and we're going to get to a number of amendments and vote on them before 6:00 this evening. and after i announce some agreements that have been -- that have already been reached. so progress is being made, and i just want to see it continue being made. you have to figure that some passengers, not in many cases but in some cases, have been kept waiting nine hours on a tarmac. well, i can't even begin to do the body math of nine hours. but i don't choose to. because it is not pleasant. how does one eat? how does one keep sanity? presumably the engines are running. if they are, there is air. if they aren't running, there is no air, so it's extremely stuffy. so you're without food, you're without water, you're without facilities. and really, most importantly, you're without any information.

you don't know where you are. this is all absolutely unacceptable. and in this one little section of the bill, i just want to say a couple of the things that we do to fix that. this bill requires that air carriers in coordination with airports, requires that they develop contingency plans to make certain they're prepared for these kinds of delays which will happen and which do happen. and as more and more people fly, they'll happen more frequently. so, it's a fact of life. passengers have to have, under our bill, access to water. they have to have access to food, to restroom facilities, and to medical attention. they cannot remain on the tarmac for over three hours. i think that's stretching it. there's one little caveat which i sort of accept -- at least it's in the bill -- that if the

pilot, in his or her judgment, feels that within the next 30 minutes or less they will take off, they don't have to go back to the terminal to disgorge their passengers so they can get caught up on water, facilities, medical attention, all the rest of it. these are such commonsense protections, but they affect so many people and children. i have five grandchildren, and i'm just trying to think what my five grandchildren would be acting like after three hours on a plane that hadn't gone any where. i'm just trying to imagine that. from various points of view, and none of them come out very favorably, not one of them. the air carriers will also have to post on their web site which of their flights, as a matter of their record, tend to be delayed, tend to be canceled,

tend to be on time or diverted. that's a matter of record. it's not every one, but those that are likely those that are on the web site, so that when the passenger purchases tickets, they get that. and that information has to be updated on a monthly basis, and it has to be provided to customers before they purchase a ticket, web site or no web site. that's in advance in keeping passengers happier. any air carrier selling a ticket must disclose the actual air carrier. why do i say that? because as senator dorgan has said a number of times, often you don't know what you're flying on. there's a united up here and a

colgan down here, and you don't know who you're flying on and so you don't know who to hold accountable. we think accountability matters, and so you are told before you buy the ticket what plane you're going to be flying on. who owns that plane? who flies that plane? so you don't, as i retaoepbl in west virginia -- routinely in west virginia, they are all propeller flights with one or two exceptions. so senator dorgan has also pointed out that 50% of all of our aviation in america -- and we do, we do fly half the people in the world. we're half the world's air traffic right in north america. so we have to know whether they're a regional carrier, and we have to know the information about them before they buy their ticket.

so, passengers have been overlooked and they have been dismissed by the aviation system for so many years because we could get away with it and everybody was prospering. but along this time people were suffering, grievously sometimes. i think a lot of people -- in fact, i think of a couple of my sisters and people in my office who just, when they're, when they're in an airplane, they just change. you know, they get white-knuckled. it's a cylinder, and people react in different ways to that. and so, we need to give passengers all the comfort, information and the transparency that they can possibly have. i just make that short statement. it's one aspect of our very long and comprehensive f.a.a. bill which we've been waiting now for three years to reauthorize and

which we would like to do. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, as the senator from west virginia said, we are on the f.a.a. reauthorization bill. that is reauthorizing the programs that deal with aviation safety and air traffic control and airport improvement funds and essential air service. all of these issues. for the last hour we have been hearing debate about a school voucher program in the district of columbia. now, why would that be the case? because this is an authorization bill, and anyone can come and offer any amendment to an authorization bill. so those who have proposed the lieberman amendment are perfectly well within their rights to do that. it has nothing at all to do with the bill that's on the floor of the senate, however. so, because we're going to vote on it, however, let me just say a few words about it. i've spoken about the f.a.a.

reauthorization bill previously this afternoon and will again later. but let me talk just for a moment about this issue of school vouchers. first of all, this is not the place to do it. this is not the place to offer the amendment. they have the right to offer the amendment, but we're trying to get a bill done here. we've been on the floor -- this is the third day -- to reauthorize the f.a.a. after we've extended it 11 times, and the rest of the world is moving forward to modernize their air traffic control system. we with the most congested air traffic control system in the world have extended the f.a.a. authorization 11 straight times because we've not been able to get a bill done. this is a good reason here. we'll probably have four votes or three votes today. none of them have anything to do with the f.a.a. we're going to, i hope, clear some amendments. senator rockefeller has been working hard on that. clear some amendments. but the votes that we'll have today have to do with earmark reform or school vouchers or any number of other subjects;

discretionary budget caps, having nothing to do with the underlying bill. but if we must vote on them, let me at least take a couple moments to respond to that which we've heard for the last hour. i know the people who came here to support the voucher amendment are enormously passionate about their support for this. it is providing vouchers paid for by the american taxpayer for students, about 1,300 of them, in the district of columbia to attend private schools. in short, it provides public funding for certain students to attend private schools. now, i'm a big supporter of education. i believe education is our future. i believe when thomas jefferson said that anybody who believes that a country can be both ignorant and free believes in something that never was and never can be; i understand that. i think education is the building block and the foundation for america's future. in fact, it has been the success

of america that we described education from the very start different than many other countries. we said we're going to have a system of public education, public education. that means public schools, that allows every child to go into that school and come out of that school with whatever their god-given talents allow them to become. we're not going to move people off in the 6th grade or 8th grade based on availability. that's not the way we're going to do it. every child can enter those classrooms and decide to graduate with whatever their god-given talents allow them to achieve in this education system. that is public education. i know people say to me well america's schools don't work. oh, really? really? if you get to the moon, anybody, would you please tell me whose boot prints are on the moon? they are not chinese or russian boot prints. they are boot prints made by an american, astronauts that were educated in america's public school system, that helped to

understand the science and math that allowed to us learn to build airplanes and learn to fly them and then build rockets and walk on the moon and plant an american flag on the moon. public education has been remarkable for this country. i walked into the oldest house member's office the first day i came to this congress. his name was claude pepper. he had two photographs behind his chair at his desk. claude was in his mid80's, late 80's, and he had two photographs there. one was of orville and wilbur wright making the first airplane flight december 17, 1903. 59 seconds off the ground. first human-powered flight. autographed to congressman claude pepper with deep admiration, orville wright, before orville died. just beneath there was a second photograph of neil armstrong stepping gently with his boot on the surface of the moon. and i thought to myself, what is the distance measured between those two photographs?

