Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to restate my strong support for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This measure will create more than 3.5 million jobs. It will provide billions of dollars to support our State and local governments. It will prevent tens of thousands of teachers, firemen, policemen, and other providers of essential services from being laid off at the worst possible time. It will provide tax cuts for working families. It will invest in the future of this Nation by rebuilding our roads, our sewers, mass transportation systems, and other essential infrastructure.

We must pass this bill immediately. According to the Labor Department, the United States has lost 3.6 million jobs since the recession began in December of 2007. Roughly half of those losses have occurred in the past 3 months. Our job losses are accelerating, and if the Federal Government does not take bold action immediately, these losses will only continue to worsen.

That is why this measure before us is focused first and foremost on creating jobs. Every job we create by investing in infrastructure, every job we save by providing extra funds to State and local governments, is one more American who will know their Government has done everything it can to help its citizens recover from this terrible economic crisis.

The total appropriations in the amended bill are $290 billion. Some have suggested that we in the Senate have paid too high a price in our efforts to reach a bipartisan solution. As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I am keenly aware of the adjustments that have been made to this legislation in order to secure the 60

votes we need. Nonetheless, I know that $290 billion is far superior to nothing, which is what we would have if we do not garner 60 votes. This remains a very strong bill that will make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.

As I stated before, nothing is more important than the more than 3.5 million jobs that will be created or preserved through this measure. Our goal is to find ways to stimulate the private sector through the public sector spending. We have no interest in expanding or growing the Federal bureaucracy. In fact, this bill will create fewer than 5,000 new Federal jobs. That is three-tenths of 1 percent--hardly a vast growth in our Government.

We are focused on jump-starting necessary projects that will get this economy back on track as quickly as possible. In fact, preliminary CBO and Joint Tax scoring shows that for the bill as a whole, including spending and tax cuts, 78 percent of the funds will be spent in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

Some of the opponents of this measure have complained that it has too much wasteful spending. Helping States deal with long-term investments such as health, education, and science is not wasteful spending. These are programs that will directly touch millions of Americans and will improve the quality of their lives. Let me say again that there are no earmarks in this bill.

As for some of the other charges leveled by opponents of the bill, I can only say that the facts speak for themselves. Despite claims that this recovery package contains $150 million for honeybee insurance, there is not and there never has been, any language with regard to honeybees contained in this legislation.

There is no funding for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, nor for smoking cessation programs, nor for resodding the National Mall. As I have already stated, this bill will create fewer than 5,000 new Federal jobs, which is well short of the 600,000 new Federal jobs that some have suggested and predicted.

The facts speak for themselves. We face a grave economic crisis. We have a nation that stood up 3 months ago and voted for change, not for more of the same policies that got us into the crisis in the first place.

This legislation is not perfect, but it absolutely represents the change that millions of Americans voted for on November 4 last year, and I hope my colleagues will join me in giving our citizens the change they demanded and vote yes on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. Today, along with my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Conrad, Dorgan, and Akaka, I introduce The Wakefield Act, also known as the Emergency Medical Services for Children Act of 2009. Since Senator Hatch and I worked toward authorization of EMSC in 1984, this program has become the impetus for improving children's emergency services nationwide. From specialized training for emergency care providers to ensuring ambulances and emergency departments have state-of-the-art pediatric sized equipment, EMSC has served as the vehicle for improving survival of our smallest and most vulnerable citizens when accidents or medical emergencies threatened their lives.

It remains no secret that children present unique anatomic, physiologic, emotional and developmental challenges to our primarily adult-oriented emergency medical system. As has been said many times before, children are not little adults. Evaluation and treatment must take into account their special needs, or we risk letting them fall through the gap between adult and pediatric care. The EMSC has bridged that gap while fostering collaborative relationships among emergency medical technicians, paramedics, nurses, emergency physicians, surgeons, and pediatricians.

The Institute of Medicine's recently released study on Emergency Care for Children indicated that our Nation is not as well prepared as once we thought. Only 6 percent of all emergency departments have the essential pediatric supplies and equipment necessary to manage pediatric emergencies. Many of the providers of emergency care have received fragmented and limited training in the skills necessary to resuscitate this specialized population. Even our disaster preparedness plans have not fully addressed the unique needs posed by children injured in such events.

EMSC remains the only federal program dedicated to examining the best ways to deliver various forms of care to children in emergency settings. Reauthorization of EMSC will ensure that children's needs will be given the due attention they deserve and that coordination and expansion of services for victims of life-threatening illnesses and injuries will be available throughout the United States.

I look forward to reauthorization of this important legislation and the continued advances in our emergency healthcare delivery system.

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

Mr. President. Today, along with my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Conrad, Dorgan, and Akaka, I introduce The Wakefield Act, also known as the Emergency Medical Services for Children Act of 2009. Since Senator Hatch and I worked toward authorization of EMSC in 1984, this program has become the impetus for improving children's emergency services nationwide. From specialized training for emergency care providers to ensuring ambulances and emergency departments have state-of-the-art pediatric sized equipment, EMSC has served as the vehicle for improving survival of our smallest and most vulnerable citizens when accidents or medical emergencies threatened their lives.

It remains no secret that children present unique anatomic, physiologic, emotional and developmental challenges to our primarily adult-oriented emergency medical system. As has been said many times before, children are not little adults. Evaluation and treatment must take into account their special needs, or we risk letting them fall through the gap between adult and pediatric care. The EMSC has bridged that gap while fostering collaborative relationships among emergency medical technicians, paramedics, nurses, emergency physicians, surgeons, and pediatricians.

