Floor Statements

Mr. President, there are a lot of things happening in the United States and the world today. There are many issues and challenges we face. Obviously, the issue of health care reform has dominated the news and our attention. We had a somewhat interesting joint session of Congress the night before last.

But there are also other issues facing the Congress and the Nation. One of them, of course, is our strategy in Afghanistan. My colleagues have been discussing and debating that, and we will, as has the President, continue to debate and discuss as the President makes some very tough decisions concerning Afghanistan.

I have the greatest respect and regard for my colleague and friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He and I are in agreement on many issues. It is very clear that Senator Levin wants a larger Afghan National Army. I have long maintained we need a larger Afghan Army. But I believe it is a false choice to try to grow the Afghan National Army while holding back on any additional U.S. combat troops.

I remind my colleagues that the lesson of Iraq, and the one General McChrystal wants to put into place in Afghanistan, is we do not get very far merely by putting individuals through a training course and releasing them into combat. As a matter of fact, when we examine the history, the very unhappy history of our engagement and involvement in Iraq, there was a time when the Iraqi Army was built up to a very large size--as I recall, around a couple hundred thousand--and then it basically collapsed, totally collapsed in the face of attacks from both Shia and Sunni extremists.

I think the buildup of the Afghan Army is an important component but remember, the lesson of Iraq was that our troops went out and fought and lived and spent 24/7 with the Iraqi military and gradually, over time, they became a far more capable fighting force and one of which all of us can be proud. It is mentorship at every level, including partnership in joint operations with U.S. forces, that will build a robust and capable Afghan military and pave the way for our eventual successful exit from Afghanistan. To do this

we need more U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan.

There is a lot more I would like to say about it, but there are vital areas that are controlled by the Taliban and its allies today. It will require U.S. military force to shape, clear, hold, and build in those areas. If we await the day when the Afghan National Army is increased in size and is capable of carrying out all these operations fully on its own, it may well be too late. We are reaching a decisive moment in Afghan history and our own. I believe the United States must commit the decisive force levels to bring about a significant change in the security environment in Afghanistan with the aim of seeing real change over the next 12 to 18 months.

This issue will continue to be an issue of mounting concern and importance to the American people. But I also want to point out, in the face of mounting reports of fraud and abuse carried out during the recent Afghan Presidential elections, I have real concerns about the integrity of the electoral process there. Yesterday, the Electoral Complaints Commission, a body backed by the United Nations, threw out votes from 83 polling stations across three provinces due to fraud. It also ordered recounts at hundreds of other polling stations and is due to examine irregularities in other areas of the country. These and other serious allegations of fraud undermine the perceived legitimacy of this election. I believe that perception is key to Afghan's political future. I believe we must urge the Electoral Complaints Commission to complete its work as soon as possible and to present a full report with its assessment of the fairness of the election in its entirety.

The Afghan people desire and deserve a fair electoral process and a leader who is elected legitimately. This election must be breakthrough for Afghanistan in terms of better governance, more competence, and less corruption. They have suffered from poor governance for far too long. We should desire no less and take the necessary steps to ensure that the government we are backing in Kabul is legitimate and has the support of the Afghan people and the international community.

I recall when it was fraud and an unfair election in Ukraine and the United States of America lent its weight and support of the then Orange Revolution and a free and fair election was held. We will wait until the electoral commissions issue their findings, but I am very concerned already about the information that we have concerning significant voter fraud. That may have called for a runoff election between President Karzai and his leading opponent, Abdullah Abdullah.

While all Americans take occasion today to commemorate the terrible attacks of 2001, each of us also has cause to reflect on some of the lessons our Nation learned in the wake of 9/11. Its often hard to think clearly about the days before those attacks, when the world seemed at once a safer and more distant place, and our country a superpower in a secure neighborhood. We saw before 9/11 that America had interests across the globe, and we believed that our actions must be motivated by the ideals that have made us great. Yet we also often assumed-- wrongly--that the volatility that spilled across distant shores would never wash over ours; that instability and repression in remote and obscure places was cause for tragedy but not for alarm.

We have learned a lot since that day. We have learned that history is often made in the very remote and obscure places that draw so little of our attention. We have learned that the degree of freedom and stability in other countries is connected to the security we enjoy at home. And we have learned that we must remain the authors of history, or face becoming its victims.

Today I would like to spend just a few moments discussing recent events in one of those places which, I would bet, seems like a peripheral concern to most Americans. Few of us wake up in the morning scouring the papers for the latest news from Lebanon, or follow the ins and outs of politics in Beirut. Yet in recent days we, have seen the portents of new political crisis in Lebanon and, while all of us must hope that it will be resolved easily and peacefully, we know from the history of that country that it very well may not be.

Yesterday, Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri stepped down, unable to form a national unity government some 2\1/1\ months after his election in June. After his moderate and relatively pro-Western party won the largest number of seats in the Lebanese parliament, Mr. Hariri proposed the formation of a broad based government that would even award a share of the cabinet posts to Hezbollah.

Yet Hezbollah has been intent on thwarting these efforts to form a cabinet.

Despite the fact that the Lebanese constitution confers on the President and Prime Minister the power to make cabinet appointments, and irrespective of Mr. Hariri's repeated attempts to form a government, talks have broken down over the demand by a Hezbollah- allied party that it retain the Telecommunications Ministry. This may appear to be a small and insignificant point of contention, and surely not one that would prompt an incoming Prime Minister to abandon his post, until we consider that Hezbollah badly wants to retain control over telecommunications and surveillance in Lebanon.

Hezbollah, of course, not only possesses a surveillance capacity and an independent communications and broadcasting system, but also retains vast weaponry befitting its status as an independent militia. Along with its Syrian and Iranian sponsors, Hezbollah continues to both exert influence outside the constitutional process and invite foreign meddling in Lebanese affairs.

I believe that the United States should take a strong stand in favor of respecting the outcome of the June democratic elections, and urge the parties in Lebanon to form a government in a manner that respects the constitutional process. Over the longer term, it is abundantly clear that there can be no durable peace in Lebanon, nor any long-term stability in the political process there, so long as Hezbollah continues to act freely as an armed, independent militia. According to some reports, Hezbollah remains today the best armed force in the country, better armed, indeed, than even the Lebanese Armed Forces. Such a situation invites further fighting at some point between Hezbollah and Israel and suggests that Hezbollah will continue to use its military power to induce cooperation with its demands at home. Sooner or later, one way or another, and as the U.N. Security Council has demanded, Hezbollah must be disarmed.

We should also make perfectly clear to Syria that better ties with the United States will require an end to its malign interference in its neighbor's affairs. The administration has made a major effort this year to reach out Syria, sending a number of delegations to Damascus and making clear that better ties with the U.S. are possible if Syria changes its ways. Yet we should recall that it has been just 4 years since Mr. Hariri emerged onto the political stage after his father, Rafik Hariri, was murdered in a bombing. Reports indicate that suicide bombers continue to cross the Syrian border into Iraq. And Syria maintains its hostility to Israel and its close ties to the government of Iran. We must be clear that there must be real change on these issues in order for Syria to enjoy significantly warmer relations with the United States.

Some Americans might reasonably ask why. Why should we care about the freedom and democratic aspirations of the Lebanese people? What matter is it of ours? Don't we have enough problems here at home, without spending our time and attention on the affairs of a small country far from our shores?

In answering this, I would return to the theme with which I set out these brief remarks. We have learned since the attacks of 9/11 that instability in such places is not often confined to its borders. In lands where repression and despair are rife, intolerance and extremism grows in the hearts of some, and violence in the minds of a few. In Lebanon, as in so many other places around the world, the population aspires to something better than to be pulled from side to side by a thuggish and cruel militia. The vast majority of the Lebanese people want only that which we here in America desire, the freedom and security to build, through their talents and industry, a better life for themselves and their children. As Americans, we must demonstrate that

we stand beside them in this hope. As we commemorate today the terrible acts of a small group dedicated to extinguishing this very ideal throughout the world, we should, I believe, rededicate ourselves and our policies to advancing this noble goal.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize and thank my colleague and friend from Florida, Mel Martinez, for his service to this country and to wish him luck in the years to come. I am proud and humbled to have had the chance to work with Mel over the last few years on some of the most difficult and trying issues of our time and I will miss his honesty, heart and dedication when he leaves the Senate this week.

While many of my Senate colleagues are familiar with Mel's inspiring personal story I feel that it is important for the American people to know that Mel Martinez's life has personified the American dream and teaches us what we can all accomplish through hard work, a love of God and country and true dedication to a higher cause. Mel came to the U.S. in the 1960s as a young Cuban immigrant and became the first Cuban- American to serve in a Presidential Cabinet, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and then the first Cuban-American U.S. Senator.

As a freshman Senator, Mel didn't shy away from the tough issues--he did not sit back and let others tackle the tough, controversial tasks-- he dove in head first. Personally, the most memorable example of Mel's courageous work is his support of comprehensive immigration reform.

The 2006 and 2007 immigration debates were difficult times in the U.S. Senate. We had both political parties and an American public divided on an issue that I still believe will define the future of our country for generations to come. For many, it would have been tempting to sit on the sidelines, take the safe votes, keep your head down and just wait for this one to pass, but not Mel Martinez. He took his strong personal convictions and put them in to action. We spent many hours together, working in a bipartisan fashion to try to reach an agreement that could be acceptable to both sides of the aisle and ensure the security of our Nation. Every day, Mel Martinez was in the trenches, on the floor, working to improve the bill, working to reach a bipartisan compromise and working for a better future for our country and our children.

I also had the pleasure of traveling with Mel to the Republic of Georgia where he met with Georgian leaders and spoke openly about the importance of United States support for freedom in all countries, both those distant and close to our shores. Mel spoke with conviction due to his early childhood spent in a country controlled by a repressive dictator.

Many in this Chamber will fondly recall Mel's leadership in the Senate and his work for the State of Florida. I will remember my friend, his courageous leadership on the tough issues and his willingness to put the future of our Nation before his own self interest.

