing to suffer the political consequences of saying no. That is why this amendment is such an important step in the right direction.

I want to be honest about this because we have a tendency to make things bigger than they are. This isn't going to make a dramatic change in the deficit or the debt. I am not sure how many Americans have focused on the difference between the two, but they are two different things, and it will not make a huge difference. People need to remember that if we took out all discretionary spending and decided we were not going to spend another dime on education, highways or any of the things we decide on spending every year, we will still have a massive deficit problem. We don't fix the deficit by passing this amendment. We don't fix the deficit by saying we are not going to even do discretionary domestic spending anymore. So this is not a fix-all. Do you know what it does? It begins to get us well. It is a little like earmarking. Is earmarking the huge problem? No. But it is similar to a fever; it is a symptom of a disease. This will help us get well.

It will be a step toward recovery if we can pass this amendment to freeze our discretionary spending. I am so pleased the White House has called for a freeze. I think this is a wonderful bipartisan moment. I think we are all hankering for a good bipartisan moment right now. I hope we are all hankering for a good bipartisan moment. I got worried this morning on the vote on the fiscal task force because it seemed like there might have been some political games being played. I don't know about anybody else, but I am hankering for a good bipartisan moment. This ought to be one, where Republicans and Democrats set aside who looks good and who looks bad, who gets credit and who gets the blame, and do something we need to do.

We used to have a freeze and we used to have pay-go. They were both allowed to expire in 2002. I wasn't here. I am not sure why they were allowed to expire. Did Congress all of a sudden think we don't need pay-go anymore or we don't need limits on discretionary spending anymore because we are out of the woods when it comes to the deficit or debt? I am not sure why that happened. I know most of the folks who let those things expire wish they could take it back. I bet most of the folks who did voting for major entitlement programs without paying for them during that time--I bet they wish they could take it back because now we are in a real mess.

The first and most important step to get out of this mess is to vote to control our spending. I am hopeful this will be passed by a wide margin. Some of my friends on the left have said the last thing in the world we should do now is limit spending, that government is the answer in this difficult recession. I voted for the stimulus, and I think the tax cuts in the stimulus, which don't get talked about enough, and the help to the States, which doesn't get talked about enough, and the jobs that will be created this year are very important to the progress we have made in terms of climbing out of the economic hole we found ourselves in a year ago.

But we will not get out of this recession on the back of government spending. If we decide it is just about government spending during this recession, we are dealing a very bad hand to our grandchildren.

I hope this amendment passes. I hope it is not even controversial. I am so pleased the President is on board, and I am pleased that so many members of the Republican party are on board. Let's take this important step, and then let's live up to it during the appropriations process. Let's realize that pet project at home that we know we can get because we can get an earmark--maybe this is the year to say no and push back from the table and say all those pet projects, those earmarks, are not the right signal we need to send to the American people this year.

I thank my colleague from Alabama and Senator Kyl, who were cosponsors on this. I look forward to wide bipartisan support. I look forward to enthusiastic applause tomorrow night in the President's State of the Union Address, when he lays out his freeze on spending. We are all on board now. Let's make it happen.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in honoring the 20th anniversary of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, MO.

This Friday's Legacy Awards, honoring Major League Baseball's brightest stars, kicks off what promises to be a season's worth of events marking the 90th year of the establishment of the Negro Leagues, and the 20th anniversary of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. As a Missourian, I am proud that Kansas City is home to what is not only a local jewel but a National treasure which honors the Negro Leagues, its legendary players, and its place in the American civil rights movement.

In 1920, Andrew ``Rube'' Foster established the Negro Leagues at the Paseo YMCA in Kansas City. The Leagues flourished from 1920 through well into the 1950s. Once forward-thinking baseball executives signed such standout African-American players as Jackie Robinson and Roy Campanella, interest in the Negro Leagues began to wane. By 1960, as the civil rights movement gained momentum and the best players found their rightful place in the Major Leagues, the Negro Leagues finally folded.

In its heyday, the Negro Leagues was a firmly entrenched and beloved part of African-American culture in Kansas City and throughout the upper Midwest, Northeast, and Southern regions of the United States. The museum's Bob Kendrick tells us that many ministers would start church services early on Sundays when the Kansas City Monarchs had a home game on the calendar. Men, women, and children would leave right after church just in time to get to the ballpark, dressed in their Sunday finest, to watch the game. It was the highest level of competition, and players like ``Cool Papa'' Bell, ``Satchel'' Paige, and Josh Gibson always made the game exciting.

Kansas City's beloved Buck O'Neil, a former Negro Leagues player, Monarchs' manager and Major League Baseball's first African-American coach, helped establish the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in 1990. Back then it was a tiny one-room office in the historic 18th & Vine District in Kansas City. Its mission--the same as it is today--was to preserve and celebrate the history of African-American baseball.

