starttime 1254852925.75433
..
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE GOING
TO BE ASKING THIS
PLEASE GIVE US THE TEXT SO WE
CAN READ THE BILL.
WE'LL BE ASKING THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
EXACTLY WHAT DOES IT COST?
THEN WE'LL BE COMING TO THE
FLOOR, GOING TO TOWN MEETINGS IN
OUR HOMES AND WE'LL BE TALKING
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT HOW
THIS AFFECTS YOU.
DOES IT CUT YOUR MEDICARE?
IF SO, H?
DOES IT RAISE YOUR TAXES?
IF SO, HOW?
WILL IT BANKRUPT YOUR STATE?
HURT EDUCATION IN YOUR STATE?
IF SO, HOW?
DOES IT INCREASE OR REDUCE YOUR
HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS OR ADD TO
THE FEDERAL DEBT OF YOUR GOVERNMENT?
THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT WE
NEED ANSWERS TO, AND WE'RE
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DEBATE,
AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD
TO PASSING HEALTH CARE REFORMS
THAT STEP BY STEP BEGIN TO
REDUCE THE COSTS OF HEALTH CARE
TO YOU AND TO YOUR
THANK Y
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S TIME HAS
THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
MR. CORNYN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN MY
DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE FROM
TENNESSEE IN DISCUSSING HEALTH
CARE WHICH AS THE DISTINGUISHED
PRESIDING OFFICER KNOWS HAS BEEN
THE SUBJECT FOR SEVERAL WEEKS
NOW IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND
ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY FOR
THE LASTEW MONTHS.
CURRENTLY, WE'RE WAITING FOR THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE TO
COME BACK TO THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE AND TELL US WHAT THE
PRELIMINARY COSTS ESTIMATE IS OF
THE FINANCE COMMITTEEILL AS
VOTED WITH AMENDMENTS THAT WERE
PASSED IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
AND SOON, IF WE CAN BELIEVE THE
REPORTS, THE MAJORITY LEADER
WILL BRING TO THE FLOOR A
SO-CALLED MERGED BILL FROM THE
TWO SENATE COMMITTEES, THE
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND LABOR
PENSIONS COMMITTEE AND THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND THEN WE
WILL BE ASKED TO OFFER
AMENDMENTS AND VOTE ON THAT
BILL.
AND WHILE WE'RE WAING FOR THE
PROCESS TO UNFOLD, I THINK IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT TO CAREFULLY ASK
THE QUESTIONS THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, MY CONSTITUENTS IN TEXAS
ARE ASKING ME, QUESTIONS I??
BELIEVE SENATORS SHOULD ASK
THEMSELVES AS WE DEBATE HEALTH
CARE REFORM HERE IN THE SENATE.
AND THE FIRST QUESTION,
MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO
PROPOSE IS WILL WE HAVE A
TRANSPARENT DEBATE?
WILL WE HAVE A TRANSPARENT
DEBATE?
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TRANSPARENCY.
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY OF
THEM HAVE CONTACTED ME FROM MY
STATE AND ELSEWHERE WHO HAVE
SAID WE WANT TO READ THE BILL LANGUAGE.
AMAZINGLY ENOUGH, MANY OF THEM
HAVE CITED BACK TO ME PAGES --
REFERENCES, EITHER FROM THE
HOUSE BILLS OR THE HEALTH
COMMITTEE BILL OR OTHERWISE AND
SAID WHAT DOES THIS MEAN OR I
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS WILL
CONGRESS ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE
CONCERNS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS
ONCE THEY LEARN MORE ABOUT
WHAT'S IN THESE BILLS?
IN OTHER WORDS,
QUESTION IS WILL WE KNOW WHAT IS
IN THE BILL BEFORE WE ARE
REQUIRED TO VOTE ON IT, AND
SECONDLY, WILL WE KNOW HOW MUCH
IT'S GOING TO COST BEFORE WE
VOTE ON IT, BOTH IN THE
COMMITTEE AND HERE ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE.
YOU WILL
GUST, 2008 -- IT SEEMS LIKE A
LONG TIME AGO, BUT IT'S JUST
ALMOST YESTERDAY -- PRESIDENT
OBAMA PLEDGED THAT OUR DEBATES
ON HEALTH CARE REFORM WOULD BE TRANSPARENT.
I APPLAUDED HIM FOR IT AT THE TIME.
HE EVEN SAID THE NEGOTIATIONS
SHOULD TAKE PLACE ON C-SN SO
ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY WHO CARED
ABOUT IT COULD SEE IT.
I REMBER ON JANUARY 20 OF THIS
YEAR, SITTING UP THERE NEAR THE
DAIS WHEN OUR NEW PRESIDENT
SPOKE, AND HE SAID THINGS THAT I
AGREED WITH LIKE WE NEED GREATER
TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT.
HE SAID TRANSPARENCY PROMOTES
ACCOUNTABILITY AND IT PROMOTES
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN WHAT WE DO HERE.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE CONVERSE IS
ALSO TRUE, THAT SECRECY BREEDS
SUSPICION AND ULTIMATELY
PROMOTES CYNICISM ABOUT WHAT WE
DO HERE.
THAT'S WHY THIS IS SUCH AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE AMERICANS
WHO HAVE BEEN COUNTING ON A
TRANSPARENT PROCESS IN
WASHINGTON HAVE BEEN
DISAPPOINTED SO FAR.
WE HAVE SEEN SPECIAL DEALS
NEGOTIATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE
WITH LOBBYISTS WHICH HAVE NOT
BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, SOME OF WHICH WE'VE
LEARNED ABOUT, SOME OF WHICH WE
MAY NOT YET KNOW ABOUT.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE DEAL IS THE
DEAL WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRY.
HOLDING THEIR EXPOSURE UNDER
THIS LEGISLATION TO $80 BILLION.
AND THAT DEAL WAS REINFORCED
LAST WEEK BY A V
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
BUT, MR. PRESIDENT, I WASN'T A
PARTY TO THAT DEAL.
I'M SURE THE PRESIDING OFFICER
WAS NOT.
I WONDER HOW MANY OTHER DEALS
HAVE BEEN CUT BETWEEN THE WHITE
HOUSE AND VARIOUS INTEREST
GROUPS THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
WE LEARNED ALSO ABOUT A DEAL CUT
WITH SOME OF THE HOSPITALS --
SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE
HOSPITALS. A CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
SCORE ON AN AMENDMENT LAST WEEK
HAD TO BE REDONE BECAUSE IT WAS
$11 BILLION OFF BECAUSE THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET O
NONPARTISAN OFFICE THAT'S
CHARGED WITH TELLING US HOW MUCH
THIS BILL WILL COST, DID NOT
KNOW ABOUT THIS HOLD HARMLESS
AGREEM
ASSOCIATION.
BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT
NECESSARILY BE REFLECTED IN THE
BILL LANGUAGE.
AND ONLY THE WHITE HOUSE,
PRESUMABLY, AND THE PARTY
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS WHO CUT
THE DEALS KNOW ABOUT THEM.
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT
THEM SO THEY CAN EVALUATE IF
WE'RE DOING OUR JOB HERE.
YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD IT TIME AND
TIME AGAIN, AND PARTICULARLY
SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE
STIMULUS BILL THAT W GOT
ROUGHLY 11:00 ON A THURSDAY
NIGHT AND WERE REQUIRED TO VOTE
ON LESS -- IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS.
MY CONSTITUENTS ARE SAYING, IS
IT ASKING TOO MUCH TO HAVE YOU
READ THE BILL BEFORE YOU VOTE ON IT?
NOW, I VOTED NO ON THAT BILL FOR
A LOT OF REASONS.
BUT I DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME, NOR
I SUSPECT DO MANY MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS HAVE THE TIME TO READ
IT BEFORE WE WERE RUIRED TO
VOTE ON IT.
WE DON'T SET THE VOTE SCHEDULE,
THE MAJORITY LEADER DOES.
AND I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER
REASON WHY THEY WANT US TO SLOW
DOWN, LET'S FIND OUT WHAT'S IN
THE BILL, LET'S LET THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE READ WHAT'S IN THE BILL,
TELL US HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO
COST AN LET'S HAVE A GOOD, OLD-FASHIONED DEBATE ABOUT
WHAT'S IN THE BEST
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
NOW, THE THIRD SPECIAL DEAL THAT
WAS DISCLOSED AND HAD TO DO WITH
MEDICAID.
YOU REMBER THE MAJORITY LEADER
FROM NEVADA SAID, WELL, THE CUTS
-- THE UNFUNDED MANDATEOR
MEDICAID IS TOO MUCH FOR MY
STATE TO ABSORB.
LO AND BEHOLD, A NEW DEAL WAS
CUT WITH NEW LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
GIVE FOUR STATES A BETTER DEAL
THAN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD IN THE
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL BY THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE, SENATOR BAUCUS.
AND ONE OF THOSE FOUR
AND BEHOLD HAPPEN TO BE THE
STATE REPRESENTED BY OUR
DISTINGUISHED MAJORITY LEADER.
WELL, I THINK THE EXAMPLES
REVEAL WHY TRANSPARENCY IS SO IMPORTANT.
AND NOW, AS THE DISTINGUISHED
SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE POINTED
OUT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS
MYSTERIOUS MERGER OF THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE PROPOSAL WITH THE
"HELP" COMMITTEE -- THE HEALTH,
EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSION
BILLS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS,
PRESUMABLY- I'VE READ REPORTS
IT'S OCCURRING NOW, MAYBE EVEN
AS WE SPEAK IN THE CONFERENCE
ROOM OF THE MAJORITY LEADER,
WITHOUT ANY OF US BEING PRESENT.
AND I THINK IT'S
INDEED, A DANGEROUS WAY POWERS
TO DO -- WAY FOR US TO DO
BUSINESS.
AS THE DISTINGUISHED PRESIDING
OFFICER KNOW, THE FIRST OFFERED
WAS BY THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.
HIS AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED A 72-HOUR WAITING
PERIOD BEFORE WE WOULD VOTE ON
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE BILL.
DURING THOSE 72 HOURS, WE WOULD
ACTUALLY, HOPEFULLY,
LEGISLATIVE TEXT, NOT JT
CONCEPTUAL LANGUAGE, AVAILABLE
TO US AND AVAILABLE TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE SO THEY COULD
READ IT.
AND WE WOULD
AMENDMENT, ON A SCORE, THAT IS A
COST, OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGETFFICE, TELLING US HOW
MUCH MEDICARE WAS GOING TO BE
CUT, HOW MUCH TAXES WOULD BE
RAISED AND HOW THE BILL WOULD BE
PAID FOR.
NOW, THAT SEEMED LIKE AN IMMINENTLY REASONABLE AMENDMENT
TO ME.
BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, A MAJORITY
DID NOT CARRY THE DAYN
COMMITTEE AND IT FAILED.
I HOPE WE
COME BACK TO THAT ISSUE, PERHAPS
AS EVEN ONE OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENTS AS WE TAKE UP THIS
BILL ON THE FLOOR.
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT TO PUBLIC CONFIDENCE,
TO ACCOUNTABILITY, TO TRY TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT CYNICISM
THAT CREPT INTO THE PUBLIC'S
PERCEPTION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING
HERE THAT RESULTED IN
RESPONDENTS OF ASUP POLLED OF 16%.
WE NEED TO RESTORE CONFIDENCE IN
WHAT WE'RE DOING AND I THINK
TRANSPARENCY WILL HELP.
OTHERWISE WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?
WE'RE LEFT WITH PEOPLE WONDERING
WHETHER THERE'S SOME REASON WHY
WE DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO READ
THE BILL.
MAYB
DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD
READ THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE MAYBE
THEY DON'T INTEND TO READ THE
LANG
SOME HAVE SAID THAT THE LANGUAGE
IS JUST SIMPLY TOO COMPLICATED.
THAT AN AVERAGEERSON CAN'T
UNDERSTAND IT IF THEY READ IT.
AND EVEN THAT SOME
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND
IT IF THEY READ IT BEFORE THEY
VOTE ON IT.
I WOULD JUST ASK US ALL TO TAKE
A DEEP BREATH AND ONE STEP BACK
AND THINK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THAT.
IF SOME STAFFERS, THE ONE
WRITING THE LANGUAGE, AND
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS -- MEMBERS
OF COMMITTEES, MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE DON'T READ IT AND THEN
PERHAPS IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN
UNDERSTANDABLE LANGUAGE, SO WE
KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE,
HOW DOES THAT PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE?
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT
OUGHT TO GIVE US PAUSE AND WE
OUGHT TO RECONSIDER AS WE
REFLECTN WHAT THE MESSAGE IS
THAT THAT SENDS.
IF WE THINK ABOUT THIS, MR.
PRESIDENT -- MR.
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR TWO
ADDITIONAL MINUTES FL. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. CORNYN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD ASK FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO
THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
ONE-SIXTH OF THE ECONOMY'S GOING
TO BE AFFECTED BY OUR DECISION
ON THESE HEALTH CARE PROPOSALS.
IT WILL LITERALLY -- WHAT WE DO
ON THESE BILLS WILL AFFECT THE
LIFE OF EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND
CHILD IN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.
ALL 300 MI
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO MUCH
TO ASK THAT WE SLOW THIS DOWN,
THAT WE GET THE TEXT -- THE
ACTUAL BILL LANGUAGE.
WE KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO
COST AND WE ST IT ONLINE SO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN READ IT
AND GIVE US THEIR REACTION.
I MEAN, WE ARE CALLED
REPRESENTATIVES FOR A REASON.
WE REPRESENT CONSTITUENTS.
AND I'M PROUD TO REPRESENT
24 MILLION TEXANS.
AND I GUARANTEE YOU THEY W
KNOW WHAT'S IN THIS BILL, HOW
IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THEY'LL AND
THEIR FAMILY.
AND SO I THINK IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT THAT WE ANSWER THIS
QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
THAT QUESTION, AGAIN, IS: WILL
THIS BE A TRANSPARENT DEBATE?
THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION I
HAVE, BUT NOT THE LAST THAT I'LL
BE APPEARING BACK ON THE FLOOR
IN THE COMING DAYS TO ASK.
I THINK THESE ARE THE KINDS OF
QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE A CANDID
ANSWER.
AND I HOPE, MR.
THE INTEREST OF BIPARTISAN GOOD
FAITH WE WILL SOMEHOW FIND A WAY
TO COME TOGETHER AND HELP MAKE
THIS A MORE TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
THE QUORUM CALL BE REFLECTED
EQUALLY KING AWAY FROM THE
TIME ON BOTH SIDES AND I WOULD
NOW NOT QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. THUNE: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.
MR. THUNE: MR. PRESIDENT, ARE WE
IN A QUORUM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: YES. MR. THUNE: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE
DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THE SENATOR'S RECOGNIZED.
MR. THUNE: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
BEEN DOWN ON THE FLOOR TODAY
TALKING ABOUT THE BIGGEST ISSUE
THAT THE CONGRESS WILL DEAL WITH
THIS YEAR AND ARGUABLY, FOR MANY
YEARS IN THE PAST OR IN THE
FUTURE, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE OF
HEALTH CARE REFORM.
WE KNOW THAT THAT ISSUE IS
STARING US SQUARELY IN THE FACE.
THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES THAT HAVE
JURISDICTION IN THE CONGRESS,
TWO IN THE HOUSE, AND IT IS
EXPECTED THAT THE SENATE FINANCE
COMMITTEE WILL PRODUCE A BILL
SOMETIME LATER THIS WEEK.
AND IT IS A CRITICAL DEBATE FOR
ALL THE UNITED STATES SENATE,
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BECAUSE
IT DOES REPRESENT, LITERALLY, ONE-SIXTH OF THE AMERICAN
ECONOMY.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS
ONE-SIXTH OF OUR ENTIRE G.D.P.
TODAY CONSISTS OF SPENDING ON
HEALTH CARE.
AND THAT WOULD BE GOVERNMENT
HEALTH CARE, PRIVATELY DELIVERED
HEALTH CARE, BUT HEALTH CARE NONETHELESS.
AND THE QUESTION, I GUESS,
BEFORE THE SENATE IN THE NEXT
WEEK OR TWO AND THIS EVENTUALLY
RE
WE GOING TOO HERE TO TRY AND
ADDRESS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
THAT I THINK MOST PEOPLE
PERCEIVE WITH OUR HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM TODAY AND THAT IS THAT IT
COSTS TOO MUCH.
NOW, ARGUABLY THERE ARE LOTS OF
AMERICANS WHO DON'T HAVE ACCESS
TO HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND ALL OF US WANT TO SEE THAT
ISSUE ADDRESSED AND THAT WHOSE
AMERICANS WHO DON'T CURRENTLY
HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE HAVE WAY
OF BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THAT
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
MANY TODAY USE EMERGENCY
SERVICES.
IT ISN'T THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING
WITHOUT HEALTH CARE, BUT THEY
DON'T HAVE COVERAGE.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE PEOPLE IN
THIS COUNTRY TO HAVE THE ASSURANCE AND THE CONFIDENCE
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME
SORT OF ASSURANCE THAT WOULD
PROTECT THEM AGAINST THOSE TYPES
OF LIFE-THREATENING INJURIES
ILLNESSES AND DAY-TO-DAY
ILLNESSES THAT AFFLICT PEOPLE
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
AND, YET, THE BIG ISSUE IS THE
ISSUE OF COSTS FOR MOST
AMERICANS AND THAT, AS I SAID
BEFORE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT
DOUBLE-DIGIT INCREASES FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES, FOR FAMILIES, IT
REALLY DOES AFFECT ALL AMERICANS
IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.
IT'S A VERY PERSONAL ISSUE.
HEALTH CARE IS PERSONAL TO
PEOPLE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS AND
IT AFFECTSHEIR POCKETBOOKS IN
A REAL AND TANGIBLE WAY.
