Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to note, in the context of my remarks, the announcement yesterday that the deficit for the first 9 months of this year is now $1.1 trillion, headed for, at the end of this year, $1.8 trillion, perhaps the highest percentage of GDP in the history of this country outside of wartime. We are now in the process of adding amendment after amendment in the HELP Committee without any idea of the cost. As one of my colleagues who proposed a massive expansion of women's health care yesterday said in the committee: It is not the cost that is important; it is the cause. A remarkable approach to the fact that we are mortgaging our children and grandchildren's futures in a fashion which is the commission of generational theft.

Chairman Dodd received a new score on his bill last week by hiding the real cost of the bill. A few weeks ago, the preliminary cost was over $1 trillion. Now it is at $900 billion--same bill, just different numbers. On the one hand, we are told reform is urgent and, at the same time, they don't implement the bill for 4 years; conveniently, after the next Presidential election. Then they will tax employers with a job-killing employer health mandate, collect $52 billion from small employers, the engine that will take us out of our recession. Nobody disagrees about the role of small business in our economy. Then this latest proposal hides the cost of the additional hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicaid expansion.

The State of California is offering IOUs to pay their bills. They have a $26 billion deficit. We are going to increase Medicaid's burden on the States to the tune, in the case of California, of several more billion dollars. How are they going to pay for it? It is an impossible task.

I am told that is not about the cost, but it is about the cost. Just as the stimulus package was about the cost, just as the continued bailout of industries such as the automotive industry, banks, financial institutions and anybody who is ``too big to fail,'' when small business people all over America are closing their doors because they are too small to save.

For the first 9 months, the deficit is $1.1 trillion. That is $800 billion greater than the deficit recorded last year. The American people have a right to know what this health care bill will cost, what it will cost now and what it will cost our grandchildren.

The Washington Post today tells us how not to reform health care, in opposing the government insurance President Obama now says is so critical. According to today's Washington Post:

. . . it would be tragic if this issue were to drag down

health reform or make it impossible to secure Republican

votes. Restructuring the health-care system is risky enough

that Democrats would be wise not to try to accomplish it

entirely on their own.

I certainly hope my friends on the other side of the aisle pay attention to that comment. It has turned into a partisan effort, and it is too bad.

From today's Wall Street Journal, ``Democrats Hoodwinked the Health Lobby. Americans's health-care CEOs are being taken for a ride by Congress and their own lobbyists.''

It is a very interesting article by Kimberly Strassel.

The industry's calculation is that by cutting deals, it can

set the terms of its contributions to ``reform'' and even

wangle upsides. The insurers came first, promising to squeeze

$2 trillion in costs out of the system. Democrats are letting

Ms. Ignagni believe

that in return she will get a mandate to require all

Americans to carry insurance (which her members will supply)

and be spared a public option (which would decimate her

industry).

It goes on to talk about Mr. Tauzin who:

. . . came along pledging that drug makers would cough up $80

billion to narrow a gap in Medicare drug coverage. He's been

led to think that Washington will forgo its plans to allow

drug reimportation or give him a hand on generics.

The word is that the administration is now saying drug reimportation is not important, in exchange for this deal with Mr. Tauzin. How unsavory is that. Drug reimportation will save the American people $50 billion a year. It is a fact. PhRMA, the large prescription drug lobby--a very powerful one here in our Nation's capital--in return for saying they will save $80 billion, the administration in return will give up their support for what would save the American people $50 billion, when the $80 billion they are talking about is purely illusory, to say the least.

The Wall Street Journal article goes on to say:

Democrats have complemented their smiling encouragements

with behind-the-scene threats. After retaking the House in

2006, the party made clear that companies that did not hire

Democratic lobbyists would not get a hearing in Washington.

The ruling party is now seeing the fruits of its bullying.

These days a meeting of health-care lobbyists is better

described as a reunion of Senate finance Chairman Max

Baucus's former aides. Health-care lobbying has been turned

on its head: The new cabal of Democratic lobbyists does not

exist to protect the industry from Congress. It exists to

present Democratic ultimatums to business.

When Senate Republicans last month hosted a meeting to

discuss reform ideas, Mr. Baucus's office called in a block

of these Democratic lobbyists to deliver a message. ``They

said, 'Republicans are having this meeting and you need to

let all of your clients know if they have someone there, that

will be viewed as a hostile act,'' reported one attendee to

the Baucus caucus.

Interesting.

All these actions--the White House meetings, the strung-out

negotiations, the muzzling--have been taken with one aim: To

buy silence. President Barack Obama is committed to a public

option. Liberal Democrats intend to make the private sector

fund their plans. They figure by the time they drop a bill

that contains odius elements, it'll be too late for any

industry player--big or small--to cut a Harry & Louise ad.

Industry players this week got a glimpse of how they will

be treated. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman

dismissed the $80 billion drug deal, claiming it did not have

House support, and moreover that the White House ``told us

they are not bound to that agreement.''

The question is just how long it is going to take for

America's health-care CEOs to realize they are being taken

for a ride both by Congress and their own lobbyists.

Americans are wary enough about ObamaCare to maybe appreciate

some straight talk from corporate America. If only corporate

America can find the smarts to give it.

The debate and discussion continues in the House and the Senate. They still haven't found a way to pay for the health care reforms they want to make. It is still around a trillion dollars. We hear everything from a 10-cent tax on soft drinks to the employer benefit proposal which was so strongly derided and attacked during the last campaign. So far we are talking about laying another trillion or two of debt on the American people, in addition to the $1.8 trillion deficit we have already amassed this year.

Again, I urge colleagues and the administration to sit down in true negotiations, in bipartisan fashion together, and maybe we can solve this issue. We all know the quality of health care in America is the highest in the world. But the costs of health care in America and the inflation associated with it are something we must address so that health care is affordable and available to all Americans.

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

I call up amendment No. 1378 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona for this amendment.

Look, it is all about the fact that there has been no analysis, no assessment, no debate on the merits of using Federal funds for a municipal improvement project. I am sure Whitefish needs municipal improvement. So do cities and towns all over America. Why was Whitefish picked?

By the way, it might be of interest to taxpayers, Whitefish, according to my information, has a population of 5,849 people. This earmark equals $153.87 per inhabitant.

Cities all across America are operating out of inadequate facilities, including those in my own State. All we have asked for is to have these prioritized according to competition, assessment, and recommendations by agencies of government rather than inserted in the bill as an earmark and without any of that.

From the previous votes, we will probably lose on this one, but I want to tell my friend from Montana, sooner or later the American people are going to reject this kind of pork-barrel earmarking, $153.87 for every resident in Whitefish, which may be warranted--it may be warranted--but there is no assessment, there is no study, there is no rationale besides the fact that this was inserted in this bill without any scrutiny or authorization.

We should reject this kind of practice. This is an egregious example of it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the immediate consideration of amendment No. 1378.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, this amendment strikes an earmark of $39.7 million for an advanced training center in West Virginia, a training facility for U.S. Customs and border protection agents. The center features a range of training environments, facilities, et cetera. The administration requested and the committee approved $30.3 million to operate and equip the facility. While I have a problem with that, I do not intend for the amendment to affect the $30 million the administration requested to operate and equip the facility. This amendment is not about that.

The committee earmarked an additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish, and expand the Leadership Academy at the Center.

Let me be clear what the amendment does and does not do. It does not strike the requested funding for the training facility. It does strike an unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary earmark of nearly $40 million that was added to this bill at the direction of a senior Member of this body. I wish to make that perfectly clear. I am sure there will be opponents of this amendment but have no doubt: It does not affect the $30 million the administration requested. This is an additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish, and expand the Leadership Academy.

