Floor Statements

Mr. President, following leader remarks, if any, we will resume consideration of H.R. 1105, the appropriations bill. The floor is open for debate and amendment. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session. I have spoken to the Republican leader and assistant leader. We expect to have a finite list of amendments that will be entered into the Record within the next hour.

I know it is very difficult for people to understand the Senate sometimes. For those of us who have served in this body for an extended period, it is even difficult sometimes for us. But it is a wonderful institution that has a long list of precedents building up since we became a country. The Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Constitution, wanted a unique legislative system, and they gave us one. The House of Representatives is elected every 2 years. No one has ever been appointed to serve in the House of Representatives. If someone resigns or dies, there is a new election. In the Senate, that is not the case. There are 6-year terms and 2-year terms. The House runs every 2 years. Their ears are in tune with the constituency like no one else. We are, some say, the saucer that cools the coffee. Sometimes we cool it for a long period. But that is the rules. An individual Senator has tremendous power. This isn't anything new. This is the way it has always been. I want everyone to recognize that the Senate is an institution that works on comity. We have to work together.

We are proceeding forward on this large spending bill to make up work that we had not completed the last several years. We thought we were going to finish last night. A significant number of Republicans wanted more amendments. As a result, a number of my Republican friends called me and said: We think we need more amendments. We know we said we were going to vote to end debate, but we believe there should be more debate. I wish I had not received those phone calls, but I understand how the Senate works. No one broke their word to me. It was a misunderstanding only.

We are where we are. I have spoken to the Republican leadership, Senator McConnell and Senator Kyl. Within the next little bit we will have a finite list of amendments. We will work our way through those. It is my understanding Senator McCain is going to be here today to offer an amendment. There are a number of other Senators who are going to offer amendments. We will work through these.

It is my understanding that the House is going to, within an hour or so, do a CR that will take us through Wednesday. I will work with the Republican leader. I will probably file cloture today to make sure we have some instrument to move forward on. We can arrange the time whenever we want. The reason we will go that way, it was set up last night procedurally that if there were 60 votes on cloture, there would automatically be a third reading of the underlying bill. That is what we will do again so there is no need to have two separate votes. We will do our best to give everyone ample time as to when this vote will take place, the reason being, Senator Kennedy is back now. We were happy to see him yesterday. He looks great. He was at the White House for a health conference.

We want to make sure we give him ample time to be here. He is receiving some of his treatment outside Washington, DC.

I think that pretty well outlines where we are.

We are the Senate. We were last night and we are today. We will work through the legislation as quickly as we can and move on to other things. We have important work to do. We have some nominations we will try to do the first part of the week, but we can do those the latter part of the week. The House passed some bankruptcy legislation. I spoke to the Republican leader about that today. We might go to that. We have the lands bill that might be coming back to us. We have lots to do. We have 4 weeks left in this work period and a lot remaining.

Mr. President, one thing I didn't mention, the manager of the bill, Senator Inouye, is here. Senator Cochran has been here steadfastly during the process. They have done a terrific job. Sometimes there are events outside the scope of what the managers are doing, though, that overtake their efforts, and that is what happened here. They are both, as I have said before, two of the best we have in this institution. I personally apologize to Senator Inouye for not being able to complete the legislation. But he has seen a lot of things in his career, much more than I have.

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

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments in this agreement be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order to H.R. 1105; that no amendment be in order to any of the listed amendments prior to a vote in relation thereto; that the amendments must be offered and debated Friday, March 6; Monday, March 9; or Tuesday, March 10; further, that upon disposition of the amendments and the Senate has voted on a motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 1105 and cloture having been invoked, all postcloture time be considered yielded back, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

Here is the finite list of amendments: Ensign amendment No. 615, which is pending; Vitter amendment No. 621; Sessions amendment No. 604; McCain amendment No. 593--he is in the Chamber now waiting to offer that amendment--Thune amendment No. 662; Barrasso amendment No. 637, which I understand he will offer on Monday; Enzi amendment No. 668; Kyl amendment No. 631; Kyl amendment No. 629; Kyl amendment No. 630; Kyl or designee amendment--we have a copy of the proposal--Cornyn amendment No. 673; and Bunning amendment No. 665.

