Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I would say to my friend from Tennessee, of course, he knows the answer, having been a great student of history himself. If anyone would like to get one of the definitive works on this, it is a book called ``The Forgotten Man.'' The author is Amity Shlaes. It is very well written. One of the key points it makes is precisely the historical point that my colleague from Tennessee makes; namely, that about the time the United States began to come out of the Depression, President Roosevelt's view was it was time to try to balance the budget and as a result--as Hoover had tried to do when he increased taxes and the economy tanked, which is exactly what happened again. So we didn't just have one Great Depression; we had a period of time when our country was in depression, it started to get out of the depression, and then went back into depression until World War II, largely because of this increase in taxes. The combination of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs--which are an increase in taxes of a different kind--and the income tax rates plunged the country back into the Depression.

If I could respond to the point about President Kennedy, he did exactly the opposite. We were in the doldrums, and he proposed, after he was elected in 1960, that we actually reduce the capital gains tax. Now, I remember this because I was taking a course in economics at the University of Arizona at the time and I wrote a paper on this. I went home, I believe it was over the Christmas recess, and I talked to my father about it. I said: President Kennedy is a Democrat, I am a Republican, but I think he is doing the right thing. My father said: He is doing the right thing. I remember writing that in the paper and my professor was kind of scratching his head because he looked at it in a more political way. Yet if you look at it in a purely economic point of view, when the economy is not doing so well, the last thing you want to do is to raise tax rates. In fact, you can do a lot of good by reducing taxes, which is what Kennedy did, and it had a very profound and positive impact. Those are the lessons history teaches.

Madam President, I would say to my colleague that is exactly right. That is one of the reasons why in this so-called stimulus package, a 1-year relief from the alternative minimum tax was included because we knew that the net was now casting so wide it would incorporate 20-plus million people into the category of millionaires-- people who made $50,000; $60,000; $70,000. The problem was the rates were never indexed for inflation, so what only caught millionaires at one time is now catching decidedly middle-class taxpayers.

The same thing could easily be done with the proposals that the administration has in the budget--a budget which, as we discussed last week, spends too much, taxes too much, and it borrows too much. We think we ought to spend less, tax less, and borrow less, which is one of the reasons we think the tax portions of the Obama budget are wrong.

Madam President, that is exactly right.

No. Madam President, this is the so-called mandatory cap- and-trade system that is included within the budget under which the Government would set how much businesses could produce in the way of carbon by their activity, and then, of course, they would pass the costs of this limitation onto their customers. Now, that only applies to people who either directly use energy, such as electricity or gasoline or you buy something that has been made with energy. I think that covers just about everybody.

The point is, it will take, from every American family, at least $800 a year, which is the amount of the so-called tax cut the President--I have forgotten what he calls that in the budget.

That is correct, the Make Work Pay Act, which is actually nothing more than a spending program in the guise of a tax cut. But whatever that gives back to people, it only covers what has been taken from them in this energy tax, and, in fact, that is just the beginning. The energy tax, by all accounts, will explode to a far greater burden on every family than an initial burden of 800 bucks.

Madam President, if I could also talk about some of the other effects of this. The problem with this kind of an energy tax is that when people use less energy, obviously they buy less, they travel less, and all of this curtails economic activity. It has been estimated the gross domestic product of the United States would be roughly 1 percent lower at the end of 2014 and 2.6 percent lower by 2030, just by having to pay this tax. As economic activity would slow, employers wouldn't need to hire as many workers. In fact, it is estimated that employers would create 850,000 fewer jobs by 2014 and 3 million fewer jobs by 2030. The effect on household income would be dramatic. It would reduce, on average, household income adjusted for inflation by $1,000 in 2014 and $4,000 by 2030. Of course, it is also a problem because not everyone will bear the same burden, and it is a very regressive tax, given the fact that people at a lower economic income level have to pay a higher percentage of their family income for energy than do higher income folks.

So for a lot of different reasons, this is a very bad idea, and as my colleague from Tennessee points out, it is a terrible idea in the middle of a recession.

Madam President, let me turn to a slightly different aspect of this same problem. It is not just the energy tax in this budget that we are concerned about; it is also a variety of tax policies that will clearly and dramatically impact business--again, not what you want to do at a time of a recession. For example, it heavily taxes American corporations that have operations overseas. Now, we want to compete overseas. We don't want to just have American businesses here in America. Anybody who would go overseas to do business would be heavily taxed here. That will have a dramatic impact on our exports, which have been a big part of our economy and on our gross domestic product in general.

Another thing it does at this time, which is dead wrong, is to indirectly impose a much higher cost on obtaining a mortgage because it limits the amount of mortgage interest deduction. One of the things that has enabled millions and millions of Americans to own their own home is because we have favorable tax treatment. They can take the mortgage interest deduction as a deduction from their Federal income taxes. So why would we limit the amount of deduction for your home mortgage, especially at this time when we are trying to encourage more people to buy homes and we don't want banks to end up with more bad loans on their books.

Then, in addition, there are other tax rates that are allowed to increase rather than to continue where they are, and these are the rates on the income tax for the top two marginal rate categories. These are exactly the people who are reporting small business income. We know small businesses create up to 80 percent of the jobs in the economy, so there again, directly imposing a greater burden on the people who run and operate the small businesses in this country; precisely the group who needs to have more income in order to hire more people so we don't have as many unemployed.

In all these ways, the budget is going to directly negatively impact our economic situation at exactly the wrong time.

The Senator from Tennessee can close after I finish my point.

The point is, this is not the purpose of tax policy. The purpose of tax policy should be to raise the amount of money we need, and need legitimately, to run the Federal Government, and do so as fairly as possible.

As they point out here, while the top 1 percent of earners in our country has earned 22 percent of the income, they pay 40 percent of the Federal taxes. The people who would get the brunt of the tax--those making above $200,000--pay 60 percent of the Federal income taxes in America. One wonders why a group that pays 60 percent of the taxes already and only comprises 2 percent of our population is being unfairly treated. As a result of the Bush tax policy, they are actually paying a higher percentage of income taxes than they did before the Bush tax cuts went into effect. I think maybe that is the answer to the question. If so, it is very distressing.

Madam President, before his conclusion, I ask unanimous consent to have the op-ed I referred to be printed in the Record.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner.) Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. President, I appreciate the question of my colleague from Tennessee. I also compliment the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Hampshire, who has tried to deal with budgets all the time he has been in the Senate.

If I could begin by just asking him one question: How would you characterize this budget proposed by the President as compared with others, in terms of the taxes and the spending and the debt created? Is there some way to compare it with all of the other budgets that you have worked with, including all of the Bush budgets?