It might be of interest to our colleagues that today, at 9:23 a.m., the CBO is reporting that the year-to-date budget deficit tops a trillion dollars. We are considering a provision that adds an additional $39.7 million in light of the Congressional Budget Office monthly budget review. Its key points are, the Federal budget deficit is $1.1 trillion for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2009. Here we are with a bill loaded down with earmarks worth tens of millions of dollars on the very day that the deficit tops $1 trillion; in fact, it is $1.1 trillion. That is more than $800 billion greater than the deficit recorded through June 2008. Outlays are 21 percent or $457 billion higher than they were in the 9 months of 2008. Revenues have fallen by 18 percent, by some $346 billion. Outlays for unemployment benefits so far this year are more than 2.5 times what they were at this point last year. About half this increase is driven by a higher unemployment rate and half is driven by legislation expanding unemployment.

The estimated deficit reflects outlays of $147 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, recorded on a net present value basis, and spending of $83 billion in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Interest payments have declined 25.5 percent as a result of lower short-term interest rates.

So here we are looking at business as usual on the earmarks and appropriations bills. Meanwhile, the year-to-date budget deficit tops $1 trillion. Maybe it is approaching $2 trillion by the end of the year--an incredible burden to lay on future generations of Americans.

I am sure--I am sure--this amendment will probably lose. I am sure proponents of the Advanced Training Center's Leadership Academy in West Virginia will stoutly defend it, and its essential functions will be graphically described by the opponents of this amendment.

It is time we stopped. Isn't a $1.1 trillion deficit for the first 9 months of this year enough of a signal that maybe we ought to tighten our belts, that maybe we ought to stop adding $39.7 million to an already requested $30 million to operate and equip an advanced training center--a training facility that is located in the State of West Virginia? I understand that. Our thoughts and prayers go out for the senior Senator from West Virginia. We hope he regains his health soon. We hope he continues in his very effective membership and service in this body.

But the fact is, the committee--the committee--earmarked an additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish, and expand the Leadership Academy at the Center. Can't we delay expanding, equipping, and furnishing a leadership academy? Can't we do that? Probably not. Probably not. Probably not.

But as long as Americans are bearing this incredible burden--a burgeoning deficit we are laying on our children and our grandchildren--I and some others will be coming to this floor to try to point out it is time we got rid of things that are maybe even necessary but not vital to our Nation's future.

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

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his remarks. I would remind him that this amendment strikes $39.7 million which has been added to the $30 million that is already there for the center. The $39.7 million is described to equip, furnish, and expand a leadership academy at the center. So all the missions the Senator just described don't have anything to do with the additional $39.7 million. It does strike an unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary earmark. The administration didn't ask for the additional $39.7 million, nearly $40 million. No Member of Congress, regardless of position or seniority, should be able to spend $40 million on a pet project with no scrutiny, no hearing, and no competitive bidding process.

I will take the word of the Senator from West Virginia. This is important. If it is important, why didn't we have a hearing on it before the Homeland Security Committee? Why didn't we have some competition from other parts of America? Why didn't we have a request for it from the administration?

This is just another one of these egregious earmarks that may or may not have merit. We may actually need a leadership academy that needs to be equipped, furnished, and expanded in some place in West Virginia, but no one will ever know that because we have never undergone the scrutiny that should be required before we spend $40 million of the taxpayers' money.

I probably talked enough about this, and I would imagine that we will lose this amendment again. This is in the backdrop of a Federal budget which for the first 9 months of the fiscal year 2009--3 more months to go--is $1.1 trillion. It is estimated to be as high as $1.8 trillion. The last budget deficit that was anywhere near this in recent history was about $450 billion. We are looking at a deficit of massive proportions, and yet we have to pile on additional millions, tens of millions and even billions of dollars in projects that are of questionable value. They may even be valuable, but there has been no authorization, no request, no scrutiny, no competition. It is simply put into a bill in a process we call earmarking. That is not fair to the American taxpayers.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, if I could say, first of all, I would like to thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership on this issue. It is a privilege to serve on the HELP Committee with him, and his continued involvement in the ongoing discussion and debate about one- sixth of America's gross national product has been vital.

I thank my friend from Tennessee. Could I also pick up on what the Senator was just saying, that the majority leader criticized the Republican leader in the House who said America has the best health care system in the world. What the Republican leader in the House was saying was the obvious: America has the highest quality health care in the world. And as the Senator from Tennessee just mentioned, I was in Houston at M.D. Anderson with Republican leaders, the Senator from Kentucky and Senator Cornyn from Texas. There were people there from 90 countries around the world--90 countries, most of them wealthy people who could have gone anywhere in the world for health care.

But they went to the best place in the world, M.D. Anderson--one of the best, I would argue. We have some facilities in Arizona and probably in Tennessee that are of equal quality.

But is there any doubt, when people come from all over the world to the United States of America, that the highest quality health care is not in America? It is. The problem is, and I am afraid some of my colleagues do not get it, it is not the quality of health care, it is the affordability and the availability of health care.

Our effort has been to try to make health care affordable and available. The latest proposal of the Democrats is that it only covers 40 percent of the uninsured and costs trillions of dollars. So why not, I would ask my friend from Tennessee, why not let people go across State lines to get the insurance policy they want? Why could not a citizen of Arizona who does not like the insurance policies that are available there find one in Tennessee? Why not have meaningful malpractice reform? We all know where 10, 15, 20 percent, sometimes, of health care costs come from. They come from the practice of defensive medicine.

Everybody knows it. It is one of the elephants in the room. So, therefore, we do not have--and consistently in the HELP Committee, amendments that have been proposed by the Senator from Tennessee and me and others to reform medical malpractice have been voted down.

The State of California some years ago enacted meaningful and significant medical malpractice reform. Guess what. It has decreased health care costs. So we are not getting--and I say to my friend from Tennessee, I hope he agrees that we are going at the wrong problem. The problem is not the quality of health care. We want to keep the quality of health care. It is the cost and affordability of health care.

We have not gotten affordable and available health care for all Americans.

I totally agree. Could I mention, since the Senator from Tennessee and I are going up to another meeting in the HELP Committee, the Roll Call article this morning says:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday strongly urged

Finance Chairman Max Baucus to drop a proposal to tax health

benefits and stop chasing Republican votes on a massive

health care reform bill. Reid, whose leadership is considered

crucial if President Barack Obama is to deliver on his

promise of enacting health care reform this year, offered the

directive to Baucus through an intermediary after consulting

with Senate Democratic leaders during Tuesday morning's

regularly scheduled leadership meeting.

In other words, according to this article, any shred or semblance of bipartisanship is now out the window. So I think the Senator from Tennessee would agree with me. One of the very disappointing aspects of this whole debate is we have not changed the climate in Washington. Has there ever been, to the Senator's knowledge, a call to sit down at a table in a room with leading Republicans and Democrats and say: Hey, can't we work this out? What is your proposal? Here is ours. Can't we sit down and agree to save health care in America and preserve its quality and make it affordable and available? Way back in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill sat down together, they saved Social Security.

This is unfortunate that even the last shreds of attempts at bipartisanship are now gone. Now maybe it is because the 60th Democratic vote was sworn in yesterday. Maybe they figured they had the votes. Maybe they do. But anybody who alleges that this administration and the other side of the aisle are changing the climate in Washington, that is simply false.

I say to my friend, indeed. One of the issues I think we ought to continue to understand is one of the key elements of this debate is whether we will have the so-called government option. I know the Senator from Tennessee is going to talk about that. I think it is important for us to look overseas at other countries that are highly industrialized, highly sophisticated, strong economies, countries that have government-run health care.

To say the government option would be just another competitor clearly is not the case; otherwise, we would just have 1,501 new insurance companies in America. If you had the government option, it will lead to a government takeover of health care, and we ought to look at what other countries do.

I am sure the Senator from Tennessee knows this, but it is health care rationing and a level of health care that will not be acceptable in the United States of America. I say that with great respect to our friends in Canada, the British, and other countries that have government-run health care systems. I think that is going to be one of the two major issues: the government-run health care and the employee mandate. Those are what this health care debate will come down to.