The Institute of Medicine's recently released study on Emergency Care for Children indicated that our Nation is not as well prepared as once we thought. Only 6 percent of all emergency departments have the essential pediatric supplies and equipment necessary to manage pediatric emergencies. Many of the providers of emergency care have received fragmented and limited training in the skills necessary to resuscitate this specialized population. Even our disaster preparedness plans have not fully addressed the unique needs posed by children injured in such events.

EMSC remains the only federal program dedicated to examining the best ways to deliver various forms of care to children in emergency settings. Reauthorization of EMSC will ensure that children's needs will be given the due attention they deserve and that coordination and expansion of services for victims of life-threatening illnesses and injuries will be available throughout the United States.

I look forward to reauthorization of this important legislation and the continued advances in our emergency healthcare delivery system.

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

That is correct. I recognize the importance of these investments. It is my understanding that the House version of the recovery bill includes funding for biodefense and medical countermeasures within the public health and social services emergency fund.

I thank my colleagues for raising this important issue with me today. I intend to work with them and the members of the conference committee to try to identify funding to develop and produce biodefense medical countermeasures.

Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about amendment No. 309 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Senator Coburn's provision prohibits spending any of the funds in the bill for casinos, golf courses, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities. I think we can all agree these sound like laudable goals. I understand on its face this amendment would seem logical. But I want the Senate to understand what it means as it applies to this measure.

Some of my colleagues might wonder why the House included this provision in this bill, and why we do not think it makes sense. The House included $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant Program. Under that program, funds go straight to the cities, and mayors determine how to spend the funds.

When the Conference of Mayors presented their views to the country's leadership on how to stimulate the economy, the No. 1 program they were hoping to have funded was CDBG. But that program does not have sufficient safeguards. It can be used to construct recreational swimming pools or aquariums or to support museums. On occasion, CDBG funds have been used for programs which some would say had questionable merit.

To ensure that the Senate would not be supporting questionable programs, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for this program--no funds for CDBG. The House recognized that CDBG funds might be used inappropriately if there were no prohibitions on questionable programs, so it included the provision which Senator Coburn wants attached to this bill.

We do not need to include the provision because we do not have CDBG funding in this bill. The mayors are precluded from funding the projects prohibited by the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. The Senate is already protected from possible abuse by denying the funding for the program.

But let me offer another example of how the committee ensured that local funds could not be used unwisely. In the bill, the committee has included $2.5 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which is designed to improve blighted neighborhoods. However, it is true that on occasion funds for this program had been used for community development of questionable merit. To avoid that problem, the Appropriations Committee recommended bill language under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which only allows the funds to be used for replacement of housing. This limitation means the funds cannot be used to build community centers or swimming pools.

We support the idea behind the amendment but not the amendment. First, we have not provided funds for programs which can be used frivolously. Second, there are no earmarks in this bill. Third, there is no CDBG money in this bill. Fourth, the housing programs cannot be used for frivolous purposes.

Members might argue that you could include this amendment as an additional safeguard. Well, consider this one example: Among other things, the amendment would prohibit construction of swimming pools--no exceptions to that. We might all say we agree with that, but it should be noted we do not direct the construction of any particular swimming pool because that would be an earmark. Well, now comes the crunch. However, this bill contains $3.4 billion for needed construction of new and infrastructure innovation and repairs at existing VA hospitals. Under the terms of this provision, the Veterans' Administration would not be able to spend any of their infrastructure funding provided to the Department on construction or renovation or therapeutic swimming pools at spinal cord injury centers, trauma centers, and other VA medical centers. These are very essential to the rehabilitation of these wounded warriors.

The Appropriations Committee is aware the VA has plans for many legitimate construction projects, such as pools specifically used for medical rehabilitation of wounded soldiers. These are not swimming pools for the VA staff, but they would nonetheless be prohibited by this amendment.

While I am confident this was not the intent of the amendment, it most certainly could be the result. It is not the only example. Should our military be denied from building recreational facilities? Should the Coast Guard be told not to build swimming pools where they practice training exercises? We expect these men to dive into cold waters in the Arctic Sea and rescue men and women, so they need special training. Do we want to argue that no funds be made available for fixing aging buildings that are ready to crumble?

This amendment is a solution in search of a problem, and let's not forget the amendment causes problems. If adopted, this amendment would deny our wounded veterans the physical therapy they need and deserve, and it could deny other needed programs to support training and quality of life for our military forces and their families. I sincerely recommend we vote down this amendment.

Mr. President, this morning we learned that another 598,000 jobs were lost in the month of January. Our unemployment rate now stands at 7.6 percent and will no doubt be higher still in the coming months.

With that in mind, I would like to have printed in the Record an opinion piece authored by Steven Pearlstein that appeared in today's Washington Post. The piece does a much better job than I could hope to do of explaining the basic economics of why increased Government spending in a time of recession is a good thing.

I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at this opinion piece. In his final sentence, Mr. Pearlstein gives us all a crib sheet that I think we all might want to pay a bit more attention to.

Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does

it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic

activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from

future budgets.

As I have been saying all week, the $365.6 billion in spending that we include in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act meets these simple

criteria. I again urge my colleagues to set aside partisan differences and work together on this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the opinion piece authored by Steven Pearlstein printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about amendment No. 309, introduced by the Senator from Oklahoma. Senator Coburn's amendment would add a provision to this bill which was included in the House-passed bill.

