Floor Statements

Mr. President, after I speak, my side will speak relatively briefly: Senators Kyl, Thune, Coburn, and Senator Graham. I have had some kind of Orwellian experiences in the Senate over the years I have been here, but this one ranks up near the top in the word ``bipartisanship'' that is being thrown around as far as this package is concerned, this $1.1 trillion package. Let's have no doubt about that. There are 178 Members of the House of Representatives who are Republicans. They all voted against the bill, plus 11 Democrats. There are 40 Republican Senators here. We now have two--count them, two--who have decided behind closed doors, without consultation with the other 38, to come to an agreement, which you can call a lot of things but bipartisan is not one of them, unless you say that two individuals and possibly a third, but no more than that, out of 40 are in agreement.

I have been involved in a lot of bipartisan legislation around here, but I guarantee this is not bipartisan. So let's make sure we understand that to start with.

Second of all, let's talk about how much it costs. There has been a lot said about reduction in the cost. The fact is, they say it is $780 billion. If you include the amendments that were already passed and are going to be included in this bill, it is now $827 billion. That is $7 billion more than the House of Representatives passed, the debt service being $348 billion, bringing us to a total of $1.175 trillion. Then you add that to, on Monday, the new Secretary of Treasury is going to announce a new TARP--$500 billion, $1 trillion. Waiting in the House is another Omnibus appropriations bill of $400 billion. We just spent $750 billion--or are in the process of spending another $750 billion--in the form of TARP I and II. My goodness, it is a moment in history of spending the likes of which this Nation has never seen.

By the way, let's suppose it is only $827 billion we are going to pass here. That only costs around, according to the Congressional Budget Office--and I urge every one of my colleagues to read it--on February 4 they said the bill, as passed and proposed, would have created between 1.3 million and 3.9 million jobs. At $827 billion, if you create 1.3 million jobs, that is $636,000 per job. If it creates 3.9 million jobs, which is the high estimate of the Congressional Budget Office, then you now are only paying $212,000 per job.

So let's have no doubt. As to the elimination of unnecessary, wasteful projects, I have already submitted for the Record page after page after page of porkbarrel projects which were put in on a partisan basis, not a bipartisan basis. Let's make sure we understand that.

Mr. President, there is $150 million for honey bee insurance. Some have said: $150 million, $200 million, that is not much. Mr. President, $300 million to bring USDA facilities into workplace safety compliance--the list goes on and on. This is a Christmas tree done by appropriators. And we proved when we tried to eliminate the earmarks that there are three kinds of Senators in the Senate: Republicans, Democrats, and appropriators.

The fact is, we turned down--although we got 44 votes--what would have given us at least some shred of confidence that we will be addressing

this terrible deficit we are laying on future generations of Americans, and that would have been a trigger that when we have two quarters of GDP growth, we would be on the automatic path to reducing spending and bringing us a balanced budget. That was rejected by this body. Why? Why in the world, once the economy recovers, wouldn't we want to put this country on the path to a balanced budget and stop laying--we have already done $10 trillion. Now there are more trillions coming, not to mention Social Security and Medicare.

So let's have no doubt--let's have no doubt--this is not bipartisan. This is two Republican Senators who decided to join after meetings behind doors, in which almost all of the rest of us were not present. It is as expensive or more expensive than the legislation passed by the House if you count the amendments that have already been passed, which we are told would be included in this bill. There is no provision-- there is no provision--whatsoever, once our economy recovers, to somehow begin to reduce this multitrillion-dollar debt we have laid on future generations of Americans. If this legislation is passed, it will be a very bad day for America.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I recognize the Senator from Nebraska for 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Madam President, how much time remains?

I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Madam President, as we complete this part of the ongoing effort to address a truly terrible time in America's history, full of economic difficulties and woes and sadness, we also face enormous challenges abroad. Every time we see a news report, we see some new challenge around the world.

I hope we also have learned from this experience that maybe it is best to begin our discussions in addressing the challenges that face America on a truly bipartisan basis, and that everybody be allowed to participate; that it be the input of both sides and all points of view, and that we can then reach consensus and go to the American people in a united fashion.

The President of the United States, just a few days ago, said he believed we would pass this bill through the Senate with 80 votes or more. That, obviously, is not going to happen. I argue it is because of the way it began. People are saying: We won the election, so we will write the bill. They can do that, but I can assure my friends and colleagues the American people want us to work together. They are tired of the bitter partisanship. That is one of the major reasons we have such low approval ratings from the American people.

So I hope we can, the next time--and there will be a next time because TARP III will be coming up, and we will be addressing national security challenges, the Omnibus appropriations bill, and we will be addressing other issues. My urgent request to my colleagues is, let's not say: We won so we wrote the bill. I am not saying that wasn't true on this side of the aisle when we were victorious. Unfortunately, from time to time, we were guilty of the hubris that goes with victory. But I hope all of us understand that, in the view of many, including this Member, the challenges we face are enormous, and the American people and the world deserve an approach where all of us are included in the takeoff so that all of us will be included in the landing.

I have been on the Senate floor and I have not been in the ``negotiations'' that went on. I think it has been a good debate on the floor. There have been contributions from virtually every Member of this body. I think the American people who have observed that probably learned a lot from it. I hope next time we can show the American people we have come together at the beginning and have a truly bipartisan approach to the challenges we face.

I wish to say also that I believe the majority leader has allowed a large number of amendments and vigorous debate. Also, I think the Senator from Montana has managed the bill in a respectful fashion. I hope we do better next time, Madam President.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I thank my old friend, the majority leader, from our neighboring State. Sometimes, from time to time, all of us don't know how difficult his job is, but we appreciate it. I know that comes from all of us.

If the Senator has an urgent matter, I will be happy to yield.

For 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I ask the pending amendments be set aside and ask consideration of an amendment that I have at the desk.

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

Mr. President, the amendment I have is a product of a lot of work from a number of Senators on this side of the aisle. I especially thank Senator Martinez of Florida, a great leader on this issue, along with Senator Thune, Senator Graham, and many other Senators who have been involved in this discussion. This is an alternative we believe would truly create jobs and stimulate our economy. The total cost is around $421 billion.

I wish, before I describe the amendment--and I know others of my colleagues want to discuss this amendment--I wish to point out it is very clear that public opinion in this country is swinging against the proposal that is now before the Senate and was passed by the other body. They are opposed because they see now in the Senate a $995 billion package which could reach more than $1.2 trillion. Many Americans, certainly now a majority, do not see it as a way to create jobs and to stimulate our economy. They see it loaded down with unnecessary spending programs. They see it, very correctly, with policy changes which deserve extended debate and voting on their own, such as ``Buy American'' provisions, Davis-Bacon, giving Federal workers new whistleblower protections. Some of these policy changes may be laudable, others are not, at least in my view, but all of them deserve debate and discussion rather than being placed in a piece of legislation that is intended to stimulate our economy and create jobs.

I think it is time that we also understand how we got where we are. I have been around this body long enough to recognize that we are now entering the final phase of consideration of this package. Whether it be today or over the weekend or early next week, this bill will be disposed of one way or another by the Senate. So how did we get to where we are today, with a $995 billion package, at least, or $1.2 trillion, or perhaps more than that, with a bill that probably would create, in the view of the administration--and I do not agree with it-- 3 million jobs, which would mean that each job that is created by it costs the taxpayers $275,000. I do not think many Americans believe that each job created should cost $275,000 of their hard-earned tax dollars.

In fact, the response my office is getting borders on significant anger when we talk about many of the funding programs that are in the stimulus bill. I will go through several of them later on, but $400 million for STD prevention; $40 million to make park services more energy efficient; $75 million for smoking cessation. It is hard to argue that, even though these provisions, many of them, may be worthwhile, they actually create jobs. So we have strayed badly from our original intent of creating a situation in America to reverse the terrible decline and economic ditch in which we find the American economy, to the point we have had spending programs and policy provisions which have nothing to do with stimulating the economy and creating jobs. It may be Government--let me put it this way. It may be legislative activity, possibly, at its worst.

We are offering today an alternative at less than half the cost that we think creates jobs and stimulates the economy. I remind my colleagues, despite the rhetoric about bipartisanship, this bill originated in the House of Representatives, as is constitutionally appropriate. There was no Republican input whatsoever. It passed the other body on a strict party-line basis with the loss of 11 Democrats and came over to this body, where in both the Appropriations and the Finance Committees, almost every Republican amendment was rejected on party lines.

I appreciate very much that the President of the United States came over to address Republican Members of the Senate and Republican Members of the House. The tenor of his remarks I think was excellent. But the fact is, we did not sit down and seriously negotiate between Republican and Democrat. I have been involved in many bipartisan efforts in this body, for many years, that have achieved legislative result. The way you achieve it is not to come over and talk to a body. The answer is to sit down and seriously negotiate and come up with compromises which result in legislation which is good for the country.

That has not happened in this process. Again, the American people are figuring it out. I am confident, because of the way this process has taken place, that gap, which is now 43-37, the majority of the American people opposing this package, will grow.

A majority of the American people still believe we have to stimulate the economy and create jobs. I agree with them. But to spend $1.2 trillion on it, and have no provision for when the economy recovers to put us back on the path of fiscal sanity and stability--as the amendment that I had last night was rejected; we got 44 vote--does not provide the American people with confidence that spending will stop at some time.

One thing they have learned is that spending programs that are initially supposed to be temporary become permanent. They become permanent. That is a historical fact.

So we have initiated nearly $1 trillion--many in new spending, some hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending--with no provision, once the economy has recovered--and the economy will recover in America--this is no path to balancing the budget. Instead, we laid a $700 billion debt on future generations of America in the form of TARP, we are laying $1.2 trillion additional in the form of this bill, and another half a trillion dollars in the omnibus appropriations bill, and then we are told there will be a necessity for another TARP, which could be as much as $1 trillion, because of our declining economy. Yet there has been no provision whatsoever, once the economy recovers, to put us back on a path to balancing the budget and reducing and perhaps eliminating--hopefully eliminating--this debt we have laid on future generations of Americans.

I used to come down to the floor here, and have over the years, and argue against provisions in appropriations bills--which, by the way, has led to corruption. I notice there is another individual staffer who is being charged today, or yesterday, for inappropriate behavior with Mr. Abramoff.

There used to be hundreds of thousands and sometimes thousands. Now, they are in the millions and billions, tens of millions and billions. My how we have grown.

Do we need $1 billion for national security at the Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities to create jobs? We may need $1 billion for National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activity, but to say it will create jobs and will stimulate the economy is a slender reed.

There is nobody who appreciates more than this person the contribution that Filipino war veterans made to winning the Second World War. We are going to give millions of dollars to those who live in the Philippines. Do not label that as job stimulation.

Smoking cessation is something that we all support. How does $75 million for smoking cessation create jobs within the next years that would justify expenditures of $75 million?

This body, in the name of increasing health care for children, raised taxes by some $61 billion, I guess it is, on tobacco use. So we now hope people will use tobacco in order to pay for insurance for children. But the fact is, $75 million for smoking cessation should be an issue that is brought up separately and on its own. And the list goes on and on and on.

Our proposal--I am grateful for the participation of so many Senators--would allocate approximately $275 billion in tax cuts. It would eliminate the 3.1 percent payroll tax for all employees for 1 year and use general revenues to pay for the Social Security obligation.

It would allocate $60 billion to lower the 10-percent tax bracket to 5 percent for 1 year. It would lower the 15-percent tax bracket to 10 percent for 1 year. It would lower corporate tax brackets from 35 percent to 25 percent for 1 year.

We alarmed the world with the ``Buy American'' provisions which are included in this bill. The reaction has been incredible, and the fact is, jobs flee America for a number of reasons. But one of them is we have the highest business taxes of any nation in the world. We used to have among the lowest.

So if we really want to create jobs in America and attract capital and investment for the United States of America, we need to lower the corporate tax bracket. We need to have accelerated depreciation for capital investments for small businesses. We need to assist Americans in need, there is no doubt about that. There are Americans who are wounded and are hurting today. It is not their fault.

We need to extend the unemployment insurance benefits. That is a $38 billion pricetag. We need to extend food stamps. We need to extend unemployment insurance benefits, make them tax free. That is a $10 billion pricetag. And, of course, we need to provide workers with training and employment. That is a $50 billion cost.

