Floor Statements

Madam President, the budget resolution we are considering now proposes to increase discretionary nondefense spending by $35 billion from the level approved in fiscal year 2009. My colleagues should all understand that this is $15 billion less than was requested by President Obama.

As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I am not particularly pleased that the resolution has cut the President's request by $15 billion. We on the Appropriations Committee know that in order to meet the level proposed by the Budget Committee, we will have to make real cuts in the budget proposed by President Obama.

But I must say that I am surprised that we are now facing an amendment which would seek to cut discretionary spending even more. As I stand here, I find myself somewhat at a disadvantage to explain all the impacts that would occur if further cuts are made.

While we know the overall parameters of the President's budget, we do not yet have most of the details on the thousands of programs which will be reviewed in detail by the Appropriations Committee. That information is not available to the Congress at this moment. So we really do not know which programs that have been supported by the Senate in years past will be proposed for cuts or elimination. We do not know which fees or offsetting collections might be buried in the President's request that the Congress is likely to insist on eliminating, adding to the unfunded costs in the budget. We also know that nearly all of our colleagues will be asking for items that will not be included in the request. We know that many of you will be writing our various subcommittees urging that we adopt new programs and initiatives that might be incorporated in this budget. And we know this for sure: The committee will face a much larger burden than just identifying $15 billion that can be reduced by the President's request.

With the few details we have already received about the budget request, there are a few things that we know would result by freezing nondefense discretionary spending.

First, my colleagues should all be advised that the largest single increase in the domestic spending budget for fiscal year 2010 will be for the census. A $4.5 billion increase is necessary to meet our constitutional responsibility. This amount is needed in fiscal year 2010. It cannot be delayed. The timeliness and accuracy of the census will be in jeopardy if we do not fund this amount.

Second, we are advised that the budget will include a $3.5 billion increase for the Veterans' Administration to cover the cost of medical care inflation, as well as projected increases in VA enrollment, and new initiatives such as the proposal to expand VA health care to over 500,000 modest-income veterans.

Increased veterans health care services and specialty care services targeted at the growing population of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans include prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury, which would have to be curtailed if we freeze spending. Surely, the sponsors of this amendment do not want us to cut these needed increases for our veterans.

Madam President, if I may be personal at this juncture--and this is not in my prepared text--I had the privilege and honor of serving in the Army of the United States during World War II. I was literally a young boy. I was 18 when I got in. But I know a few things about that war.

My regiment, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, has been declared to be the most decorated unit of its size in World War II. It also had one of the highest casualty numbers of any war.

We began our battles in Italy in June of 1944, and the war ended in May of 1945. In those 11 months, we began our service with 5,000 men, infantry men. At the end of 11 months, over 12,000 had gone through the ranks, all brought about because of the necessity of replacements to replace those who had been wounded in action. So when our men got involved in a major battle--I remember one battle that lasted 5 days. At the end of the battle, our casualty rate was 800, and of that number 250 dead. When you see these numbers, somehow Iraq becomes inconsequential: four today, three tomorrow. But at that time, times were a little different. For example, if I had been wounded in Baghdad, I would have been evacuated from that site of battle to the hospital within 30 minutes by helicopter.

On my last battle, when I received three wounds--my arm, my gut, my leg--I had to be evacuated by stretcher. Evacuation began at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I got to the hospital at midnight--9 hours. So it sounds unbelievable, but with all the casualties we have had, not one double-amputee survived the war. And we had dozens of them, but they bled to death because of the long evacuation. Not one brain injury case survived because of the long evacuation. Not one spinal injury case survived because of the long evacuation. Today, they are all surviving, and this amount will cut it out. Help for them will disappear.

On a final note, I think about this and I chuckle. When I was taken to the hospital at midnight, we were put into a tent about half the size of this Chamber. Hundreds were lined up on stretchers, and teams of doctors and nurses would go down the line, look at the medical card, and whisper among themselves--and you could hear--``No. 1,'' ``No. 2,'' ``No. 3.'' By the time it got to me--I sensed that ``No. 1'' meant: Send him immediately to the operating room; ``No. 2'' meant: Oh, his injury is not that serious, he can wait; ``No. 3'' was: You have done a good job for us. Thank you. So people would see the Chaplain going to all the No. 3's.

The Chaplain came to me. I did not know, but I was designated a No. 3, and the Chaplain said: Son, God loves you.

I looked at the Chaplain, and I said: Chaplain, I know God loves me, but I am not ready to see Him yet.

So here I am.

What I am trying to say, is that in that war, seriously injured soldiers did not survive. And maybe in a sense, it is God's gift. I would hate to think of myself lying in bed the rest of my life looking at the ceiling.

But they survived, and I think it is our responsibility. This amendment would cut that out.

If I may proceed further, third, we know that the budget will include a $250 million increase to cut down on overpayments in Social Security. We know this from experience, that for every $1 we spend, we save $10 in inappropriate payments. Isn't that a good investment? By spending $250 million, we are going to save billions. I thought the business was not in spending but in saving. We would lose more than $2 billion in mandatory savings by freezing discretionary funds.

Fourth, we have an amount of $183 million, which would be cut out. We are told by the Department of Agriculture that an additional $183.5 million will be needed simply to maintain existing rental assistance agreements. This assistance provides subsidies to maintain affordable rent and utility costs for very low-income rural residents. Without this increase, 41,705 households will face substantial rent increases forcing many to leave, be evicted from their homes.

I know the sponsors are not seeking to force the poor from their homes.

Madam President, as you preside and as I speak, we should keep in mind that many of our fellow citizens are sweating out each day, not knowing whether he or she has a job tomorrow or whether they can keep up the payments on the mortgage or whether they can pay for health care or whether they can pay the rent. Without this, all hope is gone. The least we can do is to let them know we are here to help them get through this crisis.

Yes, there is another one.

Fifth, we know about potential accidents at airports. We know we do not have enough trained air traffic controllers. This resolution provides funds for that purpose, to train them so we may have safer traveling.

When I travel, which is not often enough, I go to Hawaii. It takes, just in flying time, 11 hours. I feel safe because I have confidence in our air traffic controllers. But many of them are now on the verge of retiring. We need a new crew. This budget resolution provides the funds for training them.

The FAA faces a crisis in maintaining an adequate workforce of trained air traffic controllers with a freeze in nondefense discretionary spending for 2010, the FAA would be forced to freeze or reduce the number of new air traffic controllers the agency can bring on board and train--worsening the experience shortage we already have in our air traffic control towers. With a freeze in funding, the FAA also would be unable to settle an ongoing dispute over the terms of its contract with its air traffic controllers. This dispute has hurt the agency's productivity and its ability to retain experienced controllers, who are essential to training the agency's newly hired controllers.

