Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, during the intervening time allowed that I have been allocated, I intend to speak on two issues. One is the point of order under rule XXVIII against the pending legislation, H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The other issue I wish to speak about is the amendment I have pending that calls for the $2.5 billion that has been appropriated for the acquisition of unneeded and unwanted C-17 aircraft to be allocated to operations and maintenance which has been cut by some $3 billion, which, obviously, is vitally important to the men and women who are serving in the military so they have the proper equipment and capabilities to defend our Nation in the two wars in which we are engaged and around the world.

First, I will raise a point of order--and I will formally raise it when the manager chooses for me to do so--so this legislation is not permitted to proceed to full consideration. Specifically, as is known, rule XXVIII is a rule that precludes conference reports from including policy provisions that were not related to either House or Senate versions of the legislation as sent to conference. This $4.7 billion piece of legislation was bloated enough; however, conferees took this opportunity to airdrop into the bill's conference a ``continuing resolution'' to continue funding the operations of the government through October 31, having, obviously--certainly not according to the rules of the Senate--any relation to the appropriations bill. By including a CR or continuing resolution, we are precluded from offering amendments to modify it.

That is why we have the rule that you don't put these things in conference reports because it then inhibits and actually prohibits Members from trying to amend and perfect the legislation. So it is a direct assault on how we do business in the Senate, by adding a very mammoth piece of legislation to what is a very small piece of legislation designated to allow the legislative branch to receive the funding it needs.

It is particularly troublesome, since conferees are treating the resolution as a Christmas tree--reauthorizing and extending several programs; forgiving billions of dollars of the Postal Service's debt; increasing funding for the Census Bureau--and not simply just a stopgap measure to allow the government to continue operating at last year's levels. Specifically, the continuing resolution provides $3.9 billion more than last year for the Census Bureau; $3.85 billion more than last year for the Veterans Health Administration; it frees up funds for the Postal Service that is severely in the red by lowering the payment it must make into the trust fund intended for future retiree health benefits, which are obligations, to $1.4 billion from $5.4 billion last year. It extends the authorization for the highway program; intelligence program; stop-loss payments to U.S. troops; restrictions on funding to Guantanamo Bay; housing assistance programs; flood insurance programs; religious worker, physician, and investor VISA programs; use of e-verify and much more.

I wish to warn my colleagues: If we allow this kind of procedure to go forward in the Senate, it will deprive every single Member of the Senate of his and her right to amend legislation because, unless this point of order is upheld, we have only two choices: a ``yea'' vote or a ``nay'' vote, up or down. That flies in the face of the fundamentals upon which the Senate functions.

You may be in favor of all these programs. You may think we need, right away, $3.9 billion more for the Census Bureau. You may think we need--and we probably do--more money for the Veterans Health Administration. Who is going to oppose more money for the Veterans Health Administration if it is brought up as a single bill? Certainly not this Member and not anybody I know. But what we are doing here, by putting the continuing resolution as part of the least controversial of all appropriations bills, is setting very dangerous precedence for this body. My colleagues should have no doubt about it.

There is a little book we give out all the time. We give it out all the time. We send it to schoolchildren all over America. It is called ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' On page 43 it says:

The House conferees are strictly limited in their

consideration of matters in disagreement between the two

Houses. Consequently, they may not strike or amend any

portion of the bill that was not amended by the other House.

Furthermore, they may not insert new matter that is not

germane to or that is beyond the scope of the differences

between the two Houses.

Let me tell my colleagues what else we tell schoolchildren and young people all over America:

A report that contains any recommendations which extend

beyond the scope of differences between the two Houses is

subject to a point of order in its entirety unless that point

of order is waived.

So why don't we--if I am defeated here--and I may be--why don't we change this book. Why don't we have a resolution from the Senator from Nebraska who put this in, along with his $300,000 museum, to change this book so we don't mislead schoolchildren all over America in a pamphlet that says how our laws are made.

There is no reason why the majority can't bring the continuing resolution to the floor as a stand-alone piece of legislation. A Christmas tree of funding increases and authorizations deserves floor consideration and discussion, rather than a process by which the appropriators unilaterally decide how, when, and where what is deserving of getting a 30-day extension and which programs are able to expire. The American people deserve better.

Just this morning, Politico, a newspaper published here in Washington, wrote a story: Lawmakers jack up spending for themselves: $500,000 for townhalls.

The article goes on to say:

Congress is on the verge of giving itself a bump in its

annual budget--even as local governments, families, and

businesses across the country are tightening their belts in

the worst recession in decades.

The measure includes a hodgepodge of new funding for

lawmakers: a $500,000 pilot program for Senators to send out

postcards about their town hall meetings--

Is there any Member of Congress in the Senate who needs to send out a postcard to tell our constituents that we are having a townhall meeting? Really: $500,000.

--$30,000 for receptions for foreign dignitaries and $4

million for consultants.

There's $15.8 million for salaries for the Senate

Appropriations Committee--plus an extra $950,000 for the

committee's administrative expenses.

So here we are with people not--Americans can't have an office because they have lost their jobs, and conferees have included $50 million to refurbish congressional offices. While millions of American families risk losing the roof over their head, appropriators have set aside millions to replace the roof of the Rayburn House Office Building. While millions of Americans have seen their income and household budgets decrease significantly this year, Congress has provided a 5.8 percent increase over last year to cover Congress's expenses and salaries. Millions of small businesses across America have been forced to shut down or severely cut expenses. Somehow, Congress sees fit to provide itself with a 5.8 percent increase. Incredible. Millions of Americans are seeing their hours cut or their salaries slashed. This conference report includes an 8.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2009 for salaries--for salaries.

According to the House committee report, this is to:

Allow for compensation improvements beyond inflation for

the staff of Member offices, especially among younger staff

where current salaries are often less competitive.

I have had no difficulty with people applying for work in my office. Maybe the managers of the bill have.

If this weren't enough, the conference report retains an earmark from the Senate bill of $200,000 to support a photo exhibit at the Durham Museum in Nebraska. So people who are having trouble making mortgage payments and putting food on the table are probably a little bit surprised, although maybe they shouldn't be. National unemployment is at almost 10 percent, public debt is close to $2 trillion, the deficit is projected to hit $1.6 trillion

this year, and we go on spending. We go on spending.

I ask my colleagues, in supporting this point of order, to block this bill from full Senate consideration and allow Congress to rethink its priorities.

So I raise a point of order that the legislation violates rule

Mr. President, now I wish to make some final remarks about the amendment that cuts $2.5 billion that the Defense Appropriations bill uses to fund 10 C-17 Globemaster aircraft, planes which the Secretary of Defense says the Pentagon doesn't need and that the President didn't ask for, and restores that money to the critical operations and maintenance accounts that support military training, readiness, flying and steaming hours and depot maintenance that is so crucial to our Armed Forces in wartime.

Let me make it clear to my colleagues what I am doing. We are taking the $2.5 billion that has been appropriated for the purpose of procuring 10 additional C-17s and transferring that money back to the operations and maintenance account I described--training, readiness, flying, steaming hours, et cetera--to make up for the cuts--or at least mostly to make up for the cuts--that have been made in O&M funding.

I understand a budget point of order will be lodged against the amendment. Let me make it clear to my colleagues: We will have an up- or-down vote on this amendment. So if it fails, I will have two more amendments, separate amendments, one that cuts the C-17 and one that adds funding to operations and maintenance funding if this pending amendment of mine is challenged on a technical basis.

I agreed with Secretary Gates when he said the military has no more need to buy more C-17s. The fact is, the Air Force and the U.S. Transportation Command: ``Have more than necessary [strategic airlift] capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years.

Mr. President, I received a letter from the Secretary of Defense. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will quote partially from the letter:

The President's defense budget request has requested no

additional C-17s. This position is based on the Department's

firm judgment that we have acquired a sufficient number of C-

17s to meet the Nation's military needs.

Let me point out what is really important about this letter:

More specifically, the $2.5 billion it will cost to

purchase 10 additional C-17s, plus the $100 million per year

it will cost to operate them, will invariably result in a

reduction in crucial warfighting capability somewhere else in

the defense program.

So the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of our military leaders, and the highly respected Secretary of Defense say not only that they don't want any more C-17s, but if we spend this $2.5 billion and the $100 million annually required to maintain them, there will be a reduction in critical warfighting capability somewhere else in the defense program.

We are in two wars. We have 68,000 young Americans in Afghanistan-- and most likely more to come--and 120,000 in Iraq, and we are going to buy 10 more C-17s when they need their equipment maintained and they need to be replaced and they need to fly and they need to have the best capability in combat.

President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. It is not the military industrial complex anymore; it is the industrial complex. You cannot walk through the hallways without bumping into a lobbyist from Boeing. Of course, there are subcontractors all over America, absolutely. But this is really egregious because they have taken money from the operation and training capabilities and readiness capabilities--that is what operations and maintenance money is all about--and cut it below the request our military and the Secretary of Defense and the President think is vitally needed, and they added 10 additional aircraft that no one in the military--the Air Force included--believes is needed.

This is a young Presidency, and this will be a defining moment in the Presidency. If I am defeated by Boeing today, then it will be up to the President to decide whether to veto this bill. If we don't turn this down here, then we will be sending a signal to every lobbyist in this town--and there are thousands--that if you lobby hard enough and you have enough subcontractors, you can do anything.

This is a very important amendment at this particular time in our history, while we are fighting two wars and we have a new administration. If we defeat this amendment, we will also be contradicting the opinion of perhaps one of the most highly regarded individuals in America, and, of course, that is our Secretary of Defense.

Mr. President, I have already asked for the yeas and nays on this amendment. I believe we can do a better job for the American people and the men and women in the military than what is being attempted by the Defense Appropriations Committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I again quote from a letter from the Secretary of Defense:

The President's defense budget request has requested no

additional C-17s. This position is based on the Department's

firm judgment that we have acquired a sufficient number of C-

17s to meet the Nation's military needs. . . . More

specifically, the $2.5 billion it will cost to purchase 10

additional C-17s plus the $100 million per year it will cost

to operate them will invariably result in a reduction in

critical warfighting capabilities somewhere else in the

defense program.

I understand there will be a budget point of order. I wish to tell my colleagues we will be voting up or down on this issue because if this is defeated, I will have another amendment simply to kill this unneeded, unnecessary porkbarreling exercise in the power of lobbyists in our Nation's Capital.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to ask the managers this. I have three amendments I wish to have called up and placed in order. One is amendment No. 2580, one is amendment No. 2581, and the third is amendment No. 2575.