Mr. President, today Congress returns from the August recess. Perhaps one of the most important issues of recent times affecting one-sixth of America's gross domestic product and rising to as much as one-fifth, the issue of health care and health care reform, will be front and center, including a highly unusual appearance tomorrow night before a joint session of Congress by the President. The last time such a joint session of Congress was called for, aside from the regular one, was by former President Bush concerning the events surrounding the attacks on the United States of 9/11.

During the recess, I had, similar to all my colleagues, a very busy schedule of meetings addressing various issues, including travel to Iraq and Afghanistan. That visit will be the subject of other statements on the floor. But in Arizona, I hosted townhall meetings with my constituents. I also attended meetings and forums with health care providers in Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida so I could, along with my colleagues, better understand America's thoughts and ideas on reforming our Nation's health care system. I have no doubt there is a peaceful revolution going on out in America. I have not seen, in the years I have been a Member of Congress, such anger and dissatisfaction with the way the Congress and we in Washington are doing business. We all know the President's approval numbers continue to fall.

The unruly and sometimes disruptive behavior at townhall meetings has been an exhibit of the anger and dissatisfaction Americans feel. I would like to make it clear that I think the townhall meetings should be conducted with respect. They should be conducted in a way that is an American tradition, that all Americans can be heard from as well as their elected representatives. But there is no doubt people attended townhall meetings that never before in their lives have been engaged in any debate in America. There is something going on out there. I certainly got the message. I hope the majority of my colleagues did as well.

It is more clear to me that we have to reform the way health care is provided, but we have to do it in the right way, without a government takeover of the health care system. The problem with health care is not the quality of health care. The problem with health care in America is the cost of health care and almost double-digit inflation that takes place annually which deprives more and more Americans of their ability to acquire and keep health insurance.

Among other places I visited recently, one of them was a place called M.D. Anderson, a cancer treatment facility in Houston, TX. There were patients there from 90 countries around the world. Why? Because it is the highest quality health care.

The fundamental difference we have here between those of us who want to reform health care to reduce the cost and maintain the quality is the argument from the President and the other side of the aisle that they want a government option. They refuse to address the issue of medical malpractice reform. They refuse to allow someone to go across State lines and acquire the health insurance of their choice, and they continue to allow practices to go on that breed fraud, abuse, and waste in Medicare, which are well documented to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

We must reform health care. We can't do it with a government solution that is advocated by the other side. That is why we have been unable to reach agreement--because we have two fundamental philosophical differences between ourselves and those who want to have a government option, who want to have greater and greater intervention in the health care system.

On the way over I read this:

Washington (AP)--A top senator is calling for fines of up

to $3,800 on families who fail to get medical insurance after

a health care overhaul goes into effect.

Do we want to do that to the American people, a $3,800 fine? That is why we also need to step back and examine the 600-page bill passed through the HELP Committee, without a financing provision, the 1,000 pages or so bill passed through the House before they left, and figure out what else we have added in this bill.

Why are Americans angry and upset? They are angry and upset because of this, because we spent $787 billion on the stimulus, which is $1.1 trillion with interest; $700 billion on TARP; $410 billion with 9,000 earmarks in it on the Omnibus appropriations bill; $3.5 trillion on the budget resolution; $83 billion to bail out the auto companies; $33 billion to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program; and a $1 to $2 trillion cost associated with the HELP Committee's plan that went through the HELP Committee, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which would not bend the curve, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

What have we gotten for all this? We have gone to 9.7 percent unemployment. We have gone to 9.7 percent unemployment in this country, after the President and all his economic advisers said that if we pass this stimulus bill, unemployment will be a maximum of 8 percent. As they say: You can look it up. It is now at 9.7 percent. The public debt is $11.7 trillion. Sometime in October, we are going to have to increase the Federal debt limit which is going to go beyond $12.1 trillion.

We are all responsible for what we say. In 2006, the current President spoke in opposition to raising the debt limit to $9 trillion saying:

Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today on

to the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a

debt problem and a failure of leadership.

That was from the then-Senator from Illinois, now President of the United States. Where did we go? Where did we go from 11 to 12 and now, of course, a few weeks ago, a small rounding error, the 10-year deficit was raised $7 to $9 trillion, just a $2 trillion rounding error. That is what the American people are worried about, the commission of generational theft on our children and grandchildren. No one in the administration has a plan for bringing the budget back into balance. I think the American people at least deserve it.

Yesterday the President spoke in front of union allies in a partisan, campaign-style speech, where he questioned the motives of those who raise concerns about too much government control over our health care economy and instead wrongly criticized our side for having no ideas of our own. We have plenty of ideas. None of them have been considered in the HELP Committee or by the Senate or by the House of Representatives. The HELP Committee bill was written only by the Democrats. There was no input from

this side of the aisle. Every meaningful amendment proposed was rejected, including malpractice reform. How can we possibly look the American people in the face and say: We are going to bring down the cost of health care without medical malpractice reform.

Ask any physician and they will tell you physicians are required to practice defensive medicine because of the fear of being sued. Unnecessary tests and procedures are performed time after time after time. I was in Miami at the Palmetto Hospital, a fine institution. I asked one of the surgeons: How can you afford your health insurance premiums? He said: We don't keep insurance anymore. We can't afford it. We will probably not get sued because they know we only have so much in assets.

Now we are putting physicians and care providers in a position where they basically cannot afford, nor can they get, malpractice insurance because the premiums are so high, and they are targets for the trial lawyers.

We have a number of alternatives. Most of them are market based. Most of them have to do with preserving the quality of health care yet bringing down the cost, which should be our goal. Why don't we have insurance reforms to improve access? That means someone can go across State lines. If a citizen of Arizona wants to go to North Dakota and get health insurance there, why can't they? Why can't that family do that? Why can't they? They cannot today.

Why is it we cannot reform medical malpractice? Let's have tax reforms. Let's have incentives to purchase insurance either in the form of tax credits for families in America or--or--why don't we give the same tax treatment to families that businesses get in the provision of health insurance? Why don't we have real competition in any State? Why don't we set up the risk pools that are necessary to ensure those who were previously uninsurable or for those with ``preexisting conditions''? Let's set up those risk pools. Yes, that will take some taxpayer dollars.

Why don't we allow the insurance companies to compete so they can provide insurance, so we can provide affordable and available health care to all Americans? Why don't we look at cost reductions? Why don't we look at incentives for wellness and fitness? One of the most famous corporations in America recently is Safeway. We have heard from their CEO. They reward people financially for wellness and fitness. And-- guess what--their costs for health care have gone down because there are incentives to do so.

Here is a small idea: Why don't we see what the school lunch program is in our local schools? Why don't we see what the physical education requirements are in our local school districts? Why don't parents do that? I was appalled, and I am sure my colleagues and all Americans were, to see recently there is one State in America where one-third of the population suffers from obesity. We know what obesity does to health care costs, not to mention the lives of individuals.

Why don't we also look at what has been tried and done before: an outcome treatment of patients. A patient has diabetes. You pay that provider for 6 months or a year or 2 years and say: OK, here is the amount of money, and if you keep that patient well, you will receive a reward at the end of that treatment period, rather than to pay for every single test and procedure.

My friends, there are cases of abuse of Medicare that stretch into the hundreds of billions of dollars. We have to go after these people who abuse health care, Medicare, and Medicaid.

And a practical question: Suppose we adopted what passed through the HELP Committee and through the House. There are dramatic increases in State Medicaid payments. What States can afford the additional burden of Medicaid that is envisioned by this legislation? Not many. Not many, my friends.

So we do have legitimate, workable, doable, viable alternatives to the government option. When the President of the United States stands up and says we do not, he either is not paying attention to what we are saying--which has been one of the big problems with this debate--or he willfully ignores the fact there are solutions we can move forward with to reduce health care costs in America and preserve the quality.

I wish to make a comment about the so-called co-op approach. My friends, you can call it the government option. You can call it a co- op. You can call it a banana. But the fact is, it is government intervention into the free marketplace, which will lead to crowding out, which over time will lead to government control of health care in America.

A co-op can exist today. They do not have to wait for legislation. They can exist today. Yet very few do. If there was a pressing need for more co-ops, wouldn't more of them have been created? Under the co-op approach, the Federal Government would design, fund, and foster their creation. But let's not kid ourselves. Creating a new, massive government plan designed in Washington is still Washington involvement in health care. And if we did not learn any lessons from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac co-ops, nobody has been paying attention.

Let me talk about the ``trigger'' for a second. The trigger in the bill would implement the public option only if private insurance companies failed to meet certain benchmarks, such as lowering overall health spending or shrinking the number of the uninsured.

The Wall Street Journal stated yesterday:

Liberals should love the idea because a trigger isn't a

substantive concession; it merely ensures that the public

option will arrive eventually, instead of immediately.

Democrats will tweak the tests so that private insurers can't

possibly meet them, mainly by imposing new regulations and

other costly burdens.

Additionally, this trigger appears to blatantly and patently violate the Constitution's delegation of lawmaking powers to Congress and not the executive branch. We must decide whether to implement a ``government option'' or not. I vote to not do so and oppose any suggestion that abdicates my duties as a lawmaker and allows the executive branch to create a ``government option'' based on a trigger.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal column entitled ``Whoa, Trigger''--a good name--be printed in the Record.

So, Mr. President, let me summarize. I come back from this recess--and I see my colleague also from Arizona in the Chamber-- both of us come back, as a lot of my colleagues do, in the face of extreme unease, anger, and frustration on the part of the American people, not just over the issue of health care but over the issue, as I pointed out, of this massive spending and debt and deficit we have laid on future generations of Americans.

They want us to act in their interests. So wouldn't it be appropriate for the President, tomorrow night, if I may be so bold, to say: My friends and colleagues, the citizens have spoken. They want us to sit down together, and they want us to do what is doable. They want us to fix this cost escalation of health care in America, which is making it less and less affordable to all Americans. But the message we have gotten is, they are very skeptical about ``government-run health care'' or a ``government option.''

