Floor Statements

No.

No.

Yes, sir.

I thank the Senator. I reclaim my time.

All the time so far----

All the time so far has been used----

Thank you, Madam President.

If the Senator will yield, all the time so far has been yielded to those who oppose the bill. As I understand it, the time will be cut off at 6, and I will use that remaining time.

I do want to thank the appropriators, the Senator from Mississippi, all of those who work for the entire Senate to do what the Members ask as far as to look out for their States, and I do not call into account their motives at all. But I think as Members of the Senate we have to ask ourselves: Is the way we are doing this working?

We can have all the theoretical arguments we want. But what we have is trillions of dollars of debt, many wasteful projects. The trust in our government is at an all-time low, and the earmarks we are sending out all across the

country are mostly now with borrowed money.

So we can talk about our theories all we want, but what we are doing is not working, and perception is reality. With all of our debt, the corruption, the waste, every American has a right to question what we are doing right now. Clearly, if it is a constitutional responsibility for all of us to be here to get money for our States, somehow for the first 200 years of our country that was missed because even a few years ago Ronald Reagan would veto a bill with less than a couple hundred earmarks in it because of all the pork and waste. But now we are in the thousands and tens of thousands. It is out of control. The waste and the fraud and the abuse is so obvious that it is time we see it in the Senate.

If you look at the Constitution, a couple of principles are clear. They expect uniformity across the States, nonpreferential treatment, and that is not what happens with earmarks. Folks, we have to admit, while a lot of the proponents of earmarks will say it is a small part of our total budget, that is like looking at a long train that covers a whole mile and saying the engine is just a small part of that train. But the engine is what pulls the whole train, and earmarks are what pull through a lot of spending and a lot of borrowing.

Just going back 1 year, the big bailout bill--almost a trillion dollars--failed to pass the House, and then they added earmarks and it passed. Following that was a stimulus bill, a candy store of earmarks. After that, the omnibus bill with thousands of earmarks that sailed through the Congress, and even the health care bill. With the ``Nebraska kickback,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' Americans now know that we buy votes with earmarks.

Isn't it time we just take a timeout for 1 year and see if we can reform this system? Some of the reforms people are talking about that we have been talking about for years that we have not done--it is time to admit what we are doing is not working.

In the House of Representatives, yesterday, the Republicans led the way. They do not agree on how to deal with earmarks long term, but they agreed that it is enough of a problem that they decided to take a 1- year moratorium on earmarks. The House Republican Conference voted to eliminate earmarks for 1 year. It gives us a chance to take a timeout to try to work on this.

As to the argument that if we do not do earmarks, the administration will do it, folks, we have every power here by the way we appropriate to disallow the use of funds for certain things. We could not only here do what we are supposed to do, which is pass bills that provide funding for programs, and then provide the oversight for the administration-- and we require they only use the funds in a nonpreferential, formula- based way or competitive grants or bids--we have every way to restrain the way the administration uses the funds that we appropriate. Then what would happen is, we would resist big spending bills because we did not have our parochial interests, our conflicts of interest to get money for our States.

Senators, we are not here to get money for our States. We are here as representatives of our States in the United States of America, and we put up our hands and say: We are going to defend and protect the Constitution that is about the general welfare of America. We cannot continue to come here every day and talk about our unsustainable debt, and then say: I have to have $1 million for my museum or my local sewer plant when, in fact, this is borrowed money.

We do not have the money we need to keep the promises to seniors we have made for Social Security and Medicare and to defend our country. Yet we spend most of the year trying to get earmarks for our local communities so we can do a press release, so we can talk about bringing home the bacon.

So we can talk about how a lot of these projects may have merit, but what doesn't have merit is when we forgo the interests of our Nation, the general welfare of our people, so that we can do our press releases on our tens of thousands of earmarks.

It is time to bring it to a close, at least for 1 year. The House has taken a bold stand, at least on the Republican side. Let's vote to take a timeout on earmarks, try to get our house in order, re-earn the trust of the American people, and stop putting this debt on the shoulders of our children.

We have a chance in a few minutes to vote on a moratorium of earmarks for 1 year. This is the very least we can do for the people of the United States of America. All of these arguments we can push aside. What America thinks right now is true. There is a connection between the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the debt, the borrowing, and earmarks. There is no question about it.

I implore my colleagues: Set aside the self-interests for one vote. Let's do what is best for our country and vote for a 1-year timeout on earmarks.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following amendment to H.R. 2847, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, including germaneness requirements:

At the end of the bill, insert the following:

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment No. 3454, which is at the desk.

Madam President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senators McCain, Graham, Coburn, Grassley, LeMieux, and Feingold. An identical bill has 16 cosponsors, including Senators Burr, Chambliss, Cornyn, Crapo, Ensign, Isakson, Johanns, Kyl, McCaskill, Risch, Sessions, and a number of others.

This is an amendment for a 1-year moratorium on earmarks. The fact that we are even having this debate shows how out of touch Congress is with the American people. I have had a chance over the last week to speak to thousands of Americans in several States, and all you have to do to get them on their feet cheering is say: The time for excuses and explanations is over. It is time to end the practice of earmarking. And people will stand up, people of both parties. They understand earmarks are the most offensive form of government spending. They are wasteful porkbarrel projects delivered by lawmakers to curry favor with small constituencies back home and special interest groups. We have heard the excuses for years. But it is time to end this practice.