Mr. President, I have spoken with the Republican leadership, and we are going to try to have four of these votes starting at 5:30 on Monday evening.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Continuing Resolution

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if and when the Senate receives from the House a joint resolution which provides for the continuation of Government funding until March 11, 2009, if it is identical to the measure which is at the desk, it be considered read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if it is not identical, then this order be null and void.

This will get us teed up to work next week. I made my statement this morning. The Senate is the body that it is. It is sometimes difficult for even those of us who serve here to fully comprehend. But I think this Congress has reached a point in time where we are working together, when adversaries work together. It doesn't mean we always agree, but I think we all have the end in mind to try to help the country and move legislation forward.

I appreciate the work of my leadership, Senator Durbin. He spent the evening with me last night. We finished about midnight. He is such a good friend. I appreciate the conversation I had with Senator McConnell and the many conversations I have had with Senator Kyl.

Everyone is working in good faith, and this Senate agreement indicates that.

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

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

Mr. President, following our remarks, there will be a period of 1 hour for Senators to speak in morning business. I have had numerous requests this week by Republicans and Democrats to speak on issues they want to address. I hope they now will come.

Following morning business, the Senate will be back on the appropriations bill we have worked on this week. I filed cloture on the bill last night and announced to the Senate that we will continue work on this until we finish it one way or the other. I hope we work out something to vote tonight. If we can't, we will do it in the morning. The filing deadline for first-degree amendments is 1 p.m. today. Rollcall votes in relation to pending amendments, of which we now have six, are expected to occur throughout the day. As those who were here last night will remember, I indicated that we had covered a wide universe of amendments. I had spoken to Senator Kyl, the assistant Republican leader, and a number of other Senators--Mr. Crapo and Mr. Inhofe--who wanted to offer amendments. We agreed to do those. We have six amendments pending. We will see how we do disposing of amendments today. I hope we can move through them fairly quickly. I look forward to doing what I can to finish as quickly as we can.

Mr. President, H.R. 146 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings at this time.

I might surprise you.

Mr. President, this is a topical issue. From news accounts this morning, I heard it mentioned a couple of times. I will be happy to work with Senator Grassley, see how we work through these amendments. I think it is something we could do. I know he would agree to a reasonable time period. We will see what we can do to work that out. For this time, I object, but I hope we can work something out.

Mr. President, I am not as familiar with that as Senator Sessions. I know he has talked about that on a number of occasions. I will be happy to have my staff look at this, and hopefully we can work our way through the amendments we have. I know Senator Sessions feels strongly about this. I hope we can work out something and have him come and present this amendment. But for this morning, I object.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Madam President, at 1 o'clock today, Democrats and Republicans have been invited to the White House to work on health care. That is going to take 4 hours. There are Senators here who are going to be working. We have a number of Senators on our side who wish to speak on the five remaining amendments that have been offered. So we will continue to work on those.

What we are trying to work out with the minority staff is to have a series of votes starting at 5:30 this afternoon and then continue working through these amendments. I had a conversation with the Republican leader today, who suggested Senators Sessions and Grassley had amendments. I have spoken with Senator Grassley. Senator Sessions was not available. Senator Grassley is trying to make a determination if he wants to offer the amendment. I had a conversation with him. So that is where we are.

Madam President, I say to my friend, if I didn't say that, that is what I wanted to say. I have had a number of people on my side--for example, I just spoke with Chairman Kerry. He is going to come and speak on the Kyl amendment. He will finish lunch and do that. Anyone who has speeches they want to give on these five amendments must come before 5:30 p.m. because we are going to enter into that agreement as soon as we can, which will be very quickly. We will have all those votes at 5:30 p.m. and decide anything else we have to do. We understand that. A number of people contacted me about amendments on my side and on the Republican side.

Mr. President, I think there is time here, if there is more time needed for everybody on this amendment. If there is more time needed, why don't we extend the time for a little bit.

I ask unanimous consent that the Republican leader and I be allowed to offer a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the pending amendments, no further amendments be in order this evening; that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture occur at 8:15 p.m. tonight, and that the time until then be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that if cloture is invoked, then all postcloture time be

considered yielded back, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I know everyone is anxiously awaiting the 8:15 time to arrive. I have had a number of conversations with Senator McConnell, Senator Kyl, and Senators on my side of the aisle. It appears at this time that we are going to have to continue to work on this bill. I have had calls from a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle, including conversations with my colleague from Nevada, and there are a number of amendments they feel strongly about, that they want the opportunity to offer. I wish that were not the case. We have had a significant number of amendments. But ``enough'' is in the eye of the beholder. As a result of that, we would probably be a vote short of being able to invoke cloture on this bill. My being a vote counter for a long time, discretion is the better part of valor.