The provision prohibits spending any of the funds in this bill on casinos, golf courses, swimming pools, and other specified recreational facilities. I think we can all agree these sound like laudable goals. And I understand that on its face this amendment may seem logical, but I want the Senate to understand what it means as it applies to this bill.

Some of my colleagues might wonder why the House included this provision in their bill and why we don't think it makes sense.

The House included $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program. Under that program, funds go straight to the cities and mayors determine how to spend the funds. When the Conference of Mayors presented their views to the country's leadership on how to stimulate the economy, the No. 1 program they were hoping to have funded was CDBG. But the CDBG Program does not have sufficient safeguards. It can be used to construct recreational swimming pools or aquariums or to support museums. On occasion CDBG funds have been used for programs which some would say were of questionable merit.

To ensure that the Senate would not be supporting questionable programs, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for this program. The House recognized that CDBG funds might be used inappropriately if there were no prohibitions on questionable programs, so it included the provision which Senator Coburn wants to attach to the Senate bill.

We do not need to include the provision because we do not have CDBG funding in this bill. The mayors are precluded from funding the projects prohibited by the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. The Senate is already protected from possible abuse by denying the funding for the program.

Let me offer a second example of how the committee ensured that local funds could not be used unwisely. In the bill, the committee has included $2.5 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which is designed to improve blighted neighborhoods. However, it is true that on occasion funds for this program have been used for community development that was of questionable

merit. To avoid that problem, the Appropriations Committee recommended bill language under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which only allows the funds to be used for the replacement of housing. This limitation means the funds cannot be used to build community centers or swimming pools.

We support the idea behind the amendment but not the amendment. First, we have not provided funds for programs which can be used frivolously. Second, there are no earmarks in this bill. Third, there is no CDBG money in this bill. Fourth, the housing programs cannot be used for frivolous purposes.

Members might argue you could include the amendment as an additional safeguard. Well, consider just this one example. Among other things, the amendment would prohibit the construction of swimming pools no exceptions. It should be noted that we do not direct the construction of any particular swimming pool that would be an earmark.

However, this bill contains $3.4 billion for needed construction of new and infrastructure renovation and repairs at existing VA hospitals. Under the terms of this provision the VA would not be able to spend any of the infrastructure funding provided to the Department on construction or renovation of therapeutic swimming pools at spinal cord injury centers, trauma centers, or other VA medical centers.

The Appropriations Committee is aware that the VA has plans for many legitimate construction projects such as pools specifically used for medical rehabilitation of wounded soldiers. These are not swimming pools for VA staff, but they would nonetheless be prohibited by this amendment.

While I am confident this was not the intent of the amendment, it most certainly could be the result. It is not the only example. Should our military be denied from building recreational facilities? Should the Coast Guard be told not to build swimming pools where they practice training exercises? Do we want to argue that no funds should be available for fixing aging buildings?

This amendment is a solution in search of a problem. But, Mr. President, let's not forget that the amendment causes problems. If adopted, this amendment could deny our wounded veterans the physical therapy they need and deserve, and it could deny other needed programs to support training and quality of life for our military forces and their families.

I recommend that you vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a Concurrent Resolution commemorating the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts in Hawaii.

The first Catholic missionaries to the Hawaiian Islands were members of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary and of Perpetual Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.

The Congregation was founded by Pierre Coudrin and Henriette Aymer de la Chevalerie in Poitiers, France on Christmas Eve 1800.

In 1825, the Congregation responded to a request of Pope Leo XII for missionaries to the Pacific Rim, then known as Oceania.

The Sacred Hearts Priests and Brothers arrived in Hawaii in 1827; the Sisters, in 1859.

Today, through the missionary zeal of its members, of which a noteworthy exemplar in Hawaii is Blessed Damien de Veuster, the Brothers and Sisters of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary are present in forty countries and on all continents.

The Sisters of the Sacred Hearts Pacific Province is the administrative center of communities of Sisters currently serving in Hawaii, New Mexico, and Massachusetts. In observance of the 150th anniversary of the Sisters arrival to Hawaii, I urge my colleagues to support this Resolution recognizing the Sisters' dedication through these years to the education of the children of Hawaii, Massachusetts, California, and New Mexico.

Mr. President, in the presentation of the bill before us, the Senator from Arizona singled out one group--Filipino war veterans-- and suggested that these were men from foreign countries and that we are providing funds for them. If I may, I would like to spend a few moments discussing this matter.

On January 26, 1941, the President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, issued a military order through General MacArthur calling upon Filipinos to volunteer to serve in the Army, to

serve in the Navy, to serve in the Air Force, because the President sensed, correctly, that there was much instability and much violence in Asia. He felt the time had come for the United States to be prepared for any eventuality. As a result of that call, 470,000 Filipinos stepped forward and volunteered to serve in the military, under the command of General MacArthur.

As we all know, on December 7, 1941, war came to our shores, to my State of Hawaii. Pearl Harbor was bombed, and then the forces of Japan began advancing toward the Philippines. The first major target was the Bataan Peninsula. The 14th Japanese Army surrounded the peninsula. That peninsula contained at that moment 80,000 troops. We all assumed that the 80,000 were American troops. No. About 18,000 were American troops; the rest were Filipinos. Yes, the majority of the troops in Bataan were Filipinos, but somehow, if you look at Hollywood on the Bataan death march, you hardly see a Filipino marching. Of the survivors of the Bataan, 15,000 were Americans, 60,000 were Filipinos. The march took a little over a month. They were not given medicine or water. By the time it ended, 54,000 survived. Very few Filipinos survived.