We need to keep families in their homes. We needed, and we did adopt last night, the $15,000 tax credit. But we also need to fund the increase in the fee that servicers receive from continuing a mortgage and avoiding foreclosure. We need to have GSE and FHA conforming loan limits. That is $32 billion. We also, by the way, need to do more in the housing area.

You know, it is interesting in all of these spending proposals we have, there is not one penny for defense, not one penny. Obviously, we are going to have to reset our military. We need to replace the aging equipment that has been used so heavily in Iraq and will be needed in Afghanistan.

We need to improve and repair and modernize the barracks, the facilities and infrastructure that directly support the readiness and training of the Armed Forces. We do not have that in the now $995 billion package that is before us. Obviously, we need to spend money on military construction projects which will create jobs immediately. Those people who say that is not the case, I can provide for the record adequate information that many of our military construction projects could begin more quickly than those that are not on our military bases because of environmental and other concerns.

We need to spend $45 billion on transportation infrastructure. There are grants to States to build and repair roads and bridges, including $10 billion for discretionary transportation grants, and $1 billion for roads on Federal lands. Public transit, obviously, we need to fund, and airport infrastructure improvements are necessary, along with small business loans. That is about $63 billion in our proposal.

Finally, the American people believe, and I think correctly, spending is out of control in our Nation's Capital. We continue to spend and spend and spend. We not only have accumulated over a $10 trillion deficit, this will add another $1 trillion or more. I mentioned the TARP of $700 billion, all of which is being paid for--we are printing money in order to fund it.

At some point we are going to have to get our budget balanced or our children and our grandchildren are going to pay the bill. I recommend that this body hear as much as possible from David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office, in the Congress of the United States. He paints a stark picture. In my view, it is also time that we establish entitlement commissions: one for Social Security and one for Medicare-Medicaid and make recommendations so we can act on what is a multi-trillion-dollar deficit in Social Security and over a $40 trillion debt on Medicare and Medicaid.

Unless we address these long-term entitlement issues, there is no way we are going to be able to prevent the majority of Americans' taxes from being devoted to those two programs. So we need to establish those commissions and we need to put them to work and we need to put them to work right away.

Now, I am told there is general agreement. Why not do it now? Why not do it now? We also need better accountability, better transparency, better oversight, and better results. Among many disappointments we have over TARP, one was that we were told the Congress and the American people would have oversight and transparency, and they would know exactly how that initial $350 billion was being spent.

The American people and Members of Congress have been bitterly disappointed as TARP shifted from one priority to another. Funds went to the automotive industry, which none of us had anticipated when we voted for and approved it. We need more transparency and accountability and oversight of how this, probably the biggest single emergency spending package in the history of this country, is being spent.

I notice I have other Members here who wish to speak on this issue. I hope we can pass this alternative, some $421 billion, to what has now surged to over $1 trillion. It probably may not pass for the reasons of numbers, but if we do not sit down and negotiate and come up with a package that is more than a $50- or $60- or $80 billion reduction, when we are talking about $1.2 trillion, the American people will not be well served.

They will not be well served by requiring Davis-Bacon, they will not be well served by requiring ``Buy American,'' they will not be well served by spending their hard-earned dollars on unnecessary programs that even though in the eyes of some may have virtue, have no or very little association with job creation and relief for Americans who are struggling to stay in their homes and either keep their jobs or go out and find a new one.

I believe the United States of America will recover from the economic crisis. I have a fundamental faith, belief, that American workers are the most productive, the most innovative, and the best in the world. But they need some help right now. What they need is the right kind of help.

I urge my colleagues, when you see the money that is being spent in the name of job creation and stimulus that is laying a debt burden on our children and our grandchildren, we need to have serious consideration of this kind of spending because it is not fair, not only to this generation of Americans but to future generations as well.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I was incorrect in that statement. I was only speaking about the reset. We need a lot more. I would like to acknowledge that I was incorrect in that statement.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, with all due respect to the Senator from Vermont, we should stay on this amendment and have the speakers on this amendment, then move to the Sanders amendment. The pending business is my amendment before the Senate.

I am sorry, but I will object. We are on this amendment, and the regular order of the Senate is this amendment at this time.

For the information of the Senator from Vermont, we have a number of speakers over here, so I am not prepared to enter into a time agreement on the debate on this amendment at this time.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware of my strong support for the compensation that our great Filipino allies in World War II rendered to this Nation and to the country?

And is it also clear that there are many wrongs that need to be righted through funding, including our own veterans, including hospitals, including medical care, including PTSD?

So does the Senator believe that compensation for that which is not under the label of stimulus to our economy and restoring our economy or creating jobs is not what is needed to be addressed in this bill?

So could I finally ask the Senator, is there any question of anybody's patriotism or love of country or the outstanding and magnificent service rendered in World War II by our brave Filipino allies?

I thank the Senator for answering my questions.

If the Senator will yield, did the Senator see the AP News release this morning at 11:30 that the chairwoman of the congressional oversight panel for the bailout funds told the Senate Banking Committee that the Treasury, in 2008, paid $254 billion and received assets worth about $176 billion? I think everybody knows we passed TARP in a big hurry, just as this legislation has not gone through the hearings and the normal process. So, apparently, according to the chairperson of the congressional oversight panel for bailout funds, in 2008, our Treasury paid $254 billion and received assets worth $176 billion. It seems to me that is about $80 billion that the taxpayers lost.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Montana for a brief period of time to talk about the disposition of this amendment.

Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Montana, we have two additional speakers on this side. If others desire to speak on the amendment, I ask them to come down or notify us right away.

Then I understand there are amendments--there is a tentative proposal to have votes at 3:30. So other Members should come down and talk about their amendments that are pending.

I would like for my colleagues to conclude the debate, since we have been on it since 9:30 this morning. I understand the vote may be set for this and other amendments at 3:30. But unless there is someone who wants to speak on this amendment, the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, are the only ones additionally who want to speak on it.

I would encourage my colleagues who want to speak on other amendments to come to the floor because there will apparently very likely be a vote on at 3:30.

Mr. President, can we propound the unanimous consent request? It has not been cleared.

If the Senator will yield to me for one comment. We are still working on a UC for setting up votes, and for the benefit of my colleagues, we think it is roughly sometime shortly after 4 p.m., but we haven't completed the unanimous consent agreement as yet. But for the information of colleagues, we are working on a series of 13 votes at least.

Thanks.

I will speak for a couple of minutes about what the Senator from Montana talked about, the Congressional Budget Office report today. Basically, it says that this present legislation before us, the stimulus package, would increase employment at that point in time by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. I did the math on that, and 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2010 comes to $680,769 per job. If the most optimistic estimate of 3.9 million new jobs created between now and the last quarter of 2010, it is only $226,923 per job.

Interesting comments by the Congressional Budget Office, which says on page 5:

In principle, the legislation's long-run impact on output

also would depend on whether it permanently changed

incentives to work or save. However, according to CBO's

estimates, the legislation would not have any significant

permanent effects on these incentives.

They go on to say:

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would

reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.

That is easy to understand because we will be paying interest on a huge debt of multitrillions of dollars as a result of this legislation.

As the CBO says:

To the extent that people hold their wealth as government

bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance

private investment, the increased debt would tend to reduce

the stock of productive capital. In economic parlance, the

debt would crowd out private investment.

Again, what we are doing is mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's futures.

The President today said:

They [talking about those of us who support my amendment]

are rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all of

our problems.

They are rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve our problems. I urge someone to tell the President of the United States that we have $421 billion of tax cuts and spending in this proposal, and spending that is meaningful and creates jobs, not loaded down with porkbarrel projects and certainly not one that approaches over $1 trillion on future generations of Americans.

We ought to change Washington. We ought to change the way we are conducting this legislation, especially in partisan, nonconsultative fashion. If the leadership can peal off two or three Republicans, that is an accomplishment they will make, but it is not bipartisanship.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the stimulus package would be a disaster for our children and our grandchildren. According to CBO, it would create 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs between now and the end of the year 2010. That is a huge expenditure. It has fundamental policy changes, and it is the biggest spending bill probably in the history of this country.

We have legislation which creates jobs, which cuts taxes and spends on infrastructure, more on Defense and the reset, and I believe that is the best for this country.

Madam President, we all know we have to stimulate this economy and create jobs. The question is how you do it: profligacy versus, I believe, a mature and responsible approach to reversing and saving our economy.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam President, I move to waive the applicable portion of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I am pleased to join with my good friend Senator Feingold in offering this fiscally responsible amendment, along with Senators McCaskill, Burr, Lieberman, Graham, Coburn, and others. May I say that I find there are very few pleasant aspects of losing an election, but one of them that I most value is going back to work with my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, whom, for now many years, I have had the great honor and privilege of working with as we attempt to bring about the reforms which will help restore the confidence and trust of the American people in the way we do business in Washington but also in our stewardship of their tax dollars. I am pleased to join with my good friend Senator Feingold.

Senator Feingold outlined the provisions of the amendment so I don't want to repeat them. But I also want to point out that some people are saying: Why should we have this on this legislation, when this stimulus package does not directly apply? We know there is an omnibus appropriations bill coming down the pike. The House of Representatives intends to take it up soon. There is apparently, unfortunately, another TARP that may be coming, not to mention the other appropriations bills that will be coming. So the sooner we address this issue, the better off we will be. I also think one of the reasons why support for the stimulus package is rapidly eroding is because you don't have to call it an earmark and it doesn't have to be technically an earmark, but when you see many of the provisions in this stimulus bill, they have nothing to do with stimulus and everything to do with spending. They are fundamentally earmarks as well, certainly in their effect.

It is not only appropriate but necessary to adopt this amendment so that the American people will know in the future, when we make tough decisions, this kind of practice of adding absolutely unnecessary, unwarranted spending of their tax dollars on appropriations bills without a proper process of scrutiny and ability to reject them will not occur. It will not restore their confidence. The stimulus package before us is important, but right now the American people see it not as a stimulus but a spending package. That is why this provision will restore some confidence in the future way we address their tax dollars.

Every time Senator Feingold and I have tried to kill off a specific unwanted and unnecessary and, many times, outrageous appropriation, if we had succeeded, it would have taken down the whole bill. So one of the important aspects of this legislation is to allow us to rifleshot and remove unnecessary and wasteful spending.

I don't have to go through the list, but it is always kind of fun to do it. Even though we passed in January 2007, by a vote of 96 to 2, an ethics and lobbying reform package that had meaningful reforms, by August of 2007, we were presented with a bill containing very watered- down earmark provisions and doing far too little to rein in wasteful earmarks. Since we adopted the much heralded reforms of January 2007, we have spent $188,000 for the Lobster Institute, which includes a lobster cam at the bottom of the ocean, which so far we have been unable to make work; $98,000 to develop a walking tour of Boydton, VA, population 454; $212,000 for olive fruit fly research in Paris, France; $1.95 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service; $150,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute--almost every one of these earmarks location specific required--$345,000 for tree planting in Chicago; $196,000 for the renovation of an historic post office in Las Vegas; $150,000 for the STEEED program, Soaring Towards Educational Enrichment via Equine Discovery, a youth program in Washington, DC; $100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, AL; $50,000 for construction of a National Mule and Packers Museum in Bishop, CA; $244,000 for bee research in Weslaco, TX.

The point is, some of these projects I am talking about may have virtue. It may be of the utmost national importance in this time of record deficits that we have a lobster cam at the bottom of the ocean and that we should spend $188,000 for it. But it should be subject to debate and discussion and amendment and acceptance or rejection.

What Senator Feingold and I are seeking is a process where these earmarks can be judged on their value, their contribution to the overall economy, and whether they are necessary. Under the present system, they are still inserted without the Congress having the ability to carefully examine them.

It also would require recipients of Federal dollars to disclose any amounts that the recipient has expended on registered lobbyists. There is a new game in town--not so new, it has been going on for some years, but it grows--and that is that special interests, universities, others will go to a specific lobbying group, and they will then seek the earmarks this interest desires and believes is required. There are certain, obviously, amounts of money given to those lobbyists for their work. We are not saying they should not do that. We are saying that the amounts of money given to the lobbyists as a result of the recipients of Federal dollars obtaining those funds should be revealed.