Mr. President, I first would answer my colleague from Tennessee. We ought to be spending less and taxing less and borrowing less. Our minority leader asked his staff to do some calculations. Just from the time that the new President raised his hand and was inaugurated as President, how much money have we spent? They calculated that we have spent $1 billion every hour. That is just in the stimulus legislation, this omnibus bill that was just passed last night, which is 8 percent over the stimulus bill, and we have not even added in the spending that is going to occur as a result of this budget which, as the Senator from New Hampshire said, in just the first year is a third more spending than even the previous year--$3.55 trillion.

In addition to that, it makes much of the so-called temporary spending in the stimulus bill permanent. Some of us predicted that would happen, that when they have a new program in the stimulus bill they surely wouldn't cut it off after 2 or 3 years. We said they will probably make it permanent. Sure enough, and the ranking member on the Budget Committee can speak to that better than I, but a great many of these programs are made permanent. On health care, for example, the Senator from New Hampshire talked about that, but there is no effort to control entitlements. In fact, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security all rise between 10 and 12 percent, Medicare itself by $330 billion. This is increased spending, and it is permanent programs.

We also wondered what would happen with respect to the Federal Government's growth as a result. According to a March 3 Washington Post article, ``President Obama's budget is so ambitious, with vast new spending on health care, energy independence, education, services for veterans, that experts say he probably will need to hire tens of thousands of new Federal Government workers to realize his goals.'' According to the article, estimates are as high as 250,000 new Government employees will have to be hired to implement all of this spending.

I know we want to create jobs in this economy, but I wonder if the American people intended that we create a whole bunch of new Government bureaucrats to spend all of this money.

This is not responsive to my colleague's question, but the one area

where we do not have high unemployment is Government jobs. The unemployment in the country is about 8 percent now. In Government jobs it is between 2 percent and 3 percent, so that is not an area we needed to grow more jobs.

Mr. President, I would say that is getting to the heart of the matter. We can talk about these numbers all day. They are mind- boggling, they are very difficult to take in. But what does it all mean at the end of the day? I will respond in two ways.

First of all, it makes us look a whole lot more like the countries in Europe that have been stagnating for years because they spend such a high percent of their gross national product on government. As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, we are headed in that direction under this budget. It is a recipe for a lower standard of living in the United States and makes us look a lot more like Europe.

The second way goes back to the policy I think is embedded in this budget. The President has been very candid about this. He talks about it as his blueprint. He says this budget is not about numbers, it is about policies; it is about a blueprint for change. The Wall Street Journal on February 27 said:

With yesterday's fiscal 2010 budget proposal, President

Obama is attempting not merely to expand the role of the

federal government but to put it in such a dominant position

that its power can never be rolled back.

That is the problem. It is the growth of Government controlling all of these segments of our lives. That is what this spending is ultimately all about, as the Senator from New Hampshire said, taking over the energy policy, taking over the health care, taking over the education policy, as well as running our financial institutions. It is not just about spending more money and creating more debt and taxing in order to try to help pay for some of that. It is also about a huge increase in the growth of Government and therefore the control over our lives.

In a way, the Wall Street Journal says, ``In a way that can never be rolled back.''

I think the number was $3.27 trillion. I believe that was the correct number over the time of the 10 years.

The Senator from Tennessee certainly knows a bit about education. It all was not spent. There were some policies that actually attempted to reduce some costs--of a program that works very well, that thousands of people in the District of Columbia depend upon to send their kids to good schools. That is the program we put into effect to give a voucher of $7,500 a year to kids to attend private schools, kids who would never have that opportunity otherwise.

If I could ask a question of my colleague from Tennessee, since as former Secretary of Education he knows something about how to make sure our kids have the best opportunities for education in this country, why, with the District of Columbia costing about $15,000 a year to educate children and not doing a very good job of it according to all of the test scores, and thousands of parents wishing their kids had an alternative choice, somewhere else to go--when we create a program that provides a few of them, less than 2,000 a year, I believe, with a voucher that returns only half of that much money to the private school--$7,500, so it doesn't cost the public anything--why, when it gives these kids such a great opportunity, would our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and the President, whose two daughters, by the way, attend one of the schools that kids would have to be taken out of because they can't afford to go there without the voucher--why would they remove that school choice and the voucher program?

Indeed. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee. As this debate unfolds, I think our colleagues will see that Republicans have some better ideas. We want to spend less and tax less and borrow less. We believe we can accomplish great results in the field of energy, for example, in the field of education, in the field of health care--much more positively, much better results in the long run with a lot less burden on our children and our grandchildren in the future.

As this debate unfolds, we are very anxious to present our alternative views on how to accomplish these results.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin.) The Senator is notified that 28 minutes has elapsed.

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

Madam President, yesterday I spoke to my pending amendment No. 629, an amendment that would have required an assurance that none of the funds in the underlying legislation would be used to resettle Gazans in the United States. There had been a flurry of news stories suggesting that an Executive order by the President might have that result.

In contacting the State Department, we have been assured that is not the case. As a result, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and to have printed in the Record a letter from the U.S. Department of State, Michael Polt, Acting Assistant Secretary, addressed to me, dated March 9.

Madam President, I will read the two specific sentences from the letter that cleared up this matter. The letter says:

These funds will be used to provide humanitarian assistance

to Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. None of

these funds will be used to resettle Gazans in the United

States.

As a result of that assurance, the amendment is not necessary, and that is one less vote my colleagues have to take this afternoon.

I note the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

Madam President, while my colleague from Massachusetts is still here, let me advise him of two things with respect to amendment No. 629. First of all, it was certainly not my intention that we deal individually with political asylees, but the amendment could have been read that way and I appreciate the point. Secondly, it was a response to a news story which gained a great deal of attention from my constituents related to the January 30 order by the President, ordering $20 million for urgent relief efforts to provide migration assistance to Palestinian refugees. That has gotten a lot of attention from folks. They wanted to know what we were doing.

We have talked to the State Department, and while I haven't withdrawn the amendment yet, we have received assurances from them orally that-- and I believe and hope we will receive assurances in writing--that was not the intention of that order. Assuming that is the case, there would be no need for the amendment, and it would be my intention tomorrow to withdraw it. I hope they will have something to us in writing. If not, if they have a spokesman of high enough authority to provide the assurance orally, that will suffice as well, but we will want to get that.

I will speak to the other amendment, but I wished to respond to my colleague.

Madam President, if my colleague would like to hear a brief comment with regard to amendment No. 630, although I don't need to hold him here, it will be my intention to get a vote on that amendment. Let me explain why, even though I certainly recognize the validity of some of the points made by the Senator from Massachusetts.