The first is to strike the amount for the C-17 aircraft, which is not subject to a point of order, I am told. The second is to add $2.5 billion for operations and maintenance, which is also not subject to a point of order. The third one is to have testimony before Congress by General McChrystal and General Petraeus before the Congress of the United States.

I would be glad to agree to a brief debate on all three of those amendments, and I will be glad to enter into a time agreement or whatever their desires are on all three. On the first two, the issue has been debated pretty well. I would only need a few minutes. On the third, I think it is pretty straightforward, calling for the testimony of General McChrystal and General Petraeus before the Congress of the United States.

I call up those amendments and ask for their consideration in sequence.

Not en bloc, in sequence.

I ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 2580, 2581 and 2575--I call up those amendments. I think that is my right.

I believe it is in order. I will be glad to have a vote on whether it is a violation of any of the Senate rules.

I thank the Senator.

Parliamentary inquiry: Do I have the right to call up an amendment that is filed?

Mr. President, I call up amendment 2575 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I call up amendment No. 2580 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I am not seeking unanimous consent.

I just called up the second amendment.

I see.

I thank the Senator. We will certainly accede to his request. I would like to tell my colleagues that I do not intend to conclude debate on this legislation until such time as we have straight up-or-down votes on the two amendments about which I talked. One is striking the funding for the C-17, $2.5 billion and adding $2.5 billion for operations and maintenance. I will be glad to discuss it with the managers of the bill how that sequence will take place, how much debate. I do not intend to hold up the bill in any way. I just wish to tell my colleagues I want consideration and recorded votes on both of those amendments.

What we have done tonight by not waiving the budget, the rule, is an outrage and is going to damage very badly the men and women who are serving this country because we are not giving them the equipment they need to operate in harm's way--120,000 of them in Iraq, 68,000 of them in Afghanistan. That is the opinion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Petraeus, General McChrystal, and the Secretary of Defense. It is a remarkable moment--a remarkable moment--in the history of the Senate, although I have seen it happen before. Congratulations to the lobbyists from Boeing. I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

First, concerning the costs, how do we know what the cost is if we don't have legislative text? I think all of us have been around here long enough--we have talked a lot about the 72 hours that I absolutely think we need. The text should be online so that every American--not just the 100 of us who are fortunate enough to be here-- can read it. Everybody should have the right to know what a fundamental reform of health care in America is all about, and they should be able to read the legislation if they want to.

Just as importantly, I ask my friend, has he seen any legislative text anywhere? Is it true that the Finance Committee is moving forward with legislation regarding which there is no legislative text? And by the way, we find out now, according to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Barthold noted in a followup letter that the willful failure to file; that is, to take the government option, would be punishable by a $25,000 fine or jail time under a section of the bill.

I wonder how many Americans are aware of that. In fact, I have to tell my

friend from Tennessee, I was unaware of it. So if we are unaware of it, should we not have legislative text so that Americans know what is being legislated in the Senate Finance Committee; and second, shouldn't it be on line at least 72 years so everybody would know about it?

I say to my friend from Tennessee, first, it is clear that the Medicaid cost increases to the States will be incredibly large. In the original version of the bill, according to media reports, the State of Nevada would have, along with every other State, a significant Medicaid expense. So somehow now the legislation has been changed, again, according to media because--excuse me, the concept has been changed because we don't have legislative language--that 4 States would then have 100 percent of their Medicaid costs assumed by the Federal Government for as long as 4 or 5 years. That is what goes on with the laws and sausages business here. I ask the Senator again, do you--first, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial entitled ``Rhetorical Tax Evasion'' in the Wall Street Journal this morning be printed in the Record.

This says:

Chairman Max Baucus's bill includes the so-called

individual mandate, along with what he calls a $1,900

``excise tax'' if you don't buy health insurance. (It had

been as much as $3,800. . . .)

So American small businesses, which are hurting more than any other group of Americans today, the creators of jobs--are now facing a $1,900 excise tax. By the way, the President, in response to George Stephanopolos, said there was no tax engaged here. I wonder how many Americans are aware of that and how many Americans have had the opportunity to know exactly not only what the costs to the Federal Government and the respective States are, but the costs to the individuals who are struggling to make it in America at a time of almost unprecedented unemployment?

My friend from Tennessee brings up a good and an important point about some saying that Republicans have no plan. The fact is that the Republicans have no plan for the government to take over the health care system in America. That is what it is. What are we for? We are for going across State lines so that these small businesses and individuals--and the Senator from Georgia used to be one of them-- can get the health insurance policy of their choice. Why should they be restricted to the State they are in when perhaps there are minimum requirements for those health insurers residing in that State for coverage, which they neither want or need, and it may be in another State. Why don't we allow small business people to pool their assets together and negotiate with health insurers across America for the best policy they can get? And we are for medical malpractice reform and medical liability reform. We know doctors prescribe time after time, to protect themselves, unneeded and unnecessary procedures and tests. We all know that. That is in tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. We are for medical malpractice reform. Where is it in any bill that has been proposed by the other side?

We want outcome-based treatment. We want an individual who has a certain chronic disease to be treated on the basis of long term. We want Americans who have preexisting conditions to have a risk pool they can go to or where risk pools would be established so they can get health insurance, and insurers will bid on those people with so-called preexisting conditions, so that every American can have affordable and available health insurance. We are for that. We are for medical malpractice reform. We are for going across State lines to get a policy of your choice. We are for outcome-based care. We are for taking on the drug companies that have cut an unholy deal with the administration, which

will give them the obscene profits, and the lobbyists, who make over a million dollars. We want to be able to import drugs from Canada that are cheaper for the American people. We want competition, as there is in Medicare Part D, for these patients who need it, who don't have health insurance.

So we are for a number of things, but we are not for a government takeover of the health care system. So the next time we read that the Republican party does not have anything they are for, then they are not paying attention. There is more that we are for, but it has to do with competition and with availability and with affordability of health care in America, not a government takeover. We have seen that movie before in other countries.

I ask the Senator from Georgia, do you believe, one, that small business people in America today are ready for an additional cost laid on them to provide health insurance for themselves and their employees? Should we not make it easier and less costly, rather than imposing a government mandate, which may have types of health care that they neither want nor need, or paying an ``excise tax,'' as is in Chairman Baucus's bill?

The second point I want to ask the Senator about, of course, is this whole issue of what should be the government's role in health care in America today. We freely admit--not only admit but appreciate the fact that Medicare is a government program. But we also appreciate that the costs of Medicare have skyrocketed to the point where we now have, by estimates, a $31 trillion unfunded liability. In other words, our kids and grandkids will not have Medicare 7 or 8 years from now unless we fix the issue of costs.

That is why there is a rising sentiment, particularly among seniors, against this plan, the one passed through the House and passed through our HELP Committee and is now being formulated. Our seniors and our citizens are a lot smarter than many times we give them credit for. They know you are not going to get $\1/2\ trillion in ``savings'' from Medicare without there being reductions in Medicare.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings that can be enacted in Medicare, but why don't we start tomorrow or why didn't we start yesterday or why didn't we start at least at the beginning of this debate imposing those savings so we could have a delay in the year when Medicare goes broke?

That is an excellent point. But also the fact is to root out this waste, fraud, and abuse is going to take time and effort and it is going to require some pretty hard work on our part. But we need to change some of the fundamentals of the Medicare system in providing more competition in the form of prescription drugs, in the form of medical malpractice liability reform, in the form of more competition between drug companies for Medicare and Medicaid patients. These reforms we are advocating have to be enacted in order to bring down the costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and overall health care costs in America.

Look, it is obvious. The cost escalations that are bringing Medicare to a crisis are the same cost escalations everybody else in America is experiencing.

Or a demonstration project conducted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services who knows a lot about this, I admit, because I understand she was head of the Trial Lawyers Association for a number of years. I am sure that gives significant qualifications to the person who is tasked with this project.

Life is full of anecdotes and experiences we have. I was down in Miami at the Palmetto Hospital. I spoke to a surgeon there. By the way, they treat a very large number of people who have come to this country illegally. I asked the surgeon: How are you doing on making your insurance payments, your malpractice or medical liability insurance payments?

He said: I don't have a problem. I don't have it. I don't have it because I couldn't afford it and probably I am not going to get sued because if they sue me, they are only going to get everything I have, not what the insurance company has.

We are giving physicians and caregivers the untenable option of either paying skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums--in some cases $200,000 a year for a neurosurgeon--or as this surgeon did and others have done: I am not going to have insurance. That is not an acceptable thing to do to physicians in America or anybody in America.

The Senator is exactly right. Again, wouldn't it be nice for our constituents--by the way, many of them come to the townhall meetings with a sign that says ``Have you read the bill?''--to let them read the bill too. Wouldn't it be nice if every American citizen who wanted to could go online and read the legislation and give us their ideas and thoughts as to how we could make it better?

May I mention--I hate to keep coming back to this issue of medical liability--a PricewaterhouseCoopers study says defensive medicine could cost us as much as $200 billion annually. If we are interested in savings, why don't we go right at that? Do we need a demonstration project someplace around America? I don't.

May I mention one other point, and I would be interested in my colleagues' views on it. This proposal also levies new taxes on medical devices. Why in the world would we want to do that? Medical devices and the best technology in the world are developed in America, but they are very expensive as they are. Why would we want to levy new taxes on medical devices when we know very well that if the insurance company is paying for them, the insurance company passes on those increased costs to the insured, thereby increasing the cost of health insurance in America. Why would we want to do that?

What the other side is trying to do is expand government, expand coverage, and yet, at the same time, reduce costs. You cannot square the circle. That is why they keep bumping into--every time there is a new proposal and to make things more expansive and more available, they run into escalations in costs and how we are going to pay for it.

I believe our constituents, again, have figured it out--a reestimate of a $7 trillion to $9 trillion deficit over 10 years, a some $700 billion stimulus package that may have stimulated Wall Street but, frankly, in my view from being home a lot, has not stimulated Main Street and is not having an effect on unemployment in America, to say the least. The neighboring State of California now has 12.2 percent unemployment. They cannot get to where they want to go without increasing that deficit and debt burden that we are laying on future generations of Americans.