When the President says: If you like your health insurance policy, you can keep it, that is not true either. It is not true either. Because if you had a government option, and it looked more attractive to your employer, and your employer decided to select the government option rather than the health insurance policy you now have, then you cannot keep it. So it is simply not true that under the government option, if you like your health insurance policy, you can keep it.

But the real point is, why don't we sit down--which we did not do; we did not do that at the beginning of this process--why don't we sit down with the smartest people on both sides of the aisle and say: OK, what can we get gone? What can we get done here together and go to the American people and say we are going to make significant progress in eliminating this problem of out-of-control costs in health care in America.

I recall when I first came to the Congress of the United States--and it was pretty partisan then--Ronald Reagan had only been elected a couple years before that time, and Social Security was about to go broke. Social Security was going broke, and two old Irishmen--Tip O'Neill, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, and the conservative from California--sat down together and said: OK, we are going to sit together. We are going to fix Social Security. And they did. There American people were not only proud and grateful but they benefited.

Let's go back to square one. Let's sit down together and get this issue resolved.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kyl amendment. I remind my colleagues how this all happened. In June, the House ``air dropped'' $1 billion for a Cash for Clunkers Program into a conference report, which had nothing to do with clunkers, accompanying a $105 billion war supplemental spending bill and sent it over to the Senate. Despite the fact that my colleagues on the other side had advocated a new rule in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in 2007 to allow a procedural vote to strip air drops from conference bills, when such a vote was presented, it was voted to keep this clunker of a provision.

I hope one of my colleagues will propose a ``cash for golf clubs'' proposal. I have had many calls from people who have old golf clubs, and they would like to have cash for them. We know that it is an important national sport and it is an important part of our economy. I hope we will be taking up a ``cash for golf clubs'' provision pretty soon.

We are spending $3 billion to subsidize car purchases, some of them from automotive companies we own. We own Chrysler and General Motors. We own them, and we are going to give them money. So maybe it will come back to us.

The Wall Street Journal editorializes:

This is crackpot economics. The subsidy won't add to net

national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one

taxpayer's pocket from somebody else's, and merely pays that

taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return

for something he might have bought anyway.

Here we had it stuck into a supplemental appropriations bill that had nothing to do with automobiles. So now we find that people like free money. They like free money. Yes, we all like free money. So the program has gone out of control.

We have no idea, as Senator Kyl has said, how much money is being spent, how much is being obligated. So rather than stop and see what the story is here, let's spend $2 billion more. At some point, this kind of thing has to stop. The national debt has climbed to $11.6 trillion. If we are under the impression--if anybody is under the impression--it is going to be taken out of the stimulus package, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the House 2 days ago said: Don't worry, we will add an additional $2 billion. Don't worry, it would not be taken out of the program that the money is there for; that money will be ``replenished.'' Do you know what replenishing means? It means $2 billion more of taxpayers' dollars. Everybody in Congress now is patting themselves on the back.

The program has also been a success, I might add, for foreign auto manufacturers. Four of the five top-selling cars in the program are made by foreign automakers, according to the Department of Transportation, and a success for Citibank that managed the voucher program, which has received $45 billion in Federal aid, and, yes, for the 184,000 Americans who have received up to $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car, except for the other 290-some million who will not take advantage of this program who will be paying the bill.

I urge adoption of the Kyl amendment. At least we should pause and see where we are.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be divided equally on both sides.

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

Mr. President, what are the proceedings under the unanimous consent agreement?

Following that, there would be a vote on two amendments; is that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second rollcall vote be vitiated and replaced by a voice vote.

Mr. President, this vote will be on amendment No. 1912. The amendment eliminates, as recommended by the President of the United States, the USDA Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, also known as the Small Watershed Program.

This program is the perfect example of how reckless earmarking can devastate a well-intentioned government program. Like the previous four Presidents' budgets, this administration has proposed to terminate this account--four previous Presidents--because ``Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria, such as cost-effectiveness.''

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Small Watershed Program was 97 percent earmarked in fiscal year 2009, which severely marginalized the ability of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to evaluate and prioritize projects.

A 2003 Office of Management and Budget study showed this program has a lower economic return than any other Federal flood prevention program, including those in the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The onslaught of earmarks over the years has most certainly contributed to the current backlog of about 300 unfunded authorized small watershed projects, totaling $1.2 billion.

As was originally intended, the Small Watershed Program may be a worthwhile program, but by inundating it with so-called ``congressionally designated projects,'' the program is challenged to function properly to the point where four previous Presidents have recommended its termination. Nevertheless, the Appropriations Committee hasn't given up on plundering it just yet. The bill provides $24.3 million for this program, including $16.5 million in earmarks for various unauthorized projects.

I urge my colleagues to support the President's recommendation. Again, I will quote from the President's recommendation--the President of the United States:

The administration proposes to terminate the Watershed and

Flood Prevention Operations Program. The Congress has

earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years,

meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on

any merit-based criteria, such as cost-effectiveness.

So it goes on and on. Every analysis is that it has a lower economic return than any other program. Four Presidents have sought to eliminate it. We will probably lose this vote. But if there is ever a graphic example that once a program is established and once you fund it, it acquires a constituency and a powerful special interest and that funding continues on and on--we are proving, and we will continue to prove as we go through the appropriations bills, that there is no program that, once it exists, is going to be eliminated by this body, and that the appropriators continue to defy not only the President of the United States but logic and good sense as we amass deficits of monumental proportions which are mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's futures.

We cannot even stop a program the President wants terminated, that has no value, that the Office of Management and Budget and any objective observer will say deserves termination. It

is only $24.3 million, but the appropriators will join and jawbone others, and we will lose this vote, the same way we lost a vote yesterday that, again, had been recommended for termination by the President of the United States.

I didn't come up with this. It wasn't my idea to terminate it, although I certainly do think we should. It was the idea of the President of the United States. It is also every objective observer's idea. We will prove that not only will we not eliminate that program, but we send the message to the country that this program--even though the President wants it terminated, even though it has a clear record of total inefficiency--we will continue to maintain.

Sooner or later, there will be more tea parties and more protests, and the American people are going to rise up and say: Stop it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great respect for Judge Sotomayor's qualifications that I come to the floor today to discuss her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee. As we all know, she is a former prosecutor, served as an attorney in private practice, and spent 12 years as an appellate court judge. She is an immensely qualified candidate. And, obviously, Judge Sotomayor's life story is inspiring and compelling.

As a child of Puerto Rican parents who did not speak English upon their arrival in New York, Judge Sotomayor took it upon herself to learn English and became an outstanding student. She graduated cum laude from Princeton University and later from Yale Law School. Judge Sotomayor herself stated that she is ``an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences.''

However, an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court. Those who suggest otherwise need to be reminded of Miguel Estrada. Mr. Estrada also was a supremely qualified candidate, and he, too, has an incredible life story. Miguel Estrada actually emigrated to the United States from Honduras as a teenager, understanding very little English. Yet he managed to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School magna cum laude before serving his country as a prosecutor and a lawyer at the Department of Justice. Later, he found success as a lawyer in private practice. However, Miguel Estrada, in spite of his qualifications and remarkable background, in spite of the fact that millions of Latinos would have taken great pride in his confirmation, was filibustered by the Democrats seven times--most recently in 2003-- because many Democrats disagreed with Mr. Estrada's judicial philosophy. This was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a court of appeals nominee.

I supported Mr. Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, not because of his inspiring life story or impeccable qualifications but because his judicial philosophy was one of restraint. He was explicit in his writings and responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would not seek to legislate from the bench.

In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide ``advice and consent'' on a Supreme Court nominee. At that time, I stated that the qualifications I believed were essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament.

When I spoke of philosophy and judicial temperament, it is specifically how one seeks to interpret the law while serving on the bench. I believe a judge should seek to uphold all actions of Congress and State legislatures, unless they clearly violate a specific section of the Constitution, and refrain from interpreting the law in a manner that creates law. While I believe Judge Sotomayor has many of these qualifications I outlined in 1987, I do not believe she shares my belief in judicial restraint.

When the Senate was considering Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Second Circuit in 1998, I reviewed her decisions and her academic writings. Her writings demonstrated that she does not subscribe to the philosophy that Federal judges should respect the limited nature of the judicial power under our Constitution. Judges who stray beyond their constitutional role believe judges somehow have a greater insight into the meaning of the broad principles of our Constitution than representatives who are elected by the people. These activist judges assume the Judiciary is a superlegislature of moral philosophers.

I know of no more profoundly antidemocratic attitude than that expressed by those who want judges to discover and enforce the ever- changing boundaries of a so-called ``living constitution.'' It demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds of our republican system of government. Regardless of one's success in academics and government service, an individual who does not appreciate the commonsense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench.

Although she attempted to walk back from her long public record of judicial activism during her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor cannot change her record. In a 1996 article in the Suffolk University Law Review, she stated:

A given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a

specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law

in a new direction.

This is exactly the view I disagree with. As a district court judge, her decisions too often strayed beyond legal norms. Several times this resulted in her decisions being overturned by the Second Circuit. She was reversed due to her reliance on foreign law rather than U.S. law. She was reversed because the Second Circuit found she exceeded her jurisdiction in deciding a case involving a State law claim. She was reversed for trying to impose a settlement in a dispute between businesses, and she was reversed for unnecessarily limiting the intellectual property rights of free-lance authors.

These are but a few examples that led me to vote against her nomination to the Second Circuit in 1998 because of her troubling record of being an activist judge who strayed beyond the rule of law. For this reason, I closely followed her confirmation hearing last month. During the hearing, she clearly stated, ``As a judge, I don't make law.''

While I applaud this statement, it does not reflect her record. As an appellate court judge, Judge Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court six times. In several of the reversals of Judge Sotomayor's Second Circuit opinions, the Supreme Court strongly criticized her decision and reasoning. In a seventh case, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling, noting that in her written opinion for the majority of the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor had ignored two prior Supreme Court decisions.