I have introduced this bill before. At the time President Obama was running for President of the United States, he flew back to Washington to vote on it. He cosponsored the bill with me. He essentially said: The era of earmarks is

over. I think we will see, as I talk a little bit more, that is the opposite of what is true.

We have all heard of the crazy earmarks that have been brought up-- the infamous ``bridge to nowhere.'' We have things that sound so ridiculous that people do not even believe it is true--the tattoo removal earmark, the Totally Teen Zone earmark, and the midnight basketball earmark. You go through the list and you say, how does this make sense in light of the fact that the same people who are asking for these earmarks come onto this floor, onto the House floor, and in the White House and say: Our debt is unsustainable. It is a crisis. We cannot continue to spend and borrow and create debt. Yet I need $1 million for tattoo removal or a bridge to nowhere or a local museum.

The American people are onto us. They know it makes absolutely no sense for us to focus so much time and energy on parochial earmarks for our press releases rather than working on the issues of our country, the general welfare of our Nation.

All of these projects add up. Last year alone, according to the Congressional Research Service, President Obama--who said he would not sign bills with earmarks--signed bills with 11,320 earmarks, totaling $32 billion for the last fiscal year. That is an increase from the $28.8 billion in earmarks in fiscal year 2008 and the $30 billion in earmarks in fiscal year 2009. Big and small, these earmarks are adding up and are causing our budget to balloon out of control, and they are saddling our children with an overwhelming debt.

Beyond just the inherit wastefulness of earmarks themselves is the effect they have on spending. Quite simply, they grease the skids for the wasteful spending that is bankrupting our country--the ``Cornhusker kickback'' being a case study at the top of the list right now.

Fortunately, it seems we are making some progress, some headway in putting an end to the favor factory we call earmarks here in Washington. Just this week, Roll Call reported that Speaker Pelosi is considering an earmark moratorium. Additionally, just this morning, the House Republican Conference unilaterally declared a moratorium on earmarks. This is an exciting first step, and I commend the Republican leadership in the House and all of their Members for taking a stand on behalf of the American people on this issue that is so clear and obvious to everyone except many here in Washington.

It is time for the Senate to lead and demand that we stop this wasteful earmark spending. Keep in mind, I am not asking that we end the practice forever but to take a 1-year timeout while we try to figure out how to create a system that is within the scope of the Constitution, within the general welfare of our country, and does not turn this Federal Government into some kind of sponsorship of many local projects.

My amendment will do just that. It is very simple. It puts an end to earmarking by prohibiting the consideration of any bill, joint resolution, conference report, or message between the Houses that contains earmarks. And we use the same definition currently in the Senate rules of what an earmark is. We require a two-thirds supermajority to waive the rules. So if there is some kind of emergency where we have to designate spending, we can do it if there is a consensus here.

President Obama, as I said, highlighted the need for this amendment when he cosponsored the identical language in 2008. He rightly stated:

We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks

based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the

merit of the project.

Despite his support and election, the problem has not gotten any better. Citizens Against Government Waste, in their 2009 Pig Book, pointed out:

While the number of specific projects declined by 12.5

percent, from 11,610 in fiscal year 2008 to 10,160 in fiscal

year 2009, the total tax dollars spent to fund them increased

by 14 percent, from $17.2 billion to $19.6 billion.

A lot of my colleagues will say: Jim, you are making a big deal out of nothing. Really $20 billion or $30 billion is such a small part of our budget that you shouldn't make an issue of it. But this is like saying an engine is a small part of a train. If you want to look at what is pulling through the bad policy and the overspending, all you have to do is look at earmarks.

So we continue the same type of wasteful projects since President Obama spoke these words, and we need to stop it. And we can stop it. My amendment will put these kinds of things to an end--at least for a year while we look at it. What will immediately happen if we do this? We hear the argument here: If we do not designate spending here in Congress, the executive branch will. But the first thing we would do, if we turned off our own earmark spigot, is every appropriations bill would require that the administration only spend money according to nonpreferential formulas or to merit-based competitive grants. We could bring an end to earmarking in the executive branch as well as in Congress and focus the attention on the Federal Government on true national interests rather than what we have now, which is nearly 535 Congressmen and Senators who think it is their job to come to Washington to get money for their States and congressional districts. If you want to know what happens if we allow that to happen, you can look at what is going to be at the end of this year: $14 trillion in debt--when people see the Federal Government as a cow to milk rather than having a constitutional oath we need to keep.

The time for excuses is over. Enough is enough. We are not here to get money for our States; we are here to fulfill our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution that would not allow money for local bridges and local roads and local museums. All of these are good projects, and many of them are very necessary, but that is not the purpose of the Federal Government.

Again, I commend the Republican leadership in the House for taking a bold stand against the practice of earmarks. I challenge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to vote for this bill President Obama cosponsored and many here voted for so we can show America we are listening, we understand that perception is reality, and the corruption that takes place, the vote-buying with earmarks--the ``Cornhusker kickback'' and ``Louisiana purchase'' and all this we have heard about--that we are going to end at least for 1 year while we prove to the American people we can break this addiction to spending.

So, again, the amendment number is 3454. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing; In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following amendment to H.R. 4213, including germaneness requirements:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

Madam President, I know the Senate has been dealing with a difficult issue, and I wish to make some comments relative to the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, who I think has taken a lot of unfair criticism for asking our Democratic colleagues to abide by their own rules.