I have not only heard from my friend from Nevada but other Senators. They have certain amendments they want to offer, and others have no amendments to offer but they want to be part of the team on the other side of the aisle, and if some of their colleagues want certain things done, they are going to go along with that. I don't criticize that.

I am not happy about it, but that is the way things work.

I have worked with Senators Kyl and McConnell, and by 11 o'clock tomorrow we will have a finite list of amendments, hopefully 10. There could be as many as 12. I doubt if we will need votes on all those. Senator Kyl, who is the mechanic working through this process, is going to try to squeeze that down as much as he can.

With that brief statement, it would be wasted time to have a cloture vote tonight. We are not going to have a cloture vote tonight. We would just go back into a quorum and spend the rest of the night looking at each other.

We have had pleasant conversations with each other. No one is trying to game the system. I wish we could finish this bill. The House is going to send us a CR that will take us to midnight Tuesday, as I understand it.

If we get that finite list of amendments, the Senate certainly could be open tomorrow for people to offer amendments. We could have votes on some of these Monday night when we come back. I could schedule votes on Monday, but that would really make for an unhappy group of people. So I think we would be better off starting the votes at 5 or 5:30 Monday night if, in fact, people lay these amendments down.

Of course.

Mr. President, I say in response to my friend, at quarter to 8 tonight, we had 59\1/2\ votes. If we can have consent, I could round that off--I don't think I could get that.

I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the cloture vote now pending.

Mr. President, I think he should direct that to his assistant leader, Senator Kyl.

Is his amendment going to be on the list?

Mr. President, I think it is clear from my friend--the conversations, plural, that we have had--that the list we are talking about is a list of 10 or 12 amendments; is that right?

You think you are going to have to work hard, think how hard I am going to have to work to defeat those amendments. I have more work than you have.

Mr. President, I think it is fair that we have a finite list. We are now up to 35 amendments?

What I think would be fair, Mr. President--I know the Senator from Arizona is going to act in good faith to cut the number down to as small a number as he can, but we can still come back with another cloture vote if there is a lot of unnecessary amendments in that number, if you can't get people to work reasonably with you.

So I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the cloture vote, and that a subsequent cloture vote occur----

We are familiar with his amendment. Basically, as I understand the amendment, Members would never get a COLA again. So we are willing to debate that. That basically is what it is; is that right?

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

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

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Louisiana, we will make sure that Senator McConnell has a vote in relation to the amendment.

I renew my unanimous consent request to vitiate the pending cloture vote; that we not have the vote tonight.

Mr. President, for the benefit of all Members, we apologize for having Senators from all sides leave. I hope those Senators who are working with Senator Kyl and want to offer these amendments will do so tomorrow or, if not, on Monday. We want to have some of these votes Monday night. We can have a series of votes Monday

night and work toward completing this stuff.

So I think that is about all I have to say, except that I appreciate everyone's cooperation.

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

Mr. President, as John F. Kennedy said about 50 years ago, ``The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word `crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger--but recognize the opportunity.''

America has not one crisis, but at least three crises that loom large before us. The economy is in obvious turmoil, pollution is causing the climate to change, and we are far too dependent on oil, particularly oil from unfriendly places around the world. These challenges hamper our security in profound ways.

Fortunately, with a new President and a bipartisan mandate in Congress, the opportunities to change direction and turn crisis into opportunity have never been more abundant. Now is the time to focus our resources on investments that will create jobs today and sustainable economic growth into the future.

I know that we have the technology to use less oil tomorrow then we used today, and even less the day after. We can move quickly toward greater energy independence, but only if we make major investments now in clean energy, like natural gas and electric vehicles and much more efficient fleets, and all produced right here in America and with American jobs.

President Obama's economic recovery plan is a giant step in the right direction. It provides $11 billion for smart grid technology and expanding transmission to renewable rich areas, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars to promote greater use of alternative fuel vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and fueling insfrastructure.

That plan is a massive infusion to help Americans become more energy efficient, including $300 million for energy efficient appliance rebates.