THAT'S WHY THERE IS SO MUCH
ATTENTION FOCUSED ON THIS AND SO
MUCH CONCERN ABOUT THE DIRECTION
IN WHICH CONGRESS INTENDS TO PROCEED.
I THINK THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES
THAT BEARS HEAVILY UPON THAT
DEBATE IS THE WHOLE FISCAL
SITUATION IN WHICH WE FIND
I THINK THAT THIS -- IF WE'RE
HAVING THIS DEBATE AT ANOTHER
TIME, PERHAPS THE CIRCUMSTANCES
BEING SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT, YOU
MIGHT COME TO -- TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS.
BUT I THINK ONE THING WE ALL
HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE LOOK
AT HOW DO WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE
OF HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY,
IS DOING IN A WAY THAT IS FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
AND THE REASON
FOR THAT IS THAT WE SEE
DEFICITS, HUGE DEFICITS, AS FAR
AS THE EYE CAN SEE.
THE FISCAL YEAR THAT WE JUST
CONCLUDED, SEN SEPTEMBER 30,
$1.6 TRILLION ANNUAL DEFICIT.
NEXT YEAR IS EXPECTED TO BE $1.5 TRILLION.
TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS AND
TRILLIONS OF NEW SPENDING CH AND EVERY YEAR.
NOW, THIS
FISCAL YEAR THAT I MENTIONED,
THE DEFICIT BEING $1.6 TRILLION,
THAT LITERALLY REPRESENTS 43
CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENT.
SO 43 CENTS OUT OF
DOLLAR THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SPENT THIS LAST YEAR
WAS BORROWED.
IT'S ALL DEBT.
NOW, TO PUT THAT INTO
PERSPECTIVE -- AND I THINK MOST AMERICANS CAN, PERHAPS,
UNDERSTAND --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE TIME
ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE H EXPIRED.
A SENATOR: I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO PROCEED,
MR. PRESIDENT, UNTIL SUCH TIME
AS THE OTHER SIDE COMES AND
CLAIMS SOME TIME. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
HEARING NONE, THE SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. THUNE: MR. PRESIDENT, THE
POINT I WANT TO MAKE SIMPLY IS
THIS.
IF YOU WERE TO PUT THAT INTO
PERSPECTIVE FOR AN AVERAGE
AMERICAN FAMILY, IF YOU'RE AN
AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY AND
LET'S SAY THAT YOUR ANNUAL
INCOME IS $62,000, YOU -- FROM
ALL YOUR HARD WORK AND LABOR
OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, YOU
GENERATE $62,000 FOR YOUR
HOUSEHOLD, THAT WOULD BE THE
EQUIVALENT OF SPENDING $108,000.
WHAT THEEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
DOING BY BORROWING 43 CENTS OUT
OF EVERY DOLLAR THAT IT SPENDS
IS THE EQUIVALENT TO A FAMILY, A
HOUSEHOLD IN THIS COUNTRY MAKING
$62,000, SPENDING $108,000.
NOW, WHAT FAMILY IN AMERICA CAN
DO THAT?
WH SMALL BUSINESS IN AMERICA
CAN DO THAT?
CAN CONTINUE TO BORROW LIKE THAT?
THEY CAN'T.
IT'S JUST -- IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY,
YOU CANNOT DO THAT.
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES
IT AND WE CONTINUE TO BORROW
FROM THE CHINESE AND WE SAY
WE'LL PAY THE BILLS AT A LATER DATE.
BUT ONE THING THAT MOST
AMERICANS UNDERSTAND IS, ONE,
YOU CAN'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T
HAVE.
AND, TWO
IT DOES HAVE TO BE PAID BACK.
AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT
NOW IS DEFICITS AND DEBT
MOUNTING TO THE POINT THAT TEN
YEARS FROM TODAY THE -- THE
AMOUNT THAT EVERY HOUSEHOLD WILL
OWE IN THIS COUNTRY IS $188,000.
NOW, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE A
YOUNG COUPLE JUST GETTING
MARRIED, JUST
MARRIAGE VOWS ANDNOWING THAT
WHEN YOU START OUT YOUR LIFE AS
A FAMILY, THAT YOU ARE GOING TO
GET A WEDDING GIFT FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE TUNE
OF $188,000 I.O.U.?
THAT IS, IN EFFECT, WHAT WE ARE
DOING TO THE NEXT GENERATION OF AMERICANS.
AND SO THAT'S THE BACKDROP TO
WHICH THIS WHOLE HEALTH CARE DEBATE GETS UNDERWAY.
WE HAVE DEFICITS AND DEBT THAT'S
PILING UP TO THE TUNE OF
$188,000 PER HOUSEHOLD AT THE
END OF THE YEAR 2019.
AND SO WE OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT
HOW D WE, ONE, SOLVE THE HEALTH
CARE CRISIS IN A FISCALLY
RESPONSIBLE WAY, THAT DOESN'T
SPEND TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF
MORE DOLLARS AND RAISE TAXES AND
BORROW MORE AND MORE MONEY.
THOSE ARE ALL ISSUES THAT I
THINK NEED TO BE -- NEED TO BE
VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BY ALL
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE AS WE MAKE THESE
IMPORTANT VOTES.
THE OTHER THING I'LL MAKE -- THE
POINT I'LL MAKE IS THIS.
THERE ARE IN THE PROPOSALS THAT
HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD, IN ALL OF
THEM, TAX INCREASES TO PAY FOR
THIS.
NOW, THE MOST REASONABILITY
VERSION OF THIS, THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE BILL, IS A
$1.7 TRILLION COSTVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD.
AND THAT'S THE LEAST EXPENSIVE,
I MIGHT ADD, OF ALL THE BILLS
THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED SO FAR.
THERE ARE FIVE BILLS THAT HAVE
BEEN PRODUCED BY THE CONGRESS.
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE BILL, TO
THEIR CREDIT, IS AT LEAST THE
LEAST COSTLY OF THOSE.
$1.7 TRILLION OVER TEN YEARS.
THAT'S STILL $1.7 TRILLION IN
NEW SPENDING.
NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT WE
ALREADY HAVE A MEDICARE SYSTEM
WHICH IS DESTINED FOR BANKRUPTCY
IN THE YEAR 2017.
WE'VE GOT ALL KINDS OF OTHER
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES AND SOCIAL
SECURITY AND MEDICAID AND
ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS THAT PILE
UP AND PILE UP AND PILE UP.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE AT SOME
POINT.
AND YET HERE WE ARE
ABOUT ADDING AN ALMOST
$2 TRILLION NEW ENTITLEMENT ON
TOP OF THAT CRUMBLING FOUNDATION.
I THINK MOST AMERICANS WOULD
KE ISSUE WITH ELECTED LEADERS
THAT WOULD -- WOULD DO THAT,
THAT WOULD TAKE A PROGRAM THAT
LITERALLY IS ON THE VERGE OF
BANKRUPTCY AND TRY AND ADD
ANOTHER $2 TRILLION PROGRAM ON
TOP OF IT.
AND SO THERE'S THE OVERALL COST
OF IT TO THE TAXPAYERS BUT IT'S
ALSO HOW IT'S PAID FOR.
NOW, IT OBVIOUSLY HAS TO BE PAID
FOR SOMEHOW ARE WE DEAL WITH
THIS ISSUE OF BORROWING, WHICH I MENTIONED EARLIER.
AND SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS
A SERIES OF TAX INCREASES AND A
SERIES OF REDUCTIONS, CUTS IN
MEDICARE PROGRAMS.
NOW, THE MEDICARE CUTS
TO BE BAD ENOUGH AND MEDICARE
ADVANTAGE TAKES A BIG WHACK,
WHICH WILL AFFECT A LOT OF
SENIORS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
THE PROVIDERS ARE GOING TO TAKE
A WHACK, HOSPITALS, HOME HEALTH
AGENCIES, HOSPICES, ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
BUT YOU'VE GO ALSO GOT $400 BILLION
IN TAX INCREASES EMBEDDED INTO
THIS LATEST VERSION OF THE
PROPOSAL, MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT
IN SOME OF THE OTHER BILLS THAT
ARE CURRENTLY MOVING THRGH THE
HOUSE, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE
AMICAN PUBLIC IS GOING TO BE
HANDED A BILL FOR THIS THAT'S
GOING TO LEAD TO INEVITABLY
HIGHER TAXES.
AND SO MUCH SO THAT THE JOINT
COMMITTEE ON TAXATION, THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE HAVE
ESTIMATED THAT 71% OF THE
PENALTY WILL HIT PEOPLE EARNING
LESS THAN $250,000 A YEAR.
NOW, THAT CONFLICTS AND
CONTRADICTS DIRECTLY COMMITMENTS
THE PRESIDENT MADE ABOUT RAISING
TAXES ON PEOPLE MAKING LESS THAN
$250,000 A YEAR.
AND THEY'VE ALSO GONE SO FAR AS
TO SAY THE TAXES THAT WOULD BE
IMPOSE -- AND THERE ARE A
RECEIVERS TAXES THAT WOULD BE
IMPOSED. THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET HAS
SAID THAT THOSE TAXES WOULD BE
PASS ODD DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR TO
PEOPLE ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
SO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, YES,
THEY MAY REMIT THE TAXES BUT
THEY'RE GOING TO PASS THE COST
OF THAT ON AND SO YOU'RE GOIN
TO SEE NOT ONLY HIGHER TAXES ON
PASSED ON IN THE FORM OF HIGHER
PREMIUMS TO INDIVIDUALS IN THIS
COUNTRY.
AND SO IN OTHER WORDS WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE HIGHER INSURANCE COSTS.
BUT YOU'VE ALSO GOT TAXES PUT IN
HERE THAT HIT PEOPLE WHO DON'T
HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND THOSE TAXES GET UP TO BE
ABOUT $1,500 A YEAR FOR PEOPLE
WHO DON'T HAVE INSURANCE.
AND SO PEOPLE WOULD BE
AND THAT WOULD APPLY, AGAIN,
ACROSS ALL SPECK TRUMS OF
EARNS -- SPECTRUMS OF EARNERS,
WAGE EARNERS IN THIS COUNTRY.
BUT THE C.B.O., AS I SAID
EARLIER, ESTIMATED 71% OF THAT
PENALTY IS GOING TO FALL ON
PEOPLE WHO EARN LESS
$250,000 A
AND IF YOU PROJECT ON FURTHER --
AND THIS, AGAIN, IS THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE AND
THE JOINT COTAXATION -- HAVE
SAID THAT BY -- JOINT COMMITTEE
ON TAXATION HAVE THAT SAID B
2019, 89% OF THE TAXES WILL BE
PAID BY TAXPAYERS EARNING LESS
THAN $200,000 A YEAR.
SO THAT HUGE TAX BURDEN, THAT
$400 BILLION INITIALLY -- AND
THAT WILL GROWHEN THE BILL IS
FULLY IMPLEMENTED -- WILL FALL
DISPROPORTIONATELY ON PEOPLE
MAKING LESS THAN $200,000 A
YEAR.
90% -- 89% OF THOSE TAXES PAID
BY TAXPAYERS EARNING LESS NESS
THATHAN$200,000.
SO ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF TAXATION
CONTEMPLATED IN THESE BILLS IN
ADDITION TO THE MEDICARE CUTS
THAT ARE PROPOSED TO PAY FOR AND
FINANCE THESE CHANGES INTO
HEALTH CARE THAT ARE BEING
PASSED OFF AS HEALTH CARE REFORM.
AND SO I GUESS MY VIEW ON THIS,
MR. PRESIDENT, IS THAT, ONE, WE
OUGHT TO HAVE -- THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THESE FACTS.
AND I THINK WHAT THAT WOULD
SUGGEST IS THAT THERE BE AMPLE
AMOUNT OF TIME WHEN WE FINALLY
DO HAVE A BILL.
AND I KNOW THAT THE F IS
MARKING UP THEIR -- FINANCE
COMMITTEE IS MARK UP THEIR VERSION OF IT.
THEY EXPECT TO REPORT IT OUT
SOMETIME LATER THIS WEEK.
BUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE
REPORTED OUT IS CONCEPTS,
GENERALITIES.
WE DON'T HAVE A BILL,
LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE TO REACT TO YET.
THAT'S GOING TO BE PUT TOGETHER
WITH THE BILL THAT WAS PRODUCED
BY THE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR
AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE EARLIER
AND SO THOSE WILL BE MERGED
TOGETHER.
AT SOME POINT THAT WILL BE
REDUCED TO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.
WHEN I IS, WE EXPECT IT'S GOING
TO BE IN EXCESS OF A THOUSAND PAGES.
AND SO WE A NOW I THINK TALKING CONSERVATIVELY ABOUT
HAVING A BILL ON THE FLOOR NOT
NEXT WEEK BUT THE WEEK AFTER,
WHICH WILL BE FULLY LONGER THAN
A THOUSAND PAGES, NONE OF WHICH
ANY MEMBER OF THE SENATE HAS YET SEEN.
AND -- AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE
MOST IMPACTED BY THIS, WILL NOT
HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
ENGAGED IN THIS DEBATE OR TO
HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD.
AND SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE AT A MINIMUM SLOW THIS
PROCESS DOWN, SO THAT WE TAKE IT
STEP BY STEP SO WE'RE NOT
RUSHING TO DO SOMETHING VERY
QUICKLY AND HURRIEDLY THAT WOULD
BE A BIG MISTAKE FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AT A
MINIMUM, WE OUGHT TO HAVE A VERY
TRANSPARENT, OPEN PROCESS, THAT
WHEN WE HAVE A BILL, IF IT'S IN
EXCESS OF A THOUSAND PAGES, THAT
WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME NOT ONLY
FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE TO REVIEW IT AND TO READ
IT AND UNDERSTAND IT BUT ALSO
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HAVE
THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY.
AND THERE WERE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE OFFERED IN THE SENATE
FINANCE COMMITTEE THAT WOULD
ALLOW A 72-HOUR PERIOD.
THAT SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE.
THAT'S THREE DAYS.
THREE DAYS TO LOOK AT SOMETHING
IN EXCESS OF A
AND YPAIMGZ -- THOUSAND PAGES.
PAGES. AND YET THAT WAS VOTED DOWN.
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ON THE
COMMITTEE VOTED THAT AMENDMENT.
IT WAS VOTED DOWN BY THE
DEMOCRAT MAJORITY ON THE COMMITTEE.
BUT 72 HOURS AT A MINIMUM.
I THINK IT OUGHT TO TAKE -- I
CAN'T IMAGINE THAT YOU COULD
CONTEMPLATE AND FULLY GRASP AND
UNDERSTAND THAT AMOUNT, THAT
VOLUME OF INFORMATION AND THAT
KIND OF A BILL IN 72 HOURS TO
START WITH.
BUT AT A MINIMUM -- AT A
MINIMUM -- THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
PASSED, THAT AMENDMENT WAS
DEFEATED IN THE SENATE FINANCE
COMMITTEE, AS WERE A NUMBER OF OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT WERE
OFFERED BY MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE.
BUT -- SO HAVING SAID THAT, I
THINK FIRST OFF WE OUGHT TO HAVE
AMPLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO REVIEW
THIS.
SECONDLY, I WOULD ARGUE IN TERMS
OF THE PROCESS ITSELF, THAT
RATHER THAN THROWING OVERBOARD
AND AWAY WHAT IS A VERY -- THEY'RE -- IT'S FLAWED.
WE HAVE A FLAWED HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY.
IT'S NOT PERFECT. OKAY?
IT HAS ITS PROBLEMS.
WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
WE CAN FIX THOSE PROBLEMS.
BUT WE SHOULDN'T THROW
EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD ABOUT IT
OVERBOARD.
AND WHAT THIS WILL DO IS CREATE
ALL KINDS
INVOLVEMENT, GOVERNMENT
INTERVENTION IN THE DECISIONS
THAT PERTAIN TO HEALTH CARE.
NOW GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO
DICTATE WHAT TYPES OF INSURANCE
PLANS OR WHAT SHOULD BE IN AN
INSURANCE PLAN, YOU KNOW,
THAT -- THAT IN ORDER TO BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS BILL, YOU
WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PUT FORWARD.
AND SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE
LESS AND LESS CHOICE, LESS AND
LESS FREEDOM. GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO HAVE MORE
AND MORE SAY, MORE AND MORE
CONTROL, HOU, MORE AND MORE DECISION MAKING.
AND I THINK MOST OF THE PEOPLE
ACROSS THI COUNTRY FIND THAT TO
BE VERY THREATENING.
I THINK THEY ARE AGAIN WINLY,
HONESTLY CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING
THE GOVERNMENT HAVE MORE AND
MORE NOW ONE-SIXTH OF THE
ECONOMY ON AN ISSUE THAT IS SO
FOARNL THEM AS THEIR HEALTH
CARE.
SO
AT A MINIMUM, THEY OUGHT TO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE BILL.
SECOND, WE OUGHT TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT STEP BY
STEP, NOT THROW IT ALL OVERBOARD.
NOT TAKE WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THE
AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND
THROW IT IN THE DITCH BECAUSE IT
HAS SOME FIXED.
THOSE ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED
BUT WE NEED TO COVER THOSE WHO
DON'T HAVE COVERAGE.
WE NEED TO TRY TODDRESS THE
ISSUE OF COSTS, BUT THESE BILLS
DON'T DO THAT.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN A BILL YET, YET,
OF THE FIVE THAT ARE BEING
WORKED ON HERE IN CONGRESS THAT,
ONE, REDUCES HEALTH CARE COSTS.
THEY ALL BEN THE COST CURVE UP.
YOU ASK THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE, AND THEY ALL WILL TELL
YOU -- IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE,
THEY WILL TELL YOU THIS DOES NOT
REDUCE OR DRIVE DOWN HEALTH CARE COSTS.