It is of great concern, I know, to the Senator from Tennessee.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding that the Senate bill the Senator has described directs half of the emergency operations funds to only 10 States, and there are 50 States in America. But half of these emergency operations center funds--it doesn't make much geographic sense, if you look. Funds are directed at Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Montana, Washington, Rhode Island--East and West, all over the country. Maybe my friend from Wisconsin can describe what do they have in common, 9 of these 10 States have in common?

There is an additional question I have to my friend from Wisconsin. Isn't it true that the administration has requested that this entire program be canceled?

Yes.

Isn't it true that the Office of Management and Budget recommended this as one of the programs to be eliminated, as the President announced?

In other words, the administration believes we need emergency operations center funds because of the requirements of homeland security. But this process is so badly flawed that they want to go back to do away with this and go back to the merit and needs- based system, is that correct?

Will the Senator respond to one more question? So the Senator is not saying we do not need emergency operations centers in America? We would not be eliminating the need for emergency operations centers, let me be perfectly clear. But what he is saying is we need to eliminate them in this form, which does not give the highest and most needed priority to these emergency operations centers around the country?

In other words, we still have a threat to our Nation's security, but this is not the way to meet it. We can come up with a far better and more efficient way.

I would like to thank the Senator from Missouri not only for her comments about this particular issue but her dedication to reform, transparency, and to making sure the American taxpayers' dollars are wisely and appropriately spent. It has been a pleasure working with her on various reform issues. I would argue this may not be the last time the three of us are on the floor of the Senate.

When you look at the approval ratings of Congress, not just now but for a long time, we are not held in the highest of esteem, and sometimes for good reason. Sometimes for good reason. We have ongoing scandals concerning the use of public funds for earmarking and porkbarrel projects and rewards to Members of Congress that have caused them to be in Federal court and, indeed, even Members of Congress residing in Federal prison.

This is an important amendment because as the votes line up I think we will see--on both sides of the aisle--we will see members of the Appropriations Committee probably voting on the theory that if they lose one they will lose a number of other efforts to eliminate earmarks and porkbarrel spending.

I hope that would not be the case because this is particularly egregious, particularly egregious. This legislation which Senator Feingold's amendment is intended to cure is about homeland security, and to direct half of the emergency operations center funds to only 10 States obviously is a gross misuse of the taxpayers' dollars and could--and could--conceivably cause us not to fund emergency operations centers that are more badly needed and could then put our homeland security perhaps in some jeopardy, or certainly not ensuring our homeland security to the best and wisest expenditure of tax dollars.

Could I just remind my colleagues, last year's appropriators provided $35 million for the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program but earmarked $12.5 million of them. The Department of Homeland Security received 613 applications asking for $264 million for the purposes of the grant program to construct emergency operations centers.

There is clearly a need for this money in the States. It is unfortunate that many of the applicants were turned down by the Department because there was no money left because we had already spent half of it on earmarked projects which had no competition.

Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues, this is not a matter of whether we need emergency operations centers. It is simply a matter of whether we are going to wisely and appropriately use the taxpayers' dollars where it is most needed. There has been no screening, no authorization, no hearing held on this issue, and it was put in, obviously, in an appropriations bill in an inappropriate fashion.

So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin. I congratulate him on proposing this amendment.

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

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1406 to Amendment No. 1373

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I see it as 1404, which is to strike the Loran-C Program. It is at the desk. It could be 1406.

Pending me finding the right number, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Thanks to my crack staff, that amendment number is 1406. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. President, I would imagine that my colleagues remember that several months ago the President announced there would be a number of significant cuts in spending in order to try to bring unnecessary and wasteful programs under control. The President announced there would be some $41 billion saved over the next decade, and the administration, as part of its budget submission, recommended terminating or reducing 121 Federal programs that were estimated to save the taxpayers $41 billion over the next decade.

That announcement by the President was greeted with certainly applause and appreciation by most Americans since we are amassing multitrillion-dollar deficits. Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear these budget cuts the administration recommended terminating are not being terminated.

We have had votes already on at least two of them, and now we are about to talk about another one that would achieve a savings of some $36 million in 2010, and $190 million over 5 years, not a small amount of money, at least in the old days before we got into trillion-dollar and multitrillion-dollar deficits.

So what this amendment does is seek to strike the Loran-C Program. In the interest of full disclosure, Loran was around when I was in the Navy, so obviously it is a pretty old program. The President and the administration called it ``obsolete technology.'' I certainly agree.

The administration stated in its budget submission--and I have that somewhere--and I quote from it:

The Loran-C is a federally provided radio navigation system

for civil marine use in U.S. coastal areas. The Nation no

longer needs this system because the nationally supported

civilian Global Positioning System [known to us as GPS] has

replaced it with superior capabilities. As a result, Loran-C,

including recently technological enhancements, serves only

the remaining small group of longtime users. It no longer

serves any governmental function, and it is not capable as a

backup for GPS.

I want to point out again to my colleagues, that is not my view, and I will enumerate a number of governmental agencies that agree with that. But several Federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security, already have backup systems for their critical GPS applications, and the termination of Loran-C does not foreclose future development of a national backup system. It nearly stops the outflow of taxpayers' dollars to sustain a system that does not now and will not in its current state serve as a backup to GPS. That is pretty strong and pretty direct and pretty clear language.

Obviously, the administration is proposing to terminate the terrestrial-based, long-range radio navigation system, Loran-C, operated by the Coast Guard because it is obsolete technology.

Accounting for inflation, this will achieve a savings of $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over 5 years. Again, I point out this is one of 121 terminations or cuts the President of the United States announced the administration wanted done and, of course, many Americans believed they would be achieved. So far we haven't done one. I am sure we may, but we have not done one.

In 2005 numerous Federal agencies called for the termination of this program, as I mentioned earlier, including the Coast Guard; the Secretary of Defense; Secretary of Transportation, representing the Federal Aviation Administration; and the Secretary of Homeland Security, representing the Coast Guard.

All signed, in October 2005, a report that stated the Department of Defense has determined that Loran is no longer needed as a positioning, navigational, or timing aid for military users, and ``with respect to aviation, the FAA has determined that sufficient alternative navigation aids exist in the event of a loss of GPS-based services, and, therefore, Loran is not needed as a back-up navigation aid for aviation users.'' And, ``with respect to maritime safety, the United States Coast Guard has determined that sufficient back-ups are in place to support safe maritime navigation in the event of a loss of GPS-based services, and, therefore, Loran is not needed as a back-up navigational aid for maritime safety.''

It is not a new debate. Once programs come into being, they are almost impossible to kill, and we may not be able to kill this one. The votes so far have indicated there certainly is not a harboring of success. This is a GAO report, the U.S. Government General Accounting Office, dated September 18, 1981. The report States:

DOT, [Department of Transportation] should terminate

further Loran-C development and modernization exploit the

potential of the Navstar global position system, [i.e. GPS.]

Remarkable. 1981. So the report goes on--and I will not waste too much time going into it--but the GAO obviously found that the Coast Guard--

We have completed a follow-up review on our March 21, 1978

report. The report concluded that the Department of Defense's

DOD satellite-based Navstar GPS could be a national asset,

could replace many existing navigation systems at substantial

savings.

The report considered these systems, including the Department of Transportation's Loran-C system, to be unneeded by the early 1990s and cautioned against further investment in Loran-C. It also recommended that the Secretary of Transportation become more involved in the GPS program to ensure the timely availability of low-cost civil receivers. Obviously, we have low-cost civil receivers.

So beginning in 1981 and here we are 28 years later trying to terminate a program that literally every agency of government is trying to kill. But will we succeed? Again, the votes so far do not indicate that.

Yesterday there was an article by Mr. Walter Alarkon, which says.

Democrats ignore Obama's cuts. Congressional Democrats are

largely ignoring President Obama's $19.8 billion in budget

cuts. The President proposed axing dozens of programs that he

said were inefficient or ineffective, but Members of the

House Appropriations Committee are including the money for

them.