Much has been made in the Senate and in the Congress and at the White House over the last year about the unsustainable level of spending and borrowing and debt we have as a nation. Yet it seems that almost every week we create some new government program or expand spending in some area. I think it is time we expose the hypocrisy that is going on because we know the level of debt we have is going to eventually, sooner or later, bring our country down. Yet we don't seem to have the willpower to stop any spending.

Last week, we created a new government program, a new travel promotion agency. Now we are going to extend unemployment and COBRA benefits, which are good things. Certainly, in a down economy, we need to consider those around the country who are suffering and make sure we do everything we can that is fair to take care of them, but when we borrow the money to do it, we threaten the futures of our children and grandchildren, diminish their quality of life, and likely cause their unemployment in the future. We can hardly pat ourselves on the back for our compassion and generosity when we are not making any sacrifices or even any hard decisions in the Senate to pay for those things we say are a priority.

Instead of paying for this extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA, the Democrats want to pass it without any debate, without any vote. They don't want to pay for it. We are not even considering ways we can pay for this extension. Instead, we classify it as emergency spending at the last minute and try to force Congress into spending money we don't have. We brought it up at the very last minute at the end of last week and said, if we don't pass it now by unanimous consent, people will go without their unemployment and their COBRA.

This is not emergency spending. It was entirely predictable that these funds would run out, when existing funds would run out. Instead of acting prudently to extend these benefits in ways we could pay for them, the way my Democratic colleagues have promised we would with this pay-go rule, they are declaring an emergency at the last minute to ram it through without any debate and without a vote.

Moreover, they want to do this anonymously, through the process we call unanimous consent. That means they don't want a rollcall vote. Why don't they want a rollcall vote? Because it shows who means what they say. It shows who believes in this idea of pay as we go that we call pay-go, and it will certainly damage prospects for November elections.

Senator Bunning from Kentucky has taken a courageous stand to hold the Democrats--in fact, all of us--accountable to the things we say we believe. I believe, as does Senator Bunning, that if we are going to renew these benefits, we should pay for them. We should look at areas of our government that we don't have to do and reduce them or eliminate them so we can pay for the things we feel we have to do. I think the names of the Senators who want to borrow the money to do this, who want to add to our debt to do this, should be recorded for the public to see.

This bill will cost $10 billion. We could find the money to pay for this bill. We could repeal a very small part of the stimulus plan. We could repeal the TARP or the bailout money. We could cut some earmarks--some local parochial projects--or we could cut other government programs that have been deemed unnecessary or wasteful.

The Congressional Budget Office says the government would save $12 billion if we allowed health insurance companies to compete in an interstate commerce fashion. We have talked about it a lot as part of the health care debate. If all we did--no taxpayer funds at all--is allowed interstate competition for health insurance, the government could save $12 billion and more than pay for this bill we are talking about today. We could help people get insured, lower the cost of health insurance, help small businesses create jobs, and pay for the bill that extends unemployment benefits. But we are not even willing to talk about a responsible way to pay for a bill. Senator Bunning says: Wait a minute. We have been talking about paying for these bills as we go, and the first two bills we brought up since we passed pay-go have not been paid for. He said we should at least bring it to the floor and have some debate and a vote. I think that is pretty reasonable.

Senator Bunning was right to address this problem, and I commend him for it. I hope our colleagues will stop the hypocrisy, stop trying to create a crisis of our debt while we make that crisis worse every day, adding to the debt almost every week.

Now we have Members of this body looking at new ways to raise taxes or create new taxes on Americans. This is not the way to help our country, and it is not the way to lead. It is certainly hypocrisy. I thank Senator Bunning for his stand. I ask all my colleagues to join us in looking at what this Federal Government has to do and to do those things well, to fund them properly, but to take those things that don't have to be done at the Federal level and move them to the States or back to the people, as the tenth amendment says. We clearly cannot move forward as a Nation with the Federal Government doing more than it is doing today.

If we are going to survive and thrive as a Nation, the Federal Government will have to do less. That needs to begin here. It needs to start today. We can't keep expanding government, borrowing money every week, and complaining about the debt. Only in politics would that happen. We have to stop it here, this week. Again, I thank Senator Bunning for his courage and clarity.

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

Mr. President, I know many here are very anxious to start a new government agency, and I won't hold you up for very long.

It is important that we recognize some things that are happening. There is probably one good thing we can do tonight--maybe--to stop the landslide of more government control. In the last year--a little over a year--we have seen this Federal Government take over two of our largest auto companies, our largest mortgage company, our largest insurance company, and expand its control on America's domestic energy sources, and, of course, we had the debate on trying to expand control of health care.

We are expecting, very soon, a new financial reform package that will expand Federal control everywhere from Wall Street to the local pawnshop.

While these big things are coming in front of us, there are things happening in the executive branch that are circumventing Congress, and that should concern us. A lot of you have heard from industries back home about what the EPA standards are doing. Businesses don't know what to expect, nor do local communities. I had an engine company in my office today that said orders were on hold until they find out what the EPA is going to do. I have also had people in my office in the last week talking about the FCC and the coming ruling on expanding control over the Internet--one place in our economy that continues to boom with innovation.