Sixth, the section 8 tenant-based account provides critical resources to help the Nation's most vulnerable families find and maintain safe and affordable housing in the private market. Congress provides annual funding adjustments for this program to cover housing cost increases, so that all families served by the program can maintain their housing. If nondefense discretionary spending were frozen in fiscal year 2010, housing agencies wouldn't have the necessary resources to cover these increased costs. As a result, tens of thousands of families could be at risk of losing their housing.

Seventh, we know that because of high food costs and other factors, the overall cost of the WIC program has already increased dramatically. In fiscal year 2009, $760,000,000 above the budget request was required to keep people from losing WIC benefits. A freeze on spending could cause no new participation, waitlists, and could potentially cause some people to lose benefits.

As I noted earlier, we simply do not have all the details of the budget to be able to explain to our colleagues all the harm that a freeze on discretionary spending will do.

Nonetheless, I believe from the information that we have already received that I just listed it is clear that we simply cannot sustain additional cuts in the request.

These economic times are tough. But in tough times our people count on the Federal Government for more services.

Each day as more wage earners lose their jobs, more of them become eligible for many of the assistance programs which I have highlighted. Many of these programs are designed to help people in need during difficult economic times.

Our efforts to reduce spending here will result in an even greater reliance on mandatory programs such as welfare rolls, food stamps, and public assistance.

For these reasons I must oppose the amendment from the Senator from Alabama, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Madam President, as I said, I am going to vote against this amendment. It is a bad amendment. It is not American.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I yield my time.

Mr. President, last week when considering H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, I filed technical corrections to the table of congressionally directed spending items contained in the explanatory statement offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives which accompanies the bill H.R. 1105.

I wish to add the following technical correction to the joint explanatory statement that accompanied H.R. 1105:

On page H2368 of the Congressional Record of February 23, 2009, the words ``Perkins Career and Technical Education Act'' should read ``Higher Education Opportunity Act'' and the Senate requesters associated with this item should be changed to ``Conrad; Domenici; Dorgan.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 604

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

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

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

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

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

I oppose that amendment.

Amendment No. 674

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

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

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

If the Omnibus is not enacted, $550 million less would be provided for the FBI to protect our Nation and our communities from terrorism and violent crime. Not passing this bill means 650 fewer FBI special agents, and 1,250 fewer intelligence analysts and other professionals fighting crime and terrorism on U.S. soil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list is as follows:

Carrie Apostolou, Arex Avanni, Michael Bain, Dennis

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

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

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

Cameron, George A Castro, Doug Clapp.

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

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

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

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

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

Leif Fonnesbeck, Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick, Lauren

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

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

Hammond, Jonathan Harwitz, Lila Helms, Stewart Holmes,

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

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

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

Ellen Maldonado, Nikole Manatt, Stacy McBride, Matthew

McCardle, Meaghan McCarthy, Rachel Milberg, Mark Moore,

Fernanda Motta, Ellen Murray, Scott Nance.

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

Osterhoudt, Sudip Parikh, Melissa Petersen, Brian Potts,

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

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

Schulken.

LaShawnda Smith, Renan Snowden, Reggie Stewart, Goodloe

Sutton, Rachael Taylor, Bettilou Taylor, Christa Thompson,

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

Augusta Wilson, Sarah Wilson, Brian Wilson, Franz

Wuerfmannsdobler, Michele Wymer, Bridget Zarate.

Mr. President, most Americans have a healthy understanding of the difference between a pay raise and a pay adjustment based on inflation.

Most Americans will tell you that when they do receive a pay adjustment to their wages, they do not consider it a raise; they consider it being held harmless against the impact of inflation.

The pay adjustment provided to Members of the House and Senate is based on a method established by the 1989 Ethics Reform Act that requires the annual adjustment be determined by a formula based on certain elements of the employment cost index, an index that measures inflation of wages.

Basically the formula is tied to the pay adjustments given to Federal employees under the General Schedule.

Further by law, and under no uncertain terms, Members cannot receive an adjustment greater than the increase provided in the base pay of our GS level Federal employees.

Understanding that the substance of the matter before us is not about pay raises for Members but about pay adjustments tied to inflation. Everyone in this Chamber also is aware of the economic situation we are facing as a Nation.

Because of this economic crisis, section 103 was included in the underlying bill, stating that Members of Congress will not receive a cost-of-living adjustment in fiscal year 2010.

We have proactively addressed the issue of a Member pay adjustment and the current economic situation.

To offer this amendment today is simply playing politics.

This amendment is about trying to make it appear as if Members are against prohibiting a pay adjustment for themselves, when in fact they already have prohibited a pay adjustment for themselves.

This amendment is about trying to change the underlying bill, knowing that the House has indicated they will not take this bill back up, in an effort to force the Government to operate under a continuing resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year.

If the Senator from Louisiana is successful in having his amendment adopted and killing enactment of the underlying bill, the prohibition against the Member pay adjustment for fiscal year 2010 will not be enacted into law.

Further our Federal agencies will have to decide between eliminating programs or firing employees as they absorb the 2009 cost increases at fiscal year 2008 funding levels.

This amendment does not do anything that is not already addressed in the underlying bill, and its passage could in fact jeopardize the steps that have been taken.

I encourage my colleagues not to take the political bait here, and vote against this amendment which appears to do one thing, but in fact creates exactly the opposite situation.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 668

Madam President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 593, an amendment submitted by the Senator from Arizona.

This amendment limits the flexibility of the executive branch. It has no impact on Government spending and

will not add to congressional oversight. It is an amendment which will serve no useful purpose to either the Congress or the executive branch.

The amendment of the Senator from Arizona states that no funds for congressionally directed spending programs could be spent unless the items were included in bill language. The Senator seems to believe that the inclusion of the items in bill language affords the Congress greater oversight over the items. This is not correct. The Senate has the ability to review, debate, and vote in relation to any item, whether it is included in this measure as bill language or just identified in report language.

The Senator apparently believes that putting items in the bill language offers better control over spending. The opposite is true. When items are contained in bill language, the executive branch is afforded less opportunity to exercise management over use of the funds. For example, if the Congress appropriates $1 million for an item in bill language, the funding can be used only for that purpose. Under current law, funds must be spent for the purpose for which the funds were appropriated unless the Congress has provided agencies additional authority to transfer funds. While most agencies have some ability to transfer funds, the rules are more often restrictive. The only other recourse an agency has is to propose the funding for rescission.