Again, $446,500 for horseshoe crab research at Virginia Tech in Virginia; $500,000 for a maritime museum in Mobile, AL; $360,000 for Hawaii rain gauges; $401,850 for the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, IL.

This process has got to end. The American people do not trust the Congress to dispose of their tax dollars without these billions of earmarks, or at least a process where they are scrutinized and Members of Congress have the ability not to just vote on an appropriations bill that appears on the Member's desk shortly before the vote takes place. The appropriators will tell us these are all worthwhile projects. They are not, and they have resulted in corruption. There are former Members of Congress residing in Federal prison today because this process--this process--has corrupted people. It has to be fixed.

So I could go in citing examples of unauthorized earmarks and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference reports. But I think you have the picture. By the way, an egregious example that is being investigated today is that for one of the appropriations bills, appropriations were inserted after the bill was passed and signed by the President of the United States--a remarkable occurrence--a remarkable occurrence. It shows how far we have gone in our obligations to the American people.

I would like to say a word to my own side of the aisle. We just lost an election, and I will take the responsibility for that. But I can assure my colleagues on this side of the aisle that one of the reasons why Republicans lost the last election is because our base, who are concerned about our stewardship of their tax dollars, believes we got on a spending spree which has mortgaged our children's futures.

If there is a future on this side of the aisle, then we have to clean up our act on spending. Time after time, when some of us said: You have to veto these spending bills, the answer was: Well, we have to please Members. What we did was we alienated those American citizens--frankly, of all parties--who feel strongly we have lost our sense of obligation to them as far as careful stewardship of their tax dollars is concerned.

I wish to mention one other thing. I had a very good conversation with the President of the United States. We all want to work together to pass this stimulus, a stimulus package that will get our economy going again. I look forward, as do other Members on this side of the aisle, as well as the other side, to sit down, and let's have some serious negotiations so we can eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending that is part of the stimulus package that is before the Senate today.

We should make sure we adopt an amendment that as soon as the GDP improves for two quarters by 2 percent, we will then enact spending cuts to put us on the road to a balanced budget. We need to do that. We used to talk about millions of dollars and then we started talking about billions of dollars and now we are talking about trillions of dollars of deficits that will be run up that we will lay on future generations of Americans.

With this stimulus package, there must be a commitment to stop this spending and to reduce spending once our economy recovers, so we can have some sense of ability to put this Nation on a path to a balanced budget to eliminate the debt and deficit we are laying on future generations of Americans.

Americans are beginning to turn against the stimulus package as it is presently designed. They are doing that because they do not believe it is a stimulus package. They believe, correctly, it is a spending package. I urge my colleagues to help restore confidence in whatever the outcome is, that we adopt this amendment, so in the future the American people can be sure we will have done our very best to eliminate unnecessary, wasteful, and corrupting spending that has characterized the expenditures we have made in the past on appropriations bills that contained those unwanted, unnecessary spending practices.

I thank the Senator from Wisconsin, again, and my friend, Senator Lieberman, and Members on both sides of the aisle who will support this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that consideration of the present amendment be set aside, and I send to the desk an amendment and ask for it to be considered at the appropriate sequence of amendments.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for the consideration of that amendment in keeping with the order of consideration as decided by the majority leader and the minority leader.

Madam President, I send another amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its consideration.

Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment that would strike the protectionist ``Buy American'' provision from the pending economic recovery package. While the supporters of this provision state that they intend it to save American jobs, it would have exactly the opposite effect, causing great harm to the American worker and global economy.

In 1930, as the United States and the world was entering what would be

known to history as the Great Depression, this body considered issues similar to those we are discussing on the Senate floor today. Two men-- Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley--led the effort to enact protectionist legislation in the face of economic crisis. Their bill, the Smoot- Hawley Tariff Act, raised duties on thousands of imported goods in a futile attempt to keep jobs at home. In the face of this legislation, 1,028 economists issued a statement to President Herbert Hoover. This statement, subsequently printed in the New York Times, is as relevant today as it was nearly 80 years ago. ``America is now facing the problem of unemployment,'' these economists wrote. ``The proponents of higher tariffs would claim that an increase in rates will give work to the idle. This is not true. We cannot increase employment by restricting trade.'' Mr. Smoot, Mr. Hawley, and their colleagues paid no heed to this wise admonishment, and the Congress went ahead with protectionist legislation. In doing so, they sparked an international trade war as countries around the world retaliated, raising their own duties and restricting trade, and they helped turn a severe recession into the greatest depression in modern history.

We know the lessons of history, and we cannot fall prey to the failed policies of the past. We should not sit idly by while some seek to pursue a path of economic isolation, a course that could lead to disaster. It didn't work in the 1930s, and it certainly won't work today. That is why I so strongly oppose the protectionist ``Buy American'' provision in the pending bill and believe we must strike it.

The Senate version of the stimulus bill goes beyond the stark protectionism of its House counterpart in a way that risks serious damage to America's economic well-being. The bill currently on the Senate floor prohibits the use of funds in this bill for projects unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States. These antitrade measures may sound welcome to Americans who are hurting in the midst of our economic troubles and faced with the specter .of layoffs. Yet shortsighted protectionist measures like ``Buy American'' risk greatly exacerbating our current economic woes. Already, one economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics has calculated that the ``Buy American'' provisions in this bill will actually cost the United States more jobs than it will generate. Some of our largest trading partners, including Canada and the European Union, have warned that such a move could invite protectionist retaliation, further harming our ability to generate jobs and economic growth. And it seems clear that this provision violates our obligations under more than one international agreement.

The purpose of this stimulus legislation is to create jobs and generate economic growth. I am very concerned about the potential impact these ``Buy American'' policies will have on trade relations with our partners, an impact that will directly affect the number of jobs we are able to create at home. For example, in a few days, President Obama will embark on his first trip abroad to Canada. I applaud his decision to visit our neighbors to the north, as they are one of our closest allies and strongest trading partners. Our two nations share an increasingly integrated trade relationship, resulting in nearly $1 million of trade and commerce crossing our border every minute, a level of trade that sustains approximately 7 million jobs here in the United States.

Should we adopt protectionist legislation, however, President Obama is likely to visit our ally with a dubious gift indeed: legislation that attempts to choke off Canada's access to the U.S. market. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday that the provisions ``are measures that are of concern to all trading partners of the United States.'' In a recent letter, Canada's ambassador to the U.S. Michael Wilson wrote, ``If Buy American becomes part of the stimulus legislation, the United States will lose the moral authority to pressure others not to introduce protectionist policies. A rush of protectionist actions could create a downward spiral like the world experienced in the 1930's.'' He writes further that this provision would ``decrease North American competitiveness, thereby killing jobs rather than creating them.'' It is beyond my comprehension why we would seek to hamper such an important relationship by passing legislation with provisions that have been proven counterproductive time and time again.

The reaction of our Canadian friends is just the beginning of what we can expect to occur should this provision become law. American trade with the European Union currently stands at over $200 billion per year. John Bruton, the European Commission's ambassador to Washington, has raised serious objections to the ``Buy American'' provisions in a letter to Congress and the administration, saying that the provision ``risks entering into a spiral of protectionist measures around the globe that can only hurt our economies further.'' A European Commission spokesman noted, ``We are particularly concerned about the signal that these measures could send to the world at a time when all countries are facing difficulties. Where America leads, many others tend to follow.''

Should we enact such a provision, it will only be a matter of time before we face an array of similar protectionism from other countries-- from ``Buy European'' to ``Buy Japanese'' and more. In fact, in the 1980s we saw Japanese provisions that attempted to take the kinds of steps we are contemplating now, and barred American goods in Japanese government procurement. The U.S. Congress responded just as we can expect others to do now--by threatening retaliation and considering legislation that would restrict Japanese imports.

We took these steps in order to persuade our Japanese friends to abandon these protectionist moves, and in the end we succeeded. The United States has spent decades pushing toward a globalized world of open trade and investment, governed by rules applicable to all. The ``Buy American'' provision contained in this legislation would undermine this longstanding tenet of American trade policy and would violate our international obligations and commitments. Just last November in Washington, the U.S. signed a joint declaration with members of the G-20 pledging that ``within the next 12 months, we will refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services.'' Yet here we are, barely 2 months later, contemplating whether or not to go back on a commitment to some of our closest allies and trading partners, potentially damaging our credibility to uphold future agreements. Canadian Prime Minister Harper pointed out the irony here when he noted that ``we all agreed that we had to have a global response to recession, which would include stimulus packages in all major countries and the avoidance of protectionism, and certainly not protectionism in a stimulus package.''

In addition, it appears that the ``Buy American'' provision would violate our obligations under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and, in fact, reports indicate that the European Union is already considering a legal WTO complaint--and the procurement chapter of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Such action is not only potentially disastrous for our economic interests, it is also a terrible way to conduct foreign policy. Pascal Lamy, head of the World Trade Organization, said recently, ``I hope the senators will be wise enough . . . to make sure the U.S. complies with its international obligations.'' Will we?

In addition to the growing chorus of international opposition, there is also. opposition from the very American companies that would generate badly needed jobs at home. In a recent Washington Post article, Bill Lane, government affairs director for Caterpillar, is quoted as saying that ``by embracing Buy American, you are undermining our ability to export U.S.-produced products overseas.'' Karan Bhatia, GE's senior counsel for international law, said that adoption of the ``Buy American'' provision would ``be creating an ample basis for countries to close their markets to U.S. products.'' Why then should this body approve a bill that would potentially devastate the ability of American companies to tap into foreign markets and, in turn, continue to employ thousands of hardworking Americans? The short answer is that

we should not. President Obama himself spoke out against the Buy American provision. ``I think that would be a mistake right now,'' he said yesterday. ``That is a potential source of trade wars that we can't afford at a time when trade is sinking all across the globe.''

I hope all senators will support this amendment, which would strike the existing ``Buy American'' provision and replace it with a limitation on ``Buy American'' clauses in this bill. To adopt anticompetitive, protectionist policies is to risk economic disaster, and it is the last thing we should consider at a time of economic difficulty.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record be held open for my second statement concerning the other amendment.

Madam President, there are other Senators who are waiting to speak and propose amendments, so I will come back at the appropriate time to speak at some length on both amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will not take too long because I know there are other Senators waiting to speak.

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I would be pleased to accommodate the manager, who has been very accommodating to this side of the aisle, and he just demonstrated that. So I would be glad, if it is agreeable to the manager to allow me to propose the amendment now. Then I would be glad to ask for a vote on it at the convenience of the managers of the bill so that it is most convenient for them.

If I could ask unanimous consent that I would be the first amendment considered tomorrow.

Mr. President, I will withhold proposing the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be allowed to be filed and considered at the beginning of legislative work tomorrow.

Whatever the floor staff wishes, as well as the manager. By the way, I say that with great respect to the staff on the floor who are making this machine, this unwieldy machine, run in the most efficient fashion.

Mr. President, I will withhold until tomorrow morning, according to the unanimous consent agreement, and file the amendment and ask for its consideration at 9:30 a.m.

Sure.

Mr. President, I would like to keep the floor, if I can, for a couple of minutes.

Basically, tomorrow morning we will be considering this amendment. I would like to say a few words because this is a proposal that I think should be considered, along with the legislation that is pending. It is a compilation of what we believe is the most effective way to address the stimulus and job creation. It has tax provisions, such as elimination of the 3.1-percent payroll tax for all employees for 1 year. It lowers the 10-percent tax bracket to 5 percent; lowers the 15- percent tax bracket to 10 percent; lowers the corporate tax bracket from 35 to 25 percent and has accelerated depreciation for capital investments for small business; the extension of unemployment insurance benefits; extension of food stamps, unemployment insurance benefits, tax-free training and employment services, as well as keeping families in their homes through a loan modification program. It has tax incentives for home purchases and GSE-FHA conforming loan limits; national infrastructure and defense, which is very badly needed; transportation infrastructure; and also contains the trigger that is also the subject of a separate amendment I have proposed, with a total of about $420 billion.

Now, I know my friend from Wisconsin is waiting patiently, but I would like to point out where I think we are at this moment; that is, we basically have legislation which is too big, which is not stimulative, and which does not create jobs. The American people are beginning to figure it out. In fact, polling numbers in the last couple of days have shown a significant shift in American public opinion because they are beginning to examine this proposal.