While I do not believe reversal by the Supreme Court is a disqualifying factor for being considered for the Federal bench, I do believe such cases must be studied in reviewing a nominee's record. Most recently, in 2008, the Supreme Court noted in an opinion overturning Judge Sotomayor that her decision ``flies in the face of the statutory language'' and chided the Second Circuit for extending a remedy that the court had ``consistently and repeatedly recognized for three decades forecloses such an extension here.''

Unfortunately, it appears from this case--Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp.--that Judge Sotomayor does not seek ``fidelity to the law'' as she pledged at her confirmation hearing. As legislators, we must enact laws. The courts must apply the law faithfully. The job of a judge is not to make law or ignore the law.

Further, in Lopez Torres v. N.Y. State Board of Education, the Supreme Court overturned Judge Sotomayor's decision that a State law allowing for the political parties to nominate State judges through a judicial district convention was unconstitutional because it did not give people, in her view, ``a fair shot.'' In overturning her decision, the Supreme Court took aim at her views on providing a ``fair shot'' to all interested persons, stating:

It is hardly a manageable constitutional question for

judges--especially for judges in our legal system, where

traditional electoral practice gives no hint of even the

existence, much less the content, of a constitutional

requirement for a ``fair shot'' at party nomination.

In her most recent and well-known reversal by the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously rejected Judge Sotomayor's reasoning and held that white firefighters who had passed a race neutral exam were eligible for promotion. Ricci v. DeStefano raised the bar considerably on overt discrimination against one racial group simply to undo the unintentionally racially skewed results of otherwise fair and objective employment procedures. Again, this case proves that Judge Sotomayor does not faithfully apply the law we legislators enact.

Again and again, Judge Sotomayor seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case, thereby substituting herself in the role of a legislator. Our Constitution is very clear in its delineation and disbursement of power. It solely tasks the Congress with creating law. It also clearly defines the appropriate role of the courts to ``extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.'' To protect the equal, but separate roles of all three branches of government, I cannot support activist judges that seek to legislate from the bench. I have not supported such nominees in the past, and I cannot support such a nominee to the highest court in the land.

When the people of Arizona sent me to Washington, I took an oath. I swore to uphold the Constitution. For millions of Americans, it is clear what the

Constitution means. The Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms to protect himself, his home, and his family. The Constitution protects our right to protest our government, speak freely and practice our religious beliefs.

The American people will be watching this week when the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor's nomination. She is a judge who has foresworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it prior to 2009. And should she engage in activist decisions that overturn the considered constitutional judgments of millions of Americans, if she uses her lifetime appointment on the bench as a perch to remake law in her own image of justice, I expect that Americans will hold us Senators accountable.

Judicial activism demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government. And, as I stated earlier, regardless of one's success in academics and in government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench. For this reason, and no other, I am unable to support Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

What time does the Senate intend to move back to consideration of the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture appropriations bill?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this time we return to the Agriculture appropriations bill that was pending before the Senate.

I thank the Chair.

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1910 which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I intend to have three amendments considered. I discussed with the majority leader and the Republican leader how we would proceed. So at this time, after I make a brief remark about amendment No. 1910, I will be calling up amendment No. 1912 and amendment No. 2030, both of which are at the desk.

Amendment No. 1910 eliminates, as suggested and recommended strongly by the President of the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grant Program. This is a $17.5 million subsidy designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas. This program was proposed for termination by the administration because it is duplicative of existing programs, including USDA's own Rural Utilities Service Loan Program.

Under the fiscal year 2010 budget, the Rural Utilities Service Program would provide $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayers. In comparison, providing $17.5 million in grants, as opposed to a loan, actually costs the taxpayer $17.5 million. Moreover, Senators should know there is $20 million in unobligated high energy cost grants still available from the previous year.

This is the submission to Congress, the budget of the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2010, by the Office of Management and Budget. Guess what. In there is a page that is titled ``Termination: High Energy Cost Grant, Department of Agriculture.'' It goes on to say:

The administration proposes to eliminate the High Energy

Cost Grants program because it is duplicative of and less

effective than the Rural Utilities Service's electric loan

program.

Those are not my words, those are the words of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who, at the direction of the President of the United States, prepared this document of certain programs that should be eliminated.

It goes on to say:

The 2010 budget proposes elimination of the duplicative

High Energy Cost Grants program in favor of electric loans,

which are more cost effective from the standpoint of the

taxpayer. Using loans to provide support is less expensive

than using grants because loans provide more support . . .

with fewer appropriated dollars. For example, the 2010 budget

provides for $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the

taxpayer. In comparison, providing $18 million in grants

costs the taxpayers $18 million. In addition, the funds for

High Energy Cost Grants have not been obligated in a timely

manner and $20 million in balances from previous year funding

are still available.

In other words, this amendment eliminates a duplicative, unnecessary program, according to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and at the President's request, he has sent over one of the programs they want eliminated. So somehow it ends up back in the appropriations bill.

It seems to me it is a pretty clear-cut case again that at some point we have to try to make some kinds of cost savings. I admit, as we are throwing around billions and trillions of dollars, as we do here lately, $17.5 million is probably not much money given the kind of behavior the Congress and the administration have been up to lately. I would still argue, though, to millions of Americans, including those in my home State of Arizona, $17.5 million--in the view of the administration and a clear argument, it is not a complicated issue-- should be eliminated.

I hope we will be able to vote on this amendment.

Amendment No. 1912 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1912 which is at the desk.

This amendment eliminates the U.S. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, also known as the Small Watersheds Program.

This program is a textbook example of how reckless earmarks can devastate a government program. Like the previous four Presidents' budgets, the administration proposes to terminate this account because Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit- based criteria such as cost effectiveness.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Small Watersheds Program was 97 percent earmarked in fiscal year 2009, which severely marginalized the USDA's ability to evaluate and prioritize projects. Earmarks may partly be to blame for the findings of a 2003 Office of Management and Budget study that showed this program has a lower economic return than any other Federal flood prevention program, including those in the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The onslaught of earmarks over the years has almost certainly contributed to the current backlog of about 300 unfunded authorized small watershed projects totaling $1.2 billion. As it was originally intended, the Small Watersheds Program may be a worthwhile program. I am sure we will hear a vigorous defense of this program. But by inundating it with so-called congressionally designated projects, the program is challenged to function properly to the point where the administration would rather see it gone.

Note this. Our friends on the Appropriations Committee have not given up on plundering it yet. This bill provides $24.3 million for this program, including $16.5 million in earmarks for projects such as $2 million for the Pocasset River in Rhode Island, which is not authorized; $1.5 million for Dunloup Creek in West Virginia, which is not authorized; and $1 million for the DuPage County Watershed in Illinois, which is not authorized, to name a few.

I refer back again to the Office of Management and Budget publication entitled ``Terminations, Reductions and Savings,'' where the administration proposes to terminate watershed and flood prevention operation programs. Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that agencies are unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria such as cost effectiveness.

So, again, these first two amendments, the President of the United States, the Office of Management and Budget, most any casual observer would argue need to be eliminated.

Amendment No. 2030 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2030, which is at the desk.

This amendment is very simple. It prohibits funding of the $250,0000 earmark for the Iowa Vitality Center at Iowa State University.

This earmark is a textbook example of how difficult it is to stop funding for

an earmark once it starts. According to the Web site of the earmark sponsor, since fiscal year 2001, the Iowa Vitality Center has received $2,579,000. For what? What is so vital about the Iowa Vitality Center that it has required over $2.5 million of scarce taxpayer funds?

Well, according to their own Web site, the purpose of the Iowa Community Vitality Center is to serve as a catalyst in fostering collaborative public-private partnerships among nonmetro community interests to stimulate vitality and address barriers to growth.

I am not making that up. I am not making it up. That is what the Web site says. Let me repeat. We spent $2.5 million. The purpose of the Iowa Community Vitality Center is to serve as a catalyst in fostering collaborative public-private partnerships among nonmetro community interests to stimulate vitality and address barriers to growth.

Is there anyone who has a clue as to what that means? I wanted to be clear. I am not questioning the merits of this program, but I am questioning the process. Why was this funding earmarked? If the Vitality Center is such a critical national priority at this time, why wasn't the funding authorized since 2001 or requested by the President in his budget submission?

The funding for the Vitality Center is often justified as helping communities ``plan strategically'' and as ``representing diverse interest across the state.'' However, the sponsors of the earmark neglect to explain why 10 years of strategic planning have been insufficient to accomplish this center's stated purpose.

Our current economic situation and our vital national security interest concerns require, now more than ever, that we prioritize our Federal spending. We need to prove to the American people that we are serious about changing the way we do business and we should start with ending the practice of earmarking. We need to put our national priorities first and eliminate unnecessary wasteful earmarks such as the Iowa Vitality Center.

The Agriculture appropriations bill for the year 2010 spends about $123 billion in direct and mandatory spending, an amount that is approximately $234 million above the administration's budget request. We debate this legislation in the shadow of the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill, the omnibus bill which doled out $108 billion for U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, as well as the infamous economic stimulus package which provided another $26.5 billion in agricultural spending. So 2009 is certainly a good year to be a U.S. Department of Agriculture program office.

I acknowledge that many of the programs funded by this are valid for providing important services to the agricultural community at large. I commend the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for reporting this bill in a timely manner. I agree we should ensure that our farmers stay out of the red and that some Federal involvement is necessary to assist low-income families under the nutrition programs.

Unfortunately, Congress once again has conformed to the practice of diverting precious taxpayer dollars into an array of special interest projects which have not been authorized or requested, and in the case of two of these, they have been requested to be terminated by the administration.

The committee report accompanying this bill contains 296 congressionally directed spending items, a fancy new term for ``earmarks,'' totaling over $220 million. None of these projects was requested by the administration. Many of them were not authorized or competitively bid in any way. No hearings were held to judge whether these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayer dollars. They are in this bill for one reason and one reason only--because of the prerogatives of a select few Members of the Senate to serve their own interests over those of the American taxpayer.