The effect of this amendment would be to require that every item specified in bill language could not be altered without either the use of authorized transfer authority or the passage of a new law governing the use of funds. If a product is allocated $1 million in report language but only costs $800,000 to complete, in most cases agencies are afforded some flexibility to reapply the remaining funds for other authorized purposes. However, once the items are included in bill language, unless additional legal authority has been enacted, they cannot be allocated for another purpose. If a Government program manager has an additional and unneeded $200,000 but which can only be used for that one purpose, what incentive does he or she have to make certain all the funds that are approved for spending are really necessary? The unintended consequence of this amendment is to limit the ability of agencies to adjust to changing circumstances, such as reduced costs or resolution of environmental issues. This amendment needlessly ties the hands of agencies.

This amendment will not save funding. If it were to be enacted, the Congress would simply move items that currently appear in report language to bill language.

We shouldn't see this amendment as a way to reduce spending. It would probably necessitate the adding of an additional 1,000 pages to the bill, but it would not save a dime.

I am not sure what useful purpose this amendment is thought to have. Its enactment would limit the flexibility of our agencies to manage funds. The amendment provides no additional congressional oversight of funding. It would have no impact on spending. Its adoption would, however, force the Senate to send the bill back to the House, further delaying the passage of this important legislation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time remains?

Madam President, I realize time is of the essence, so I will simply say I wish to oppose amendment No. 668, which was submitted by Senator Enzi, which would strip a hold-harmless provision enacted last year in the Ryan White Act, an act we passed several years ago to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. It is an amendment that will cause some problems to the cities that are helping in this fight, and I hope my colleagues will oppose this amendment.

In 2006, the Ryan White Care Act programs were reauthorized, enacting

some dramatic shifts in the formula by which funds are disbursed to municipalities. Without increased funding, some cities were slated to have more than 25 percent of their funding cut.

To reduce the impact of these extreme cuts, the Labor HHS Appropriations bill has included provisions since 2006 that accomplish two things.

First, the bill has provided increases in the formula funds to offset the cuts.

Second, the bill included language in Part A providing a fully funded partial hold-harmless account.

As the formula funding is increased every year, the funding needed for the hold harmless is decreased. The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill ensures that no municipality receives more than a 6.3 percent cut from fiscal year 2006 funding levels.

The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill includes a $35 million increase for Part A grants, of which $10.8 million is used specifically to hold cities to no more than a 6.3 percent cut in their funding level.

The remaining $25 million is used to increase the formula allotments as the second part of efforts to reduce the impact of the authorized shift in the formula.

The Enzi amendment seeks to stop the efforts to soften the blow to those geographical regions negatively impacted from the authorized shift in formula.

When the reauthorization was debated, the best information out there was that there were 40,000 new cases of HIV per year in the U.S.

In 2007, just after that reauthorization passed, we learned that number is really more than 56,000. Between 2004 and 2007, we saw a 15 percent increase in HIV diagnoses. We knew none of this when the reauthorization passed.

With this many new infections happening, we cannot afford to cut HIV treatment funding to any one area so drastically.

We are not overriding the formula. All we are doing is ramping down the funding gradually. As the formula funding increases, the need for the hold harmless decreases.

The Enzi amendment seeks to stop the ramp down approach and impose draconian cuts when our cities simply cannot afford to keep up.

I urge my colleagues to agree to the modest adjustment included in the underlying bill and vote no on the Enzi amendment.

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

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

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

Amendment No. 668

Mr. President, I understand Senator Thune has modified his amendment to correct an earlier drafting error.

The original amendment proposed a $400 million across-the-board cut against the programs funded in the interior division of the bill, as an offset to increase funding for various Indian health and safety programs in the interior division by $400 million.

As it stands, the modified amendment proposes that the $400 million across-the-board cut now applies to the entire omnibus appropriations bill, not just the interior subcommittee's division.

Nevertheless, I still oppose the Senator's amendment.

This amendment now makes cuts to all programs in the omnibus.

This means there will be cuts in job training, law enforcement, cancer research, highway funding, food inspection, energy research, and on, and on, and on.

I know that no single cut will be that great, but if we are going to go down this road, where will it end?

Who brings the next amendment, claiming that it only cuts 0.1 percent?

How many more of these will we have to accept before we say we have cut enough out of law enforcement or enough out of health care?

Mr. President, just to make the record clear, the interior division of this bill contains $2.376 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and $3.581 billion for the Indian health service.

Many of the programs run by those agencies and by the tribes themselves deal directly with health and safety issues.

We cannot start chipping away in this fashion and have any hope of ever finishing this bill.

Furthermore, the amendment, as modified, causes the interior bill to exceed its 302(b) allocation for budget authority. This makes it very troublesome.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, on behalf of the leadership, I object.

I concur with Senator Dorgan.

Yes, I concur with Senator Dodd and Senator Dorgan.

I, too, will work with the Senator to clarify this provision.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the attached subcommittee memberships for the 111th Congress printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, amendment No. 596, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, prohibiting funding from being used for no-bid contracts would appear on its face to be a good amendment, an amendment that some are asking: Why would I vote against this?

When this amendment first appeared as an amendment to the recovery act, the Senate passed it by a unanimous vote because it appeared to be a good-government amendment. However, what we quickly learned as we began conference negotiations with the House is that the consequences of this amendment are more far reaching than simply prohibiting no-bid contracts.

Because of the way this amendment is drafted, it is destructive to small business and minority-owned businesses in this country, as well as to Native American funding. This amendment states the only procedures that can be used to award funds in this act are the procedures in accordance with only section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. As a result, this amendment prohibits agencies from making any awards to small businesses through statutes that have been enacted over the years that provide assistance to small businesses, including small veteran-owned businesses, service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, tribal enterprises, women-owned businesses, HUBZone-qualified businesses, and other entities covered through the SBA programs, as well as the Javits- Wagner-O'Day Act, just to name a few.

Mr. President, in terms of Native American funding, this provision would essentially overturn the so-called ``638'' contracts whereby a tribe contracts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Indian Health Service or other agency to perform the function of that agency. These contracts are not competitive pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act and other statutes enacted to help Native Americans.

In fact, efforts were made to correct this language during the conference negotiation of the recovery act so that small businesses-- the backbone of this country--and Native American funding would not be unnecessarily penalized by language that combined the broad dismissal of authorization statutes and the narrow citing of one procurement law. Even with the significant improvements made to the original text, the Senator from Alaska, who is the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, asked that I enter into a colloquy with her during consideration of the conference report to clarify that the language did not impact existing Federal procurement law applicable to programs that allow for set-asides and direct-award procurements.

Mr. President, I cannot speak to the intentions of the Senator from Oklahoma as to what he wants to accomplish with this amendment. To be clear, however, I can speak to the consequences of the pending amendment. It will have a destructive impact on the small business programs and Native American programs mentioned above.