I argue that it is time we sit down, Republicans and Democrats, and begin good-faith negotiations to create a real job creation and stimulus package. I think it would be unfortunate if this body passed, on a party-line basis or largely party-line basis, this package in similar fashion as it did in the other body.

I think we have a proposal here that deserves consideration, but I also think it is time that we had serious negotiations to try to reach some kind of consensus on a package and legislation that truly stimulates and truly creates jobs.

My colleague from Arizona will be pointing out, as many others have, that there are many programs here, moneys in the hundreds of millions and billions, that simply do not meet any criteria for job creation: $75 million for smoking cessation; $150 million for honeybee insurance. The list goes on and on. We also have an obligation to future generations to understand that $1.2 trillion, followed by another TARP, followed by an omnibus appropriations bill, requires us to put this country, once the economy recovers, back on the path to a balanced budget and reduce spending across the board once our economy has recovered.

I thank the Senator from Montana, the distinguished manager of the bill, for his consideration on my amendment. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, as always.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, every dollar of the $1.2 trillion we are contemplating spending with this legislation would add to the national debt. The national debt has already climbed to more than $10.2 trillion. This amount does not include any of the funding provided in the legislation we are considering. After achieving economic growth for two quarters, then, according to this legislation, the President shall submit in his first budget, after the restoration of economic growth, fixed deficit targets that would achieve a balanced budget not later than 5 years from that date.

The discretionary spending caps are restored in the first fiscal year after the restoration of economic growth for 5 fiscal years at a level equal to the budget baseline, excluding any and all portions of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Basically, this legislation calls for, as soon as there are two quarters of GDP growth after inflation, that we embark on an effort to balance the budget. We are mortgaging our children's future.

Madam President, I move to waive the applicable portions of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. President, what this amendment does is basically stand in direct contradiction to the amendment itself. It is impossible to say the section would be applied in a manner consistent with the U.S. obligations under international agreements and then say that anything that is manufactured in the United States, whether iron, steel, or manufactured goods will have to be subject to ``Buy American.''

The reaction to this amendment has been strong and widespread, including the President of the United States, who said, ``I think this would be a mistake right now.'' The President said, ``It is a potential source of trade wars that we cannot afford at a time when trade is sinking all over the globe.''

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, nearly 80 years ago, two men--Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley--led an effort to enact protectionist legislation in hopes of curing the woes of the American worker. Despite the strong objection of over a thousand leading economists of the time, the Smoot- Hawley legislation was enacted. This bill helped spark an international trade war that turned a severe recession into the greatest economic depression in modern history.

The Buy American provision in the current bill has echoes of the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff act. It prohibits the use of funds in this bill for projects unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States. These anti-trade measures may sound welcome to Americans who are hurting in the midst of our economic troubles and faced with the specter of layoffs. Yet shortsighted protectionist measures like Buy American risk greatly exacerbating our current economic woes. Already, one economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics has calculated that the Buy American provisions in this bill will actually cost the United States more jobs than it will generate.

Some of our largest trading partners, including Canada and the European Union--who account for hundreds of billions of dollars in annual trade--have warned that such a move could invite protectionist retaliation, further harming our ability to generate jobs and economic growth. And it seems

clear that this provision violates our obligations under more than one international agreement, including the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and the procurement chapter of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Just last November in Washington, the U.S. signed a joint declaration with members of the G-20 pledging that ``within the next 12 months, we will refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services.'' Yet barely 2 months later, we are contemplating whether or not to go back on a commitment to some of our closest allies and trading partners, potentially damaging our credibility to uphold future agreements.

Even President Obama himself spoke out against the Buy American provision. ``I think that would be a mistake right now,'' he said yesterday. ``That is a potential source of trade wars that we can't afford at a time when trade is sinking all across the globe.''

We know the lessons of history, and we cannot fall prey to the failed policies of the past. We should not sit idly by while some seek to pursue a path of economic isolation, a course that could lead to disaster. It didn't work in the 1930s, and it certainly won't work today. I hope all senators will support this amendment, which would strike the existing Buy American provision and replace it with a limitation on Buy American clauses in this bill.

As I said, the President of the United States said it would be a mistake right now. It sends a message to the world that the United States is going back to protectionism.

I ask unanimous consent the comments of literally every leader in the world, including the Canadian leader, the European leader, and over 100 major industries in the United States of America in opposition to this amendment and an op-ed article by Douglas Irwin be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. President, this amendment may lose. We are making a very dangerous move tonight.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Is there a previous unanimous consent agreement?

I was just asking if there was a previous unanimous consent agreement, I ask the Presiding Officer.

What is the nature of that request?

Reserving the right to object, would the majority leader and the Senator from Maryland object to a sequence of speaking so some of us can plan the use of our time at least for the next two or three speakers?

I would, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Maryland, the Senator from Georgia and whatever speaker on the other side wishes to speak, then I be----

Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking the managers for their patience and their leadership in this marathon that we are engaged.

I rise in support of the Coburn amendment, which strikes the $246 million Hollywood tax earmark. It is quite an interesting earmark in that the stimulus legislation provides a tax earmark for Hollywood in the amount of $246 million--a quarter of a billion dollars--over the next 11 years, and would allow large Hollywood studios the opportunity to choose between the existing tax break for movie studios or to write off 50 percent of the entire production cost for movies and TV shows made in 2009. In the years that follow the remainder of the production cost would be written off according to existing depreciation law. The 50-percent accelerated depreciation in the first year is a ``bonus depreciation.'' Obviously, this amendment would strike that special earmark.

I would point out to my colleagues that Hollywood is doing okay. They raked in over a billion dollars in January--the biggest January ever for the movie industry. That is testimony to the attractiveness of the product. Box office receipts were up nearly 20 percent in January 2009, with ticket sales up 16 percent over January 2008, when January is typically considered a weak month for the industry.

Movie director Rob Reiner was recently asked about Hollywood's relationship with Washington, DC, and claimed:

We are a special interest group that doesn't ask for

anything like earmark legislation or tax breaks. We are the

one industry that doesn't ask for a quid pro quo.

Well, rather than targeting tax breaks at big-time political donors, the stimulus should have targeted its tax break toward mainstream America.

I regret that I can't support the so-called stimulus bill that has been presented. We have an opportunity to craft a bill that would provide real relief for the American people at a time of great economic uncertainty. Unfortunately, that opportunity has so far

been rejected. Once again, parochial partisan and special interests have taken precedence over the interests of the American people.

This bill has become nothing more than a massive spending bill, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion, according to the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, and $1.2 trillion dwarfs any Government program in history, after adjusting for inflation. It is bigger than the New Deal and the Iraq war combined. The interest alone will be costlier than the Louisiana Purchase in current dollars or the amount the United States spent to land on the Moon.

During a press conference in November 2008 to introduce the new Director of the Office of Management and Budget, then President-elect Obama said:

The new way of doing business is, let's figure out what

projects, what investments are going to give the American

economy the most bang for their buck, how we protect taxpayer

dollars so that this money is not wasted, restore a sense of

confidence among taxpayers that, when we spend our money, it

is on that which is actually going to improve their quality

of life, create jobs that are so desperately needed, help to

spur on economic growth and business creation in the private

sector. That is all part of the new way of doing business.

1I was very pleased to hear the President speak those words. However, I do not believe the bill before us today is reflective of that sentiment. Let's acknowledge and continue to acknowledge that American families are hurting and they need our help. We have entered the second year of a recession. Record numbers of homeowners face foreclosure, our financial markets have nearly collapsed, the U.S. automobile manufacturers are in serious trouble, and the national unemployment rate stands at 7.2 percent--the highest in 16 years--with over 1.9 million people having lost their jobs in the last 4 months of 2008. Additionally, the number of Americans filing first-time unemployment claims this month matches the highest level in 26 years. Housing starts decreased 15.5 percent in December compared to the prior month. For 2008, housing starts were at a new low, shattering the previous record of 1.014 million set in 1991.

The list goes on and on, and I don't have to tell any American of the economic challenges we face and the real suffering that is going on throughout America. In the last year alone, due to the mortgage crisis, the Government has seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we already passed a massive $700 billion rescue of the financial markets. We have debated giving the big three auto manufacturers tens of billions in taxpayer money as a ``short-term infusion of cash,'' knowing they would be back for more.

Last week, the House approved its $819 billion stimulus package on a party-line vote. The total cost of that legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire Federal Government. We need to stimulate the economy, but we need to do it in a smart, fiscally responsible manner that will not bankrupt future generations of Americans. It is more important now than ever before that Congress restore fiscal discipline to Washington and get our financial house in order.

In a November 25, 2008, opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, John Taylor, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of economics at Stanford University, wrote:

The major part of the first stimulus package last year was

the $115 billion temporary rebate payment program targeted to

individuals and families that phased out as incomes rose.

Most of the rebate checks were mailed or directly deposited

during May, June, and July of 2008. The argument in favor of

these temporary rebate payments was that they would increase

consumption, stimulate aggregate demand, and thereby get the

economy growing again. What were the results? This chart

reveals the answer. The upper line shows disposable personal

income through September. Disposable personal income is what

households have left after paying taxes and receiving

transfers from the government. The big blip is due to the

rebate payments in May through July. The lower line shows

personal consumption expenditures by households. Observe that

consumption shows no noticeable increase at the time of the

rebate. Hence, by this simple measure, the rebate did little

or nothing to stimulate consumption, overall aggregate demand

or the economy. These results may seem surprising, but they

are not. They correspond closely to what basic economic

theory tells us. Temporary increases in income will not lead

to significant increases in consumption. However, if

increases are longer term, as in the case of a permanent tax

cut, then consumption is increased and by a significant

amount.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of Mr. Taylor's op-ed.

Now, one of the unfortunate things, and this is beginning to be appreciated by the American people, is that Members of Congress couldn't resist the temptation to load this bill with hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary spending, that will not do anything to stimulate the economy. We all know some of these, but they bear repeating, that have been included under the guise of stimulus: $400 million for STD prevention; $600 million for new cars for the Federal Government; $34 million to remodel the Commerce Department headquarters here in our Nation's Capital; $25 million to rehabilitate ATV trails; $150 million for honeybee insurance; $75 million for smoking cessation; and $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.

There is no doubt all of those are worthy causes which probably deserve our attention, our care and, sometimes, our dollars. But to portray them and others as a stimulus to create jobs and to have our economy recover, I think flies in the face of reality.

In the Senate bill, we have $100 billion to assist States with agricultural losses; $300 million for diesel emission reduction grants; $150 million for facility improvements at the Smithsonian Museum; $198 million for school food service equipment; and $2.9 billion for the weatherization assistance program.

There is also $6 billion of wiring for broadband and wireless in rural areas. I have always been an advocate of that. But the fact is, anyone who is knowledgeable of the difficulties and challenges will tell you that it takes years to achieve that goal even if the funds are available.

In order to comply with the Congressional Budget Resolution, the committee report contains a statement of how the emergency provisions contained in the bill meet the criteria for emergency spending. The report states, and I quote:

The bill contains emergency funding for fiscal year 2009

for responses to the deteriorating economy, natural disasters

and for other needs. The funding recommended herein is

related to unanticipated needs and is for situations that are

sudden, urgent, and unforeseen, specifically the devastating

effects of the economic crisis, natural disasters and rising

unemployment.

Perhaps the authors of the bill can explain to me how $150 million for honeybee insurance falls within the distinction as outlined in the legislation. Someone needs to explain to me how giving tens of millions of dollars to the National Endowment of the Arts or the Smithsonian Museum will reverse ``the devastating effects of the economic crisis.''

The problem is we are accumulating debt that we are laying upon future generations of Americans. We are going to have to pay this debt sometime. My great worry is that if we do not account for this debt in some way, if we continue trillions of dollars of unnecessary and wasteful spending, then obviously we will find ourselves back in the situation we were in the 1970s, when we had hyperinflation and had to debase the currency.

I want to say a word for a minute about ``Buy American.'' The next time I come to debate on the ``Buy American'' provisions, I intend to bring a picture of Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley, the two individuals who were responsible, in the view of historians, for taking a country that was in a serious recession into the depths of one of the great depressions in the history of the United States.