There is one thing that just leaked out that I want to bring to your attention. We need to try to halt that tonight before it is too late. A whistleblower at the Department of the Interior leaked a document that shows they are considering using the Antiquities Act to grab over 10 million acres of land in nine Western States and basically take them offline of jobs for mining, forestry, and energy. This includes Nevada, Utah, Montana, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. It is important that we stop this and at least have some Senate hearings on what they are trying to do.

This is a priority for what we are talking about today because the President and the Congress have said our top priority is jobs. This action by the Interior Department will hurt jobs. It will dry up tax revenues in local communities and States. It will restrict energy supplies in this country.

Mr. President, all I am asking is that we suspend the rules, which require 67 votes, and vote on this amendment to stop the Department of the Interior from taking over over 10 million acres of land and hurting our economy and jobs.

I promised the leader I would keep it to less than 10 minutes. I encourage everybody to support this motion I am getting ready to make.

Mr. President, I move to suspend the provisions of rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering my amendment, which is at the desk, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following amendment to H.R. 1299, including germaneness requirements:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the crewmembers of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Oak, a 225-foot sea-going Buoy Tender homeported in Charleston, SC, for their bravery, stamina, and fortitude in their response to the tragic aftermath of the earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.

One day after the earthquake, with just a few hours' notice, the Oak's crewmembers departed from Charleston stocked with medical supplies, food provisions, and 62,880 bottles of water. Their engineers and food service specialists worked around the clock to ensure the ship had all the supplies they needed for the humanitarian rescue mission, and on January 18, 2010, the Coast Guard Cutter Oak arrived in Haiti.

The crew faced a tremendous challenge both physically and mentally as they sought to open the port in Port-au-Prince an provide humanitarian assistance and evacuation for the critically injured. Working under the joint task force and partnering with the Haitian port officials and maritime community, the Oak's crew surveyed the port and placed out buoys to improve the conditions. Having spent time in Haiti on previous missions training the Haitian Coast Guard members in CPR and first aid, small arms maintenance, and boat maintenance, the Oak's crewmembers were able to quickly improve the situation. I am especially proud of the crew's accomplishment in reopening the port to traffic on January 21, 2010. Because of their efforts, life-saving relief aid reached the Haitian people.

In addition to opening the port, the Oak's crew distributed food, water, and medical supplies and aided in evacuating hundreds of American citizens and critically injured Haitians to the United States. Their quick response to a terrifying situation saved the lives of many people, and these impressive achievements bring great credit upon the Oak.

It is with great pride that I thank Commander Mike Glander, the commanding officer of the Oak, and the men and women under his command.

These crewmembers have upheld the best traditions of the Coast Guard and have represented the city of Charleston, the State of South Carolina, and this Nation with honor and distinction. They have worked diligently to support the values that make this Nation great. I know the Coast Guard is especially proud of the heroic actions of the Oak's crewmembers, but on behalf of the people of the State of South Carolina and our great country, I salute the outstanding work of the crewmembers of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Oak. This January, the men and women of the Oak were a living expression to the world of the Oak's motto-- Decora Fides Robur--Honor, Faithfulness, Strength.

Mr. President, it is not often that I agree with the Senator from California, but I certainly appreciate her perspective on this issue. A number of us from a broad spectrum in both parties are concerned about this nomination.

I rise to oppose the nomination of Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve chairman. It is important that we look at this not just as a single nomination but as part of a much bigger picture we need to recognize. The confirmation of Ben Bernanke is a confirmation of policies that brought our economy down. If we ignore that, we are going to continue these same policies and condemn ourselves, our country, and our fellow Americans to high unemployment and much less prosperity in the future.

It is never fair to blame any one person for major problems such as we have in this country. But it is important, when we have this kind of problem, where millions of Americans have lost in total trillions of dollars and jobs have been lost and families have suffered greatly, that we recognize the difference between the problems we are looking at today and the real causes of those problems, what we call in business ``the root cause'' of problems. We learn, when we do strategic planning--and I did this for years for companies--that if you go in and look at the problems and try to solve them and never go back and understand the root causes, all you are doing is fixing symptoms which never get fixed because you did not understand the cause of the problems.

Today, we do have a difficult economic situation with high unemployment. We have debt at levels that everyone agrees is unsustainable. Countries all over the world are beginning to question whether we can repay our debts. Some are beginning to question whether they should lend us more money to fund our reckless spending.

Despite what we heard last night about a freeze on spending, everyone laughed when we said that starts next year. Today, we voted to raise the debt limit another $1.9 trillion. We are going to take that debt to over $14 trillion. There is no foreseeable way we can pay that back. This is at a time when a large group of Americans called the baby boomers are going to retire and

the cost of Social Security and Medicare is going to skyrocket. These are promises we have to keep to seniors because they paid for it, but we have no idea how we will keep those promises right now, particularly in light of the current economic situation.

As we look at where we are, we need to recognize how we got here. As I have talked to banks, businesses, foreign financial ministers from Europe who have come here, everyone agrees there are two major causes of the economic problems here and around the world. One is the high leverage or the high borrowing that went on because of the loose monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. Easy money, cheap money encouraged companies and individuals to borrow more than they could afford to pay back because it was easy to get and cheap. The big banks on Wall Street could more easily borrow money than raise capital. Those were incentives created by the policies at the Federal Reserve.