I wish they would sit down with us. I wish we could sit down together, start from the beginning, knowing what we know--we have all been well educated by this process--knowing what we know now, knowing what we can do to reduce health care costs in America and make it affordable and available. Unfortunately, as we watch the machinations going on in the Finance Committee, that has not happened yet.

Can I tell my friend, if the American people are able to know the details of this legislation, I think they would be surprised to know that the new taxes--the medical devices, the prescription drugs and other tax increases--they begin in the year 2010, 3 years before the provisions in the bill for ``reform'' are implemented. So for the next 3 years, the cost of health care and health insurance goes up due to the new taxes and fees, but the so-called reforms are not implemented--why did they do that?--so that the actual costs, as we cost it out over a 10-year period, are disguised by beginning the taxes and not implementing the reforms, which then the Congressional Budget Office can give a cost estimate which is less than, frankly, what it actually is if you put the reforms in at the same time as the tax increases.

That is a little complicated, but I think Americans need to know that.

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

I rise to address the issue of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, which is the pending business before the Senate.

The funding provided in this legislation is very crucial. We need to support our commanders as they lead operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and care for the men and women who are in the military, including making sure they are provided for, as well as our wounded warriors. But I also note with great concern and alarm, dismay, and even disgust that billions of dollars in wasteful earmarks, unrequested, unauthorized, have again found their way into this legislation. As I have said before, these are serious times, and we as a Congress are required to make serious decisions, tough decisions, that may go against the special interests.

I need not remind my colleagues that we are at war or that the national debt is growing ever larger. Recently, there was a reestimate of the deficit for the next 10 years from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. We are facing deficits of unprecedented proportions. Yet the spending

goes on here like, as some people have said, a drunken sailor. I do not use that phrase anymore because I never knew a sailor, either drunk or sober, with the imagination Members of Congress have, which is best epitomized in this bill, as I will point out in several provisions. We cannot afford the waste. We cannot afford it. It is our duty to fully support the funding for our national defense and ensure that each dollar we spend is spent wisely in delivery of the stated need and not on special interests.

The Appropriations Committee has provided $626 billion in total funding for the Department of Defense--$498 billion for the base budget and $128 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interestingly, it is $3.9 billion less than the President's budget request, and the bill further reduces the Defense programs requested by the Pentagon to make room for $2.5 billion in C- 17 cargo aircraft slated for termination by the administration and about $2.7 billion--I repeat, $2.7 billion--in earmarks and special interest items.

I have long talked about the broken appropriations process and the corruption it breeds. I remain deeply concerned over the damage done to our country and the institutions we are so proud to serve in by their continued abuse.

While we have made some progress on the issue in the last couple of years, we certainly have not gone nearly far enough. Legislation we passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure of earmarks, and that was a good step forward. But the bottom line is, we simply do not need more disclosure of earmarks, we need to eliminate them. We need to eliminate them. We should adopt the practice that was the practice here for a long time, up until recent years, that we didn't appropriate unless it was authorized.

In the years that I have been here, I have seen a tremendous shift in the authority and responsibility from the authorizing committees to the appropriating committees and a commensurate rise in earmarks and corruption. I know my colleagues do not like to hear me use the word ``corruption,'' but we have former Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. We had a Congressman from California who used to list the appropriations he was able to get in one column and in the other column the amount of money he received for earmarking those appropriations. That is corruption.

It is not responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending. Americans all over this country are hurting. People are losing their jobs, their savings, their homes. So what are we doing? We continue the disgraceful earmarking process, elevating parochialism and patronage politics over the true needs and welfare of this Nation. I will be pointing out during the course of this debate a number of examples of that corruption, which I think is really unacceptable to the American people. By the way, that is one of the reasons the American people have risen up in an unprecedented manner in demonstrations against the way we do business here in Washington.

So I want to be clear, disclosure is good. But it was not inadequate disclosure requirements which led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for dolling out $70 to $80 million of taxpayers' funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question.

A lot is said during campaigns. A lot of promises are made. Unfortunately, some are not kept. The President of the United States pledged during his campaign that he would work to eliminate earmarks. The Speaker of the House promised to ``drain the swamp.''

Just last month, the President of the United States spoke in Phoenix, AZ, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. In that speech, the President's words were quite compelling about waste and porkbarrel spending in defense bills. In that speech, the President promised an end to ``special interests and their exotic projects,'' and he reaffirmed that he was leading the charge to kill off programs like the F-22, the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, and the outrageously expensive Presidential helicopter.

The President went on to say:

If a project does not support our troops, we will not fund

it. If a system does not perform well, we will terminate it.

And if Congress sends me a bill loaded with that kind of

waste, I will veto it.

If the President means those words, this legislation should be vetoed in its present form by the President of the United States.

He went on to say:

We will do right by our troops and taxpayers.

He is right. We should do right by our troops and taxpayers.

The bill has at least $5.2 billion in programs the Pentagon does not need and did not ask for--$5.2 billion.

The President last month put on an all court press to terminate the F-22 program in the face of congressional determination to continue funding the production of the aircraft. So why was the President so adamant about terminating the F-22 while at the same time possibly giving a free ride to 10 unrequested C-17s in this bill at a cost of $2.5 billion? How can one differentiate between a fighter aircraft that the Pentagon says further production is unnecessary from a cargo aircraft that the Pentagon says the current fleet, coupled with those on order, is sufficient to meet the Pentagon's needs, even under the most stressing situations? Why has the administration, including the Secretary of Defense, been silent on $2.7 billion in Member-requested earmarks? These are questions for which I do not have a good answer.

What I do know is that the appropriators did not add $5.2 billion to the bill to pay for the unrequested additions but, rather, secured this additional funding by offsetting programs in other parts of the bill.

So what did the appropriators decide to cut to make room for most of these unrequested earmark and porkbarrel projects?

They reduced $900 million from the President's request for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund at a time when the one thing we are in agreement on is that we need to increase the size of the capability of the Afghan Army and security forces. It is a key component of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. So they cut it by $900 million. Reducing funding in the account runs counter to our ground commanders' plan for the Afghan forces to assume a greater share of responsibility for security as quickly as possible.

Equally as incredible, the bill reduces over $3 billion in operations and maintenance accounts through direct cuts and cuts mandated in other provisions in the bill based on economic assumptions and excess cash balances.

The administration strongly opposes these cuts and in their Statement on Administration Policy said, ``These reductions would hurt force readiness and increase stress on the military people and equipment.''

This account is the lifeblood for our military. The operations and maintenance of our men and women in the military and the equipment they use is absolutely vital. So what did we do? We took $3 billion out of operations and maintenance and put it in those porkbarrel projects, including the C-17. The account provides for services with funds to carry out day-to-day activities such as recruitment and fielding of a trained and ready force, all military training and exercises, food, weapons, spare parts, equipment repairs, depot maintenance, ship overhauls, transportation services including aviation fuel, Navy and Marine Corps steaming days, civilian personnel management and pay, and childcare and family centers.

One thing in this debate about Afghanistan that almost everyone is in agreement on is that our equipment is wearing out and that we are way behind in the repair and replacement of spare parts, equipment--all that is necessary for our Active-Duty Forces and our Guard and Reserve, who are practically, for all practical purposes, Active Duty. And we are looking at--and I have guarded confidence that the President will agree to General McChrystal's and Petraeus' and Admiral Mullen's recommendation. We will need more money for operations and maintenance because we will be sending more men and women and equipment to Afghanistan. So what did they do? What is in this bill? A $3 billion reduction. Well, what is in its place? I will be going over some of the projects that are in its place.

One of the more egregious items in the legislation we are considering today is the addition of $2.5 billion for 10 C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft.

First, let's have a little background.

Recognizing that the Department's total requirement for 180 C-17 aircraft has been well been exceeded for 3 consecutive years, the Bush administration had actively tried to close down the production line for the C-17s. Nonetheless, earlier this year, the House Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, added eight more C-17s for $2.25 billion to the 2009 supplemental spending bill, a bill that is supposed to be used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The final version of that bill included all eight of these aircraft. When the subcommittee met later to consider the 2010 Defense appropriations bill, it went ahead and added three more.

This is a little hard to see, this chart, but it is an interesting one. These are the C-17s that were originally in the Air Force budget. These are the C-17s, in red, that have been added by Congress. Each year--each year--the Department of Defense and the administration have said: Enough. We have enough C-17s. Obviously, that has not been the case.

It brings us to where we are now--well in excess of requirements, continuing to spend billions of dollars for aircraft we do not need. Including the 8 C-17s in the 2009 supplemental, the Department has bought now a total of 213 C-17s. The original requirement was 180.

According to the most recent Statement of Administration Position, the administration ``strongly objects'' to the addition of $2.5 billion in funding for 10--count them: 10--unrequested C-17 airlift aircraft. The Department's own analyses show that the 205 C-17s in the force and on order, together with the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, are more than sufficient to meet the Department's future airlift needs even under the most stressing conditions.

In no uncertain terms, Secretary Gates has stated that the military has no need to buy more C-17s. So here we are, my friends, with a $3 billion cut in operations and maintenance, which any observer, much less the administration, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs, says, is vital to continuing our operations and the well-being and protection of the men and women in the military, and we are adding $2.5 billion for more C-17s. What kind of a tradeoff is that?

Secretary Gates has stated the military has no need to buy more C- 17s. While Secretary Gates called the C-17 ``a terrific aircraft''--and I agree--he stressed earlier this year that the Air Force and the U.S. Transportation Command ``have more than necessary [strategic airlift] capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years. Nonetheless, continuing C-17 production would cost about $3 billion per year from 2010 onward.

In connection with the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the President not only requested no funding for additional C-17s but also recommended this program for termination. Particularly in light of today's financial constraints, continuing to spend billions of dollars for more C-17s we do not need is becoming increasingly unsustainable. For these reasons, I will be offering an amendment to strike the additional 10 aircraft.

Given how much our airlift capacity currently exceeds operational requirements, I see no reason why we should buy more of these aircraft--at a minimum, before key analyses on the subject, such as the Institute for Defense Analyses' review and the Department of Defense Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study are completed.

I will be proposing an amendment shortly that I hope will correct this egregious action on the part of the Appropriations Committee. The men and women in the military, who are fighting and putting their lives on the line, deserve a lot better than that.

I want to talk for a few minutes about earmarks. The practice of earmarking is detrimental to the Department and, with increasing frequency, to Members themselves. The guilty pleas of former Members of Congress, congressional staffers, and lobbyists illustrate how earmarks have been used to corrupt the legislative process. Check the polls. The trust and confidence on the part of the American people in the Congress of the United States is at an all-time low, and deservedly so.

