what it says is what our founders thought was pretty important. they clearly in article 1, section 8 in our constitution listed out what the responsibilities of the federal government are. they listed them out. and when madison and jefferson wrote about what they wrote in article i, section 8, they said people will try to say it's something different, that the general welfare clause is we can do whatever we want. do believe them. that is not what we intended. and yet that happens every day in this body. we abandon the intent. we just had a hearing on a supreme court nominee and some of the questions she was asked, a lot of them, are you going to uphold the constitution? my thought and prayer would be she will do a better job than we do because we get an "f." and the american people know it. they know we can't tolerate the

spending. we capitol rate this debt. they know we can't tolerate raising taxes on the american people if we are ever going to hope to get out of this. their wisdom needs to be brought here. the way you bring your wisdom here is let us know, hold us accountable, call, e-mail, go to the offices, write to our homes of the make sure the people who are representing you uphold that oath of fulfilling the constitution, honoring the 10th amendment. our founders, in the bill of rights, put the 10th amendment -- and it's really a very important amendment because it says whatever is not spelled out specifically under article i, section 8, here's the limited things the federal government is supposed to do, is explicitly reserved for the states and for the people. so how is it that we're going to have $2 trillion deficit?

i can tell you. because we have ignored the constitution. we've done things that are totally outside the realm our founders thought we would ever do. we have taken other things that are truly the responsibilities of the states and the communities and the individuals. we created dependence by the states at all levels. i got a letter this last week asking me to sponsor money for fire engines for oklahoma. now, when did buying fire trucks for oklahoma become part of the u.s. constitution? am i supposed to steal money from people in pennsylvania and new jersey and new york so oklahoma can have fire engines which is an oklahoma responsibility? it is not even oklahoma responsibility but a community responsibility. we create dependence and we create something worst: if you didn't get it you are a victim.

and that's why earmarks are so bad because what they do is they keep us from making the great and hard decisions we should make because we benefit from it politically. that's why several of us have fought since we have been here to change the earmarking process so the american people can really see what it's about. and what you will see, you watch, on this bill, on the appropriations bills that follow, if somebody has an earmark in this bill they'll never vote against it. because what they'll be told by the chairman or ranking member of the committee, the next time they go to request something, you requested something and i put it in the bill but you didn't vote for the bill so i'm not going to give it to you. so what happens is instead of looking at the content of a bill and the best long-term interests of the country we look at the con decht the earmark antenth oe

source of the campaign and political empowerment said of looking at our oath that says you will follow the constitution. now, there's no question we have the right to say where money goes. and there's no question we should be able to have earmarks if they are authorized which means a committee of your peers through appropriate committee says this is something we as a country ought to do. but you won't see that. what you see is not authorized earmarks, they don't go through a committee of their peers and it becomes the very foul stink that ends up corrupting the whole system are following that constitution and being loyal to that oath.

in 2016 every american is going to pay $13,000 on the national debt. think about that. just on interest. i said that wrong, every american people is going to be responsible for $13,000 worth of interest on the national -- and that's if it doesn't grow a penny from now and we know we will have $1 trillion deficits from now for as long as we can see under the budget that has passed this body. the average american people -- do you have $13,000? do you have $13,000 for us to continue the excess of uncontrolled spending in washington, the excess of failing to do our job to eliminate waste and fraud and duplication? do you have it? maybe you ought to call us and borrow it from the senators. maybe you ought to ask us for it

since we're the one labeling you with it. so as you hear what we're saying today and we talk about what's going on these aren't just words, they're real facts that affect real lives that limit opportunity that steal this wonderful country from us and our kids. what's really happening is we're slowly putting handcuffs on ourselves. we're slowly diminishing our ability to be creative. we're slowly taking away the opportunity and the freedom with which we have excelled. if, in fact, the government says more about how you live your life than you say how you live your life you've lost freedom. you've lost it. and as we encounter this tremendously high mountain of

debt what's going to happen is those handcuffs are going to get tighter and tighter and they're not just going to get tighter, they're going to get closer and closer together to we have little opportunity to change. so we're close to being on an eairreversible court. what we do and how we do it will determine whether or not your children live in freedom or not. i don't mean controlled by a dictator. i'm talking about having the freedom, to have the opportunity to work hard to develop your skills, to take risks, and to hopefully reward yourself and your family so that, in fact, you can be whennive lengt can be

else. that is what america is about. we're losing it and it goes away every week in this body that we create a new government program that limits your freedom and puts a bureaucrat between you and your choices it goes away. quite frankly, we've gotten good at stealing your freedom. for me, and the people i represent, we've had enough. we've had enough of the government deciding for us everything. we've had enough of judges not following the constitution. we've had enough of federal bureaucrats limiting our property rights. and what we can do on our own property. we've had enough of people telling us what our freedoms are and what they weren't. we've had enough of the federal bureaucracy and education ruining our schools rather than giving us the freedom to educate the children the way we want, taking our taxes, absorbing 20% and sending 80% back and say you

can have this money if you do this, this and this. the constitution has no role for federal education. no role for the federal government to be involved in education. none. zero. where did we get the idea that 80% of the people that work at the department of education who don't know how to teach, should be telling the teachers how to teach and what to do and what they can get paid for? that is a loss of freedom, folks. you have a bureaucracy in washington that determines the outcome of what your children's education is going to be rather than you determining what that outcome will be. mr. sessions: will the senator yield for a question? mr. coburn: i am happy to yield. mr. sessions: i know my colleague has given more time and effort to studying the sixness that's infacting -- sickness that's infecting congress with regard to how we spend money in this body and he has taken a lot of heat for standing up and raising the issues and i salute him for it but the amendment we have before

us, it seems to me, senator, this is absolutely typical of how out of step congress is. this might be a swell bill for whoever benefits from it and -- but the people who are paying for it, aren't really aware that the money they earn from the sweat of their brow is now going to embed who got a better health care plan, a better retirement land and higher pay than they get and more job security than they get. in my home built unemployment rate is over 20%. and then we have people with so much better jobs wanting more money -- this is a $2 billion amendment? so, i just ask, isn't this sort of a pretty egregious example of the tendency we have to try to reward one group and ignore the

cost to everybody else that will have to pay? mr. coburn: i'd answer thee senator, yes, but it's worse in another way. and it's this: we're not going to get killed by one big punch. it's going to be the little pinpricks. this is just another pinprick. and the fact is, i'd love for our federal employees to get this benefit. but we can't afford it, one. number two, it's highly unfair for everybody struggling right now to pay the taxes that pay those salaries. and, number three, we did not have the money to fund the pensions for the federal employees that we have prime ministered right now. so it's about us getting it wrong. our priorities are wrong. that's my point. that's no commonsense to what we're doing. sure, it's nice. you can be lauded by the federal employees, you did this, you did this, you can get your vote but

what about the future of our republic? what will happen to us? i got a granddaughter that's going to be born in the next two weeks. and i'm wondering if she'll even recognize what i my to be we were like in the 1950's, 1960's, 1907's, and 1980's because the dimunition in freedom has been massive and it's in direct correlation with the size and growth of the federal government, directly correlated. the bigger the federal government is, the less freedom we have. as it gets smaller, we could possibly get back some of our freedom but we're talking about growing the federal government. we're talking about having it more involved in every aspect of your life and taking away your decisions for you and your fell to make critical decisions about your family.