Then we had Corregidor. The same thing.

So in March 1942, the Congress of the United States--the Senate and the House--passed a measure thanking the Filipinos for their gallantry, for their heroism, and said: If you wish, you may become a citizen of the United States and get all the benefits of a U.S. veteran.

The war ended, and in February of 1946, this Congress passed a bill rescinding, repealing that act of 1942. Believe it or not, it declared that the service the Filipinos had rendered was not Active Duty. I don't know what it meant by that. It was not Active service.

The Filipinos have been waiting all this time. We have had measure after measure presented. We did so in the proper fashion, and we got filibustered, we got ruled out, and everything else.

At this moment, out of the 470,000 who volunteered, 18,000 are still alive--18,000. The average age is 90. At this moment, while I am speaking, hundreds lie in hospitals on their death beds. And I am certain, while I am speaking, some are dying. Two weeks from now, we will have 17,000 surviving.

I agree with the Senator from Arizona. This is not a stimulus proposal. It does not create jobs. But the honor of the United States is what is involved.

It is about time we close this dark chapter. I love America. I love serving America. I am proud of this country, but this is a black chapter. It has to be cleansed, and I hope my colleagues will join me in finally recognizing that these men served us well. They died for us. They got wounded for us. And they deserve recognition.

Incidentally, this bill doesn't contain a penny for the Filipinos. It recognizes them. And we will provide the money later.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, when we began this process in November, the Appropriations Committee worked with the incoming administration and our partners in the House to identify the primary goals for legislation that would help America regain its financial footing.

Based on those discussions, we identified one overwhelming priority-- putting as many Americans as possible back to work as quickly as possible. We also identified two further fundamental priorities: assisting the States so they would not face insurmountable budget crises that would in turn force significant layoffs at a time when they are facing unprecedented demand for services; and making the right investments that will not simply create temporary jobs, but will repair and strengthen our physical and cyber infrastructure, so that this Nation has the foundation it needs to enable strong economic growth for years to come.

I have listened to the debate over the past 2 days, and I fear that we are losing sight of the key goal.

Several of my Republican colleagues have suggested that the measure pending before us will spend $888 billion and produce 3.5 million jobs, so that each job created costs $255,000.

However, they don't take into consideration how investments in roads, bridges, railroads and other mass transit systems will actually cut back on one of the most wasteful expenses that Americans deal with each and every day--traffic congestion.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute:

Gridlock costs the average peak period traveler almost 40

hours a year in travel delay, and costs the United States

more than $78 billion each year. At a time when fuel is

increasingly costly, traffic jams are wasting 2.9 billion

gallons of gas every year.

Also, it is important to remember that the cost of labor when it comes to construction projects like roads and bridges is, I believe, around 15 percent. The rest of the budget goes for supplies like steel and concrete, the costs of acquiring rights-of-way, the drafting of plans and, of course, the costs of necessary planning and environmental impact studies.

Another form of construction contained in this bill is sewer repairs. Let me give a specific example. This bill recommends $125 million, to be matched at 100 percent with local funds from ratepayers, to continue implementation of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Long-term Control Plan.

The Water and Sewer Authority has identified up to 40 specific near- term activities that would create more than 250 jobs. Under the logic that is being used by some of the opponents of this bill, this would equate to some $500,000 per job. This is terribly misleading. What about the costs of tunneling, the cost of the pipes, the cost for all of the heavy equipment, insurance costs, and many more, I am sure.

With due respect to those who oppose this bill, the cost of a construction job is not the cost of labor. If we are to have an open and honest debate on the merits of this legislation, let us at least start with the facts.

Our objective here is not to create make-work jobs for 1 year having people count paperclips. Our goal is to create real jobs that will last for many years and that will in turn create more jobs. Our goal is to ensure that America will remain the strongest economy in the world for many years to come.

While our short-term tactic is to pass a bill that will have an immediate stimulative impact and help us through the current crisis, we must not lose sight of the fact that our short-term tactics can have a long term impact--rebuilding our infrastructure and adapting to new technologies today that put us back on track to being competitive in the global economy for generations to come.

Reinvesting in the infrastructure that underlies our Nation--roads, mass transportation, sewers and sidewalks--is not glamorous, but this investment puts Americans to work building for the future.

I stand by the original vision of this bill--create jobs, support State and local governments, and invest in our basic infrastructure. These are the priorities that will ensure that America emerges from this crisis stronger and better able to compete in the global economy.

During the past 2 days opponents of this bill have spoken about the primacy of tax cuts over all other policies. They have spoken of the need to cut spending on programs that create jobs now, good jobs, real jobs, jobs that preserve the environment, improve education, and lead us toward true energy independence.

And opponents of this bill have spoken about cutting programs that provide a lifeline to those who have been hit the hardest by this crisis.

One thought comes to my mind. This bill is about change, and their opposition is about simply responding to the biggest crisis since the Great Depression with more of the same.

More of the same hasn't worked for the past several years. It is time to act, and to pass this measure.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, we should keep in mind that there are no earmarks in this bill before the Senate. Therefore, this amendment is not relevant.

No. 2, we should keep in mind the Constitution gives the power of the purse to the Congress, and it is our job to use this power responsibly. We have already put procedures in place to make the process transparent and to hold Members accountable for their spending decisions.

But most importantly, we should keep in mind that if an item has not been authorized by September 1, 2009, and it is moneys that had been appropriated, that money is taken out. Keep in mind that, as of this moment, the Intelligence Committee has not had authorization bills for the last 3 years.

The same goes for many other committees.