IT ACTUALLY INCREASES HEALTH
CARE COSTS FOR MOST AMECANS.
SECONDLY, WE HAVEN'T HAD A BILL
YET THAT ACTUALLY -- YOU KNOW,
WHAT I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE AS
A BUDGET BUSTER.
ALL THESE BILLS ARE $7 TRILLION
ON TOP OF PROGRAMS THAT ARE
ALREADY DESTINED FOR BANKRUPTCY
IN THE VERY NEA
LET'S START SLOW, L'S TAKE
THIS STEP BY STEP.
LET'S DO THIS IN A WAY THAT
ALLOWS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE
ENGAGED IN THIS DEBATE.
IT DOES AFFECT THEM AND THEIR
LIVELIHOODS IN A VERY PERSOL
WAY.
IT DOES AFFECT THEIR POCKETBOOKS
IT WILL RAISE THEIR TAXES.
AND IT WILL ALSO, AGAIN - NOT
MY WORDS, THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE -- LEAD TO HIGHER
HEALTH CARE COSTS, NOT LOWER
HEALTH CARE COSTS, WHICH AT THE
END OF THE DAY, WASN'T THAT THE
WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS EXERCISE
IN THE FIRST PLACE?
AND SO WE ARE GOING TO DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN ON OUR SIDE TO
TO -- TO OPEN THIS AND ALLOW THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE IT, TO
GIVE AMPLE TIME FOR THEM TO BE
ENGAGED, AND SECONDLY, TO MAKE
SURE THAT WHEN HEALTH CARE
REFORM IS DONE HERE BY CONGRESS
THAT IT IS DONE IN A WAY THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I THINK
MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE SHOULD BE
DONE, AND THAT IS REDUCING AND
DRIVING DOWN HEALTH CARE COSTS,
NOT INCREASING PREMIUMS LIKE
THESE BILLS DO, NOT SPENDING
TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF THEIR
TAX DOLLARS AND PILING ON
ADDITIONAL EITLEMENT PROGRAMS
ON PROGRAMS THAT ARE ALREADY
GOING OUT OF BUSINESS HERE IN
THE NEXT FEW
THAT IS FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
I THINK THAT'S THE LEAST THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT OF US,
AND I THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO DELIVER ON THAT.
WE OUGHT TO DELIVER ON HEALTH
CARE REFORM, BUT REFORM THAT
TRULY ACCOMPLISHES THOSE
IMPORTANT GOALS.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR
AND I
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
MR. INHOFE: I ASK THAT I BE
RECOGNIZ IN MORNING BUSINESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. INHOFE: IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE SOMEONE
COMING DOWN WHO WANTED TO SPEAK,
BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS
I WANTED TO MENTION.
FIRST OF ALL, WHEN THE SENATOR
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA TALKS ABOUT
HEALTH CARE REF
SOME THINGS WE CAN DO FOR HEALTH
CARE REFORM THAT WE HAVE
PROMOTED FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
CERTAINLY MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.
IT'S
COSTS ARE A
OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS.
H.S.A.'S CAME INTO BEING JUST A
W YEARS AGO AND WE HAVE PILOT
PROGRAMS WHERE THEY -- LET'S
KEEP IN MIND, HEALTH CARE IS THE
ONLY PRODUCT OR SERVICE IN
AMERICA THAT I KNO
THERE'S NO ENCOURAGEMENT TO AROUND.
WELL, IF YOU HAVE
IS ENCOURAGE
SPEND LESS, YOU CAN ENJOY THE
BENEFITS OF THAT OR PUT THAT
INTO OTHER PROGRAMS.
I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE
CAN DO, AND THE SECOND THING I
WOULD
WAS COVERED VERY WELL BY THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA, WE
DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT'S GOING
TO BE IN THE BILL THAT COMES
OUT, BUT WE DO KNOW
SPEAKER PELOSI OVER ON THE HOUSE
SIDE HAS SAID THAT ANY BILL THAT
COMES OUT OF CONFERENCE IS GOING
TO HAVE A
SO THEY CAN MASQUERADE IT, THEY
CAN TALK ABOUT CO-OPS, ALL OF
THESE
WE'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY GET
SOMETHING THAT COMES OUT OF
CONFERENCE AND IT'S GOING TO
HAVE A GOVERNMENT OPTION.
THAT IS SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
YOU CAN'T COMPETE WITH THE
GOVERNMENT AND HAVE A SYSTEM
THAT HAS DELIVERED THE BENEFIT
THAT OUR SYSTEM HAS.
DAKOTA COULD JUST AS WELL BE
TALKING ABOUT ONE OTHER PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT'S UP RIGHT
AND THAT'S THE BILL.
THAT HAS THE SAME THING WHERE
YOU DON'T KNOW THE BLANKS --
ALSO WEDNESDAY, THERE WAS A NEWS
CONFERENCE BY THE SENATOR FROM
MASSACHUSETTS AND THE SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA, SENATOR BOXER.
THEY GAVE THIS PROGRAM -- THEY
TALKED ABOUT THIS NEW
CAP-AND-TRADE BUT THEY DIDN'T
GIVE ANY SPECIFICS.
NOTHING THAT WAS IN THERE WAS
SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF WHERE IS
THE CAP, HOW DOES THE TRADING
TAKE PLACE, HOW DOES THE
RATIONING TAKE PLACE?
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS,
THOUGH -- I HAVE TO SAY,
ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH ANY
KIND OF CAP-AND-TRADE IS GOING
TO BE AT LEAST, AT LEAST
A $300 BILLION ANNUAL TAX INCREASE.
THAT WAS TRUE AS LONG AGO AS THE
LATE 1990'S WHEN THE KYOTO BILL
WAS UP.
THEY DID A STUDY ON THIS THING.
IT WAS DONE BY THE WHARTON
SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
THEY SAID THAT THE COST OF
THIS -- IF WE WERE TO COMPLY
WITH THE RESTRICTIONS OF THAT
TREATY -- WOULD BE SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN $300 BILLION AND AND $330 BILLION A YEAR.
TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE --
SOMETIMES IT'S CONFUSING WHEN
YOU TALK ABO
TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT I
REMEMBER THE LARGEST TAX
INCREASE, THAT WAS THE GENERAL
TAX INCREASE.
THAT WAS BACK IN 1993 IN THE
CLINTON-GORE WHITE HOUSE, AND IT WAS $32 BILLION.
SO THIS WOULD BE 10 TIMES THAT AMOUNT.
SO WE HAVE HAD THE
SEVERAL BILLS THAT WE HAVE HAD
IN THE -- IN THE SENATE SINCE
THAT TIM
AND I WOULD ONLY SAY THIS, THAT
THIS IS A DIFFERENT DEBATE.
IT'S GOING TO COME UP AND WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK
ABOUT IT.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE E.P.A.,
LISA JACKSON, A VERY FINE
PERSON, A PERSON APPOINTED BY
PRESIDENT OBAMA, MADE THE
STATEMENT THAT IF WE WERE TO
SUPPORT THE WAXMAN-MARKEY BILL,
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SIGN IT
INTO
EFFECT OF ALL.
THE REASON IS VERY OBVIOUS.
WE WOULD ONLY BE DOING THAT HERE
IN THE UNITED STATES.
LASTLY, I DO WANT TO
COMMENT ABOUT A COUPLE OF VOTES
THAT ARE COMING UP -- AT LEAST
ONE VOTE THAT'S COMING UP AT 3
MY JUNIOR SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA,
SENATOR COBURN, HAS A BILL --
HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT IS AN
EXCELLENT
IT'S ONE THAT I WILL SUPPORT,
ALTHOUGH I HAVE TO SAY THAT I
WAS TEMPTED
WOULD ONLY LIKE TO START THE
BALL ROLLING.
THAT IF THIS BODY IS WILLING TO
REDEFINE WHAT AN
COUL BE UNANIMOUS ON THIS SIDE.
AN EARMARK SHOULD BE AN
APPROPRI
AUTHORIZATION.
THIS HAS BEEN A 200-YEAR FIGHT
BETWEEN AUTHORIZERS AND APPROPRIATORS.
IF WE
WHERE WE ACCEPT THE FACT IF
SOMETHING HAS GONE THROUGH THE
SCRUTINY OF AN AUTHORIZATION --
THE HIGHWAY BILL IS A GOOD
EXAMPLE OF THIS.
WE HAVE 30 CRITERIA IN
AUTHORIZATION BILL.
WE COME UP WITH CRITERIA TO
DETERMINE HOW MUCH SHOULD BE
SPENT IN DIFFERENT
ON THE FLOOR, THERE IS ALWAYS
THINGS COMING UP THAT DID NOT GO
THROUGH
PROCESS, AND THEREFORE I WOULD
CALL THOSE EARMARKS.
SO I WOULD ONLY SAY THIS -- IN
THE BILL THAT SENATOR -- IN THE
AMENDMENT THAT SENATOR COBURN
HAS, IT IS GOING TO BE ADDRESSED
SOME 55 -- THEY ARE CALLED
EARMARKS, OF WHICH SIX
AUTHORIZED.
I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE
THOSE SIX OUT.
I DON'T THINK -- I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER WE CAN DO IT OR NOT.
IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO
PRIOR TO THE VOTE.
NONETHELESS, I THINK FOR FUTURE
REFERENCES, IF WE'RE GOING TO
TALK ABOUT EARMARKS, WE NEED TO
DEFINE WHAT AN EARMARK IS.
AN EARMARK IS AN APPROPRIATION
THAT HAS NOT BEEN
THAT'S THE THING THAT WE NEED TO GET AFTER.
THAT WILL BE ONE OF MY NEW WARS
THAT I'M STARTING.
WITH THAT, I SEE THE GENTLEMAN
FROM THE OTHER
YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. SANDERS: MADAM MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
MR. SANDERS: I WANT TO USE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A FEW WORDS
ABOUT AN AMENDMENT THAT
VOTED ON LATER THIS AFTERNOON.
IT IS THE OUTREACH AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2601.
EVERY MEMBER OF THE SENATE KNOWS
THAT WE
OF SOLDIERS COMING HOME FROM
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, AND THEY
HAVE COME HOME WITH
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER IN
VERY LARGE NUMBERS.
THEY HAVE COME HOME WITH
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, T.B.I.,
ALSO IN FRIGHTENING NUMBERS.
AND THE GOVERNMENT IN A NUMBER
OF WAYS HAS DEVELOPED MANY, MANY
PROGRAMS TO TRY TO PROVIDE HELP
AND MEDICAL CARE FOR THESE BRAVE
SOLDIERS AND FOR THEIR FAMILIES.
AGO, WE HELPED ESTABLISH WHAT I
THINK IS AN EXCELLENT PROGRAM
THAT MANY OTHER STATES AROUND
THE COUNTRY ARE BEGINNING TO
LOOK AT, AND T
OF THE PROGRAM THAT WE'VE
ESTABLISHED IN VERMONT IS THAT
WHILE IT IS ENORMOUSLY IMPORTANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO COME
HOME FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
GET THE BEST SERVICES POSSIBLE,
THAT WE ESTABLISH THOSE HEALTH
CARE SERVICES, THOSE SERVICES
DON'T MEAN ANYTHING UNLESS THE
SOLDIERS
ADVANTAGE OF THE SERVICES.
AN GIVEN THE
T.B.I., THAT ESPECIALLY FOR
MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE AND
NATIONAL GUARD ARE VERY, VERY
DIFFICULT.
SO YOU WILL HAVE INSTANCES
ESPECIALLY IN RURAL AMERICA
WHERE PEOPLE W
IRAQ, THEY ARE GOING TO BE
EMOTIONAL TROUBLE.
THERE IS GOING TO BE STRAINS AND
STRESSES ON THEIR FAMILY, WITH
THEIR KIDS.
THEY MAY BE SUFFERING FROM PTSD,
BUT ONE OF THE
IS YOU DON'T STAND UP AND
YOU KNOW WHAT?
I HAVE TROUBLES AND I NEED HELP.
AND WHAT WE ESTABLISHED IN
VERMONT WAS AN OUTREACH PROGRAM
WHICH WAS
VETERANS
OUT TO THE COMMUNITIES AND DROP
IN
WITH SOLDIERS AND THEIR WIVES
AND JUST GET A SENSE OF HOW THEY
ARE DNG.
AND THROUGH THAT PERSONAL
VISITATION SUGGEST TO THEM THAT
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEY
MIGHT WANT TO
THE SERVICES THAT THE D.A. ARE
PROVIDING, WHICH IN MY STATE ARE
QUITE GOOD.
AND MAKE THEM AWARE THAT IT'S
NOT UNUSUAL, THAT THEY ARE NOT
THE ONLY PERSON DEALING WITH
PTSD OR T.B.I.
IN TRUTH, THIS OUTREACH PROGRAM
HAS BEEN QUITE SUCCESSFUL.
SOME YEARS AGO, THE CONGRESS
ESTABLISHED A YELLOW RIBBON
PROGRAM WHICH IS DOING A GOOD
JOB, AND THE GOAL OF THAT
PROGRAM IS TO EDUCATE PEOPLE WHO
COME HOME FROM IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN ABOUT
AVAILABLE TO
NOT YET FUNDED THE KIND OF
STRONG OUTREACH EFFORT THAT I
BELIEVE THAT WE NEED WHERE WE
ARE LITERALLY SENDING PEOPLE
TO NATIONAL GUARD FAMILIES,
ESPECIALLY MAYBE IN RURAL AREAS,
AND MAKING THEM UND
THEIR PROBLEMS ARE NOT THAT THERE ARE SERVICES
AVAILABLE TO HELP THEM.
SO OUTREACH IS THE WORD HERE TO
BE DONE.
WE DO IT IN VERMONT IN A
INFORMER WAY, JUST PERSON TO PERSON.
THIS AMENDMENT IS $20 MILLION,
AND THE OFFSET COMES FROM THE
THE $126 BILLION IN
TITLE 9 OF THE BILL.
THIS $20 MILLION REPRESENTS A
FRACTION OF 1%.
THE ISSUE HERE IS WE HAVE A
SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH PTSD AND T.B.I.
I THINK IT'S TERRIBLY IMPORTANT
THAT WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN ON
A PERSONAL LEVEL TO REACH OUT TO
THE FAMILIES, TO GET THEM THE
SERVICES THEY NEED.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, YOU CAN HAVE THE
GREATEST SERVICES IN THE WORLD,
AND I KNOW WE ARE TRYING, THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IS TRYING
ITS BEST, BUT THOSE SERVICES
DON'T MEAN ANYTHING IF VETERANS
DO NOT ACCESS THEM.
SO THE BOWL IS TO GET PEOPLE
INTO THE SERVICES, AND I WOULD
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE SUPPORT FOR
THE SANDERS-DORGAN AMENDMENT
WHICH WILL BE COMING UP IN A WHILE.
THANK YOU
MR. PRESIDENT.
I NOTE THE A
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. TESTER: LATER ATTEMPT THE
SNOT WILL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT
TO TERMINATE FUNDING FOR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
ARMY'S FULL-SCALE HYPERSONIC
TEST FACILITY KNOWN AS THE
MARIAH HYPERSONIC WIND TUNNEL.
THE MARIAH HYPERSONIC WIND
TUNNEL PROGRAM IS UNDER
DEVELOPMENT IN BUTTE, MONTANA.
IT IS THE NATION'S ONLY PROGRAM
TO DEVELOP THE WIND TUNNEL
TECHNOLOGY REQUIRED TO TEST AND
EVALUATE NEW HYPERSONIC
MISSILES, SPACE ACCESS VEHICLES,
AND OTHER ADVANCE PROPULSION
TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY THAT THE
AIR FORCE SAYS WE WILL NEED.
MARIAH WILL THE FIRST TRUE
AIR HYPERSONIC WIND TUNNEL.
THE PROGRAM HAS MET ITS
TECHNICAL MILESTONES AND HAS NOT ENCOUNTERED SIGNIFICANT
SETBACKS.
IN FACT, THE ARMY AVIATION AND
MISSILE COMMAND HAS GIVEN THIS
PROJECT HIGH MARKS.
HERE'S WHAT THE ARMY HAS SAID,
AND I QUOTE -- "THIS RESEARCH
HAS SHOWN GREAT POTENTIAL TO BE
USED IN A MISSILE TEST FACILITY
AND IS THE ONLY TECHNOLOGY SHOWN
TO HAVE ANY POSSIBILITY OF
MEETING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A
MISSILE SCALE HYPERSONIC WIND TUNNEL."
THE ARMY HAS ASKED THE MARIAH
PROGRAM TO PROVIDE TESTING
CAPABILITIES AT SPEEDS OF UP TO
MACH 12.
THIS IS THE NEXT GENERATION OF
HYPERSONIC FLIGHT, SOMETHING
THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.
TO GET TO THAT CAPABILITY,
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGIES ARE REQUIRED.
THE PROGRAM ALREADY HAS PROVIDED
VERY WELL AND DISCERNIBLE
BENEFITS TO BOTH THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY AS WELL AS OUR ARMED SERVICES.
THERE IS NO OTHER FACILITY IN
THE WORLD CAPABLE OF MEETING THE
PERFORMANCE OF REQUIREMENTS AT
MACH EIGHT AND ABOVE.
ACCORDING TO A 2000 AIR FORCE
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REPORT,
THIS TYPE OF TESTING WILL BE
NEED FOR SPACE ACCESS
VEHICLES, GLOBAL REACH AIRCRAFT,
AND MISSILES THAT REQUIRE
AIR-BREATHING PROPULSION TO
REACH SPEEDS ABOVE MACH 8.
THE MARIAH PROJECT HAS WORKED
WITH PRINCETON UNIVERSITY,
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE AND SANDIA
NATIONAL LABORATORIES TO DEVELOP
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPUTER MODELING
THAT EXISTS NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.