But even if we stopped wasting nearly one-third of the country's annual current energy consumption unnecessarily spending trillions of dollars and sending billions of tons of pollution up into the air we would still need new supplies of clean energy for sustainable economic growth.

Fortunately, Nevada and other parts of the desert southwest have enough solar energy potential to power our country seven times over. If that potential is combined with the wind energy from the Great Plains and the hundreds of thousands of megawatts of geothermal energy deep beneath the earth, the whole country could have cost-free fuel for many generations to come.

Innovators and entrepreneurs in every state have already begun to harness this power. But the field is in its infancy and it will only mature with significant and sustained support and attention at the Federal level.

But we must also focus our attention and investments on planning and siting new electricity transmission and breaking down barriers to a truly national approach. Otherwise, the vast clean renewable power in the sun, wind and geothermal resources of Nevada, off the country's coasts in the oceans, in the biomass on our lands, forests and in our cities, and in the remote and rural areas of the country, will never get to consumers.

Our transmission system and its regulations have been built up over many decades with the main target of assuring reliability and availability. Yet the grid is still fragile and not well equipped to meet the demands of this century's smart technologies or our environmental or national security challenges.

These issues were the topic of focused discussion last week at a genuinely important event a National Clean Energy Summit hosted by the Center for American Progress, CAP. This followed up on a similar gathering that I hosted in Las Vegas last August with John Podesta and the CAP Action Fund and the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

Last week's event was no ordinary meeting. It was admirably moderated by former Senator Tim Wirth and included President William Jefferson Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Representative Ed Markey, energy executive T. Boone Pickens, and leaders from government, business, labor, and the non-profit communities.

In particular, I would like to note the very constructive participation of the country's State regulatory commissions and authorities, ably represented by Fred Butler of New Jersey, President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. They have extremely difficult jobs maintaining reliability, keeping costs down, and being held responsible for the utilities' every move.

The outcome of our discussion was clear--reforming our energy policies to build a cleaner, greener national transmission system--an electric superhighway--must be a top national priority. However, equally clear was the sense that it will not be easy and will require everyone to work together with common purpose and through a strong public-private partnership to be effective in addressing our grave national challenges.

The need for reform is very clear. That is why I am introducing a bill today that charts a course to a cleaner, greener, and smarter national energy transmission system without sacrificing reliability or affordability. This will ensure a more secure and sustainable energy future for America.

Though this bill is loosely based on my legislation from the last Congress, this new and broader version is the product of input and a shared vision from many important stakeholders. In particular, the Center for American Progress and the Energy Future Coalition must be congratulated for their hard work and leadership in this complicated policy area. They have helped make it understandable to many in Washington, D.C.

But no one can beat T. Boone Pickens in explaining to the American people how critically important it is to transform the nation's electricity grid to accelerate the use of renewable energy. He is a source of immense renewable energy and really helping to drive this issue home.

My legislation will require the President to designate renewable energy zones with significant clean energy generating potential. Then, a massive planning effort will begin in all the interconnection areas of the country to maximize the use of that renewable potential by building new transmission capacity. The states would propose cost allocation means to fund the new lines in the green transmission grid plans. If either process falters, then the federal government would be given clear authority to keep things moving and get the new transmission built on schedule and funded equitably.

This bill is not perfect and has ample room for improvement. But as the bill works its way through the legislative process, I am hopeful that people will come together in good faith and propose revisions that will help solve the problems that we tried to identify at the Summit. There has already been a great deal of non-partisan, thoughtful work that Congress can draw upon in legislating and I look forward to the hearing that Chairman Bingaman has scheduled on this topic for next week.

Here are just a few of the organizations that provided valuable input in the drafting process for this bill: The Energy Future Coalition; the Center for American Progress; the Pickens Plan; Energy Foundation; Sierra Club; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife Federation; Audubon Society; The Wilderness Society; Bonneville Power Administration; Western Area Power Administration; Tennessee Valley Authority; Bureau of Land Management; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Department of Energy; North American Electric Reliability Corporation; National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; California PUC; Working Group for Investment in Reliable and Economic Electric Systems; Florida Power & Light; Midwest Independent System Operator; PJM Interconnection; ITC Transmission; Trans-Elect Transmission; Pacific Gas & Electric; American Electric Power; American Public Power Association; Large Public Power Council; Salt River Project; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Solar Energy Industries Association; Bright Source Energy; RES-Americas; American Wind Energy Association; Iberdrola Renewables; Colorado River Energy Distributors Association; Electric Power Supply Association; National Electrical Manufacturers Association; and many more.