are we totally dependent on the federal government? is that -- if that's where we are, our freedom is lost. if we have decided we don't need the states anymore, we -- get rid of all the state legislatures, the federal government is doing it all anyway and we do it so efficiently, and so well, and you can interact with our bureaucracy so well and they always make commonsense, they always are 100% responsible -- that's garbage. the fact; the further away your government is from you, the less control you have over it. and there is no need, if we continue the direction we're in, there's no reason to have a city council. we're directing what you got to do on streetlights now. we're going to tell you what car you can drive. so i thank the senator from alabama for his question and appreciate his help on these issues. this is not anything other than at a departure point for our

country. let me spend a little time -- let me spend a little time, first, on the -- let me just tell you how good of a job we're doing. now, we passed the $787 billion stimulus bill that $70 billion is out the door so not even 10% maybe 10% this week, i haven't checked the web site to see. let's talk about what's gone out the door. in my own state, in perkins, oklahoma, to get the money for a new sewage system that the federal government said they had to have -- state government didn't say it, the federal government -- they had to spend

an extra $2 millio million to ba plant that originally would cost $4 million now cost $6 and 2 million and guess what they got from the federal government -- $1.5 million. there is in question some jobs will be created from that. and there's no question that the citizens of that town will have to pay higher water rates. and sewage rates to get a new plant. but what we did in the meantime of having the federal government involved in it, we raised the net cost of it by $500,000 so that the people who will benefit from it will pay water rates and sewage rates for a longer period of time at an elevated level because the federal government got involved. it didn't mean we didn't need a sewage plants, we did. when somebody comes up and says,

i'm the federal government. here's $1.5 million, take t you say, maybe i can help my city out and get this thing done except the net net of that is it end up costing $2 million for it. ask yourself the question, if you were to build a garage onto the back of your house and the federal government comes along and says, we're going to give you a grant to help you do that but by the way, when you finish up, the net cost to you is going to about 8% to 20% more than if you did it yourself, you're going it take that deal? no. we're not. what this is an example -- and this is money that's already out the door on the stimulus -- is the example of what happens when we lose common sense and lose economic parameters with which to make decisions.

number two, in the stimulus -- in the stimulus -- before we got to the health care bill that we just passed out of "help" -- was the largest earmark in history, $2 billion. mr. president, the chamber is not in order. the presiding officer: please take your conversations outside. the chamber is not in order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: so here we have futuregen the idea behind it is pretty good. let's figure out if we can take coal mangeds it absolutely clean and take the carbon dioxide off it and sequester the carbon dioxide and use this abundant resource we have, coal, and have a foaltly nonpolluting plant for generagenerating electricity? good idea, right? it got canceled in late-2007

because the department of energy relied on a study from the mass mass institute of technology said, we don't have the technology to do t you shouldn't spend the money yes. the technology isn't there. isn't it funny in four and a half months that report gets ignored and we put a $2 billion earmark in to build a coal plant that we don't have the technology for? so let me explain to you what's going to happen. we're going to spend that $2 billion. but when the $2 billion is gone, they're going to come back and say, oh, we almost got t how about $2 billion more? we got another $2 billion earmark and another $2 billion earmark and five, ten years from now, they'll either do one or two things, oh, we finally figured it out, which means had we waited to build on a small prototype plant and really perfected the technology, we could have done it for 5% of that, or they'll say, it just didn't work.

we can't do it. but we did it on the basis of parochialism and the enhanced interest of some power companies who were well-heeled and well-connected to this body. and so now we got $2 billion of your money going to a project that m.i.t. says the technology isn't finished yet and we shouldn't be spending any money to build a final plant, and yet we did it. but yet the claim was there wasn't any earmarks in the stimulus bill. or we build -- here's another fact that a lot of people don't know, and every fact i'm going to give, i can absolutely document either from the department of transportation or somewhere else. we have over 250,000 major bridges in this country in disrepair. remember minneapolis, the bridges collapse? we've got tons of those bridges. now, i am neat saying they're going to collapse.

but structurally they have been deemed they need to have repair. the stimulus bill spent $24 billion on roads, highways, and bridges. we should have spent $100 billion because we really wouldn't created four times as many jobs, we would have bought things we know we're going to have to buy anyhow and we would have fixed problems that we know we have today. and if we're going to borrow money against our kids' future, it ought to be on high-priority things that are truly going to benefit us and our kids rather than things that aren't going to benefit us. so here we have wisconsin, which is 1,256 structurally deficient bridges, more than in florida, colorado, or alaska arizona combined. instead of fixing any of those, they put money into a bridge to repair 37 ruler bridges that nobody ever uses or hardly ever

uses. why? how? how did that happen? we got interstate highway bridges that need to be repaired that have tens of thousands of cars go over them every day. instead, we repair a bridge to a bar. i guess rusty's back water is a sloon more important than the safety of our kids on the highway. and then we -- we have the florida project. when we build highways today, especially interstates, we put these ecopassages underneath them. so that wild animals, sometimes cattle if they're connected to land, where you can have transportation underneath the highway without going around them -- good idea. in florida we got a highway sitting there, and less than a couple miles down the road we got an ecopassage. less than a couple miles up the

road we got one. we're going to spend millions more to put another one in because too many turtles are crossing the road and getting hit. now, maybe that's okay. but when we have $11.4 trillion debt, we're going to run a $1 trillion deficit this year, when we're -- everything that we're spending this year, 50 cents out of every dollar we spend we're borrowing on the backs of our kids, should we really be spending that kind of money on turtle -- there's plenty of turtles in florida if you haven't been there lately. it's probably not going to have an ecological impact. but is that really -- is that a priority? is that something we should be doing? i think not. or we have a nonprofit who got fired for doing weatherization contracts in one of our states

for poor performance and noncompliance. we give -- the stimulus -- and guess who gets the contract, somebody that's already cheated the taxpayers. nevada. already been fired for noncompliance and not doing appropriate work and the first thing we do is we hire them back. you think there might not have been a political connection with the person that got that contract? think its strange? here's my favorite. this is another oklahoma -- in the wonderful which is come to of the corps of engineers back in like the 40's and 50's in western oklahoma, if you haven't been there, it's fairly arid land, good for raising cattle and where you can get irgairks it's great for growing wheat. -- irrigation, it's great for growing wheat. we built a dam and it's still

there. only one problem -- there never was any water that came to the lake. so we got this little road that runs along the edge of it that they replace the guardrails two years ago and less than 10 cars a day in the regular summer season go across this -- three average in the winter -- the corps of engineers decides since we got all this money, we need to replace the guardrails. now, the reason they want to replace the guardrails is they're an inch and a half two short for the 10 cars that go by there. but if you run off the roarksd you run into something down there that's dry as a boafnlt you don't run into a lake. but because the corps has a code that you got to have guardrails on anything around a lake, even if you don't have a lake there, we're going to spend millions of dollars putting guardrails around a nonexistent lake because the bureaucratic code is