Do we really want to prohibit small veteran-owned businesses, service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses from Federal funding opportunities unless they compete in the same manner as large corporations? Do we really want to prohibit small women-owned businesses from Federal funding opportunities unless they compete in the same manner with large corporations? Do we really want to say our Federal agencies must ignore existing Federal procurement laws that govern these small business programs and Native American programs and allow only these small businesses to compete subject to section 303 of the law?

This amendment systematically ignores years of Small Business Committee and Indian Affairs Committee authorizations enacted into law by insisting that all contracts be awarded through one specific section of one specific law. This is the exact language the Senator from Oklahoma offered during Senate consideration of the recovery act and not the provision that was amended after Members were made aware of the negative impacts on our small business community.

Consequently, while it appears to be a good-government amendment, it is in fact the opposite. If this amendment is adopted, it will cause significant disruptions to small businesses across this country, and I don't wish to be part of that effort. Small businesses make up 99.7 percent of our Nation's employers and 50.3 percent of our Nation's private sector employment. Denying the ability of these small businesses to compete on a level playing field would severely impact small businesses that are

already struggling to stay afloat during the current economic downturn.

Given the information we have learned since this amendment was first proposed several weeks ago, and given the fact the language before us does not take into account and address the many problems raised after it was first proposed, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is the least we can do for our small businesses, particularly given the economic crisis we are currently in.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 623, an amendment submitted by the Senator from Oklahoma, because it is most troubling for several reasons.

First, this amendment presumes guilt without the benefit of the full legal process. Second, it presumes that the 14 clients actively or knowingly participated in the alleged activities of the firm without any evidence to support that assumption. Third, the amendment will punish the clients for having funds allocated to their projects

without any knowledge of wrongdoing. Fourth, it makes the assumption that Members requested these projects because of ties to the lobbying firm rather than because these projects addressed the needs of their constituents.

The last thing we in this body should do on matters such as this is rush to judgment. Yes, we know the firm was raided by the FBI, and we also know the firm is in the process of being disbanded, but we also know no one from the firm has been convicted of any crime. In fact, as far as we know, no one has even been indicted for a crime. Further, there is nothing to suggest that the clients themselves are being investigated, much less guilty of some Federal offense. There has been absolutely no indication by anyone involved in the actual investigation that any of the clients of the PMA firm were involved in any illicit activity.

Under our legal system, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but under this amendment we will presume such guilt. We will presume guilt even of those who are not under investigation. It is not the responsibility of the Senate to presume guilt. That determination should be left to the courts based on evidence presented by Federal investigators.

Our ``evidence,'' however, is based on press reports. But even in this most questionable evidence, there has been no assertion that the clients were involved in any type of criminal activity and certainly none has been accused of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the amendment would deny funding for projects included in this bill by Members of the House and the Senate. The projects were approved by the relevant subcommittees and displayed publicly on the Internet.

Rather than assuming guilt, what we should assume is that Members who asked for these projects did so because they believe they will serve the needs of their constituents. We have no information that indicates that funds were recommended for these programs because of the efforts of any lobbying firm. We can't even say with certainty the funds were included at the behest of this particular lobbying firm. I would point out that the Senator from Oklahoma must also not be so sure since he has modified his amendment to remove one of the projects which he originally had on his list.

Are we seriously considering voting to cut funds for projects because we think they might--they might--have been related to a firm which is under investigation, even though the projects' advocates are not under investigation?

As do many of my colleagues, I meet with lobbyists every year--dozens of them. They seek hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks in appropriations bills. I am not the only Member in this situation. Incidentally, the firm is not a Hawaiian firm, although the projects involved are Hawaiian. For the most part, the lobbyists with whom I meet request funds for projects pertaining to my State of Hawaii. But as do most Members of Congress, I seek funding only for ones which I believe will have the greatest benefit for my State and for its citizens and which hold the greatest promise for achieving a larger national objective. This is what we were elected to do--to serve our constituents.

Why do we presume guilt in this instance instead of innocence? Why do we assume wrongdoing by clients because they hired this lobbying firm? Why should we assume Members requested funds because of the efforts of the lobbying firm instead of the merits of the programs?

I can't speak personally of any of these projects because most of them were included by the House and agreed to by our subcommittees, but I do believe most Members act responsibly. I, for one, am willing to give the Members who sponsored these projects the benefit of the doubt that they did so because they believe the projects were meritorious and worthy of their support. I am not willing to presume our Members are guilty of wrongdoing because their constituents hired some lobbyist who might--and I emphasize the word ``might''--have been engaged in some illegal activity.

Do any of us seriously believe the Members who sponsored these programs in their States and districts did so for any reason other than it benefited their constituents or they believed in the work the clients are engaged in? For every Duke Cunningham willing to trade earmarks for cash, there are 534 other Congressmen and Senators who would never think of doing such a thing. I do not believe we should impugn the motives of the Members who sponsored these earmarks, and I can think of no reason to do so.

I recognize this is what we call a tough vote. Many Members might wish to vote in favor of this amendment because they fear the news spot that says they supported crooked earmarks. But my colleagues should understand if we don't stand up for this institution--the Senate--and its Members, no one else will. We should all recognize the next time this could be your earmark or mine. You could be the one standing on the Senate floor forced to defend yourself because someone is accused of wrongdoing, even though that matter is completely unrelated to your behavior.

This is actually a simple matter. There is no evidence to support wrongdoing by the Members involved. There is no evidence to suggest these projects are not meritorious. There is no evidence to suggest the clients who engaged in these projects did anything wrong.

Finally, we cannot be certain anyone engaged in any wrongdoing. This amendment sets a course down a slippery slope that is unnecessary. Federal laws already provide remedies to recoup funds depending on the circumstances if our legal system determines laws were broken. Funds can be rescinded and improper payments can be recovered by the agencies involved.

Finally, the agencies have their own rules and regulations to follow if they believe there is any impropriety involved. We should allow the legal process to work and then assess an appropriate response based on the results. We should not convict the clients and Members and enact punishment before we even know whether a crime has been committed. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I am sorry. Yes, I withhold.

Madam President, may I associate myself with the comments of the chair of the Commerce, State, Justice Subcommittee regarding the amendment proposing an earmark for the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act.

Make no mistake, no one in this Chamber is interested in denying funding to resolve unsolved civil rights cases--no one. But what we are interested in doing is passing this bill as quickly as possible, so that the Department of Justice has the necessary and adequate funding to pursue these cases.

This amendment slows down that process. This amendment earmarks $10 million with existing funding for the Weed and Seed Program, which is an authorized competitive grant program under title I of the Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act, which funds communitywide strategies to reduce violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activities.