Over here on this side of the Capitol we are doing the same thing. The Associated Press:

Congress largely is ignoring Obama budget cuts. Lawmakers

have yet to deal with most controversial proposed cuts. Obama

proposed the cuts last month after what he promised would be

a line-by-line scrub of the Federal budget to counter

Republican charges that he is spending the country into too

much debt. The House has already rejected his effort to kill

a $400 million program that helps States with the costs of

incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants, and a homeland

security spending bill up for a House vote this week keeps in

place the World War II era Loran-C maritime navigation system

that Obama wanted to ax even though it has been rendered

obsolete by the modern global positioning system.

The homeland security measures also preserve $12 million

for bus systems--

That is the one that died, the amendment we tried to kill yesterday that died 51 to 47--

and $40 million in grants to local governments for emergency

operations centers.

That one was not approved today by a vote of 60 to 38.

All told, lawmakers in both parties--California Republicans

were the driving force in preserving the State Criminal Alien

Assistance Program--have combined to preserve more than $750

million worth of cuts suggested by Obama.

From Politico:

Democrats make show of budget cuts.

That was on June 23.

With growing public concern about the deficit and billions

still backed up in President Obama's economic recovery

program, just how do Democrats sell another 8 percent

increase in discretionary spending this summer? Some of the

terminations are less than advertised.

It goes on and on.

I applaud the President's commitment cutting some of these programs. I spoke out at the time when he said they would go line by line, when he said they would have budget cuts that were significant, that there would be billions of dollars saved in unwanted, unnecessary programs and spending. Why don't we in Congress get that message?

If we continue on this path--and we probably will; I have been around this body long enough to see where the votes are; the appropriators have the control here--I will strongly suggest that the President start vetoing some of these bills, something the previous administration should have done and the previous President should have done. I came to the floor and fought against these earmark pork-barrel projects in the last administration, just as I am with this one.

Yesterday I offered an amendment to strip funding for a program the administration had declared unnecessary and sought to terminate. The amendment was defeated, and only 12 Members of the President's party supported the amendment seeking to implement the administration's recommendation. When are we going to get serious about making tough choices around here?

I know there are other amendments in line. Let me sum up. This system is an aid to navigation for ships at sea and in rivers and lakes that long ago was replaced by something called GPS, the global positioning system. We have them in our cars. They are easily available to be bought at very low price at most any of our stores and outlets. I am sure one could draw a scenario where somehow all satellites fall from the sky and we are deprived of Loran-C, but that is sheer foolishness. If we don't kill this program, which was recommended to be terminated by GAO in September of 1981, it is pretty obvious we are not going to be able to reduce or terminate funding for any program, once it gets into production and once it gets its sponsors in the Congress.

I strongly recommend that my colleagues understand that we can't keep spending this kind of money. We just can't do it. We are laying a terrible burden on our children and grandchildren. This is some $36 million for next year, $190 million for the next 5 years. For anybody who has a rudimentary understanding of what GPS provides and how obsolete Loran-C is, it is willful ignorance.

I urge colleagues, let's, for a change, stand up for the American taxpayer. Let's stand up for the taxpayer and our children and grandchildren. In this era of $10 trillion debts and trillion-dollar- plus deficits, does $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over 5 years matter? I think it matters in that we ought to at least sometimes stop business as usual. People are not able to stay in their homes, not keeping jobs. Unemployment is at an all-time high. And we are going to waste another $36 million?

How many people could stay in their homes, how many people could we employ in small businesses, how many people could educate their kids with this $36 million for next year? There is something wrong here that we continue to spend like this, when America is going through the toughest recession in our history. Time after time we come to the floor and try to terminate obsolete programs. We try to stop the wasteful and unnecessary pork-barrel spending and earmarks. What do we get? We get majority votes against it.

Don't be surprised when the TEA parties get bigger around the country. Don't be surprised when more and more Americans register as Independents because they think both sides of the aisle are guilty. Don't be surprised when Americans in every way that they can express their extreme dissatisfaction with our spending habits and the corruption that exists as a result.

It is time we started standing up for the American people and not the special interests that are the sponsors of Loran-C and so many wasteful and unnecessary programs we continue to see increase in spending, when every other American family is having to tighten their belts and decrease spending, if they are able to spend at all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the distinguished chairman left out a couple of items. One, it will still cost an additional $18 million, if the program is terminated by January 4, 2010.

The interesting thing, when we read the bill on pages 75, 76, and 77, there is a list of caveats that have to be achieved in order for that to happen. How many times have I seen around here a determination made that they will terminate a program if the following criteria are met? The limitations in the bill are that termination will not adversely impact the safety of maritime navigation, the system is not needed as a backup to the GPS or any other Federal navigation, if the Commandant makes a certification. The Commandant doesn't have to make a certification. The Coast Guard has already said they don't want it. It needs no certification.

From the language of the bill:

Not later than 30 days after such certification pursuant to

subsection (b), the Commandant shall submit to the Committee

on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives

a report setting forth a proposed schedule for the phased

decommissioning of the Loran-C system infrastructure in the

event of the decommissioning of such infrastructure in

accordance with subsection (c).

If the Commandant makes the certification described in

subsection (b), the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting

through the Commandant of the Coast Guard, may,

notwithstanding any other provision of law, sell any real or

personal property under the administrative control of the

Coast Guard and used for the Loran system, by directing the

Administrator of General Services to sell such real and

personal property . . .

So after the completion of such activities, the unexpended balance shall be available for any other environmental compliance and restoration. Why not stop it now? Why not stop it now? Why spend an additional $18 million? Why open this? Since 1981, we have been trying to kill it. Why open it for an additional period of time when clearly this system needs to stop?

With all due respect to the Senator from Washington, let's stop it now. We can stop it now. We know it can be stopped now. We don't have to spend an additional $18 million on the program.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am sure the Senator understands from the budget of the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2010 that the Office of Management and Budget submitted to the Congress, it says the administration is proposing to terminate and achieve a savings of $36 million in 2010, and now the Senator from Washington is obviously contradicting what we were told by the administration, which is what we wanted.

How it could cost $18 million, as you say, to shut down seven sites, and not be allowed to sell off valuable assets, of course, is foolishness. Of course the government sells off assets that are extraneous assets all the time without the permission or the need to have legislation.

Is the Senator aware of that?

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the majority be preserved.

Mr. President, in the last few years, I have traveled all over this country talking to people about health care. After listening to countless Americans--including in two townhall meetings last week--I proposed in the past health care reforms that would have ensured health care coverage was more affordable, accessible, portable, and suitable for all American families.

Health reforms need to be consistent with our American values of freedom, choice, and limited government. The key to these reforms is to put our citizens in charge of their own health coverage. Rather than being stuck in a job because the job provides health care, or worse, losing health insurance if the economy causes you to lose your job, we need to change our system and allow Americans to obtain coverage options with a tax credit for policies not limited by State boundaries or government dictates.

Just this past week, I had the great good fortune to visit two of the finest health care institutions in this country. First, I spent time with hundreds of patients, doctors, nurses, and health care leaders at the world-renowned MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX. I heard from patients who had come to this center of excellence from 90 countries and States, including Arizona. Why do patients come to the United States of America from all over the world? It is because the highest quality health care is in the United States of America. And I repeat, the fundamentals of this discussion and debate sometimes go astray from the fact that the highest quality health care in the world is available in the United States of America. The key to it and our challenge is to make that health care available and affordable to all Americans. The path we are on will destroy the quality of that coverage and will, in fact, make health care the same as it is in other countries. The reason they leave there is to get high-quality health care in the United States of America. It is the best--our system-- because innovation and technology are allowed to flourish.

Later in the week, in my home State of Arizona, I visited one of the premier children's hospitals in the country. Phoenix Children's Hospital is a destination medical facility for children all around the Southwest and in the country. At Phoenix Children's Hospital, I also met with patients, physicians, nurses, medical executives, and average Arizonans. During this visit, not one health care provider in Phoenix told me they wanted more government control over health care. In fact, they told me the opposite. PCH has experience with Medicaid, and time after time I was told of the problems providers face every day with the government Medicaid Program. The program is a vital safety net for the low income, but we have to recognize the important lessons we have already learned about government running health care programs.