"never do what is best if you can do what is safe for you." so here goes millions of dollars to build guardrails. i pretty well have gotten this one stopped by having my staff out there and take the corps of engineers. but had i not done it we'd have spent the money. how well are we doing? do you like the fact that the federal government is involved in all this? do you think it's exhibiting wisdom and prudence? or we can take elizabethtown, pennsylvania. they've had an old train station -- hasn't been used in 30 years. now, granted, they could maybe use train station, but they've been get along pretty well without one for 30 years in this particular location. we're going to spend millions of dollars to renovate an old train station, not because we have a

need but because we got money to spend. and it'll create jobs. nesthere's nothing wrong with having deficit spending in terms of cainsian economics to try to -- keynesian economics to try to stimulate the economy. but there ought to be a priority that what we spend the money on actually in fact is a long-term benefit that is something we would have spent the money on anyway. and when we throw the money out there and we roll the dice, what happens is, yea, we get something -- we get a benefit. we get the millions of dollars spent on our behalf. it gets spent on our behalf. but was it the best way to spend the money? was there another priority in the country that would have been better that would have created more jobs that is something that we truly have to have that would have created a permanent job,

that would have helped truly stimulate the economy? those questions aren't getting asked, folks. they're not getting asked. here's another one of my favorite: 10,000 -- you know, part of the stimulus was we gave seniors a check. now, i don't understand that, but we did. but the i.r.s. sent checks to 10,000 dead people. it can happen. i can see how that happened. but 10,000? so if we're sending checks to 10,000 dead people on a stimul stimulus, what else are we not doing right at the i.r.s. and every other agency? i think that totaled $25 million. what the cost of that was.

here's another one of my favorites. union, new york -- the town of union, new york, was surprised when it was notified that it would be receiving ads 578,671 stimulus grant to prevent homelessness for several reasons. yeah, here's another interesting point -- they never applied for the grant. and, second, they don't have a homeless problem. union did not request the money and does not currently have any homeless programs in place in the town to administer such funds, said the town supervisor, john bernardo. "we were surprised. we've never been a recipient before. " he isn't aware of any homeless issue in the largely suburban town. whoa! where did that one come from? where's the connection? well, it seems that the nem we're going to enhance the

retirement, the people at the department of housing and urban development just sent them a check. not their money. get the money out the door. send it to somebody that doesn't need it. when asked about it, h.u.d. just sent money to every town based on their population, whether they had a homeless problem or not. when did it become, under the constitution, a federal responsibility rather than a community responsibility to take care of homeless people? and, as we shift that responsibility to the federal government, what happens to the freedom of you in your home to care for homeless people? because when you get the money from the federal government comes the rules and regulations on what you'll do and how you'll do it. rather than a community-based or a church-based homeless shelter, night owl a follow these regs

and these things if you want our help. well what is our help? our help is taking money from you, filtering it through washington, wasting 20% of it and then sending it back to you to tell you what you already know how to do except now they're going to tell you how to do it and 35 pieces of paper forms to fill out as you tell them how you spent your money that they took 20% for to care for your homeless that you should have never sent the money to washington forness first place. let me just spend -- i'll pick and choose through a few of these. the federal government gives weatherization grants to help people weather proof their

homes. we've been doing this for over 25 years and we continue to spend more and more money on it every year. either we're not doing a good job or we've weatherized every home in the country and we're trying to do it a second time. here's one from illinois where they took the weatherization grant and bought a pickup for the count under a weatherization grant. -- for the county under a weatherization grant. in wisconsin, a nursing home got $2.8 million in stimulus money it didn't need or request. prior to the stimulus funding the nap haven nursing home was on track for a loan from the usda. in other words, they had the finances set up to get a loan to where they could repay it. when the stimulus money came available, the funding source was shifted to a new source of federal assistance. carman newman, the city clerk treasurer, said it's kind of a

joke. i don't see how they can say this is stimulus. we were going to do it anyway. i don't see how the project benefited. well, somebody benefited. but somebody also lost, and that was our kids and our grandkids. shraoer's a good one. iowa state -- here's a good one. iowa state legislatures are using money freed up by the stimulus to buy $11 million in new cars that the state doesn't need. four dozen brand-new cars owned by the state are sitting unused in the parking lot near the capitol. according to the state representative christopher rance, some of them still have the sales stickers on them. none of them have license plates and they still have their seats wrapped in plastic. but we're going to buy the cars

because we got the money. see what's happening here. there's no priority, because the money comes in, spend it even though you've got excess cars sitting on the parking lot, you buy it. spend it or lose it. spend it or lose it. michigan's going to spend $500,000 to renovate an old freight house for a yoga class. now, there's no question, if you renovate an old warehouse and you employ people to do that, you will stimulate the economy. the criticism here is are there not other things more important in michigan that we could spend $500,000 on that would create more permanent jobs, long-lasting jobs and be of stronger benefit to the community? and the only reason i get to question this is because it came through the federal government down there. if that money came through the

statehouse or the city, i'd have no business questioning it at all. but in light of where we find ourselves as a country, it is difficult for me to see the priorities that are expressed. malcolm, illinois, $6,43,945 was spent on prairie view public housing parking lot that nobody wants. many of the residents at the parking lot was supposed to benefit protested, saying the kids love the grass. we have enough pavement already for all the cars here. we need a playground. but we're going to pour concrete over it because we've got the money to do it. another wasted priority.

in chicago, rather than help welfare recipients obtain jobs and escape poverty, $1 million will be used to study whether 300 people in chicago are healthier when living in a green public housing facility. the study will evaluate whether greenhousing is healthier for people and will focus on the 300 residents at chicago public housing facilities. researchers expect to find that residents living in these more energy-efficient facilities will have much lower health care costs. the study will create jobs because it will get two or three people to interview the residents. here's another priority that came out of the stimulus. the national institutes of health has given the indiana university professor a grant of

$356,000. maybe this is okay, but not now it's not okay, where we find ourselves. here's what they're going to do with it. they're going to test how children perceive foreign accent in speech compared to native accent in speech. it will determine -- it will determine how such accents might influence speech development in children. i don't doubt that that might in fact be something we want to study. but, you know, we still have a lot of women in this country with a lot of disease. we have a lot of men in this country with a lot of disease. i'm not sure accents are as important as studying ways to lower health care costs, fund a professor to do research on one of the cancers that are plaguing

our country. how about pwaoeub buying h-1-n-1 flu vaccine? in other words, priorities get lost. detroit public schools will reach massive benefit from the stimulus despite the deficit. the intelligenceer. that is evidently a paper in that area. financial management problems became so tangled, the state appointed a manager to take the financial raines. the -- reins. the detroit school system will get $500 million. we have a school system that has been irresponsible with their money, and what do we do with the stimulus? we reward the incompetence and then give them twice that amount to pull them out of the hole rather than fix the real problem. you know, consequences to our

behavior is a great learning episode for all of us, no matter how old we are. if we're very young and we touch the hot stove, we learn that it's hot. when we're adolescents and we do some of the stupid things we do as adolescents, we learn from it. you know what? governments don't learn, and that's because governments don't have compassion. only people have compassion. and when you bail out a school system that has been irresponsible without them suffering the consequences -- and i know the answer is, well, the kids suffer the consequences. that's right, we all suffer the consequences. you think kids aren't suffering consequences right now in our economy?