This authorized program has nothing to do with resolving unsolved civil rights cases. Yet this amendment takes almost half the funding in one authorized program designed to combat violent crime and gang activities and earmarks it for a different program that already has millions in funding available for this effort.

I am confident this administration's Department of Justice will be using its resources to solve as many of these cases as possible.

The Department of Justice has at its disposal $123 million provided for the Civil Rights Division, $151 million in funding to reduce the backlog of untested DNA evidence, and $30 million for State and local governments to investigate and prosecute civil rights violations.

These are just a few of the many authorized civil rights-related programs for which the subcommittee chair has provided increased funding for the fiscal year 2009.

The best way to fund initiatives of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act is to pass this measure--the underlying measure--now and send it to the President for his signature. The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma detracts from that effort, while providing no overall benefit.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence after quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 596; that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to a vote; that upon disposition of amendment No. 596, the Senate resume consideration of the Coburn amendment No. 608; and that there be 20 minutes of debate remaining with respect to the amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation thereto; with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Coburn or their designees; that upon the use of that time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 608.

Mr. President, I wish to clarify the time. There is no time at this moment, but it will be soon.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Coburn amendment No. 596.

Mr. President, I ask permission to speak as chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. I realize the Defense bill is not part of this package, but I have become quite concerned with the debate because I am certain many of my fellow Americans are now reaching the conclusion that earmarks are evil, that it is a waste, the money is down the drain.

I would like to share with my colleagues and refresh their memory as to what some of the funds have been spent for. This may come as a surprise to many Americans, but breast cancer research is in the Defense bill. It is an earmark. The National Institutes of Health has just declared that the finest

research on breast cancer is that program. That is an earmark because no one wanted to put in money for breast cancer. Now it is becoming the fad of the Nation. It is popular. But it took an earmark to begin that program. We have spent millions of dollars.

Then we have an aircraft called the C-17. It is now the most productive and the best working aircraft we have to carry cargo and personnel. Then we have the F-22, a fighter plane that requires a landing space just about the size of this room. I am citing these because these have shortened a war in Iraq. There is also the Predator, the unmanned vehicle. We send a plane out with no pilot, but it sends back signals and photographs, makes it possible for the men and women on the field to know what is on the other side of the mountain. That is an earmark. It did not come out of the mind of the President of the United States or from the Defense Department. It came from the minds of the members of the committee. I dare anyone to suggest that these are evil products. It has helped to shorten the war. It has helped to save lives. It will bring back the brave and courageous men and women from Iraq.

Yes, there are many more I can cite. But I think these few should remind us that earmarks are not evil.

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

Mr. President, many of my colleagues whose spending initiatives are under attack by this amendment have spoken today to provide a more detailed explanation of what the funding would be used for.

If we took the time to listen, we discovered that what may appear frivolous based on a three word description is actually relevant to the programs under which the funding is provided, and relevant to improving the lives of our constituents.

For example, the tattoo removal earmark on this list is for a program run by Providence Holy Cross Hospital in Mission Hills, CA, to remove gang insignia tattoos of reforming gang members. It is an effective anti-crime program founded by Sister June Wilkerson.

For ex-gang members, having a tattoo often means not getting hired for a job, or beaten or killed. It is that simple. It is that effective.

I have a few comments about the bill as a whole and earmarks. I would also like to note that this bill reflects a reduction in earmarks of 45 percent from fiscal year 2006 and a 5-percent reduction from last year.

These initiatives are not a surprise to anyone in this chamber. Every earmark in this bill is on the Internet.

A few Members are simply trying to pick a project here and a project there to attack to further their effort to amend and delay passage and possibly kill this bill.

We need to finish our work here.

I have no problems with reforming the way we do business, in fact, in our continuing effort to provide unprecedented transparency to the process, Chairman Obey and I announced further reforms to begin with the 2010 bills, including: (1) a further reduction in earmarks. We have committed to reducing earmarks to 50 percent from fiscal year 2006 level; (2) posting requests online to offer more opportunity for public scrutiny of member requests. Members will be required to post information on their earmark requests on their web sites at the time the request is made explaining the purpose of the earmark and why it is a valuable use of taxpayer funds; and (3) early public disclosure to increase public scrutiny of committee decisions.

Earmark disclosure tables will be made publically available the same day as the House or Senate subcommittee rather than full committee reports their bill or 24 hours before full committee consideration of appropriations legislation that has not been marked up by a Senate subcommittee.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona proposes that the Congress should enact a continuing resolution until the end of the year instead of fulfilling our responsibilities and completing work on the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2009.

Last summer the Appropriations Committee reported 10 Appropriations bills to the Senate. All of them were reported to the Senate from the Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. Eight were reported with unanimous support. Of the ten bills, only three were enacted.

The other bills were put on hold because the previous administration refused to negotiate on overall spending levels approved by the Congress.

Two other bills, Legislative and Interior, were prepared by the Subcommittee Chairmen, in concert with their Ranking Members, but were never completed.

These nine unfinished bills were left on the shelf until the current administration was elected.

Last fall the House and Senate Appropriations Committees sat down in bipartisan negotiations to work out the differences between these nine bills.

The result of those negotiations is the bill before the Senate today,

Mr. President, the measure before us, H.R. 1105, is consistent with the funding levels approved in the budget resolution. Therefore, I sincerely believe there is no justification for any amendment to reopen this bill to further cuts.

The Republicans argue there is an overlap between the funds added in the recovery bill and the omnibus bill before us. At the request of Republican Members, Senator Cochran and I called upon our staff to conduct a bipartisan review of the impact that the Recovery Act has on the omnibus bill. That review determined that there is, at most, minimal overlap. Let me explain. First, there are 900 programs in the omnibus bill. Fewer than 20 percent receive stimulus funds. For those who may want to offer an across-the-board cut to this bill, they would be harming more than 80 percent of the programs for the Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Treasury, HUD, Energy, and so on.

Second, of the programs with stimulus funds, only 100 have an increase in the 2009 omnibus bill above the 2008 funding level, and many of those increases just cover inflation or are relatively small. Nearly half of these programs averaged about $5 million in increase between 2008 and 2009. In many cases this does not even cover the cost of inflation.

Analysis will show there are 30 programs in the bill before us which grow substantially between 2008 and 2009 by a total of $15 billion. Of the omnibus growth of the $15 billion we measured, $13 billion is either entirely unrelated to the stimulus bill or is required in addition to the Recovery Act funds to achieve policy objectives or was funded in response to strong political support which would eliminate any chance of reducing it.