THE TEAM HAS ACHIEVED WORLD
RECORDS BY REACHING TEST
PRESSURES OF OVER 200,000 P.S.I.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: YOUR TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
MR. TESTER: I ASK FOR AN
TENSION.
THE PRESIDING
AN OBJECTION?
MR. TESTER: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
THE MARIAH PROJECT HAS WORKED
WITH LAURENCE LIVERMORE AND
SANDIA TO DEVELOP COMPUTER
MODELING THAT EXISTS NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.
THE TEAM ACHIEVED WORLD RECORDS
BY RECEIVING TEST PRESSURES 200,000P.S.I.'S.
WORKING WITH SANDIA, MIAH HAS
DEVELOPED A ONE MEGAWATT
ELECTRON BEAM TO BOOST THE
ENERGY SUPPLY NEEDED TO GENERATE
THE ENORMOUS PRESSURES REQUIRED
IN A WIND TUNNEL OF THISCALIBER.
ITS BENEFITS CAN BE APPLIED WELL
BEYOND THIS PROJECT TO INCLUDE
SHIP BOARD MISSILE DEFENSE,
LARGE-SCALE FOOD STERILIZATION,
MAIL, AND OTHER ITEMS THAT COULD
HAVE A BIOHAZARD OR BIOWEAPON
CON TAM MEANT.
IN -- CON TAM MEANT.
MARIAH HAS SUCCESSFULLY
DEVELOPED THREE DIMENSIONAL
COMPUTATIONAL DYNAMIC MODELS
CAPABLE OF SIMULATING THE
UNEXPLORED LIMITS OF MOCK 8 AND
ABOVE.
THIS MUST BE DONE BEFORE ANY
MISSILE OR AIRCRAFT CAN BE
TESTED AT HYPERSONIC.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
THE ANSWER IS FOREIGN
COMPETITION AND FOREIGN CAPABILITIES.
WE KNOW THAT RUSSIA, CHINA AND
OTHERS ARE AGGRESSIVELY
DEVELOPING A NEW TYPE OF MISSILE
TH IS BELIEVED TO BE TOO FAST
FOR U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS
THAT ARE PLANNED OR ARE IN USE.
IN PARTICULAR THE INDIA-RUSSIA
JOINT VENTURE IS NOW
LABORATORY TESTING OF -- KORT
THE AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABS
REPORT OF APRIL 2009 ENTITLED
BALLISTIC AND CRUISE MISSILE
THREATS AND I QUOTE -- "RUSSIAN
OFFICIALS CLAIM A NEW CLASS OF
HYPERSONIC VEHICLE IS BEING
DEVELOPED TO ALL
STRATEGIC MISSILES TO PEN GREAT
MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS."
THAT IS FROM THE COMMANDER OF
THE RUSSIAN ROCKET FORCES WHO
SAID LAST DECEMBER BY 2015 TO
20, THE RUSSIAN STRATEGIC
ROCKET FORCES WILL HAVE NEW,
COMPLETE MISSILE SYSTEMS CAPABLE
OF CARRYING OUT ANY TASKS
INCLUDING IN CONDITIONS WHERE AN
ENEMY USES ANTI-DEFENSE MISSILE.
AND YET SOME HAVE SAID OUR
MILITARY DOES NOT NEED THIS
TECHNOLOGY.
WHEN IT COMES TO FIGURING OUT
HOW TO DEFEAT TS POTENTIAL
THREAT, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD LOOK
INTO FUTURE.
NOT LOOK BACK AT REPORTS THAT
ARE FIVE OR 10 YEARS OLD.
THIS IS A PROJECT ABOUT
POTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL
DEFENSE LOOMING ON THE HORIZON
AND FINDING A WAY TO DEFEAT IT.
IT IS VITAL TO OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY.
MR. PRESIDENT, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO REJECT THE
McCAIN AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OF
BUSINESS IS CLOSED UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER THE SEN
RESUME CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
3326, WHICH THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK:
3326, AN
WI
FOR THE
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
MR. INOUYE: AM I CORRECT TO
ASSUME THAT THE FIRST 30 MINUTES
HAS BEEN EQUALLY DIVIDED?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S CORRECT.
MR. INOUYE: I MINUTES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S RECOGNIZED.
MR. INOUYE: MR. PRESIDENT, AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND
ANNOUNCED EARMARK REFORMS THAT
GO FAR BEYOND THE TRANSPARENCY
REQUIREM
2007.
THESE REFORMS INCLUDE A
REQUIREMENT FOR MEMBERS TO POST
THEIR EARMARK REQUESTS ON THEIR
WEBSITES.
MAKES SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN
THE NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF
EARMARKS COMPARED
APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND EARLIER
AND PROMPT COMMI
ANNOUNCEMENTS ON WHICH PROJECTS
ARE FUNDED IN EACH OF THE ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN
TRANSPARENCY IN THE EARMARK
PROCESS AS THERE IS TODAY.
IN MOST CASES THE PUBLIC HAS HAD
SEVERAL MONTHS TO REVIEW THEIR
ELECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES REQUEST
FOR FUNDING.
THE BILL ON THE FLOOR TODAY HAS
200 FEWER EARMARKS AND 300
-- $300 MILLION LESS IN FUNDING
FOR MEMBER PROJECTS AS COMPA
TO LAST YEAR'S BILL.
MR. PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE THIS IS
A CONSIDERABLE IMPROVEMENT TO
HOW CONGRESS DOES ITS BUSINESS.
AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, I
WELCOME ANY CONSTRUCTIVE
SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO
THE OPERATIONS AND EFFICIENCY OF
THE I WAS IN WHICH THE COMMITTEE
ACCOMPLISHES ITS VITAL WORK.
HOWEVER, THOSE SUGGESTIONS
SHOULD NOT COMPROMISE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE THAT
THE POWER OF THE PURSE IS
INVESTED IN THE CONGRESS.
WE MUST RETURN TO CHECKS AND
BALANCES AND KEEP THE
AND EXECUTIVE AS SEPARATE AND
CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
THAT IS WHY I MUST OPPOSE THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE S
FROM ARIZONA.
IT PURPORTS TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY OF CONGRESSIONAL
EARMARKS BY SUBJECTING ALL OF
THEM TO FULL AND OPEN
COMPETITION.
IN REALITY IT EXEMPTS
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITIES FROM
THE NORMAL, LAWFUL PROCESS OF
HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SERVICES AND DEVELOPS NEW TECHNOLOGIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, WITH WE HAVE
INCLUDED A NUMBER OF EARMARKS
FOR WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS
NEGOTIATED C
PLACE.
THESE CONTRACTS WERE NEGOTIATED
IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.
SIMPLY BECAUSE CONGRESS ADDED
FUNDS TO ACCELERATE THIS
IMPORTANT PROGRAM, SUCH AS THE
TB-33 SOLAR, THE HANDHELD RADIOS
FOR
AND THE ADVANCED RADARS FOR THE
F-15 FIGHTER AND THE VIRTUAL
INTERACTIVE
FOR NATIONAL GUARD UNITS AROUND
THE COUNTRY, THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD REQUIRE A NEW COMPETION
TO TAKE PLACE.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS
DISRUPT IMPORTANT PROGRAMS,
DELAY PROCUREMENT OF VALUABLE
EQUIPMENT, AND ADD TO THE COST
OF TAXPAYERS.
THE
DISREGARDS FACT THAT SOMETIMES
THE PENTAGON GETS IT WRONG.
THERE ARE MANY PROGRAMS WHICH
ARE NOW IN USE ON THE
BATTLEFIELD THAT WOULD NOT BE
THERE IF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE'S VIEWS HAD PREVEILED
YEARS AGO.
FOR EXAMPLE, CONGRESS
FUNDS TO THE PREDATOR UNMANNED
AERIAL VEHICLE, THE PREDATOR.
LIFESAVING -- AND THE V-22
PROGRAMS THAT WOULD NOT EXIST IF
CONGRESS HAD NOT DIR
TO THOSE SPECIFIC PURPOSES.
NOW THESE ITEMS ARE CONSIDERED
TREASURES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENS
SUPPOSE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO
THOSE PROGRAMS IF THE PENTAGON'S
BUREAUCRACY HAD PUT THOSE
PROGRAMS THROUGH THE RED TAPE
REQUIRED BY THE McCAIN
AMENDMENT?
WOULD THE PREDATOR BE ATTACKING
OUR ENEMIES IN AFGANISTAN AND
IRAQ OR MIGHT IT STILL BE AN
EXQUISITE COM
REMAINS ON T DRAWING BOARDS?
MR. PRESIDENT, ULTIMATELY THE
McCAIN AMENDMENT ESTABLISHES
TWO SETS OF ACQUISITION LAWS.
ONE FOR ITEMS REQUESTED BY THE
PRESIDENT, WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT
TO FULL AND OPEN OR LIMITED OR
AND ANOTHER SET OF RULES --
ITEMS ADDED BY THE CONGRESS.
THE AMENDMENT RESTS ON THE
FAULTY ASSUMPTION THAT
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IS UNABLE TO
COND
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED
SPENDING.
AND THAT EARMARKS DO NOT SERVE A
VALID MILITARY PURPOSE
RESPONDING TO THAT, IN 2008,
LAST YEAR, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
REVIEWED
FISCAL 2007 DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
DETERMINED, AND I WISH TO --
QUOTE -- "THE D.O.D. PERSONNEL
INTERVIEWED AND THE RESPONDENTS
SAID THAT D.O.D. PERFORMS
OVERSIGHT OF
TO THE OVERSIGHT OF OTHER
EXPENDITURES." FURTHERMORE OF
THE 219 EARMARKS REVIEWED BY THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL, ALL BUT FOUR
WERE FOUND TO ADVANCE THE
PRIMARY MISSION AND GOALS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, NONE OF
THESE FOUR EARMARKS IS CONTAINED
IN THIS YEAR'S BILL.
EVEN IF THERE WERE, NONE OF THEM
WOULD BE COMPETED UNDER THE
McCAIN AMENDMENT BECAUSE EACH
OF THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE AWARDED
TO A NONPROFIT
MR. PRESIDENT, DUE TO THE
SHOR
OFFERED, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE
AN ULTIMATE AMENDMENT.
MY AMENDMENT ENSURES THAT EACH
EARMARK ADDED BY CONGRESS TO
BENEFIT A FOR-PROFIT ENTITY
SHALL
SAME ACQSITION REGULATIONS
APPLIED TO ITEMS REQUESTED BY
THE PRESIDENT IN HIS ANNUAL
BUDGET REQUEST.
THIS PROPOSAL APPLIES THE RULE
OF -- THE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE
LAW TO THE PRESIDENT AND TO THE
CONGRESS.
THE AMENDMENT I
CONTAINS THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
TO COMPETION, WHICH IS BY LAW.
INCLUDING SMALL BUSINESS SETA SIDES.
THE McCAIN
OTHER HAND, WOULD ELIMINATE THE
STANDARD EXEMPTIONS TO COMPETE
FOR EARMARKS THAT SUPPORT SMALL
BUSINESSES, MINORITY-OWNED
BUSINESSES, WOMEN-OWNED
BUSINESSES, AND
SERVICE-CONNECTED
DISABLED VETERANS OWNED
BUSINESSES.
MR. PRESIDENT, MY AMENDMENT IS A
REASONABLE AND FAIR APPROACH TO
BALANCING THE ACQUISITION
AS THEY APPLY TO CONGRESSIONAL
SPENDING ITEMS AND ITEMS
REQUESTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
IT ENSURES THAT ALL SPENDING
ITEMS THAT ARE FUNDED IN THIS
BILL, REGARDLESS OF WHO PROPOSED
THEM WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
RULES FOR COMPETION.
AND, THEREFORE, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT MY
AMENDMENT AND OPPOSE THE
McCAIN
I YIELD THE FLOOR, SIR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM M
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT
TO THANK THE DISTINGUISHED
CHAIRMAN OF OUR
SENATOR INOUYE, FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP AND THE BIPARTISAN
WAY HE'S GONE ABOUT MANAGING HIS
RESPONSIBILITIES AS CHAIRMAN OF
THE DEFENSE
SUBCOMMITTEE.
MR. CORKERMR. COCHRAN: IT HAS NOT ONLY HAD
PUBLIC HEARINGS, CALLING BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE THOSE OF THE
VARIOUS SERVICE DEPARTMENTS.
AND ALSO OPENI THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR ANYONE OUTSIDE INTERESTS TO
COME TO TALK ABOUT WHAT OUR
NEEDS
BEEN A VERY CAREFUL, PRUDENT AND
WORKMAN-LIKE WAY TO APPROACH
THIS VERY SOLEMN AND IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY.
SO HE'S BROUGHT US TO WHERE WE
ARE TODAY.
HE'S SCHEDULED A VOTE FINALLY ON
FINAL PASSAGE LAT
PROVIDING FUND -- FUNDING FOR
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE
MEN AND WOMEN WHO
VOLUNTEERED TO PUT THEMSELVES IN
HARM'S WAY TO WHERE THE -- TO
WEAR THE UNIFORM OF OUR COUNTRY.
TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY AGAINST
AGGRESSION HERE AND ABROAD.
THE DEPARTMENT IS
BEING FUNDED BY A CONTINUING
RESOLUTION
ALTHOUGH FORCING THE DEPARTMENT
OPERATE UNDER TEMPORARY
RESOLUTION IS NOT A VERY GOOD
WAY TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY OF
FUNDING FOR THE DEPARTMENT
CHARGED WITH PROTECTING OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS IS
THE BEST WE COULD DO.
AND I APPLAUD THE LEADERSHIP,
SPECIFICALLY THE LEADERSHIP OF
SENA
OUR COUNTERPARTS IN THE HOUSE TO
RESOLVE DIFFERENCES, BRINGING UP
A BILL BEFORE US THAT COVERS THE
ENTIRE ACTIVITY CHARGED BY OUR
GOVERNMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.
AND THIS BILL IS READY TO BE
APPROVAL BY THE SENATE.
THERE'S BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION
ABOUT EAR
THE CHAIRMAN RAISED THIS ISSUE.
LATER THIS AFTERNOON WE'RE GOING
TO VOTE ON AN EARMARK-RELATED
AMENDMENT OR TWO.
THERE'S NO
WHO HAVE BEEN STRIVING TO INJECT
REFORMS, OTHER WAYS OF DOING
BUSINESS, WE THINK WE HAVE
CAREFULLY REVIEWED ALL OF THE
REQUESTS FOR
THE PROVISIONS THAT PERMIT AND
AUTHORIZE SPENDING IN THIS BILL
TO BE SURE IT IS WARRANTED, IT
IS JUSTIFIED, IT IS IN THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS, IT'S NOT
THERE JUST TO SERVE SOME SPECIAL
INTEREST OR PRIVATE INTEREST OF
A MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
CONGRESS HAS WORKED -- THE HOUSE
AND SENATE, TOGETHER, TO IMPROVE
AND MAKE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES I
THE PROCESS, THE
FACILITATE THE
SCRUTINY OF
DIRECTED SPENDING.
IN ADDITION THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE HAS GONE BEYOND THOSE
REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
SUGGESTED
PROCESS AND IMPOSED ADDITIONAL
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND
LIMITATIONS ON EARMARKING.
BUT I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT
ANY SUGGESTED CHANGES THAT WILL
TAKE AWAY FROM THE CONGRESS OR
DIMINISH THE
CONGRESS TO SPECIFICALLY CARRY
OUT THE
ARE -- THAT ARE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION TO DIRECT SPENDING.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE
HAS DONE.
WE'VE RECOMMENDED AND THE
CONG
TO APPROVE OR REJECT CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.
WEEN'T TRAINED ALL AMENDMENTS.
THERE'S NO CLOSED RULE.
THERE'S NO SPECIFIED NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS.
THERE'S NO PROHIBITION OF ANY
AMENDMENT OF ANY SATOR.
SO ANYONE WHO HAS
THIS BILL OR ANY PROVISION IN IT
HAS A RIGHT NOW TO SAY WHAT IT
IS, OFFER A CHANGE IN THE WAY OF
AN AMENDMENT, AND WE'LL
IT.
THAT'S THE WAY WE CONDUCT
BUSINESS IN THE SENATE ON
EARMARKS.
IT'S AN OPEN PROCESS, AND I
SUGGEST THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN
THE P
DEPARTMENT TO SUPPORT
THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN
TRUE TO ITS WORD IN COST
EFFECTIVELY PROCURING SOLUTIONS
FOR OUR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT NEEDS
AND DOING IT IN A FAIR, OPEN,
EVENHANDED MANNER.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND G.A.O.
REPORTS ARE REPLETE WITH
EXAMPLES OF POOR JUDGMENT OF
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES
HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTING --
DIRECTED SPENDING.
THE G.A.O. HAS UPHELD PROTESTS
IN RECENT YEARS.
IF THE DEPAR
ITS ACQUISITION RESPONSIBILITIES
IN A LAWFUL AND APPROPRIATE MANNER.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF CHECKS AND
BALANCES AT WORK IN THIS PROCESS, AND I THINK THAT WE
THOROUGH AND DILIGENT MANY
PEOPLE ARE IN ASSURING THAT THE
THINGS THAT ARE APPROVED IN THIS
BILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
NOT JUST THE PRIVATE INTERESTS
OR
WE'VE INCREASED THE REQUIREMENT
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
IDENTIFIED OVER THE SUMMER FOR
THE MINE-RESISTANT
AMBUSH-PROTECTED VEHICLES FOR
OUR MEN AND WOMEN SERVING IN
AFGHANISTAN
WE'VE IMPOSED
TO HELP PROTECT OUR SOLDIERS IN
UNIFORM AND ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
WE'VE INCLUDED AN ADDITIONAL
$1.2 BILLION
AND IT'S ABOVE WHAT THE
ADMINISTRATI HAS REQUESTED.