about four inches. but think of the distance in education, to learn to fly and fly to the moon. someone else didn't do that. we did that with a network of public education that says to every kid you can become whatever your god-given talents allow you to become. universal education in a system of public schools. is it perfect? certainly not. has it worked? you bet. i am so tired of people trashing public schools. i go into a lot of classrooms, and i almost never leave the classroom without thinking to myself, what an american hero teaching in that classroom. they didn't choose the profession that pays the most, for sure. but that teacher, that man or woman that's teaching those kids, what a remarkable person that is. i always leave classrooms feeling that way. now let me talk about this program very quickly. this program, to single out a voucher program to create public

funding for a certain number of students here in the district of columbia, to* attend private schools, was established as a five-year pilot program in 2003. that's seven years ago. a five-year pilot program t.'s now been extended -- it's now been extended twice through appropriations bills in order to minimize the disruptions for students already in the program, and a plan to wind it down is now in place. reauthorization is not needed to keep current students in these circumstances. in my judgment, public dollars should be spent on public schools. yes, there are improvements that are needed. invest in those improvements. here in the district of columbia, they are $40 million short of what is needed. that's the cuts that are taking place. yet, we are using public dollars to support vouchers for private schools. i know it's not a lot of money, but this is a program that seven

years ago was authorized for five years, and it demonstrates how hard it is to shut down any program at a time when education budgets are being slashed for public schools, we ought to be directing the money we have in the public domain for public schools. those who wish to attend private schools, they pay private tuition, i understand that. but our public funding ought to be devoted to strengthen our public schools. now let me talk just for a moment about the study that's been done of this voucher program. it's produced very mixed results. the department of education did a study that was mandated. after three years no statistically significant achievement impacts were registered for students who came from the lowest-performing schools. the reason that's important is that was the target of this program. the low-performing schools allowed parents to get those kids out of those schools and get them to -- get them a voucher to go to a private

school. those very schools, the target schools, the lower-performing schools, there is no statistical achievement impact for students who came from those schools going into this voucher program. now, some of my colleagues said, well, you've got to give these people a choice and a chance. how about giving them a choice? well, the district of columbia already has choices. there are choices available on where to send their kids. they have a robust public charter school network with 60 charter schools here in the district of columbia. unlike voucher schools, public charter schools are open to all students, subject to the same accountability as all other schools -- public schools -- the same accountability standards. and so parents in d.c. already have some of that flexibility about which schools their children should attend, or shall attend. this program has not gone through the full committee

process since 2003. the homeland security governmental affairs committee has yet to mark up this legislation in this congress. and, more importantly, this amendment has nothing at all to do with the bill that's on the floor of the senate. so i don't support this on its merits. i didn't support it in the appropriations committee, don't support it now. believe that we ought to defeat it at this point not because i don't support education, but it's precisely because i support public education that we ought not be spooning off money here into a voucher program taking public funds, moving them into private schools with, as i indicated, very mixed results as a result of the study that has been done by the u.s. department of education. i want for our children, for all children, to have the best education they can have. our public school system has served this country well, but we have a lot of challenges. and i would -- i would finally say this, one of the significant

challenges of the public school system is not that teachers are poor teachers. it's not that the school is a bad school. it is that a school inher its virtually -- inherits everything that exists in that town and that neighborhood. that's just a fact. it is cal sometimes in public schools to do all that we want to do. if you look at a couple of years of history in the united states of america, it's hard to conclude that we as opposed to other countries, we're the ones with universal education, we're the ones who support public education. it's pretty hard to conclude that we've come up short relative to other countries. let me make one other point and perhaps boast for a moment. if north dakota were a country and not a state -- a country and not a state, we would rank second in the world next to singapore in math scores. do good schools get reported

very often? not very often. bad news travels around the world before good news gets to choose on. we ought to spend a day talking about the good news in education and spent some time as well addressing the challenges because there are some difficulties that we need to stress. i'm not going to vote for the voucher amendment. i don't think it's the right choice. i believe the right choice is to strengthen public education, address the challenges of public education. we can do that. our parents did it. our grandparents did it. and we can have the same kind of impact on students that they did. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: i ask consent to speak in morning business for up to 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: madam president, last thursday the bankruptcy examiner for lehman brothers released a 2,200 page report for the demise of the firm which included rivetting detail on the

firm's accounting practices. that report has put into sharp relief what many of us expected all along, that fraud and potential criminal conduct were at heart of this financial crisis. now that we're beginning to learn many of the facts, at least we expect the activity of lehman brothers, the country has every right to be outraged. mr. kaufman: i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now resume the demint amendment. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. rockefeller: the senator from west virginia ask unanimous consent that the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now resume the demint amendment number 3454, and that at 6:00 p.m. the senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment with the time then -- until then divided and controlled between senators inouye and demint or their detaineedesignees and upon dispn of the amendment 3454 the senate then proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments with two minutes of debate prior to each vote equally divided and controlled in the usual form and

that after the first vote in this sequence, the remaining votes be limit to 10 minutes each and that no amendment be in order to any of the amendments in this order prior to a vote in relation thereto. and that in the case where there is a modification, the amendment be so modified with the changes at the desk. and the amendments are the feingold amendment, number 3470, as modified; the vitter amendment number 3458, as modified, and the lieberman amendment number 3456. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i will not object, except i would like to add that senator cochran be protected with senator inouye to have some of that divided time, but that it

not affect the 6:00 beginning. the presiding officer: that is the understanding of the chair. mrs. hutchison: thank you. i support the resolution. the presiding officer: without objection. who yields time? mrs. hutchison: madamresint? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i just wanted to say to my colleagues that they need to prepare now for a 6:00 vote. anyone wanting to debate will be able to do so within the constraints of the -- the resolution that we just passed. senator inouye is on the floor. we are expecting senator cochran and senator demint. so i hope that if anyone else wants to have time within those time frames, that they would come to the floor now because i would object to any delay beyond

6:00 to start these four votes. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. rockefeller: ask for a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. inouye: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: the amendment offered by the senator from south carolina -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. inouye: i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: i thank you very much, madam president. madam president, the amendment offered by the senator from

south carolina is a misguided attempt which would turn over the power of the purse to the executive branch. and, madam president, it won't save a penny for the deficit. it will allow unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability to voters to determine how federal tax dollars are expended instead of the congress. despite the protestations of a few senators and an active media campaign spurred on by well financed so-called watchdogs, this amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist. madam president, for the sake of my colleagues who may still want to support a moratorium on earmarks, let me point out where we are at this moment. it says retaking the majority in -- since retaking the

majority in 2006, the democrat-led congress has reduced funding for earmarks by more than 50%. as the new chairman of the appropriations committee last year, i vowed to the chairman of the house appropriations committee that we would continue on a path set by former chairman burr to reduce earmarks until they represented less than 1% of discretionary spending. we achieved that objective in f.y. 2010, and we have agreed that we will not exceed 1% as long as we are chairmen of our respective committees. if we look at the numbers in 2006, the completed appropriations acts included included $60.7 billion for nonprisk-based -- none-pro livic-based earmarks.