oh, here -- this one's just cute. you'll love it. yale university and the university of connecticut are going to get $850,000. they've already gotten it, by the way, in shrus money to research to study how paying attention improves peformance of difficult tasks. you ever hit your thumb with a hammer? paying attention. studying to pay attention helps you with difficult tasks? i don't know who thinks these things up. but more importantly, it doesn't matter who thinks them up, who

would give a grant for that? i'm not opposed to giving grants for sound scientific study. but you know what? we already know the answer that this thing's going to give us, statistically significant answer. you do better if you pay attention. and you don't do as well if you don't. it's pretty straightforward. in massachusetts, the local state representatives from lexington were going to put excess money for additional runways when the state legislative leaders don't want us to do it. but you know what? we did it anyway. the people that represent the area, the political leaders,

didn't want it to happen because they thought it promoted irresponsible corporate behavior. you know what they did? they did it anyway. it goes back to that point we were talking about, freedom. when you give it to us, you lose it. we're supposed to be the bastion that protects your freedom. and what we've become, through this myriad, myriad number of federal programs and spending, is that we've been the ones that are taking away your freedom. you know, in oklahoma, i trap arm dill las on my yard. -- i trarpl armadillas on my arm. they'll ruin a good yard because they like worms. all you've got to do it put a

trap cage and you'll catch those suckers. that's what washington is doing to america's liberty. we bite the first bite off the marshmallow. you say that tastes good. there is no connection between what i've done and me receiving this benefit. and then we take another little bite off the marshmallow or the next one in, and all of a sudden before you know it, this armadillo that runs at night mainly, that my dogs chase into the woods every time they see one of them, pretty soon that armadillo fellow, he's in my cage. i got him. and the reason i got him is he kept thinking he could get something for nothing. he kept thinking, man, that's a sweet marshmallow. and so what happens is here he comes down the road just like us, us promising more, promising

more. but remember, whatever we're promising to give you, we've already taken from you. and when we take it from you, we lessen your liberty to a great extent. we steal your liberty. we steal your choice. we steal your freedom. we steal your ability to be o you want to be. we steal your ability to be the parent you want to be because we're interjecting us in the education system between you and your child. we're interjecting and implanting the seeds of lack of responsibility and accountability as we bite the marshmallow, as we walk into the trap and the cage closes. now there's two things i do with those armadillos. one of two things. i either put them in the back of my pickup and take them 10 or 15 miles away from my property, or

i shoot them. that's exactly what's going to happen to us. we're either going to be carried far away from what we know, we trust and believe in to be right or we're going to be extinct as a nation. we're going to lose the wonderful flavor of the greatest nation that has ever been on this earth. and we're going to lose -- and we are doing it. we're losing it a little bit at a time because we are like the frog who climbed into this wonderful cool pot of water that slowly and slowly heated up, and he never thought to jump out because before he knew it, he

couldn't. and so, we go through. and i've just listed about 30 of the first 1,000 projects that went out on the stimulus so you can get a flavor of what kind of judgments' being made with the money you stole, we stole from our grandchildren. i'd say we're not doing great. i voted for a stimulus bill that would have spent almost $500 billion. i didn't vote for this one. but it was a real stimulus. it was real roads. it was real highways, it was bridges, it was real sewage plants. it was things that we would have to do. it was really resetting the military. because you know what? we're going to buy a whole bunch more military equipment. to buy now will create job after job after job, and it will save us money because we will buy it now at a cheaper price than we'll buy it five years from

now. so i'm not critical of having a stimulus. i am critical of how we are managing and what we do about it and the severe lack of oversight that the members of this body daily failed to do. they do not do the job demanded of them. it is not enough for us to say where the money's spent. what is required of us is to say where the money's spent and then make sure it's spent wisely, prudently and in the best interest of everybody in this country. not in the best interest of our next election cycle. you know, i quoted earlie

earlier $350 billion worth of pure waste, fraud, or abuse every year in this country. and it's not fair for me to quote that without going through it for you so you can actually see where it is. and i'm sure -- i did this last year. so i'm sure it's worse this year. since we have not had the courage to do anything about fixing the problems that cause this, but let me go through it for you. these are either department agency numbers, c.b.o. numbers, inspector general numbers, or general accounting office numbers. they're not tom coburn's numbers. every one of them can be backed up. medicare fraud at a minimum $80 billion a year. we're contemplating a health care bill. we've got medicare that is

upside down, both part a and part-b, running in the red and is projected to run into the trillions of dollars. name something that's been done on that in the last two years, three years. by us. medicare improper payments, net loss -- in other words we paid out more than we should or we paid out under less than we should, the net difference i is $10 billion. now we're at $90 billion a year. medicaid fraud at a minimum -- and the reason we say it's at a minimum because medicaid can't tell us what their fraud is. they can't even report it. $30 billion. improper payments, net loss loss, $15 billion. so now we're at $135 billion and we've just gone through two programs.

social security disability fraud -- i hear every day in my office from people in my state about people who are getting disability who are absolutely not disabled. but they're getting the check. they're living off of us, but they can actually go to work and do something. at a minimum it's estimated to be true fraud. i think this is a very low number and it doesn't mean i don't want to help people with disability if they're truly disable. but everybody out in the country will know somebody who is collecting a check that can still ride their horse, ru lay brick or do anything else, but they won't. $2.5 billion. government-wide improper payments in all of the other agencies but seven of them we still don't have any reporting on, even though the law says they have to report, it's a

federal law you have to report your improper payments every year, but they don't do it. of the ones that do report, another $15 billion net loss of paying out more than they should. that's just on the agencies that report. maintenance of buildings by the defense department that they will not and will not in the future nor do they use now, but we can't sell them because we have all of these laws in congress that create an impossibility for us to get them to the market. we've created a bureaucratic nightmare that takes about 10 years to put a building up for sale. we're -- we're spending in the defense department $3 billion that could go for soldier pay, health care for our veterans, health care for our soldiers soldiers, $3 billion to maintain buildings that are sitting empty

and to maintain security for them. we have contracting problems. the bill before us, the defense authorization, everybody recognizes that we have a significant problem with contracting in this country. this data comes not from last year, but from the year before last. the department of defense paid out $8 billion for performance awards to contractors who did not earn the awards. in other words, they had a contract, here's the triermts requirements for the contract, they didn't meet the requirements of the contract, the department of defense paid them anyway. it hasn't stopped folks. where's the connection? it is estimated by g.a.o. that at a minimum if we r eliminated

no-bid contracts. most have eliminated no-bid contracts. that we would save at a minimum $5 billion a year. at a minimum. probably closest to seven or eight. eliminating no-bid contracts pays for the state budget of oklahoma for the entire year. every expense we have. just one year of eliminating no-bid contracts would have that kind of savings. then we have the wonderful trick of we send bills through here that are supposedly emergency supplementals, and we add all of these things of extra spending on to them that aren't emergencies, it's kind of like an earmark process, except the difference is they don't have to be within the budget numbers so they just go to the bottom line against your kids. so it doesn't pull back any spending anywhere else, but we spend this money anyhow, and

that's another $15 billion a year that the members of congress do outside of the budget. so let's see here now. we're at 31, 46, 49, 79, 89, 94, 104. we're at $184 billion. we have a crop insurance program that benefits the crop insurance industry, but not the farmers. but we refuse to modernize it and we could save $4 billion a year if we modernize it. but we don't modernize it because the effect and power of the well connected keeps us from doing what is right. then we have -- we send $5 - -- $5.9 billion to the u.n. every year. and we know -- and this is a report we finally got -- i got forced to get out of there.