Mr. President, I rise to bring to the Senate's attention a compelling new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office,

Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1, the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and Senators will offer and debate amendments to the bill. Rollcall votes are expected to occur this afternoon.

I have no objection.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Feingold- McCain amendment. Yesterday, I received a message from the Obama administration that concludes that the economy faces its most serious crisis since the Great Depression, and I think that is something to which we all agree.

It goes further and says the economic recovery package now being considered by this body is an essential step in putting the economy back on the path of growth.

Our President, President Obama, has asked the Congress to send a bill to him before the February recess, and I believe we have that responsibility to act quickly and responsibly. Therefore, I believe now is not the time to debate controversial legislation that is not relevant to economic recovery.

There are no earmarks contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that we are now considering before the Senate. I maintain that now is not the time to debate Senate floor procedures for the consideration of appropriations bills.

However, I oppose this amendment on its merits. This amendment is an attempt to undermine Congress's power of the purse. Under this amendment, congressionally directed spending items that are not specifically authorized could be stripped from legislation.

As Senators are well aware, Congress is often called upon to approve spending that is not yet authorized. In a January 15, 2009, report the Congressional Budget Office concluded that in recent years, the total amount of unauthorized appropriations averaged between $160 billion and $170 billion per year.

In fact, for the current fiscal year, there are over $718 billion worth of authorizations that expire before September 30, 2009. This includes funding for housing programs, energy programs, environmental programs, transportation programs, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, homeland security programs, public health programs, veterans programs, and on and on.

This amendment could tie the Senate in knots. Conference reports could be amended and returned to the other body, and once amended the House could further amend the bill. The regular order for producing spending bills is the best prescription for producing responsible spending bills, not creating new rules that will make the process so cumbersome that we will not be able to complete our work.

This legislation would also hand over to the President the authority to determine what spending should be considered by the Senate. Under this amendment, if the President requests funding for an unauthorized program, the funding would not be subject to a point of order. The Senate should not give such power to any President.

Nor is it clear to me why it would be all right for authorizers to authorize earmarks, for the President to earmark funds, but Members who are not authorizers could not earmark funds in spending bills.

I remind the Senate that the last highway authorization bill contained over 6,474 earmarks, and the last water authorization bill contained over 600 earmarks.

I believe Congress took significant action during the 110th Congress to add unprecedented levels of transparency and accountability to the process of earmarking funds for specific projects.

Under the rules in 2007, each bill must be accompanied by a list identifying each earmark that it includes and which Member requested it. Those lists are made available online before the bill is ever voted on.

In the Senate, each Senator is required to send the committee a letter providing the name and location of the intended recipient, the purpose of the earmark, and a letter certifying that neither the Senator nor the Senator's immediate family has a financial interest in the item requested. This certification is available on the Internet for at least 48 hours prior to a floor vote on the bill.

We also significantly reduce the level of funding for earmarks. In the 2008 bill, the total dollar amount of earmarks for nonproject-based accounts was reduced by 43 percent. In the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill, we will further reduce earmarks.

In our continuing effort to provide unprecedented transparency to the process, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and I announced new reforms to begin in the 2010 bills.

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 taxpayers' funds.

To increase public scrutiny of committee decisions, earmark disclosure tables will be made publicly available the same day as the Senate subcommittee or the full committee takes action.

We are committed to keeping earmark funding levels below 1 percent of discretionary spending in subsequent years.

The new requirements included in this amendment will hamstring the Senate from fulfilling its responsibility. The amendment says no funds can be included in appropriations bills unless already included in an authorization bill that has passed the Senate during this session.

I remind my colleagues the Senate has not passed a foreign affairs authorization bill in many years. All these measures aren't authorized. In the past 7 years, we haven't enacted an intelligence authorization bill. We don't have one for last year or the year before. It has been 7 years since the Senate passed an authorization bill for Customs. Should we stop funding the construction of ports of entry on our borders? The Environment and Public Works Committee does not report legislation through the Senate to authorize specific Federal buildings. Does that mean we should stop repairing and improving the security or constructing Federal buildings that house over 1 million Federal employees? The Agricultural Research Service has never been authorized. Yet it has existed for 56 years. Should we stop funding agricultural research? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has never been authorized--NOAA has never been authorized--so does that mean we should stop funding for hurricane forecasting and severe weather forecasting, tsunami forecasting? Congress has not authorized juvenile justice funding for the last 2 years. Does that mean we stop funding to keep kids out of gangs and in school?

Under this amendment, the Senate would be required to defer action on all items which it feels are important when the companion authorization bill is tied up. Are we going to allow the filibuster of an authorization bill to stop Congress from exercising its constitutionally mandated power of the purse? This amendment also applies to items which have been approved by the House. Any such item could be stricken if the authorization bill has not been completed.

Last year, we faced a situation on the Defense Subcommittee, which I am privileged to chair, in which we completed action on the Appropriations Act before we completed action on the Authorization Act. We were told by the President, the Department of Defense, the commanders on the field in Iraq

and Afghanistan: You cannot stall this. So we passed the appropriations bill before the authorizing bill. Yet under this amendment, all the House items could be stricken by the Senate.

The Constitution gives the power of the purse to the Congress. It is our job to use that power responsibly. We have put procedures in place to make the process transparent and to hold Members accountable for their spending decisions. Rule XVI already establishes rules against funding and including unauthorized spending in general appropriations bills. Rule XLIV already establishes rules concerning congressionally directed spending items.