As chairman of the board, Buck O'Neil and his crew took the job seriously, working hard to raise money, acquire what curator Dr. Raymond Doswell has turned into an amazing collection of original memorabilia, and bring worldwide attention to the museum. By 1997, the museum was robust enough to move into its current 10,000 square foot home at 18th & Vine, where today the story of the Negro Leagues comes to life through its exhibits.

Over time, the museum has had the privilege of welcoming visitors from around the world, and such dignitaries as U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The museum's National Advisory Board is flush with prominent individuals from the worlds of sports, politics, and the media, all of whom have come to recognize the important role the Museum plays in telling the story of civil rights, sports, and culture in 20th century America. George Will, Ernie Banks, Colin Powell, Lou Brock, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson, and noted documentary producer Ken Burns are all members of this amazing group of supporters.

In many ways this museum is Buck O'Neil's legacy. Buck, 94 years young at the time of his death in 2006, left a permanent inspirational mark on the game of baseball and all who were fortunate enough to have crossed his trailblazing path. Kansas City--and America--are fortunate to call him our own.

On this the 20th anniversary of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, I ask that we pause for a moment to pay tribute not only to Buck O'Neil, but to the many unsung African-American baseball heroes who helped the Negro Leagues flourish until the better instincts of baseball executives ultimately made the need for such a league obsolete. This remarkable chapter of American history will be preserved forever thanks to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, a truly American treasure.

Mr. President, I had no intention of speaking today, but this place has been a little strange over the last few months in terms of our ability to come together.

When I heard my friend from Tennessee talking about the Conrad-Gregg amendment, I realized we had a moment of bipartisan agreement. I wanted to stop and recognize that it is not completely gone. There are Republicans and Democrats who agree on issues.

I could not agree more with my friend from Tennessee. I think this statutory commission is our best hope at restoring fiscal sanity in this country. It is important that we adopt it. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. There are a number of us on this side of the aisle who are cosponsors of the amendment. There are a number of Republicans who are cosponsors. But I am beginning to sense that there may be some political game-playing that is going to occur here, and it worries me.

The leader, with all due respect--in a bipartisan moment, I am going to backtrack a little bit. I remember the Republican Party announcing that this was one of their priorities. Now all of a sudden we are hearing that the leader of the Republican Party is opposed to it. Think about that for a minute. Before the shores got rocky for Democrats politically, this was a great idea.

Everybody here knows we are not going to fix this problem in the regular order. Everybody knows it. It is not going to happen. So we are going to talk deficits, we are going to continue to say deficits matter, and we are not going to do the things we have to do to fix it. Until people begin to put aside politics and think about the policy that is really involved here and what it means for the future of this country, we are in deep trouble.

I implore my friend from Tennessee to restore this as one of the priorities of the Republican caucus, to prevail upon his leader to not--I hope this is not the case, but the rumors are floating around that they have backed off this as a priority because if the Democrats do this, it is going to make them look good. We have to quit making the failure of the other guys our success. This place cannot be about that. By the way, it happens on both sides. I am not saying this is just a problem on the Republican side of the aisle. But we really do have a place where the way politics are played today makes it very difficult for us to come together in a bipartisan fashion.

This is a moment in time that this could happen. I implore my friend from Tennessee--and he is my friend. We have been here the same amount of time. We have watched all of this sometimes with our eyes bugging out and our jaws slack as to what goes on around here and how things work. This is a time we can come together and do something that is responsible for this country.

I am going to work very hard on my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I hope my friend from Tennessee does the same thing on his side of the aisle. I think we will have a vote on this amendment sometime in the next week or so. It is very important that we stand up and be counted as people who are more worried about our grandchildren than the next election.

Mr. President, I rise to state my support for the extension of unemployment benefits that was included in H.R. 3548. Recent reports on gross domestic product by the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicate that we are out of the recession. However, unemployment is a lagging indicator, and we will need to see more GDP growth before employers start hiring again. In the meantime, families in Missouri and across the country are hurting. The unemployment rate in Missouri is 9.5 percent. American Airlines announced just last week that it would close its maintenance facility in Kansas City, and 490 workers are losing their jobs.

I believe we have a responsibility and an obligation to help good, hard working Americans who are struggling in these difficult times. To that end, the extension of unemployment benefits will provide a vital lifeline to people struggling to find work through one of the most severe recessions in our lifetime, and I fully support it.