The second problem is what we are calling toxic assets, which are securitized subprime mortgages, were facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises that reflected the political policy of this Congress. It is our responsibility to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to make sure they are doing what is appropriate for our economy. But what happened is the criteria for lending went away. Local mortgage companies could make almost any loan they wanted to, to anyone whether they could afford to pay it back, using easy money from the Federal Reserve and low criteria for forgiving those loans. They sold them all to Fannie Mae. If Fannie Mae had not been there to buy these loans, these irresponsible loans would not have been made in the first place. But to make matters worse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bundled these subprime mortgages up into packages we call securities and sold them, sold them to banks as assets, sold them all over the world. These are the toxic assets that brought down the financial institutions once the housing bubble burst.

For the President, for Ben Bernanke, for Secretary Geithner to come in and indict the free market system and the greed of corporations and banks misses the whole point of what caused this problem. Certainly, these two causes created perverse incentives for the markets, the banks to practice irresponsible behavior. There is no question that went on. But to say that was the cause of where we are today misses the point.

My problem with Ben Bernanke, the President, and Secretary Geithner is not that they made mistakes, because Congress certainly made mistakes in not overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and asking the right questions of the Federal Reserve, but the fact that despite the evidence being so clear of what really caused the problem, Mr. Bernanke still does not recognize those as the causes. In fact, he continues the same easy-money policy. He expresses no sense of urgency that we need to get the Federal Government out of owning AIG, Fannie Mae, General Motors, or Chrysler. When we bring him in for hearings, he seems to be more of a command-and-control person than someone who believes in a free market system that we need to have good laws and regulations to guide. But he and Secretary Geithner and the President indicate that they can run this economy, that they can micromanage it.

To confirm Ben Bernanke is to confirm the continuation of easy-money policies, high leverage, as well as the continuation of what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did to create these toxic assets. We are not asking the right questions. I contend that we cannot solve today's problems with the same people who created them.

President Obama last night liked to blame George Bush for the problems. Yet he is nominating his people. Secretary Geithner was involved with the Federal Reserve and was the architect of these bailouts. Ben Bernanke has been here for 4 years and was a key part of the bailout, the easy-money policy, and has yet to say that was a problem.

This is more than just another nomination. Everything we work for in a material sense rests on the value of our dollar and the monetary system. The American economy, the worldwide economy rests on what the Federal Reserve does. This is the Federal Reserve that told us subprime mortgages would not cause an economic breakdown. Ben Bernanke told us Fannie Mae was well capitalized a few months before its collapse. We have to depend on the leadership at the Federal Reserve to tell us the truth. If our monetary system crashes because of bad policy, everything America has worked for, all our material wealth will be gone. This country will see a crisis the likes of which it has never seen.

This body is not taking this nomination seriously enough. We are moving ahead quickly, when what we need to do is have a full audit of the Federal Reserve, to look at what has been going on, look at their involvement with the current crisis, and to make sure they are on the right path.

The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to protect our monetary system. Years ago, we delegated that to the Federal Reserve, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility. To confirm Ben Bernanke without even knowing what is going on at the Fed, without hearing them say what really caused the problem we have today, is to condemn us to the same path that brought us to where we are.

Voting to confirm Ben Bernanke is a bad decision today. I ask all colleagues to reconsider. This is probably the biggest mistake we will make in a long time, to continue the same policy we started at the Federal Reserve, our monetary system, as well as what we have done here in Congress.

I again encourage my colleagues to reconsider their commitment to confirm Ben Bernanke.

Madam President, one of the important officers in the Senate is the Senate Parliamentarian. The Senate rules are arcane and often vague, and the Parliamentarian is responsible for making sure they are properly applied. Our four Parliamentarians put in long, thankless hours in service to their country. They get no glory, no public accolades. They rarely get high fives for getting the rulings right, but we are always too happy to tell them when we think they got it wrong. Often our disagreement is not with the Parliamentarians, but with the precedents themselves.

The Senate often chooses to sidestep its rules, creating precedents that become loopholes in the rules, which bind the Parliamentarian in the future. We should be careful to avoid these situations because we can unwittingly trample on the right of the minority.

I want to make it clear that while I do have occasional disagreements with the Parliamentarian's office, I still believe they are doing their best to be fair and to apply the rules and precedents as they see them.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following amendment, including germaneness requirements:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Madam President, we have heard a lot about the

unsustainable mountain of government debt, bureaucracy, and spending the Democratic majority intends to create in rushing their health care proposal through this Chamber. We have also heard a lot about how much of this they inherited. We need to remember that this Congress--both Houses of Congress--has been controlled by the Democratic Party for 3 years now. The President does not write legislation or spend money; the Congress does. The only thing the Democratic majority has inherited is its own irresponsible spending.

Saturday's release of the final Democratic bill only increases America's concern with this Congress, its shadow negotiations, and our growing debt.

Early this morning, all 60 Democrats voted to force all the taxpayers of this country to pay for bailouts and special favors for several States. Rather than actually taking the time to put forth real health care reform proposals that would increase Americans' ability to buy and own health care plans they could really afford, this plan forces over 15 million Americans onto yet another bankrupt entitlement program, Medicaid.

While Medicaid is a State and Federal shared program, the Democratic majority saw fit for the Federal Government to pay 100 percent of the Medicaid Program in the State of Nebraska under this legislation at the expense of taxpayers in the other 49 States, who will now be forced not only to deal with the loss of their freedoms under this huge government takeover but to pay for special favors in other States.