it got leaked out. we finally got a hold of it. that our entire contribution to peacekeeping, which amounts to about 40% of our contributions -- $2 billion a year -- is totally wasted to fraud. in other words, it doesn't help us do peacekeeping anything else in the world, because there is only one agency and one government more inefficient than us, and it's the united nations. and, yet, we can't have transparency. every year i put on the foreign appropriations bill that requires for the u.n. dues to be paid, they have to give us transparency about where they're spending our money. and it passes here 99-0. and as soon as it goes to conference, guess what happens? it gets pulled out. -- because we don't have the courage to confront you and say, we're giving you $9.5 billion, tell us how it's welcome spent. so there's another $2 billion.

one of greatest areas of worry that the inspectors generals have across all of the agencies of government is investment in i.t. technology. we -- last year we contracted 64 -- $64 billion of i.t. contracts through the federal government. $64 billion. and what we know is at least 20% of that ends up totally getting mismanaged and wasted. it gets wasted because they don't know what they want when they signed the contract. they continue to change what they want as the contract goes through. and when we get to what was going to be a $200 million contract, it ends up being a an $800 million contract because we changed what the contract is. and, by the way, the contract isn't no-bid, the contracts is cost plus.

so whoever is doing the contract has every inclination to give them new ideas to make it better and change it. so what happens is we fall behind, we don't get it and pay four times as much. what is estimated that we lose almost $10 billion -- almos almost $11 billion a year on poor management. what's being done about it? nothing in this body. nothing in this body. national flood insurance program is another $17.5 billion of waste an duplication -- and duplication. if you reformed the tax code, and by the way, we're now at $2 -- right at $218 billion. if you reformed the tax code -- if you just made it straight line or simple -- straight, filled it in on a post card or

went to the fair tax, what we know is everything else equal would have $100 billion more collected because it would b be $100 billion less in fraud. just -- just $100. just $100. but we have a tax code that's this thick that no i.r.s. department will give you the same answer to the same question anywhere else in the country. and neither will any of the big auditing firms because the code is so complex that nobody knows what the truth is. and so we spend ove over $200 billion a year in this country paying our taxes. i'm not talking about the taxes you pay. paying our taxes. either paying somebody else to figure it out or paying the interest because we couldn't figure it out, or paying the penalty because we couldn't get it done on time. but most of it comes from paying people to pay our taxes for us.

and then there's a miscellaneous another 18. now, i said $350 billion. the total i've given you is $3 5 billion. -- $3 5 billion. the reason i said $385 billion is i don't want to exaggerate. so i cut 10% off of it. so nobody can say that you've exaggerated the waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. and that occurs every year. what would it be like right now if we weren't wasting that? what would happen to medicare if we didn't have this high number of billions and billions of dollars of fraud in medicare every year? what would happen? what would happen is medicare would last a lot number. number two is we would actually get more resources directed to the people that actually need it. and the one story dr. john

barrasso tells is that medicare is so well designed to be defrauded that people who deal in drugs stop that and start doing medicare fraud. because it's easier to hit a home run, one. number two is if you get caught, the penalties are less. and, number three, is you can make a whole lot more money with a whole lot lower jail sentence. and so we have this system that is designed to get defrauded that has $80 billion in it. so let me set that point and say if -- if in fact you take -- even if you only take half of what say, $175 billion. even if you only take half of what i say, here's the things that we know -- is this country is absolutely on an unsustainable course.

we cannot sustain what we are doing. we can't have another year like this year. you need me? we can't have another year that comes anywhere close to this year. we can't have another year that moves forward in the direction that we're moving in terms of the government taking more out of your freedom away and building itself up and building the bureaucracies in this town. i understand my colleague from hawaii is here and i would yield the floor to him. mr. akaka: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: mr. president, i want to thank my friend, senator coburn, for allowing me to speak at this time. i have been working with him in

our committee, homeland security. we have taken up these amendments in committee. and i think i'm correct weapo wi say that senator coburn, at that time, did support these amendments. mr. coburn: would the senator yield? i think the record will show i did not support the amendments. mr. akaka: thank you, thank you for the correction. first of all, i understand the current economic climate -- and we all do; i want the federal government to save as much money as it can and to reduce of the inefficiencies that there are. my amendment would do that. my amendment also has been

supported by a bipartisan group of senators. i'm proud that the cosponsors of these amendments are senators collins, senator lieberman, senator voinovich, senator murkowski, senator begich, senator kohl, senator murkowski, senator cardin, senator inouye, senator webb, and senator warner. and it's bipartisan effort to correct certain inequities in the federal retirement system. that has been our effort in these amendments. also, this effort was supported by a huge number of groups that

believe in this and support it. some of the organizations are the american federation of government employees, national treasury employees union, the international federation of professional and technical engineers, federal law enforcement officers association, american federation of state, county, and municipal employees, american postal workers union, national association of letter carriers, national rural letter carriers soshescarrierassociation, natiod retired federal employees association, senior executives association, federal managers association, government managers coalition, national association postal supervisors, national

association of post masters of the u.s., and national association of assistant u.s. attorneys. this is the kind of support that we have for this. this amendment will ensure that all federal employees are treated the same when it comes to retirement. this will save money due to the reduced lost days of work and avoid unnecessary employee transfers which reduce the need for additional training. and reduces the litigation costs borne by the government due to different treatment of different classes of employees. it will improve employee morale which increases efficiency and ensures we are able to transfer

institutional language to the next generation of federal workers. and o.p.m. estimates that $68 million is wasted per year because of the different leave policies in affect and these amendments would certainly help in that respect. in fact, my amendment will reduce the federal deficit by $36 million over 10 years. this amendment has bipartisan support of the committee of jurisdiction and by both managers and employees. i've read others who support it. this is a good government bill that protects the taxpayers' dollars. i look forward to continuing

this effort and i want to at this time say this is a good amendment and i will fight for it, the provisions in conference but i do not want to hold up the defense authorization bill so under the circumstances, i will, mr. president, withdraw this amendment. the presiding officer: the amendment is withdrawn. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i want to thank the senator for withdrawing his amendment. i think he will find another vehicle some other time and i know this bill is important to him. we just happen to disagree about priorities. that's what i've been speaking for an hour and 20 minutes on the floor.