By my preliminary count, there are almost 700 unrequested earmarks in this bill, over 400 of which are not authorized in the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. That represents more than $1.3 billion in funding for unrequested, unauthorized, Member-interest items. It is unacceptable. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to provide the Department of Defense the resources it needs while providing the oversight our constituents demand. We have a fiduciary obligation to the American taxpayer, and every time we tuck pork into an appropriations measure, we shun that responsibility.

One of the great untold stories of earmarking is that the money, which is diverted to special-interest projects, would have otherwise been used to address the stated needs of our military services. The money does not come from anywhere but the taxpayers' wallets and purses. But the service chiefs, who are in the best position to advise Congress of their priorities, are routinely shortchanged so that Senators and Congressmen can fund their pet projects.

A sampling: $9.5 million is in this bill to fund research in Montana on hypersonic wind tunnels, called MARIAH--M-A-R-I-A-H. This self- licking ice cream cone has been with us, earmarked and unrequested, since 1998. The Air Force, leader in hypersonic testing and technology, lost interest in 2004, so appropriators moved the program to the Army. The Army has no official requirement for this capability and published a report in 2005 stating their disinterest in the program.

To date, the Army has no plans to fund the MARIAH wind tunnel effort, as they have stated in their budget documents. That has not kept the Congress from pouring more than $70 million into it--more than $70 million--with no discernible return. One group has done very well in the deal, however. Of course, I am referring to lobbyists, including Gage LLC, whose CEO, coincidentally, had been a senior staffer to an appropriator from Montana. I intend to offer an amendment to strike this earmark in the bill, and I can assure you, you will hear more from me on this.

We have spent more than $70 million on a project that has had no return, that the military has said they have no interest in pursuing.

Another earmark is $5 million to the battleship USS Missouri Memorial Association. This is a private organization which owns and operates this battleship as a museum in Pearl Harbor. I am aware that the association plans to put the Missouri in drydock and refurbish it, and also aware it was not part of the donation agreement that the Defense Department would pay for required maintenance.

I am all for Navy ships being placed in places where Americans can see and appreciate the great service and sacrifice of the men and women in the military, the Navy and Marine Corps in particular. The deal was that the Defense Department would not, that they would take care of the maintenance of it, that they would take care of whatever the needed expenses are. So here is $5 million.

Another earmark is $25 million for the National World War II Museum in New Orleans, to help pay for the construction of new facilities as part of a $300 million expansion. This privately funded museum opened in 2000 and, through the help of the Louisiana delegation, has already received $13 million in Department of Defense funds tucked into previous appropriations bills.

Again, if the members of the Appropriations Committee wish to go through the authorization process and have this project authorized, I would be more than willing to consider it.

Another appropriation is $13.8 million for five different earmarks pertaining to nano-tuber research. Of the almost 800 earmarks I mentioned earlier, hundreds are for high-tech research or devices. I ask my colleagues whether they are capable of weighing the merits of specific technologies they fund in this bill.

Another earmark is $20 million for a center at the University of Massachusetts ``dedicated to educating the general public, students, teachers, new Senators, and Senate staff about the

role and importance of the Senate.'' This center was neither requested in the President's budget nor authorized by Congress. Certainly a legitimate question should be whether $20 million should be appropriated for a project that has nothing to do with the defense of this Nation. It may be a worthwhile project. Why couldn't we get it authorized?

Another earmark is $10 million, as usual, to the University of Hawaii for a program called the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Raid Response System, Pan-STARRS. On the surface, this program seems like a reasonable need for the Air Force as a part of its Space Situational Awareness efforts. Unfortunately, the Air Force will not be getting much return on this investment since it will only be allowed to use the telescope 5 percent of the time.

Let's get that straight. The Air Force is paying $10 million so the telescope could be developed and maintained, and they are going to get to use it 5 percent of the time. In dollar figures, the Air Force pays $10 million to the university and receives $500,000 in return. What is more, the Air Force has not, in the 9-year life of this earmark, requested a single dollar for this program. So since 2001, the Air Force has been forced to spend more than $75 million of its budget allocation on a program it does not want--but might be able to use-- only to be denied use 95 percent of the time.

I do not dispute that some of the earmarks listed in the bill have value. I am sure they do. But I protest the process by which Congress ignores priorities of the armed services so that Members can deliver tax dollars to their constituents for programs which may have nothing to do with the defense of our Nation, and at a time when we can least afford to misuse resources. We all know the economy has taken a beating over the last year. Unemployment is just under 10 percent, and the national debt is $11.8 trillion. So we are going to provide $20 million to a center with a purpose to extol the virtues of the Senate?

The issues we face as a nation require all of us to make sacrifices-- all of us. It is about time we started setting an example.

In today's Washington Post is an article written by Jeffrey Smith, entitled ``Defense Bill, Lauded by White House, Contains Billions in Earmarks.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Quoting from the article:

President Obama has repeatedly promised to fight ``the

special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists''

that he says have distorted military priorities and bloated

appropriations in the past. In August--

As I mentioned--

he told a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that

``if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of

pork, I will veto it.''

Mr. President, this bill fits that description.

It goes on:

The bill, however, would add $1.7 billion for an extra

destroyer the Defense Department did not request. . . .

It talks about the C-17s and ``the Senate's proposed shift of more than $3 billion from operations and maintenance accounts to projects the Pentagon did not request, no veto was threatened over those provisions.

I want to say again, I am sure the managers of this bill will somehow try to justify this transfer out of operations and maintenance into the C-17. It is not a credible argument. It is not a credible argument.

The absence of such a threat provoked Winslow Wheeler,

director of a military reform project at the Center for

Defense Information, to describe. . . .

Senior Obama aides responded that the White House never

sought to fix the problem of earmarks in one year. ``The

president has been clear from Day One: He wants to change the

way business gets done in Washington''. . . .

One thing I know about egregious practices, if you do not stop them early in an administration, you never will. It will be alleged that earmarks are down less than they were before, it is an important step forward, and the sponsors of the bill will say earmarks are down 27 percent in the House and 19 percent in the Senate.

Those figures are the most flattering the White House could

have used: They refer to the number of earmarks in the bills,

not total spending. Total spending on military earmarks in

the Senate declined by only 11 percent from the $3 billion

approved by Congress last year.

``Despite the fact that earmarks are down, there's still

nearly 800 . . . for projects that rose to the top by dint of

political power rather than project merit,'' said Ryan

Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. ``The

president needs to take a harder line against waste and

political gamesmanship, particularly in the defense bill,

which is paying for two years.''

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the amendment strikes funding in the Defense appropriations bill for 10 C-17 Globemaster aircraft that we neither need nor can afford. My amendment also redirects those funds to critically important operations and maintenance accounts which the appropriators have seen fit to cut.

At about $250 million per aircraft, the total cost to the taxpayer of the C-17 earmark in this bill is $2.5 billion. But how are we paying for these aircraft? With the cuts made in the bill, it appears much of the offset for paying for the 10 aircraft falls on the O&M accounts. So why are we buying C-17s we don't need and can't afford while at the same time reducing overall O&M accounts by $3 billion?

I am sure the managers of the bill will justify this cut in operations and maintenance. I would rely on the judgment of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who will tell us they need this money for operations and maintenance.

I hope my colleagues understand what this really means. If this bill passes with these cuts, the Air Force in particular will be forced to decrease funding for training, equipment, depot maintenance, and the restoration and modernization of air bases across the United States, and they would not be alone. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and National Guard would also come out on the wrong end of these cuts and would be forced to reduce funding for facilities sustainment, training, and recruiting.

After 8 years of war, the Army's equipment readiness has fallen to truly worrisome levels. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee this year, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren said:

Predictable and timely funding is key for us to be able to

operate an organization the size of the United States Army. .

. .When funding is unpredictable, it makes it very hard to

plan long term.

I have seen a hollow Army, deeply degraded in the decade after Vietnam and again during the drawdown of the 1990s. Today's forces are not in such dire straits as those, but 8 years of war has taken its toll on the Army, Marines, Guard, and Reserve component ground forces. As GEN George Casey said: ``The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply.''

Particularly in a time of war, I urge my colleagues to invest in the recapitalization of our ground forces--not funding aircraft we neither need nor can afford with those investments.

Finally, I wish to mention the Army Reserve and National Guard, which are, as General Casey described, ``performing an operational role for which they were neither originally designed nor resourced.'' In my view, any cut to their operations and maintenance accounts will retard the ability of these components to fit and deploy for missions at home or abroad. And I am sure the Secretary of Defense would say he would like a lot more because of the wear and tear and degradation that already exists to much of our equipment and capabilities.

We can and must do better. Left uncorrected what we would do in this bill is effectively fund the purchase of new aircraft that we neither need nor can afford with critical sustainment money. That would have a significant impact on our ability to provide the day-to-day operational funding that our service men and women and their families deserve.

Let me turn briefly to the merits of the C-17 earmark itself. If some of these remarks sound familiar, that is because I was on the floor of the Senate less than 3 months ago speaking about C-17s when the Senate Appropriations Committee earmarked eight of these cargo aircraft in the 2009 supplemental appropriations bill at a cost of $2.25 billion. That is right. In just 3 months, the Appropriations Committee has set aside nearly $5 billion for 18 C-17 aircraft that we don't need, the Pentagon doesn't want, and we can't afford.

Against that backdrop, over the last 3 years the White House has actively been trying to close down the C-17 production line, asking for as much as $500 million per year to shut down the line. But over that same period, the appropriators have been working in the exact opposite direction to ensure continued funding for the program in supplemental war funding bills--bills that

are supposed to be used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So despite that the Democrat Department of Defense's overall requirements for C-17s continue to sit at 180, the appropriators have required the Department to buy through fiscal year 2009 a total of 213 C-17s, and they have done so before two key studies have been completed.

This chart illustrates what is going on. Marked in red we see the C- 17s the appropriators have added. Why? Because our service men and women need them? No. In 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 the Air Force budgeted money to close the line each and every year.

Is the reason some sort of new stimulus package which will create new jobs? No. That is because, as I mentioned, they have had three dozen more C-17s than the Air Force has needed. In fact, right now, the backlog of C-17s is such that Boeing will not begin building these aircraft earmarked by the appropriators for another 2 years.