I would like to mention a few critical priorities that would go unmet if the Congress were to pass a CR rather than the omnibus. On food and medical product safety inspections, this omnibus bill would provide the Food and Drug Administration with an increase of nearly $325 million, of which $150 million is included in the current continuing resolution.

If this measure is not enacted into law, the proposed increased funding for the FDA would be reduced by $175 million. This reduction in funding would significantly decrease the number of food and medical product safety inspections, both domestic and overseas, that the FDA could perform.

On the matter of consumer product safety, this measure would provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission with an increase of $25 million or 32 percent above the 2008 level. Without this funding increase, this Commission would not be able to implement many of the reforms and new directives contained in the newly enacted Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to make children's products safer, such as the consumer complaint database, an overseas presence, and increased inspector general staffing, and staffing generally.

On the matter of the enforcement of securities law, inadequate resources for the Securities and Exchange Commission would hamper the ability to undertake vigorous enforcement of security laws to help bolster the integrity of the financial markets just when such enforcement is needed.

On the matter of the Federal Aviation Administration, this agency faces a crisis in maintaining an adequate workforce of trained air traffic controllers. Without the increase provided in this omnibus bill, the FAA would be forced to freeze or reduce the number of new air traffic controllers the agency can bring on board and train, worsening the experience shortage we already have in our air traffic control towers. One accident is one too many.

These are only some of the many priorities in this legislation that would go unmet if we fail to pass this bill as written. This omnibus bill is a good package. It is bipartisan and noncontroversial. It is in compliance with the budget resolution for the committee.

Again, I believe there is no justification for an amendment to reopen this bill to further cuts that would do harm to the important national priorities I have mentioned.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Ensign motion to commit with instructions, as modified with the changes at the desk; and that no amendments be in order to the motion prior to a vote in relation to the motion to commit; that upon disposition of the motion to commit, Senator Hutchison be recognized to offer an amendment which provides for a reduction in funding with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment.

Mr. 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, the motion offered by the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, is very similar to the motion of the Senator from Nevada that the Senate defeated. There is only one difference between the two motions. This motion allows for the cost of inflation to be provided, and the previous one did not.

I have already informed the Senate why making reductions in this bill is not a good idea, but I wish to remind my colleagues once again that the level of funding in this bill is consistent with the amount approved by the Congress in the budget resolution. Second, as the Senator from Texas knows, the omnibus bill was written by the Appropriations subcommittees in a bipartisan process and these bills were reported out of the committee--five of them unanimously and two almost unanimously. The subcommittees worked with their House counterparts to craft this legislation. It reflects a fair compromise between the two bodies.

But, once again, the argument in favor of cutting the omnibus is that there is overlap between the funds in the Recovery Act and in the omnibus bill. As I have noted previously, this simply is not the case. The funds in the Recovery Act are either unrelated to the omnibus or were assumed in the levels approved by the Recovery Act.

This motion also suggests that the committee should cut nonessential spending. I, for one, would argue that this bill contains only essential funds, but I recognize for a few of my colleagues nonessential spending equates to earmarks. I wish to remind my colleagues once again that on the question of earmarks, there is $3.8 billion in congressionally directed spending in this bill. This represents less than 1 percent of the total bill. If you eliminated all of the earmarks in this bill, including those of Hawaii and Texas, you would still have to cut at least $8 billion more from other valid programs. If we have to cut this bill to the fiscal year 2008 level, that means there are a number of worthy projects that will have to be reconsidered.

For example, the State and Foreign Operations chapter of the bill provides a total of $5.5 billion for programs to combat HIV/AIDS--$388 million above former President Bush's request and $459 million above the fiscal year 2008 request. This increase was supported by Democrats and Republicans. Of this amount, $600 million is provided for the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, which is $400 million above the request. Additionally within the total, $350 million is provided for USAID programs to combat HIV/AIDS. These additional funds, which pay for life-sustaining and antiretroviral drugs, prevention and care programs, would be lost to the detriment of 1 million people who would receive lifesaving treatment this year. With this funding, 2 million additional HIV infections would be prevented this year. Instead of 10 million lives we are saving today, we have the opportunity to save 12 million people. We have the opportunity with this bill to save or care for 1 million more orphans and vulnerable children who are either infected with HIV or have been orphaned because a parent died from HIV. Do we think that the Senate wants to reconsider this item?

Freezing funding would mean $350 million less for the FBI to protect our Nation and our communities from terrorism and violent crime. The FBI would have to institute an immediate hiring freeze of agents, analysts, and support staff. This will mean 650 fewer FBI special agents and 1,250 fewer intelligence analysts and other professionals fighting crime and terrorism on U.S. soil. Surely the Senator from Texas doesn't want us to go back and reduce funding for the FBI.

More than 30 Members requested the committee add funds for operations of our national parks. If we have to cut program goals, we will lose 3,000 park rangers. While there are funds in the Recovery Act for the Park Service, these funds were not for rangers or park operations; they were to cover deferred maintenance projects. These are projects that are ready to go and can be started almost immediately to stimulate the economy as intended. There is no duplication between the Recovery Act and the omnibus for our national parks.

I could stand here all day and list example after example of the types of programs that are funded in this omnibus bill with the increases that the Senator's amendment would eliminate. These examples shouldn't come as any surprise to the Members of the Senate, if they remember that these bills were written by our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members in a bipartisan fashion. They were marked up in open session with all Members able to offer amendments and the final product was drafted with our House colleagues on a bipartisan basis. Once again, the omnibus bill is a good package of bills. It is bipartisan, it is noncontroversial, and it is in compliance with the budget resolution totals for the committee. The idea of stimulus overlap is not based on fact. The question of earmarks is a minor point in the significant bill that protects Democratic priorities. So I believe this bill deserves the support of every Member of the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion.

If I may speak on another subject, the Senator from Oklahoma raised questions regarding the Polynesian Voyaging Society. Students learn in different ways, and educators are constantly pressed to find inspiring ways to educate our young people, particularly those who are considered at risk. That is what the Polynesian Voyaging Society offers. The voyages organized by the Society help to train educators and scientists in ocean resource stewardship. In addition, through the use of the Internet, the society interactively communicates with students during the voyage to share the knowledge gained.

This initiative supports cultural education programs geared toward enhancing leadership skills and cultural knowledge through deep sea voyaging for students. These traditional voyaging skills utilize noninstrument navigation skills whereby participants have to rely upon themselves and their crews to arrive safely at their destination. The voyage is much more than one of miles; it is a voyage of young people discovering that they are able to accomplish more than they ever thought possible.