Let's take a look at some of the earmarks. Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill and its accompanying reports. There is $250,000 for gypsy moth research in New Jersey. Don't gypsy moths travel all over the country? Why just New Jersey? Over the past 10 years, the taxpayer has funded $42.8 million worth of gypsy moth research.

There is $500,000 for the hemlock woolly adelgid at the University of Tennessee. This is an aphid-like insect. That is a lot of money for that bug.

There is $235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada. I think a better term for this one is obnoxious. Over the past 10 years, over $15.4 million has been earmarked for Nevada noxious weed management.

There is $200,000 for cotton research at Texas Tech University. Congress subsidizes the industry, the cotton industry, to the tune of $3 billion a year.

There is $300,000 for floriculture at the University of Hawaii. Nearly $3.5 million has been earmarked for floriculture in the past 10 years.

There is $165,000 for the Maple Research Center at the University of Vermont. According to the center's director, Tim Perkins, Maple syrup science is a nose-and-mouth science. The technical term is organoleptic, which means you put it in your mouth and taste it, says Perkins. We get people who know the flavor of maple syrup, and off- flavors, and they try each one. Laboratory tests using gas chromatography provide a breakdown of the many compounds in the syrup, which supplements the tastebud approach. Since 1998, the University of Vermont Proctor Maple Research Center has received over $2.1 million in earmarks.

There is $75,000 for farm safety education for children in Iowa. Who better than a bureaucrat in Washington to teach a farmer's children to be safe. The 10-year total for earmarks for Iowa farm safety education--over $4.2 million.

There is $300,000 for shrimp aquaculture research at the University of Southern Mississippi Thad Cochran Marine Agricultural Center. Over the past 10 years, we have earmarked over $30.4 million on shrimp aquaculture research.

There is $1 million for potato research at Oregon State University. We have earmarked, over the past 10 years, $7.1 million for potato research.

There is $600,000 which is gobbled down by the National Wild Turkey Federation for projects in Nebraska, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Since fiscal year 2004, the National Wild Turkey Federation has received over $1.7 million in earmarks.

There is $265,000 for minimizing blackbird damage to sunflowers in North and South Dakota. This is an earmark ``regular'' for the Agriculture appropriations bill. Evidently the South Dakota sunflowers have a rather serious Alfred Hitchcock ``Birds'' problem. According to the USDA, blackbird management in North and South Dakota has received over $1.2 million over the past 5 years.

There is $200,000 for Washington State University to study goatgrass. Since 2003, $767,000 has been earmarked for goatgrass research.

There is $372,000 for the University of Pennsylvania to study dairy farm profitability. If you are relying on a federally mandated study to make your dairy farm profitable, you might want to find a new business plan, because nearly $3.8 million has been earmarked for dairy farm profitability over the last 10 years.

There is $288,000 for the Iowa Soybean Association. Since 2002, over $3.3 million has been earmarked for the Iowa Soybean Association. There is $1 million for Mormon cricket control in Nevada; the 10-year total for Mormon cricket control, nearly $13.7 million. There is $260,000 for wine grape research at Washington State University. According to Washington State University's own Web site, the wine industry generates $3 billion in their State, so we are going to pour another $260,000 into it. There is $350,000 for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture to support the ``specialty meats industry.'' Specialty meats industry? Since 2004, the Wisconsin specialty meats industry has received over $12.7 million in earmarks. There is $340,000 for the Center for Beef Excellence in Pennsylvania. According to their own press release, the center was established by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture just last year. At least we can agree that a $340,000 handout from Congress is quite a good start. Over $1 million has been earmarked to the Center for Beef Excellence since 2005. There is $450,000 for the University of Northern

Iowa to study agriculture-based lubricants. They have received over $3 million in the last 10 years.

It is not surprising that the largest earmark in this bill goes to Hawaii. The Aloha State bags $5 million to continue construction of an Agricultural Research Service center to study agricultural practices in the Pacific. As my colleagues might know, ARS construction is one of the most heavily earmarked accounts in government, so much so that the President's budget actually proposed zeroing out Agricultural Research Service center construction for fiscal year 2010 because ``Congress routinely earmarks small amounts of funding for [these projects] located throughout the nation. The result of scattering funding in this manner is that . . . few, if any, of the projects are able to reach the critical threshold of funding that would allow construction to begin. Funding construction over such a long time significantly increases the amount of money needed to fully complete these projects as well as postponing their completion for many years.''

So here we have a program that is earmarked so severely that it delays and drives up the cost of approved construction projects. Not only are we defiantly funding this Hawaiian facility, the bill provides a total of $47 million for a list of 15 of these facilities ranging from $4 million for a fruit lab in West Virginia to $2 million for an animal waste research facility in Kentucky.

Another amendment I have filed proposes striking the $50.7 million contained in this bill for USDA's Resource Conservation and Development Program, known as RC&D. The RC&D Program was created in 1962 to promote resource conservation through community-based conservation leadership councils. The RC&D councils have helped to leverage local funding for efforts such as soil mapping or erosion control for rural areas. The administration supports terminating this program because, in their own words:

After 47 years, the goal of the RC&D program has been

accomplished. These councils have developed sufficiently

strong state and local ties . . . and are now able to secure

funding for their continued operation without Federal

assistance. The program has been in operation for decades and

these councils have a proven track record of success, showing

that they have outlived the need for Federal funding.

A half-century-old program proposed for termination by this administration, yet retained by appropriators for its spoils.

I could go on for a long time.

This bill funds several other government programs that were proposed for termination in the President's budget. I filed amendments to strike these programs as well as zero out the ARS construction account. If successfully adopted, these amendments would save taxpayers over $144.5 million. As I have said throughout my comments, some of these programs may have merit and may be helpful to the designated communities. But considering our current budgetary crisis, it is inappropriate to include them in this year's agricultural spending bill, especially when they have been identified for termination or reduction.

I hope my colleagues will agree that we have higher spending priorities that are directly related to the purposes of this Agriculture bill. This bill is intended to address farmers, women, children, and rural communities with the greatest need and should not be used as a vehicle for piggybacking pet projects to get the support of special interest constituents.

It is no surprise that many of these earmarks are not included for practical purposes. I know many of my colleagues have spoken about the economic struggles of America's hard-working farmers and low-income families. The farmers and struggling families I know are tired of watching their hard-earned money go down the drain. I intend to fight every single unnecessary, unrequested, unauthorized earmark in this and every other appropriations bill.

I filed 313 amendments to this bill. The bulk of those amendments seek to strike the 296 earmarks, now humorously called ``congressionally directed spending items,'' in the committee report on this bill. I have now offered only three of these amendments. Let me assure my colleagues I have no problem with offering, debating, and voting on each and every one of the amendments I have filed. The time has come to end this practice.

This first amendment, which we may vote on today, I want to emphasize, eliminates, as recommended by the President and the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grants Program, a $17.5 million subsidy designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas. It was proposed for termination by the administration because it is duplicative of existing programs. Under the fiscal year 2010 budget, the rural utility service program would provide $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayers. Senators should know there is $20 million in unobligated high energy cost grants still available from last year.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

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

Madam President, this amendment eliminates the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grant Program which is a $17.5 million subsidy that is designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas.

The 2010 budget from the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget have recommended a number of programs be eliminated. Concerning this High Energy Cost Grant Program, it says:

The administration proposes to eliminate the High Energy

Cost Grant Program because it is duplicative of and less

effective than the Rural Utility Services Electric Loan

Program.

This recommendation by the administration to eliminate this program is because it is both duplicative and unnecessary and there is a $6.6 billion program in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayer.

I recommend we agree with the President of the United States and eliminate this unnecessary $17.5 million subsidy.

I yield.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk for a few minutes about the actions taken by the House of Representatives yesterday when they passed the Defense appropriations bill. It is not a small piece of legislation. It provides $636 billion for defense, and it avoided one veto fight by stripping out funding for advanced procurement of the F- 22 fighter jet, but it chose to ignore veto threats over funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the VH-71-- incredibly, the VH-71 Presidential helicopter. The House bill provides $560 million to continue pursuing an alternative engine and $485 million for continuation of the VH-71 helicopter. The VH-71 helicopter is the Presidential helicopter, which Secretary Gates has, I think very accurately, derided as one of the most outrageous examples of overspending for any system the Defense Department has ever acquired. The bill also provides $674 million for three C-17 cargo aircraft, not requested in the administration's budget. It has been determined time after time that there is no need for additional C-17 aircraft.

So what did they do in return for continuation of things like a Presidential helicopter that costs more than a 747 and all of these other porkbarrel projects? Well, the House bill reduces funding by $1.9 billion for our request for MRAPs--for MRAPs, the vehicles that are protecting young men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They reduce the number from what the administration thinks we need--5,244--to 2,000. It is remarkable.

But what I really wanted to talk about for a minute is the 1,100 earmarks totaling $2.8 billion. Of those, 540, totaling $1.3 billion, are slated to go to specific private companies without competition. Remarkable--$1.3 billion. You know, the bill may have language saying funding should be competed, but in reality it is not the case when a specific company is identified in report language.

Also incredibly, there are 70 earmarks in the bill for former clients of the PMA Group--the people whose offices have been raided and shut down. It is currently under investigation by both the Justice Department and the House ethics committee.

Concerning earmark reform, President Obama said:

Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose.

Earmarks that Members do seek must be aired on those Members'

web sites in advance, so the public and press can examine

them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must

be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where Members will

have to justify their expense to the taxpayer.

None of that has happened. The earmarks in the House fail woefully in meeting scrutiny at public hearings. As Representative Jeff Flake--a man of great courage and of incredible integrity--so rightfully pointed out when he addressed the earmarks in the bill:

These earmarks receive scant scrutiny by the House

Appropriations Committee. The committee's markup of the bill

lasted all of 18 minutes. Given the way this bill has been

earmarked, you'd never know that serious ethical questions

have been raised about this process. Simply put, Members of

Congress should not have the ability to award no-bid

contracts. Even worse, many times the recipients of these

earmarks are campaign contributors. The practice has created

an ethical cloud over Congress, and it needs to end.