$8.3 billion of these were in defense and the remaining in nondefense programs. in the f.y. 2010 bills, we ended the year with a total of of $8.2 billion in earmarks, earmarks, $4.1 billion in defense, and $4.1 billion in nondefense. well below 50% of the amount of 2006. as a percentage of discretionary spending, nonproject-based earmarks are hardly .5%. not only have we accomplished our objective, mr. president -- madam president, we have exceeded our goal. i'm sure others will cite different numbers and try to say that we have many more earmarks than we are touting. madam president, the earmark definition that we use for f.y. 2010 is the one that comes from the senate rules. other outside groups may want to consider additional

congressional items, but we can only go by the senate as declared in the rules. so, mr. president, -- madam president, in summation, let me say this -- since the democrats have retain the congress, we have reduced earmarks by more than 50%. we are well below 1% of total discretionary spending for nonproject-based earmarks, and we will not be going above 1% as long as i'm chairman. madam president, as the senate considers this amendment, i believe it is time we have an honest debate about the overall subject of earmarks, what they are and what they aren't. madam president, first and foremost, earmarks have nothing to do with the deficit. let me say that another way to make certain everyone understands. if we eliminate all earmarks

this year or forever, it will not save a nickel in federal spending, not a dime. not this year, next year or ever. so to continue on this theme, if we adopt the amendment from the senator from south carolina, we won't save a penny in f.y. 2010 or 2011. we just change who gets to decide how we spend the money. the definition of an earmark is to carve out funding from a budget for a specific purpose. it is not adding to the budget. when we specify that we want an agency to spend a portion of its budget on a specific item, we are not increasing that agency's budget. we are simply re-allocating funding within the budget for that purpose. if that is not completely understood, let's look at it

this way. the president submits his request to the congress for funding by agency and budget functions. our budget create reviews the funding requested and tells the appropriations committee how much funding it can spend in the budget resolution. this budget resolution makes no assumption about earmarks. it doesn't designate levels in any way, shape or form. the appropriations committee then divides the total funding provided in the budget resolution among its 12 subcommittees. the committee doesn't increase an allocation for earmarks nor does it reduce the allocation for earmarks that they are not funding. instead, it provides the subcommittee with a total amount it can spend. for example, the foreign operations subcommittee usually chooses not to provide earmarks. that doesn't change the amount

of spending that the subcommittee provides. madam president, the senate -- if the senate adopts this amendment, it will dictate that in f.y. 2011, there will be no earmarks, but the budget committee won't be reducing the allocation to the appropriations committee. the appropriations committee won't reduce the subcommittee allocations. we will just defer to the executive branch to determine how taxpayers' funds are spent. so, madam president, this debate, like all others on the issue of earmarks, is who gets to determine how taxpayer funds are allocated. the congress or executive branch. all my colleagues are aware that the constitution requires the congress to determine where our nation's funds should be spent. there can be no argument on

that. when do a handful of members persist in advocating the elimination of congressional discretion to allocate funds? some raise the fact of corruption. we are all too aware of the role that earmarks played in corruption and the eventual conviction of one republican member of the house of representatives, while other corruptions have swept other members of the house. little of that have to do with earmarks. it has involved paid vacations or gifts. it had to do with sweetheart deals in legislation or possible bribes for legislative favors. however, the appropriations committee has enacted reforms to minimize any possible chance of corruption by increasing transparency. as the chairman of the committee, i now require members to place all of their earmarks

on their website 30 days before we act upon their request. we then force all earmarks that are to be included in the appropriations bill on the committee's website 24 hours before the full committee takes action on the bill. furthermore, as directed under senate rules, we require each senator to certify that he or she has no pecuniary interest in any earmark that is requested. madam president, we cannot legislate morality. what we can do and have done, however, is to put safeguards in place to ensure that our actions are aboveboard, transparent, and in the best interests of our constituents. madam president, clearly, if this amendment were to become law, it would change who does the earmarking, not where the earmarks are done.

on february 1, the president submitted his appropriation request to the congress. the staff of the appropriations committee has begun its detailed examination of this request. my colleagues should know that our review by staff and by the members of our subcommittee take months to complete. however, in our preliminary review of the budget, we have discovered that the president has requested earmarks totaling totaling $25 billion. madam president, this is a conservative estimate of the executive branch's earmarks, and it uses the same criteria as we would use to identify a congressional spending earmark, specific location or entity noncompetitive award and specific dollar amount. in this first assessment, we

find that the administration request exceeds congressional earmarks that were approved last year by more than 100%. twice as much. this amendment would do nothing to stop the practice of earmarking, but rather only eliminate the congressional influence in the process. but, madam president, for those who want to persist in championing this amendment as a reform, they should seriously think about the following information -- last week, the democratic leadership of the house appropriations committee announced that they no longer would include earmarks done on behalf of for-profit entities. that means for all practical purposes private companies. madam president, the reaction from the lobbying community and other interested parties was swift. according to a march 11