This amendment deals with a problem that was violently brought to our attention again when the cease-fire between Hamas and Israel was broken and hundreds of rockets were again rained down on Israel, most of which had been smuggled across the Sinai and into the Gaza Strip; many of the weapons having come from Iran, or at least groups sponsored by Iran. We have partially, as a result--in fact, significantly, as a result of the assistance that I know the Senator from Massachusetts has supported, and we have all supported, to Egypt--gotten a lot of cooperation from Egypt in helping to bring this smuggling to a much lower level than it otherwise would have been. I am very cognizant of that. I have thanked the Egyptian Government for its efforts, and we want to continue to thank them for those efforts. The problem is smuggling does continue.

All this amendment does is to ask for a report about what other uses this money could be put to, to help the Egyptians, the Israelis, the United States, and others who engaged in the effort to stop the smuggling from the Sinai through primarily tunnels but by other means as well into Gaza so Israel can no longer be threatened. The amendment is not to denigrate these efforts of the Egyptians in any way. I understand there is some sensitivity by folks at the State Department, for example, that the amendment may look like we are not grateful for those efforts. Quite to the contrary. But I do think--and I will be happy to read some news reports--that illustrates it is the view of the Israeli Government that this smuggling is continuing and will continue unless more is done, including by the Egyptians. So the purpose of the amendment is simply to keep track of what else we might do to try to stop the smuggling.

If my colleague would like to intercede at this point, I would be happy to hear his comments.

Madam President, I certainly acknowledge what my colleague has said. Let me quote from one news article which illustrates the reason why I think we need to do this. This is from March 3--very recent--from the Jerusalem Post. The authors of the article talk about Hamas's ongoing smuggling into Gaza--ongoing. They talk about the persistence of Hamas arms smuggling which almost ensures a resumption of hostilities in Gaza. That is the point of this: to try to prevent more hostilities. If those weapons are not smuggled into Gaza, they are not going to rain them down on the people of Israel and there won't be a need for Israel to engage in any hostilities. I am afraid that if it continues, they would have no choice but to try to defend itself.

I will conclude with these two paragraphs in this one article:

In most cases, following the exposure of a tunnel, Egyptian

forces have either placed a guard at the mouth of the tunnel

or blocked the tunnel's entrance rather than taking steps to

demolish the tunnel completely. As such, smugglers have been

able to employ these tunnels again after a short interval.

When a tunnel entrance has been blocked, diggers typically

cut a new access channel nearby and connect it with the

existing tunnel closer to the border.

In addition, there is no evidence that Egyptian forces are

taking steps to arrest and punish smugglers. These rings are

rarely broken up, and in the absence of lengthy jail terms,

there is little deterrence.

I ask unanimous consent that three of these similar reports be printed in the Record at this point.

Madam President, again, I wish to compliment the Egyptian Government and others who have insisted on trying to stop this smuggling. My amendment asks for a study by the Secretary of State and the DNI about whether additional taxpayer support

out of the annual appropriation for Egypt would aid in stopping this smuggling activity.

That is one of the two amendments--amendment No. 630--that will be voted on this evening. The other amendment is amendment No. 631; that is to say, if the unanimous consent agreement goes into effect, which includes the four amendments we are likely to vote on, two of those would be my amendments, No. 630 and 631.

Amendment No. 631

Let me briefly describe amendment 631. It deals with the $300 million for Gaza reconstruction that Secretary Clinton offered at the Sharm el- Sheikh Donors Conference last Monday. We don't have details from the administration on its plans to keep the $300 million out of Hamas's hands. Clearly, obviously, we want to do that. What we do have is a general acknowledgment by the State Department of its concern that this is important to do. Obviously, we are all aware that Hamas controls nearly every means of power and leverage in the Gaza Strip. So I don't think we can be too careful in ensuring that none of our taxpayer dollars get into the hands of a terrorist group such as Hamas.

Section 7040(f) of the bill addresses this problem partly. It provides limitations on the disbursements of the main types of assistance funds--these are the bilateral economic assistance, international security assistance and multilateral assistance and export investment assistance--to the Palestinian Authority. So there are limitations on the funds going to the Palestinian Authority.

The problem is, some of this money goes through the United Nations and through nongovernmental organizations--the so-called NGOs. So what my amendment does is to close this loophole to ensure that none of our money goes to them and then Hamas as well. It adds the crucial step of making explicit that no funds from the omnibus shall be made available for reconstruction in Gaza until the Secretary of State certifies that no such funds will be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. As I said, the reason is because some of the money is going to these other organizations.

There is a recent op-ed in Forbes magazine--and I will ask for its inclusion in a moment--by Claudia Rosett, the same intrepid reporter, incidentally, who first revealed the United Nations oil-for-food scandal. In it she wrote:

On the matter of how exactly the ``safeguards'' will work,

the State Department has been stunningly vague. At a State

Department press briefing on Monday, while Clinton was in

Egypt making her pledge, a spokesman said that up to $300

million would go for Gaza's ``urgent humanitarian needs'' as

identified by the U.N. and the Palestinian Authority. Those

funds, he said, would flow via the United States Agency for

International Development ``in coordination with U.N.

agencies, international organizations, and USAID grantees''

and ``through the State Department for the U.N. agencies,

including the international committee of the Red Cross, and

other humanitarian organizations.''

Then she further notes that one of the institutions that the U.N. uses to funnel aid to the Palestinian Authority is the Commercial Bank of Syria. Here is what she says about that:

Under Secretary Stuart Levey alleged that the bank had been

used by terrorists to move money, ``and as a state-owned

entity with inadequate money laundering and terrorist

financing controls, the Commercial Bank in Syria poses a

significant risk of being used to further the Syrian

Government's continuing support for international terrorist

groups.'' Among the terrorist groups cited as examples of

such clients were Hezbollah in Lebanon, and such denizens of

Gaza as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the

Liberation of Palestine and Hamas.

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I also ask that a press release from the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and members of the House Republican leadership also be printed in the Record.

Madam President, what these all point out is that in addition to ensuring that money that goes to the Palestinian Authority doesn't get into the hands of Hamas, which is assured by the legislation, we need to make sure that other funds that go to the United Nations or the NGOs also are not diverted to Hamas. That is what we have provided by this amendment.

Incidentally, I would say this: One of my colleagues said: Well, isn't a secretarial certification a little bit much? My response is: Well, if the Secretary can't certify it, we probably shouldn't be sending taxpayer money. But I had also suggested language such as the following: That all possible steps have been taken to ensure that no such funds have been diverted by Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. If there is any objection to the exact language of my amendment, I would be happy to amend the language to include the language I indicated.