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

Mr. President, as John F. Kennedy said about 50 years ago, ``The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word `crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger--but recognize the opportunity.''

America has not one crisis, but at least three crises that loom large before us. The economy is in obvious turmoil, pollution is causing the climate to change, and we are far too dependent on oil, particularly oil from unfriendly places around the world. These challenges hamper our security in profound ways.

Fortunately, with a new President and a bipartisan mandate in Congress, the opportunities to change direction and turn crisis into opportunity have never been more abundant. Now is the time to focus our resources on investments that will create jobs today and sustainable economic growth into the future.

I know that we have the technology to use less oil tomorrow then we used today, and even less the day after. We can move quickly toward greater energy independence, but only if we make major investments now in clean energy, like natural gas and electric vehicles and much more efficient fleets, and all produced right here in America and with American jobs.

President Obama's economic recovery plan is a giant step in the right direction. It provides $11 billion for smart grid technology and expanding transmission to renewable rich areas, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars to promote greater use of alternative fuel vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and fueling insfrastructure.

That plan is a massive infusion to help Americans become more energy efficient, including $300 million for energy efficient appliance rebates.

But even if we stopped wasting nearly one-third of the country's annual current energy consumption unnecessarily spending trillions of dollars and sending billions of tons of pollution up into the air we would still need new supplies of clean energy for sustainable economic growth.

Fortunately, Nevada and other parts of the desert southwest have enough solar energy potential to power our country seven times over. If that potential is combined with the wind energy from the Great Plains and the hundreds of thousands of megawatts of geothermal energy deep beneath the earth, the whole country could have cost-free fuel for many generations to come.

Innovators and entrepreneurs in every state have already begun to harness this power. But the field is in its infancy and it will only mature with significant and sustained support and attention at the Federal level.

But we must also focus our attention and investments on planning and siting new electricity transmission and breaking down barriers to a truly national approach. Otherwise, the vast clean renewable power in the sun, wind and geothermal resources of Nevada, off the country's coasts in the oceans, in the biomass on our lands, forests and in our cities, and in the remote and rural areas of the country, will never get to consumers.

Our transmission system and its regulations have been built up over many decades with the main target of assuring reliability and availability. Yet the grid is still fragile and not well equipped to meet the demands of this century's smart technologies or our environmental or national security challenges.

These issues were the topic of focused discussion last week at a genuinely important event a National Clean Energy Summit hosted by the Center for American Progress, CAP. This followed up on a similar gathering that I hosted in Las Vegas last August with John Podesta and the CAP Action Fund and the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

Last week's event was no ordinary meeting. It was admirably moderated by former Senator Tim Wirth and included President William Jefferson Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Representative Ed Markey, energy executive T. Boone Pickens, and leaders from government, business, labor, and the non-profit communities.

In particular, I would like to note the very constructive participation of the country's State regulatory commissions and authorities, ably represented by Fred Butler of New Jersey, President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. They have extremely difficult jobs maintaining reliability, keeping costs down, and being held responsible for the utilities' every move.

The outcome of our discussion was clear--reforming our energy policies to build a cleaner, greener national transmission system--an electric superhighway--must be a top national priority. However, equally clear was the sense that it will not be easy and will require everyone to work together with common purpose and through a strong public-private partnership to be effective in addressing our grave national challenges.

The need for reform is very clear. That is why I am introducing a bill today that charts a course to a cleaner, greener, and smarter national energy transmission system without sacrificing reliability or affordability. This will ensure a more secure and sustainable energy future for America.

Though this bill is loosely based on my legislation from the last Congress, this new and broader version is the product of input and a shared vision from many important stakeholders. In particular, the Center for American Progress and the Energy Future Coalition must be congratulated for their hard work and leadership in this complicated policy area. They have helped make it understandable to many in Washington, D.C.

But no one can beat T. Boone Pickens in explaining to the American people how critically important it is to transform the nation's electricity grid to accelerate the use of renewable energy. He is a source of immense renewable energy and really helping to drive this issue home.