Congressman Flake talked about the ethical cloud over Congress. We know about PMA. Every day, there is a new story about one of these earmarks. I would like to cite two quick examples.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article headlined ``nextgov,'' entitled ``Software company won earmarked funds for work on military health records,'' and the other article from Politico entitled ``Exclusive: Earmark critic steered cash to blimp research.''

Quoting from the first article:

Adara Networks, the company that is the subject of a

Defense Department employee's allegations that it received

important software code in advance of winning the sole-source

contract to provide hardware and software for a new military

electronic health record system, has only between 20 and 50

employees and revenues of $8 million a year. But the company

has powerful friends in Washington. Senator Thad Cochran . .

. inserted earmarks in the fiscal 2008 and 2009 Defense

appropriations measures funding work by Adara on Defense

health record systems. He also has a pending earmark for

Adara in the 2010 Defense appropriations bill.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Adara has

paid $240,000 in lobbying fees to Gage LLC, a consulting and

government affairs firm whose partners include former Senator

Conrad Burns, R-Montana. The firm is headed by Burns' former

Chief of Staff, Leo A. Giacometto. The bulk of the fees,

$160,000, went to Gage last year, making Adara one of the

company's biggest sources of revenue in 2008. The Adara

lobbying tab from Gage last year matched the fee paid to the

lobbying firm by VeriSign, an Internet security company that

had revenues of $255 million in the first quarter of this

year.

According to a database of Federal contract awards, Adara

won defense contracts valued at $7.2 million in 2007 and

$13.7 million in 2008. Cochran's earmarks steered $4 million

to Adara last year for work on what was described as a

``next-generation networking electronic medical records

project'' and $1.1 million in 2009 for the Strategic/Tactical

Resource Interoperability Kinetic Environment Project.

Cochran has sought $10 million in Adara funding for the

STRIKE project in 2010.

An internal e-mail NextGov obtained shows that the military

health system tapped Adara to provide software as well as

hardware for a new enterprise architecture, including a means

of exchanging data and a graphical user interface to view

medical records. In that e-mail, Major Frank Tucker, chief of

product development for the Defense Health Information

Management System at MHS, charged he was directed to provide

Adara with software source code and documentation, which he

viewed as unethical because this would give the company a leg

up in any competition. Tucker alleged Adara was awarded a

sole-source contract by the Military Health System, but did

not specify the contract's value.

There should be a full investigation of that.

Quoting from the Politico story:

Representative Pete Sessions, the chief of the Republicans'

campaign arm in the House, says on his Web site that earmarks

have become ``a symbol of a broken Washington to the American

people.'' Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6

million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company

whose president acknowledges having no experience in

government contracting, let alone in building blimps. What

the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former

Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than

$446,000 lobbying on its behalf.

But the company that received the earmarked funds, Jim G.

Ferguson & Associates, is based in the suburbs of Chicago,

with another office in San Antonio--nearly 300 miles from

Dallas. And while Sessions used a Dallas address for the

company when he submitted his earmark request to the House

Appropriations Committee last year, one of the two men who

control the company says that address is merely the home of

one of his close friends.

. . . Ferguson acknowledged that neither he nor his father

has a background in the defense or aviation industries, nor

any engineering or research expertise.

Finally, it goes on:

. . . more than half of the $1.6 million earmark was to go

toward research and engineering costs. The remainder was for

overhead and administrative costs.

This is the result--and there are myriad examples--of this earmarking which goes on and on in this year's Defense appropriations bill from the House, and there will be more from the Senate. There are 1,102 earmarks. We can't do that. We have to stop. The American people are very tired of it.

Let me remind my colleagues again about PMA, of which there are some 70 earmarks. The PMA Group was a DC lobbying firm with deep ties to Capitol Hill and a reputation for securing lucrative earmarks for its clients, especially defense earmarks. It boasted more than $15 million in revenue last year. PMA Group clients reportedly received $300 million in defense earmarks for fiscal year 2008 and $317 million for fiscal year 2009. PMA Group and its clients spread around a lot of campaign contributions in an attempt to curry favor with lawmakers. According to one report, the firm had been credited with $1.8 million in contributions since 2001, and that is just the members of the Defense Appropriations Committee.

Last November, the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided PMA's offices and the home of its founder, Paul Magliocchetti. According to news reports, prosecutors were initially focused on whether Mr. Magliocchetti used a Florida wine steward and a golf club executive as a front to funnel illegal donations to lawmakers. The Washington Post examined campaign contributions reportedly given by employees of the PMA Group and found listed in donor records ``several people who were not registered lobbyists and did not work for the lobbying firm,'' including a 75-year-old California man who had never even heard of the firm.

Since then the Department of Justice has raided the offices of a number of PMA clients and their business partners. One former PMA client is accused of giving kickbacks to an ex-Air Force contracting official. A Federal grand jury reportedly subpoenaed records from one U.S. Representative's congressional and campaign offices, and the FBI is interviewing his staffers.

It upsets my colleagues when I talk about corruption in earmarking. I know it is very painful. I do not question the integrity of any of my colleagues. But when something like this PMA situation goes on, the stories are myriad of this influence of special interests at a time where we have nearly 10 percent unemployment in the United States of America, people not able to stay in their homes, people not being able to keep their jobs. If it was ever unacceptable, which it always was, it certainly is unacceptable now.

At some point, the Defense appropriations bill will come to the floor of the Senate. If it is anything like the Defense appropriations bill the House of Representatives passed yesterday, we are going to have a long process because we have to bring this practice to an end.

During the campaign, the President of the United States said we would review every appropriation line by line and do away with those that were unnecessary and unwanted and a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. There is no greater opportunity than there is now.

I appreciate the President's involvement in ending production of the F-22, his involvement in saying the alternate engine is unsustainable for the F-35--continued billions of dollars of funding. But the earmarks are also billions of dollars of waste of the taxpayers' dollars. The earmarks are what bred corruption and the reason we have former Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. It has to be stopped. No contract should be allowed on a noncompetitive basis to be appropriated by the Congress of the United States.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Bond amendment No. 1904, which if enacted would add another $8.5 billion to the $1.8 trillion deficit we are accumulating this year.

As many of my colleagues will recall, when Congress considered the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act in 2005, the so-called SAFETEA Act, we included a section that required that $8.543 billion of unobligated contract authority be rescinded on September 30, 2009.

The question, obviously, would arise: Why would we do such a thing, authorize money but then say it will be rescinded or cancelled? It was done for one simple reason; that is, because of the size of the bill it would have been subject to a point of order because it exceeded the budget.

By the way, I would remind my colleagues this was a $223 billion bloated and earmarked highway bill. So apparently it is not sufficient, in the minds of some, that we at least honor a commitment we made, which would have canceled about $8.5 billion.

Please keep in mind it was a $223 billion piece of legislation. Please keep in mind that earlier this year we passed a $787 billion stimulus bill, that only 10 percent of the money has been spent, and only 1 percent of the $787 billion stimulus has been spent on highway and infrastructure projects.

So we know there are many billions of dollars more that will be spent on highway and infrastructure projects out of the stimulus bill that has not been spent. Yet that does not seem to be enough, we need to add another $8.5 billion.

I would point out that this amendment, the same amendment, was considered in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 15 and was defeated by a vote of 14 to 5.

Well, sometime we have to stop. You keep coming to the floor time after time and saying: At some point we have to consider our children and our grandchildren and the kind of debt they are inheriting. This is another $8.5 billion which was not budgeted, which will add to the burgeoning debt America is staggering under and at a time when we know that tens of billions of dollars additional will be spent on highway and infrastructure.

It is almost sad to see this because it began with gimmickry in order that the bill on the floor at that time would not be subjected to a budget point of order, knowing there would be an attempt at some point to restore it, which is now being made.

In 2005, we were accumulating deficits but unlike anything we have experienced in the last several months and since the economy cratered back in September of last year.

I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment. It is unnecessary, unneeded, and unwanted. Frankly, it is another sign that we don't understand how serious the deficit problem is, that we are accumulating the biggest deficit since World War II as a percentage of our gross national product.

I hope my colleagues will vote against the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Couldn't it also be traced to earmarks and porkbarrel and ``demonstration projects''? Couldn't it be traced to the fundamental fact that the 1982 highway bill included 10 demonstration projects totalling $386 million? The 1987 bill had 152 porkbarrel projects, totaling $1.4 billion. The 1991 bill had 538 locations with specific porkbarrel projects, totaling $6.1 billion. The 1998 highway bill had 1,850 earmark projects, totaling $9.3 billion, and then in 2005 had 5,634 earmark projects, totaling $21.6 billion. How can anybody who calls himself or herself a fiscal conservative stand by and allow this kind of thing to happen?

And what happens? There was $2.3 billion for landscaping enhancements along, of all places, the Ronald Reagan Freeway; $480,000 to rehabilitate a historic warehouse along the Erie Canal; $600,000 for the construction of horse-riding trails in Virginia; $2.5 million for the Daniel Boone Wilderness Trail Corridor; $400,000 to rehabilitate and redesign the Erie Canal Museum; $400,000 for a jogging, bicycle, and trolley trail in Columbus, GA. How in the world can those things be justified and then expect our constituents not to rise up?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Does the Senator know how much we are spending on highway and transportation projects in the stimulus, the $787 billion stimulus bill?

Does the ranking member know how much of that has been spent in dollars?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, as Senator Coburn has just mentioned, we released a report today examining how the highway trust fund receipts have been used for projects other than road and bridge construction and maintenance over the past 5 years. It relies heavily on the new GAO analysis that was performed at our request on how we prioritize, or fail to prioritize, our Nation's transportation spending.

Again, I remind my colleagues that the GAO concluded that, over the last 5 years alone, we spent $78 billion on projects other than road and bridge construction and maintenance. I will repeat that--$78 billion on projects other than the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges.