Because as we enact protectionist measures, I was interested to hear my friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, say it was not in violation of any treaty. It is in violation of several treaties. It is in violation of what has been an important aspect of America's policy which has been free and open trade.

I guess the fundamental difference I have between the authors of the ``Buy American'' provisions and myself is that I believe the most productive, the most innovative, and the strongest and best workers in the world reside in the United States of America, that the innovations and technology that have led the world have come from the United States of America, and that our products can compete anywhere in the world under free and open trade conditions.

Now, there have been violations on the part of other countries. That is why we are members of the WTO. That is why there are provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement that should be vigorously pursued when there are violations and protectionist activities on the part of any nation of which we are participants in trade agreements.

If there are specific violations, then those violations should be addressed. But I wanted to emphasize, if we pass these ``Buy American'' provisions, you will find other nations retaliating and you will find us on a sure but unfortunate path to the exacerbation of our economic difficulties. That is a matter of history. Consult any historian. I hope we will not keep these ``Buy American'' provisions in whatever legislation we arrive at.

This bill contains protectionist ``Buy America'' provisions that will prove harmful to both the American worker and the world economy. The Senate version of the stimulus bill goes beyond the stark protectionism of its House counterpart in a way that risks serious damage to our economy. The Senate bill requires that major projects funded in the bill favor American-made steel, iron, and manufacturing over goods produced abroad. These anti-trade measures may sound welcome to Americans who are hurting in this economy and faced with the specter of layoffs. The United States, after all, produces the world's finest products. Yet shortsighted protectionist measures risk greatly exacerbating our current economic woes. Already, one economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics has calculated that the ``Buy American'' provisions in this bill will cost more jobs than it will generate. Some of our largest trading partners, including Canada and the European Union, have warned that such a move could invite protectionist retaliation, further harming our ability to generate jobs and economic growth.

We have seen this tendency before. In the 1930s, as depression swept the globe, countries around the world enacted protectionist legislation in a counterproductive effort to preserve jobs at home, at the expense of those abroad. It was a fool's errand, and the result was the largest and most prolonged economic downturn of the 20th century. We know better now, and we must have the foresight and the courage to do what is right.

I am very concerned about the potential impact these ``Buy America'' policies will have on bilateral trade relations with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose this type of protectionist trade policy, not only because I believe free trade to be an important means of improving relations among all nations, but it is essential to U.S. economic growth. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, the added ``Buy America'' restrictions in this stimulus bill could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in the international markets and could also result in loss of existing business from long-standing trading partners.

Let me be clear. I am not against U.S. procurement of American products. The United States, without a doubt produces the very best products in the world, this certainly is the case with American-made defense products. In fact, a Department of State study reported that U.S. defense companies sold more weapons and defense products and claimed a larger share of the world market than was previously realized. This study shows U.S. exports of defense products increased to nearly $49 billion in 2006, comprising nearly 70 percent of global exports. This number continues to rise steadily. Furthermore, I believe that competition and open markets among our allies on a reciprocal basis would provide the best equipment at the best prices for the taxpayers and U.S. and allied militaries alike.

Congress can continue to protect U.S. industries from foreign competition for selfish, special interest reasons, or we can loosen these restrictions to provide necessary funds to ensure our economy can return to the strength it once had. ``Buy America'' policy in defense spending is particularly harmful and costly. Every dollar we spend on archaic procurement policies, like ``Buy America,'' is a dollar we cannot spend on training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining force structure, replacing old and worn-out weapon systems, and advancing our military technologies. It is my sincere hope that legislative provisions like ``Buy America'' in the stimulus bill are dropped and that Congress will end once and for all the anticompetitive, antifree trade practices that encumber our Government, the military, and U.S. industry.

In addition to the ``Buy America'' language contained in both the House and Senate stimulus bills, other policy provisions have been included in this legislation. Many of these items are nothing more than typical policy riders that will do nothing to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Most are partisan provisions that were added to this bill because it is considered to be ``must-pass'' legislation. They should not be included in any type of stimulus legislation and should instead go through the regular legislative process and subjected to necessary debate. Some examples of these policy riders include requiring the Transportation Security Administration to buy 100,000 employee uniforms from U.S. textile plants, legislation to give Federal workers new whistleblower protections, and legislative language favoring open access, or net-neutrality, that telecoms have long opposed.

Additionally, both bills contain wasteful Davis-Bacon provisions that mandate artificially high wage rates, based on faulty data, for its Federal construction spending. These rates are determined by the Secretary of Labor to be the prevailing wages in the geographic locality of the project for similar crafts and skills on comparable construction work. A report by the Department of Labor found that the wage surveys on which the prevailing wages are based are inaccurate. DOL's inspector general submitted a report to Congress that noted that a contractor hired by DOL found ``one or more errors in nearly 100 percent of the wage reports we reviewed.'' The error rates were high even after a more than $20 million effort to fix the surveys. In addition to outright errors, the inspector general noted that DOL used faulty methodology from unscientific surveys that led to bias, and even the data it did collect was untimely and, therefore, suspect.

The Davis-Bacon Act is an outmoded, depression-era, inflationary policy that, according to recent estimates, will inflate the construction costs of this bill by $17 billion. If we are trying to create new jobs then we should repeal Davis-Bacon, not encourage its expansion in this bill. Davis-Bacon imposes heavy regulatory burdens and unnecessary costs on Government contractors--not to mention the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the inflated costs. Furthermore, Davis-Bacon makes it more difficult for entry level job seekers, the unemployed, and the unskilled to obtain work.

A recent study noted that ``contrary to its purpose, the Davis-Bacon Act distorts construction labor markets. Davis-Bacon wages bear little relation to market wages, because the Government's prevailing wage estimates are wildly inaccurate. In some cities, Davis-Bacon rates are much higher than market wages. In Long Island, New York, for example, market rates for plumbers are $29.68 an hour. Davis-Bacon rates, however, are $44.75 an hour, 51 percent more than what the markets demand. In other cities, Davis-Bacon wages are significantly below market rates. For instance, Davis-Bacon rates for carpenters and plumbers in Sarasota, FL, are $6.55 an hour, a figure below Florida's minimum wage of $7.21. Nationwide, Davis-Bacon rates average 22 percent above market wages and inflate the cost of Federal construction by 10 percent.'' Mr. President, decent, livable wages are important for every American--but imposing harmful, outdated Davis-Bacon requirements on Federal construction projects will do nothing more than bloat the cost of this bill, suppress new construction hires, and depress the economy.

I want to say a few words about the proposal that I and a group of other Senators have presented today and will be proposing as we go through this debate. Basically in the category of taxes, it would eliminate the 3.1-percent payroll tax for all American employees, lower the tax bracket from 10 percent to 5 percent, lower the 15-percent tax bracket to 10 percent, lower corporate tax brackets from 35 to 25, lower tax brackets to 25 from 35 to small businesses, and help provide for accelerated depreciation for capital investment. The total cost of that provision would be $275 billion.

It would also extend the unemployment insurance benefits, extend food stamps, unemployment insurance benefits would be made tax free, and training and employment services for dislocated workers would be provided at the cost of $50 billion.

There would be housing provisions. Let me emphasize to my colleagues what we all know: It was the housing crisis that began this conflagration and it will be the stabilization of home values that ends it.

My friend from Nevada here and others have been working hard to try to address the housing crisis. In our respective States, obviously, the housing crisis is of the utmost severity, as it is throughout the country. But in high-growth areas of the country such as ours, it is even more severe. We have seen even more dramatic reductions in home values.

So our primary goal, my friends, is that we must stabilize home values if we are going to reverse this deep and precipitous slide we are seeing and the difficulties we are experiencing in our economy.

Among other proposals, $11 billion would require the Federal Government to allocate funding to increase the fee that servicers receive from continuing a mortgage and avoiding foreclosure from a one- time fee of $1,000 up to $60 per month for the life of the loan.

Safe harbor provisions remove the legal constraints inhibiting modifications; tax incentives for home purchases; the tax credit in the amount of $15,000 or 10 percent of the purchase price, whichever is less, with the option to utilize all in 1 year, or spread out over 2 years, and GSE and FHA conforming loan limits. This cost would be around $32 billion.

We should invest in our national infrastructure and defense. We should spend $9 billion to improve, repair, and modernize Department of Defense facilitates, restore and modernize barracks, improve facilities and infrastructure directly supporting the readiness and training of the Armed Forces, and invest in the energy efficiency of Department of Defense facilities. This activity would generate construction and craftsmen jobs in the short term by addressing deteriorating conditions of existing facilities for projects that are ready to be carried out in the next 9 months.

As to the resetting our combat forces, the Department of Defense will be requesting emergency supplemental appropriations in the spring of 2009 to support the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Inclusion of this in the stimulus accelerates those requirements and will be used to place new orders or to repair vehicles, equipment, material, ammunition required to fully equip our combat units, while generating jobs on assembly and manufacturing lines around the country.

I urge my colleagues to think about, if we are going to provide funds, that our defense needs are great, of the equipment that has been worn out in Iraq and will again be required to be used in Afghanistan. Obviously all of us who have visited our military installations know there are facilities that need to be modernized, restored, and new construction. We propose $70 billion for road and bridge infrastructure, road and bridges on Federal land, public transit and airport infrastructure and improvements, and $1 billion for a small business loan program. The total estimated cost for investing in our infrastructure: $88 billion.

Finally, we need to require these spending programs in the stimulus bill be sunset 3 years from enactment. If this spending is intended to restore our economy and jump-start it, once the economy is jump-started and restored, then we should not have to continue this spending and increase the size of our debt and lay it on future generations of Americans.

This proposal states that after two consecutive quarters of economic growth greater than 2 percent of inflation-adjusted GDP, the following control mechanisms will trigger to reduce the deficit and promote long- term economic growth: All spending provisions in the economic stimulus legislation where funds have not been spent or obligated will be cancelled and permanently rescinded. The budget baselines shall be adjusted downward to ensure that all spending in the stimulus, whether spent or cancelled, is treated as a one-time expenditure and not assumed to be repeated.

What a lot of Americans do not know is every time we add a spending provision, that becomes part of the baseline, which assumes that that money will be spent over time. We cannot continue that indefinitely. We propose a 2-percent across-the-board reduction in spending, with the goal of balancing the budget by 2015.

We should establish two separate entitlement commissions, one to make recommendations on systems and the other Medicare-Medicaid. We all know the elephant in the room is Social Security and Medicare, and the unfunded liabilities associated with it. We should also require recipients to disclose costs for awarded projects, prohibit stimulus funds from being used for lobbying activities, political contributions, holiday parties, unnecessary renovations, and questionable travel.

We should spend some more money on accountability, transparency, oversight, and results. We should create a recovery and accountability and transparency board with a Web site, create a Congressional oversight panel, establish a recovery and reinvestment oversight board composed of Federal agency heads, require review and audits by the Comptroller General on the bill's effectiveness in achieving economic and workforce recovery goals, and establish a special inspector general modeled after the oversight required for TARP. The total is $445 billion. I think this is a balanced proposal and one that I hope deserves the serious consideration of this body.

I want to say a word about TARP. The American people have been dissatisfied with the results, and Members of this body have been as well. In the first round of $350 billion, it seemed that the priorities seemed to change literally on a daily or weekly basis.

It became unclear as to exactly what that $350 billion was going to do, and, apparently, if you look at all of the statistics, it has not resulted in significant improvement.

Now, what would have happened without it will be a matter of conjecture and analysis by economists and historians. Now we are in the second round. Now we are told there may need to be more, another TARP, after we pass this stimulus legislation and an omnibus appropriations bill.

When we start totaling that, we are talking about several trillion dollars, and we can't continue that without the American people experiencing some tangible results. Most Members of this body are in agreement. We need to stimulate and jump-start the economy. Let's not do it in such a way that our children and grandchildren pay for it in the most painful and difficult manner. We owe that to them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to address the issue of the legislation before us, the SCHIP reauthorization.

We all know that the Children's Health Insurance Program is a vital safety net program the Congress created to offer coverage to one of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, and that is low-income children. It is an objective that all of us stand behind. Unfortunately, the measure before us is an attempt to take a good program, expand it far beyond its original scope, and to fund it by imposing higher tobacco taxes. Remarkable. That is not the right approach.