During these events, I was repeatedly told that we need reform. They also told me about the problems they face in the government-controlled Medicare and Medicaid Programs, both with massive unfunded liabilities. They want a stable system that keeps costs under control, gets everyone covered, pays fairly, encourages innovation, and maintains America's standing as providing the best health care in the world. But none of them told me we need more government control of health care or government-controlled health insurance.

I have listened to Americans. But I am worried they are not being heard here in Congress by those who control the agenda in the White House and the Senate. If President Obama and the Democratic leaders were listening, we would not have a bill before us that costs too much, taxes too much, covers too few, and puts government in control at every turn.

This country has fought for over 200 years for the fundamental values that I fear are being eroded by the other side's appetite for one-size- fits-all government control of one of our most cherished economic gems.

First, this administration takes over the banking industry. Then they take over the auto industry. Along the way, they tell us $787 billion in more and bigger government, along with $1.8 trillion of debt this year alone, is the answer to our ailing economy. Now they are telling the American people they were not aware of the economic situation and, guess what, they are going to want another stimulus package. I think that idea would be soundly rejected by the American people. And now they are telling the American people that we must rush to pass a new government health care plan that we cannot pay for, will increase taxes, and kill jobs. We are talking about one-sixth of the gross national product of America. And it is pretty obvious the other side wants to jam this through in the next 4 weeks. We should not do

that. They still have not come up with ways to pay for this grandiose takeover of the American health care system.

Americans are losing health care coverage every day. And it gets back to the issue of affordability, not quality. But the Democrats cannot produce legislation that responsibly makes coverage available to all Americans without trillions of dollars in new spending.

This weekend, after a 4-week delay, we finally received new provisions in their new government-run health care plans. Here is what we know about the legislation before us:

The Congressional Budget Office says the preliminary cost estimate for the new language they reviewed was nearly $900 billion in new spending. The other side says this is a cost reduction from an earlier version of the bill. Do not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors. After an inexplicable 4-year phase-in that delays several provisions in the Democratic bill in an effort to hide costs through accounting techniques, the bill will actually spend $1.5 trillion when it is fully implemented. And that is not counting the hundreds of billions of dollars in new Medicaid spending promised by that legislation.

CBO also tells us the HELP Committee bill still leaves over 30 million Americans without coverage. Mr. President, for all the spending being proposed, don't you think we should be covering more than 40 percent of the uninsured? When the final numbers come in, don't be surprised if the cost of this ``rush'' proposal is at or above $2 trillion. What is worse, the sponsors cannot tell us how we will pay for such a massive price tag.

My colleagues and I plan to continue talking to the American public. I suggest the other side in the Senate talk to all Americans about what they need rather than making these decisions for them.

Again, Mr. President, we cannot risk running through a legislative proposal in the next 4 to 5 weeks and be sure that we are not making serious and fundamental mistakes. And the serious and fundamental mistake is the approach to this legislation, which is, the quality of health care in America can and must be preserved; it is the cost that needs to be brought under control. We can bring those costs under control by innovative techniques, by competition, by allowing Americans to go all across America to get the health insurance of their choice-- the same way we have been able to reduce costs in other sectors of our economy, as technology has improved the quality of our lives.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

And the underlying legislation is the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 1400.

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

Mr. President, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill before us today spends $44.3 billion. It is $207.5 million--or 7 percent more than last year's appropriation and nearly $97 million more than the budget request. An increase of this size is remarkable. I need to remind my colleagues that Americans are hurting, they are losing their jobs and their homes at record rates, and here we are, business as usual, as was made very clear in the vote on the amendment that was defeated concerning a museum in Nebraska on another appropriations bill--a bill that was supposed to be for funding legislative business of the Congress. On this bill again, it is business as usual. The level of spending is wrong, and there are numerous unrequested, unauthorized earmarks which were added at the direction of members of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate.

Maybe we ought to take a look at them. This is the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, I would remind my colleagues, but we threw in $4 million for the Fort Madison Bridge in Fort Madison, WI. As always, there are earmarks and geographic locations delineated in the bill for these pork-barrel projects. There is $39.7 million for the Advanced Training Center in West Virginia and $3.6 million for the Coast Guard Operations Systems Center in West Virginia. That is a good place for Coast Guard operations, to say the least.

I wish to point out that none of these earmarks were authorized. None of them had a hearing. None of them were requested. In fact, three of them I will read about were included in the President's budget request in a report from the Office of Management and Budget entitled ``Terminations, Reductions, and Savings: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010,'' which was submitted by the Office of Management and Budget. In other words, the administration requested that these specific appropriations not be spent because of the fact they either are not needed or are outright wasteful spending of the taxpayers' dollars.

Continuing with the list of earmarks in this bill, we have another $16.8 million for the Coast Guard Station in Cleveland Harbor, OH, to demolish the existing facility and construct a new multipurpose building.

I wish to emphasize to my colleagues that these may be worthy projects. They may be. Generally, they aren't, but they may be. But there has been no hearing, there is no request on the part of the administration, there is no request from anybody except for the representative of that State.

Continuing: $4 million for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center; $102 million for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium--and that contains six earmarks: The National Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center in New Mexico, $23 million; National Center for Biomedical Research and Training at Louisiana State University, $23 million; National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center at Texas

A&M University, $23 million; National Exercise, Test, and Training Center in Nevada, $23 million; Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, CO, $5 million; and, of course, we never want to forget the Natural Disaster Preparedness Training Center at the University of Hawaii, $5 million.

There is $3 million for the Distributed Environment for Critical Infrastructure Decision-making Exercises. We need $3 million for the infrastructure decision-making exercises. Money is also set aside for the Cyber Security Consortium, which is a group of schools, including Miami University of Ohio, Utah State University, University of Nevada at Reno, and Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

A certain thread may become apparent throughout this conversation and that is that States which are generally getting most of this money happen to have representatives in the Senate on the Appropriations Committee.

There is $2 million for the Cincinnati Urban Area Partnership; $20.8 million for the Southeast Region Research Initiative; $300,000 for the City of Hackensack Emergency Operations Center. Emergency operations centers are very popular in this bill. But there was no competition for these emergency operation centers. They may be worthwhile, they may not. We will never know because they are earmarked by the Members and they range from $1 million to $20 million to $247,000. We have New Jersey, New Jersey, New Jersey; Washington State; Providence, RI; north Louisiana; Little Rock; Vermont; Columbus, OH; city of Ames; and the city of Mount Vernon.

There is $900,000 for the City of Whitefish Emergency Operations Center in Montana. And because we wouldn't want to leave them out, there is $1 million for the City of Chicago Emergency Operations Center.

None of these projects were requested by the administration or authorized or competitively bid in any way. No hearing was held to judge whether these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayers' dollars. They are in this bill for one reason and one reason only: because of the selective prerogatives of a few Members of the Senate. Sadly, these Members choose to serve their own interests over those of the American taxpayers.

I have filed, and intend to offer, amendments to strike each and every one of these earmarks. Enough is enough. The American people are tired of this process, and they are tired of watching their hard-earned money go down the drain. I intend to fight every single unnecessary, unrequested, unauthorized earmark in every appropriations bill.

In addition to the earmarks I covered, this bill includes millions of dollars for programs that the administration has sought to cut due to the program's ineffectiveness or lack of necessity. The amendment I propose has as an example: The Over-the-road Bus Security Program. The administration proposed in its 2010 budget to eliminate the Over-the- Road Bus Security Program since the awards are not based on risk, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and has not been assessed as effective. Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget stated:

Recently, the funding (for this program) has gone to

private sector entities for business investments in GPS-type

tracking systems that they could be making without Federal

funding. For now, this program should be eliminated in favor

of funding initiatives aimed at mitigated verified transit

threats.