Where did it go? According to GAO, over $2 billion was spent on 5,547 projects for bike paths and pedestrian walkways. As one example, it identified a $878,000 project for a pedestrian and bicycle bridge for a Minnesota town of 847 people. I don't know what that works out to be, but it works out to roughly $1,000 per person. I would be interested to know how many inhabitants actually use that bridge. We all know about the ``bridge to nowhere''; perhaps this is a ``bridge for no one.'' Another $850 million went for 2,272 ``scenic beautification'' and landscaping projects around the country, and $84 million was spent on roadkill prevention, wildlife habitat connectivity, and highway runoff pollution mitigation projects. Yet another $84 million went to 398 pedestrian and bicyclist safety projects. I don't mean to diminish safety, but do we really need to spend Federal dollars for brochures like the one we cited in our report that encouraged bicyclists to ``make eye contact, smile, or wave to communicate with motorists. Courtesy and predictability are a key to safe cycling.'' Still another $28 million went to the transportation museums, and $215 million went to scenic or historic highway programs. The list goes on. I know Americans find these numbers as disturbing as I do. They should because they demonstrate that Congress is not focused on our Nation's transportation priorities.

We should not forget that 2 years ago, the I-35 West Bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed during rush hour, killing 13 and injuring 123 more of our fellow citizens. That tragedy exposed a nationwide problem of deficient bridges. According to the Department of Transportation, in 2008, of the Nation's 601,396 bridges, 151,394, or 25 percent, of our bridges were deficient. Over 71,000 of them had significant deterioration and reduced load-carrying capability, and almost 80,000 didn't meet current design standards. Yet we have been spending billions of dollars on bike paths, museums, landscaping, and roadkill-reduction programs.

Part and parcel of the problem, obviously, is the addiction to earmarks. As I mentioned before, the way the earmarks have grown, one of the standard arguments made by the earmarkers and porkbarrelers in Congress is that it has always been like this; we have always had congressional discretion because we know better than the bureaucrats where the taxpayers' money should go. Frankly, I agree that sometimes that is the case, if it competes with other programs, if it is scrutinized and authorized by the appropriate committees. But what we do is we earmark these porkbarrel projects, and many times--let's have a little straight talk, Mr. President--they are in return for campaign contributions, and we see corruption.

People are under investigation. Lobbyists' offices are being raided by the FBI. Again, I am not going to repeat what I said to the Senator from Oklahoma, but the 1982 highway bill had 10--count them--10 demonstration projects, and it was $386 million; in 1987, $1.4 billion; 1991, $6.1 billion; 1998, we get up to 1,850, totaling $9.3 billion; and 2005, 5,634 earmarked projects totaling $21.6 billion of American taxpayers' dollars. That is where we find the bypasses and the beautification projects and the trails. And all those are earmarked by specific Members of Congress. Meanwhile, we have 25 percent of our bridges that are deficient and 71,000 of them have significant deterioration and reduced load-carrying capability and 80,000 that do not meet current design standards.

What are we going to say to the taxpayers of America if, God forbid-- and I pray not--there is another bridge collapse? What do we say to them? That we took their tax dollars and built a museum instead of fixing their bridges and highways to ensure their safety?

Maybe--just maybe--if we had not spent $21.6 billion on earmarked projects, maybe some of that money, just maybe some of that money might have gone to fix the design problems on the bridge over the Mississippi. Maybe not. Maybe we didn't know. I am not making a judgment here. But it seems to me that sooner or later, if you earmark as much as $21.6 billion of the taxpayers' money for museums and bypasses and brochures, sooner or later the priority projects suffer.

Again, projects originally authorized under SAFETEA-LU, the 2005 highway bill, included $3.2 billion for landscaping enhancements along the Ronald Reagan Freeway. I have often wondered how often Ronald Reagan turns over in his grave. I bet he was spinning on that one. Mr. President, $480,000 to rehabilitate a historic warehouse along the Erie Canal; $600,000 for the construction of horse riding trails in Virginia. You will notice all these projects are earmarked to a specific locality. That is what, among other things, they have in common. There is $2.5 million for the Daniel Boone Wilderness Trail Corridor; $400,000 to rehabilitate and redesign the Erie Canal Museum; $400,000 for jogging, bicycle, and trolley trails in Columbus, GA. The list goes on and on.

No one thinks our Nation should be without flowers, ferries, bike paths, and boat museums. But today we have to make some choices about priorities and how we spend limited resources.

This has to be considered in the backdrop of this year a $1.8 trillion deficit, the largest in the history of this country since World War II. There is no end in sight. It is almost overwhelming, a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. But what is worse, there is no way out. No one knows of a plan to bring us to a balanced budget without fundamental reform of Medicare and Social Security. Here before us on health care reform, we see another trillion dollars piled on that.

When are we going to decide we cannot afford taxpayers' dollars to rehabilitate and redesign museums, for trails, for beautification and landscaping enhancements when we have other priorities on transportation that have to do with the safety of our citizens?

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his continued advocacy for the taxpayers of America. I thank him for all the efforts he makes. I regret that neither he nor I will be elected Miss Congeniality in the Senate again this year. But I also believe the American people are beginning to wake up, and they are beginning to get angry. We saw this in the tea parties that took place all over this country. I hear it and see it in response to my Twitters. Over 1 million people now follow my Twitters and my tweets. They are very interested in this. We are going to post all these. We are going to let the American people know where their dollars have gone.

I urge my colleagues, let's, for once, catch up with the American people and start becoming fiscally conservative. One of the best ways we can be careful stewards of their tax dollars is to make sure we place as our highest priority their safety as they travel the highways and cross the bridges of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, so I may make a unanimous consent request, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Introduction and Conclusion of a report entitled ``Out of Gas: Congress Raids the Highway Trust Fund for Pet Projects While Bridges and Roads Crumble'' by Senator Coburn and myself.

I thank my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside to call up amendment No. 1814 which is at the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It would prohibit funds from being spent on any of the hundreds of earmarks listed in the committee report that accompanies this bill--I emphasize, that are listed in the committee report, not part of the basic legislation. It would prohibit those funds from being spent on any of the hundreds of earmarks unless that project is specifically authorized.

As we all know, committee reports do not have the force of law. They are meant to serve as explanatory statements for what can often be complicated legislative bill text. Unfortunately, around here Appropriations Committee reports now are treated as

if they were law and are routinely loaded up with millions, if not billions, of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary, wasteful earmarks.

When Congress establishes its funding priorities, it should do so decisively, without cause for subjective interpretation or reference to material outside the bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. These funding priorities should have the binding force of law subject only to the President's veto power. Yet here we are again, with a committee report that contains 622 ``congressionally directed spending items''--that is a great name: congressionally directed spending items--totaling over $985 million. None of these projects were requested by the administration. Many of them were not authorized or competitively bid in any way. No hearing was held to judge whether these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayer dollars, and they are in the bill for one reason and one reason only: because of the self-serving prerogatives of a few select Members of the Senate, almost all of whom serve on the Appropriations Committee. Sadly, these Members chose to serve their own interests over those of the American taxpayer.

Earlier this year, in response to criticism about the number of earmarks in the Omnibus appropriations bill, one of the Senators stood on the floor and proclaimed:

Let me say this to all the chattering class that so much

focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments: The

American people don't really care.

If the American people don't really care, then on behalf of the American people, I suggest we remove some of the ``little, tiny, porky'' items that are listed in this report. Here are just a few:

There is $1 million for the Bayview Gas to Energy Project in Utah. My colleagues and people who pay attention to these processes will know that almost every one of these projects has a location. Again, usually they are located in the home State of a member of the Appropriations Committee. So $1 million for the Bayview Gas to Energy Project in Utah. I have never heard of the Bayview Gas to Energy Project. I have never heard a thing about it. I have never read about it. I am sure that maybe it is known in Utah, but I have no way of knowing whether it is a worthwhile project or not. The most important thing: Are there other gas to energy projects in other parts of the country? Maybe so. Maybe not. These are earmarked.

We have $500,000 for the Ben Franklin Technology Partners in Pennsylvania--the Ben Franklin Technology Partners in Pennsylvania. From the reading of that, I have not a clue, nor would anyone else know, what the Ben Franklin Technology Partners is all about.

We have $600,000 for biodiesel blending in Wisconsin; $1 million for the Black Hills State Heating and Cooling Plant in South Dakota; $250,000 for a gas heat pump cooperative training program in Nevada; $1.5 million for the genetic improvement of switchgrass, not in South Carolina but in Rhode Island; $1 million for a high-speed wind turbine noise model with suppression in Mississippi; $5 million for an offshore wind initiative in Maine; $2 million for the Algae Biofuels Research in Washington; $750,000 for the Algae to Ethanol Research and Evaluation in New Jersey; $1.2 million for the Alternative Energy School of the Future in Nevada--the Alternative Energy School of the Future. We have $6 million for the Hawaii Energy Sustainability Program, Hawaii; $6 million for the Hawaii Renewable Energy Development Venture, Hawaii; $2.25 million for the Montana Bioenergy Center of Excellence, Montana; $10 million for the Sustainable Energy Research Center in Mississippi.

My colleagues may get a little thread that runs through this: Mississippi, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, et cetera--it goes on and on.

We have $10 million for the Sustainable Energy Research Center, Mississippi; $450,000 for the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation in Vermont; $1.2 million for the Hydrogen Fuel Dispensing Station, West Virginia; $1.25 million for the Long Term Environmental and Economic Impacts of the Development of a Coal Liquefaction Sector in China, West Virginia; $1 million for the Alaska Climate Center, Alaska; $5 million for the Computing Capability, North Dakota; $1 million for the Performance Assessment Institute in Nevada; $1 million for the New School Green Building in New York.

It goes on and on. There are 22 pages worth, and my colleagues might be interested at some of the innovative names and may be interested in trying to find out what those projects are. You won't find an explanation in the report.

So let me be clear on one point. I don't question the merits of these projects. There is no way to find out what the merits are. Many of them may be very worthy of Federal funds. If that is the case, one should wonder, if they are national priorities in desperate need of scarce Federal funds, why they haven't been authorized by a congressional committee. Why haven't we had a single hearing to talk about the desperate need for a hydrogen fuel dispensing station in West Virginia? If genetically improved switchgrass was such an imperative at this time of economic crisis, why was the funding not requested by the administration?