In the bill we are debating today, the 10 C-17s the appropriators want to fund will bring the total number of C-17s the Senate Appropriations Committee has added above any validated military requirement to 44. Enough is enough.

According to the most recent Statement of Administration Policy, the administration ``strongly objects'' to the addition of $2.5 billion in funding for 10 unrequested C-17 aircraft. The Department of Defense's own analyses show that the 205 C-17s in the force and on order, together with the existing fleet of aircraft, are sufficient to meet the Department's future airlift needs even under the most stressing conditions.

Secretary Gates has likewise very clearly said that the military has no need to buy more C-17s. While Secretary Gates called the C-17--and I agree--a ``terrific aircraft,'' he stressed earlier this year that the Air Force and U.S. Transportation Command ``have more than necessary'' strategic airlift ``capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years. Nonetheless, continuing C-17 production would cost about $3 billion per year from 2010 onward.

There is little reason why, in connection with the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the President not only requested no funding for additional C-17s but also recommended this program for termination. In light of today's financial exigencies, continuing to spend billions of dollars for C-17s the Pentagon doesn't need and can't afford is becoming increasingly unsustainable. More so than almost any other earmark I have discussed on the Senate floor, this earmark shows our priorities are just about the opposite of where they should be.

For that reason, I am persuaded by the strength of Secretary Gates's opposition, and I find unacceptable the apparent source of funding for this earmark and urge the Members of this body to support my amendment. As I mentioned before, the amendment would redirect money from buying the C-17s we don't need and can't afford to critically important operations and maintenance accounts that are the lifeblood of our troops and their families.

So we have a choice with this amendment. We can either continue to fund an airplane that the military neither wants nor needs, or we can restore the cuts in funding in operations and maintenance which, according to the testimony of every military leader, is badly needed and wanted. The body will be presented with that choice.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, for at least several months, Congress, as we

know, has been considering comprehensive health reform legislation written and moved through committees without bipartisan support. The Senate Finance Committee, now the last committee, is apparently considering a proposal that was originally believed to possibly garner bipartisan support. However, it has not. At the end of the day, the bill has ended up being divided along partisan lines.

I agree that bipartisanship alone does not propose good legislation, but I can guarantee that partisan legislation pushed through Congress on artificial deadlines will not engender confidence or the support of the American people. Not one of the bills in the House or Senate committees has received a Republican legislator's vote--now they are counting on perhaps one--nor did any of the bills deserve the vote of any Member of Congress. I hope reason will prevail this week.

Unfortunately, as written, the administration's and Senator Baucus's proposal does not warrant the support of the American people or Members of Congress. During the August recess we saw millions of Americans come to townhall meetings across this country and express their concerns. While some have dismissed these peaceful revolutionaries and impugned their motives, I believe these citizens should be listened to. This peaceful resolution is like nothing I have ever seen in my nearly 30 years of elected office. Americans have made it abundantly clear they do not want government taking over their health care decisions. But, unfortunately, that is the reality of the proposals before the Senate Finance Committee and those that have already been passed. Senator Baucus's proposal is not any different. It increases or creates new government control in all aspects of our health care system, increases health care taxes, and makes cuts to Medicare that reduce benefits and weaken its fiscal health.

The administration's bill being considered this week in the Finance Committee puts Washington in control of health insurance regulations by defining what is ``acceptable health insurance coverage'' and what Americans must pay for this coverage. Washington also seeks to tell Americans that they have no more than four insurance plan coverage levels available to them, the least costly of which would be more expensive than many individual and small group policies today.

In addition, the proposal decides which health care industry should be taxed and then imposes billions in new taxes on them. There are new taxes on prescription drugs, there are new taxes on medical devices, there are new taxes on laboratory tests, and there are new taxes on insurance companies.

The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed what we know: that these taxes will be passed on to the consumers and will drive up health insurance premiums, directly contradicting the goal all of us shared together. This week CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in the Senate Finance Committee said:

Our judgment is that that piece of legislation would raise

insurance premiums by roughly the amount of the money

collected.

If there are some out there who are not concerned by this massive government expansion, here is the kicker. The tax increases start right away even though many coverage provisions do not begin for 4 years, making the real 10-year implementation cost between $1.5 and $2 trillion. While it may seem to most Americans that reform is all about regulating health insurers and getting people covered, America's seniors who depend on Medicare would be wrong to assume their benefits will not be affected under the proposal that is being considered in the Senate Finance Committee.

The administration's proposal under consideration in the Finance Committee cuts $500 billion from Medicare and allocates it to creating a new entitlement that we know taxes and costs too much. Instead of improving Medicare's financial stability, the proposal cuts nearly $120 billion from hospitals serving Medicare patients, more than $40 billion from Medicare home health providers, and approximately $130 billion of the cuts come from Medicare Advantage.

CBO confirmed the obvious--that taking $130 billion from Medicare Advantage is a cut in the extra benefits provided to seniors despite protestations that this is not a cut from the other side and from President Obama.

From the Associated Press:

Congress' Chief Budget Officer is contradicting President

Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors would not see

their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

Candidate Obama campaigned to make this cut, but now we hear the other side twist themselves in circles trying to obscure the facts. Americans should understand what is in these proposals and make up their own minds. But the other side must not agree. Why else would Democrats vote down an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee that would have simply required the legislative language to be posted online for 72 hours before voting on the proposals? This is what happens when you do not have online or prior information concerning amendments.

The Finance Committee passed a Democratic amendment earlier Wednesday by voice vote that they thought would have no impact on the bill's bottom line. Hours later, the committee staff learned from CBO that Senator Debbie Stabenow's amendment on foster care would actually cost $600 million. This is why we need to have cost estimates and online scrutiny not only by Members of Congress and their staffs but by the American people before we adopt amendments.

Let me read from the press release issued by Senator Baucus this week:

At the urging of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max

Baucus, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [known

as CMS] has cracked down on insurance compan[ies] . . . The

CMS investigation into the beneficiary letter was prompted by

a Baucus request.

This is a press release issued by the office of the Senator from Montana himself. And what did Senator Baucus's urging result in? A gag order from the acting head of the CMS Center for Drug and Health Plan Choices. Shockingly, the CMS subgroup ordered health plans offering Medicare Advantage benefits to stop communicating with their members what the CBO tells us is true, that taking $130 billion from Medicare Advantage is a cut.

Let's be clear. This is government-imposed restrictions on free speech. How is it that we have an agency of government telling a private corporation they are not free to express their opinions or views on anything the Congress does?

So where does this leave us? The proposal expands failing Medicaid, increases government control in the health care of every American, and drives up premiums by raising taxes on health care and health insurance. Then the proposal forces you or your employer to purchase their more expensive insurance. But to hide the impact, we are going to subsidize some Americans for this more expensive coverage, and if they do not purchase this more expensive coverage, the proposal tells the IRS to come after them with new tax penalties.

The recent poll this morning, published in various newspapers, shows there continues to be waning support and a lack of understanding of the President's proposal. I think that is perfectly logical because the President says: If you like your present health insurance, you can keep it. Then CBO determines, and others, if your employer provides you with health care benefits and chooses the government option, then you as the employee do not have the ability to keep your health insurance policy if you like it.

So I think it is pretty clear the strategy of the administration is to try to ram something through the Senate and the House, rewrite it in conference, and certainly without Republican participation. I hope that is not the case.

I look forward to continued discussion of this very vital issue for the American people on the floor of the Senate and in the various forums around the country. I intend to continue to have health care townhall meetings in my State as they have been very helpful both in informing my constituents and my constituents informing me.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Well, I thank my colleague from Tennessee and the great work he has been doing. First of all, I would ask my friend if he has had the same experience I have had at townhall meetings and that is from one of the hand-done signs--not printed-out signs but one of the hand-done signs--which says: Have you read the bill? One of the first questions at the townhall meeting was: Have you read the bill? Of course, that is an impossibility for anyone to read the bill because there is no bill before the Finance Committee, it is my understanding. I understand it is about 200 pages of a ``framework.'' I think the Senator from Tennessee and I are keenly aware that many times there is a comma, a word inserted here, a word taken out there which changes the entire legislative impact.

The American people are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. They know that in the middle of the night, many times legislation is written and turned into the kind of legislation that, frankly, unless you go through it page by page, word by word, you don't know the final impact. So what I, first, wish to say to my friend from Tennessee is that apparently the Finance Committee is working to turn out a legislative package that is not in legislative form, and I am curious how the Members would understand what is in it.

I guess the second point is, there is still no serious consideration of a couple of the fundamentals--medical malpractice or medical liability reform or, obviously, the ability to go across State lines to purchase insurance and allowing small businesses to pool their assets so they can compete for health insurance policies that large corporations are able to.

The other question I would ask, because I know my friend from Tennessee has had many roles in his long political life, has the Senator from Tennessee, as a former Governor, had any contact with the Governors and their organizations as to how much additional costs would be added to those States, which are already in dire shape--certainly mine is--in the form of additional Medicaid costs?

I notice the majority leader at first complained about the bill and the cost it might accrue to his State of Nevada, but I guess that has been fixed to his satisfaction. But I don't think the other States--a State such as mine, which is still looking at over a $50 billion deficit--probably would be eager to absorb dramatically increased Medicaid costs. I wonder if my friend, a former Governor, former Cabinet member, former candidate for President, former dog catch-- excuse me, someone who has had many roles in American life, would respond to that.

If I might interrupt, if it were on the Internet for 72 hours, maybe as many Americans who wanted to would be able to read the bill themselves.

Would it be ``no'' for the individual who has employer- based health care and that employer then opts for the so-called public option, which would be a government-run health program? Could that employee see the same doctor?

Isn't it true, in fact, that the Congressional Budget Office has said that these increased costs, at least half of them, will be passed on to the individual?

I have one very important question. There is no one who has led the fight against waste, fraud, and abuse more than Dr. Coburn!.

Dr. Coburn, the President keeps saying we will eliminate all this fraud and abuse and waste. If we can, why don't we start tomorrow?

May I ask Dr. Coburn again, if we start tomorrow, what can we do?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2461 be called up and the pending business be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment would simply prohibit the use of funds for the Des Moines Art Center in Des Moines, IA--just one of the 308 earmarks contained in this bill which total $246 million. This earmark is like most other earmarks posing as a national spending priority. Many of these earmarks were not authorized and were not competitively bid in any way, and no hearing was held to judge whether these are worthy of scarce taxpayers' dollars.