Again, in the Office of Management and Budget submission the administration says:

The Government Accountability Office has recommended that

TSA conduct an in-depth risk analysis of the commercial

vehicle sector before more funding is allocated.

For now, this program should be eliminated in favor of

funding initiatives aimed at mitigating verified transit

threats. Funding for the intercity bus industry should be

included in the larger Public Rail/Transit Security Grant

program and prioritized against all transit-related security

investments.

But it is not. Here, on the one hand, we have the President announce with great fanfare a group of reductions and terminations and savings that the administration is going to make and is strongly urging be done. Here we have on the bill an earmark that, indeed, funds these very same programs the administration wants eliminated.

There is another one, and that is the U.S. Coast Guard Loran-C. Loran-C sounds like a pretty good program, but the fact is, this $35 million, by the way, is a federally funded radio navigation system for civil marine use in coastal areas. I will quote from the Office of Management and Budget:

The Nation no longer needs this system because federally

supported civilian Global Positioning System--GPS--has

replaced it with superior capabilities. As a result, Loran-C,

including recent limited technological enhancements, serves

only the remaining small group of long-time users. It no

longer serves any governmental function and is not capable as

a backup for GPS.

So we are going to spend $35 million on GPS that is useless. It is useless for Loran-C. Why? Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to spend that kind of money? It is amazing.

Then there is the emergency operation centers, of course, some $20 million for operation centers in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey-- et cetera. These, of course, are obviously the result of earmarks. Again, the Office of Management and Budget says the administration is proposing to eliminate the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program in the 2010 budget because the program's award allocations are not based on risk assessment.

Oh, really. Also:

. . . other Department of Homeland Security grant programs

can provide funding for the same purpose more effectively.

It goes on to talk about how the grant program was established:

. . . by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure and

interoperable EOCs, with a focus on addressing identified

deficiencies and needs. . . . The EOC Grant Program uses

award criteria that are not risk-based, and the

administration supports a risk-based approach to homeland

security grant awards.

I wonder how many of these would be awarded if they were risk based and how many of them are awarded because of the influence of members of the Appropriations Committee.

In addition, in 2009, EOC construction and renovation was

approved as an allowable expense under the Emergency

Management Performance Grant Program, thus providing a more

effective funding mechanism through which potential grantees

prioritize expenditures on EOCs against other emergency

management initiatives.

In other words, we are spending these millions of dollars--$20 million I guess it is--in an unnecessary fashion that has nothing to do with risk but has everything to do with influence.

It is business as usual in our Nation's Capitol. We just came off a recess. A lot of us spent time, as I did, traveling around our States. People in my State are hurting. People in my State are wondering whether they are going to be able to keep their jobs or get a job; whether they will be able to afford health care; whether they are going to be able to educate their children. They are having to tighten their belts in ways that certainly no one has ever had to do before in their lifetime.

So what do we do here? Business as usual: $97-some-million of unnecessary and unwanted pork. Last year, Congress appropriated many millions of dollars. This, once again, is $97 million more than the budget request, and much of that is obviously unnecessary and unneeded and in some cases even unwanted.

On behalf of the citizens of my State who are having to tighten their belts, who are undergoing unprecedented difficulties and hard times while we are on this spending spree and accumulating trillions of dollars of debt--we are committing generational theft, laying it on our children and grandchildren. I intend to fight for their tax dollars, and I intend to fight until this egregious practice of porkbarrel earmarked spending, which has bred corruption, is brought to a halt.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, before I yield the floor I would like to include in the Record at this time a list of the various bus companies and the States in which they operate. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. President, the Senate just voted against the President of the United States--I think we should know that--and his recommendation. The President, on May 7 of this year, as part of his budget submission, recommended terminating or reducing 121 Federal programs, which was estimated to save the taxpayers $41 billion over the next decade. One of the programs the President hopes to see terminated is the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program.

What the Senate did was to tell the President of the United States: No, we are sorry, this is a vital program, the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program. I am sure the folks in Maryland at Cavalier Coach Trailways that got $8,000 and Crystal Transport, Inc., that got $108,000--there is one in here that is a limousine service that got several thousand dollars, the Rimrock Stages got only $8,000. But Busco, Inc., doing business as Arrow Stage Lines, they

got $137,000 in Nebraska. Maybe they will take people to visit the library that just got $200,000, those from outside of Omaha.

What we are talking about is that we cannot even eliminate a program, with a decent number of Democratic votes, about which the President told the American people: We will reduce spending, we will cut spending, don't worry; here are the 121 Federal programs. There are two more that are coming, my friends, that you will be able to vote against the President on because there are two more on his list that are included in this appropriations bill.

Anybody in the United States who thinks we got the message that it is time to tighten our belts, including especially members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle, they are sadly mistaken.

They are sadly mistaken. We are going to vote on all 27. We are going to be on record, and the American people are going to hear about it. They are going to figure it out. It is business as usual. The porkbarrel spending continues even to the point where we cannot even eliminate a program the President of the United States said we would eliminate. There are 60 votes over there. We could not get 51.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I hope my colleagues will vote to strike this earmark for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE. Strangely enough, this amount has been inserted by the Senator from Nebraska--this $200,000 for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE.

Lest there be any confusion about this, in the last tax return of the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE, they had $10,917,319. So the museum is fairly well off. They have assets of about $11 million. Apparently, the Senator from Nebraska thinks they need a couple hundred grand extra--on the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill.

Again, I am interested in hearing the Legislative Branch Appropriations connection to the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE. I am sure it is a fine museum, a wonderful museum, and it gets many visitors from all over the great State of Nebraska. I just came from the great State of Arizona, and do you know what. Storefronts are closing, people are losing their jobs, and unemployment is up. So what are we doing here in Washington, our Nation's capital? Business as usual. But what is an earmark of just $200,000? What is $200,000 in the trillions we are spending? The legislation says that amount ``shall remain available until expended for the purpose of preserving, digitizing, and making available historically and culturally significant materials related to the development of Nebraska and the American West.''

What makes this museum so needy of the taxpayers' dollars? What is it about the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE, that says we need $200,000? Well, they don't, obviously. They had nearly $11 million in net assets at the end of 2007. Why are we earmarking $200,000 of taxpayer funds for this museum?

We should not be earmarking these kinds of funds. This is a Legislative Branch Appropriations bill to fund the functioning of Congress, the legislative branch, not a museum in Omaha, NE, which I am sure is a wonderful place.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam President, let me get this straight. We now have an unauthorized earmark, and there has never been a hearing or a request from the administration for this vital project in Omaha, NE. There has never been a hearing of any kind or a request from the administration, nor, to my knowledge, scheduling of any kind of hearing on it.

Of course, this is one of the classic examples of an earmark being put in because of the judgment of a Member of Congress who believes this project is important to his or her State or locality, and there has never been any competition for it. I am sure there are libraries all over America--including in Arizona--that would love to have a couple hundred grand to digitize and preserve materials related to the development of the West.

Let's get this straight. This is a Legislative Branch Appropriations bill intended to fund the legislative activities of the Congress of the United States, which has some connection to the Library of Congress, which I imagine that hundreds, if not thousands, of libraries throughout the country do, and then we connect it now as a rationale for $200,000 for the Durham Museum.

Again, all I say to my colleague from Nebraska is that Americans are tired of earmarking and projects that are not authorized, that there is no competition for, but are directly related to the influence of Members of Congress. It is wrong. We should remove this, and we should use this as an example of the kind of fiscal discipline that maybe we ought to start exercising, and I intend to go to the floor on earmark after earmark, and the American people are going to have tea parties all over America in direct objection to the kind of conduct we are exercising in Congress. I hope that sooner or later we will listen.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

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

Madam President, the amendment is very simple. It strikes from the bill an earmark of $200,000 for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE. Let me be very clear. I hold no grudge against the museum or the sponsor of this earmark. On the contrary, I hold my colleagues from Nebraska in very high esteem, and I have no doubt that the museum does wonderful work. Thanks to modern technology and Wikipedia, it has a very nice description of the Durham Museum, formerly known as the Durham Western Heritage Museum in downtown Omaha, NE, dedicated to preserving and displaying the history of the U.S. western region and it is housed in Omaha's Union Station.