i don't think this is a priority moscow and as a courtesy to the rest of the members they want to finish this and i thank him and i love him dearly as a friend and as a brother and i appreciate him. i yield back. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i add my thanks to the senator from hawaii. he is doing this for the good of the order, to permit us to get on with this bill. we're very grateful. we know how important this is. we know it passed on a bipartisan basis, the governmental affairs committee and his willingness to withdraw at this time, i know, is very much appreciated by all of us and i hope something good can come out of conference. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent senator hagan be recognized to speak on a previous amendment for up to five minutes.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hagan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: i want to thank senator levin and ranking member mccain for reporting out a bill that reor yens weapon systems -- and reorients weapon systems toward the wars w we fit today. we need capabilities inducive to implement the counterinsurgency tactics and procedures. nothing is more important than enhancing the force protection of the troops. that is why i am pleased this bill provides proven, effective capabilities such as the mrap vehicles to protect against i.e.d.'s and i want do highlight a couple of things in this bill. first, i support the funding, the administration's request for $7.5 billion for the afghanistan security forces fund to train

and equip the afghanistan national army and police. the commander of the second marine expeditionary brigade, brigadier general, recently indicated the success of the marine offensive is dependent upon hazing an afghan -- upon placing an afghan face on the operation to instill confidence among local afghans in the afghan government's abilities to provide safe communities and to govern efficiently. equally important is providing the coalition support funds for pakistan. the stability of afghanistan is depend. on the stability of pack continue and vice versa. we need to enable the pakistan army and frontier corps with the capability to conduct sustained, direct action missions against the dangerous element of the pakistan taliban along the fahta. key to successful operations in

theater are effective aviation assets. i'm a big proponent of the joint strike fighter as it serves multiple roles including close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions. i'm disappointed we were unable to secure enough votes for senator bayh's amendment. i reiterate i think it's important we safeguard language to authorize funding to develop and procure an alternate joint strike fighter engine. i know that the issue of the location of the navy's o.l.f. has already been debated and voted on so i won't spend a lot of time on it but i would like to mention that i cosponsored an amendment with senator burr to prevent the navy from building an o.l.f. in the sands banks and hale's lake site in north carolina. i am against an o.l.f. at these

sites because it destroys small family farms around for generations as well as thousands of acres of farmland essential to the livelihood and economic base of those communities. and o.l.f. at these locations only brings 52 jobs and destroy valuable farmland that currently employs over 2,000 workers. moreover, the o.l.f. is only a few miles away from ongoing projects that will attract new businesses and tourists. last week, i met with local government leaders of the respectivings trespective countg this. the state of north carolina passed a law banning the construction of an o.l.f. at the sites and i do not think it would be in the navy's interest to continue to pursue construction of an o.l.f. at these sites knowing that it will

more likely than not be tied up in litigation for years. i want to make sure that north carolina is treated fairly. the residence of these counties simply do not want the o.l.f. there and the state of north carolina is the friendliest military state in the nation and we would welcome -- welcome -- the opportunity to work with the navy in identifying sites that could potentially meet the navy's o.l.f. requirements and that also have the support of north carolinians in those counties. one of those sites can be at the mawrns corps air station cherrypoint or a site close to it within craven county. all the officials in that community are in support having an o.l.f. located there and the navy excluded cherrypoint as a potential o.l.f. site because the standards specify than an

o.l.f. should be no more than 120 not call miles from home base and cherrypoint is approximately 135 nautical miles from oceana, virginia, just 15 not call miles beyond the navy's current requirements. i want to work with the navy to examine the impact of having o.l.f. located just outside the current requirements and were sri on th -- and especially on e fleet. we have worked to insert additional language, first, to mandate the secretary of the navy to issue a report detailing the navy's consultations with local governments, communities, and stakeholders in north carolina and virginia regarding o.l.f. site options; and, two, to mandate the navy identify all suitable options for the

location of an o.l.f. beyond the five sites identified in both states. however, i don't think that's good enough. the state of north carolina has had previous negative experiences with the manner in which the navy has implemented its o.l.f. site selection process. i strongly feel the navy should delete the two country sites in north carolina. i also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my amendment in committee that provides the department of defense with the option to increase the acquisition of additional c-27's in the out years as mission requirements dictate. that amendment requires the department to provide its strategic plan to deploy and station c-27 joint cargo aircraft in theater and in the continental u.s. as well as plans to procure additional aircraft beyond the 38.

48age tants of the national guard signed a letter to the committee last month supporting the funding of 78 joint cargo aircraft. their letter emphasized the c-27 provides an essential airlift capability in war as well as to state emergency management teams in the 48 states. i also thank chairman and ranking member mccain for accepting my amendment to direct the secretary of the army to submit a report to assess the feasibility and advisability of creating a trainees-transyet and students account within the army national guard to ensure that all soldiers in the units have completed their initial entry training prior to be deployed. approximately 27,000 of the national guard's end strength are not deployable because they are awaiting training. this account qu would allow new

national guards mern to be fully trained prior to reporting to their assignment. this account for the national guard would imriewfer the unit readiness, increase individual dwell time between deployments and provide more predictability to soldiers, families, and employers. finally, i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my amendment involving depot maintenance work. this amendment directs the secretary of the navy to submit a cost-benefit analysis report identifying each alternative the secretary is considering for the performance of the av-8-b hairier aircraft. we're working with the navy and the manner corps to ensure that depots allow partnerships with the commercial sector while recognizing the legitimate national security need for the department of defense civilian

and military personnel to retain the key skills to be responsive to our soldiers fighting in these two wars. mr. president, this is an important bill and despite my and senator burr's ongoing concerns about the outlying landing field, i think that senators levin and mccain deserve our gratitude for their work on this bill and this bill deserves the support of all of my colleagues. thank you, mr. president. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the kyl amendment be temporarily laid aside and that the following four amendments then be in order. the sessions amendment 1657, which is going to be modified and which i understand will not require a roll call vote. the isakson amendment 15257, which would then be called up and which i understand would require some debate.

the ... the lieberman amendment number 1650, which also i understand may be modified. and then the next amendment after that, which i thought i could enumerate but i cannot now, would be a democratic amendment and would need to be, would be in place then. no amendments would be in order to any of the above amendments. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. levin: i thank the chair.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: let me modified -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. levin: i again ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: let me modify that unanimous consent agreement. that after -- that prior to those three amendments being called up, that we take up lincoln amendment number 1487, which i understand has been cleared. again, to the other three amendments that we identified for debate, no amendments be in order to any of those amendments. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, it's

now my understanding that under that u.c., 2003 would -- we would take up lincoln amendment 1487, and i wonder if the senator from arkansas would just have one quick minute to explain her amendment. mrs. lincoln: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the amendment, amendment 1487 be called up. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from arkansas, mrs. lincoln, proposes amendment numbered 1487. mrs. lincoln: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the chairman, senator levin, and senator

mccain and the others -- senator graham and others for allowing me to bring this amendment up. this is a critical amendment at a critical time. many of us visit our home states, and we see the disadvantaged youth all across our state who are having difficult times. we know that unstable economic times bring about instability in our schools and in our families and a host of different places. and one of the ways that we have combatting this is the national guard youth challenge program. it's an excellent program put on by our national guard in many of our states where these at-risk youth come in and they're surrounded by both structure and support, guidance, to be able to meet their needs of getting a g.e.d. and their high school education and then going on to make something of their lives, really turn themselves around and make sure that they're becoming great parts of our community, whether it's finding a job or entering the military

on their own. but certainly turning their lives around and being productive. so what we do in this amendment, mr. president, is we open up our national guard youth challenge program to new states. right now we have it in several of our states. many of us have been able to see the rewards of this program. but opening up this program to other states to be able to participate. one of the biggest problems we've had with this program is not the success, because the success has been tremendous, but it is the ability of our states to be able to support financially these programs. right now they have to come up with 40% of the resources that are necessary. and, quite frankly, our states are not entering into these programs because they don't have the resources. these are excellent programs. they have tremendous results. and one of the things that we want to make sure is we don't lose the opportunity to catch these young people early on and turn their lives around.