So I hope my colleagues, when we vote at 5:30 this afternoon, will consider the arguments I have made with respect to these two amendments: to make sure that, first of all, our Egyptian friends have all the support they need to ensure that smuggling does not occur in the future and threaten the people of Israel; secondly, that no American taxpayer money is spent either through the Palestinian Authority or--and this is not controlled in the bill--through the United Nations or other NGOs to provide support to any terrorist groups, including Hamas, and my amendment would prevent that from happening.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

Colleagues, this amendment is very simple. It simply calls for a study by the Secretary of State and the DNI about whether additional U.S. taxpayer support out of the annual appropriation for Egypt would aid in stopping smuggling activity from the Sinai into Gaza.

Egypt has been helpful to the United States but much more could be done. I put in the Record during my earlier remarks articles that demonstrate the degree to which Egypt is not helping. I think, therefore, those who argue this is a slap in the face at Egypt miss the point. Egypt has been recognized for its support, but it can do much more, and a mere study asking to identify what else it could do would be very appropriate when we are talking about spending U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

Mr. President, this amendment deals with $300 million in this bill that Secretary of State Clinton announced at the donors conference at Sharm el-Sheikh would go to support efforts of the Palestinians in Gaza.

The point of the amendment is to keep the money out of the hands of Hamas. Recognizing that this was important, there is a section of the bill that explicitly puts limitations on the money that flows to the Palestinian Authority to make sure it goes to the Palestinian Authority and not to Hamas or other terrorists.

The problem is, according to a State Department spokesman, other parts of the money are going to go to NGOs and through the U.N. including potentially to a bank in Syria, which launders money to get to Hamas.

The point of this amendment is to provide that the Secretary certify that none of this money goes to Hamas, whether it is through the Palestinian Authority or the U.N. or these NGOs. This amendment is necessary to protect American taxpayer money from getting to terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment for the purpose of calling up three amendments.

Mr. President, the first Kyl amendment is numbered 631.

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

Mr. President, the next amendment I would like to call up is amendment No. 629.

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

Mr. President, the third amendment is numbered 630.

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

Mr. President, until Senator McCain arrives, let me briefly describe these three amendments.

Amendment No. 630 requires a report on countersmuggling efforts in Gaza. Within 90 days of the enactment of the Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit a report to Congress on whether additional funds from our military foreign financing assistance, provided annually to the Government of Egypt, could be expended, No. 1, to improve efforts by the Government of Egypt to counter illicit smuggling, including arms smuggling across Egypt and the Gaza border, and No. 2, to intercept weapons originating in other countries in the region and smuggled into Gaza through Egypt. This amendment requires a report to ensure the Egyptian Government can be even more effective in dealing with this difficult problem.

Amendment No. 629 is a prohibition on the use of funds in this bill for resettlement into the United States of Palestinians from Gaza. There has been a suggestion that perhaps that might be permitted, and we simply want to make it clear that will not be permitted with any funds in this bill.

Finally, related to Gaza reconstruction, amendment No. 631 provides that none of the funds available in this bill may be made available to aid reconstruction efforts in Gaza until the Secretary of State certifies that none of such funds will be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. The reason for that, of course, is that in providing money to people in Gaza, it is very difficult to ensure that money doesn't go to terrorists, and we want the Secretary of State to ensure that doesn't happen. That is what this amendment would provide.

Mr. President, that is the explanation of these three amendments, and I now yield to my colleague from the State of Arizona, Senator McCain.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. President, if my colleagues on the other side are willing, I am willing to cut this time in half.

My amendment is actually very simple. If my colleagues would give me a moment to explain, all this amendment says is that none of the money that is spent in this bill can go to companies that are helping Iran; that is to say, they are doing business with Iran in the export or import business.

In the campaign, the President noted that the kind of sanction we need to impose is on the companies, for example, that are providing refined gasoline to Iran. One of the first reports to the President by nonproliferation expert, David Albright, said:

At a first step, the Obama administration should ask all of

Iran's gasoline suppliers to stop their sales to Iran,

followed by an initiative to seek agreement among supplier

nations not to provide Iran gasoline.

The President has all of the authorities he needs to engage in this. The one thing that Congress can do that we have not done yet is with the power of the purse; that is, to make sure none of the money in the omnibus bill would go to any of the companies that are doing business with Iran.

One quick example of why it is necessary: Senator Lieberman and I sent a letter to the Eximbank. Eximbank gets money. That money can go to companies. Once they got the letter, those companies stopped sending refined gas to Iran. I don't know if that is because of our letter. That is the kind of stuff we need to stop with this amendment.

I hope my colleagues agree we do not need to send this money to companies that do business with Iran.

Mr. President, actually, I am not proposing a new regime of sanctions or anything that needs to be studied. My amendment simply goes to this Omnibus appropriations bill and says what I think all of us intend, which is none of the money shall be spent or shall go to companies that are doing this kind of business with Iran, the kind of business that is already subject to sanctions. That is already the law.

All we are saying is, nothing in this bill can get money to those companies. It is the kind of thing we had to do with the Eximbank because as they, in their letter back to us said, we do not allow political considerations to determine whether we make a loan to a country. That is why they were able to make the loan to Iran and why we could do nothing to stop that. Once we wrote the letter, however, and pointed out this was a violation of our sanctions, then mysteriously, the effort of the company ceased.

All we want to make sure is that nothing in this bill, none of the money in this particular bill goes to those companies. So it is not a new sanctions regime or anything new that I think has to be studied.

With all due respect, this is not for political showmanship. Had this bill gone through a little different process, we could have worked this out. But under the circumstances, that wasn't possible. As a result, I thought it was important to make sure none of the money in this bill is spent on these companies.

I would be happy to yield.

I am happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts for a question.

Given the fact that I think my remaining 2 minutes have expired, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute of time to respond to my colleague's question.

Mr. President, if I were proposing some new sanctions regime, that would be an entirely appropriate request, and of course I would accede to it. I am not asking for any new sanctions or any new law. All this amendment does is to say that the money in this appropriations bill doesn't go to a country that is doing these kinds of exports or imports to Iran. That is all. We have the power of the purse, and surely we can restrict our own expenditure of money to countries that are cooperating with us in dealing with Iran, rather than dealing with Iran.

I urge my colleagues to support this. It is a very limited amendment. It is not a new policy.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. President, it seems to me if the Senator from Louisiana has indicated he will object to the unanimous consent unless his amendment--No. 621, I gather?

Is on the list, that is a question, then, for the leader to address.