I THINK WE'VE ACTED RESPONSIBLY,
AND I -- I STRONGLY DEFEND THE
DECISION THE COMMITTEE HAS MADE
ON
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT INCLUDING
FUNDING FOR THE
THESE ADDITIONAL VEHICLES WILL
SAVE AMERICAN LIVES.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED DEFENSE
INITIATIVES SHOULD B
THE CLOSEST SCRUTINY OF T
COMMITTEE AND IT IS.
IT HAS BEEN
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS A WHOLE
IN THE AUTHORIZING PROCEDURE
WHICH PRECEDES THE APPROPATIONS PROCE
A REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE'S ACTIVITIES WERE
CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED BY THE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, WHICH
SHARES RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
MAKING THESE DECIS BUT I DON'T THINK MEMBERS OF
THIS BODY SHOULD FEEL ASHAMED OR
EMBARRASSED TO PROMOTE
PASSAGE OF THIS BILL.
IT'S A GOOD BILL.
IT ENHANCES OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY, AND IT SUPPORTS THE
EFFORTS THAT WE'RE
OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY.
I THANK THE SENATE FOR ALLOWING
ME TO MAKE THESE COMMENTS AND
THE DISTINGUI
HAWAII FROM BEING AN ACTIVE, RESPONSIBLE PARTNER IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION.
MR. INOUYE: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
MR. INOUYE: I WISH TO THANK MY
DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE FROM
MISSISSIPPI, THE VICE CHAIRMAN
OF THIS COMMITTEE, FOR HIS
GENEROUS REMARKS.
I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE
SENATE THAT THIS BILL REPRESENTS
THOUSANDS OF HRS, MANHOURS, OF
STUDY, OF RESEARCH, OF
DISCUSSION, OF DEBATE.
IT CONTAIN SPENDING OF
$636.6 BILLION.
IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT, AND WE TAKE
OUR VOWS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
VERY SERIOUSLY.
IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO NOTE
TH
MEASURE, WAS PASSED BY THE
COMMITTEE, THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, BY A VOTE OF 30-0.
IT'S A BIPARTISAN BILL.
IT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
THESE THINGS DON'T HAPPEN EVERY
DAY, MR. PRESIDENT.
IT
ILLUSTRATES WHAT BIPARTISANSHIP
CAN DO, WHAT WORK CAN DO, AND
WHAT INVESTIGATION CAN DO.
SENATOR COCHRAN AND I ARE PROUD
TO PRESENT THIS MEASURE
SENATE, TO OUR COLLEAGUES, AND
WE JUST HOPE
PASSED ACCORDINGLY.
I YIELD THE FLOOR, SIR.
I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
MR. INOUYE: I ASK TIME BE
CHARGED EQUALLY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT? OFFICER THE SENATOR FROM
ALABAMA. MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT, I'D
ASK
DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION? WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE FRANKEN AMENDMENT, IF IT'S
OKAY WITH THE BILL MANAGERS
THE AMENDMENT WOULD IMPOSE THE
WILL OF CONGRESS ON PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES IN A
RETROACTIVE INVALIDATING EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.
IT'S A POLITICAL AMENDME
REALLY AT BOTTOM, REPRESENTING
A -- SORT OF A POLITICAL ATTACK
DIRECTED AT HALLIBURTON, WHICH
IS A POLITICALLY -- A MATTER OF
SENSITIVITY.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONGRESS
SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN
WRITING OR REWRITING PRIVATE
CONTRACTS.
THAT'S JUST NOT HOW WE SHOULD
HANDLE MATTERS IN THE UNITED
STATES SENATE.
CERTAINLY WITHOUT A LOT OF
SUPPORT OR AT LEAST THE OPINION
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
SENATOR FRANKEN INTRODUCED THE
AMENDMENT BECAUSE HE
DOES NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT
THERE ARE ARBITRATION
IN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IS COMMON
ALL OVER AMERICA TODAY.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES HAS ALREADY RESOLVED THAT
ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS CONTAINED
IN EMPLOYMENT
ONLY VEILED -- ONLY VALID BUT IN
MOST INSTANCES BENEFICIAL.
IN MOST INSTANCES, ARBITRATION
IS CONSIDERED TO BE BENEFIC
IN FACT, EMPLOYEES TEND TO WIN
MORE
THEY DO IN LAWSUITS IN COURT.
SOIC THAT'S A MATTER WE SHOULD CONSIDER.
THIS IS WHAT JUSTICE KENNEDY ON
THE SUPREME COURT WROTE IN
ADAMS v. CIRCUIT CITY --
QUOTE -- "ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
ALLOW PARTIES TO AVOID THE COST
OF LITIGATION, A BENEFIT THAT
MAY
IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION WHICH
OFTEN INVOLVES SMALLER SUMS OF
MONEY THAN DISPUTES CONCERNING
COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS."
SO I BELIEVE INSTEAD OF
ELIMING
SHOULD PROBABLY BE LOOKING FOR
WAYS TO UTILIZE MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION MORE IN THESE KIND
OF DISPUTES.
INDEED, A RECENT ARTICLE
PUBLISHED IN JUNE OF 2009
ENTITLED, "ARBITRATORS LESS
PRONE TO GRANT DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS THAN COURTS," THE AUTHOR
MADE THE FOLLOWING POINTS.
QUOTE -- "ARBITRATORS ARE
GENERALLY MUCH MORE RELUCTANT
THAN COURT MOTIONS."
THAT IS, TO WIPE OUT A LAWSUIT
ALTOGETHER.
"WHETHER THEY ARE MOTIONS TO
DISMISS A COMPLAINT OR
ARTRATION DEMAND OR MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
INDEED, THE RULES O MOST MAJOR
ARBITRATION PROVIDERS ARE SILENT
ABOUT WHETHER AN ARBITRATOR MAY
ENTERTAIN
IT GOES ON TO SAY -- QUOTE --
"WHILE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT
ARBITRATORS HAVE THE INHERENT
POWER TO GRANT DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS, THE LACK OF EXPLICIT
RULES ON THE ISSUES REFLECTS THE
HESITANCE THAT MOST ARBITRATORS
FEEL IN GRANTING D
MOTIONS WITHOUT A FACT HEARING."
IT GOES ON TO SAY -- QUOTE --
"THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE
INSTITUTIONAL REASONS WHICH
HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE ADVANTAGES
OF ARBITRATION.
ONE" -- THE ARTICLE SAYS --
QUOTE -- "FIRST, WHILE EVERY
LITIGANT IS ENTITLED TO APPEAL
THE GRANT OF A DISPOSITIVE
MOTION IN A FEDERAL OR STATE
COURT, A FINAL DECISION IN
ARBITRATION IS SUBJECT TO FAR
LESS REVIEW.
MOWFER, APELL -- M
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW OF SUCH A
GRANT IS DE NOVO WITH THE
ALLEGATIONS OR EVIDENCE, AS THE
CASE MAY BE, READ IN THE LIGHT
MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF.
IN A
TRIAL COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE
LAW, THE REVIEWING COURT IS FREE
TO INTERPRET AND APPLY THE LAW
DIFFERENTLY."
BASICALLY THEY'RE
ARBITRATORS LET A PERSON WHO'S
FILED A COMPLAINT ABOUT THEIR
EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION OR
AGREEMENT HAVE A BETTER SHAKE OF
GETTING TO COURT AND HAVING
THEIR MATTER HEARD THAN IF YOU
FILE A LAWSUIT, BECAUSE STRICT
RULES OF SUMMARY JUDGMEN
TOSS A LOT OF THESE LAWSUITS IN AN EARLY STAGE.
IT GOES ON TO SAY, "SECOND, THE
SECOND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COURTS
AND ARBITRATORS THAT EXPLAINS
WH
GRANT MOTIONS TO DISMISS AN
EMPLOYEE'S LAWSUIT IS A
DIFFERING LEVEL OF CONCERN ABOUT DISCOVERY.
IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S
DIVISION IN TUOMBI, FOR EXAMPLE,
THE SUPREME C
EMPHASIS ON THE SPRAWLING,
COSTLY AND HUGELY TIME TIME-CONSUMING
DISCOVERY THAT WOULD ENSUE IN
PERMITTING A BARE ALLEGATION OF
AN ANTITRUST CONSPIRACY TO
SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS AND
EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT SUCH
DISCOVERY WILL PUSH
COST-CONSCIOUS
SETTLE EVEN ANEMI ANEMIC CASES.
DISCOVERY IS MUCH MORE LIMITED
IN ARBITRATIONS AND THUS A
DENIAL OF A MOTION TO DISMISS IS
LESS LIKELY TO RESULT."
AND FINAL, "SOME COMMENTATORS
AND JUDGES HAVE NOTED THAT THE
PRESSURE OF INCREASING CASELOAD
AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE -- THAT
THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST TWO
DECADES MAKE THE COURTS MORE
TEMPTED TO DISPOSE OF CASES BY
MOTION INSTEAD
ON THE MERITS.
ARBITRATOR
OPPOSITE WAY, BY CONSTRICTING,
NOT EXPANDING, THE USE OF
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND, IN
EFFECT, ALLOWING MORE CASES TO
BE FULLY HEARD."
NOW,
CONTRACTS ARE A PROPERTY RIGHT.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ALLEGATIONS
THAT THE CONTRACT
FRANKEN IS TRYIN
WERE IMPOSED UPON EMPLOYEES OR
THAT FRAUD OR COERCION WAS
INVOLVED IN CREATING THEM. TO INVALIDATE THESE CONTRACTS
WOULD
PROCESS RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS BUT
THE EMPLOYEES AS WELL.
EMPLOYEES COULD,
FROM ARBITRATION RATHER THAN
HAVING TO GO TO FEDERAL COURT.
THE CONGRESS IS IN NO POSITION
TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE
WHO NEGOTIATED FOR ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION IN EXCHANGE FOR --
MINORITY TIME HAS EXPIRED. MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO HAVE
ONE ADDITIONAL MOMENT.
E PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD JUST
THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS
AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, THAT THE
FOR
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
IS NOT ASKING FOR THIS.
THAT IT'S A REACTION TO SOME
SPECIFIC EVENT, I ASSUME, THAT
DOES NOT JUSTIFY CHANGING
FEDERAL LAW.
ARBITRATION IN ITSELF CAN BE
BETTER FOR EMPLOYEES THAN FILING
A COURT -- A LAWSU
EXPENSIVE FEDERAL COURT, AND I
BELIEVE THAT WE OUGHT TO AT
LEAST DIG INTO THIS ISSUE FAR
MORE IN DEPTH THAN WEAVE
BEFORE WE UP AND PASS SUCH
I
FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII CONTROLS
THE TIME.
THE THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. FRANKEN: I THANK THE CHAIRMAN.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF OUR
CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE
POWER TO SPEND MONEY FOR THE
WELFARE OF OUR CITIZENS.
BECAUSE OF THIS, CHIEF JUSTICE
REHNQUIST WROTE, "CONGRESS MAY
ATTACH CONDITIONS ON THE RECEIPT
OF FEDERAL FUNDS AND HAS
REPEATEDLY EMPLOYED THAT POWER
TO FURTHER BROAD POLICY
OBJECTIVES."
THAT'S WHY
LAWS
TO STATES WHICH DIDN'T RAISE
THEIR DRINKING AGE TO 21.
THAT'S WHY THIS WHOLE BILL IS
FULL OF LIMITATIONS ON
CONTRACTORS, WHAT BONUSES THEY
CAN GIVE AND WHAT KINDS OF
HEALTH CARE THEY CAN OFFER.
THE SPENDINGOWER IS A BROAD
POWER, AND MY AMENDMENT IS WELL
WITHIN.
BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
I ASKED THREE OF OUR NATION'S
TO
AKIL
ERWIN CHEWINSKI, AUTHORITIES
REGULARLY CITED BY EVERYONE FROM
JUSTICE SCALIA TO JUSTICE
STEVENS WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT
THIS AMENDMENT.
LE CONCLUSION FROM THIS LETTER
WHICH I ASK TO BE INCLUDED IN
THE RECORD.
I QUOTE -- "CONGRESS' POWER OF
THE PURSE IS EXPANSIVE.
S.A. 2588 FALLS SQUARELY,
SQUARELY WIT
CLEARLY DOES NOT INFRINGE ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION."
I ALSO ASK THE -- ASKED THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE,
CONGRESS' NONPARTISAN RESEARC
ARM, TO TAKE A LOOK.
THEY ALSO DID NOT FIND ANY CAUSE
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CCERN.
NOW,ENATOR SESSIONS HAS SAID
THAT MY AMENDMENT VIOLATES THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, BUT AS THE
PROFESSORS EXPLAIN IN THEIR
LETTER, THE SUPREME COURT HASN'T
STRUCK DOWN ECONOMIC LAWS ON
THESE GROUNDS SINCE
IF THE LEGISLATION IS,
ARBITRARY AND IRRATIONAL."
THEIR CONCLUSION?
THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT EVEN
REMOTELY FALL WITHIN THAT NARROW PROHIBITION.
LET ME BE CLEAR.
THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT
OUT ANY CONTRACTOR.
THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT DOES
NOT SINGLE OUT AONTRACTOR BY
NAME, AND IF YOU READ THE
AMENDMENT, YOU
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DEFUND ANY
CONTRACTOR WHO REFUSED TO GIVE
THE VICTIMS OF RAPE AND
COURT.
LET ME TELL YOU HOW I THINK THIS
AMENDMENT DOES SPEAK TO THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES EVERYBODY
THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW,
AND TODAY DEFENSE CONTRACTORS
ARE USING FINE PRINT IN THEIR
CONTRACTS TO DENY WOMEN LIKE
JAMIE LEE JONES THEIR DAY IN
COURT.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST JAMIE LEE JONES.
NOT JUST -- THIS ISN'T ABOUT ONE
INSTANCE, AS SENATOR SESSIONS
SAID.
THIS IS ABOUT MANY WOMEN ACROSS
THIS COUNTRY WHO HAVE BEEN
VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND
RAPE IN IRAQ.
AND WHO HAVE BEEN
CONTRACTS AND HAVE BEEN FORCED
TO ARBITRATE BY CONTRACTORS.
SO WOMEN ARE NOT GIVEN THEIR DAY
IN COURT.
INSTEAD, THEY ARE FORCING THEM
BEHIND THE CLOSED DOORS OF
ARBITRATION WHERE THE FEDERAL
RULES OF EVINCE DON'T APPLY,
WHERE DECISIONS ARE BINDING AND
SECRET, AND WHERE DECISIONS ARE
SUED BY A PRIVATE ARBITRATOR,
OFTEN PAID BY THE COMPANY
ITSELF.
THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT SEEK TO
ELIMINATE ARBITRATION.
IT SEEKS TO ELIMINATE
ARBITRATION IN CASES OF RAPE AND
SEXUAL
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY TIME IS EXPIRED.
MR. FRANKEN: I ASK FOR ANOTHER 20 SECONDS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. FRANKEN: THE VICTIMS OF RAPE
AND DISCRIMINATION DESERVE THEIR
DAY IN COURT
CONGRESS PLAINLY HAS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MAKE
THAT HAPPEN.
I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER
PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE WL NOW
BE TWO MINUTES OF DEBATE EQUALLY
DIVIDED PRIOR TO A VOTE IN
RELATION TO AMENDMENT NUMBER
FROM WYOMING,
THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
MR. COBURN: I ASK THAT THE
QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. COBURN: THANK YOU.
MR. PRESIDENT, LATER WE'RE GOING
TO VOTE ON AN AMENDMENT THAT I
HAVE THAT IS A PROHIBITION ON
TAKING EARMARKED MONEY FROM THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
ACCOUNT OF OUR ARMED
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NOT
PROCUREMENT, NOT RESEARCH, BUT
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, THE
VERY KEY THINGS THAT FUND THE
ABILITY OF OUR WAR FIGHTERS AND
OUR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TO DO
WHAT THEY DO IS BEING USED TO
PAY FOR SOME VERY GOOD PROJECTS,
SOME NOT VERY GOOD PROJECTS,
MOST OF WHICH ALL ARE
PAROCHIAL -- IN OTHER WORDS,
DIRECTED TOWARD STATE BENEFIT --
THROUGH THE OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT.
LAST YEAR, I WOULD REMIND MY
COLLEAES THAT THE NAVY RAN OUT
OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MONEY.
WE HAD TO SUPPLEMENT
WHY DID WE SUPPLEMENT IT?
BECAUSE WE TOOK THEIR
YEAR AND PUT IT INTO EARMARKS
INSTEAD OF GIVING THE NAVY WHAT
IT NEEDED.
I WOULD REMIND THE PEOPLE
LISTENING TO THESE WORDS THAT
WHEN WE
JUST CHARGE THE MONEY TO OUR
KIDS AND OUR GRANDKIDS.
WE DON'T HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN THE
BUDGET PARAMETERS.
SO AS WE VOTE FOR THIS, --
EARMARK IS ANOTHER QUESTION.
THE QUESTION IS WHERE DO YOU
TAKE THE MONEY WHEN YOU GO TO EARMARK?
WHEN WE TAKE IT FROM THE VERY
THINGS THAT SUPPORT, EQUIP,
PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE
WHO ARE DEFENDING THIS COUNTRY
AND WE PUT THEM AT RISK BY NOT
HAVING THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS
THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR THAT, I
THINK WE'RE SENDING A TERRIBLE
SIGNAL NOT JUST TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE BUT TO OUR TROOPS, THAT
OUR PAROCHIAL DESIRES ARE MORE
IMPORTANT THAN
AND SO I WILL DEFER WHEN THE
AMENDMENT COMES UP TO SAY
ANYTHING ELSE AND THE FACT SO WE
CAN MOVE THIS ON, BUT I -- THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A COUPLE
HUNDRED MILLION BUCKS THAT'S
GOING TO BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE
VERY NECESSARY THINGS THAT THEY
NEED.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER
GIMMICKS IN HERE THAT ACTUALLY
LESSEN THAT ACCOUNT THAT ALLOW
FOR OTHER THINGS TO BE DONE
TERMS OF NOT LOOKING AT
INFLATION CORRECTLY, BUT WE'LL
PASS ON THOSE AMENDMENTS, BUT
THE FACT IS IS WE OUGHT NOT BE
PLAYING GAMES WITH THE MONEY
THAT GOES TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS.