My legislation will require the President to designate renewable energy zones with significant clean energy generating potential. Then, a massive planning effort will begin in all the interconnection areas of the country to maximize the use of that renewable potential by building new transmission capacity. The states would propose cost allocation means to fund the new lines in the green transmission grid plans. If either process falters, then the federal government would be given clear authority to keep things moving and get the new transmission built on schedule and funded equitably.

This bill is not perfect and has ample room for improvement. But as the bill works its way through the legislative process, I am hopeful that people will come together in good faith and propose revisions that will help solve the problems that we tried to identify at the Summit. There has already been a great deal of non-partisan, thoughtful work that Congress can draw upon in legislating and I look forward to the hearing that Chairman Bingaman has scheduled on this topic for next week.

Here are just a few of the organizations that provided valuable input in the drafting process for this bill: The Energy Future Coalition; the Center for American Progress; the Pickens Plan; Energy Foundation; Sierra Club; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife Federation; Audubon Society; The Wilderness Society; Bonneville Power Administration; Western Area Power Administration; Tennessee Valley Authority; Bureau of Land Management; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Department of Energy; North American Electric Reliability Corporation; National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; California PUC; Working Group for Investment in Reliable and Economic Electric Systems; Florida Power & Light; Midwest Independent System Operator; PJM Interconnection; ITC Transmission; Trans-Elect Transmission; Pacific Gas & Electric; American Electric Power; American Public Power Association; Large Public Power Council; Salt River Project; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Solar Energy Industries Association; Bright Source Energy; RES-Americas; American Wind Energy Association; Iberdrola Renewables; Colorado River Energy Distributors Association; Electric Power Supply Association; National Electrical Manufacturers Association; and many more.

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

Mr. President, following the remarks of the leaders, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, be recognized for whatever time he may consume and, following that, we will move to H.R. 1105.

Mr. President, it is my understanding there are seven amendments pending. We will dispose of those as quickly as we can. Votes on those will not be able to start until after 2 o'clock today because of Gordon Brown and other things going on here, but we will move through those as rapidly as we can, making sure people have an opportunity to speak for or in opposition. I have spoken to the Republican staff, and they have other amendments they wish to offer. We are moving along fairly well on this bill. We will recess at 10:40 this morning until noon for the joint meeting of Congress with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

We have a number of speakers lined up at 12 noon and thereafter to speak on the pending amendments. At 10 this morning, Senator Mikulski is expected to be here to speak on one of the pending amendments.

Mr. President, prohibiting no-bid contracts is a laudable goal. With billions of dollars wasted on no-bid contracts by the previous administration, it is a goal that Democrats and Republicans should embrace.

But Amendment No. 596 which is disguised as a good government amendment does far more harm than good.

This amendment would require that only procedures in accordance with section 303 of the Federal Property Administrative Services Act would be eligible to receive funds.

The result would be to strictly limit opportunities for small businesses, minority-owned businesses and Native Americans to receive agency contracts.

The Indian Self-Determination Act and the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act allow tribes to provide governmental services to their members by entering contracts and receiving grants. Requiring these contracts and grants to go through a competitive process would undermine the purposes of tribal self- determination.

The tribes in Nevada and throughout America know how to best serve their members' interests. Tribes enter contracts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Services to provide these services. This amendment threatens their authority to do so.

Enacting this amendment would roll back years of Small Business and Indian Affairs Committee authorizations by requiring that all contracts be awarded through just one specific section of one specific law.

Small businesses employ more than half of our country's private sector workforce. If we pass this resolution and deny these small businesses the ability to compete on a level playing field, we will be severely impeding our country's desperately needed job creation engine.

Congress has authorized a number of procedures over the years to help small businesses, veteran-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses and tribal enterprises gain access to government contracts. We have done so on a strong bipartisan basis because we recognize that small businesses are able to provide the same level of skill and service as their larger counterparts. We should continue giving these small companies a fair chance to earn business, prosper, grow and create the jobs our country desperately needs.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

We have a couple more amendments offered by the Senator from Oklahoma that we are going to try to dispose of this evening. It is my wish that we could do that about 5:30 this afternoon. So people who wish to speak on the remaining two Coburn amendments should come and do that.