I also strongly support inclusion in this bill of the provisions from the Service Members Homeownership Tax Act, which I introduced. These provisions will ensure that our troops deployed overseas this year and next will not be penalized for their service when they seek to buy their first homes. You cannot shop for a house while you are hunting al-Qaida in Afghanistan or supporting a diplomatic mission to NATO Allies, so it is only fair that service members have additional time to take advantage of the first-time homebuyer tax credit. This bill will give members of the armed, intelligence, and foreign services who were stationed abroad in 2009 or 2010 an additional year to qualify. It will also eliminate the ``recapture'' requirement for servicemembers. Unlike other recipients, they will not have to pay the credit back if they move within 3 years, as long as the relocation is service-related. Finally, Housing Assistance Program benefits that were expanded in the Recovery Act will be exempt from taxation. These temporary benefits are helping cushion the financial blow to military families who are forced to sell their homes in the current, depressed market. Families who are reassigned or are relocating to seek treatment for service-related injuries are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the program. I would note that the cost of extending the first-time homebuyer tax credit for servicemembers will be less than one percent of a full extension of the credit, and that the cost was fully offset in the bill I introduced.

Unfortunately, H.R. 3548 went further than only taking care of our men and women in uniform. It also contains a fiscally irresponsible extension and expansion of the first-time homebuyer tax credit for many other Americans. I do not support this extension.

Congress created the first-time homebuyer credit last year as a timely, targeted, and temporary response to the housing crisis, designed to reduce excess housing inventories by encouraging home purchases. Judging from home sales over the past few months, the credit has helped stabilize the housing market. However, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has found serious instances of fraud within the program, and economists have suggested that extending the credit is not the most effective way of addressing the remaining problems in the housing market. Now that we are out of crisis, it is time to let the first-time homebuyer credit expire. We simply cannot continue to expand one-time programs from the stimulus and ever expect to return to a state of fiscal responsibility. If we say it is a one- time program, it should be a one-time program.

In conclusion, I applaud the important, commonsense steps we have taken for Americans looking for work and for military families. I am disappointed that a broad extension of the first-time homebuyer credit was included in this legislation. I would not have supported an extension of the credit independently. However, the positive elements of this bill outweigh the negative, and I support the overall bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great leader, inspiring public servant and American icon, Senator Edward Moore Kennedy.

I do not need to stand here and talk about what the Kennedy legacy has meant and continues to mean to this country. It is, at this point, simply a part of the fabric of our country.

I do not need to recite the resume of Edward Kennedy or extol his many accomplishments. His life's work speaks for itself. It will stand the test of time and, no doubt, become even more remarkable when viewed in hindsight.

I do not need to reiterate each of the noble causes Senator Kennedy fought for with passion and vigor. We know that his pursuit of dignity, opportunity and respect for every man and woman will benefit generations to come, and inspire so many more to carry on in the cause.

Yes, there is no doubt that Senator Edward Kennedy will be remembered far into the future and that history will treat him well, but I want to take some time today to talk about the people here and now that he leaves behind that may be the most telling about Ted Kennedy. In those moments and for those people, we got a chance to see something very special.

For some people it was very personal moments shared between family and friends--the opportunity to know him in a way others could only hope to glimpse.

And some were his arch enemies at the podium while also his dearest, most respected partners on causes behind closed doors.

Some became believers based on passion-filled political speeches delivered from his earliest of days in the spotlight to some of his last, spectacular moments right here on the Senate floor.

While others had their lives changed because he was brave enough to stand up for them when the cameras were not rolling and the majority was not on his side.

Ted Kennedy, the lion of the Senate, would roar about the need for better health care, improved public schools, and providing help to working families. He knew how to channel the emotion, the urgency and the helplessness he saw in the eyes and heard in the voices of those he was fighting for. And he didn't just beam it from the mountain tops--he worked on the solutions to these needs day in and day out with astute skill.

There is a Ted Kennedy that will be remembered in the history books and he will be great and strong and smart and good, but there is also a unique part of Ted Kennedy that will stay with many of us in our own special ways.

A politician. A public servant. A patriot. A prince of Camelot. A fighter. A negotiator. A liberal. A brother, husband, father, and friend.

The Lion sleeps. . . .

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

Madam President, I understand I cannot call up an amendment right now because of the rules that are currently in place, but I wish to speak about an amendment I will be offering at a later time when the rules permit.

Madam President, the amendment I will be offering speaks to what I see as a very fundamentally flawed process in our appropriations in Congress. I am not in the majority in this body as it relates to the subject of earmarks. I realize I am one of very few in my party and a few more but not a whole lot on the other side of the aisle who do not participate in the earmarking process.

I hope my amendment is calling attention to how this process is flawed and why we need to change the process. There are many problems with the process, but two of them I am going to speak briefly about today.

One, the process is fundamentally unfair. It is rather mysterious how much money gets set aside for earmarks and who does it and where it happens. It is even more mysterious as to how the decision is made as to how the earmarks are distributed among the Members.