WITH THAT I YIELD THE FLOOR AND
NOTE T ABSENCE OF A
THE
WILL CALL THE
QUORUM
QUORUM CALL:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
QUORUM CALL BE RESCINDED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICERTHE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES SENATOR BARRASSO.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THERE
WILL BE TWO MINUTES OF DEBATE ON
THE BARRASSO AMENDMENT 256.
THE SENATOR FROM WYOMING. MR. BARRASSO: MR. PRESIDENT, MY
AMENDMENT IS SIMPLE.
IT PREVENTS THE CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY FR USING
ANY FUNDS FROM THE FISCAL YEAR
2010 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
TO CREATE OR OPERATE A CENTER ON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATIONAL
SECURITY.
TO ME THIS CENTER IS REDUNDANT.
IT'S REDUNDANT TO ACTIVITY
ALREADY CONDUCTED BY THE C.I.A.
AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.
THERE IS NO REASON TO CREATE AN
ADDITIONAL CENTER TO DO WORK
THAT IS ALREADY BEING DONE.
WE DO NOT NEED TO DUPLICATE THE
WORK OF OTHERS.
LEAVE THE TASK OF GATHERING AND
ANALYZING CLIMATE CHANGE
INFORMATION TO THE PEOPLE IN THE
AGENCIES THAT DO THAT WORK.
LET THEM PASS THAT INFORMATION
ON TO THE ANALYSTS AT THE C.I.A.
TO INCORPORATE IT INTO THE ASSESSMENTS.
THE EERT OF THE C.I.A. SHOULD
FOCUS ON FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
GATHERING TO PREVENT THE NEXT
TERRORIST ATTACK.
THAT'S WHATHEY'RE TRAINED TO
DO.
I ASK FOR THE ADOPTION OF THIS
AMENDMENT AND ASK FOR THE YEA
AND NAYS.
MR. INOUYE: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
MR. INOUYE: MR. PRESIDENT?
I RISE IN OPPOSITIO TO THE
BARRASSO AMENDMENT.
THE MISSION OF THE
FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATIONAL
SECURITY IS FULLY CONSISTENT
WITH THAT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
CREATING THIS CENTER DOES NOT
REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL C.I.A.
RESOURCES.
IT REARRANGES ONGOING PROGRAMS
WITHIN THE C.I.A. SO THAT
EXISTING FUNDING CAN BE MORE
PRUDENTLY SPENT.
THE WORK OF THIS CENTER WILL NOT
DIVERT RESOURCES FROM OTHER
MISSIONS.
IT WILL NOT DIVERT OFFICES FOR
TASKING OF SATELLITES.
THIS CENTER WILL CONTINUE IN THE
TRADITIONAL ROLE OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO
SUPPORT POLYMAKERS ON NATIONAL
SECURITY ISSUES RELATED TO
CLIMATE CHANGE.
THEREFORE, MR. PRESIDENT, I URGE
MY COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE THIS
AM NAYS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: DOES ANY
MEMBER WISH TO CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2567 IS NOT
AGREED TO.
THE SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI.
MR. COCHRAN: I MOVE TO TABLE THE
MOTION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. INHOFE: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
MR. INHOFE: I SEND THE
MODIFICATION TO THE DESK FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
THE AMENDMENT WILL NOT REQ
ROLL CALL VOTE. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
COULD WE GET ORDER IN THE
CHAMBER, PLEASE?
COULD WE GET ORDER IN THE
CHAMBER, PLEASE?
THE CLERK
AMENDMENT. THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM
OKLAHOMA, MR. INHOFE, PROPOSES
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2618, AS
MODIFIED.
MR. INHOFE: MR. PRESIDENT, BACK
IN AUGUST OF 2008, THERE WAS A
DIREIVE THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO
CORPSES AS POSSIBLE, AND ALL
THIS DOES IS SAY THAT BEFORE ANY
MORE ARE
SHOULD HAVE TO CERTIFY TWO
THINGS -- IT WILL NOT INCREASE
THE COST OR NEGATIVELY IMPACT
NATIONAL SECURITY.
IT HAS BEEN CLEARED ON BOTH SIDES.
I MOVE THE
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
ANY FURTHER DEBATE?
IF NOT, THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NAY.
THE AYES APPEAR TO HAVE IT.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED
MR. COCHRAN: I MOVE TO TABLE THE
MOTION TO
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE
WILL NOW BE TWO MINUTES OF
DEBATE EQUALLY DIVIDED PRIOR TO
A VOTE IN RELATION TO AMENDMENT
2567, OFFERED BY THE SENATOR
FROM MINNESOTA, MR. FRANKEN.
THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
ORDER IN THE CHAMBER, PLEASE.
COULD WE GET ORDER IN THE
CHAMBER, PLEASE.
THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
MR. FRANKEN: WHEN SHE WAS 19,
JAMIE LEE JONES WAS DRUGGED,
GANG RAPED, AND LOCKED IN A
SHIPPING CONTAINER WHILE WORKING
FOR K.B.R. IN IRAQ.
SHE TRIED TO SUE, BUT K.B.R.
POINTED TO THE FINE PRINT IN HER
CONTRACT AND FORCED HER INTO
ARBITRATION.
JAMIE LEE, WHO CAME TO
WASHINGTON FOR THIS VOTE, HAS
SPENT THREE YEARS FIGHTING JUST
TO GET HER DAY IN COURT.
THIS ISN'T JUST JAMIE LEE'S STORY.
IT'S THE STORY OF MARY KINNISTON
OF OHIO, OF PAMELA JONES OF
TEXAS, AND OF WOMEN AROUND THIS
COUNTRY.
58 GROUPS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY
HAVE TAKEN A STAND BY SUPPORTING
MY AMENDMENT.
AS THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END
SEXUAL VIOLENCE SAID, "ASKING A
VICTIM TO ENTER ARBITRATION WITH
SOMEONE WHO RAPED HER OR WITH A
COMPANY WHO WOULDN'PROTECT HER
IS OUTRAGEOUS."
I AGREE.
DISCRIMINATION AT LEAST DESERVE
THEIR DAY IN COURT.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE SURE
THAT ALL
NOT JUST K.B.R., GIVE VICTIMS
THAT BASIC RIGHT.
I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: TIME IS EXPIRED.
WHO YIELDS TIME IN OPPOSITION?
THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA. MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT,
FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO
THIS LAWSUIT, ALTHOUGH IT TOOK
SOME TIME, THE COURT -- THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS RULED THAT
THIS MATTER I
ARBITRATEABLE, AND THIS LADY IS
ENTITLED TO A COURT TRIAL
BECAUSE IT GOES OUTSIDE NORMAL
EMPLOYMENT MATTERS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LET ME
KNOW IT OPPOSES THIS AMENDMENT,
AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
REASONS.
BECAUSE IT GOES FAR BEYOND THE
ISSUE RAISEDY MY COLLEAGUE
FROM MINNESOTA.
IT ELIMINATES ARBITRATION FOR
ANY CLAIM UNDER TITLE 7 OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, ANY CLAIM
RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENT HIRING,
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OR
RETENTION OF AN
VIRTUALLY ANY EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE
THAT
ARTRATION, WHICH THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IS
GOOD AND STATISTICS SHOW THAT
EMPLOYEES GET FINAL JUDGMENT AND
ACTUALLY WIN MORE CASES UNDER
ARBITRATION THAN THEY DO GOING
TO THE EXPENSE OF A FEDERAL
COURT TRIAL.
THE PRES
MR. SESSIONS: I THINK WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE AND VOTE NO ON THIS AMENDMENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
QUESTI IS ON THE AMENDMENT.
A SENATOR: YEAS AND
E PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
VOTE:
VOTE
VOTE: THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ARE
THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR
CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
WITH 68 VOTING IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE AND 30 VOTING IN THE
NEGATIVE, AMENDMENT AUTUMN 2588
IS AGREED TO. UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER UKES
THERE WILL
DEBATE EQUALLY DIVIDED PRIOR TO
A VOTE IN RELATION TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER
SENATOR FROM MISSOURI, MR. BOND.
MR. BOND: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OF
SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
MR. COCHRAN: BEFORE HE
PRECEDES ME, I MOVE
RECONSIDER THE VOTE
AMENDMENT WAS AGREED TO.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
CAN WE GET PLEASE?
CAN WE GET ORDER IN THE
CHAMBER, PLEASE.
THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
MR. BOND: MR. PRESIDENT, THE
JANUARY REPORT OF THE
GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE SAID THAT THE AIR FORCE
HAS A COUPLE MAJOR CHALLENGES
SUSTAINING THE AIR SOVEREIGNTY
ALERT CAPABILITIES.
THAT IS THE AIR STRUCTURE THAT
KEEPS OUR HOMELAND
THEY SAY THE AIR FORCE HASN'T
DEVELOPED PLANS BECAUSE IT'S
FOCUSED ON OTHER PRIORITIES.
RETIRING THESE PLANS WOULD
RESULT IN A LACK OF AIRCRAFT TO
MEET THE
AND 16 OF THE 18 SITES ACROSS
THE NATION ARE MANNED BY AIR
NATION GUARD.
SENATOR LEAHY AND I, AS
COCHAIRS, HAVE INTRODUCED THE
AMENDMENT, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY
THE GUARD.
IT SAYS THAT WE DO NOT RETIRE
ANYMORE FOURTH-GENERATION
AIRCRAFT UNTIL THE SECRETARY
TELLS THE CONGRESS HOW IT'S
GOING TO
OF THE A.S.A. MISSI
THE PRESIDING O
SENATOR'S TIME HAS SPYDER.
-- THE SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXSPYDER.
THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
MR. INOUYE: I AM NOT IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS AME
I AM PREPARED FOR A VOICE VOTE. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS
THERE FURTHER DEBATE ON THE
AMENDMENT?
IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NO.
THE AYES APPEAR TO HAVE IT.
THE AYES DO HAVE
MR. BOND: I'M CHECKING
IF THERE IS
ON THIS SIDE. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS
THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE IS A SUFFICIENT
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS
THERE ANY SENATOR IN THE CHAMBER
WHO WISHES TO VOTE OR CHANGE
THEIR VOTE?
IF NOT, THE AYES ARE 91.
THE NAYS ARE 7.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
A SENATOR: MOVE TO RECONSIDER.
OBJECTION.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE
WILL BE
EQUALLY
IN RELATION TO AMENDMENT NUMBER
2565 OFFERED BY THE SENATOR FROM
OKLAHOMA, MR. COBURN.
MR. COBURN: THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
MR. COBURN: THIS IS A REAL
SIMPLE AMENDNT.
I'M APPRECIATIVE OF THE FACT
THAT THE NATIONAL GUARD AND ARMY
RESERVE ARE GOING TO GET
ADDITIONAL FUNDS.
ALL IT SAYS IS RUN THAT BY THE
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
THEY DON'T GET TO APPROVE IT OR
DISAPPROVE IT, BUT THEY OUGHT TO
BE ABLE TO SEE IT, AND SO SHOULD WE.
MR. PRESIDENT, THERE IS NOT
ORDER IN THE STPHAFPLT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ORDER
IN THE SENATE.
MR. COBURN: EVERY ONE OF US
HAVE NATIONAL GRD UNITS.
WHY SHOULD WE NOT M
THE INFORMATION AS TO HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY?
IT IS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO
STAOE -- TO SEE HOW THEY'RE
GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY.
IT DOESN'T KEEP THE SECRETARY --
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WILL
NOT BE ABLE TO STOP IT.
IT JUST SAYS HE'S KNOWLEDGEABLE.
AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE WHEN
THEY'RE UTILIZING THOSE FORCES
OVERSEAS FOR THEIR DEPLOYMENT
AND THEIR EQUIPPING.
MR. LEAHY: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM VMONT.
MR. LEAHY: MR. PRESIDENT, I'M
THE VICE CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL GUARD CAUCUS.
I WOULD OPPOSE THIS.
IT MEANS THE TAXPAYERS ARE GOING
TO PAY FOR AN ADDITIONAL LAYER
OF
THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES'
SPENDING DECISIONS.
GOING TO SPEND A WHOLE LOT MORE
MONEY AND A WHOLE LOT MORE TIME
-FLT WE'RE ALREADY REQUIRED BY
LAW FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE TO SEND REPORTS TO
THE CONGRESS,
COMMITTEES WHICH OVERSEE THIS.
THESE REPORTS DETAIL TO ANY
MEMBER, IF THEY WANT TO TAKE THE
TIME TO DO IT WITHOUT SPENDING
MORE TAXPAYER
I THINK AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW IS
SIMPLY GOING TO DELAY THE FUNDS.
IT'S GOING TO COST US MONEY.
IT'S ALSO GOING TO DELAY THE
FUNDS THAT THE GUARD REQUIRES.
NOW IS NOT
THAT ARE GOING TO
I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT.
I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS
THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE IS A SUFFICIENT
TH
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ANY
SENATORS WISHING TO VOTE OR TO
CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
IF NOT, THE AYES ARE 28, THE
NAYS ARE 70.
THE AMENDMENT FAILS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
UNDER
WILL NOW BE
DEBATE EQUALLY DIVIDED PRIOR TO
A VOTE
NUMBER 2566, OFFERED BY THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA,
MR. COBURN.
MR. COBURN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: LET'S
HAVE ORDER.
MR. COBURN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
SPOKE EARLIER ON
w'THRAOEUBG YIELD MY TIME TO THE
SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MR.cCAIN: MR. PRESIDENT,
THIS IS A PRETTY SIMPLE
ENDMENT.
IT PROHIBITS SPENDING
MILLION IN EARMARKS THAT WOULD
BE -- WE WOULD FREE UP $165
MILLION AND RETURN IT TO THE
GENERAL POOL OF OPERATIONS AND
INTENANCE FUNDING.
SO, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION ON THE OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT SAYS
THAT THE BILLS CUTS TO THE O&M
ACCOUNTS, AND THIS RESTORES SOME OF IT.
I AGAIN WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT
THAT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
IS ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL
ASPE
NATION.
IT SIMPLY PROHIBITS EXPENDITURES
ON ANY EARMARKS IN THE
OPERATIONS AND
ACCOUNT.
MR INOUYE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
MR. INOUYE: THE SENATOR FROM
OKLAHOMA HAS PROPOSED AN
AMENDMENT TO STRIP THE DEFENSE
BILL OF EARMARKS FROM THE
APPROPRIATIONS.
PREVIOUSLY, THE DEFENSE
SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEWS THE ENTIRE
BUDGET AND AUSTS FUNDS BASED
ON REVIEW.
FUNDS IN THE&M BUDGET ARE NOT
REDUCED WITH THE INTENT TO FUND
EARMARKS.
EARMARKS IN THE O&M PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO REPAIR
FACILITIES AND ENHANCE SECURITY
ON OUR MILITARY BASES OR MAKE
MAINTENANCE EFFORTS AND EQUIP
OUR MILITARY MEMBERS WITH
PERSONAL PROTECTION DEVICES.
DURING THIS
FROM OKLAHOMA HAS SPOKEN ABOUT
HIS CONCERNS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL
I SHARE THAT CONCERN.
BUT I WOULD POINT
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED, IT WOULD
DECREASE FUNDING IN EXCESS O
OF $75 MILLION PROVIDED BY THE
SUBSIDY. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MR. INOUYE: TO THEATIONAL GUARD.
I HOPE THAT THEY'LL VOTE AGAINST
IT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE CLERK W
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ANY
SENATORS WANTING TO VOTE OR
CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
IF NOT, THE AYES ARE 25, THE
NAYS ARE 73.
THE AMENDMENT FAILS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
MR. SANDERS: MR. PRESIDENT, THE
AMENDMENT I'M OFFERING IS
SUPPORTED BY SENATOR DORGANo? AND
SENATOR LEAHY AND THE THE
ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
ARMY AND THE RESERVED OFFICES ASSOCIATION.
THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE AMENDMENT.
MANY OF THE MEN AND WOMEN ARE
COMING HOME FROM IRAQ AND
AFGANISTAN,
PTSD AND T.B.I.
WHILE THE
ADMINISTRATION HAVE DONE A GOOD
JOB OF PROVIDING SERVICES, NOT
EVERYONE IS ACCESSING THESE
SERVICES.
PARDON ME?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ORDER IN
THE SENATE.
MR. SANDERS: THIS AMENDMENT
PROVIDES $20 MILLION FOR
OUTREACH EFFORTS SO THAT STATE
BY STATE WE CAN SEND PEOPLE OUT,
TALK TO OUR VETERANS AND MAKE
SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THE
FACILITIES THAT ARE THERE THAT
ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP THEM WITH
THEIR PTST AND T.B.I.
I UNDERSTRAND THIS AMENDMENT HAS
BEEN ACCEPTED AND
SENATOR INOUYE AND
MEMBER
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
MR. INOUYE: THERE'S NO
OPPOSI THE PRESIDING OFFICER: NO
FURTHER DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL OPPOSED SAY NO.
THE AYES APPEAR TO HAVE IT.
THE AYES DO HE I
THE AMENDMENT'S AGREED TO.
THE MAJORITY LEADER.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, IF I
COULD HAVE THE ATTENTION OF THE
SENATE. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ORDER IN
THE SENATE.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, I WAS
ASKED TO GO TO MONTANA WITH
SENATOR BAUCUS, AND I DID THAT.