We do not have an agreement yet to that effect, but we are sure going to try to get to that. As everybody knows, there is an event at the White House that Senator McConnell and the chairmen and ranking members have been invited to attend. We are going to do that. We are going to move through as many of these amendments as we can tonight. I would like to only get those two amendments voted on.

That means we have three that have already been filed, so we are going to come in early in the morning and start working on those. It is my understanding that there are a number of other amendments people want to offer. But I should alert everyone, we are kind of winding down. We have tomorrow to work on this. But I would hope everyone would understand we have been through a lot of amendments, with no prerequisites as to what they are, and I think that unless something untoward happens, I am going to

file cloture on this tonight for a Friday morning cloture vote.

We will have to see at that time how many amendments we can dispose of tomorrow to see what the temperature of the body is. It would certainly be possible, with a consent agreement, that we can dispose of this tomorrow. But it is up to the Senators as to what they want to do. As I have indicated, the CR expires on Friday. So we have to do something. I have told people this, but so there is no misunderstanding, I have spoken, in fact with the Speaker last night, had a meeting with her about 4:30 in the afternoon. She said: We have put our Members through a lot over here on this appropriations bill. I am not going to put them through any more. If there are any amendments, we are going to do a CR for the rest of the year.

But the information I have given the Senate is nothing new. I said that earlier this week. So we have had good debate on all these amendments. I hope it continues.

Amendments Nos. 607 and 635

Would my friend withhold for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes in relation to the Coburn amendments Nos. 610 and 623 occur at 5:35 p.m. today with no amendments in order to either amendment prior to a vote; and that the votes occur in the order listed with 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the second vote; and that the second vote be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. President, I indicated to the Republican floor staff that that is one amendment we are aware is going to be offered. We hope to be able to start offering those as soon as we finish the votes this evening--at least yours and maybe a couple others we will consider, the one amendment Senator Kyl is going to speak on now.

I asked Senator Kerry, the chairman of the committee, to take a look at it before we make an agreement on it, but yours is one we are aware of. We understand it. We are ready. I would only say to my friend from Oklahoma, I do not know what word you used--noncontroversial or whatever it is--that is in the eye of the beholder.

But the majority has changed.

Mr. President, I think the only speakers left are Dr. Coburn and myself, so he can go ahead and use any time he wants and if he goes over, I can use my time.

Mr. President, if I don't finish my remarks before 5:35, I ask that everybody recognize that the vote may occur a minute or two right after 5:35.

This amendment directs the Senate to eliminate 13 separate science and education projects from this bill. The Senator from Oklahoma claims these projects are somehow associated with a lobbying outfit that is under some kind of an investigation. He acknowledges that the quality of the congressionally directed spending is not questioned, that the persons whose names are associated with these congressionally directed funding matters are not in question. So what is this all about?

I wish to remind my colleagues of the many reforms this Congress has imposed on the earmarking process. The days of unlimited and unaccountable congressionally directed spending are gone. Those days are behind us. We passed the most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in the history of the country--and rightfully so. We have never gone beyond that.

Last year, when we were back in power for the first time in a number of years, we Democrats dramatically reduced the volume of earmarks in the bills--by 43 percent. In this bill, we reduced them another 5 percent. The volume of earmarks is less than half what they were in 2006 when our Republican colleagues were in the majority.

Just as important, under our reforms, each and every congressionally directed spending earmark in this bill is fully disclosed and transparent to the public. What does that mean? Each of these is backed by a letter from a House or Senate sponsor certifying that they and their family members have absolutely no financial interest in the earmark. For every one of these earmarks, the name of the grantee and the House or Senate sponsor are posted on the Internet for the public to see. So there is the name of the person requesting it, a certification that no one benefits from it other than the person to whom the money is directed, and they are posted on the Internet before any of these are voted on in the House or Senate.

This amendment is the third separate amendment the Senator from Oklahoma sought to present to the Senate on this topic of congressionally directed spending. Everybody knows how I feel about these. I am a Member of the Congress of the United States. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that when the Founding Fathers set up this country, they set up three separate and equal branches of Government. What Congress has been doing since we became a country is have the Congress involved in where spending takes place. I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to make sure there is not some bureaucrat down in one of these big offices in Washington, DC, who determines every penny spent in Nevada. I think I have a better outlook on this than a lot of people who are bureaucrats. I have been here going on 27 years, and I have done my best to direct congressional spending to places in Nevada where I think it helped. It has helped. I am one who believes we are going to reduce these earmarks even more. We have made that commitment. But no one should lecture me on what my role is as a Member of Congress.