This knowledge of self-reliance and interdependence helps to transform students, especially native Hawaiian students, so they may chart a positive future. The program also makes science more accessible to school students as they follow the journey. Many students are encouraged to study science and care about the environment because of this program. Numerous college science majors mentioned activities on the Polynesian Voyaging Society as the reason why they chose to study science.

This leadership opportunity has been shown to be especially effective with at-risk youth diagnosed with mental illness. The success of traditional methods of addressing mental illness in adolescents involves a strong family support system. One study revealed the students who participated in this program showed great improvement regardless of the support that the student received from family. In effect, this program has been able to transcend existing social problems within the student's own family so that these young people can grow and develop into contributing members of the community.

As noted in the National Academies' Study, ``Rising Above The Gathering Storm,'' creating opportunities and incentives for students to pursue science studies is a critical component of ensuring America's future competitiveness. The Polynesian Voyaging Society's programs are geared toward providing such opportunities.

On a personal note, the program is geared to assist Native Hawaiians, in particular. As we find in Native societies throughout the United States, Native Americans have not only been mistreated and victims of discrimination, they have been deprived of their culture. In earlier days, they were forced to become Christians. They were forced to wear suits. They were forced not to wear feathers.

While in this Polynesian program, I have spoken to many of the students, and there are certain points that should be made. Several students came up to me, for example, and said, ``I am proud to be a Hawaiian.'' That is one of the things we have found lacking in Native Hawaiian youth--pride in their ancestry--especially when they learn their ancestors took a voyage much longer than the one Columbus took across the Atlantic, double the length, and the Hawaiians knew where they were headed--to Hawaiki, which is presently the State of Hawaii. Columbus thought he was going elsewhere, and he got lost. It makes them a bit proud of their ancestry. They learned their ancestors were great warriors, great voyagers, great administrators, and great farmers. This is a very inexpensive way to restore the pride that is much in need among our Native Hawaiian youth.

I have been told that the assistant leader will be seeking recognition. I am happy to yield the floor.

Madam President, I am overwhelmed by the generous remarks of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. Thank you very much.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of the time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 3, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 3, 2009 at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Consumer Protections in Financial Services: Past Problems, Future Solutions.

Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 3, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 3, 2009, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Iranian Political and Nuclear Realities and U.S. Policy Options.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 3, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. This is a measure that should have been completed last year but was not because of the previous administration's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith. But today we have the opportunity to put partisanship behind us and to continue the task of rebuilding our economy, reinvesting in America and, frankly, making our Government work again.

I want to point out that today is March 2. We are now almost halfway through the fiscal year. Except for Defense, Veterans, and Homeland Security, our executive branch agencies are all still operating on a continuing resolution.

Under the continuing resolution, no new programs can begin. Funding levels are held to last year's level. This means that even things such as price increases due to inflation and the cost of civil servant pay raises must be absorbed within the existing agency funding levels.

Many worthy initiatives which were approved by the Appropriations Committee are being held at artificially low spending totals. And, as we all know, the continuing resolution will expire on Friday--this Friday.

It is not in the best interests of the taxpayer or the agencies we are funding to operate the Federal Government on autopilot. A yearlong continuing resolution does not allow a Federal agency any flexibility to address changing priorities. Passage of H.R. 1105 begins the process of returning our Departments and agencies to a more regular order. We simply must complete this bill this week--in fact, this Thursday.

The 2009 omnibus bill has strong support from both sides of the aisle, including the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Thad Cochran. Further, the distinguished minority leader was accurate with his comments in January that this bill has been fully vetted and is ready for immediate passage.

This measure is not, as some have suggested, duplicative of the spending provided by the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This argument misses the point entirely. The purpose of the recovery package is to jump-start economic growth by making significant investments above the annual budget. The omnibus is the baseline budget.

But equally important to the funding contained in the bill is the fact that the omnibus bill will provide much needed guidance to executive branch agencies that have been operating without such guidance under the continuing resolution. In addition, there are a number of new initiatives across the Government that cannot be implemented without passage of this bill.

So it is my sincere hope this is the last omnibus bill we will see for some time to come, as it is my intention as chairman of the Appropriations Committee to pass each of our annual appropriations measures through the regular order. But having said that, it is clearly impossible for fiscal year 2009, and for all the reasons mentioned above, there is no doubt that this bill is far superior to yet another continuing resolution.

The $410 billion in spending contained in this measure will accomplish a number of objectives, including giving extra momentum to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by funding additional projects and, therefore, saving thousands of additional jobs. In this time of economic crisis, nothing is more important than keeping America working.

I will offer a few examples of the kinds of initiatives that I included in this 2009 omnibus.

Energy security: There is perhaps no issue more critical to the future safety and prosperity of our Nation than energy security. This omnibus bill invests in America's security by prioritizing research and development of renewable energy and energy efficiency, including solar power, biofuels, vehicle technologies, energy-efficient buildings, and advanced energy research.

Law enforcement: In the absence of strong support for law enforcement, the current economic downturn threatens to increase violent crime throughout our Nation. As cash-strapped States struggle with tight budgets, this bill will help keep Americans safe by supporting the Community Oriented Policing Services or the COPS Program, and the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, which help State and local law enforcement fight and prevent crime in communities across America.

Public health and safety: In the wake of disturbing incidents of compromised food safety that have jeopardized the health of our citizens, we have significantly increased investments for the Food and Drug Administration to strengthen the Food Safety and Inspection efforts. This bill will also protect the health and well-being of Americans by cleaning our air and our water. It contains investments significantly above the former administration's inadequate request for clean drinking water and wastewater, cleaning up hazardous waste and toxic sites, and for the implementation of the Clean Air Act.

Health care: Millions of Americans are struggling to gain access to quality affordable health care, particularly during these difficult economic times. This measure will give scores of Americans better access to health care through State access health grants and State high-risk insurance pools and by supporting community health centers and rural health facilities.

Education: As our economy struggles to regain its footing, millions of Americans are understandably fearful they will not be able to afford to pay for their children's college education. This measure provides $1.9 billion to support student financial aid programs, including Perkins loans and Federal supplemental educational opportunity grants.

Every day, thousands of Americans are losing their jobs--every day. Every day, State and local governments see increased demand and decreased resources. Every day, projects that could provide good jobs for working Americans are delayed or canceled due to an inability to properly fund them.

This Omnibus appropriations act will provide resources, guidance, and new initiatives at a time when they are desperately needed. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this measure.

Mr. President, I have two documents, one relating to reasons why this omnibus bill should be enacted and the other a copy of a press release made a few weeks ago. I ask unanimous consent that these two documents be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the vice chairman of this committee with the understanding that I will hold the floor.

I thank my distinguished vice chairman for his remarks.

Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

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

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

Will the Senator yield?

Is the Senator going to propose an amendment?