When it was created, it was done to address the needs of millions of children who went without health coverage. I was pleased to join my colleagues in supporting the establishment of the CHIP program. And thanks to this program, many low-income children have been able to obtain health care coverage they otherwise wouldn't have had. Today, obviously, this bill would drastically expand coverage, and as has been discussed several times on the floor, it contains loopholes, for example, that would allow one State--the State of New York--to go ahead with their planned expansion and cover children of families earning up to $88,000 a year. That will have a crowdout effect, where 2.4 million of the 6.5 million newly enrolled individuals would have had private coverage without this legislation.

Some of us who look at this may view it as another effort to eliminate, over time, private insurance in America, and I am concerned about that. I am also concerned about the drastic expansion. We should take the word ``children'' out of it, since it is now being expanded to many other citizens than children. But what I find unacceptable here is that we are basically going to count on Americans to use tobacco products--smoking--in order to fund it.

Is there anyone in this body who doesn't know that smoking and the use of tobacco products is harmful and a danger to the health of these same children we are insuring? Is there anyone who isn't concerned about what seems to be a rise in the use of tobacco amongst young Americans? One of the reasons for that is because the deal that was negotiated between the lawyers and the attorneys general of this country was that these supposed funds from tobacco taxes were supposed to go to advertising for antitobacco usage and for treatment of illnesses associated with the use of tobacco, but it has now become another source of revenue for every State in America.

Yesterday, during a Health and Education Committee roundtable discussion, the topic of preventive measures was discussed at length, and what did we talk about? We talked about the ill effects of the use of tobacco, particularly smoking and secondhand tobacco, and yet here we are funding an attempt to improve the health of young Americans with billions and billions of dollars of taxes on tobacco products. Couldn't we have found somewhere in our budget programs that could have been reduced or even eliminated to fund the SCHIP program? Apparently not. Apparently not.

So we now are at a point where the States no longer use the money in the form of taxes on tobacco products that was supposed to go to discourage the use of tobacco. We are now going to depend on a tax on tobacco products for funding of insurance for children and others, thereby, at least in some ways, encouraging the use of tobacco. So I am very much opposed to this legislation.

I am proud of what we did initially. But it seems to me that using the ill-

gotten taxes from the use of tobacco--smoking in particular--in order to fund any program is not an appropriate legislative remedy. So I believe the bill differs drastically from the original intention of SCHIP, and I disagree strongly with its funding mechanism of increased tobacco taxes.

I support the ideas contained in the alternative bill, which would keep the Children's Health Insurance Program focused on low-income children, and would have done so without dramatic increases in Federal spending or higher taxes.

Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I regret that I must oppose the nomination of Timothy Geithner to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. I assure my colleagues, I did not reach this decision lightly but, rather after much thoughtful consideration. Next to the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices, the Senate has no more important duty than the confirmation of members of the President's Cabinet. Throughout my time in this body I have held the view that elections have consequences and that--barring any extraordinary circumstance--the President should be free to pick his team and surround himself with those he feels can best assist him in attaining his goals.

Mr. Geithner's involvement in the failed policies behind the misuse of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, TARP, has led me to conclude that an extraordinary circumstance exists in this situation. Mr. Geithner played a critical role in the creation of the TARP and should be held accountable for the fact that it has been terribly mismanaged and has not achieved its intended results. Unfortunately, I have come to believe that Mr. Geithner lacks the critical judgment necessary to be an effective Treasury Secretary and careful steward of taxpayer dollars.

To properly weigh a potential Cabinet member's qualifications, it is important to pay close attention to the committee hearings held to consider the nomination and the views expressed by both the nominee and members of the committee. After Mr. Geithner's testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, a very well-respected member of the committee stated that ``I don't believe that the requisite candor exists for me to indicate my support for him with an affirmative vote.'' Another member of the committee stated that, ``Mr. Geithner has been involved in just about every flawed bailout action of the previous administration. He was the front-line regulator in New York when all the innovations that recently have brought our markets to their knees became widespread. . . . All those actions, or failures to act, raise questions about the nominee's judgment.'' I fully agree with my colleagues' sentiments.

I am deeply troubled by Mr. Geithner's role in the mismanagement of the TARP. He has enthusiastically supported failed policies that have cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars. Earlier this month, I voted with 41 of my colleagues in opposition to releasing the remaining $350 billion TARP funds because I had seen no evidence that the additional and substantial taxpayers' money would be used for its intended purpose. TARP was created to allow the Treasury Department to purchase up to $700 billion in ``toxic assets'' from financial institutions in order to help homeowners facing foreclosure and to stimulate the

economy. The misuse of the first $350 billion of TARP funds combined with the lack of transparency promised by the Treasury Department were reasons enough to oppose releasing additional funds. It is my strong opinion that no further TARP funds should be released until we are able to impose strict standards of accountability and ensure that the money is spent only as intended by Congress--to purchase mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets.

Unfortunately, I have seen no evidence that Mr. Geithner shares that view. He has stated that more oversight and transparency are necessary but to date he has offered no specifics about how the remaining $350 billion in TARP money would be spent and has laid out no criteria for serious oversight and accountability of such substantial sums of taxpayer dollars.

With no regard for congressional intent, and with the support of Mr. Geithner, the Treasury Department has used TARP funds to prop up the banking industry and to guarantee securities backed by student loans and credit card debt. But most troubling to me has been the use of TARP funds to help bail out the domestic auto industry--in direct defiance of Congress. Last month, after extensive discussion and debate, the Senate rejected a plan to pump billions of Federal dollars into the domestic auto industry because we saw no evidence of serious concessions from the industry and no assurance of the domestic auto manufacturers' long-term viability. When asked about the use of TARP funds to further assist the domestic auto industry, Mr. Geithner indicated he would support further funding as long as it was accompanied by ``a comprehensive restructuring'' of the auto industry. Again--he offered no specifics.

Madam President, the American people can no longer afford ambiguous assurances of transparency, accountability, and reform. They need and want specifics and particulars--and the person leading the U.S. Treasury should be able to provide the American taxpayer with the details they seek.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I will speak briefly. I know the Senator from Maine would like to say a few words.

I really believe we should move forward with the nomination of our former colleague--I guess our still present colleague--Senator Hillary Clinton, to take up the urgent and important duties she holds, which are to meet some very serious challenges. We should not delay. I do not have to remind you, Mr. President, or anyone else in this body that we are in two wars. There is a very fragile cease-fire in the Gaza now between the Israelis and Hamas. The situation in North Korea seems to have deteriorated again with the paradoxical and unpredictable behavior of the North Korean dictator and Government. I think we need to immediately, or as soon as possible this morning, by voice vote, move forward with the nomination and confirmation of the Senator from New York to be the next Secretary of State.

I remind all my colleagues, we had an election and we also had a remarkable and historic time yesterday as this Nation has come together in a way it has not for some time. I, like all good politicians, pay attention to the President's approval ratings. They are very high. But more important, I think the message the American people are sending us now is they want us to work together and get to work. I think we ought to let Senator Clinton--who is obviously qualified and obviously will serve--get to work immediately.

I ask unanimous consent that at the completion of the remarks any of my colleagues might have, we vitiate the vote at 4:30 and proceed by voice vote to a confirmation of Senator Hillary Clinton to be the next Secretary of State for the United States of America.

Will the Senator yield? While the unanimous consent request is being considered, perhaps my other colleagues could speak?

Let me say to my colleague, I just had a conversation with Senator Cornyn. He does not object to that.

I yield the floor.

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

Do you think it is possible, if we can get it cleared, to perhaps have this unanimous consent vote before breaking for lunch?

I will follow up with another question for my colleague; that is, if we are unable to do it in the next few minutes, perhaps we could, for sure, during the lunch break, be ready to go at the conclusion of the lunch break.

Madam President, I will support the resolution before us today and oppose releasing the remaining Troubled Asset Relief Plan, TARP, funds because I have seen no evidence that the additional and substantial taxpayers' money will be used for its intended purpose. TARP was created to allow the Treasury Department to purchase up to $700 billion in ``toxic assets'' from financial institutions in order to help homeowners facing foreclosure and to stimulate the economy. The misuse of the first $350 billion of TARP funds combined with the lack of transparency promised by Secretary Paulson should be reason enough to oppose releasing additional funds. No further TARP funds should be released until we are able to impose strict standards of accountability and ensure that the money is spent only as intended by Congress--to purchase mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets.

Today, in an open letter to Members of Congress, 26 public interest organizations wrote that ``(T)he stated purpose of the TARP was to purchase toxic mortgage assets. The TARP was also designed to reintroduce the flow of credit into the market and help stabilize Wall Street. To date, neither has been accomplished.'' The letter also states that the Treasury Department ``has invaded the free market, propping up some companies to the detriment of others and purchasing stock in banks without requiring accountability or transparency about the use of taxpayer funds.'' The signatories included the American Shareholders Association, Americans for Tax Reform, the Center for Fiscal Accountability, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the Family Research Council, the National Center for Public Policy Research, and National Taxpayers Union. I will ask to have the full text of the letter printed in the Record.

There is no doubt that Congress intended that the Treasury Department use the funds provided to assist only financial institutions. But that has not

been the case. The language authorizing the TARP program has been interpreted to allow Treasury to change the game plan and use the funds for things outside the scope of congressional intent. Less than 2 weeks after enactment of the program, Secretary Paulson changed course and decided instead to use TARP funds to recapitalize banks--a decision that was made with little or no input from Congress and was an option that was explicitly rejected by Paulson and Bernanke when they were selling the TARP plan to Congress.

In fact, just this morning the Wall Street Journal reported that Bank of America is close to finalizing a deal with the Government which will give them billions of dollars in U.S. aid. The lead article on the Journal's front page states: ``(T)he commitment of the funds is further evidence of the banking system's delicate condition and its hunger for more capital, despite billions of dollars already invested in financial institutions by the government. So far, the U.S. government has already injected $25 billion into Bank of America.''

The Associated Press recently investigated how the TARP funds given to U.S. banks were being spent. An article published on December 22, 2008, reported what they found. It was astonishing. The article, titled ``Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret'' reads partly:

Washington (AP)--Think you could borrow money from a bank

without saying what you were going to do with it? Well,

apparently when banks borrow from you they don't feel the

same need to say how the money is spent.

After receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the

nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how

they're spending it. Some won't even talk about it.

``We're choosing not to disclose that,'' said Kevin Heine,

spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about

$3 billion.

Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which

received $25 billion in emergency bailout money, said that

while some of the money was lent, some was not, and the bank

has not given any accounting of exactly how the money is

being used.

``We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining

to,'' Kelly said.

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at

least $1 billion in government money and asked four

questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How

much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the

rest?

None of the banks provided specific answers.

``We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking,''

said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based

SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer

dollars.

Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was

going.

``We manage our capital in its aggregate,'' said Regions

Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the

Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is

spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the

financial bailout.

There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money.

Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month

and implored them to lend the money--not to hoard it or spend

it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But

there is no process in place to make sure that's happening

and there are no consequences for banks that don't comply.

Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money

quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings to the $700

billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department,

which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be

spent.

I will ask to have the full article printed in the Record.

With no regard for congressional intent, the Treasury Department has used TARP funds to prop up the banking industry and to guarantee securities backed by student loans and credit card debt. But most troubling to me has been the use of TARP funds to help bail out the domestic auto industry--in direct defiance of Congress. Last month, after extensive discussion and debate, the Senate rejected a plan to pump billions of Federal dollars into the domestic auto industry because we saw no evidence of serious concessions from the industry and no assurance of the domestic auto manufacturers' long-term viability.

At the time I said that, before they ask for assistance, the automakers will need to change dramatically the way they do business if they hope to be on course for long-term profitability. Rather than seeking an unconditional handout from the taxpayer, industry leaders must first consider how they can restructure their business models in order to fix the problem themselves and build more competitive products--including changes in management, renegotiating labor agreements, and reorganizing under the bankruptcy process. And, that they should have been doing so months, if not years, ago.

When I opposed the auto bailout plan last month it was mainly because I felt that the automakers needed to prove to Congress and the American people that they were serious about making the changes necessary to ensure their long-term success before they sought assistance from the taxpayer. Unfortunately, those concerns were ignored by the President when he decided to give away over $17 billion in TARP funds to the domestic automakers with no assurances that they would fundamentally change the way they do business to ensure their viability. I continue to believe that this was a critical mistake.