I wanted to indicate that we have a number of Members who have amendments they want to offer, and we are going to work hard to make sure all our Members who want to offer amendments can do so. At the same time, we are going to do our best to ensure that is not an unreasonable list of amendments. Obviously, Members who insist on having an amendment as a condition to the unanimous consent request can make that point clear.

Mr. President, I would say to the leader that I think that is correct. That is going to require a lot of effort on this side to reduce the number of amendments that are pending, as the leader is well aware.

In response to my friend, the leader, he has worked very hard, and he has been very successful. But I do, in all seriousness, want to note that in order to try to limit the number of amendments-- because there is a list of 36--it is going to require a lot of work on our side. We are going to, in good faith, do the best we can, but I just want to reiterate as far as I am concerned the Senator from Louisiana will have to be on the list because otherwise he will object to the vitiation of the cloture vote. As far as I am concerned, his amendment is on the list, but at some point the majority leader will have to agree to the list that we offer.

Mr. President, as I told the leader, we had a list of 36 amendments filed. I told the majority leader that I thought we could get that list down to 10 or 12, and that is still my intention.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. President, while the leader is still here, I ask unanimous consent that the Thune amendment No. 635, and the Wicker amendment No. 607 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, in deference to the majority leader's request, I will not ask that amendment No. 635--

I will.

Mr. President, I was going to offer for consideration my amendment No. 634, but I will do that after the second vote at the request of the majority leader. Let me take a couple minutes right now to explain what this amendment is.

During the Presidential campaign, President Obama said:

If we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for

example, Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it's an

oil-producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down,

if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they

need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing

their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze

on them.

Indeed, I think the President is exactly right about that. I know of no disagreement with that proposition. I also think there would be no disagreement with the proposition that U.S. taxpayers should not be supporting Iran's energy sector. As a result, I have offered or I will be offering this amendment No. 634 that does exactly that. It says very simply: That none of the funds made available in this appropriations legislation, can go to companies helping Iran either import or export energy or energy-related goods.

It also does give the President the authority to waive the provision if he deems it necessary for a valid national security reason.

Two quick points for colleagues who may say: Well, of course, we are not going to allow any of this money to go to companies that provide this kind of relief to Iran's energy sector. I would note two examples. Senator Lieberman and I sent a letter to the Export-Import Bank last October because the bank gave $900 million to loan guarantees to a company that was exporting gasoline to Iran. When we asked the bank whether it thought the taxpayers should be funding those kinds of benefits to Iran, one of the points raised in the response to me, one that was, by the way, rather indirect in answering the question I asked was:

The Ex-Im Bank generally is prohibited from taking foreign

policy determinations

into account when making credit decisions pursuant to its

Charter.

Well, of course, those are the kinds of considerations the American taxpayers would want to be taken into account. I would also note, on Monday, the Wall Street Journal noted that several of our colleagues from the other body wrote to the Secretary of Energy concerning a purchase of crude oil from another company doing business in Iran's energy sector. In this case, the company is named Vitol, a Netherlands trading firm that was fined $17.5 million after a jury convicted the company for criminal misdeeds related to the oil-for-food scandal.

Obviously, the U.S. Government should not be doing business with a company such as that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a piece from the American Foreign Policy Council by Orde Kittrie and carried, I believe, in the Wall Street Journal, be printed in the Record at the end of my comments.

I would hope when my colleagues have an opportunity to vote on this amendment, they will agree that ensuring the appropriate use of American taxpayer money is important, it is one of our obligations. We agree with the President that is the kind of thing we can do to put some pressure on Iran, and as a result, we should not be sending our money to companies that would be supporting the energy sector in Iran.

I appreciate my colleagues' consideration of the amendment when we have an opportunity to offer it, debate it, and vote on it.

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 13, 2008]

How to Put the Squeeze on Iran

Cutting off its gasoline imports may be the only peaceful way to get

Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program

(By Orde F. Kittrie)

If Barack Obama is to persuade Iran to negotiate away its

illegal nuclear weapons program, he will first need to

generate more leverage than what the Bush administration is

leaving him with. The current U.N. sanctions have proven too

weak to dissuade Tehran's leaders, and Russia and China seem

determined to keep those sanctions weak. Meanwhile, the

regime continues to insist there are no incentives in

exchange for which it would halt or even limit its nuclear

work.

However, Tehran has an economic Achilles' heel--its

extraordinarily heavy dependence on imported gasoline. This

dependence could be used by the United States to peacefully

create decisive leverage over the Islamic Republic.

Iranian oil wells produce far more petroleum (crude oil)

than Iran needs. Yet, remarkably for a country investing so

much in nuclear power, Iran has not developed sufficient

capacity to refine that crude oil into gasoline and diesel

fuel. As a result, it must import some 40% of the gasoline it

needs for internal consumption.

In recent months, Iran has, according to the respected

trade publication International Oil Daily and other sources

including the U.S. government, purchased nearly all of this

gasoline from just five companies, four of them European: the

Swiss firm Vitol; the Swiss/Dutch firm Trafigura; the French

firm Total; British Petroleum; and one Indian company,

Reliance Industries. If these companies stopped supplying

Iran, the Iranians could replace only some of what they

needed from other suppliers--and at a significantly higher

price. Neither Russia nor China could serve as alternative

suppliers. Both are themselves also heavily dependent on

imports of the type of gasoline Iran needs.

Were these companies to stop supplying gasoline to Iran,

the world-wide price of oil would be unaffected--the

companies would simply sell to other buyers. But the impact

on Iran would be substantial.

When Tehran attempted to ration gasoline during the summer

of 2007, violent protests forced the regime to back down.

Cutting off gasoline sales to Iran, or even a significant

reduction, could have an even more dramatic effect.

In Congress, there is already bipartisan support for

peacefully cutting off gasoline sales to Iran until it stops

its illicit nuclear activities. Barack Obama, John McCain and

the House of Representatives have all declared their support.

On June 4 of this year, for example, Sen. Obama said at a

speech in Washington, D.C.: ``We should work with Europe,

Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the

U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime--from cutting off loan

guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the

export of refined petroleum to Iran.''

He repeated this sentiment during the presidential

candidates' debate on Oct. 7: ``Iran right now imports

gasoline . . . if we can prevent them from importing the

gasoline that they need . . . that starts changing their

cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on

them.''

How do we stop the gasoline from flowing? The Bush

administration has reportedly never asked the Swiss, Dutch,

French, British or Indian governments to stop gasoline sales

to Iran by the companies headquartered within their borders.

An Obama administration should make this request, and do the

same with other governments if other companies try to sell

gasoline to Iran.

But the U.S. also has significant direct leverage over the

companies that currently supply most of Iran's imported

gasoline.