so what our amendment does is it provides a 75%-25% cost sharing with the states instead of the 60-40. we change the way it is allocated. we also allow the opportunity for new states that want to start these programs to come in and for the first two years the federal government will support 100% of those programs as they get their'on the ground and they -- get their feet on the ground and they get these programs started, and then they must then resume that state ropbt in these programs. -- state wouldn't in these programs. we've got tremendous bipartisan support, 32 cosponsors in this bill. i'm joined in this amendment by senator byrd and casey, cornyn, landrieu, murkowski, reich, rockefeller and snow. we've got great support for this

amendment t-fpt's something that's important for our kids, and it's a great opportunity for us to see how our military, both empowering our use, giving them the kind of support that's necessary and turning their lives around with both education and opportunity, developing skills, working in the community and really making something of themselves. i thank the chairman for the ability to be able to offer this amendment on behalf of our states and on behalf of our national guard that are doing a tremendous amount in these programs, but most importantly on behalf of our children and the great things it does for our children all across this nation. mr. chairman, thank you so much. mr. president, i appreciate it, but a special thanks to the chairman and the ranking member for their indulgence in letting me offer this amendment. and i'm looking forward to hopefully seeing how we can move it forward. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, first, let me thank senator lincoln for this amendment. the linkage of the national

guard, the states and our kids is a very powerful link indeed. i've seen this up close and personal because i was sort of the godfather of the star base program which started in michigan. it has spread, and this program which senator lincoln is so deeply involved in with her cosponsors is not an outgrowth of this program, it is similar in terms of its purpose to link our national guard and the information they can provide and the technical skills they can inspire with our children. we thank her for her amendment and hope it can be promptly adopted. the presiding officer: is there further debate on the amendment? if not, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. levin: move to reconsider. mr. graham: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: the next amendment now, i believe -- the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: the sessions amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i'd like to call amendment 1567 as modified. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. graham for mr. sessions proposes amendment numbered 1657 as modified. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: we have been work w-g senator sessions, myself, senator levin and his staff. this amendment basically clarifies the fact that when a detainee is in military custody or an intelligence agent's custody, being detained as a result of wartime activity to be interrogated for intelligence gathering, there is no

requirement that that person have article 31 or miranda rights read to them. we don't want to criminalize the war. military intelligence gathering is not a war function. there's been confusion about the department of justice, f.b.i. agents reading miranda rights. clearly there could be a time when that would be appropriate. but this amendment states that miranda warnings or article 31 rights are not to be read by d.o.d. personnel or intelligence agencies as a result of battlefield activities or military intelligence gathering. and i think it is a good amendment that will clarify a potentially confusing situation. i appreciate senator levin's staff helping us with it. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, after my very brief comment on this, i'm going to ask that the quorum call -- the quorum be called.

this amendment has been significantly modified from its original form and it has been modified in a way which i believe is now satisfactory. it addresses interrogations by the military and by defense agencies. it does not involve interrogations by the department of justice. ace understand it the department of justice is not involved in the warnings that are involved here. and especially provides that it will be -- must be applied in a manner consistent with the constitutional requirements. and with these changes, i am satisfied, but i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i would ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call, senator. mr. levin: i ask can unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i would now ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment, the sessions amendment as modified be temporarily laid aside and we now proceed to the next item under the u.c. agreement, which would be senator isakson's amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i call up the isakson amendment. the clerk: the senator from georgia mr. isakson proposed

amendment 1525. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: a few years ago there was a bury waiver for the purpose of making the fire-resistant uniforms the united states marines, the united states army and aviators. the barry requirement is the by america requirement. meaning that you first have to buy american before you go offshore to buy a product. at the beginning of the iraq war the united states army and marines noticed immediately we had a tremendous increase because of the nature of that war an burn injuries. they conducted a survey and looked at the 24 best alternative that's they could find anywhere to make fire-resistant uniforms. they finally ended up with a rayon with nylon. the environmental protection

agency to make rayon makes it prohibitive in the united states and there is no rayon produced in the united states. it is produced in austria. the bury waiver we received was to allow them to import through now and 2013, fire-resistant rayon which in the united states is blended for fabric, cut, sewn and shipped to the united states military. 10,000 american jobs. the rayon cannot be produced in the united states because the e.p.a. -- because of the e.p.a. requirements. the reason to request a -- an extension and postpone the sunset in 2013 is because the military procurement in the out years is now reaching beyond that and with the absence of a bury waiver for those years, they would have to zero out the purchase for those uniforms, which in turn would mean that the people that make those uniforms would not have the certainty of the bury waiver because it would be subject to a bury waiver again, therefore,

the investment they would make would be limited to the years they knew they could make the guaranteed deliveries. so i have offered this amendment as an extension for that very reason. the united states army, the marine corps, and aviators that use the military love it because it breathes. it gives them some circulation, it has tremendous protection against burns and it has performed very satisfily and they want to continue to do it. and there is no american competitor that can meet or exceed it. obviously if there were, then that waiver would go away and they could people but at this time they do not so i would ask the members of the senate for the consideration on behalf of the military men and women in harm's way in afghanistan, iraq an where -- and wherever they might be for the uniform that we're now in because it was the best the military could find anywhere in the country and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the -- senator webb. mr. webb: i regrettably must

rise in opposition to this amendment. i believe that this amendment is not timely. it is premature to eliminate a congressionally imposed sunset clause for existing temporary amendment -- exception to the bury amendment. an exception that was supposed to be temporary. in may of this year senator graham and i jointly requested the secretary of defense to review the department of defense's continuing reliance on this exception. the undersecretary of defense, mr. carter, has confirm that this review is now under way and the results are expected soon. i do not believe we should modify the current statutory requirement which would prejudice the outcome of the department of defense review until we have heard the department's assessment removing the sunset clause would result in an indefinite extension of an

exception that favors foreign suppliers of rayon over our own american companies. a vote against this amendment will not have an adverse affect on current arrangements to obtain rayon from foreign sources. today's army uniform procurement contracts will continue until 2013 so long as the army stipulates that a requirement for rayon fiber in fire-resistant uniforms and the department of defense maintains the exception to the bury amendment is needed. the 2013 sunset clause was designed to ensure that american industry will be fairly treated during future competitions for contracts. if industry can demonstrate an ability to manufacture materials that satisfy army requirements for fire resistance and other features. under the current arrangement,