This State bailout is not the only downside of the majority's health care proposal; there is a laundry list we could go through. Just a few include that the working American taxpayers and their employers will be taxed $500 billion over the next 10 years, and the Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that nothing in this bill decreases the premiums for Main Street Americans.

Seniors will see their Medicare benefits changed as a result of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts included in this bill, not to mention that this bill turns a blind eye to the physician payment system that is woefully underfunded and vitally necessary to maintain the Medicare Program and physician access for seniors. It does not matter how good the insurance is we give our seniors if they cannot find a doctor who will see them.

Another alarming part of this bill is it will, for the first time in decades, force every American taxpayer to pay for abortion services.

Frankly, after reading this bill, it seems the only Americans who are not going to be affected by the bill are Members of Congress, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies.

Madam President, for all the mind-boggling numbers and devastating facts we have heard about the majority's government takeover of health care, this debate is about much more than health care. It is about how we find ourselves in a situation where we are debating the best way to give the government control over another big part of our lives and our economy.

In the children's story of ``Hansel and Gretel,'' the children drop a trail of breadcrumbs as they walk through the forest so they will be able to find their way out of the woods. But when the birds eat the breadcrumbs, the children find they are lost in the dark and frightening woods.

Well, lost in the woods is exactly where we find ourselves as a country right now. We know we are in trouble, but there is no clearly marked path to get us back to where we were, and it is plenty frightening.

In the past year alone, this Federal Government has taken over two of our largest automakers, our largest insurance companies, the largest mortgage company, and hundreds of banks. It has bailed out Wall Street and attempted to stimulate the economy by taking $1 trillion out of the private sector and spending it on wasteful government programs. It has thrown taxpayer money at people to encourage them to buy new cars and houses. And it is looking at imposing massive new job-killing taxes on businesses in the name of reducing global warming--all in the middle of a snowstorm.

One of the problems we have now in this country is, instead of asking if we should solve it, we are asking, how should we solve it? It is now considered a sign of admirable restraint to occasionally ask here in this Senate and in this Congress, how much should we spend? And somehow we started thinking that anything less than $1 trillion is a good deal. There is not a pothole in America that most Members of the Congress do not believe should be filled with an earmark from the Federal Government. There is not a bridge to nowhere, a flat tire, a skinned knee--there is nothing off limits for this Congress today.

This matters not just because of our unsustainable debt and the huge amount of money we waste; it matters because every time we give a job to the government, we take away some control people have over their own lives, and we take away a little bit more of their freedom. In return for letting government try its hand at solving a problem, we as citizens cede our ability to try for ourselves to find a better way.

It is awkward to admit it, but my colleagues in Congress have led this country into the woods, despite our oath of office. We swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to bear true and faithful allegiance to it. The Constitution prescribes a very limited role for the Federal Government. There is not a word in our oath or in the Constitution about most of what we do. As we have wandered off the path of liberty, there are few crumbs left of the Constitution in the Halls of Congress to lead us out of the woods.

There is not a word in the Constitution about the government deciding what medical test private health insurers should pay for, nothing about the government deciding how much executives on Wall Street should earn or what kind of lightbulbs or cars we should buy. There is nothing about the thousands of parochial earmarks that fund local bridges to nowhere, golf courses, bike paths, sewer plants, and teapot museums. There is nothing about these or many other things in the Constitution because they have nothing to do with the proper role of the Federal Government in a free society. But these are exactly the kinds of things our government spends its time and money on, and we do not even question anymore why that is.

Instead, it has gotten to the point where if we oppose the government doing anything, we are accused of being opposed to getting it done. That is patently absurd. If you really want to get something done and get it done right, the government is absolutely the last place we should turn.

The tea parties, townhalls, and rallies affirm that the American people are rethinking the appropriate role of the government in a free society. Hopefully, their discontent will be demonstrated in the 2010 elections. Only the American people can hold our elected Federal representatives accountable for fulfilling their oath of office. In the health care debate, this means deciding exactly what role the government should play to help people in the private sector find solutions, instead of creating a monstrous new bureaucracy that puts the government in charge of every decision.

But this debate is about much more than health care. It is a battle for the heart and soul of America. It is a struggle between freedom and socialism, between free markets and a centrally planned economy, and between ``we the people'' and an entrenched class of elite politicians.

The current debate over health care reform is a symptom of a bigger problem in Washington. But it can be the catalyst for a wider debate about the proper role of government in our lives. The same debate can lead us to a moment when Americans finally take a stand to return government to its proper place--and we can all start finding our way out of the woods.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President:

Does rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting?

Further parliamentary inquiry: Is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the Senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to the Senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?

I have numerous examples here. We did it twice this year on S. 2349, and I could read those, but I will spare the Chair all of these. I am just trying to get at a concern we have.

Am I correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes, and the Chair ruled that because there--and I am referring to earlier this year, those I referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. Am I correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes, and the Chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?

I thank the Chair.

Am I also correct that the Senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills, where the amendments combine legislative provisions and rules changes? I have a number of references to bills when this was done, if there is any question, and I have given them to the Parliamentarian for consideration. Is there an answer? I mean, I know there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. I just wanted to get a confirmation from our Parliamentarian.

Is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because of the rules changes included in them?

I believe the Parliamentarian does have references for when this has been done. I am quite certain it has.

But as the Chair has confirmed, rule XXII, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two- thirds of the Senators present and voting.