Consider India's Reliance Industries which, according to

International Oil Daily, ``reemerged as a major supplier of

gasoline to Iran'' in July after taking a break for several

months. It ``delivered three cargoes of gasoline totaling

around 100,000 tons to Iran's Mideast Gulf port of Bandar

Abbas from its giant Jamnagar refinery in India's western

province of Gujarat.'' Reliance reportedly ``entered into a

new arrangement with National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) under

which it will supply around . . . three 35,000-ton cargoes a

month, from its giant Jamnagar refinery.'' One hundred

thousand tons represents some 10% of Iran's total monthly

gasoline needs.

The Jamnagar refinery is heavily supported by U.S. taxpayer

dollars. In May 2007, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a

government agency that assists in financing the export of

U.S. goods and services, announced a $500 million loan

guarantee to help finance expansion of the Jamnagar refinery.

On Aug. 28, 2008, Ex-Im announced a new $400 million long-

term loan guarantee for Reliance, including additional

financing of work at the Jamnagar refinery.

Or consider the Swiss firm Vitol. According to

International Oil Daily, Vitol ``over the past few years has

accounted for around 60% of the gasoline shipped to Iran.''

Vitol is currently building a $100 million terminal in Port

Canaveral, Florida.

Last year, when Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty discovered that

an Indian company, Essar, was seeking to both invest some

$1.6 billion in Minnesota and invest over $5 billion in

building a refinery in Iran, he put Essar to a choice. Mr.

Pawlenty threatened to block state infrastructure subsidies

and perhaps even construction permits for the Minnesota

purchase unless Essar withdrew from the Iranian investment.

Essar promptly withdrew from the Iranian investment.

Florida officials could consider taking a similar stance

with Vitol.

The Minnesota example is not the only precedent. U.S.

outreach to foreign banks and to oil companies considering

investing in Iran's energy sector has reportedly convinced

more than 80 banks and several major potential oil-field

investors to cease all or some of their business with Iran.

Among them: Germany's two largest banks (Deutsche Bank and

Commerzbank), London-based HSBC, Credit Suisse, Norwegian

energy company StatoilHydro, and Royal Dutch Shell.

A sustained initiative may be able to convince most or all

current and potential suppliers that the profits to be gained

from continuing to sell gasoline to Iran will be dwarfed by

the lost loan guarantees and subsidies and foregone profits

they will incur in the U.S. from continuing to do business

with Iran.

Last Sunday, a group of 60 Iranian economists called for

the regime to drastically change course, saying that

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ``tension-creating'' foreign

policy has ``scared off foreign investment and inflicted

heavy damage on the economy.'' The economists said the

current sanctions, as weak as they are, have cost Iran

billions of dollars by forcing it to use middlemen for

exports and imports. Halting Iran's gasoline supply could

contribute to reaching a tipping point--at which economic

pressures and protests convince the regime its illicit

nuclear program poses too great a risk to its grip over the

Iranian people.

If the federal and key state governments in the U.S. were

to make it their goal to achieve a halt by companies selling

gasoline to Iran, it could be a game-changer. It may be our

best remaining hope for peacefully convincing Iran to desist

from developing nuclear weapons.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

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

Mr. President, will you please state the pending business?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

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

Madam President, I would like to speak to the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill, or what we call the

Omnibus appropriations bill, that is before us right now, beginning with a general discussion and then some of the concerns that many of us on the Republican side have with this legislation.

As I think most folks know, this is the second half of funding for the fiscal year we are in right now. The first half went through March--or basically through the end of this coming week--and then the second half of the year we said we would do late, and that is this legislation. I will discuss more of the process later, but the reason this was done in two pieces, I think, is twofold.

First of all, the majority was not able to get the entire bill done last year, either intentionally or because it represented a lot of work--although that is the way we do it every other year--and second, I think there was a feeling there was a good likelihood they would add to their numbers on the majority side and potentially have a Democratic President, and so there may be some policy changes and other changes they would want to make in the legislation that they would have an easier chance to get passed than if they had done that when there were more Republicans in this body, for example, and a Republican President who could veto the bill.

I say that because some of the things that are in this bill clearly represent changes from what was going to be the funding for this fiscal year until this special process was indulged. I do think and hope my colleagues on the Democratic side appreciate one of the reasons Republicans have concerns about this are these changes that have been made.

In general terms, the $410 billion funding level is $32 billion or 8 percent higher than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. At a time when we are suffering from pretty tough economic times, this is a pretty healthy increase in spending over last year. According to the House Republican appropriators, if you exempt the 9/11 funding in the bill, it is the largest increase in annual discretionary spending since the Carter administration. The bill is long--it is 1,124 pages long--and in addition to that there is a 1,000-page joint explanatory statement.

I confess I have not gotten through all of those things. But staff have tried to read through it and have identified some of the things I want to discuss this afternoon.

If you add the bills we did pass to fund the Government for the entire year--the Defense bill, Homeland Security and Military Construction--then the total of the discretionary funding for the year will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in the history of the United States.

So it is a big spending bill. The total, as I said, is about $21 billion above President Bush's fiscal year 2009 request.

Some of the spending concerns specifically are the following: Probably the biggest is the fact that when we did the so-called stimulus bill, we spent almost $1 trillion. Much of that was spent on programs that are actually imbedded in this Omnibus appropriations bill. Constituents may be a little bit confused on that point. We know they know we have an appropriations bill that got us started on the year 2009.

They know we had this $1 trillion-plus so-called stimulus bill. So why are we doing an Omnibus appropriations bill on top of that? It is a good question, especially in those areas where there is duplicative funding, which there is a lot of. There are 122 programs that already received hundreds of billions of dollars in the stimulus bill. You would think they would not be included in this bill, so that you had duplicate spending.

But, no, they were both in the stimulus bill and also in this bill. According to, again, the House Appropriations Committee Republicans, the omnibus and stimulus together include $680 billion for new programs. There are also program expansions, there is one-time spending. If you add all these things together, you have an 80-percent increase in the funds for those accounts over the 2008 level. Think of that, an 80-percent increase.

Now, you can even rationalize maybe a 6- or 8-percent increase over the previous year. But an 80-percent increase? That is obviously way too much. Just a couple of examples of things that got into this bill. There is $15 million for beginning of a study for a new House office building. I served time in the House of Representatives, and actually worked in two different office buildings in the House. Working in the Rayburn House Office Building, a beautiful new building, there is plenty of room.

I think we would all like bigger space, but is that something we want to be spending money on this year, given our current economic environment and the fact that we just got through funding the new Congressional Visitor Center, which was massively over budget?