I just wish to point out again, contrary to popular belief, contrary to what members of the Appropriations Committee will continue to tell us, earmarking funds in an appropriations bill is not the way the Congress has operated historically.

It is similar to any other evil--it has grown, grown, and grown larger every time, just about. After various scandals, it has leveled off or decreased some, but after the scandal dies down, the earmarks return. Yes, 9,000 of them were in the Omnibus appropriations bill and, of course, the stimulus package as well.

So there was a time when earmarks were nonexistent, or at least very rare. Guess what. We didn't have $1.8 trillion worth of deficit for the year. I am proud to have served in the House with a man by the name of Congressman William Natcher, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services. He prevented earmarks in his committee. I am sorry there are not more William Natchers still in the Congress of the United States.

Citizens Against Government Waste has tracked the growth of earmarks since 1991. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, in 1991, there were 546 earmarks, totaling $3.1 billion. In 2008, there were 11,106 earmarks, totaling $17.2 billion. That is an increase of 337 percent in 17 years.

Obviously, it is not pleasant for my colleagues from the Appropriations Committee, and it is not particularly pleasant for some of my other colleagues, for me to come down here to, day after day, year after year, fight against these earmarks and porkbarrel projects. The fact is, they have bred corruption. It wasn't inadequate disclosure requirements that led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for doling out $70 million to $80 million of taxpayers' funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question.

So here we are with a $1.8 trillion deficit and 22 pages of earmarks, most of which have a State earmark next to them so there is no competition, there is no revealing of the details of the project and, meanwhile, we have places being raided by the FBI around the country due to the allegations that criminal activity has taken place, which can be traced back to this earmark porkbarreling process.

I don't expect to win this vote, but I intend to keep up this fight until such time as the American people rise and demand that we exercise some kind of fiscal discipline. I will tell my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the reason why I think the chances are better and better, because they are having trouble staying in their homes, educating their kids, and the unemployment rate is now 9.5 percent and predicted to go higher.

The present President of the United States campaigned and said he would change the culture in Washington. One of my deep disappointments is that the President has not fulfilled his commitment to go line by line, item by item, in every appropriations bill and not allow this porkbarreling earmark practice to continue. The American people will not stand for it forever.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, do we have the yeas and nays?

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Is the Senator from Delaware waiting to speak?

I am glad to follow the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the violence that continues to plague our southern border region by Mexico's well-armed, well-financed, and very determined drug cartels.

Last weekend, I went to Yuma, AZ, and met with Border Patrol and Customs and other law enforcement agents who do such an outstanding job for our country.

By the way, the temperature was approximately 115 degrees, and our men and women, who are serving so well, were out there trying to secure our border and keep our country safe.

Despite the increased efforts of President Calderon to stamp out these bloodthirsty and vicious drug cartels, violence has increased dramatically, claiming over 6,000 lives in Mexico last year alone. The murderers carrying out these crimes are as violent and dangerous as any in the world. Many have extensive military training and carry out their illegal activities with sophisticated tactical weapons and no regard for human life.

Last week, the Washington Post reported that 12 Mexican Federal agents were murdered and left alongside a mountain road in retaliation for the arrest of the leader of the country's most violent drug cartel, La Familia. According to the article, this act represents ``the highest one-day death toll for Federal forces in the 3-year-old drug war.'' The article provides the deadly details of the violent attack, reporting:

The attacks began at dawn on Saturday . . . shortly after

the arrest of the right-hand man of La Familia founder

Nazario Moreno Gonzalez. After La Familia gunmen were

repelled in their attempt to free (the leader), they went

on what police described as a shooting rampage to

``avenge'' his capture. The attacks, in which convoys of

gunmen mounted surprise assaults on government positions

in eight cities, went on for 10 hours Saturday and

continued sporadically Sunday.

The bodies of these brave law enforcement officers were accompanied by a note promising future violence from La Familia if the Federal Government continues its law enforcement efforts. I remind my colleagues that this is the same drug cartel that, according to the Washington Post, ``announced its presence 2 years ago by rolling five decapitated heads into a dance hall.''

Earlier this month, two American citizens with dual citizenship were dragged out of their homes and shot several times in the head in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. The reason was that the victims, according to the Associated Press:

helped lead the town's approximately 2,000 inhabitants in

protest against a May 2 kidnapping. The residents refused to

pay the $1 million ransom kidnappers requested and

demonstrated in the Chihuahua state capital to demand

justice. Even after (the kidnapped victim) was released

unharmed a week later, the (town's) people continued to lead

marches demanding more law enforcement in the rural, isolated

corner of Chihuahua state. They also set up a committee to

report any suspicious activities in town to police, quickly

becoming an example for other Chihuahua communities.

Yesterday's Washington Post front-page story about these events states:

Chihuahua today is the emblem of a failed state, run by

incompetent authorities who have little ability to protect

the citizens.

The violence that has terrorized Mexican citizens continues to seep across the border, devastating families and crippling communities. In my hometown of Phoenix, there have been over 700 reported kidnappings in the past year. This has led to Phoenix being declared the ``kidnapping capital of the United States,'' second only to Mexico City in the world. In many cases, kidnap victims are intertwined with criminal elements of society, involved with illegal cross-border smuggling operations.

The police chief of Phoenix testified in April before the Senate's Homeland Security Committee that Phoenix is a transshipment point for illegal drugs and smuggled humans, both coming to Phoenix before being shipped to other points throughout the United States.

Immigrants illegally crossing the border with paid ``coyotes'' are treated like expendable cargo to be bought, sold, traded, or stolen. In many cases, the immigrants' families are ransomed for additional funds by bajadores, or takedown crews, to guarantee safe delivery of their loved ones.

As detailed in a Newsweek article from earlier this year:

Kidnap victims have been found bound and gagged, their

fingers smashed and their foreheads spattered with blood from

pistol whippings. When the bajadores abduct illegal

immigrants--hoping to extort more money from relatives--they

will sometimes kill someone off immediately to scare the

others. There was a case last year where they duct-taped the

mouth and nose of one individual and had the others watch

while he asphyxiated and defecated on himself.

These are not pleasant things. They are not pleasant things to describe. But they are going on right now as we speak.

Aside from the horrible toll these cartels extract from their victims and the victims' families, they also severely tax the resources of law enforcement agencies of border communities. The police chief of Phoenix also testified that the Phoenix police receive a kidnapping report almost every night, which can require the efforts of up to 60 officers to find, rescue, and protect kidnap victims.

Lest you believe these activities are limited to border communities, last year the bodies of five Mexican men were discovered bound, gagged, and electrocuted in Birmingham, AL, in an apparent hit by a Mexican cartel. In recent years, arrests of Mexican cartel members have occurred across the South, including Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia.

There is no sign that the number of these drug-related arrests will abate in the near future, which is why I support efforts to complete the proposed 700 miles of double-layer fence. But, as we have seen, fencing alone fails to take into account the realities of the southern border and should not be treated as a panacea. These criminal smuggling enterprises are very sophisticated and are not easily deterred, which is why we must work to truly secure our border, not merely fence it.

This past weekend, as I mentioned, I visited the border in Yuma, AZ, and witnessed the extraordinary lengths these cartels go to smuggle their goods across the border. One cartel spent upwards of $1 million using sophisticated GPS-directed drilling equipment to develop their tunnel far below the surface to move goods underneath fencing and out of sight of law enforcement agencies.

In Nogales, AZ, drug traffickers have used the city's sewer system to channel drugs across the border. Every other month tunnels are discovered underneath the border. Since 1990, 110 cross-border tunnels have been discovered. Twenty-four tunnels were discovered in 2008 alone.

Not to be deterred, our outstanding law enforcement officials have developed investigative strategies and tunnel detection equipment to locate and identify subterranean cross-border tunnels.

The latest, by the way, on the part of the drug cartels, is the use of ultralights. Ultralights now are being flown at extremely low altitude, loaded with drugs, across the Mexico-Arizona border and all across the border.

We must also increase personnel on the border to put an end to illegal immigration and protect our citizens from the drug cartel violence occurring in Mexico. For this reason, I was disappointed that the administration rejected Arizona Governor Brewer's request--and the requests of the Governors of California, New Mexico, and Texas--who also requested National Guard troops to bolster the Joint Counter- Narcotics Terrorism Task Force. But, as we know, the coyotes are aggressive and creative despite our efforts to secure the border with more personnel, more fencing, and more surveillance technology.

The United States must keep its focus on securing our southern border and doing all it can to assist President Calderon in his efforts against these violent drug cartels. The prosperity and success of Mexico is essential to the prosperity and success of our own country. We share a border, our economies are intertwined, and we are major trading partners with each other. The United States must show its support for our neighbor to the south and support the Mexican people and the Calderon administration in this fundamental struggle against lawlessness and corruption.

We have a big problem. We have a big problem with these drug cartels. The Mexican Government now has a problem. They just lost an election because the people of Mexico, many of them, believe these drugs are just going through Mexico, intended for the United States of America.

Violence is at an incredibly high level not only on the border but throughout the country of Mexico and, tragically, corruption reaches to very high levels in the government. We have the Merida Initiative. We are working with the Mexican Government. But there is no time like the present, in my view, because we need to not only enforce and increase our efforts on our side of the border but also work as closely as possible with the Mexican Government and people.

It is horrific what is taking place: beheadings of people, bodies hung from overpasses. These are amongst the most cruel and terrible people who inhabit this Earth. It is a lot about drugs. It is a lot about a $16-billion-a-year business, of drugs coming into the United States of America. That is how they can afford to spend easily $1 million to build a tunnel underneath the border between Yuma, AZ, and Mexico.

I know we have a lot of issues that are affecting the future of our country, including two wars, including relations with countries, including the Iranian situation, but I hope we can focus a lot of our attention on the problems that are bred on our border by the drug cartels and the human smuggling and the terrible mistreatment of people on both sides of the border as a result of that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the articles in the Washington Post and Newsweek be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.