I can't speak for all my colleagues, but I can say this much. I was not elected by my constituents in Hawaii to be a rubberstamp. They expected me to use my initiative and to address my colleagues and tell them about the urgent requests we need. I could go on and on and tell you about many of the projects that have been part of the law today because we took congressional initiative. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Feingold-McCain amendment.

I yield the floor.

I object.

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

Mr. President, earlier today Senator McConnell singled out for criticism funding in this bill for upgrades of outdated information technology at the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.

He said: ``$524 million for a program at the State Department that promises to create 388 jobs . . . that comes to $1.35 million per job.'' He went on to say: ``$100 million for 300 jobs at the U.S. Agency for International Development, $333,333 per job.''

With all due respect to my friend, the minority leader and former chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee who was a strong supporter of these programs in the past, that is a simplistic statement which does not tell the whole story.

First, it undercounts the number of jobs these funds will generate, as I will explain. And second, it implies that the only value of a stimulus project is the jobs created, as if the resulting product is of no value. If we adopt that standard, I hate to think what the minority leader would say about other Federal projects, whether the cost of building the Washington Monument or a project in his State.

Computer systems are inherently not personnel intensive, but they do have a significant impact on the supply chain economy.

The State Department's and USAID's estimate of the number of jobs related to information technology upgrades is approximately 688 jobs. I doubt the unemployed citizens of Kentucky, any more than the citizens of Hawaii, would scoff at that number.

But this does not take into account the jobs created across the country when a Federal agency has a major investment in computer technology and systems. Much of the hardware would be manufactured by workers here in the U.S. Other components are made overseas and shipped to our ports, like Long Beach, CA.

U.S. workers unload the container ships and load the computer parts onto trucks or rail cars. Those trucks or trains travel across the country, and their drivers purchase fuel and food. The components are then unloaded and delivered to their final destination.

The 688 jobs cited by the Senate Appropriations Committee were merely those jobs directly identified with installing these computer systems and providing services to these Federal agencies. It does not take into account the impact of manufacturing, purchasing, and transporting new equipment.

But this funding will do more than create jobs.

The information technology upgrades proposed in this bill would improve the worldwide technology capabilities of two Federal agencies which are out of warranty and not up to current user demands. These technology systems form the core of communications between Washington and posts overseas.

Some of these funds would be used to upgrade secure phones as the current secret level phones are no longer supported by the available technology.

The Department has identified serious weaknesses in cybersecurity which these funds will address. Recent legislation mandating the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative requires all Federal agencies to become compliant with new standards to prevent cybercrime.

Federal agencies working overseas are particularly vulnerable to attack from foreign agents attempting to hack into the State Department's computer system. Sometimes this is to gain intelligence, but recently entire government computer systems have been taken down by malicious actors.

We cannot take this risk, which is why the Congress supported legislation last year to improve cybersecurity measures. Funds in this bill would address that need. Without these funds the State Department would not likely be able to make these critical investments for some years.

Funds will also be used to construct a back-up site for the worldwide information technology system, to prevent a single-point failure in communications. This need was identified after the 9/11 attacks by many independent reviews, but there have not been sufficient funds in the budget. This investment would ensure that the State Department's technology system, which supports 265 embassies and consulates in 154 countries, would not shut down if there is a major incident on the east coast of the U.S., like a power failure.

No. 1, the bill includes funding for many Federal agencies and departments to upgrade facilities or technology, and the State Department funding is in line with these same types of projects.

No. 2, this funding included for the State Department and USAID is for existing construction projects and upgrades that have been under- funded or deferred for years.

No. 3, these will support only domestic facilities which will improve the efficiency of the State Department's operations and create jobs in the U.S.

No. 4, in several instances, like the diplomatic security training facility and cybersecurity upgrades, the funds will strengthen security for U.S. diplomats posted overseas.

No. 5, all of the funds will be spent domestically at facilities in the U.S.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) The Senator from Washington is recognized.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment says any item, unless the project was authorized prior to February 1 of this year, would be thrown out. No authorization bills have passed this Senate so far this year, so many worthwhile items might not meet the terms. In addition, there are new programs which were authorized but not before February 1, such as the $9.5 billion for energy loan guarantees, $3.2 billion for western area power, $5.5 billion for competitive grants. These are dead.

I urge all of you, keep in mind that this is not an easy amendment. This is a tricky one. I vote no.

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 February 4, 2009 at 3 p.m., to conduct a committee hearing on modernizing the U.S. financial regulatory system.

Will the Senator yield?

I am extremely impressed by the Senator's presentation. I am proud to say that I support the measure. It will provide 655,000 new jobs. As the boys in the back room would say: This is just what the doctor ordered. Congratulations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:20 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Murray-Feinstein- Specter and others amendment No. 110 and that time until then be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that if a budget point of order is raised against the amendment, that a motion to waive the relevant point of order be considered as made; and that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation thereto.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This bill will create 4 million American jobs, invest in the future of America by rebuilding our roads, bridges and schools, and will give State and local governments the resources they need to deal with surging demand for social services and falling tax revenues.

Further, this measure will provide tax cuts to working families who are struggling every day to cope with this terrible recession.

Today, we face the gravest economic crisis that this Nation has seen since the Great Depression. Our fourth quarter gross domestic product shrank by 3.8 percent, the largest drop since 1982.

A million jobs have been lost in the past 2 months, and this coming Friday we expect to learn that during the month of January, another 600,000 jobs, at a minimum, have been lost.

The American people fully understand the depth and seriousness of our economic problems.