But more important than some of these spending items are the policy concerns. These are the areas of the bill that certainly Republicans would not have agreed to as part of the process: School Choice for the District of Columbia. This bill effectively eliminates the School Choice Program by prohibiting any student from participating in the program after the 2009-2010 school year unless Congress reauthorizes the program and the DC Council approves the bill. So you are setting up two big roadblocks to the continuation of what has been a very popular program for folks in the District of Columbia.

A provision on greenhouse gas emissions. This bill, with this provision, taxes a large step toward allowing the Endangered Species Act to literally be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, although it was obviously never intended for that purpose.

Specifically, it allows the Interior Department to withdraw two specific Endangered Species Act rules within 60 days of enactment without any public notice or comment. The practical effect of this rule withdrawal is that any acts that increase carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions, which means almost anything we do, since, of course, we breathe carbon dioxide, would be subject to a lawsuit if it did not first consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on mitigation against potential impacts of climate change and harm to polar bears. That is the specific rule we are talking about.

Examples of actions subject would include construction projects, energy production, agricultural practices, to name a few. This is a radical departure from anything we have done in the past. It is a policy change that most Republicans simply cannot agree with.

There is something called nominal drug pricing, which would allow Planned Parenthood and other organizations to buy certain drugs for nominal prices and then resell those drugs at a profit. This is not what they are in business to do.

There is a very controversial section on family travel to Cuba. Section 620 and 621 of the Financial Services Division weakens the existing travel restrictions to Cuba. Now, that is the kind of serious policy which we need to have a serious policy debate about in this Congress. Is that the kind of thing we want to include in this appropriations bill? I think not.

The so-called Kemp-Kasten: Section 7079(b). This is a section we have had in the law forever. This particular section includes language which would undermine this longstanding Kemp-Kasten language. I said ``forever.'' It has been since 1984. It is a provision that denies Federal funding for organizations that are involved with coercive abortions. While the Kemp-Kasten provisions are still intact in the omnibus, an exemption is created for a very important organization, the U.S. Population Fund or the UNFPA, which is a controversial program that the United States has not funded in the past due to its past involvement with China's one-child policy. Again, it is a very important change in policy. If we are going to do things such as that, we should debate it on the floor of the House and Senate and make a decision, not just fold them into an appropriations bill.

Finally, we hear a lot on the earmarks these days. I was surprised to learn this bill includes earmarks totalling about $7.7 billion, 8,750 earmarks, allegedly. Nobody argues that every single expenditure Congress directs is inappropriate, especially if they have already been authorized. But I suspect that in these 8,750 earmarks, there is an awful lot that does not represent authorized spending by the Congress.

I would note that the three security-related appropriations bills enacted last fall added another $6.6 billion in earmarks, which would bring the total

in this bill to $14.3 billion in disclosed earmarks. That is not acceptable.

The President supported an amendment to the budget resolution for 2009, the so-called DeMint amendment, with Senator McCain and Senator Clinton, to establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2009. The vote on that failed 29 to 71. But I would hope the President, as a result of his position on this, would weigh in.

Finally, I mentioned in the very beginning the process, how we got to this point. Why are we considering, after a recordbreaking stimulus bill of over $1 trillion, why are we passing another appropriations bill now, before we have done a budget for this year and before we do the appropriations bills for the coming year? Well, it is because last year the Congress did not fund the entire year of Federal agency funding. Congress only funded the first 6 months.

Some people like to blame President Bush for this. President Bush had nothing to do with it. He was the President. He does not write the appropriations bills. He does not pass the appropriations bills in the Congress. I really think, as I said, it was a combination of factors.

For one thing, some bills, at least one that I know--well, two--the Interior bill and the legislative branch bill--were never passed out of committee. President Bush had nothing to do with that. It is a failure of Congress to get these bills passed out of the committee. Remember that the Interior bill never got out of Committee in either the House or Senate because the majority was worried about taking the offshore drilling, the so-called oil shale and OCS oil exploration and drilling votes.

That bill got out of neither committee. It had nothing to do with the President. Given the delay in bringing the omnibus bill to the floor; in other words, waiting until the very week in which the resolution that funded the first half of the Government expires, we are clearly taking a chance that either we are going to rush through this and not give it appropriate time or we are going to have a continuing resolution of at least some length of time. I presume it should not have to be for very long, but I would find it very doubtful that we could pass this bill, especially with the other things we have to do tomorrow, before the end of Thursday evening of this week. So there will be a lot of amendments, obviously, proposed to it. I think we should expect right now we will have to at least extend for a few days the funding for the second half of the year.

My own thought would be we should actually have something like a continuing resolution for the remainder of the year, especially if the price for not doing that is to adopt these many policy changes which are serious, significant, and require a lot more debate on the Senate floor than simply having been included in an appropriations bill, that would not enable them to get the kind of debate that I think ordinarily would attend to them.

This is the outline of the bill we have before us. Obviously, we are going to have a lot of amendments to it. Some will deal with the amounts of money in the bill, others will deal with the policy that is embedded in the bill. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would be willing to allow this debate, a fulsome debate, with the amendments that need to be offered, in order to conclude the bill in a responsible fashion.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Maryland has a moment, I would be very happy to respond to some of the concerns he raised. They are all legitimate questions, I acknowledge up front. No State should have territory foisted upon it. That is absolutely true. And the questions raised here were good questions.

First of all, the amendment before us is an amendment that has frequently been offered in the House of Representatives. It has been vetted over there for a long time. So this is not something new.

Secondly, it is absolutely clear from section 6 of the amendment that nothing happens with regard to retrocession unless the State of Maryland agrees.

The effectiveness provision reads as follows:

Not later than 30 days after the State of Maryland enacts

legislation accepting the retrocession described in section

1(a), the President shall issue a proclamation announcing

such acceptance.

Unless the State of Maryland affirmatively, through an act of the people's representatives of that State, vote to do this, there is no retrocession to the State of Maryland.

That answers the question of States rights.

Of course.

I say to my colleague, the first point he made was that the State of Maryland should have a say in this, and it should be a definitive say. If the State of Maryland doesn't want the residents of the District of Columbia to be part of the State, that informs our decision about what the people of the State of Maryland want. I wouldn't force that decision upon them any more than the Senator suggests should be the case. The State of Maryland should have that say. If the Senator is saying: I can tell you right now Marylanders don't want these folks from the District as part of their State, we ought to know that by a definitive process rather than assuming it to be the case going into the debate. That would be my response.