"washington post" article, and i quote -- "lobbyists said a prohibition against for-profit earmarks will shift their focus from capitol hill to federal agencies." that's the end of quote. mr. allen chavokian, a lobbyist for the federal services council, quoted -- "there will be greater attention focused on protecting programs in the president's budget." end of quote. madam president, lobbyists and oversight organizations both agree that lobbyists will simply go around the congress and attempt to get the earmarks in the president's request. a story appeared in the march 11 edition of "roll call" reports that bill ellison of the nonpartisan sunlight foundation, which advocates for government transparency, said earmarks

should remain in appropriations bill, and i quote -- "the dangerous earmarkers are those going underground, mr. ellison said. the real solution is to make them transparent." end of quote. instead of banning earmarks, mr. ellison said congress should focus on creating a centralized place for the public to see who is requesting earmarks and an easily navigatable process for following an earmark from start to finish. madam president, let me say for the record we already do that. and finally, from laura peterson of taxpayers for common sense, an organization that has been outspoken in its criticism of the appropriations committee, in a march "congressional quarterly" article, she said -- "any ban on spending defined on

earmarks could end up increasing the practice of securing funding without formally -- without formally securing funding, without formally requesting an earmark. i would be concerned that some earmarks might just migrate to the appropriations bill as the committee adds." madam president, if it weren't so serious, it would be almost laughable. under this amendment, we will not eliminate earmarks. we will only eliminate our role, the role of the constitution assigned to congress. moreover, all efforts at making earmarks more transparent will be rendered moot. if reforms are implemented, it would ensure full and open disclosure of sponsor earmarks as well as those who have given

money to those sponsoring earmarks would be irrelevant. instead, we will have those decisions made by unelected bureaucrats in back rooms of agencies scattered all over the city. is this the transparency that earmark opponents desire? i think not. i don't understand why those who are most opposed to the policies of the current president are -- opposed to the policies of the current president are so intent on putting additional power in his hands and those who serve the executive branch. madam president, article 1 of the constitution states very clearly "no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." the demint amendment tramples on the framework established by our founding fathers. in fact, james madison believed

the power of the purse to be the most important power of congress. he called it the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people. madam president, i want all my colleagues to understand what we're doing today. i want everyone watching this body on television to understand what we are doing today so that in the future no one can say i didn't know. this amendment shifts the power to designate the expenditure off and accountability for taxpayers hard-earned dollars away from -- the presiding officer: your time has expired. a senator: may i have one more minute? the presiding officer: without objection, so moved.

a senator: to the taxpayer to make the decisions of where these dollars would be spent. there were indeed corruptions in the earmark process in the past. no one will dispute that. a republican member of the house was convicted for corruption related to earmarking, but we as democrats addressed that issue when we came to power. we implemented reforms which ensured full and open disclosure in response to the earmarks as well as who has given money to those sponsoring the earmarks. it is all online for the world to see. now with this amendment not only is transparency in the congress not continued, but we are shifting the decision-making related to billions of dollars, which is another way of saying earmarking, to unelected bureaucrats. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii, your time has expired. mr. inouye: madam president, i thank you very much, and i hope that this amendment is defeated.

the presiding officer: who yields time? the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: madam president, i understand we have time allocated to this side of the aisle. the senator from south carolina has agreed to yield to me a few minutes and then he is going to close up debate after i -- the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. cochran: madam president, i oppose the amendment of the senator from south carolina. he is a friend of mine. he is a distinguished senator. he placks an impact here in the senate that's very impressive. but i think with respect to his proposal about how to impose a virtual moratorium on congressionally directed

spending is not in the public interest. some senators who support the amendment voted earlier this year against creation of a deficit reduction commission and against pay-as-you-go rules. they argued that those initiatives were merely fig leaves and might make congress feel good, but they really wouldn't serve any useful purpose. and that they might actually operate against our efforts to reduce the national debt. this amendment also may make you feel good and feel like you're doge something to reduce -- doing something to reduce spending, but in reality, it doesn't accomplish that goal. earmarking has nothing to do with how much the federal government spends, but it has everything to do with who decides how much the federal government spends. the demint amendment applies to earmarks in any bill, whether it's authorizing legislation, tax bills, or appropriations

bills. the appropriations committee drafts bills that conform to the discretionary spending levels established in the annual budget resolution. if it is the will of the congress, as expressed in the budget resolution, to increase domestic spending by 5%, the appropriations committee produces bills to conform to that level of spending. if the will of the senate is to cut discretionary spending below a certain level, the committee will do that as well. in any case, the committee allocates the discretionary amounts of funding for federal programs, as provided in the budget resolution. we also review the president's budget requests, the level of funding in prior years, and other considerations that are important. we meet with many outside groups during the annual hearing process. we review the requests for funding every government agency in the executive branch. we also consider the expressed

priorities by members of the senate. some come to our hearings and testify as witnesses. we have an annual series of hearings, reviewing every department's budget requests and the agencies that operate within those departments. we subject the entire process to careful scrutiny. the senate as a whole is involved, as they want to be, in negotiations with the other body, letting us know what they are views are and what we should argue for during conferences with the house. and in disagreements with the administration. the congress really has the power for the final say-so. we don't all agree on the spending levels approved in the budget resolution, and the senator from south carolina and i are likely to agree that this discretionary spending level approved for fiscal year 2010 was too high. but the level of spending is not the question before us. the question proposed by the demint amendment is whether

congress will allow the executive branch to make 100% of all the decisions about how spending is allocated or whether congress will preserve its constitutional prerogative to appropriate the funds and for the purposes that it deems meritorious. there are many outstanding civil servants within the executive branch 0 who do their best to manage in a careful way federal funds in a professional manner. but those familiar -- those persons aren't necessarily familiar with the interests of the people in our respective states. and with the needs of those whom we represent. it's naive to think that political considerations are not going to be a part of the executive branch decision-making process either. history belies the notion that executive branch judgment with regard to spending is superior to the legislative branch.

are my colleagues happy with the way stimulus funding has been spent, unfettered by congressional earmarks? will western senators be comfortable appropriating lump sums of money to the department of interior for land acquisition, not owing what lands will be acquired? inspector general reports arrive almost weekly describing wasteful and sometimes fraudulent spending by executive branch agencies. mr. president -- madam president, some may think that executive branch spending decisions are entirely merit-based, immune from political pressure, and lapses in judgment. but they're not. that's one of the reasons why i'm not willing to cede every spending decision to the executive branch. i am not talking about political party-driven decisions, but i am not willing to concede superior public interest in the executive branch as compared with the

legislative branch. i think the people of my state are entitled to be represented by voactz of projects that are -- by advocates of projects that are supported. the programs that benefit our state, they all need support. and they want it to be in the best interests of my state and the country. each member has to make his own analysis of each bill based 0 on the intiefort its contents, the -- the entirety of its contents, the members' views and backgrounds, the view of the national interest. so the presence or absence of earmarks is not the determining factor in the quality of the legislative process. every piece of legislation we consider in the senate affects all of our citizens, communities, and industries in different ways. the bill currently before the senate, which is the f.a.a.