U.S. foreclosures increased by more than 81 percent last year, a record, with over 2.3 million foreclosures. Our States are struggling terribly, facing the prospect of cutting off vital services, including schools and police.

Forty-four States are facing budget shortfalls totaling $90 billion for fiscal year 2009 and $145 billion for fiscal year 2010.

In 2008, U.S. stocks lost roughly $7 trillion in value. In an instant, the life savings of millions of Americans simply disappeared. Our banking system is in grave shape. Last year, 25 banks with $373.6 billion in total assets failed in the U.S.

All the while, the critical needs of our Nation are going unmet. The American Society of Civil Engineers--ASCE--estimates that $2.2 trillion is needed over a 5-year period to bring the Nation's infrastructure to an adequate condition.

How can we grow our economy and provide opportunities for today's working men and women if the basic physical infrastructure that underlies every job in this country is falling apart?

We must invest in our future by making the necessary commitments to ensure that our infrastructure will support our future economic growth.

But today, we face a much more immediate crisis. In Saturday's New York Times, economist Allen Sinai stated:

My sense is that business is slashing hugely and across the

board. Everyone is cutting prices, people, capital spending

and all kinds of expenses. It is almost a herd instinct.

There is nothing more destructive to economic growth than deflation. It was the defining characteristic of the Great Depression, and it is the single most difficult economic condition to reverse. We cannot allow a deflationary spiral to develop.

Only one institution in the United States, the Federal Government, has the capacity to step into the breach and stop the terrible spiral of increased layoffs leading to decreased spending, in turn leading to more layoffs and so on.

The Federal Government must take aggressive action. We must use all means at our disposal to address this deepening crisis.

Some argue that this is all part of the natural business cycle, that the best course of action is to stand back and let this crisis work itself out. I would remind those who take this position that the Great Depression was also a part of the natural business cycle.

President Hoover refused to take aggressive action, and the results speak for themselves.

It was not until President Roosevelt took office in 1933 and implemented a series of drastic policy reforms that the economy slowly began to improve, and, almost as important, gave the average American reason to believe that there was a light at the end of the tunnel.

We must act boldly, decisively, and with all possible speed, or we will face dire consequences. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the answer. This legislation will not only create jobs now, but will also begin the process of rebuilding the physical infrastructure of America that is the key to future prosperity.

Based on these needs, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act focuses on the following goals:

First, creating or saving at least 4 million jobs;

Second, investing in America's future by rebuilding our basic infrastructure.

Third, providing for job retraining for those workers who need to learn new skills in order to compete in the global economy today, while at the same time, improving the education of our children and young adults so Americans can remain competitive tomorrow;

Fourth, moving toward energy independence and away from burning fossil fuels that leave us dependent on foreign oil;

Fifth, improving our healthcare system so all Americans can have access to quality treatment;

Sixth, providing tax cuts and other means of assistance to lessen the impact of this crisis on America's working families.

To meet these goals the Finance and Appropriations Committees recommend a total of $888 billion in funding, including $365.6 billion in new appropriations. This is a significant amount of money, but an amount that we believe is wholly necessary to confront the challenges facing our Nation.

My distinguished colleague from Montana will address the tax and mandatory spending issues that we are recommending and I will address the spending programs that were approved by the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 21 to 9.

It would take far too long to describe in detail the hundreds of programs that are included in this bill, but I would like to take a moment to mention some of the more significant investments that we recommend.

We will invest in our future by funding projects that will rebuild and improve our physical and cyber infrastructure. These projects, totaling $142 billion, will create jobs in the near-term, and will provide an improved foundation for future growth by fixing our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, improving our broadband network, and increasing our ability to conserve energy.

America's tradition of public education is second-to-none, but it has been sadly underfunded in recent years. We all know that for the United States

to compete in the 21st century, Americans must be well-educated and capable of adapting to an ever-changing economic environment.

Accordingly, we recommend investing $125 billion in education and training so that the next generation of American workers is ready and able to meet the challenge of global competition. In addition, providing job training to recently laid-off workers in new and expanding fields will help to lower the unemployment rate and will allow today's workers to better compete against foreign competition.

In the area of energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $49 billion in investments in areas critical to the development of clean, efficient, American energy, including modernizing energy transmission, research and development of renewable energy technologies, and modernizing and upgrading government buildings and vehicles.

The current economic crisis has affected all Americans, but none more so than the most vulnerable among us. The $25 billion in spending proposed here will serve to lessen the blow of the current recession, providing immediate relief for children, the poor, and others who may find themselves struggling to put food on the table or a roof over their head.

The bill provides $16 billion in investments in areas critical to immediate and long-term healthcare for millions of Americans. Improved information technology, research facilities, and health and wellness programs will all provide a better foundation for providing quality healthcare to consumers.

We face a critical period in our Nation's history. The next few years will either see us emerge from this crisis with renewed vigor and with an economy that remains the leading engine of global growth, or we may face years of slow growth and an ongoing struggle just to maintain our current standard of living.

Clearly, the goal of this package is to find ways to stimulate the private sector through public sector spending, to jump start the private sector with much needed projects that will create jobs as soon as possible, and that will provide meaningful improvements for our communities.

At the same time, we seek to ensure that the funds that are appropriated in this legislation are spent carefully and with unprecedented transparency. We include $110 million in the bill to increase the resources of agency Inspectors General and the Government Accountability Office.

In addition, this measure would establish a new oversight board within the executive branch which will be charged with oversight of the funding provided in this bill.