Let me go to the bill before us because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill we find a rather substantial change to the Standing Rules of the Senate. It is section 3403, and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.

Again, I will skip over some examples, but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the Senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the Reid substitute.

Section D titled ``Referral:''

The legislation introduced under this paragraph shall be

referred by the Presiding Officers of the respective Houses

to the Committee on Finance in the Senate and to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways

and Means in the House of Representatives.

The bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

Another example under section C, titled ``Committee Jurisdiction:''

Notwithstanding rule 15 of the Standing Rules of the

Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A)

may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal

contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).

Clearly a rule change.

So there is no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules to the committee of jurisdiction. Now it is allowing the Finance Committee to add whatever matter it wants to the bill regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. And for a good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule XV.

Let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the point here because it goes on and on, and I have pages here.

There is one provision that I found particularly troubling, and it is under a section C titled ``Limitation on Changes to This Subsection:''

It shall not be in order in the Senate or in the House of

Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment,

or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change

this subsection.

This is not legislation. This is not law. This is a rule change. It is a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I am not even sure it is constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a Senate rule. I don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future Senates. I mean, we want to bind future Congresses.

This goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules, to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling on the rights of the minority or of future Congresses.

Therefore, I would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair. Does section 3403 of this bill propose amendments to the Standing Rules of the Senate? Further parliamentary inquiry: Does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the Senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?

Is the Chair aware of any precedent where the Senate created a law and in doing so created a new rule that--and I am quoting from our bill:

It shall not be in order in the Senate or in the House of

Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment,

or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change--

Such law?

Is the Chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future Congresses in a bill?

I would ask the Chair to get those references, if the Parliamentarian would, to us.

Mr. President, another parliamentary inquiry: If this new law will operate as a Senate rule, making it out of order for Senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it--I have been in Congress 11 years. I have never heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. How is that different than the types of Senate rulemaking for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote? This seems to be a redefinition of words, in my mind.

Mr. President, it is clear that the Parliamentarian is going to redefine words, as I am afraid he has done as part of this process before. But this is truly historic that we have included rules changes in legislation, and yet we are ignoring a rule that requires a two- thirds cloture vote to pass it. I believe it is unconstitutional. I believe it subverts the principle we have operated under, and it is very obvious to anyone that it does change a rule. It is clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words we use in them.

I yield the floor.

Is there a difference between Senate procedures and rules?

So the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it is a procedure change?

Then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if we can redefine them.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Enzi for not just what he said today but for what he has been doing throughout this whole debate to make very complex issues much simpler so that people can listen in to what is being said here and understand what we are doing. It has been a frustrating process here dealing with this attempted government takeover of health care. While the majority has us here on the floor debating one bill, they are behind a closed door over here creating a whole new bill and making periodic announcements about what might be in it. It is kind of like a magician who gets you looking at one hand while the sleight of hand is actually doing the magic with the other hand, and that is what we see happening here today. The majority wants to force this major piece of legislation through before Christmas while people aren't paying attention.

In the middle of this, they have decided to take a break to expand spending at unprecedented levels. I am here right now to support Senator McCain's rule XXVIII point of order that points out that the majority, the Democratic majority, has violated all of these so-called ethics and transparency improvements that they were bragging about only a year ago. We are not supposed to take bills and in the secret of conferences add things that weren't in the House or the Senate version. That violates a specific rule, an ethics rule that the majority trumpeted not too long ago. This bill contains out-of-control spending. It completely reverses Congress's traditional position on many values issues such as taxpayer-funded abortions and needle exchanges in the District of Columbia. It ends the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program that has done so much to help a small number of disadvantaged minority students. It increases funding for Planned Parenthood, the Nation's leading provider of abortions, and it legalizes medical marijuana. Yet the overall funding levels of this bill are unconscionable at a time when we are in recession and so many people are out of work. We have massive debt that threatens our Nation's economic future and our very currency itself.

The bill represents a $50 billion increase or 12.5 percent over last year's funding level. This is not mandated spending; this is discretionary spending. This is a time the President is saying we have to get a handle on our debt. Yet every bill the Democratic majority has pushed across this floor has major increases in spending. It is actually nearly a $90 billion increase over the year before.

Mr. President, what the President said he was against, which was earmarks, this bill has 5,224 earmarks, costing nearly $4 billion, in addition to the other spending. I cannot read all of those, but I think people across the country have learned what earmarks mean. Here are a few examples:

$500,000 for construction of a beach park promenade; six different bike paths totaling $2.11 million; $250,000 for a trail at Wolftrap Center for the Performing Arts; and $250,000 for the Entrepreneurial Center for Horticulture.

I could go on and on. It makes no sense to be doing this. I think maybe one of the most egregious parts of the bill, which I want to focus on for a few minutes, goes back to those values issues. It is one thing to make abortion legal; it is quite another thing to force Americans who consider abortion immoral, based on their beliefs, or religious beliefs--it is immoral to make them pay for it, to actually promote abortion.

That is what this bill does. Everywhere you turn, this administration is promoting anti-life initiatives and advancing policies that most Americans find morally objectionable--namely, taxpayer-funded abortions. We have seen that throughout this health care debate, and now in the very set of bills that funds our government, it is promoting and funding abortion.