In their first oversight report on TARP spending, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, was very critical of Treasury stating that they had ``failed to address a number of critical issues while implementing the $700 billion financial bailout plan, including how to ensure its efforts are successful.'' The report adds that Treasury ``has no policies or procedures in place for ensuring the institutions . . . are using capital investments in a manner that helps meet the purposes of the act.'' Additionally, the GAO reported that ``Treasury cannot effectively hold participating institutions accountable for how they use the capital injections or provide strong oversight of compliance with the requirements under the act.''

In addition to the GAO, many of my colleagues have been very critical of Secretary Paulson and his handling of the first half of the TARP funds, stating that he has ignored the intent of the bailout legislation because he has done little to address the root cause of the financial meltdown--namely the mortgage market. I understand the anger of my colleagues, indeed, I share it.

It is abundantly clear that there has been a stunning lack of transparency, accountability, and effective management of TARP funds to date. Because of this, I will not support the release of another dime of these funds without first seeing a full and complete accounting of funds already spent or committed as well as the imposition of very strict conditions on the remaining funds as a way to ensure any expenditures reflect the intent of Congress.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letters to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Thomas, Senator Kyl, and Senator Domenici in introducing a bill to amend the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. This legislation would improve Federal laws that protect the integrity and originality of Native American arts and crafts.

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act prohibits the misrepresentation in marketing of Indian arts and crafts products, and makes it illegal to display or sell works in a manner that falsely suggests it's the product of an individual Indian or Indian Tribe. Unfortunately, the law is written so that only the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, can investigate and make arrests in cases of suspected Indian art counterfeiters. The bill we are introducing would amend the law to expand existing Federal investigative authority by authorizing other Federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA Office of Law Enforcement, in addition to the FBI, to investigate cases of misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts. This bill is similar to provisions included in S. 1255, which passed the Senate last Congress but wasn't acted on by the House, and the Native American Omnibus Technical Corrections Act of 2007, S. 2087.

A major source of tribal and individual Indian income is derived from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts. Yet, millions of dollars are diverted each year from these original artists and Indian tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. Few, if any, criminal prosecutions have been brought in Federal court for such violations. It is understandable that enforcing the criminal law under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes in Indian country. Therefore, expanding the investigative authority to include other Federal agencies is intended to promote the active investigation of alleged misconduct. It is my hope that this much needed change will deter those who choose to violate the law.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl in reintroducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land management study for lands adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. A similar bill was introduced last Congress and received a hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks. The bill being introduced today reflects suggested changes of that Subcommittee and includes language that met their approval. I am grateful for the input of the members of the Subcommittee and their staff.

For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best protected from future development under management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would help to resolve the question of future management and whether expanding the monument's boundaries could compliment current public and multiple-use needs.

The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area. I fully expect that as this measure continues through the legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bi-partisan manner.

This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail.

The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail is approximately 807 miles long and begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border near the Grand Canyon. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day.

For over a decade, more than 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have partnered to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Through their combined efforts, these agencies and the members of the Arizona Trail Association have completed over 90 percent of the longest contiguous land-based trail in the State of Arizona. Designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would help streamline the management of the high-use trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated over 20 national trails. Before a trail receives a national designation, a federal study is typically required to assess the feasibility of establishing a trail route. The Arizona Trail doesn't require a feasibility study because it's virtually complete with less than 60 miles left to build and sign. All but 1- percent of the trail resides on public land, and the unfinished segments don't involve private property. The trail meets the criteria to be labeled a National Scenic Trail and already appears on all Arizona state maps. Therefore, the Congress has reason to forego an unnecessary and costly feasibility study and proceed straight to National Scenic Trail designation.

The Arizona Trail is known throughout the State as boon to outdoor enthusiasts. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest- growing states in the United States, the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Ensign in introducing the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2009. This bill would remove the arbitrary restrictions that prevent Americans from having an array of options for non-stop air travel between airports in Western states and LaGuardia International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

LaGuardia restricts the departure or arrival of non-stop flights to or from airports that are farther then 1,500 miles from LaGuardia. Washington National has a similar restriction for non-stop flights to or from airports 1,250 miles from Washington National. These restrictions are commonly referred to as the ``perimeter rule.'' This bill would abolish these archaic limitations that reduce consumers' options for convenient flights and competitive fares.

The original purpose of the perimeter rule was to promote LaGuardia and Washington National as airports for business travelers flying to and from East Coast and Midwest cities and to promote traffic to other airports by diverting long haul flights to Newark and Kennedy airports in the New York area and the Dulles airport in the Washington area. However, over the years, Congress has granted numerous exceptions to the perimeter rule because the air traveling public is eager for options. Today, exceptions are made for nonstop flights between LaGuardia and Denver and between Washington National and Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Seattle. Rather then continuing to take a piecemeal approach to promoting consumer choice, I urge Congress to take this opportunity once and for all to do away with this outdated rule.

I continue to believe that Americans should have access to air travel at the lowest possible cost and with the most convenience for their schedule. Therefore, I have always advocated for the removal of any artificial barrier that prevents free market competition. In 2004, I co-sponsored legislation to repeal the Wright Amendment which prohibited flights from Dallas' Love Field airport to 43 states. This year, I am proud to once again join with my colleagues to eliminate another unnecessary restraint through the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2009.

A 1999 study by the Transportation Research Board, the most recent available, stated that perimeter rules ``no longer serve their original purpose and have produced too many adverse side effects, including barriers to competition . . . The rules arbitrarily prevent some airlines from extending their networks to these airports; they discourage competition among the airports in the region and among the airlines that use these airports; and they are subject to chronic attempts by special interest groups to obtain exemptions.'' That same year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, stated that the

``practical effect'' of the perimeter rule ``has been to limit entry'' of other carriers and found that airfares at LaGuardia and Washington National are approximately 50 percent higher on average than fares at similar airports unconstrained by the perimeter rule. Such an anticompetitive rule should not remain in effect, particularly where its anticompetitive impact has long been recognized.

For this reason, I will continue the struggle to try to remove the perimeter rule and other anti-competitive restrictions that increase consumer costs and decrease convenience for no apparent benefit.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Economic Growth Through Innovation Act of 2009. This bill would make permanent the current research and development tax credit. Otherwise, this tax credit will expire on December 31, 2009.

A permanent credit would provide an incentive to innovate, and remove uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make research and development investment decisions for 2010 and beyond. The research and development tax credit was first established in 1981 and has been extended and revised repeatedly since then. Failure to make the tax credit permanent has led to reduced investment in research, which has led to fewer jobs being created in the United States. Tax policies have a powerful influence on business investment and hiring decisions, and that is why I have chosen to introduce this bill on the first day of the 111th Congress. Additionally, both President-elect Obama and I were in full agreement during the campaign that making permanent the research and development tax credit is critical to spurring investment in developing technologies.

In the 1980s, the U.S. was a leader among nations for providing the most generous tax treatment of research and development. By 2004, the most recent study, the United States had fallen to 17th, which explains why the U.S. is no longer considered by many to be the world leader in innovation and technology. A permanent, meaningful research and development tax credit will ensure that businesses keep funding research and development, which may lead to numerous new discoveries in the U.S. such as fuel-efficient vehicles, cancer treatment or the development of clean energy.

Studies have shown that on average, companies invest $94 in research and development for every $6 the Federal Government invests in the tax credit. While I understand that some economists have estimated this tax credit may cost many billions of dollars in tax revenue to the Federal government, I believe it is essential to spurring an economic recovery.

Companies of all sizes, in a wide range of industries, have taken advantage of the research and development tax credit during its existence. According to a recent study by Ernst & Young, 17,700 businesses claimed $6.6 billion research and development tax credits on their tax returns in 2005, the most recent year available. Almost a quarter of these businesses were small businesses with $1 million of assets or less, and almost half were businesses with assets of $1-$5 million, which is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. Firms in the manufacturing, information and services sectors claimed the majority of the credit, and the states with the highest number of companies reporting research and development activity include those States that have been hit the hardest by the depressed economy such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and California.

Congress has endorsed the credit by extending it 13 times since enactment, and several times the credit has been reinstated retroactively. Yet, it has never been made permanent, creating a less certain investment atmosphere. With so many Republicans and Democrats in agreement that this tax credit must be made permanent, including President-elect Obama, I hope this bill will be given swift consideration and signed into law during the first few months of 2009 to increase our nation's ability to innovate, create jobs and improve our sagging economy.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2009. This legislation is virtually identical to a measure reported by the Commerce Committee during the first executive session of the 110th Congress, after being approved unanimously by the Senate in 2005. Simply put, this bill would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers. I remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on this important legislation.

Since 1996, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of professional boxing--and for very good reason. With rare exception, professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. Often they are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Current law has improved to some extent the state of professional boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport remains at risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office spent more than six months studying ten of the country's busiest state and tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that many State and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal boxing law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal and State officials.

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.

Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national self-regulating organization--though preferable to Federal government oversight is not a realistic option.

This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission ``USBC'' or Commission. The Commission would be responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of

professional boxing in the United States.

The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.

It is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation with local commissions, and it would only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law.

Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The establishment of the USBC would address that need. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public and--more importantly--compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing these problems.

As this measure continues through the legislative process, I fully expect Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bipartisan manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the ``Bennett Freeze.'' Passage of this legislation would officially mark the end of roughly 40 years of litigation and land-lock between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe.

For decades the Navajo and the Hopi have been engrossed in a bitter dispute over land rights in the Black Mesa area just south of Kayenta, Arizona. The conflict extends as far back as 1882 when the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo reservations were initially defined resulting in a tragic saga of litigation and damaging federal Indian policy. By 1966, relations between the tribes became so strained over development and access to sacred religious sites in the disputed area that the federal government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed reservation land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing development in the Black Mesa area and restricted repairs on existing dwellings. This injunction became known as the ``Bennett Freeze,'' named after former BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed the ban.

The Bennett Freeze was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent one tribe taking advantage of another until the land dispute could be settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere near resolution, and the construction freeze ultimately devastated economic development in northern Arizona for years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000 people currently living in the Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions that haven't changed in half a century. While the population of the area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced to live together in homes that have been declared unfit for human habitation by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. Only 3 percent of the families affected by the Bennett Freeze have electricity. Only 10 percent have running water. Almost none have natural gas.

In September 2005, the Navajo and Hopi peoples' desire to live together in mutual respect prevailed when both tribes approved an intergovernmental agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in the Bennett Freeze area. This landmark agreement also clarifies the boundaries of the Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures that access to religious sites of both tribes in protected. As such, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the Department of Interior all support congressional legislation to lift the freeze.

The bill I am introducing today would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The intergovernmental compact approved last year by both tribes, the Department of Interior, and signed by the U.S. District Court for Arizona, marks a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. Lifting the Bennett Freeze gives us an opportunity to put decades of conflict between the Navajo and Hopi behind us.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and Scenic River.

Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800s when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 1900s, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service, APS, one of the state's largest electric utility providers serving more than a million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to its pre-settlement conditions.

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable opportunity to reintroduce at least six threatened and endangered native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently living in the creek.

There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found eligible for Wild and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the Forest Service and will not affect private

property owners. I fully expect that as this measure continues through the legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bipartisan manner.

Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic designation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Thomas, Senator Kyl, and Senator Domenici in introducing a bill to amend the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. This legislation would improve Federal laws that protect the integrity and originality of Native American arts and crafts.

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act prohibits the misrepresentation in marketing of Indian arts and crafts products, and makes it illegal to display or sell works in a manner that falsely suggests it's the product of an individual Indian or Indian Tribe. Unfortunately, the law is written so that only the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, can investigate and make arrests in cases of suspected Indian art counterfeiters. The bill we are introducing would amend the law to expand existing Federal investigative authority by authorizing other Federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA Office of Law Enforcement, in addition to the FBI, to investigate cases of misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts. This bill is similar to provisions included in S. 1255, which passed the Senate last Congress but wasn't acted on by the House, and the Native American Omnibus Technical Corrections Act of 2007, S. 2087.