reauthorization bill, has many provisions of particular interest and benefit to communities and sectors of the aviation community. but, madam president, i know the time is limited, and i don't want to prolong the debate. but i don't question the motives of any senator in this legislative process. actions that we are taking here are driven by notions of what's in the best interests of the country. we just happen to disagree, and i strongly disagree with this amendment. shall we throw up our hands and say, this is a tough job, and let's turn it over to the executive branch? let's respect their decisions, forget our own interests in our states and our own individual background and experience? of course not. that would be an be a did i gas emissions of our -- be a did i indication of our responsibility as united states senators. so this -- the solution is to adopt an aggressive budget

resolution, consider all spending in tax bills in a transparent fashion, subject them to public, scaifl scrutiny, allows members to oppose amendments on any and other provisions of any and all appropriations bills when they judge it to be wasteful, vote against it cut the spending, or approve it. in any case, do what each individual senator thinks is in the public interest, unfettered by makeshift budget restraints that accomplish nothing except shift power from the congress to the executive. mr. demint: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you, madam president, and i want to thank the senator from mississippi -- mr. inhofe: will the senator yield? mr. demint: no. mr. inhofe: will the senator yield for a question? mr. demint: yes, sir. mr. inhofe: would you be willing to give me two minutes -- that's all i'd need -- and i want to say and make sure

everyone understands this. i have a totally different argument against this. i happen to be ranked as the most conservative member of the united states senate, and all you're trying to do with this thing, all you'll end up doing if you're successful, is giving all this to the obama executive branch -- mr. demint: thank the senator. i reclaim my time. all the time so far -- the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: all the time so far -- mr. inhofe: let me ask for a unanimous consent request. mr. demint: i would like to -- mr. inhofe: i'll -- the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina has the floor. mr. inhofe: i ask for a unanimous consent request please. mr. demint: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator does not have the floor. the senator from south ceamplet. mr. demint: all the time so far has been yielded to those who oppose the bill. the time will be cut off at 6:00. i will use that remaining time. i do want to thank the aproarmts, the senator from mississippi, all of those who work for the entire senate to do what the members here ask as far

as to look out for their states. and i don't call into account their motives at all. but i think, as members of the senate, we have to ask ourselves is the way we're doing this working? we can have all the theoretical arguments we want, but what we have here is trillions of dollars of debt. many, many wasteful projects. the trust in our government is at an all-time low. and the earmarks that we are send out all across the country are mostly now with borrowed money. so we can talk about our theories all we want, but what we're doing is not working. and perception is reality, and with all of our debt, the corruption, the waste, every american has a right to question what we're doing right now. and clearly if it's a constitutional responsibility for all of us to be here, to get money for our states, somehow

for the first 200 years of our country, that was missed. because even a few years ago ronald reagan vetoed a bill with less than a couple hundred earmarks in it because of all the pork and waste. but now we're in the thousands and tens of thousands. it's out of control, the waste and the fraud and the abuse is so obvious, that it's time we see it here in the senate. if you look at the constitution, a couple of principles are clear. they expect uniformity across the states, nonpreferential treatment. that's not what happens with earmarks. and, folks, we've got to admit, while a lot of the proponents of earmarks will say, it's a small part of our total budget, that's like liking at a long train that covers a whole mile and saying, the engine is just a small part of that train. but the engine is what pulls the whole train, and earmarks are what pull through a lot of spending and a lot of borrowing. just going back one year, the

big bailou bailout bill, almost1 trillion, failed to pass the house, and then they added eernls. and it passed. following that was a stimulus bill, a candy store of earmarks. after that, the omnibus bill with thousands of earmarks that sailed through the congress. and even the health care bill, with the nebraska kickback, the louisiana purchase. americans now know that we buy votes with earmarks. isn't it time we just take a timeout for one year and see if we can reform the system. some of the reforms that people are talking about that we've been talking about for years that we haven't done, it's time to admit that what we're doing is is not working. the house of representatives yesterday, the republicans led the way, and they don't agree on how to deal with earmarks long term. but they agree that it's enough of a problem that they decided to take a one-year moratorium on

earmarks. the house republican conference voted to eliminate earmarks for one year. and it gives us a chance to take a timeout and try to work on this. the argument here that if we don't do earmarks, the administration will do it -- folks, we have every power here by the way we appropriate to disallow the use of funds for certain things. we could not only here do what we're supposed to, which is pass bills that provide funding for programs and then provide the oversight for the administration and require that they only use the funds in a nonpreferential, formula-based way, for competitive grants or bidsment we have every way to restrain the way the administration uses the funds that we appropriate and then what would happen is we would resist big spending bills because we didn't have our parochial interests, our conflict of interest, to get money for our states.

and, senators, we are not here to get money for our states. we are here as representatives of our states to the united states of america and we put up our hands and say, we're going to defend and protect the constitution that is about the general welfare of america, and we cannot continue to come here every day and talk about our unsustainable debt and then say, i've got to have $1 million for my museum or my local sewer plant when in fact this is borrowed money. we don't have the money we need to keep the promises to seniors we made for social security and medicare and defend our country. yet, we spend most of the year trying to get earmarks for our local communities so we can do a press release, so we can talk about bringing home the bacon. a lot of these projects may have merit. but what doesn't have merit when we forego the interest of our nation, the general welfare of our people so that we can do our press releases on our tens of thousands of earmarks.

it's time to bring it to a close at least for one year. the house has taken a bold stand at least on the republican side. let's vote to take a time-out on earmarks, try to get our house in order, reearn the trust of the american people and stop putting this debt on the shoulders of our children. we have a chance in a few minutes to vote on a moratorium of earmarks for one year. this is the very least that we can do for the people of the united states of america. all of these arguments we can push aside. what america thinks right now is true, there is a connection between the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the debt, the borrowing, and earmarks. there is no question about it. i implore my colleagues, set aside the self-interest for one vote. let's do what's best for our country and vote for a one-year

time-out on earmarks. thank you, mr. president. mr. inhofe: mr. president, 15 seconds? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. rockefeller: mr. president -- mr. inhofe: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to get a response. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i move to table the amendment and hope it is defeated. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma does not have the floor and cannot propound a motion at this time. a unanimous consent motion at this time. request. a unanimous consent request, let me be clear. the senator from west virginia is recognized. the senator from west virginia made a motion to table. the question is on the motion to table. mr. rockefeller: and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are any

senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? >> mr. dorgan aye. the presiding officer: on this the ayes are 68, the nays are 29, the motion to table is agreed to. without objection. there are now two minutes of debate -- the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment

3470, offered by the senate from -- senator from wisconsin, mr. feingold. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. the senate will sus -- the senator will suspend. the senators will remove their conversations from the well. mr. feingold: rescinds any earmark that sat on the shelf of the department of transportation for more than 10 years without more than 10% of it being obligated or spent. it also requires a report by the o.m.b. on how many of these old, unspent earmarks are at all federal agencies, this would save an estimated $626 million in the first year and more down the road as other unused earmarks hit the 10-year milestone. i know many senators support transportation spending to support jobs in supporting the crumbling infrastructure, but these unwanted earmarks do nothing to create jobs or fix

roads, the boxer and murray support the amendment. i hope it passes easily. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? a senator: mr. president? i yield my minute to mr. inhofe. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: before you start the clock, i'd like to get order. the presiding officer: the senator's correct. the senate will be in order. the presiding officer: senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, on the demint bill that passed just -- that -- the amendment that was defeated, i'd still like to have a -- to start all over again to get attention to get some order. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. the senator from oklahoma is correct.

will senators please remove their conversation from the floor of the senate. mr. inhofe: just one -- mr. president, just one statement about the -- the demint amendment. i have to say this, as the person who is most recently considered in -- characterized as the most conservative member of the united states senate. if there's anyone out there who thinks that was a conservative vote on earmarks, they are wrong. there's never been one case where an earmark has saved one penny that has been reduced. i have to say this, senator demint had $70 million worth of highway earmarks that were in the amendment that we're talking about right now. real quickly. the feingold amendment is not -- has not reduced the deficit one penny. it is because of environmental laws and other things, the c.b.o. and the administration has said that the average

time -- the average time for a highway project is -- is 13 years. for example, in my state of oklahoma, highway 40, a huge project, was started in 19916789 if this amendment had been there, that project would have been terminated in 2001. i urge my conservative friends unless you just don't like highways an roads to kill this amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator wishing to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 87, the noes are 11. the amendment is agreed to. without objection. there are now two minutes of

debate equally divided prior to a ve in relation to amendment number 3458 offered by the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter. a senator: the the senate will come to order. the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senators hutchison and landrieu be added as cosponsors of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: mr. president, in 2005, we passed the seaap program which is revenue sharing for states for coastal conservation and other purposes. unfortunately, that money has been very slow to get to states. only 15% that was supposed to have been distributed by now has

been. this amendment helps fix that. it doesn't spend new money. it doesn't increase the deficit. i yield the remainder of my time to senator landrieu. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i join my colleague in supporting this amendment. we've modified it from the original version. no environmental laws will be ignored. the process will be followed. but this amendment will simply expedite getting money to the gulf coast states and to other states that benefit from this program. and i ask my colleagues to be supportive. the presiding officer: who yields time? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate's not in order. the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: mr. president, this amendment is completely unrelated to the f.a.a. reauthorization legislation. it deals with a matter that's in the jurisdiction of the energy committee. it would make, in my view, inappropriate changes to a

program that provides assistance to six coastal states. i oppose the amendment. i urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. in my view, it will dilute the authority of the secretary of interior to properly oversee and ensure accountability for the funds that are being spent in these programs. mr. president, i raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311-a-2-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, with regard to this technical point of order, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974 and section 4-g-3 of the statutory pay-as-you-go act of 2010, i move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 41, and the nays are 47.

the 3 fifths of the senators not vote -- the point of order is sustained and the amendment falls. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. presidt. senators should note that the next vote is the last vote that we're going to have this evening. the managers do have a managers' package, they're going to clear it tonight. tomorrow morning after the senate convenes at 9:30 a.m. we're slated to complete action on job one. so senators should expect up to two roll call votes at that time. as a reminder to all senators, at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow there will be a live quorum so that we can receive the house managers with respect to the impeachment proceedings, all senators are encouraged to be in the senate at 2:00 p.m. so that the proceedings can be expedited. the presiding officer: there are two minutes equally divided prior to a a vote in relation to

amendment 3856 offered by the senator from connecticut, mr. lieberman. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connect second is recognized. mr. lieberman: this is a bipartisan amendment by collins, burr, feinstein, ensign and myself. it would benefit school children in the school district of columbia reauthorizing a program that we reyaitd seven years ago that -- recreated seven years ago that has worked, $20 million to d.c. public schools, $20 millionor charter schools, and $20 million to the opportunity scholarship program. the last part is the controversial part but it shouldn't be. as senator feinstein said? her remarks on this, what is there in this amendment to be afraid of? it's helped 1,300 economically disadvantaged children to have an opportunity to get out of a public school that the chancellor of the d.c. public school says is not working for them.

this measure is supported by mayor fenty, chancellor michelle rhee, a majority of the members of the d.c. public schools and it's been judged by an independent evaluator to be the most effective program of its kind in america. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? the senate will be in order. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, first of all, this program has never been authorized. it was put into an appropriations bill in 2003. it was extended once. we had the department of education, not this one, previous one, and this one do studies of whether or not this was really successful. after three years, no statistically significant achievement impacts were observed for students who came from the lowest performing

schools, which was the target of the program or for students who entered the program academically behind. no achievement impacts were found for male students and there was no statistically impact on math scores. already d.c. parents have a choice. we have over 60 charter schools here in the district of columbia and it's growing all the time. so there is a choice for them to go to charter schools which are public schools open to everyone and they don't discriminate. so, again, there's no reason for this authorization here. the kids who are in those schools on those vouchers can continue. there's to this problem with that. but why open it for vouchers when we have charter school? the chairman of the committee also senator rockefeller opposed this. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishingo vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 42, the nays are 55. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that it and be i order for the senate to consider en bloc the amendments listed here. i'll read them in a moment. and that the amendments be considered and agreed to. that in the case where an amendment is modified, that the amendment, as modified, be considered and agreed to and the

motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc and that no amendments be in order to the amendments considered in this agreement. the amendments are as follows they are agreed to and now part of the bill bill: bennet-hatch , reid, that being the leader, ensign and that's number 3467; mccain number 3472; lautenberg number 3473, to be modified; barrasso number 3474, to be modified; durbin, number 3482 to be modified; schumer number 3486 to be modified; bingaman number 3487; cardin number 3497, menendez number 3503; menendez

number 3504; johanns number 3508, johanns number 3509 and 3501, an coburn number 3531. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: i ask that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for 10 minutes with the following senators recognized to speak as follows, senator merkley for up to five minutes, senator sanders for up to 15 minutes and senator kaufman for up to 20 minutes. and if there are any republican speakers that they should be included in an alternating fashion. the presiding officer: is there obctio without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from oregon's recognized. a senator: mr. president, i rise tonight to tell you a tale about the clamoth basin. there are two stories, one is a story where fishermen and ranchers and tribe have come together and the second is about a terrible drought. i want to start with the good news and share a little bit of the vision. let me tell you about the magical place that is the clamuth basin. it is an area rich with agricultural resources an exceptional wildlife populations. the basin contains approximately 1,400 family farms an ranches, income passes over 2,000 akers from the clamuth river and lake. in 2009 the basin's agricultural industry produced ove