This Nation has had a debate about whether we should even allow abortions to be legal. But we have been in general agreement as a nation, and even here in the Congress, for years that we should not force taxpayers to pay for abortions. That is a terrible use of the power of government.

The omnibus bill reported by the House-Senate conference allows taxpayer funds to be used to pay for elective abortion in the District of Columbia, because Congress controls DC's entire budget, including appropriating the city's local revenues. If this omnibus bill passes, Congress will be allowing U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund abortion on demand, when it was previously prohibited.

This is a major shift in policy. We must step back and see where our priorities are as a nation. The values of our country are at stake in this legislation. As we look at this, I hope no American is so naive as to think that if they pass this government takeover of health care, no matter what we put in the legislation, they will eventually fund elective abortions in this country. It shows everywhere they pass a piece of legislation that they are trying to promote abortion in this country.

A vote for the omnibus is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. A vote against Senator McCain's point of order is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. It is simple and it is clear. Congress is responsible for the budget and the way the funds are spent. If we don't think the government should create an incentive for taking unborn lives, we should not allow it in the legislation before us today.

In addition to this troubling revelation, the bill contains many other egregious reversals of longstanding policy contradicting traditional American values. The underlying bill legalizes medical marijuana and uses Federal funds to establish a needle exchange program in Washington, DC. Both encourage the use of drugs.

This is another glimpse of what is going to happen with government- run health care. If this Congress is promoting the use of medical marijuana, needle exchange programs, abortion, in this funding bill, does anyone believe that that won't be a part of a government-run health care system? Of course not.

Additionally, this bill eliminates the successful DC Scholarship Opportunity Program, which aids low-income children by giving them scholarships to attend private schools in Washington, DC. This affects only about 1,500 children. I have had a chance to meet with some of them who were in schools that were not working. This small scholarship program allows disadvantaged, primarily minority, students in Washington, DC, to go to a private school of their choice. Remarkably, in just a few years, the students who moved from the government schools to the private schools were 2 years ahead of their peers. It is an example of something

that is working, helping disadvantaged students, and it is a good example of an administration that is more interested in paying off union interests--in this case the teachers union--than doing what is good for the children in our country. To eliminate this small, inexpensive program is absurd. But it reveals to you----

No, I won't. It reveals to you the true motives of the majority. If we look at this bill and this eventual health care bill-- if we ever have time to see it before they try to pass it--we are beginning to see a real glimpse, a true picture of where this Democratic majority is going.

Finally, this bill increases funding for title X family planning services, of which Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient. Planned Parenthood is the Nation's largest provider of abortions. Increasingly, they are what we call directed abortions. When people come to Planned Parenthood and look for advice on family planning, they are more often than not encouraged and pushed toward abortion.

All around this bill, you see what is going on. It is a major change in policy--not to make abortion available but to make Americans pay for it and to promote it.

I, along with 34 of my colleagues in the Senate, signed and sent a letter to the majority leader regarding the troubling anti-life policies in this omnibus bill. Collectively, we vowed to speak out to protect the longstanding Federal funding limitations on abortion--a belief that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support for many years.

For this reason, as well as a number of other values issues that are irresponsibly addressed in this legislation, I support Senator McCain to raise a point of order against the omnibus under rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I remind my colleagues that a vote against the McCain point of order is a vote to force American taxpayers to promote and pay for abortions. It is plain and simple. I am sure there will be a lot of smoke and mirrors after my talk that will try to convince you that is not true. But it is in the legislation and it will happen. We need to stop it.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, the President has said he is going to end this program.

I will come to the floor to explain the technical aspects of why it is not.

You grandfather it in--if the Senator will yield for a question, does this bill fund the continuation of the program beyond the 1,300 who are already in it?

It kills the program then.

But the program will not continue.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I rise today to address a question submitted to me from the good Senator from Illinois as to whether the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program will in fact end after this year. In order to respond to my colleague, I would like to highlight a particular section of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2010 that funds the District of Columbia's budget.

In title IV, which explains how the District of Columbia is funded, it states that $13.2 million will indeed be provided for opportunity scholarships for existing students in the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. However, the very next line clearly states that the funds are to ``remain available until expended,'' which means that the program will eventually be phased out and terminated once the funding for current students is exhausted. Students in the program will slowly be phased out over time, unable to avail themselves of future educational opportunities currently given to them through this program.

The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has the overwhelming support of DC residents, parents, Mayor Adrian Fenty, Chancellor Michelle Rhee, former Mayor Anthony Williams, and a majority of the DC City Council, has now been mandated a slow death by House and Senate appropriators. This scholarship program, which gives students of Washington, DC's poorest families a chance at a quality education, has now effectively been terminated since there is only funding available for existing scholarships and existing students, and not for future scholarships and future students.

By funding this program in such a manner in the omnibus, Congress is ultimately signaling the beginning of the end for this scholarship program. By disallowing future students to take part, the size of the program will shrink year after year, and will deny entry to siblings of existing participants--punishing many who have been waiting in line for this tremendous opportunity. Additionally, the federal evaluation of this program will be compromised as the numbers of participants diminishes, making it difficult for administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.

The fact that this administration continues to claim that the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is not being terminated is yet another act of deception on their part to the American people. The President, who himself is a recipient of a K-12 educational scholarship, has refused to stand up for children in our Nation's Capital and fight for the same educational opportunities afforded to him and his family--a right he exercises now as he practices school choice with his own children.