Every summer we hear news of major wildfires destroying people's homes and businesses across the country. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, over 5.5 million acres of land were scorched this year so far. Spending bills such as this one are vitally necessary for fire suppression activities and forest health programs--programs that save lives and property. As we look for ways to pay for the escalating cost of wildfires, we must also address the mixed messages we are sending to taxpayers about our spending priorities.

Buried in the committee report, as usual, is a $200,000 earmark for historic preservation needs at the Des Moines Art Center in Iowa. I am all for preserving our Nation's historic buildings, but good intentions or not, the process of earmarking is how appropriators steer taxpayers' dollars to pet projects that wouldn't otherwise win a grant competition or pass a prioritization formula. They are placed above more deserving projects simply because of their ``connections'' in Washington.

According to an article in the Des Moines Register dated August 27, 2009, entitled ``Look Out Below: Des Moines Art Center is Adding Space Underground,'' the Art Center is embarking on a $7.5 million capital improvement project which includes building a $3.5 million basement level ``storage addition and a new glass elevator.'' The Art Center raised this money as part of its ongoing $34 million fundraising campaign launched in 2005.

The multimillion dollar underground addition will double as a ground level ``green roof,'' says the art center's director Jeff Fleming: ``People can walk on it without even knowing it's a roof . . . a great space for outdoor gatherings.''

The article also notes that the art center will gladly name the new addition to whichever benefactor closes out their $34 million fundraising campaign.

Americans are hurting. The unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent. The deficit is estimated to be $1.6 trillion for this year, and the projected 10-year deficit jumped from $7.1 trillion to $9 trillion, et cetera, et cetera. Obviously, it might be nice if we started thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to pay the tab for our continued spending.

I am offering this amendment on behalf of taxpayers who will rightfully question what makes the Des Moines Art Center a national spending priority. Why is the Des Moines Art Center allowed to bypass the proper procedures for determining historic preservation spending? Why can't the Des Moines Art Center cough up $200,000 from its $7.5 million capital improvement project? Why can't they address this $200,000 need in their $34 million fundraising campaign?

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I spent, as did many of my colleagues, the last few days at home in Arizona, traveling around my State. When this issue of earmarking and porkbarrel spending is brought up, there is a visible reaction. Americans are sick and tired of it. Sooner or later, while those who continue to vote for and support this unnecessary, unneeded porkbarrel spending while we have a 10-year $9 trillion deficit, Americans are going to rise up in an even more vociferous fashion than they are today.

I believe what is going on around the country is not just the issue of health care. What is going on around the country is people are sick and tired of this unbridled spending in porkbarrel and earmark projects which have bred corruption here in our Nation's Capital. They figured it out. They have had enough of it.

I ask my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment, being aware that those on the Appropriations Committee will probably vote to turn down this amendment even though it is only a $200,000 unnecessary spending project. So do so. You have done it in the past. I am going to continue, and the American people are going to continue, to demand some kind of accountability for this outrageous, out-of-control spending which has mortgaged future

generations of Americans and, believe me, at least in the State of Arizona, they are sick and tired of it.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment at a time to be determined by the majority leader.

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

Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to the regular order.

Mr. President, I believe the regular order is that I am allowed 1 minute. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. President.

This amendment strikes an earmark of $200,000 for the Des Moines Art Center in Iowa. The center just began a $7.5 million capital improvement project. It is time we got serious.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the administration's decision to cancel plans for fully developing missile defenses in Eastern Europe. This decision calls into question security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic. I believe it has the potential to undermine American leadership in Eastern Europe.

Given the strong and enduring relationships we have forged with the region's Nations since the end of the Cold War, we should not take steps backward in strengthening these ties. Yet I fear the administration's decision will do just that, and at a time when Eastern European nations are increasingly wary of renewed Russian aggression.

The administration's decision to abandon these sites comes at a time when the United States is in the midst of negotiations with Russia on reducing strategic nuclear weapons. Russia has long opposed the planned missile defense sites in Europe and has on numerous occasions tried to link reductions in offensive strategic nuclear arms with defensive capabilities such as missile defense. In fact, President Putin, on many occasions, has stated in very belligerent tones his opposition to this agreement that was already made between the United States and Poland and the Czech Republic.

The United States should reject the Russian attempt to further this argument and capitalize on these ongoing negotiations.

As rogue nations, including North Korea and Iran, push the nuclear envelope and work tirelessly to develop weapons capable of reaching America and its allies, we must aggressively develop the systems necessary to counter such belligerent efforts and enhance our national security, protect our troops abroad, and support our allies. Enhancing missile defense capabilities in Europe is an essential component to addressing threats we currently face and expect to face in the future. As Iran works to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all ranges, the United States must reaffirm its commitments to its allies and develop and deploy effective missile defense systems.

I wish to point out two important factors. The United States of America does not believe missile defense systems are in any way a threat to any nation. They are defensive in nature, and I believe they were a key component and factor in ending the Cold War.

Intelligence assessments apparently have changed rather dramatically since January 16. According to Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under Secretary Gates during the Bush administration, intelligence reports on the Iranian threat as recently as January of this year were more troubling than what is being portrayed by the current administration. Mr. Edelman maintains that:

Maybe something really dramatic changed between January 16

and now in terms of what the Iranians are doing with their

missile systems, but I don't think so.

You know what. I don't think so either. I think the fact is that this decision was obviously rushed. The Polish Prime Minister, according to news reports, was called at midnight. The agreement was made and ratified by these countries after consultation, discussion, and a proper process. They were not even notified of this decision. The decision to abandon the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic came as a surprise to them.

I understand that administration officials were on a plane supposedly to arrive in Poland today. I might add that Members of Congress were also not briefed on this decision prior to reading about it in the newspaper. I was not informed. I didn't know what ``new technology'' was being recommended to be put in the place of the agreement. As short a time ago as August 20, the United States said:

The United States is committed to the security of Poland

and of any U.S. facilities located on the territory of the

Republic of Poland. . . . The United States and Poland intend

to expand air and missile defense cooperation--et cetera.

We all know the Iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. We all know the administration is seeking the cooperation and help of the Russians. Now we will see. Now we will see.

Why was this agreement rushed into--or the abrogation of an agreement? Why the abrogation of this agreement between the United States with Poland and the United States with the Czech Republic rescinded in such a dramatic and rushed fashion? We all know the Iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. How many times have the ``intelligence estimates'' been wrong dating back to and including the Cold War? As many times as they have been right, I tell my colleagues--whether it be their assessment about the war in Iraq or whether it be the capabilities of many of our adversaries, including the Korean buildup, which we have been consistently wrong on.

The last administration reached out to the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic and asked that they make what many at the time perceived as an unpopular agreement. Despite threats from Russia, both governments recognized the importance such a defense capability would provide to their citizens and to Europe as a whole and agreed to allow the United States to place ground-based interceptors in Poland and a midcourse radar site in the Czech Republic. What are these countries going to do the next time we want to make an agreement with them, in view of the way this decision was made and announced or, shall I say, made known to the media before they were even told about it. It will be very interesting to see what we get in return.

According to a Christian Science Monitor's global news blog:

``We see this as a pragmatic decision,'' says Pavel

Zolotaryov, deputy director of the official institute of USA-

Canada Studies, suggesting that internal U.S. factors mainly

account for Mr. Obama's choice. ``Obama's sober approach is

understandable, given the [economic] crisis, because this

project would have given nothing but trouble.''

If it sounds like Moscow has already discounted this

sweeping strategic concession from Washington, experts

suggest that's because Russia's foreign policy establishment

had been expecting such a decision, at least since Obama

hinted that he might give up the missile defense scheme

during his summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in

Moscow last July.

``We've been getting signals since last Spring that made it

seem almost certain that the missile defense plan would be

set aside,'' said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global

Affairs, a leading Moscow foreign policy journal.

The Russians seem to have anticipated this decision. Unfortunately, the

Polish Government and the Czech Government did not. Members of Congress were certainly not informed of this decision until after reading about it in the media. That is not the way to do business. I think it sends the wrong signal to the Russians and to our friends and allies.

There are consequences with every decision. I believe the consequences of this decision may--albeit unintentionally--encourage further belligerence on the part of Russians and a distinct lack and loss of confidence on the part of our friends and allies in the word of the United States and the commitments of the United States of America.

I ask unanimous consent that articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, the amendment prohibits funding for brownfields economic development initiatives. In May--and not for the first time--the President recommended termination of the brownfields economic development initiatives. You can look it up. Even the committee this time, in the Record, said:

The committee does not recommend an appropriation for the

brownfields redevelopment program, consistent with the budget

request.

On pages 138 and 139, there is $1.3 million for brownfields redevelopment in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. So now we are not only going against the President's recommendations, we are going to go against the bill itself and give another $1.3 million in pork. All I say is you cannot make it up.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business before the Senate be set aside in order to consider amendment No. 2403.

Mr. President, the amendment is very simple. It prohibits, as recommended by the President, the use of funds under this act to carry out the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grant program that is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In May of this year, President Obama released a list of 121 programs that he recommended be terminated or reduced. One of the programs the President recommended for termination is the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative.

The administration stated specifically that this grant program is extremely small relative to other programs that address this need. They added that local governments have access to other public and private funds that can address this same purpose.

In justification for the termination, the administration wrote--and I quote from the document ``Terminations, Reductions and Savings, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010,'' that is issued by the Office of Management and Budget. In other words, it is a number of terminations and reductions that the administration wants carried out, with justification for doing so.

So far I have had amendments on several of these and they have all been overridden. Our amendments have not carried and I imagine I will lose this also. The moral is why didn't OMB stop this? Because clearly it is being totally disregarded by the appropriators. The American people pay attention to the President's recommendations. But now I have had a number of amendments that have been in keeping with the President's request--the same President who said we will go line by line in the appropriations bills and eliminate those that are unnecessary.

Again, the Office of Management and Budget has said:

The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) is a

competitive grant program whose purposes are served through

much larger and more flexible Federal programs. BEDI is

designed to assist cities with the redevelopment of

abandoned, idled, and under-used industrial and commercial

facilities where expansion and redevelopment is burdened by

real or potential environmental contamination. These funds

are targeted for redevelopment of brownfield sites for the

purposes of economic development and job creation. While

these are very important objectives, the program is very

small, and local governments have access to other public and

private funds, including the much larger Community

Development Block Grant (CDBG). The 2010 Budget funds CDBG as

$4.5 billion, or 14 percent above the 2009 enacted level.