I point out that in looking at the appropriations bills that we have handled so far, it is very clear that the process is heavily weighted toward the Members who serve as appropriators. I get that. That is part of the culture that has grown up around earmarking; that is, if you are an appropriator, you are entitled to get more. I am not sure that is a good way to spend public money, but I think it is important to point out that is the process.

Fifty percent of all the earmarks in this bill are going to the members of the committee. Last week, it was even more egregious. I don't think most Members realized when we voted on the T-HUD bill, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill last week, that in the Transportation part of the bill, there was $1.6 billion in earmarks. Over 50 percent of that money went to four Members, four States. So out of 50 States, four States got more than half of all the money. Well, when I tell that to people in Missouri, they say: Huh? How does that happen? How can that happen? And I frankly don't have a very good answer for them.

The other problem I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues today is not just the process as it relates to how earmarks are distributed but where these earmarks come from. This money is not growing on a secret tree somewhere that we are harvesting. It is coming out of programs. It is coming out of budgets. One of the things I found most troubling is that many of these earmarks are coming out of competitive grant programs or formula grant programs.

Formula is a formula because there is a way that is predictable about how the money is distributed--based on the size of the State, based on population; depending on the program, based on geography. It is a formula everybody understands. Taking money out of a formula to fund earmarks takes it from a predictable process based on merit to a very unpredictable process based on who you are.

The same thing with competitive grant programs. Competitive grant programs are ones where merit is supposed to rule the day based on criteria

set forth. The amendment I will offer basically wipes out the earmarks in one of these competitive grant programs. The program I am referring to is a great program--it is called Save America's Treasures. It was created by executive order in 1998. It is a public-private partnership, and there are specific criteria as to what a project has to have in order to qualify for this money--$20 million.

This is a small example. I admit this is not going to change anything, as we keep talking about bending the cost curve, but it is a great example of what I am talking about. It began as a competitive program and it has begun to morph into something more than a competitive program because now half of the money this year will be earmarked, leaving only $10 million for a competitive program.

So if your State doesn't get an earmark, either in the House or the Senate, in the bill, then the chances of your State getting any money out of this program have been cut in half. It is only $10 million for the entire country for these grants which are to restore America's historic treasures across the country. That is a problem.

Is this an isolated problem? No. No. In fairness to this subcommittee, this is a little problem compared to some of the other competitive grant programs that have been raided for earmarking. The hijacking of public money for earmarking from the competitive grant bus is going on everywhere, and let me give another couple of examples.

Last week, when we did the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, there were two good examples. They are programs that began to provide competition to valued programs across the country. The first one is the Neighborhood Initiatives at HUD, the Housing and Urban Development Department. In 1998, Congress created this program. The interesting thing is it was created to help people who were doing welfare-to-work projects. Great intentions; great program.

Ironically, HUD began granting these awards to people based on the competitive criterion that Congress had given them. Congress passes the program, funds the program, and tells HUD these are the competitive bases on which you should make these grants. There were no earmarks in the program at all in 1999--none--after Congress created the program. Beginning in 2001, however, every dime in this program under the Neighborhood Initiatives Program has gone to earmarks. Once again, a competitive merit process morphs over into a completely earmarked process.

How about another example of a program--the Economic Development Initiative, also in HUD. Congress introduced the program in 1994; once again, a congressional program. Funds were to be awarded competitively, and for the first couple of years they were. EDI funds were awarded competitively. Congress started earmarking the account beginning in 1998. By 2001, the entire account was earmarked. So Congress began it as a good idea, and said do it competitively. By 2001, competition was gone.

Ironically, the statute that sets out the criteria for competitive EDI is still on the books. It is still in the law, but we no longer follow it because there has been a decision to morph that competitive program into an earmark program. I think that competition is a good thing, and this isn't about a bureaucrat somewhere sprinkling fairy dust and supplementing their judgment for the judgment of Congress.

In fact, the examples I have given are programs that were designed to be competitive, and in two or three instances they were designed to be competitive by Congress itself and then somehow they have morphed over into a pecking order of priorities based on someone's seniority or the committee they serve on, or even if they are in some political trouble. It seems to me a goofy way to spend money, especially the public's money.

I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. All it does is restore the program to a competitive basis and allow every State to compete on the same basis for the money in that competitive program. When the time is right, I will call up the amendment, once the rules allow me to do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment is a very small step. It restores a competitive grant program--a small competitive grant program. Over the last decade, competitive and formula grant programs have been decimated by earmarking. Earmarks have become more transparent under reforms that have been made, and that is great. Is the process still fair? No, probably not. The lion's share of the earmarks in this bill, in this program, and in all of the appropriations bills go to the very few Members who serve on one committee. This will allow us to put this money back into a competitive process so all the States in the Nation have an equal opportunity to participate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I ask for the yeas and nays.