I am sure it is a very fine place. I am sure it gets lots of visitors from all over the great State of Nebraska. The only problem is, as I understand from reading the bill, which sometimes some of us don't do, this is a bill that is entitled ``Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010, and for Other Purposes.'' Well, obviously, the distinguished manager of the bill found another purpose but certainly none that has the slightest connection to the city of Omaha or the State of Nebraska, except the Senator happens to be from that State. He maybe even resides in that city.

The reason I am taking the floor is because Americans are hurting right now. Americans all over this country are hurting right now. I go downtown in my city, my hometown of Phoenix, AR, and I see people closing store fronts. I see people not able to make their house payments or people not able to pay their medical bills, and $200,000 would mean a lot to them; $200,000 is not a small sum.

So the fact is, I don't question the merits of the program. I don't question that the Durham Museum is probably a nice place to visit. I do question when we are going to stop earmarking porkbarrel projects because of the influence or clout of Members of the Senate.

I want to repeat, I do not question that this museum is a fine museum. I do question--and any objective observer would question--how in the world that has a place on appropriations of the taxpayers' dollars for the legislative branch. I don't think the Durham Museum is in the legislative branch of government unless I am badly mistaken, and I am sure I am not.

Here we are with trillions of dollars of deficit--$1.2 trillion for TARP, $410 million for the Omnibus appropriations bill, which was loaded with 9,000 unnecessary and wasteful earmarks, tens of billions of dollars to the domestic auto manufacturers, and we passed a budget resolution totaling $3.5 trillion. Now we have a bill totaling $3.1 billion to run the legislative branch of government.

As has been widely trumpeted, this bill is less than that requested. What it is also, though, is 3 percent more than it was last year. How many Americans are able to get 3 percent more money than they had last year? It is over $76 million more than last year's bill. So is this a big deal, $200,000? Probably not, with the trillions of dollars that we seem to throw around here.

But I am serving notice on my colleagues that I and some of my other colleagues are going to come to the floor and challenge these earmarks. We have to stop doing business as usual while we are committing generational theft and mortgaging our children's future.

Since it is going to be about 10 days or so before we will have a vote on this amendment--as the majority leader mentioned, we are not going to have anymore votes--I ask unanimous consent that before the vote I have 5 minutes and the Senator from Nebraska have the time he needs before the vote that will take place at the pleasure of the majority leader.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is a news report from the Associated Press entitled ``Iranian Police Use Force To Break Up Protest.'' The article reads as follows:

Tehran, Iran--Riot police attacked hundreds of

demonstrators with tear gas and fired live bullets in the air

to disperse a rally in central Tehran Monday, carrying out a

threat by the country's most powerful security force to crush

any further opposition protests over the disputed

presidential election. Witnesses said helicopters hovered

overhead as about 200 protesters gathered at Haft-e-Tir

Square. But hundreds of anti-riot police quickly put an end

to the demonstration and prevented any gathering, even small

groups, at the scene. Iran says at least 17 protesters have

been killed in a week of unrest so far after the electoral

council declared hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

winner of the June 12 election.

Severe restrictions on reporters have made it almost

impossible to independently verify any reports on

demonstrations, clashes, and casualties. Iran has ordered

reporters for foreign news agencies to stay in their offices,

barring them from any reporting on the streets.

The story goes on. Demonstrations followed by repression, followed by murder in the streets. As these things seem to evolve, an event took place yesterday which may be the defining moment in the struggle of the Iranian people to be able to peacefully disagree with their government, in this case, because of a corrupt and fraudulent election, without being killed in the streets and beaten and imprisoned.

It has to do with a woman named Neda. I quote from an ABC news story dated June 22, 2009.

She sinks to the ground--and a few minutes later she is

dead. A video that has been repeatedly posted on the Internet

purports to show the last moments of Neda, a young Iranian

woman shot in the heart by government sharpshooters.

Overnight she has become a symbol of the opposition. [Her]

shaky

blurred images: A young woman collapses onto the pavement, a

dark pool of blood spreads beneath her body. Two men kneel

next to the woman and press on her chest, screaming. The

camera phone which is filming her zooms in on her face. Her

pupils roll to the side. Blood streams out of her nose and

mouth.

``Neda, don't be afraid! Neda, stay with me. Neda, stay

with me!'' [cries one man.]

Another man beseeches someone to take her in a car. Then the footage stops.

The video footage appeared on the social networking sites Facebook and Twitter on Saturday evening. It immediately became a viral sensation, being forwarded repeatedly. User groups were determined to get around YouTube's attempts to block the immensely graphic film. They posted the clip so often it became impossible for YouTube to remove it.

So we have seen, as we have in cases of other brutal repressions throughout history, a living example or the dying example of martyrdom. By Sunday morning, Neda became the fifth most common topic on Twitter. She had already become a kind of Joan of Arc.

``It took only one bullet to kill Neda, it will take only one Neda to stop Iranian tyranny'' was one posting from Tehran on Twitter.

Neda died with open eyes. Shame on us who live with closed

eyes.

``They killed Neda, but not her voice'' was another.

During the day, thousands of people replaced their profile pictures with tributes to the young woman such as ``I am Neda,'' or ``Neda forever.'' Others posted images of a broken heart in green, the color of the opposition movement.

So a debate has been going on as to how much the United States of America, its President, the Congress, and the American people should speak out in favor and in support of these brave Iranians--the average age in Tehran is 33 years of age--and their quests for the fundamentals of freedom and democracy that we have enjoyed for more than a couple of centuries.

Today, I and all America, pay tribute to a brave young woman who was trying to exercise her fundamental human rights and was killed in the streets of Tehran. All Americans are with her, our thoughts and our prayers for her, her family, and her countrymen.

I ask unanimous consent to have two news articles that I quoted printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to talk a bit about health care, since that seems to be a major issue also of concern to all Americans. Today is June 22, 2009. Millions of Americans still lack health insurance coverage, and we need to pass reforms that help them get coverage. Yet more time has gone by with no plan from the majority. While we wait, how many more people will forgo needed care today? How many emergency rooms will have to care for Americans who could have received care earlier, and at a lower cost, from a medical professional if they had insurance?

The majority talks about reform and how critical it is to move with urgency. They also assert that the economic recovery depends on health care reform. So many of us would like to know: Where is the plan? It is impossible for us to move forward in any manner, let alone with urgency, if we do not even have a complete bill.

On Tuesday June 9, after months of waiting, the majority in the HELP Committee, on which I serve, offered a partial list of health reform proposals, indicating that the missing pieces would be shortly forthcoming. The majority quickly pulled together a roundtable to discuss a wide variety of issues. They even held some walk-throughs with our side on issues of prevention, quality, et cetera.

The following week we were told we would receive the missing pieces ``soon'' or ``early last week.'' Then we were told they would come forward with the missing pieces ``this past Friday.''

Now it is Monday and we have received nothing. While we have waited, the Congressional Budget Office told us what many of us had expected and feared about this bill: The cost of the bill would have a cost exponentially higher than many had predicted. In fact, the incomplete bill would cost over $1 trillion, and this cost would only cover one- third of the 48 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

So we wait and wait and wait, having no details of the much-wanted government plan or the proposal regarding penalties the other side wants to impose on employers who either cannot provide health coverage or who are not able to provide the coverage according to the government dictate.

Now we hear this Friday might be the day we have a chance to see what they have been working on behind closed doors. Friday also happens to be the day of the Fourth of July recess. The President and congressional Democrats have told the American people that health care reform legislation must be passed by the Senate prior to the August recess.