We are talking about trying to reduce spending and the CDBG program is now 14 percent, $4.5 billion, above 2009-enacted levels.

A 1999 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (RCED-

99-86) found that about $469 million was planned and $413

million in Federal funds were obligated for brownfields

activities in 1997 and 1998. Of the planned total, BEDI

appropriations ($25 million) contributed just five percent of

the planned expenditure.

By terminating this program, the Department of Housing and

Urban Development is also able to reduce the administrative

workload associated with managing a small and duplicative

program. Focusing staff on higher impact and higher return

activities is a priority for the agency.

I am sure that the opponents of my amendment will argue that the Senate did not include funding for this program in the underlying bill. The committee report states that ``The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the Brownfield Redevelopment program, consistent with the budget request. The Committee notes that other Federal appropriations are available for the same purpose through the Environmental Protection Agency. Communities may also use CDBG funds to redevelop Brownfield's sites''

If that is the case, and the committee agrees with the President that Brownfield Redevelopment under HUD is duplicative, then why does the committee report also contain three specific earmarks totaling $1.3 million for the redevelopment of Brownfields properties as Economic Development Initiatives? It makes no sense. In here, despite the committee saying they are eliminating the program, we have $600,000 for the redevelopment of Brownfields property into a business park in Cincinnati, OH; $500,000 for the redevelopment of Brownfields properties in Waterbury, CT; $200,000 for Brownfield redevelopment in Pittsburgh, PA.

Americans are hurting. The Nation's unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent, the deficit for this year is estimated to be $1.6 trillion, the projected 10-year deficit jumped from $7.1 trillion to $9.1 trillion, our public debt is expected to reach $12.1 trillion by mid- October. When is it going to stop?

Again, I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people. The American people are rising up everywhere. Although it is a bit derided and underestimated, at the TEA parties and demonstrations and the marches last weekend, at conservative estimates 70,000 people came from all over the country to march. In Yuma, AZ 1,000 to 2,000 people decided to demonstrate and it is still pretty warm in Yuma, AZ this time of the year and all over my State.

So what did we do? We say we are going to terminate a program in the committee report and then of course we cannot resist earmarks and porkbarrel spending which has led to corruption.

There is a trial going on right now of a lobbyist who some years ago engaged in paying off legislators for earmarks. That person, if convicted, will be the 23rd person convicted or who pled guilty in the Abramoff scandal. I would like to tell the American people that things have improved, that things have improved since the Abramoff scandal broke and people pled guilty and went to prison, but I can't. I can't tell them there has been any improvement. I can't tell them that corruption doesn't go on here in Washington. I can't tell them that there are no more Duke Cunninghams out there who are residing in Federal prison.

You know what, they are sick and tired of it. This is only $1.3 million. That is less than chickenfeed around this place. But we have to start somewhere and we might start with implementing the recommendations of the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget and get rid of a program that is obviously unneeded.

I don't want to take too much more time of the body, except to again say there is a peaceful revolution going on out there. It is not just over health care reform. It is over the out-of-control spending and the trillions and trillions of dollars of debt we are laying on future generations. Our children and our grandchildren are inheriting an unsustainable situation while we do business as usual here in the Senate.

I could go back to Coast Guard vessels that the Coast Guard and the Navy never needed. I could go back to museums that were funded that are now closed all over America, and a lot of other abuses that have taken place. But I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment. Those who do not, I hope people at home will pay attention, will pay attention to the out-of-control spending that continues here and the mortgaging of our children's futures and what we are doing in the commission of generational theft.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, there seems to be some possibility of ambiguity in the amendment. I appreciate the Senator from Washington bringing that to my attention. I ask unanimous consent, if necessary, to be able to modify the amendment before the vote with the intent of the elimination of these three earmarks as I have argued on the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Is it true that yesterday, when we had the hearing with Admiral Mullen for renomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who I think we would all agree has done an outstanding job of serving our

country, it was pretty clear that Admiral Mullen felt a sense of urgency for us to act in Afghanistan because al-Qaida and the Taliban-- especially the Taliban--are making inroads and we, in his words, are not seeing the progress we want, that we are losing, basically, in Afghanistan?

Didn't he say to you and to Senator Graham such that the important thing is that time is not on our side and we need to get troops over there as quickly as possible, in keeping with the strategy that was devised in March of this year and agreed to by the President? That was my understanding.

And Senator Graham said: OK, now as to the civilians, I just got back from a visit. I appreciate all our civilians who are over there from different agencies. They are very brave, but, quite honestly, they can't go anywhere.

Admiral Mullen said: Right.

Senator Graham said: You could send 10,000 lawyers from the State Department to deal with rural law programs, but they are sitting on the base because if they leave the base, they are going to get shot.

Admiral Mullen:

Right.

Then Graham said:

The only way to get off the base is if they have a military

convoy, is that right?

Mullen said:

Right.

Senator Graham said:

So I just want our colleagues to know the security

environment in Afghanistan, from my point of view, will

prevent any civilian success until we change the security

environment. How long would it take to train enough Afghan

troops to change the momentum, in your view, if we did it

just with Afghan forces?

And he said:

Two or three years.

Then Senator Graham said:

What will happen in that two or three year period in terms

of the security environment while we are training.

Mullen said:

If it's just training?

Graham said:

Yes.

Mullen said:

I think the security environment will continue to

deteriorate.

I ask my friend, doesn't that lend urgency, which is certainly not apparent in the President's statement today? After meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister, basically saying he is going to go through a long process of evaluation and another strategy, claiming he didn't have one before. That is what is disturbing, is the total lack of urgency in the President's statement today.

Will the Senator yield for one more question quickly?

Isn't it true this is where the contradiction is? It is so paradoxical it is hard for me to comprehend. Admiral Mullen--in a question I said:

Admiral Mullen, didn't you say ``time is not on your

side''?

Admiral Mullen:

No, sir, I have a sense of urgency about this. I worry a

great deal that the clock is moving very rapidly and there

are lots of clocks, as you know. But the sense of urgency--

and I, believe me, share that with General McChrystal who,

while he is very focused on the change which includes

partner--focus on the Afghan people, he is alarmed by the

insurgency; he is in a position where he needs to retake the

initiative from the insurgents who have grabbed over the last

3 years.

Then to contrast that with the President's statement today he said:

I am absolutely clear, you have to get the strategy right

and then make determinations about resources. You don't make

determinations about resources--certainly you don't make

determinations about sending young men and women into battle

without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is

going to be.

He said:

My determination is to get this right and that means broad

consultation not only inside the U.S. government but also our

ISAP partners and our NATO allies, and I am going to take a

very deliberate process in making these decisions.

I don't know what to make of that.

Would the Senator yield so I can ask a question? I see we have one of our colleagues waiting to speak.

I wonder what the Senator thinks. We held a hearing yesterday with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is highly regarded. He conveys to every questioner, no matter which Member it is, a sense of urgency because of his belief and that of our military commanders on the ground that we are not winning.

In fact, in the words of Admiral Mullen: Time is not on our side.

Yet today, the President of the United States came out, after meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister, and basically said he is--after his spokesperson said he is going to take weeks and weeks to make a decision, he came out and basically said there is not a sense of urgency; that the strategy that was developed in March was not the operative strategy, even though Admiral Mullen said the March strategy was the operative strategy, and all we need to do is fill in the resources and the strategy.

My question to my friend from South Carolina is, how do you account for this apparent contradiction or difference in view about the sense of urgency that exists in the conflict in Afghanistan?

Again, I also would ask my colleague, have we forgotten the lessons of history? We were there and we assisted the Afghans in driving out the Russians. Our assistance was critical. The Russians left and we left.

When we left, it left a vacuum that ended up with the fighting between warlords, and the Taliban filled the vacuum, the Taliban had an arrangement with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11--which we just commemorated--were able to be trained in Afghanistan.

I hope our memories are not so short that we are willing to risk a repetition of that kind of threat, which the President, during the campaign, seemed to recognize very accurately; called it the ``good war.'' He said it ``was a war we had to win,'' ``do what is necessary to win.''

Now I worry--I wonder if my colleague does--that every day we delay doing what we all know is necessary puts the lives of young Americans who are already there at risk and makes it a longer period of time before we can prevail.

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

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2375 and ask that it be made pending.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment would take $1.7 billion in earmarks and porkbarrel projects in this bill, 589 congressionally directed spending projects known by most Americans as earmarks, and instead redirect that money toward air traffic control modernization. Modernizing our outdated air traffic control system will positively impact all Americans, not just a favored few. It would decrease airport delays, improve the flow of commerce, and advance our Nation's air quality by reducing aircraft carbon emissions, unlike earmarks that only affect a small segment of our Nation's population and generally those Americans who happen to live in a State represented by a Senator who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

For example, the distinguished manager of the bill had secured more earmarks than any other Member--50 earmarks--including $2 million for a bike trail in Spokane--a bike trail. Right now, with the American people hurting all over America, we are going to spend an additional $2 million of their money for a bike trail, and $750,000 for a Freight Transportation Policy Institute. Madam President, $750,000 of my taxpayers' dollars is going to be spent in the State of Washington for a Freight Transportation Policy Institute.

Other earmarks in this bill include $500,000 for construction of a beach park promenade in Pascagoula, MS. According to Citizens Against Government Waste--an organization that has done incredible work on behalf of the taxpayers of America for many years--

The population of Pascagoula in 2008 was 23,609; if each

resident of the town paid $21.18 toward the beach park

promenade, federal taxpayers, most of whom are unlikely ever

to visit, would be off the hook.

That is the point. Most Americans will never benefit from these earmark projects, except for those who happen to ride bikes in Spokane, WA, or walk the beach of Pascagoula, MS.

Alternatively, all Americans are impacted daily by our Nation's air traffic control system. Every day Americans sit on a runway and miss meetings, children's soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air traffic control delays that could have been avoided if our Nation had a modernized air traffic control system.

Thousands of goods are delayed for delivery each day due to air traffic delays, which results in more than $40 billion of costs each year that are passed on to consumers, according to the Joint Economic Committee. The Government Accountability Office estimates that one in every four flights is delayed. In 2007, the aviation industry recorded the second worst year for delays, with 27 percent of all flights that year being delayed. When you look at places such as the Eastern corridor, it is far worse. Although air traffic overall was down in 2008, due in part to economic factors that led airlines to reduce service, there was no significant reduction in traffic at the most congested airports, such as those in the New York and New Jersey area. Congestion and delays at key airports cascade across the entire system. Moreover, according to the FAA, even if traffic is reduced, congestion at these key airports will not be significantly reduced without implementing a modernized air traffic control system.