Thank you.

Madam President, does the Senator from Texas wish to speak?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Baucus, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the Omnibus appropriations package: Hun Quach, Rachel Poynter, Michael London, Rory Murphy, Dan Gutschenritter, Pete Harvey, Adam Glasier, and Vincent Mascia.

The Senator is correct. Nothing in this act overturns or changes the existing procurement laws for the SBA or similar programs or the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act. Since approximately 80 percent of the jobs in the United States are created by small businesses and since one of the main purposes of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is to get people back to work as soon as possible, the intent of this stimulus package is that small businesses, including those participating in SBA programs, will be able to participate in spending programs contained in the bill so long as the contracts are awarded following existing Federal law for competitive and direct award procurements.

Mr. President, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I believe, is a good bill. It is not perfect. It may have imperfections, but I believe it deserves our support.

Many compromises were made, and the final compromises that we made in conference were very difficult. There is no doubt those of us on this side of the aisle had to make some very difficult decisions and some painful cuts to programs that I personally believe would have been of great benefit to the American people. But in the end, I remain convinced we have gained far more than we have lost, and this bill is essential in beginning the task of turning our economy around.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will create more than 3.5 million jobs. This is nothing to sniff at. It will provide tax cuts for working families, aid to our States, and will allow us to invest in our future by rebuilding our roads, schools, and mass transit systems.

As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I know that the $311 billion in appropriated funds that are contained in this bill will make a difference as we confront the economic crisis. For example, the funds will prevent layoffs of State employees, will allow for increased funding for education, health care initiatives, improved energy efficiency, and many other vital investments.

With this large influx of Federal funding now headed to our States, including my home State of Hawaii, it is essential that each State has a plan of action in place to ensure that these resources are invested quickly and responsibly, and in the right places. In Hawaii, for example, we have established working groups of State and local officials and community leaders to identify priorities that will have the most effective and timely economic impact in local communities throughout the State.

Before concluding my remarks, I want to take a moment to thank the

Members and staff of the Appropriations Committee for all of their dedication and hard work in taking this bill from conception to completed legislation in a matter of a few months. On our committee, we have 12 subcommittees, each of which was involved in this bill. It is the subcommittees, the chairmen and ranking members who, along with their subcommittee clerks and staff, are the people who have carried the load on this bill. I believe that the Senate owes them its gratitude.

At this time, I wish to inform the Senate that division A of the conference report on H.R. 1 does not contain any congressionally directed spending items as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

There is no quick fix or easy answer to this grave economic crisis, but I am confident this plan will begin to put America on the road to recovery.

I believe the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is the right medicine for what ails our economy. It will not fix our problems overnight, but it will begin the process. We face some tough times in the coming year, but this legislation will have an impact. It will help millions of Americans, directly and indirectly and, most importantly, it will give America confidence that we can overcome this crisis.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish an Indian Development Finance Corporation as an independent, Federally-chartered corporation that is modeled after the family of Development Banks established by the World Bank in lesser-developed countries around the world.

Mr. President, in my more than 30 years of service on the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I have visited many Indian communities and Alaska Native villages, and I have seen that in many parts of Indian country, there are economic and social conditions that are as dire as those conditions found in the so-called ``lesser developed countries'' around the world. And although we have seen some economic success in recent years across Native America as a result of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, most Indian tribes and Native villages are not engaged in the conduct of gaming, nor have tribal governments found the means to overcome the challenges associated with their remote locations from populations centers and market places that serve the commercially- successful tribal gambling operations.

In those rurally-isolated areas, there is real potential to succeed in developing viable local economies based on agricultural and fishery resources, and the development of the vast energy resources that are located on Indian lands. What these Native communities need is the type of development financing services that the World Bank has successfully established--institutions empowered to make small, leveraged capital investments and economic infrastructure development to support tailored industrial programs, internet-based communication services, national and international trade agreements, and economic research capabilities. An Indian Development Finance Corporation could provide these kinds of services through a network of centers that would be based in Indian Country.

Under this bill, the Corporation would be authorized to issue 500,000 shares of common stock at $50 per share to every Tribal Nation in Indian Country and Alaska. The Corporation would be managed by a Board elected by the Tribal shareholders and the Board would be charged with hiring a President and a team of managers as well as set operating policies. Seed capital would be injected into the Indian Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) by the U.S. Treasury in exchange for the issuance of capital stock. Initially, $20 million in start-up funds would be invested and after the majority of common stock was purchased by tribes, another $80 million would be authorized.

I believe that the IDFC can take advantage of opportunities to integrate the economic stimulus activities soon to be created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and. I am confident that there will be support forthcoming from those tribal governments and Alaska Native corporations that have the resources to invest in the economic infrastructure initiatives that will be established by the IDFC in this period of our greatest need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish an Indian Development Finance Corporation as an independent, Federally-chartered corporation that is modeled after the family of Development Banks established by the World Bank in lesser-developed countries around the world.

Mr. President, in my more than 30 years of service on the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I have visited many Indian communities and Alaska Native villages, and I have seen that in many parts of Indian country, there are economic and social conditions that are as dire as those conditions found in the so-called ``lesser developed countries'' around the world. And although we have seen some economic success in recent years across Native America as a result of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, most Indian tribes and Native villages are not engaged in the conduct of gaming, nor have tribal governments found the means to overcome the challenges associated with their remote locations from populations centers and market places that serve the commercially- successful tribal gambling operations.

In those rurally-isolated areas, there is real potential to succeed in developing viable local economies based on agricultural and fishery resources, and the development of the vast energy resources that are located on Indian lands. What these Native communities need is the type of development financing services that the World Bank has successfully established--institutions empowered to make small, leveraged capital investments and economic infrastructure development to support tailored industrial programs, internet-based communication services, national and international trade agreements, and economic research capabilities. An Indian Development Finance Corporation could provide these kinds of services through a network of centers that would be based in Indian Country.

Under this bill, the Corporation would be authorized to issue 500,000 shares of common stock at $50 per share to every Tribal Nation in Indian Country and Alaska. The Corporation would be managed by a Board elected by the Tribal shareholders and the Board would be charged with hiring a President and a team of managers as well as set operating policies. Seed capital would be injected into the Indian Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) by the U.S. Treasury in exchange for the issuance of capital stock. Initially, $20 million in start-up funds would be invested and after the majority of common stock was purchased by tribes, another $80 million would be authorized.

I believe that the IDFC can take advantage of opportunities to integrate the economic stimulus activities soon to be created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and. I am confident that there will be support forthcoming from those tribal governments and Alaska Native corporations that have the resources to invest in the economic infrastructure initiatives that will be established by the IDFC in this period of our greatest need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.