over $440 million in revenue. it is referred to as the western everglades. the basin attracts 0% of the -- 80% of the water fowl and the largest population of bald eagles anywhere in the lower 28 states and it is home to one of the most productive salmon systems. let me tell you that the allocation of water in this basin has always been a source of enormous tension between the farmers and ranchers, the fishermen, both the instream fishermen and offshore fishermen and the tribes. these groups have traditionally been in contests with each other have come together in the last few years to say that this situation, the uncertainty about water and the poor health of the river is not sustainable in the future. that all of us can benefit, all of the parties can benefit if we

work together for a different vision, for a vision that shared a little more reggity with water -- regularity with water, had colder water for the salmon, avoided some of the -- the terrible calamities that occurred including the worst dieoff of fish that we've had in the united states of america that happened about a decade ago. so these stakeholders have developed a collaborative agreement and signed it called the klamath basin restoration agreement and it is designed to benefit farmers and ranchers and the tribe about more certainty of access to water at the same time that it restores the water for native fish species and wildlife refuges. the development of the restoration agreement is a historic step forward for the region. and if it were already in place,

it would provide a powerful set of collaborative tools for dealing with droughts, for dealing with years when there is a shortage of water. mr. bennet: but congress has not yet acted. and those tools are not in place. and that brings us to this current year and the second half of the story. and to help me address that, i'm going to ask a chart to be put up. this chart and this black line right here shows the lowest level of the klamath lake since it's been recorded in oregon history. the lowest level, the black line. this red line represents the level of the lake this year. as you can readily see, the level of the lake is far blow the worst ever year, the worst ever calamity of 1992.

these red dots represent the level the lake needs to be at to provide irrigation waters to the farmers. there is no conceivable way that we are going to get from this red line to these red dots in order to provide water in the normal fashion. and that's why we're facing such a calamity this year. with spring planting season already upon us, it is critical that we take immediate action to respond to this crisis. now we have advantage of tracking this and knowing that the crisis is coming. so together we can work to mitigate the worst effects of the drought rather than waiting for the drought to simply play itself out. a drought of this magnitude requires an unprecedented, integrated, expansive set of responses from the federal agencies and a dedicated effort to coordinate response efforts along with local and state governments.

along with senator wyden, i requested the department of agriculture, interior, and commerce dedicate all resources to address this crisis swiftly. my team has been working with the teams at those departments and they're making a lot of progress. we've got to continue pushing forward as fast and quickly as possible. there are several key strategies that could help address this. first, acquiring upstream water rights from willing sellers to increase the amount of water that's available in the kalmath basin. second, to pursue extensive flexibility within the boundaries of law and science to utilize surface water in the most effective possible manner. third, help farmers activate emergency drought wells and otherwise access groundwater. and, fourth, setup crop island

programs to conserve water. the worst thing we can do is simply stand by, watch farmers plant their crops and then watch those crops fail. so i want to say now that there's a big compliment owed to the departments of agriculture, commerce, and interior for their prompt and engaged action. and i know that senator wyden and i will stay equally engaged. it is no exaggeration to say that without federal assistance and cooperation with local and state officials, the impending drought will result in as iter for klamath base communities. i ask my colleagues to work to avoid this calamity. thank you, mr. president.

mr. merkley: . a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: mr. president, i wanted to say a few words about the nature of the economy today. the cause of the very deep recession that we're currently in and what i think we have got to do about it. right now our country is experiencing the worst economy since the great depression of the 1930's. while officially unemployment is 9.7%, the reality is that we have some 19% of our people are either unemployed or underemployed. people who would like to work 40 hours a week but they're only working 20 or 30 hours a week. and the crisis that we are

addressing today is magnified by the reality that the recession for the middle class and working families of this country didn't just begin in the fall of 2008 with the financial crisis. in fact, the middle class has been collapsing for a very, very long time. during the bush administration over eight million americans slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. today some 40 million americans are living in poverty. during the bush years median household income declined by over $2,100. middle-class americans earned more income in 1999 than they did in 2008. and middle class men earned more money in 1973 than they did in 2008 with inflation being

accounted for. when we look at people in this country who are angry, there is the reason. after working long and hard hours tens of millions of americans find themselves in worse economic shape today than they were 10 years ago or even 20 years ago. meanwhile, while the middle class shrinks, poverty increases. while more and more people lose their health insurance so today we have 46 million with no health insurance at all. while four million american workers have lost their pension over the last nine years, we continue to see in this country the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth. and that growing inequality is a

moral obscenity, but it is a very serious economic problem as well. because we become a nation in which very few have a whole lot while a whole lot of people have very, very little. mr. president, the immediate recession was caused, as i think everybody knows, by the greed, the recklessness and the illegal behavior of a small number of giant financial institutions on wall street. these people were not content to making 40% of the profits being made in america. their c.e.o.'s were not content to earn bonuses of tens of millions of dollars a year. the hedge funds were not content

to have their owners and managers become billionaires. no, that was not good enough. so what these financial tycoons had to do was to develop and produce worthless complicated financial instruments which plunged our country and much of the world into a deep recession. to the, i think, frustration of the american people, a year and a half has passed since the financial collapse, and what has happened? what actions have the congress taken to rein in wall street, to tell wall street that their greed is not acceptable in this country, that they cannot continue to go forward with

actions that destroy our economy and the lives of millions of people. within a short period of time, the senate will be considering legislation dealing with financial reform, and i want to congratulate dodd and others on the banking committee for a lot of the hard work that they have done in producing a bill which in a number of ways moves us forward. but what i want to say this evening is that moving us forward is not good enough. the american people want an end now to the recklessness and irresponsibility of wall street. they want an accounting, and they want real change. they want, in my view, a new wall street which invests in the productive economy in small and

medium-sized businesses that actually produce real products and real services, and which actually create real jobs rather than the activities of wall street, which is a giant gambling casino playing with financial instruments that nobody understood and which at the end of the day produces nothing real. as the debate over financial reform moves on, i intend to play an active role in fighting for a number of concepts. and let me just enumerate a few of them. number one, right now, people in the state of vermont, in the state of colorado, state of rhode island, all over this country are paying usurious interest rates on their credit cards, and i use the usury