I'VE NEVER BEEN TO
NEVADA IS A HUGE STATE AREAWISE.
BUT MONTANA'S TWICE AS BIG AS
NEVADA.
WE'RE THE
IN THE UNION, HIS IS THE FOURTH LARGEST.
I CAN REMBER
AIRPLANE, LOOKING OVER AT HIM,
AND THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE HOW BIG
THE STATE IS.
WE SEEM TO NEVER GO FROM ONE END
AND TO END UP AT THE OTHER.
WELL, THAT'S KIND OF MAX BAUCUS.
HE ALWAYS DOES THINGS IN THE
FORM OF
AS I'VE INDICATED MONTANA'S THE
FOURTH LARGEST STATE IN THE UNION.
IT'S CALLED BIG SKY C
OH, IT'S -- IT'S BIG SKY.
IT'S SUCH A BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL
STATE.
STATEWIDE, HE WALKED THE STATE
OF MONTANA.
20 MILES HE -- 820 MILES HE WALKED.
I ALWAYS WAS VERY SATISFIED THAT
I WAS A MARATHONER.
BUT I TALKED TO
COURSE, HE'S RUN MORE OF THEM
THAN I HAVE AND FASTER TH I
HAVE.
I DROPPED THE SUBJECT VERY
QUICKLY WHEN I LEARNED THAT HE
-- HE WASN'T SATISFIED WITH A
MARATHON, WHICH IS
HE RUNS 50 MILES.
AND TO SHOW THE GRIP THAT --
GRIT THAT THIS MAN HAS, ONE OF
HIS 50-MILERS, HE FELL AND HE
FELL VERY HARD.
HE HIT HIS
THERE WAS BLOOD ALL OVER.
HE GOT UP AND RAN ANOTHER
42 MILES TO FINISH THAT RACE.
HE HAD -- HE HAD HURT HIMSELF.
A FEW WEEKS LATER HE HAD TO BE
HOSPITALIZED AS A RESULT OF THAT
INJURY THAT HE SUFFERED FALLING
DOWN.
SO IT'S PRETTY EASY TO
UNDERSTAND WHY THIS MARATHON
THAT HE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN WITH
HEALTH CARE HAS BEEN FAIRLY
SIMPLE COMPARED TO
MARATHONS THAT HE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN.
I'M HERE TODAY TO
OUR COLLEAGUE, MAX BAUCUS.
THE NEXT VOTE WILL BE HIS
11,000th VOTE THAT HE WILL
CAST IN THE SENATE.
HE HAS HAD A DISTINGUISHED
CAREER IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND IN THE
SENATE.
HEAS BEEN CHAIRMAN OF THE
PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT WORKS AN IS
NOW CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE.
I HAVE SUCH GREAT RESPECT FOR
SENATOR BAUCUS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF CAREER HIGHLIGHTS.
AND WE COULD LIST LOTS OF THEM.
BUT
THING THAT HE DID IS NOT A BILL
THAT YOU WILL SEE IN THE
ARCHIVES.
IT'S HIS HAVING STEPPED FORWARD
IN A TIME WHEN NO ONE THOUGHT IT
COULD BE DONE AND WAS THE FACE
OF OUR STOPPING THE
PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL
SECURITY.
THAT WAS DONE BY A LOT OF PEOPLE
INVOLVED IN IT.
BUT IT COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN
DONE WITHOUT MAX BAUCUS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA LOVE MAX BAUCUS.
THEY LOVE HIM BECAUSE THEY KNOW
HE'S A MARATHONER.
HE'S A MAN OF STRENGTH AND
COURAGE AND HE UNDERSTANDS THE
STATE OF MONTANA.
I -- IT'S HARD FOR ME TO
ARTICULATE THE RELATIONSHIP THAT
I HAVE WITH SENATOR BAUCUS.
IT'S A RELATIONSHIP THAT I PRIZE.
HE'S MY FRIEND.
HE'S MY CONFIDANTE, AND HE HAS
VERY TOUGH JOB.
-- TOUGH JOB RUNNING THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
EVERY BIG ISSUE
BEFORE THE SENATE WINDS
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE
HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PAY
FOR THINGS.
HE RUNS THAT WITH AN IRON HAND.
WE ALL KNOW HOW TOUGH HE CAN BE
IN THA
FAIR HE CAN BE IN THAT COMMITTEE.
I LEARNED THAT ON WORKING WITH
THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE PROGRAM.
THAT WAS A BIPARTISAN PIECE OF
LEGISLATION.
BUT AS A RESULT OF THE WORK THAT
HE DID IN THAT COMMITTEE, WE
HAVE MORE THAN 14 MILLION
CHILDREN NOW WHO ARE ABLE PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROGRAM THAT
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO
SO OTHERWISE.
IT WAS DONE AND A BIPARTISAN
BASIS.
SO I JOINED WITH EVERYONE HERE
IN CONGRATULATING MAX BAUCUS WHO
IS, TO ME, WHAT A UNITED STATES
SENATOR SHOULD BE.
HE UNDERSTANDS THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF BEING A SENATOR, HE
UNDERSTANDS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
RUNNING A STATE AND THE PROCESS
-- AND IN THE PROCESS HAS BECOME
A GREAT UNITED STATES SENATOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER.
MR. MCCONNELL: IF I COULD
THE CONGRATULATION FROM THIS
SIDE OF THE AISLE AS WELL TO THE
SENIOR SENATOR FROM MONTANA HIS
11,000th VOTE,
ABOUT TO.
THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS
INDICATED HIS GREAT ATHLETIC
PROWESS AND HE HAS BEEN
QUALIFIED FOR ANOTHER LONG RUN.
SENATOR BAUCUS HAS HAD OVER 30
YEARS IN THE SENATE REPRESENTING
MONTANA IN THE LEGISLATURE AND
IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, GREW UP ON HIS
GREAT GRANDFATHER'S RANCH,
PEOPLE OF THE BIG SKY STATE.
HE HAD A SIMPLE MESSAGE.
IT WAS ALWAYS
FOFIRST.
HE FOUGHT FOR THE NATION'S
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
IT SHOULDN'T SURPRISE ANY OF US
WHO FOR A GUY AS THE MAJORITY
LEADER POINTED OUT WALKED THE
ENTIRE LENGTH OF MONTANA.
SENATOR BAUCUS HAS GIVEN THE
PEOPLE OF MONTANA MORE THAN
THREE DECADES OF DEDICATED SERVICE.
HE KEPT HIS PLEDGE TO PUT
MONTANA FIRST AND I WANT TO JOIN
THE MAJORITY LEADER ON
CONGRATULATING HIM ON HIS
11,000th VOTE.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
MR. PRESIDENT?
IF I MIGHT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. TESTER: THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MR. PRESIDENT.
I JUST WANT TO ADD A FEW
COMMENTS TO THE MAJORITY LEADER
AND THE REPUBLICAN LEADER.
MAX BAUCUS IS -- CONGRATULATIONS
ON YOUR 11,000th VOTE.
YOU'VE DONE SUCH A GREAT JOB
OVER THE MANY YEARS YOU SERVED
THE PEOPLE OF THE GREAT STATE OF MONTANA.
ME BEING ONE OF THOSE.
I APPRECIE THAT.
GIVE MAX A BAD TIME THAT WHEN I
CAME TO THE U.S. SENATE, I WAS
JUST A
MAX KIDS ME THAT WHEN HE CAME TO
THE SENATE HE WAS JUST A CHILD TOO.
I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THIS MAN.
A LOT OF FOLKS SAY THAT LAX
BAUCUS IS A LUCK -- MAX BAUCUS
IS A LUCKY GUY.
HE IS A LUCKY GUY.
BUT HE CREATES LUCK WITH A LOT
OF HARD WORK.
HE WORKS VERY HARD NOT ONLY FOR
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
AND FOR THIS COUNTRY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU MAX
CONGRATULATIONS.
ALL THE BEST.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
AS A
MR. GRASSLEY: AS A MEMBER OF THE
SENATE THAT'S WORKED CLOSELY
WITH SENATOR BAUCUS OVER THE
LAST 10 YEARS, EITHER HE'S BEEN
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OR
I'VE BEEN CHAIRMAN OF T
COMMITTEE, I WANT TO
CONGRATULATE HIM ON THIS
11,000th VOTE.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY I WANT TO
THANK HIM FOR THE CLOSE WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WE'VE HAD THAT I
THINK PEOPLE BACK HOME IN OUR
RESPECTIVE STATES PROBABLY DON'T
OBSERVE TH
DEAL OF BIPARTISANSHIP THAT GOES
ON IN CONGRESS WHERE PEOPLE
GENERALLY FEEL THAT THERE'S
ALWAYS DISSENSION.
AND I THINK SENATOR BAUCUS AND I
HAVE ESTABLISHED A CLOSE WORKING
RELATIONSHIP THAT REFUTES THAT
EVERYTHING IN WASHINGTON IS
POLITICAL.
AND I THANK HIM FOR THAT CLOSE
WORKING RELATIONSHIP.
AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THANK
HIM FOR PUTTING U
PROBLEMS THAT I CREATED FOR HIM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT, I'M
VERY TOUCHED.
VERY HONORED.
BOTH BY ALL THE COMMENTS FROM MY
VERY GOOD FRIENDS, BEGINNING
WITH THE MAJORITY LEADE WHO IS
A VERY GOOD SENATOR AND SENATOR
McCONNELL AND MY VERY, VERY
GOOD FRIEND, SENATOR TESTER FROM
NTANA, AS WELL AS SENATOR
GRASSLEY.
I'M ALSO VERY HONORED TO BE ABLE
TO SERVE IN THIS BODY.
YOU ALL CARE A LOT ABOUT PUBLIC SERVICE.
YOU CARE ABOUT PEOPLE.
WE'RE ALL HERE BECAUSE WE CARE.
I WANT TO TELL YOU HOW MUCH I
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE WORKING
WITH ALL OF YOU.
THERE ARE A L OF CHARACTERS HERE.
LOTS OF DIFFERENT PERSONALTIES.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE, EVERYONE IS
CARING TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR
HIS STATE AND THE NATION.
I FEEL LIKE I'M THE LUCKIEST GUY IN THE WORLD.
I THINK THIS IS THE BEST JOB
THAT ONE COULD HAVE.
I HAVE 900,000 OF THE WORLD'S
GREATEST BOSSES, THE PEOPLE OF MONTANA.
THEY'RE TRIFIC.
THEY'RE WONDERFUL.
I'M JUST THE HIRED HAND WORKING
FOR T
BUT IT'S COMBINED WITH ALL OF
YOU AND ALL OF THE STAFF HERE
AND THE PEOPLE HERE WHO REALLY
CARE ABOUT OUR GREAT COUNTRY, I
WANT TO THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.
I COULDN'T BE MORE
MORE
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ORD IN
THE SENATE.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER
WILL NOW BE TWO MINUTES OF
DEBATE EQUALLY DIVIDED PRIOR TO
A VOTE IN RELATION TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2580 OFFERED BY THE
SENATOR FROM ARIZONA,
MR. McCAIN.
MR. McCAIN: MR. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MR. McCAIN: YOU KNOW,
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WARNED US
ABOUT THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
WE DON'T HAVE T THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IF THE
SENATOR WILL SUSPEND -- THE
SENATOR HAS TO CALL UP HIS
AMENDMENT. MR. McCAIN: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO -- I ASK TO CALL UP
AMENDMENT 2580. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM
ARIZONA
MR. McCAIN: I ASK TO D
WITH THE READING OF THE AMENDMENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. McCAIN: THIS AMENDMENT
STRIKES $2.5 BILLION FOR 10 C-17 AIRCRAFT.
IT USED TO BE THE
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, NOW IT'S THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
THE PRESIDENT, THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
JOINT CHIEFS, THE SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE, COMMANDER OF THE
U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND,
CHAIRMAN AND RANKING
THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE AGREE WITH THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THAT SAYS
205 C-17'S ON THE FORCE TWOGHT
WITH THE EXISTING C-5ERS IS
SUFFICIENT TO NEED THE AIRLIFT
NEEDS UNDER THE MOST STRESSING
SITUATIONS.
SO THE
SPENDING GOES ON, THE BEAT GOES
ON, AND SOMETIME THE
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY
MR. INOUYE: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM
MR. INOUYE: I RISE TO OPPOSE
THIS AMENDMENT WHICH SEEKS TO
ELIMINATE FUNDING ON THE C-17.
I'M SURE THE SENATE IS AWARE
THAT THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND I
PROPOSED AND THE COMMITTEE
UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED OUR
RECOMMENDATION TO RE-ALLOCATE
$2.5 MILLION TO PROCURE 10
ADDITIONAL C-17'S.
LAST WEEK, THE SENATE VOTED
OVERWHELMINGLY TO DEFEAT THE
SENATE'S AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD
HAVE DELETED FUNDING FOR THE
C-17 PROGRAM.
I BELIEVE, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT
THE SENSE OF THE SENATE IS VERY CLEAR.
CONTINUING THE C-17 PROGRAM IS A
HIGH PRIORITY, IT IS A CRITICAL
NATIONAL SECURITY
PROVIDING THE AIRLIFT OUR FORCES
NEED FOR TODAY'S FIGHT AND FOR
YEARS TO COME.
I O THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT.
IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ANY
SENATORS THAT WANT TO VOTE OR
CHAIRNG THEIR VOTE?
IF NOT, THE VOTES ARE AYE 30,
NAYS 68.
TH AGREEMENT IS N
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ORDER IN
THE SENATE.
UNDER A PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE
WILL NOW BE TWO MINUTES OF
DEBATE EQUALLY DIVIDED PRIOR TO
A VOTE IN RELATION TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2623, TO BE OFFERED BY
THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII,
MR. INOUYE.
THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
LET'S HAVE ORDER.
THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
MR. INOUYE: THE McCAIN
AMENDMENT RESTS ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESSIONAL
EARMARKS A
TREATMENT IN AWARDING THESE
CONTRACTS, BUT D.O.D.'S ONLY
INSPECTOR GENERAL CONCL
THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTS
IDENTICAL
AND ITEMS FUNDED IN THE
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.
THE McCAIN AMENDMENT ALSO
ELIMINATES SMALL BUSINESS
SETASIDES FOR EARMARKS.
THESE
MINORITY-OWNED, WOMEN-OWNED,
DISABLE VETERAN-OWNED
BUSINESSES.
MY AMENDMENT APPLIES COMPETITIVE
CONTRACTING TO EARMARKS
FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES ON THE SAME
BASIS AS ITEMS ON THE
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET AND PROTECTS
FUNDING FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
THE ITEMS FUNDED BY CONGRESS OR
THE PRESIDENT OUGHT TO BE
AWARDED USING THE
THE ROAD.
I URGE SENATORS TO SUPPORT MY
AMENDMENT. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR IS REMINDED THAT HE HAS
TO CALL UP HIS AMENDMENT.
INOUYE: 2623.
I CALLED IT UP.
THE PRESIDIN THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM
HAWAII,
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2623.
AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE,
THE
NATURE OF FULL AND OPEN
COMPETITION FOR CONGRESSIONALLY
DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS.
MR. INOUYE: I ASK THAT FURTHER
READING BE DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
WHO YIELDS TIME IN OPPOSITION?
THSENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MR. McCAIN: MR. PRESIDENT, THE
SIDE BY SIDE
BASICALLY NEUTER THE INTENT OF
MY AMENDMENT WHICH CALLS FOR
COMPETITION FOR EARMARKS THAT
ARE INTENDED FOR COMPANIES.
THAT'S ALL IT IS, PURE AND
SIMPLE.
IT'S VERY WELL KNOWN HOW
JEALOUSLY THE APPROPRIATORS
GUARD THEIR EARMARKING,
PORK-BARRELING PROJECTS.
MY AMENDMENT WHICH IS THE SE
BY SIDE WOULD SAY IT WOULD JUST
PUT EARMARKS UP
GUT THAT
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT.
MR. INOUYE: YEAS AND NAYS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE CLERK WILL
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE
CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
IF NOT, THE AYES ARE 77, THE
NAYS ARE 21.
THE AMENDMENT CARRIES.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE
WILL NOW BE TWO MINUTES OF
DEBATE EQUALLY DIVIDED PRIOR TO
A VOTE IN RELATION
NUMBER 2560, TO
THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA,
MR. McCAIN.
MR. McCAIN: I'LL VITIATE
YEAS AND NAYS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK: MR. McCAIN
PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED
2560.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI.
MR. COCHRAN: MR. PSIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT MY
STATEMEN IN OPPOSITION TO THE
AMENDMENT BE PRINTED IN THE
RECORD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MR
MR. INOUYE: MAY I BE RECOGNIZED? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
MR. INOUYE: MR. PRESIDENT,
SAVE TAX DOLLARS BY REQUIRING
EARMARKS FOR ALL BUSINESSES.
HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSES, SMALL
BUSINESSES WILL HAVE TO BE
COMPETING AGAINST THE BIG COMPANIES.
WOMEN BUSINESSES WILL HAVE TO BE COMPETED.
BUSINESS BY SMALL INDIAN
COMPANIES, NATIVE AMERICANS,
WILL HAVE TO BE DISABLED VETERANS.
WE HAVE A CHIA CHOICE HERE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICE IF ALL
TIME IS YIELDED BACK, QUESTION
IS ON THE AMENDMENT.
ALL THOSE IN THIS FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED SAY NAY.
THE NOES APPEAR TO HAVE IT.
THE NOES DO HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS AMENDMENT
2583.
MR. McCAIN.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: MR. McCAIN
PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED
2583.
MR. McCAIN:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MR. McCAIN: THIS WOULD STRIKE
AN
EARMARK FOR HYPEERSONIC WIND
TUNNEL RESEARCH CALLED MARIAH.