A major source of tribal and individual Indian income is derived from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts. Yet, millions of dollars are diverted each year from these original artists and Indian tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. Few, if any, criminal prosecutions have been brought in Federal court for such violations. It is understandable that enforcing the criminal law under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes in Indian country. Therefore, expanding the investigative authority to include other Federal agencies is intended to promote the active investigation of alleged misconduct. It is my hope that this much needed change will deter those who choose to violate the law.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl in reintroducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land management study for lands adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. A similar bill was introduced last Congress and received a hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks. The bill being introduced today reflects suggested changes of that Subcommittee and includes language that met their approval. I am grateful for the input of the members of the Subcommittee and their staff.

For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best protected from future development under management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would help to resolve the question of future management and whether expanding the monument's boundaries could compliment current public and multiple-use needs.

The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area. I fully expect that as this measure continues through the legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bi-partisan manner.

This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail.

The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail is approximately 807 miles long and begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border near the Grand Canyon. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day.

For over a decade, more than 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have partnered to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Through their combined efforts, these agencies and the members of the Arizona Trail Association have completed over 90 percent of the longest contiguous land-based trail in the State of Arizona. Designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would help streamline the management of the high-use trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated over 20 national trails. Before a trail receives a national designation, a federal study is typically required to assess the feasibility of establishing a trail route. The Arizona Trail doesn't require a feasibility study because it's virtually complete with less than 60 miles left to build and sign. All but 1- percent of the trail resides on public land, and the unfinished segments don't involve private property. The trail meets the criteria to be labeled a National Scenic Trail and already appears on all Arizona state maps. Therefore, the Congress has reason to forego an unnecessary and costly feasibility study and proceed straight to National Scenic Trail designation.

The Arizona Trail is known throughout the State as boon to outdoor enthusiasts. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest- growing states in the United States, the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am proud to again be joining forces with my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to introduce a comprehensive earmark reform measure. We are also pleased to be joined by Senators McCaskill, Graham, and Coburn as cosponsors in this effort. The measure we are introducing today is designed to eliminate unauthorized earmarks and wasteful spending in appropriations bills and conference reports and help restore fiscal discipline to Washington. Specifically, this bill would allow any member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized provisions. Additionally, it contains a requirement that all appropriations and authorization conference reports be electronically searchable at least 48 hours before full Senate consideration, and a requirement that the recipients of Federal dollars disclose any amounts that they spend on registered lobbyists. These are reasonable, responsible reform measures that deserve consideration by the full Senate.

Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national priorities first. The process is broken and it needs to be fixed. As we enter the second year of a recession, the economy is in shambles. Record numbers of homeowners face foreclosure, our financial markets have nearly collapsed, and the U.S. automobile manufacturers are near ruin. The national unemployment rate stands at 6.7 percent--the highest in 15 years--with over 1.9 million people having lost their jobs last year.

In the last year alone, due to the mortgage crisis, the Government has seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress passed a massive $700 billion rescue of the financial markets, and we've debated giving the big-three auto manufacturers tens of billions in taxpayer dollars--just as a ``short-term'' infusion of cash--knowing that they'd be back for more. Additionally, we're getting ready to consider an economic stimulus package which is estimated to cost as much as $850 billion to a trillion dollars. With all of this spending, we can no longer afford to waste even a single dime of taxpayer money.

It is abundantly clear that the time has come for us to eliminate the corrupt, wasteful practice of earmarking. We have made some progress on the issue in the past couple of years, but we have not gone far enough. Legislation we passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure of earmarks. While that was a good step forward, the bottom line is that we don't simply need more disclosure of earmarks--we need to eliminate them.

As my colleagues are well aware, for years I have been coming to the Senate floor to read list after list of the ridiculous items we've spent money on--hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change. And year after year I would offer amendment after amendment to strip pork barrel projects from spending bills--usually only getting a handful of votes each time.

Finally, I was encouraged in January 2007 when this body passed, by a vote of 96-2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful earmark reform. I thought that, at last, we would finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, that victory was short lived. In August 2007, we were presented with a bill containing very watered down earmark provisions. Not only did that bill, S. 1, do far too little to rein in wasteful spending--it completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we passed overwhelmingly the previous January.

Earmarks, Mr. President, are like a cancer. Left unchecked, they have grown out of control--increasing by nearly 400 percent since 1994. And just as cancer destroys tissue and vital organs, the corruption associated with the process of earmarking is destroying what is vital to our strength as a nation--that is the faith and trust of the American people in their elected representatives and in the institutions of their government.

Not long ago, in the House of Representatives, when another member questioned the necessity of one of his earmarked projects, a Congressman raged at the idea of someone challenging what he described as ``my

money, my money.'' Therein lies the problem, Mr. President. Too many Members of Congress view taxpayers, funds as their own. They feel free to spend it as they see fit, with no oversight and, often, no shame. Look at some of the things we've funded over the years: $225,000 for an Historic Wagon Museum in Utah, $1 million for a DNA study of bears in Montana, $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Ohio, $220,000 for blueberry research at the University of Maine, $3 million for an animal waste management research facility in Kentucky, $170,000 for blackbird management in Kansas, $196,000 for geese control in New York, $50,000 for feral hog control in Missouri, $90,000 for the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Fort Worth, Texas, $200,000 for an American White Pelican survey, $6 million for sugarcane growers in Hawaii, $13 million for a ewe lamb retention program, $500,000 to study flight attendant fatigue, $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Pennsylvania and New York, $3 million for the production of a documentary about Alaska, $1 million for a waterless urinal initiative, $500,000 for a Teapot museum in North Carolina, $1.1 million to research the use of Alaskan salmon in baby food, $25 million for a fish hatchery in Montana, $37 million over four years to the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board to ``promote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries.'' So how exactly does this Board spend the money Congress so generously earmarks every year? Well, they spent $500,000 of it to paint a giant salmon on the side of an Alaska Airlines 747--and nicknamed it the ``Salmon Forty Salmon.''

Unfortunately, I could go on and on with examples of wasteful earmarks that have been approved by Congress. And we wonder why our approval rating stands at 20 percent.

The corruption which stems from the practice of earmarking has resulted in current and former Members of both the House and Senate either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison. Let's be clear--it wasn't inadequate lobbyist disclosure requirements which led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for doling out $70-$80 million of the taxpayer's funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question.

We cannot allow this to continue. Now is the time to put a stop to this corrupt practice. The bill we are introducing today seeks to reform the current system by empowering all Members with a tool to rid appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, pork barrel projects, and legislative policy riders and to provide greater public disclosure of the legislative process.

We, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and confidence in Congress. An informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. By seriously addressing the corrupting influence of earmarks, we will allow Members to legislate with the imperative that our Government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence. We can, and we must, end the practice of earmarking.

Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for his strong leadership on this issue, and I encourage the Senate act quickly to approve this measure.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Ensign in introducing the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2009. This bill would remove the arbitrary restrictions that prevent Americans from having an array of options for non-stop air travel between airports in Western states and LaGuardia International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

LaGuardia restricts the departure or arrival of non-stop flights to or from airports that are farther then 1,500 miles from LaGuardia. Washington National has a similar restriction for non-stop flights to or from airports 1,250 miles from Washington National. These restrictions are commonly referred to as the ``perimeter rule.'' This bill would abolish these archaic limitations that reduce consumers' options for convenient flights and competitive fares.

The original purpose of the perimeter rule was to promote LaGuardia and Washington National as airports for business travelers flying to and from East Coast and Midwest cities and to promote traffic to other airports by diverting long haul flights to Newark and Kennedy airports in the New York area and the Dulles airport in the Washington area. However, over the years, Congress has granted numerous exceptions to the perimeter rule because the air traveling public is eager for options. Today, exceptions are made for nonstop flights between LaGuardia and Denver and between Washington National and Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Seattle. Rather then continuing to take a piecemeal approach to promoting consumer choice, I urge Congress to take this opportunity once and for all to do away with this outdated rule.

I continue to believe that Americans should have access to air travel at the lowest possible cost and with the most convenience for their schedule. Therefore, I have always advocated for the removal of any artificial barrier that prevents free market competition. In 2004, I co-sponsored legislation to repeal the Wright Amendment which prohibited flights from Dallas' Love Field airport to 43 states. This year, I am proud to once again join with my colleagues to eliminate another unnecessary restraint through the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2009.

A 1999 study by the Transportation Research Board, the most recent available, stated that perimeter rules ``no longer serve their original purpose and have produced too many adverse side effects, including barriers to competition . . . The rules arbitrarily prevent some airlines from extending their networks to these airports; they discourage competition among the airports in the region and among the airlines that use these airports; and they are subject to chronic attempts by special interest groups to obtain exemptions.'' That same year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, stated that the

``practical effect'' of the perimeter rule ``has been to limit entry'' of other carriers and found that airfares at LaGuardia and Washington National are approximately 50 percent higher on average than fares at similar airports unconstrained by the perimeter rule. Such an anticompetitive rule should not remain in effect, particularly where its anticompetitive impact has long been recognized.

For this reason, I will continue the struggle to try to remove the perimeter rule and other anti-competitive restrictions that increase consumer costs and decrease convenience for no apparent benefit.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Economic Growth Through Innovation Act of 2009. This bill would make permanent the current research and development tax credit. Otherwise, this tax credit will expire on December 31, 2009.

A permanent credit would provide an incentive to innovate, and remove uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make research and development investment decisions for 2010 and beyond. The research and development tax credit was first established in 1981 and has been extended and revised repeatedly since then. Failure to make the tax credit permanent has led to reduced investment in research, which has led to fewer jobs being created in the United States. Tax policies have a powerful influence on business investment and hiring decisions, and that is why I have chosen to introduce this bill on the first day of the 111th Congress. Additionally, both President-elect Obama and I were in full agreement during the campaign that making permanent the research and development tax credit is critical to spurring investment in developing technologies.

In the 1980s, the U.S. was a leader among nations for providing the most generous tax treatment of research and development. By 2004, the most recent study, the United States had fallen to 17th, which explains why the U.S. is no longer considered by many to be the world leader in innovation and technology. A permanent, meaningful research and development tax credit will ensure that businesses keep funding research and development, which may lead to numerous new discoveries in the U.S. such as fuel-efficient vehicles, cancer treatment or the development of clean energy.

Studies have shown that on average, companies invest $94 in research and development for every $6 the Federal Government invests in the tax credit. While I understand that some economists have estimated this tax credit may cost many billions of dollars in tax revenue to the Federal government, I believe it is essential to spurring an economic recovery.

Companies of all sizes, in a wide range of industries, have taken advantage of the research and development tax credit during its existence. According to a recent study by Ernst & Young, 17,700 businesses claimed $6.6 billion research and development tax credits on their tax returns in 2005, the most recent year available. Almost a quarter of these businesses were small businesses with $1 million of assets or less, and almost half were businesses with assets of $1-$5 million, which is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. Firms in the manufacturing, information and services sectors claimed the majority of the credit, and the states with the highest number of companies reporting research and development activity include those States that have been hit the hardest by the depressed economy such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and California.

Congress has endorsed the credit by extending it 13 times since enactment, and several times the credit has been reinstated retroactively. Yet, it has never been made permanent, creating a less certain investment atmosphere. With so many Republicans and Democrats in agreement that this tax credit must be made permanent, including President-elect Obama, I hope this bill will be given swift consideration and signed into law during the first few months of 2009 to increase our nation's ability to innovate, create jobs and improve our sagging economy.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2009. This legislation is virtually identical to a measure reported by the Commerce Committee during the first executive session of the 110th Congress, after being approved unanimously by the Senate in 2005. Simply put, this bill would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers. I remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on this important legislation.

Since 1996, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of professional boxing--and for very good reason. With rare exception, professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. Often they are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Current law has improved to some extent the state of professional boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport remains at risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office spent more than six months studying ten of the country's busiest state and tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that many State and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal boxing law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal and State officials.

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.

Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national self-regulating organization--though preferable to Federal government oversight is not a realistic option.

This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission ``USBC'' or Commission. The Commission would be responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of

professional boxing in the United States.

The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.

It is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation with local commissions, and it would only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law.

Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The establishment of the USBC would address that need. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public and--more importantly--compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing these problems.

As this measure continues through the legislative process, I fully expect Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bipartisan manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.