companies are losing jobs because they can't compete to supply alternative materials. our domestic manufacturers have alternative materials. it is not in the best interest of the united states defense industrial base, our economy or the united states military to remove a congressionally imposed sunset provision at this time. we've had discussions with general fuller, the army's program executive officer solder, who is responsible for acquiring the best equipment for the army and fielding it as quickly as possible. he is confirmed to my staff that he will consult industry to determine what the nest irk market has to -- domestic has to offer to satisfy performance-base requirements for military uniforms. this will allow american industry to come in with a whole spectrum of ideas and alternate materials. the army would then -- the army would then able to explore new

technologies that may have evolved since we last visited this issue. removing the sunset clause also poses a risk to the army's research and development requirements. the army relies on army private industries to an extensive degree to conduct our need for next generation materials and fabrics for uniforms, body armor and other mission essential materials. some companies, like dupont, for example, have already lost hundreds of jobs owing to their inability to compete for army contracts. a continued reliance on this bury amendment exception would jeopardize their ability to remain competitive in this segment of the defense industrial base. i do not believe the army can afford to lose this critical r&d capacity. for those reasons i oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to also oppose it. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i have just a moment here.

i'd like to echo the sentiments of senator webb. we've been working together on this. and i do very much appreciate senator isakson, i understand, this is a big complicated and there are parochial interests involved, and i totally understand the dli dilemma we'r. the fy 2008 defense authorization would grant a five-year waiver to the bury amendment for the procurement of fire resistant rayon. the isakson amendment permanently extends this waiver and will end all efforts to produce a domestic material to make military uniforms. i respectfully oppose the amendment. we're procuring the material from europe. there is no source of domestic rayon. neither congress nor d.o.d. has issued a determination or finding that the domestic market lacks sufficient products that could perform the functions desired by d.o.d. this amendment unfairly

excludes, in my opinion, u.s. manufacturers from competing for d.o.d. procurements an improperly limits competition since it has flame resistant cotton that. d.o.d. to have domestic fabric from foreign manufacturers vietle d.o.d.'s statutory mandate to use performance rather than materials specifications and to seek free and fair and open competition whenever practical. instead of permanently extending a waiver that has three years remaining, we should continue to let the technologies an fabrics develop an reassess where we are in one or two years. i think that the -- that is the wise thing to do and i respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia.

mr. isakson: would you yield for a moment? mr. graham: i will. mr. isakson: isn't it true that there is nothing with this waiver that prohibits the american manufacturers from doing the development necessary to come up with a material to exceed or meet the rayon made in austria. the problem is they can't produce rayon in the united states of america because the e.p.a. prohibitions and the cost that it is to meet that. mr. graham: thank you, senator, for the question. it is my understanding that the efforts is being made in virginia and south carolina to produce this product here domestically and the concerns that the senator addressed private sector is dealing with and that the ability to produce this material domestically is -- is a viable option and i just don't want to take a precedent in terms of the bury amendment that what i think would change the spirit of the amendment at a time when we have a potential to make this domestically and i think as much as we can do

domestically to protect our military and to provide resources to our military, the better. and a year or two from now we'll know better and to lift the waiver or to make it a permanent waiver, i think, would be an unwise erosion of the bury amendment at this time. and that would be my answer. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: let me make this comment, if i can. the barry buy america amendment is on target. the reason for waivers is when we find that there is no domestic product equal to or better than a product that has a component overseas, in the interest of our men and women in the military, we give the waiver so it doesn't keep us -- so that we didn't prohibit ourselves from having the best material possible. if an american domestic manufacturer produces an alternative fiber or fabric which meets or e exceeds the ran

that's now being used, the barry waiver will no longer apply because it will be a domestically-produced united states product that is superior or equal to that particular product of rayon. so i would respect ifully submit to the gentleman from virginia and south carolina that the argument that there is a prohibition -- that this would keep people from making an investment in r&d to do something better is the reverse. it actually will accelerate the need for them to make the r&d investment to try and produce something better in the united states, if they can. and one last point: the united states military did 24 different evaluations after the initial move into iraq. we had so many burn injuries, and it determined this fabric has to be the best for our men and women aviator, men and women in the marine corps, men and women in the army and combat and it has performed well in ask and iraq ever since. so i would submit the r&d

argument has actually sell railted with the extension of the waiver and the proof of the product is in the pudding we've seen in the safety our troops and men and women in harm's way. and i yield back, mr. president. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i rise in support of the isakson amendment. there is a waiver to the very amendment in place which allows companies to import the fire-resistant rayon from foreign countries. let me be very clear that the jobs that go with the manufacture of these uniforms are u.s. jobs. all of these uniforms are made in the united states. but this fabric is used by the company to make its defender-m fabric to produce fire-resistant uniforms for both the army and marines much the material is not made in the united states due to e.p.a. standards and this is a classic example of where e.p.a. standards can be too stringent to allow u.s. manufacturers to

operate. and the reason is that it's cost-prohibitive to do so. the current waiver, which includes a five h.r. year sunset clause, was included in the 2008 defense authorization bill after tremendous effort by my colleague, senator isakson, and of course is set to expire. the army soldier expressed very strongly that f.r. rayon is the superior fabric based on the criteria. the criteria was cost, comfort comfort,durability and length of time before receiving third-degree burns. we've had some very serious situations obviously that have occurred with burns in both iraq and afghanistan. that's why the army and the marines like this uniform, and we buy 115,000 new f.r. uniforms every manhattan. this uniform is superior because of the fact that we've been able to import this fabric with the barry amendment waiver.

it's, in my opinion, imperative that we continue it for the competition. the uniforms are still competitively bid. so it's not like we're taking anybody out of the marketplace. and we're -- i just would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the isakson amendment. and i would yield back. mr. graham: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i'd ask unanimous consent to send a further modification of the sessions amendment to the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the amendment is further modified.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 40, the nays are 54. the isakson amendment is not agreed to. a senator: move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: mr. president, i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk please call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan.

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume the kyl -- resume debate on the kyl amendment number 1760, that it be in order for senator kyl to offer a second-degree amendment to his amendment, that once the second-degree is reported, it be agreed to, amendment 1760, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. kyl: mr. president, i -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. i call up the second-degree amendment to my amendment number 1760. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. kyl: ask for its

consideration. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 1807 to amendment numbered 1760. mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: mr. president, i want to thank the ranking member on the committee, my colleague, john mccain, and the chairman of the committee, as well as senator kerry and senator lugar for working through this amendment. we have a good resolution. we'll be writing a letter to the president. we'll be adding a short provision to the bill here that calls for appropriate studies and reports to accompany the start treaty when that treaty is sent to the senate, and i think it's a good resolution of this issue and would call for the immediate consideration of the amendment. we do not need the yeas and nays. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: let me thank senator kyl and all those who've been involved in working the kyl amendment to a point where we're comfortable with it. i think that all of us have concerns. those concerns have been fairly

met and i want to thank the senator from arizona for his effort on this as well as, of course, my ranking member on the committee and all the others who have been helping. the presiding officer: under the previous order, amendment 1807 has been agreed to. under the previous order, amendment number 1760, as amended, is agreed to. the motion to reconsideration is made and laid upon the table.