I say that this amendment, I repeat, is the third separate amendment the Senator from Oklahoma has sought to present on this topic. A couple of days ago, the Senator filed amendment No. 609 to address this lobbying outfit known as PMA. I don't even know what that stands for; I have no idea. Yesterday, he filed a completely different amendment, No. 623, which he called to the floor. That amendment purported to list earmarks in this bill that are associated with this suspect lobbying organization. Then, after he presented No. 623 to the Senate, he realized he had a project listed in this amendment for DePaul University that probably had absolutely nothing to do with this lobbying group. So he got consent--we didn't object to changing the amendment--to remove that project from the list.

That is the central point. We don't necessarily know who the lobbying groups are behind the projects that are asked to be appropriated by Members of Congress, just as Senator Coburn didn't know who the lobbyist was for this project for DePaul. We don't include earmarks at the behest of lobbyists; we include them at the behest of elected Members of Congress. That is what the Appropriations Committee does.

There are famous firms in town--Tommy Boggs--everybody knows Patton Boggs, but that firm has nothing in here. They are a big lobbying outfit. Their name doesn't appear on anything. The only thing that appears is what is in the Record, and it is so transparent, you could not try to hide anything if you wanted to anymore. You have to list everything, and it appears in the Record days before we vote on it.

For the projects I champion in Nevada, I don't check to find out if a lobbyist cared. I don't really care, Mr. President. A lot of my constituents in the city of Las Vegas, Clark County; the city of Reno, Boulder City; North Las Vegas, and the universities have lobbyists. I don't give those entities I just mentioned an earmark because some lobbyist asked for it. I support projects in Nevada because they are brought to me by my mayors, community organizations, and universities. I support them because I believe they will improve the lives of people in my State.

We cannot start picking and eliminating earmarks because we think we know who the lobbyist may be, just like DePaul University. Lobbyists don't face the voters. Lobbyists are not accountable for the merits of these projects, and nobody has focused more attention on lobbyists than President Obama. Congressmen and Senators are accountable for these projects, not lobbyists. Congressmen and Senators will be held accountable by constituents, not lobbyists. Every one of these objections to funding that the Senator from Oklahoma has raised has the name of a Member of Congress by it. That is the person responsible.

I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating this vexatious amendment which is without any foundation.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I indicated to my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, that I would file a cloture motion. I didn't tell him when. I said it would be today. One reason I am doing it now is that during the day we have had scores of other amendments filed. It is obvious there is no effort to help us pass this extremely important legislation. I think the time has come to bring it to a close. We can vote either Friday morning or we can vote sometime tomorrow. Other amendments will be offered, and I understand that. We will work with the minority as to what those amendments should be. We know we have three pending. I have talked to a number of other Senators on the Republican side who want to offer amendments. We will take those into consideration.

Mr. President, I ask that the mandatory quorum be waived.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, we have now pending three votes; three amendments are still pending. I have spoken to the distinguished manager of the bill on the Republican side. He wishes to offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Kyl, Senator Crapo, and one by Senator Inhofe. Is that right, I say through the Chair to my friend from Mississippi?

That gives us six votes to work out sometime tomorrow. I think, from our perspective, we are drawing to the end of a little situation on which we have been here all week. I think we have given everyone the opportunity to offer amendments. We have filed now about 70-some-odd amendments. I think we have been more than reasonable on this bill. The time for this CR runs out the day after tomorrow.

Originally, as some will recall, Friday was listed as a ``no vote'' day and we were hopeful that could take place. I am still hopeful we can work out something tomorrow. If we cannot work out something with the minority tomorrow, we will have a cloture vote, probably about 9:30 on Friday. We hope that is not necessary but that we will see. We are going to do our best.

I have been informed by the distinguished manager of the bill on the Republican side that he believes that each of the three Senators-- Crapo, Inhofe and Kyl--would agree to time agreements on their amendments.

The other three amendments have had some discussion but we will have to have some more because, of course, they were laid down yesterday.

I think that gives the body an understanding of where we are and where we are going to go tomorrow. We will probably come in about 9:30 tomorrow and try to work through these amendments.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.