advisedly. we now take it for granted and we accept the fact that our friends and neighbors and family members are paying 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% interest rates on their credit cards. that is wrong, that is unjust, and, in fact, according to every major religion on earth, christianity, judaism, islamic, it is immoral, it is immoral to lend money to people who desperately need that money and then suck the blood out of them because when they are desperate they are going to have to pay 30% or 35% interest rates. that is immoral, that is wrong. and, mr. president, over the years, a number of states have said, including vermont, we're going to prohibit usury. can't do it. can't charge more than 12%, 15%, whatever it is. but all of those laws were made null and void by a supreme court

decision which resulted in credit card companies being able to go to states which had no usualary law, and therefore they could sell their product all over this country with no limit. let us be clear. those large financial institutions were charging americans 25%, 30%, 35% interest rates on their credit cards are no better than lone sharks. in the old -- than loan sharks. in the old days, loan sharks used to break kneecaps if people couldn't repay their loans. these people don't break kneecaps, but they are destroying lives just the same. people are desperate, they are borrowing money. we have all been to the grocery store. we have seen people buying milk and bread with their credit cards, gas to get to work with their credit cards because that's the only source of revenue they now have available to them, paying 25% or 30%. we have got to eliminate that once and for all. and i will be bringing forth an amendment which does nothing more than what credit unions now

exist under. credit unions in this country by law cannot charge more than 15% interest rates except under exceptional circumstances and now they can go up to 18%, but most of them don't, a vast majority of them don't. i don't think that is asking too much. second of all, i'm going to bring forth language which will increase transparency at the federal reserve. and this is an issue, interestingly enough, that brings some of the most conservative members and some of the most progressive members together. i remember a year or so ago, chairman of the fed ben bernanke came before the budget committee on which i serve, and i asked him a very simple question. i said mr. bernanke, my understanding is that you have lent out trillions of dollars at zero interest loans to financial institutions.

trillions of dollars. can you please tell me and the american people which financial institutions received that money and what the terms were? i don't think that that was an unreasonable question, trillions of dollars. he said no, senator, i'm not going to do it. and we have since introduced legislation to make them do it and so forth and so on. it is beyond my comprehensive -- comprehension that we do not know which financial institutions have received trillions of dollars of zero or close to zero interest loans. we don't know about the conflicts of interest that may have existed. mr. president, in that regard, let me just talk about a scam which is quite unbelievable that goes on today. what goes on today is that companies like goldman sachs borrow money from the fed -- and i have no reason to doubt that goldman sack also was on the receiving end of these zero interest loans, and they borrow

this money for .1%, maybe .25%, and then they take that money and then they invest it in u.s. treasury securities at 3.5% or 4%. now, that is a pretty good yield. talk about welfare. borrow money at zero percent or .5%, lend it to the united states government which has the entire faith and credit of american history behind it, and you make 3%, 4%. what a deal. that's a pretty good deal. i think we have got to end those types of practices, and we have got to move forward with real transparency at the fed. mr. president, the other thing that we have got to do which is enormously important is banks have got these large financial institutions -- these large financial institutions have got to stop lending money to small and medium-sized businesses who

are prepared to create messengerful jobs in this country. earlier today, i think you and i heard from former president clinton who made a very important point. he believes -- and i agree with him -- that we can make profound changes in our economy, that over a period of years we can create millions of jobs as we transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and to sustainable energy. there are small businesses who are in the energy business in this country who are ready to go to create the jobs if they can get reasonable loans, and they can't get that money today. we can transform our energy system, we can give a real spurt to our economy, we can create good-paying jobs, but we have got to demand that wall street start investing in the real economy. another issue that i intend to play an active role on is this issue of too big to fail. i have said it once and i have said it many times.

if an institution, a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. today we have four major financial institutions, which if any one of them collapsed today, they would bring down the entire economy, and what we have got to do is start breaking them up now, now, and we have got to take action at this point. so mr. president, i think the american people are angry and they're angry for some good reasons. they are hurting financially. as i mentioned earlier, there are millions of americans today who have seen a substantial decline in their income and are working incredibly hard and they are wondering what has happened, and then despite all of that, the trend that has led to the collapse of the middle class as a result of wall street greed,

we have been driven into a major, major recession. the american people want us to have the courage to stand up to wall street, and i should say that in 2009 alone, our good friends on wall street who have unlimited resources spent spent $300 million in lobbying this institution. $300 million. now, when they fought for the deregulation over a period of ten years, they spent $5 billion to be able to engage in the activities which they did engage in and that led us to the recession that we're in right now. so these guys -- i guess they could borrow zero interest loans from the fed, i don't know if they can use that for lobbying or whatever, but they have literally an unlimited sum of money. i think the american people want us to have the courage to stand with them, to take these guys on no matter how powerful and wealthy they may be, and i think the eyes of the country and the eyes of the world will be on what we do. with that, mr. president, i

yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. kaufman: mr. president, last thursday, the bankruptcy examiner for lehman brothers holding company released a 2,200-page report about the demise of the firm which included rivetting detail on the firm's accounting practices. that report has put in sharp relief what many of us expected all along, that fraud and potential criminal conduct were at the heart of the financial crisis. now that we're beginning to learn many of the facts, at least with respect to the activities of lehman brothers, the country has every right to be outraged. lehman was cooking its books, hiding $50 billion in toxic

assets by temporarily shifting them off its balance sheet in time to produce rosier quarter end reports. according to the bankruptcy examiner's report, lehman brothers' financial statements were materially misleading and its executives had engaged in actionable balance sheet manipulation. only further investigation would determine whether individuals involved can be indicted and convicted of criminal wrongdoing. according to the exercise' report -- to examiners' report, lehman used accounting tricks to hide investor debt from the public. starting in 2001, that firm began abusing financial retractions called repurchase agreements or repos. repos are basically short-term loans that exchange colorado atal rally for cash in trades that may be unwound as soon as the next day. while investment banks have come to overrely on repos to finance their operations, they are neither illegal nor

questionable, assuming, of course, they are clearly accounted for. lehman structured some of its repo arrangements so that the collateral was worth 105% of the cash received, hence the name repo 105. as explained by "the new york times" deal book, that meant that for a few days and by the fourth quarter of 2007, that meant end of quarter, lehman could shuffle off tens of billions of dollars in assets to appear more financially healthy than it really was. even worse, lehman's management trumpeted how the firm was decreasing its leverage so that investors would not flee from the firm. but inside lehman, according to the report, someone described the repo 105 transactions window dressing. a nice way of saying they were designed to mislead the public.