I am happy to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. President, my colleague makes a good point. I will respond in two ways. First, I appreciate the sentiment and would hope that when western land issues are dealt with in this body, our eastern colleagues would apply that same principle. Frequently, there is a sense that folks in the east know best about what we should be doing with Federal lands in the west. I certainly respect that sentiment. Obviously, in some respects, that is not as important as the fundamental political jurisdictional issue we are facing here. The question of retrocession is a fundamental issue, and it has to do with a fundamental right the District of Columbia residents would have to participate in State government. I recognize there are some differences, but I offer that first response.

Second, I am not presupposing anything with the amendment. The question will always be before the Maryland electorate whether they want to do this. I don't know whether the Maryland electorate wants to do this. I presume there would be a debate. The result of that debate, decided by the people of Maryland or their elected representatives, would be dispositive on the question. Nobody is foisting anything on anyone. I would be the first to say: If the people of Maryland don't want the residents of the District to be part of the State of Maryland, then the Congress would have to be informed by that decision. I would think it would be dispositive.

Could I respond to a couple other points first and then I will be happy to engage in a further colloquy.

On the matter of the way the lines were drawn, the history of this is that the so-called national areas, the areas where the Federal buildings, various Government departments are located, the Mall, the monuments and those sorts of things, would not be part of the retrocession. The bulk of the bill draws those lines. I can't tell my colleague exactly what the philosophy was with respect to each of those areas. Any question about what should or should not be in, be it the Kennedy Center or anything else, is a legitimate subject of discussion. It could be the subject of amendment. This has been a matter that has been not frequently but not infrequently debated in the House of Representatives. So there is some history of the rationale behind the line drawing. But with respect to where any of these particular lines are drawn, obviously, the Senators from Maryland should be key in helping us to decide where those lines would be. There is nothing locked in stone here that could not be considered the subject of an amendment.

Finally, with respect to the unfunded mandate part, I am not sure it wouldn't work the other way around. I cited a couple days ago the statistics about the money that the Government provides for the District of Columbia. Some of that money has to do with the running of these Government departments, the construction of buildings, maintenance of the buildings, and so on, but much of it does not. Much of it has to do with what the Constitution provides as to the general welfare of the people within the District. I suspect that under any scenario, the money that has been provided to the District of Columbia would still be far in excess of the money returned to any of the several States. And because of the unique nature of the District and the history and traditions, much of that funding would naturally carry over to future years. There is no way the Federal Government is not going to fund all of the national areas that are retained in this legislation.

As the District's Delegate Norton said in a press release recently, much of the money in the stimulus bill that is going to refurbish or construct office buildings that are Federal Government buildings provides employment opportunities for the residents of the District. While we should obviously be sensitive to any issues of transfer, if the State of Maryland were to accept the residents of the District of Columbia, it is a very legitimate point, and all of those things are appropriate for discussion.

On the matter of the unfunded mandate, it would probably work the other way around, that Maryland would receive a lot of money from the Federal Government. In any event, the Federal national areas that would be receiving the amount of money that they naturally do would certainly help the residents who work here in what is now the District of Columbia.

There is nothing in this amendment that is intended to jam anything down the throats of the people of Maryland. They have the final and ultimate say of what is done. I wouldn't propose anything different from that.

Absolutely.

If I may make one other point, we will have an up-or-down vote on this amendment at 10:30 and on the bill, of course. I want to conclude my comments to the Senator, because he, obviously, has a good sense of what the people of Maryland want. I concede that. Again, I concede the premise of his point which is that the people of Maryland should have a say before this is done. The reason for the amendment is simply this: We believe it is unconstitutional for the Congress to simply provide a congressional district without an amendment to the Constitution.

I personally think the residents of the District should be represented in the House. The only other way to do that, for those of us who believe it is unconstitutional to pass the legislation pending before us, and a court will in relatively short order make a determination on whether that is true, and let's assume that the court says, you can't do it, Congress, by simple legislation, then short of a constitutional amendment, this is the only other way to achieve the objective. It is presented in good faith. It is presented as the only other logical alternative for the residents of the District of Columbia to have their own congressional district. Because of the number of people who live in the District, something over 600,000, and because the representation from House congressional districts today is approximately a shade over 600,000, the fact is that the residents of the District could have a district of their own or essentially exactly as the District is configured today without presumably modifying the lines of other Maryland districts. Of course, that would be up to the State of Maryland in the way that it sets its congressional district lines.

I am happy to.

I said that is why it would be ``almost.'' You might have to include a few residents of what are now Maryland within the District, and I acknowledge that to be the case. In any event, I accept the fundamental premise of the Senator. Our amendment addresses that specifically. My hope would be that if the courts should declare that we cannot by legislation do what this bill attempts, then the people of Maryland would strongly consider whether the next best alternative is to provide for the retrocession we have in this amendment as the next best way to provide a vote for the residents of the District of Columbia.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me respond to two points my colleague made, and they are both legitimate questions. The first is some of the technical problems. I am sure there are a lot of technical problems we have not even thought about that would attend. This is a big change. Whether you adopt the underlying legislation or you go through a process such as retrocession, there will have to be a lot of adjustments and accommodations, to be sure.

But on questions such as, for example, policing the Mall and so on, those things are already well understood and resolved. For example, I have spoken recently with Capitol Police and asked them about the overlapping jurisdiction: Where, for example, does the Capitol Police jurisdiction end and where does the DC Police jurisdiction begin, and so on? They have all these things worked out. I do not think there is any difficulty with those kinds of technical issues. But there will be, undoubtedly, others that will have to be addressed as well.

Secondly, my colleague is correct, in order to avoid the anomalous situation where a few people who might be technically residents downtown and not have other residence downtown--being in the Federal areas or national areas as described in this legislation--we would have to eliminate the twenty-third amendment to make sure those people would not have three electoral votes for the Presidency. I cannot imagine that if retrocession did occur the citizens of the country would not follow through on that essentially technical issue and approve the recession of the twenty-third amendment. But it is one of the things that will have to be done. That is absolutely true.

Again, I will conclude by saying, for those of us who believe it would be preferable for the residents of the District to have their own representative in the House of Representatives and, in fact, to be able to vote for Senators, and have that representation as well, if they are part of a State--if, in fact, the underlying legislation is unconstitutional, as many of us believe it is--then this amendment offers a constructive way to achieve the same result, I would suggest, with very little in the way of adjustment, but with some adjustment that would have to occur--again, subject solely to the approval of the people of the State of Maryland.

I say to our colleagues, this vote is scheduled for 10:30, so if there are people who want to discuss other amendments or other matters, or to further debate this amendment, this would be a good time to do so.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, the last amendment is going to be debated soon. Senator Ensign is here to begin that debate.

Both Senator McConnell and I would like to make some brief remarks.

(The remarks of Mr. Kyl and Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the testimony by Professor Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee September 14, 2006, be printed in the Record.