Given that we will not have the text of the legislation prior to the Fourth of July recess, I am skeptical that the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee will be able to complete their work, combine two possibly divergent bills on the Senate floor, and pass a bill during the 5 weeks remaining in the July work session.

One thing I have found out around here is that we miss a lot of things, but we never miss a recess. The Senate passed the budget blueprint in late April. That included a possible budget reconciliation process for considering health care reform legislation.

One must wonder. One must wonder if the majority is intentionally pushing back the schedule and dragging out this process so that a bipartisan process and solution is not feasible. Under budget reconciliation, which sounds arcane to most Americans, the majority would be allowed to jam this important policy through the Senate with 51 votes instead of the typical 60, with limited time for debate and amendments.

I am left to wonder if this contingency was not planned on all along, to use reconciliation, to muscle through the health reform we all know is desperately needed but to circumvent the normal procedures of the Senate.

I and my colleagues on this side of the aisle continue to await the Democrats' complete bill and their plan to make taxpayers pay for this trillion dollar new government program. So many questions remain until the missing parts of the bill are provided.

When will we get details of the government insurance plan we are told is essential to reform? When will we see what employer health care mandates look like? How much will the complete plan cost? How will it be paid for? Each day the majority fails to provide a complete plan, along with the complete cost and how it will be paid for, is another day that millions of Americans go without health insurance.

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

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. McCain pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 193 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about health care. Obviously, according to most media reports, and my experience as a member of the HELP Committee, we are basically at gridlock. The Congressional Budget Office stated on Monday, in relation to the legislation being considered in the HELP Committee, that

Once the proposal is fully implemented . . . the number of

people who had coverage through an employer would decline by

about 15 million.

The Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm, estimates this number to be much higher. They estimate that up to 70 percent of all Americans who have private insurance today--120 million Americans--will lose their health insurance and be forced onto the government rolls.

That stands in stark contrast to the President's repeated assertions that if you like your health care, you can keep it. Further analysis by HSI Network, a health care economics firm, found that to get all Americans covered under the Democrats' bill, it would cost a staggering $4 trillion and result in 79 million Americans who currently have private insurance having to obtain coverage from the government plan.

What I have described is what is known as the ``crowdout'' phenomenon. It is the substitution effect that occurs when a massive government insurance plan ``crowds out'' private insurance as the expansion of publicly subsidized programs encourage or force people from private arrangements to public ones. This is a real issue and one we must pay attention to.

On Monday the President said:

I know that there are millions of Americans who are content

with their health care coverage. . . . And that means that no

matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise:

If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your

doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will

be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will

take it away. No matter what.

If the bill we are considering is enacted, I do not believe this is a promise the President will be able to keep. The President's hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, stated in an editorial on Tuesday:

[The President] promises that anyone who wants to keep

their private coverage will be able to do so . . . But we do

know a few things about government-run health plans . . . the

Federal Government isn't competition. It is the health care

equivalent of Bigfoot . . . It sets low prices, to be sure,

lower than many insurers are able to match. But that just

means those doctors and hospitals recoup the losses by

shifting costs onto those with private insurance . . .

[which] could easily crowd out private plans. A lot of

Americans think the health care system isn't really all that

broken. They get good care. They pay for it via insurance . .

. But a government-run health plan? Experience says that the

cure would be worse than the illness.

The Chicago Tribune has it exactly right. The fact is, a lot of Americans are pleased with their health care options. In fact, 70 percent of Americans with health insurance rated their coverage good or excellent, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll dated May 14, 2009. Those 70 percent might be the precise group of Americans who will lose their health insurance and be forced into government-run programs if the legislation is enacted.

It is a fact that premiums continue rising, eating into family budgets and preventing the uninsured from getting covered. This is the problem we need to be addressing. We need to bring down the cost of health care and thus the cost of health insurance coverage. This will lead to more coverage of the uninsured and ensure that those who like their health care coverage can keep their coverage and their doctor as the President promises. Yet the majority bill contains not a single reform that will save money. Instead, as I have pointed out, it will cost up to $4 trillion and displace up to 79 million Americans from their current coverage.

This is not reform. This is why we should start over. I continue to believe that the Democrats and the White House should scrap this incomplete bill and start over. Democrats and Republicans must come together and draft a bill that allows the President to uphold his promise that Americans will be able to keep their current doctor or health care plan.

We spent a lot of time in the HELP Committee going over an incomplete proposal. Supposedly by tonight the three major issues, including the so-called government option, will be revealed to us by the majority side. I hope it is soon. I hope we will be able to view it so we could have for the first time a meaningful discussion and negotiation in the HELP Committee. So far, three major components are still blank spaces.

I have been in this body for a long time. I have never seen a process such as we are going through right now. It is basically fundamentally a charade so the Democrats can come to the floor and say we consulted with the Republicans, we had hours and hours of debate and discussion and markup--when we were not presented with the key elements of the legislation we were supposed to be considering. If the key elements are there and we get to examine it over the weekend, then perhaps we will be able to sit down together and negotiate some kind of reasonable approach to this bill.

It is not an accident that the Finance Committee, the other committee that is supposed to be tracking the health reform bill along with the HELP Committee, has decided not to present their proposal until after the Fourth of July recess because they simply do not have a way to pay for it.

The CBO analysis and other outside analysis has revealed something very important, that the plan as proposed and propounded by the administration and by the Democrats is unsustainably expensive and one that they do not have a way of paying for. It will be very interesting to see how they tailor their plan to the expenses and how they address the issue of how to pay for it. Clearly, raising taxes is an option they are considering. I don't think raising anybody's taxes in the present day economy is something that would be beneficial to all Americans.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wanted to go into a bit more detail about the cash for clunkers provision the Senate passed yesterday as part of the $105 billion war supplemental. I continue to believe that the American people would be appalled to learn the specifics of this lemon legislation. Here is a quick summary:

Any person who trades in a car he or she has owned and insured for at least 1 year that has a combined fuel economy value of 18 miles or less per gallon is eligible for: $3,500 toward the purchase of a new car if it has a fuel economy value at least 4 miles per gallon higher than the trade-in, or a new truck if it has a fuel economy value at least 2 miles per gallon higher than the trade-in; or $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car if it has a fuel economy value at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the trade-in, or a new truck if it has a fuel economy value at least 5 miles per gallon higher than the trade-in.

The auto dealer that sells the new car, must accept the trade-in and crush it, then submit paperwork to the Department of Transportation, DOT, and the money is directly wired to the auto dealer. This is ripe for fraud and abuse and the bill provides a penalty of a mere $15,000 fine for each abuse.

Only cars costing less than $45,000 and purchased between July 1, 2009, and November 1, 2009, are eligible.

Lastly, I want to talk about how this clunker was salvaged by the Democrats placing it in a war supplemental bill. On January 14, 2009, several Senators introduced a cash for clunkers bill that would provide between $2,500 and $4,500 toward the purchase of a new or used car as long as the trade-in had a fuel economy rating of less than 18 miles a gallon and the new or used car had a fuel economy rating exceeding target for that class of vehicles by at least 25 percent, as determined by DOT.

Then on May 21, 2009, a new cash for clunkers bill was introduced by a different group of Senators who limited the benefit to only the purchase of a new car, and removed the requirement that the new car must have a fuel economy rating exceeding the target by at least 25 percent and replaced it with a more lax requirement that a new car merely had to be 2 miles per gallon more fuel efficient.

Senators Collins and Feinstein wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on June 11, 2009, stating:

It's amazing how quickly a good idea can go bad in

Washington . . . Our ``Cash for Clunkers'' proposal was a

win-win for the environment and the economy. Then Detroit

auto industry lobbyists got involved. Soon a rival bill

emerged . . . tailored perfectly to the auto industry's

specifications. They claim their bill would have resulted in

32 percent more oil savings and reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. And then Detroit's bill was placed into the war

supplemental and will likely be signed into law without ever

having been reviewed by the committee that has jurisdiction

over such legislation or being available for amendment by the

full Senate.