Such times as these are only overcome with courageous leadership and a willingness to embrace change, listen to new ideas and take chances. This bill is not perfect. But we must not let our fear of imperfection stop us from taking the bold steps necessary to address this crisis and move America forward.

The time for action is now. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is the right policy at the right time, and I urge each and every Member of this body to join me in support of creating jobs, supporting our State and local governments, and investing in the future of America.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as we begin the process of our discussions and debate on legislation to revitalize our Nation's economy, I want to take this opportunity to underscore the points I made on Tuesday of last week as we undertook the markup of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.

As I indicated, it is my belief that we all support the central goals of the legislation, which include the creation of jobs, the rebuilding of America's infrastructure, improving our children's education, moving toward energy independence, improving our health care system, and lessening the burden that this crisis has brought to the most vulnerable among us.

As you well know, beginning in 1987, I served for 19 years as the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate's Committee on Indian Affairs--and in that capacity I came to know a group of American citizens who have clearly been the most vulnerable amongst us--the indigenous, native people of the United States--American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians.

President Obama projects that in the near term, the nationwide unemployment rate could reach 10 percent. But for many of our Nation's First Americans, an unemployment rate of 10 percent in their communities would signal a giant step forward--given average unemployment rates in Indian country that range from 50 to 90 percent.

The infrastructure on many Indian reservations is not only in need of rebuilding--in most parts of Indian country, infrastructure is so sorely lacking or simply nonexistent, that it must be built for the first time. Members of Congress have come to this realization time and again, as we have enacted scores of settlements of Indian land and water claims over the years, and ratified agreements between State and tribal governments--only to find that there is none of the necessary infrastructure that would enable the delivery of water to tribal lands, nor the jobs associated with the establishment of businesses on tribal lands.

In Indian country, another goal that this bill seeks to accomplish-- stimulating the private sector through public sector spending--Federal funding has rarely been able to achieve. And that phenomenon is also fundamentally a function of the lack of infrastructure--adequate roads, safe water supplies, access to commercial and transportation corridors, good schools and access to quality health care. These are the critical components if we are ever to successfully encourage private sector investment in Native America through public funding.

There are vast natural resources that remain untapped in Indian country--wind energy, hydropower, solar energy, and other sources of clean, renewable energy--undeveloped in large part because of the lack of infrastructure and lack of access to electric transmission lines The same is true for those things most Americans have come to take for granted--basic connections to the outside world, such telephone service, access to the Internet and broadband services, public health and safety broadcast systems. A transition to digital television isn't a challenge to those who have no electricity.

Safe and affordable housing, running water, potable water, a source of heat--these aren't givens in Indian country as they are elsewhere in America.

So tribal governments have taken matters into their own hands--they have sought to restore their federally recognized status, to reacquire the lands that were lost through the opening of Indian reservations to homesteading and the treaty-making process, and to reconsolidate their traditional tribal land bases, so that in turn, they can develop a geographic base upon which to build and sustain economic growth and the means to effectively serve--through tribal government programs and services--all of those who reside on tribal lands--not just the citizens of their governments.

But our Federal bureaucracies--as well intentioned and well meaning as they may have been--have stood in the way of the tribal governments' efforts to achieve this economic growth and development of Native communities and those communities which surround them, and I believe that the scope of this bill must be inclusive enough to embrace initiatives that are designed to remedy not only centuries-old problems but to fulfill the commitments that we have made in a host of land and water claims settlements, in agreements involving State and tribal governments, and most importantly in our treaties with the Indian nations.

Accordingly I will look forward to working with my colleagues to assure that this bill does not inadvertently place obstacles in the paths of those who seek to become self-sufficient and self-sustaining-- those who have faithfully served our country and placed themselves in harm's way in the defense of our country in larger proportions than any other group of Americans--this Nation's First Americans, the Native people of the United States of America.

Madam President, I want to inform the Senate that neither S. 336 as reported to the Senate nor division A of the Inouye-Baucus substitute amendment to H.R. 1, Senate amendment numbered 98, contains any congressional directed spending items as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. I can also inform the Senate that division B of the amendment, prepared by the Committee on Finance, contains no limited tax benefit, limited tariff benefits, or congressional directed spending items as defined in rule XLIV.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will establish the Hawaii Capital National Heritage Area.

National Heritage Areas allow residents, government agencies, nonprofit groups and private partners to collaboratively plan and implement programs that recognize and preserve America's defining landscapes. Of the 40 National Heritage Areas established, only a few are west of the Mississippi River. This will be Hawaii's first official Heritage Area.

I believe that Hawaii's unique cultural make up coupled with its historical significance will surely attract both residents and visitors to this special place. The proposed area is rich with cultural sites, museums, historic buildings, art galleries, performing arts venues, ethnic markets, and restaurants that will surely provide the average person with an experience of a lifetime.

This makes Hawaii Capital Cultural district an ideal candidate for a Heritage Area designation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will establish the Hawaii Capital National Heritage Area.

National Heritage Areas allow residents, government agencies, nonprofit groups and private partners to collaboratively plan and implement programs that recognize and preserve America's defining landscapes. Of the 40 National Heritage Areas established, only a few are west of the Mississippi River. This will be Hawaii's first official Heritage Area.

I believe that Hawaii's unique cultural make up coupled with its historical significance will surely attract both residents and visitors to this special place. The proposed area is rich with cultural sites, museums, historic buildings, art galleries, performing arts venues, ethnic markets, and restaurants that will surely provide the average person with an experience of a lifetime.

This makes Hawaii Capital Cultural district an ideal candidate for a Heritage Area designation.