The airlines have called our air traffic control system ``an outdated World War II radar'' system. The FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will transform the current ground-based radar air traffic control system to one that uses precision satellites; digital, networked communications; and an integrated weather system. Moving from a ground-based to a satellite-based system will enable more flights to occupy the same airspace, meaning the ontime performance improvements would be a reality with triple the aircraft capacity, according to the airlines.

However, the administration and Congress have not provided adequate funding toward air traffic control modernization and instead continue to fund billions of dollars of earmarks. The FAA estimates it will cost up to $42 billion to implement a modern air traffic control system. Congress only appropriated $188 million for air traffic control modernization in 2008 and $638 million in 2009. The bill before the Senate today only dedicates $358 million toward air traffic control modernization, but it dedicates $1.7 billion toward earmarks. Get that: $358 million toward air traffic control modernization, which will benefit all Americans; $1.7 billion in earmarks.

Instead of providing Americans with something they want, which is ontime airline departures and arrivals, Congress spent close to $1 trillion of taxpayers' hard-earned money on a stimulus bill that provided $500,000 to build a skate park in Rhode Island, $14 million for construction of an airport in an Alaskan town with only 167 residents that is 10 miles away from an airport, and millions to New York welfare recipients for the purchase of cell phones. Congress also spent close to $3 billion of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars on a Cash for Clunkers Program.

At some point, at some point--and it is beginning out there, my friends. I tell my colleagues, it is beginning. It is beginning with the tea parties; it is beginning with marches on Washington; it is beginning with the demonstrations and rallies all over America. It is out there. They are sick and tired of the corruption that exists in our Nation's Capital.

I noticed the other day there was another individual who was caught up in the Abramoff scandal going on trial. That is now 22 people who have either pled guilty or been found guilty over the Abramoff scandal on which I am happy to say the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and I worked. And guess what the scandal was all about. It was about earmarks. It was about porkbarrel projects. That is what that Abramoff scandal was about. That is why Duke Cunningham resides in Federal prison. That is why there are people under investigation, and there will be more indictments.

The American people are sick and tired of it. They are sick and tired of it. So we have to stop it and at least spend money on worthy projects that will impact all Americans.

Earlier this year, the President stated:

[E]armarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and

fraud, and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the 11th

hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order

to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given

legislator, rather than the public interest. There are times

where earmarks may be good on their own, but in the context

of a tight budget might not be our highest priority.

That is what the President of the United States says. Well, if the President of the United States is serious, he will veto this bill. He will veto the $1.7 billion in earmarks and porkbarrel projects that are in it. And he is right; earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste.

In 2001, the Senate passed the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill conference report that included an earmark for the Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center. That Discovery Center happened to be in Seattle, WA. I have a picture of it in the Chamber. The Discovery Center opened in 1998 but has seen decreased attendance year after year despite continued Federal earmarks.

As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote in 2003:

Container ships and fishing nets don't scream ``sex

appeal''. . . .

The Discovery Center procured $250,000 from an earmark sponsored by the Senator from Washington in the fiscal year 1998 Commerce-Justice- State appropriations bill, $3 million in the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill, and $475,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.

As a result of that earmark, the museum put out a press release. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that press release be printed in the Record.

The press release states:

Michael Bittner, Executive Director of the Odyssey Maritime

Discovery Center, today expressed appreciation to U.S.

Senator Patty Murray for securing $3 million for new

transportation educational initiatives, programs and exhibits

for Odyssey. ``Washington State is the most transportation

and trade dependent state in the nation. Odyssey is in a

unique position to educate our public and our children about

the need to enhance our transportation infrastructure so this

region can maintain and expand its status as the nation's

leading gateway to the Pacific Rim. . . . Senator Murray has

exceedingly well-served transportation and particularly this

region through this appropriation. I congratulate her and

thank her.''

In 1997, while seeking an earmark of $250,000 for the center, Senator Murray said:

The Center will establish an educational link between the

everyday maritime, fishing, trade, and environmental

activities that occur in the waters of Puget Sound and

Alaska, and the lessons students learn in the classroom.

Through high-tech and interactive exhibits, over 300,000

children and adults per year will discover that what happens

in our waters, on our coast lines, at our ports affects our

State's and Nation's economic livelihood.

Madam President, 300,000 people--children and adults--do not show up every year; 100,000 people do not show up every year; 50,000 people do not show up every year. Madam President, 30,000 people showed up in most years.

In January 2008, the Seattle Times reported:

The Port of Seattle wants to stop subsidizing the money-

losing Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center Museum, which owes

the Port $1.5 million in back rent and has received millions

more in taxpayer assistance.

The article also stated:

Odyssey, which bills itself as the nation's only

contemporary interactive maritime museum, has never hit its

attendance targets. At its inception, the facility on

Seattle's Pier 66 hoped to attract 300,000 visitors a year to

pay its rent and operating costs. Instead, it has attracted

fewer than 30,000 visitors most years. According to Odyssey's

most recent available tax form, the museum received revenues

of $262,000 in 2005 and had expenses of $1.6 million.

In fact, according to a February 2002 article in the Seattle Times, ``the Port authority agreed to help Odyssey by taking 30,000 free tickets a year in lieu of $21,000 in monthly payments'' for rent.

However, the article continued:

Fewer than 10,000 of the visitors used the free tickets

from the port.

The Discovery Center was not even able to attract visitors when the tickets were free. When the Port Commission terminated the museum's lease, a port spokeswoman stated:

It is finally acknowledging this museum isn't ever going to

succeed as currently structured.

So what did Americans' hard-earned dollars get for the $3 million earmark for ``educational initiatives, programs, and exhibits''? According to a 2003 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Spinner's Riddle, an informational scavenger hunt . . . At

each station [participants] had to answer exhibit-based

questions such as, ``In the Quiet Bay, what kind of worm is

listed?'' The answers helped solve the riddle: ``What time do

sharks like to go to the dentist?''

Also available due to taxpayer dollars:

A rack of orange survival suits kids can try on, a

simulator that lets you ``steer'' an 850-foot-long virtual

container ship. . . .

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

So despite $3 million of taxpayer money spent on these interactive exhibits, attendance continued to fall, and this past year the museum closed its doors except to host private parties such as in December when it hosted a fashion show. The invitation read:

This December, treat yourself to the Best of the Best . . .

the Mother of all Fashion Events. . . .

It went on to say that the museum was ``re-transformed with a massive stage and runway lighting and concert-quality sound you will feel the Glitz and Glamour of a Los Angeles Red Carpet Event.''

However, that was not the only earmark in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill that failed to perform.

Let me point out, at the time--at the time--I took to the floor and objected strenuously to this $3 million earmark. I objected strenuously to it on the grounds--I did not know it would fail--I am not surprised it would fail, but I was not surprised. Why in the world, why in the world--should my constituents in Arizona give $3 million to a museum that is going to fail?

It is supposed to be for much needed transportation projects. Drive around America and see whether we need to spend transportation money on a failed museum, or do we want to spend it on the things we need?

So that was not the only earmark in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill that failed to perform. Also tucked in--and I objected to it at the time--was ``$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted,'' according to the headline of an October 14, 2007, article in the Seattle Times. The article continued:

The Navy paid $4.5 million to build the boat. But months

before the hull ever touched the water, the Navy gave the

boat to the University of Washington.

If we want to give money directly to the University of Washington, my friends, let's give it to the University of Washington. But this was supposed to be for the U.S. Navy. And why did the Navy do that? Because the Navy strongly stated they did not want the boat to start with. Yet the Senator from Washington, in her wisdom, decided that the Navy needed that boat. It did not need the boat.

But months before the hull ever touched the water, the Navy

gave the boat to the University of Washington. The school

never found a use for it either. Why would the Navy waste

taxpayer dollars on a boat nobody wanted?

Earmarks were inserted into different bills to force the Navy and the Coast Guard to buy boats they didn't ask for--$17.65 million in all, $17.65 million in all for two boats that neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard wanted, and now one belongs to the University of Washington and the other belongs to a sheriff.

In fact, some of the boats were never even used, period. One boat was given to the University of Washington, which sold it to the Federal Government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association's National Marine Sanctuaries Program for a regional sanctuaries research program doing research all along the west coast. However, NOAA e-mailed my staff today and stated that this boat has been out of service since January, since there is no funding available to support a project on this boat.

According to a story that aired on PBS's ``Frontline,'' one of the Coast Guard boats was sold to the Alameda County Sheriff's Department and, according to a sheriff's deputy, ``We paid $1 for this boat, and I don't think we actually paid a dollar, but it was turned over to us.'' This is a $4.5 million boat that the Navy and Coast Guard did not want. These boats were constructed--$4.5 million for each--and neither one was ever used by the Coast Guard or the U.S. Navy.

These are just two examples of wasted taxpayer money spent on earmarks that were not necessary and not beneficial. Instead, Congress and the administration should refocus their efforts and priorities toward improving all Americans' lives by modernizing our air traffic control system.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment to take the $1.7 billion in earmarked funding toward the implementation of air traffic control modernization that will improve the lives of all Americans.

There are a lot more stories out there of these earmarks and porkbarrel projects that were inserted, such as the museum and these boats the Navy and Coast Guard never wanted, and we wasted $17.5 million.

The American people are rising. They did it over the weekend here in our Nation's Capital when tens of thousands

of them said: No more mortgaging our children's futures and no more of this earmarking, porkbarrel spending, which has spread corruption.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time do I have?

Madam President, the amendment would take $1.7 billion in this bill for the 589 congressionally directed spending projects, known by most Americans as earmarks, and redirect that money toward air traffic control modernization. Every day, Americans sit on a runway, miss meetings, children's soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air traffic delays that could have been avoided if our Nation had modernized the air traffic control system. The Government Accountability Office estimates that one in every four flights is delayed.

A major issue, though, here as important as modernization of the air traffic control system is this bill has 589 earmarked projects on it worth $1.7 billion when we are facing the highest deficits in the history of this country. Americans all over this country are rising and saying stop, stop this porkbarrel earmarking which breeds corruption in the Nation's Capitol.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

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