IT'S UP TO NOW SOME $90 MILLION
HAVE BEEN SPENT.
NOTHING FOR T IT IS AN ARMY
PROGRAM.
AND HERE'S WHAT THE ARMY SAYS.
QUOTE -- "THERE ARE NO CURRENT
OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A
HYPEERSONIC MISSILE PROGRAM
WITHIN THE ARMY.
NO ARMY MISSIONS CURRENTLY
REQUIRE
TECHNOLOGIES.
THERMY DOES NOT HAVE THE NEED
FOR A HYPEERSONIC WIND TUNNEL.
REQUESTS "IT IS HARD TO BE MORE CLEAR THAN THAT.
SO LET'S HAVE THE PORK BAILERS
VOTE FOR IT
-- SO LET'S HAV
BAILERS VOTE FOR IT AGAIN.
MR. TESTER: MR. PRESIDENT, THE
AIR FORCE MATERIAL COMMAND SAID
LAST YEAR THAT HYPEERSONIC
FLIGHT VEHICLES INCLUDING SPACE
ASSET VEHICLES, GLOBAL RESEARCH
AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ARE
ENVISIONED FUTURE NEEDS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE,
NOT THE PAS
THE U.S. LACKS CAPABILITY TO
QUOTEDLY TEST HYPEERSONIC
PROPULSION.
THE MARIAH PROJECT WILL FIX THAT
GAP IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
RUSSIA, CHINA, AND OTHERS ARE
AGGRESSIVELY DEVELOPING A NEW
TYPE OF MISSILE THAT IS BELIEVED
TO BE TOO FAST FOR THE U.S.
MISSILE DEFENSE.
INDIA AND RUSSIA HAVE A JOINT
VENTURE ENGAGED IN LABORATORY
TESTING OF SOUPERSONIC VESSELS.
THE FACT IS WE NEED TO LOOK TO
THE FUTURE SHALLOOK AT WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT FIVE
TO TEN YEARS.
MARIAH IS ABOUT SEEING A
POTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL
DEFENSE THAT'S ON THE RISING AND
FINDING A WHICH TO DEFEAT I
WOULD ENCOURAGE TO YOU VOTE
AGAINST THE McCAIN AMENDMENT OF.
IT IS VITAL TO OUR NATIO SECURITY TO DEFEAT THIS
AMENDMENT O
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IF ALL
TIME IS Y
QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL OPPOSED SAY NO.
THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEAR
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMEN
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE: THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ARE
THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE
CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
IF NOT, THE AYES ARE 43, THE NAYS ARE 5.
THE AMENDMENT FAILS.
MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO
RECONSIDER THE VOTE.
OBJECTION.
WE NOW?jROCEED -- PROCEED TO TWO
MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED ON THE
LIEBERMAN AMENDMENT 2516 AS
MODIFIED.
MR. LIEBERMAN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.
MR. LIEBERMAN: MR. PRESIDENT,
I THANK THE
ON BEHALF OF MY
SENATOR SESSIONS, I WANT TO SPEAK VERY BRIEFLY ON THE
AMENDMENT AND THEN SAY THAT WE
ARE -- THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THERE
WILL BE ORDER IN THE SENATE,
PLEASE.
MR. LIEBERMAN: THANK THE
CHAIMPLET THEN WE'RE GOING TO
WITHDRAW OUR REQUEST FOR A ROLL
CALL AND I'M VERY PLEASED THAT
THE CHAIRMAN AND THE RANKING
MEMBER HAVE AGREED TO A -- TO
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT ON A VOICE
VOTE.
NOW, TO PUT THIS AS
SIMPLISTICALLY AND
CAN,
ADMINISTRATION HAS DECIDED TO
TERMINATE THE GROUND-BASED
MIDCOURSE BALLISTIC MISSILE
DEFENSE SYSTEM THAT WAS TO
POLAND AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC
AND SUBSTITUTE FOR IT A
SO-CALLED SM-3 SYSTEM, AN
ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE
DEFENSE FROM MISSILES THAT ARE
OF SHORT- AND MEDIUM
PRESUMABLY FIRED FROM IRAN, TO
PROTECT OUR ALLIES IN EUROPE AND
THE MIDDLE EAST.
SENATOR SESSIONS
CONCERNED THAT IN DOING SO, WE
HAVE PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION
WHERE WE DO
GUARANTEE OF AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE
THOR THAT DAY AND THE NEXT DECK
FOR THAT DAY AND THE NEXT DECADE
WHEN IRAN WILL HAVE COMPLETED
ITS DEVELOPMENT OF A LONG-RANGE
MISSILE, AN ICBM FIRE AT THE --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATORS'S ONE MINUTE HAS EXPIRED.
MR. LIEBERMAN: I'D ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT --, YOU KNOW,
MR. PRESIDENT, YOU WERE TOO
HA
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D ASK FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 30 SECOND.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. LIEBERMAN: I THANK THE
CHAIR.
TTOM LINE, WE HAVE DEVELOPED A GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTOR THAT
WAS TO GO IN POLAND.
WE HAVE IT.
IT'S READY TO BE TESTED.
THE ALTERNATIVE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION IS PROPOSING TO
GIVE THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, OUR HOMELAND,
PROTECTION FROM A MISSILE FIRED
FROM IRAN IS BASICALLY ON PAPER.
IF IT'S FULLY DEVELOPED, IT WILL --
IF IT'S FULLY DEVELOPED, IT WILL
GIVE US PROTECTION.
BUT SENATOR SENATORS AND I OFFER
THIS AMENDMENT TO MAKE SURE WE
SET MONEY ASIDE SO THAT WE
CONTINUE TO TEST THE
GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTOR AS A
HEDGE AGAINST THE FAILURE OF
THIS ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM TO BE
READY TO PROTECT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND THAT IS WHY WE OFFER THIS
AMENDMENT, WHY I THANK THE
LEADERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
BEING WILLING TO ACCEPT IT AND
WHY I HOPE IT WILL REMAIN IN
CONFERENCE WHEN THE BILL RETURNS
TO THE SENATE.
I THANK THE CHAIR. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WHO
YIELDS TIME?
OPPOSITION? --
WHO YIELDS TIME IN OPPOSITION?
ALL TIME IS YIELDED BACK.
THE QUESTION'S ON THE AMENDMENT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES APPEAR TO HAVE IT.
THE AYES DO HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
MR. COCHRAN: I MOVE TO
RECONSIDER THE VOTE BY WHICH THE
AMENDMENT WAS AGREED TO.
MR. INOUYE: MOVE TO TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
COMMITTEE-REPORTED AMENDMENT IS
AGREED TO AND THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER IS CONSIDERED MADE
AND LAID UPON THE TABLE.
THE CLERK WILL READ THE TITLE OF
THE BILL FOR THE THIRD TIME.
H.R. 3226, AN ACT MAKE
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE -- THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM HAWAII. MR. INOUYE: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT AMENDMENT -- THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE
THE SENATOR WILL SUSPEND.
THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
MR. INOUYE INOUYE: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER
2605 BE CALLED UP.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE CLERK WILL
REPORT.
HAWAII,MR. INOUYE, FOR
MR. BINGAMAN, PROPOSES AN
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 2605
MR. INOUYE: I ASK THAT
READING BE DISPEN DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. INOUYE: MR. PRESIDENT, THIS
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CLEARED BY
BOTH SIDES, AND I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT IT BE AGREED
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE AMENDMENT IS
AGREED TO.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE COMMITTEE
SUBSTITUTE IS AGREED TO AND THE
BILL -- THE CLERK WILL READ THE
BILL FOR THE THIRD TIME
THE CLERK: CALENDAR NUMBER 159,
H.R. 3226, AN ACT MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MOTION'S ON THE PASSAGE O THE
BILL AS AMENDED.
MR. COCHRAN: I ASK FOR THE YEAS
AND NAYS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE A SUFFICIENT SECOND.
THE CLER
VOTE:
ARE ARE ARE ARVOTE
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER, THE SENATE
INSISTS ON ITS AMENDMENTS,
REQUESTS A CONFERENCE, AND THE
CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO APPOINT
THE FOLLOWING
THE CLERK: SENATORS INOUYE,
BYRD,
DURBIN, FEINSTEIN, MIKULSKI,
KOHL, MURRAY, SPECTER, COCHRAN,
BOND, McCONNELL, SHELBY,
GREGG, HUTCHISON, BENNETT OF
UTAH
UNANIMEN
PROCEED TO A PERIOD OF MORNING
BUSINESS WITH SENATORS PERMITTED
TO SPEAK UP TO TEN MINES
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THE SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.
MR. KAUFMAN: I RISE TODAY TO
WELCOME HOME THE DELAWARE ARMY
NATIONAL GUARD'S 261st
TACTICAL SIGNAL BRIGADE FROM
IRAQ.
JUST OVER ONE YEAR AGO, ON
OCTOBER 2, 2008, 110 BRAVE
CITIZEN SOLDIERS LEFT BEHIND
THEIR FAMILIES AND THE GREAT
STATE OF DELAWARE TO SERVE THEIR
COUNTRY WITH HONOR IN IRAQ.
NEARLY ONE YEAR LATER, ON
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, ALL 110
MEMBERS OF THE 261st RETURNED
TO DOVER AIR FORCE BASE TO BE REUNITED WITH THEIR FAMILIES.
I AM EXTREMELY GRATEFUL TO EACH
MEMBER OF THE 261st HAS
RETURNED SAFELY TO DELAWARE AND
I OFFER THEM MY DEEP GRATITUDE,
RESPECT, AND ADMIRATION FOR THEIR SERVICE.
I KNOW I SPEAK FOR ALL
DELAWAREANS WHEN I SAY JUST HOW
PROUD I AM OF THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN IRAQ.
AND THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
DELAWARE NATIONAL GUARD ADJUTANT
GENERAL, THE 261st TRAINED FOR
DEPLOYMENT.
AND UNDER COMMAND OF BRIGADIER
GENERAL SCOTT CHAMBERS, THEY
SERVED WITH DISTINCTION AT CAMP
VICTORY IN BAGHDAD.
I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF VISITING
THE 261st IN APRIL AND THEN
AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER DURING MY TWO
VISITS TO IRAQ.
I WAS ENORMOUSLY PROUD TO SEE
THEREMENDOUS WORK THEY WERE
DOING SERVICE AND HONORED TO
SPEND TIME WITH THESE INSPIRING
MEN AND WOMEN FROM DELAWARE
DURING MY TRIP.
WHILE IN IRAQ, THE 261st
PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE AS THE
FIRST NATIONAL GUARD UNIT TO
MAINTAIN AND ADMINISTER THE
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK.THEY ALSO
RAN THE BAGHDAD SIGNAL
UNIVERSITY WHICH TRAINED IRAQI
NATIONALS IN COMMUNICATION SKILLS.
DURING EACH VISIT, I WAS
IMPRESSED BY THE PROFESSIONALISM
AND COMMITMENT OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE 261st.
THERE IS BE
NO QUESTION.
AS WE SEE PROGRESS IT IS DUE IN
NO SMALL PART TO THE NATIONAL
GUARD.
THE 261st WORKED TIRELESSLY TO
SHARE EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE
WITH THE IRAQI COUNTERPARTS, THE
FAMILIES OF THE GUARDS CAN REST
ASSURED KNOWING THAT DESPITE
THEIR GREAT SACRIFICE OVER THE
PAST YEAR AND THE DIFFICULTIES
THEY FACED IN BEING SEPARATED
FROM THEIR LOVED ONES, THE
261st LEFT IRAQ A BETTER PLACE
BECAUSE OF THEIR SERVICE.
THE VOLUNTEERS OF THE 261st
ARE PROUD OF A PROUD DELAWARE TRADITION.
FOR DECADES THE 261st SERVED
ITS COUNTRY WITH GREAT HONOR AND DIINCTION.
SINCE 1924, IT HAS DEPLOYED AT
TIMES IN NEED FIRST AS A PART OF
THE DELAWARE NATIONAL GUARD
261st COASTAL ARTILLERY BRIGADE.
THE 261st WAS ACTIVATED AGAIN
ON JANUARY 27, 1941 TO
PARTICIPATE IN COASTAL DEFENSE
OPERATIONS DURING WORLD WAR II.
SINCE THEN THE MISSION OF THE
261st EVOLVED FROM DEFENDING
THE HOMELAND TO A BROADER GLOBAL
MISSION SUCH AS THAT IN IRAQ
WHERE IT PLAYED A VITAL ROLE IN
BUILDING COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
AND ENGAGING IN INFORMATION
OPERATIONS.
WE ARE TRULY FORTUNATE AS A
NATION TO HAVE SO MANY DEDICATED
VOLUNTEERS WILLING TO SERVE ON
THE FRONT LINES DEFENDING OUR
INTEREST AT HOME AND ABROAD.
I'M ESPECIALLY GRATEFUL TO THE
261st FOR THEIR COURAGEOUS SERVICE.
AS WE WELCOME THIS UNIT HOME
FROM DELAWARE, WE ARE ALSO SENT
OUR PRAYERS FOR THE SAFE RETURN
FOR ALL THOSE SERVING OUR NATION
IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ.
I YIELD THE FLOOR AND SUGGEST
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. KAUFMAN: I ASK TO VITIATE
THE QUORUM CALL.
THE PRESIDING
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. KAUFMAN: I ASK THAT THE
SENATE PROCEED TO S. 306H.4
SUBMITTED EARLIER
RESOLUTION 304
CONUNANIMOUSIZATION OF FATHER
DAME ONDIVESTMENT RSTER TO SAINTHOOD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATE PROCEEDS TO THE MEASURE.
MR. KAUFMAN: I ASK THAT THE
RESOLUTION BE AGREED TO, THE
PREAMBLE BE AGREED TO, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID ON
THE TABLE, BE LAID UPON THE
TABLE, WITH N INTERVENING
ACTION OR DEBATE, AND SNAIMENTZ
REELGT TO THE RESOLUTION BE
PLACED IN THE RECORD AT THE
APROPOSE PLACE IT IS A IF READ.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS
THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
SENATE PROCEED TO THE IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION OF S. RES. 305,
WHICH IS INTRODUCED EARLIER
TODAY. THE PRESIDING OFFICE
CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: SENATE R
305, E
VICTIMS OF THE NATURAL DISASTERS
IN
AMERICAN IS SAMOA, CAMBODIA AND THE PHILIPPINES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE PROCEEDS TO THE MEASURE.
MR. KAUFMAN: I FURTHER ASK
THAT THE RESOLUTION BE AGREED
TO, THE PREAMBLE BE AGREED TO, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID
ON THE TABLE, WITH NO
INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE,
ANY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THIS
MEASURE BE PRINTED IN THE RECORD
AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE READ.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE SENATE
PROCEED TO THE IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION OF S. RES. 306,
SUBMITTED EARLIER TODAY. THE PRESIDING OFFICE
CLERK WI
THE CLERK: SENATE RESOLUTION
306, DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF
OCTOBER 18 THROUGH OCTOBER 24,
2009, AS NATIONAL CHILDHOOD LEAD
PISS DOES ONING PREVENTION WEEK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE SENATE
MR. PROCEED TO THE MEASURE.
MR. KAUFMAN: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE RESOLUTION BE AGREED
TO, THE PREAMBLE BE AGREED TO, THE MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER BE
LAID ON THE TABLE, WITH NO
INTERVENING BEING A OR DEBATE,
AND ANY STATEMENT RELATED TO THE
RESOLUTION BE PLACED IN THE
RECORD AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE
AS IF READ.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THATHE
SENATE PROCEED TO THE IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION OF S. CON. RES.
45, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED EARLIER TODAY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION 45 ENCOURAGING THE
GOVERNMENT OF IR
JOSHUA FATTEL, AND IS A AHORD
TO REUNITE WITH THEIR FAMILIES
IN POSSIBLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFI
OBJECTION, THE SENATE WILL
PROCEED TO THE MEASURE.
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK THAT THE RESOLUTION BE
AGREED TO, THE PREAMBLE BE
AGREED
RECONSIDER BE LAID ON THE TABLE
WITH NO INTERVENING BEING A OR
DEBATE, THAT ANY STATEMENTS
RELATING TO THIS MEASURE BE
PRINTED IN THE RECORD AT T APPROPRIATE PLACE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED SMED.
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WHEN
THE SENATE COMPLETES ITS
BUSINESS TODAY, THE SNAD ADJOURN
UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW,
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, THAT
FOLLOWING THE PRAYER AND PLEDGE, THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS BE
APPROVED TO DATE, THE
MILE-AN-HOUR BE DEEMED EXPIRED,
THE TIME FOR THE TWO LEADERS BE
RESERVED FOR THEIR USE LATER IN
THE DAY, AND THE SENATE PROCEED
TO A PERIOD OF MORNING BUSINESS
FOR UP TO ONE HOUR WITH SENATORS
PERMITTED TO SPEAK THEREIN FOR
UP TO 2E7B MINUTES EACH, WITH
THE TIME EQUALLY DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BETWEEN THE TWO
LEADERS OR THEIR DESIGNEES, WITH
THE MAJORITY CONTROLLING THE
FIRST HALF, THE REPUBLICANS
CONTROLLING THE FINAL HALF, THAT
FOLLOWING MORNING BUSINESS, THE
SENATE RESUME CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 2487, THE COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE
APPROPRIATIONS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT,
ROLL CALL VOTES ARE EXPECTED TO
OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE DAY IN
RELATION TO AMENDMENTS, THE
C.J.S. APPROPRIATIONS BILL AND
ANY AVAILABLE CONFERENCE REPORT
IF WE'RE ABLE TO PREACH AN
AGREEMENT ON ANY CONFERENCE REPORTS.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS
TO COME BEFORE THE SENATE, I ASK
THAT IF ADJOURN UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE STANDS IN