Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to commend John Phillips of Holly Bluff, MS, for his service and contributions to the State of Mississippi during 2009, through his service as the 74th president of Delta Council. Delta Council is an economic development organization representing the business, professional, and agricultural leadership of the 18 delta and part-delta counties of Mississippi. This prominent and widely respected organization was formed in 1935 to deal with the challenges which faced the economy and quality of life of this region of our State. John Phillips has served as president during a period when our Nation, as well as the State of Mississippi, and the Mississippi delta region, have experienced precedent-setting economic challenges. As a successful businessman and farmer, John has brought an abundance of practical knowledge to the role of Delta Council president. His experience and expertise have enabled him also to be an effective advocate for flood protection in the Yazoo-Mississippi River basin. Additionally, he has demonstrated the foresight to accelerate and expand the efforts of Delta Council in other important areas of interest such as improved access to healthcare, adult literacy, early childhood education, and transportation throughout this region of our State. John has also proven himself to be an exemplary conservationist by supporting efforts to protect wildlife and other valuable natural resources. He has utilized his year of service as president of Delta Council to advance the economic opportunities of all of the people of the Mississippi delta region. I am confident that John will continue to be an effective leader for the Mississippi delta in the years ahead. In Mississippi we appreciate John Phillips, and his wife Ann Elise, their son, Jack, and their daughters, Whitney and Reid, for the sacrifices they have made to help improve the quality of life of all who live in the Mississippi delta.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina creates a point of order against legislation that does not comply with President Obama's recently proposed earmark reforms. The amendment ignores the layers of reforms that Congress has adopted in recent years and the reduction in the amount of earmarks that has already taken place. For the coming fiscal cycle the Appropriations Committee has required that earmarks be posted on the requesting Members' Web sites well in advance of the appropriations bills even being considered in subcommittee. This well exceeds the 72 hour threshold sought by President Obama. And I note that President Obama will not make public his own earmark requests prior to publication of his budget. The amendment would require all Senators to testify at hearings in support of any earmarks they seek. If testimony by Senators is to be required to justify legislative initiatives, why on Earth would we want to limit this to earmarks? Shouldn't Senators be required to testify at hearings in support of any legislative initiative they advocate? When was the hearing on the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina? The amendment purports to prohibit earmarks from being traded for ``political favors.'' Mr. President, does this mean it is OK to trade any other official act for political favors? Does this give Members license to pursue legislative provisions for labor interests or for particular industries in exchange for political favors? Of course, it doesn't. My colleagues are well aware that trading earmarks or any other official act for political favors is already against the laws and ethics rules of this body. I am happy for earmarks and all other legislative matters to be subject to the scrutiny of the legislative process. That is exactly as it should be. I hope my colleagues will support efforts to consider individual appropriations bills this summer in an orderly and timely manner so that the Senator from South Carolina and all other Members can offer amendments to eliminate spending that they see as wasteful. But we don't need new points of order to do this. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. The purpose of this bill is to improve geographic literacy among K-12 students in the U.S. by supporting professional development programs for their teachers that are administered in institutions of higher education and other educational institutions. This bill also assists States in measuring the impact of education in geography. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``To solve most of the major problems facing our county today--from wiping out terrorism, to minimizing global environmental problems, to eliminating the scourge of AIDS--will require every young person to learn more about other regions, cultures, and languages.'' We need to do more to ensure that the teachers responsible for the education of our students, from kindergarten through high school graduation, are prepared and trained to teach these critical skills to solve these problems. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has expressly identified geography as a core academic subject. Yet, when we review No Child Left Behind, geography education is the only subject without a dedicated source of support for educational training and innovation. This bill prepares students to be good citizens of both our nation and the world. John Fahey, President of the National Geographic Society, stated that ``geographic illiteracy impacts our economic well- being, our relationships with other nations and the environment, and isolates us from the world.'' When students understand their own environment, they can better understand the differences in other places, and the people who live in them. Knowledge of the diverse cultures, environments, and the relationships between states and countries helps our students to understand national and international policies, economies, societies, and political structures on a more global scale. To expect that Americans will be able to work successfully with the other people in this world, we need to be able to communicate and understand each other. We need to prepare our younger generation for global competition and ensure that they have a strong base of understanding to be able to succeed in the global marketplace. The 2005 publication, What Works in Geography, reported that elementary school geography instruction significantly improves student achievement and proved that the integration of geography into the elementary school curriculum improves student literacy achievement an average of 5 percent. That is the good news. However, the 2006 National Geographic-Roper Global Geographic Literacy Survey shows that 69 percent of elementary school principals report a decrease in the time spent teaching geography, and less than a quarter of our nation's high school students take a geography course in high school. This survey shows that many of our high school graduates lack the basic skills needed to navigate our international economy, policies, and relationships. According to statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 30 percent of the annual U.S. GDP, that is 4.3 trillion dollars, results from international trade. According to the CIA World Factbook of 2005, U.S. workers need geographic knowledge to compete in this global economy. Geographic knowledge is increasingly needed for U.S. businesses in international markets to understand such factors as physical distance, time zones, language differences, and cultural diversity among project teams. In addition, geospatial technology is an emerging and innovative career available to people with strong geography education. Professionals in geospatial technology are employed in Federal Government agencies, the private sector, and the non-profit sector. These professionals focus on areas such as agriculture, archeology, ecology, land appraisal, and urban planning and development. According to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the information gathering necessary to protect critical infrastructure has resulted in an enormous increase in the demand for geospatial skills and jobs. A strong geography education system is a necessity for this industry's continued advancement. The U.S. Department of Labor has identified geospatial technologies as one of the most important high-growth industries, with the market growing at an annual rate of 35 percent. These are high-tech, high-wage jobs in which America can and must compete. It has been both the private and non-profit sectors working to ensure that the critical skills and knowledge provided by geography education are provided to our schools. Over the last 20 years, the National Geographic Society has awarded more than $100 million in grants to educators, universities, State geographic alliances, and others for the purposes of advancing and improving the teaching of geography. Their models are successful, and research shows that students who have benefitted from this teaching out-perform other students. In all 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, there are state geographic alliances and partnerships between higher education and K-12 school systems. Thirty States, including Mississippi and the District of Columbia, are endowed by grants from the National Geographic Society. But these efforts alone are not enough. The bill I am introducing establishes a Federal commitment to enhance the education of our teachers, focuses on geography education research, and develops reliable, advanced technology-based classroom resources. A 5 year, $15,000,000 grant program would be created under the bill to achieve these objectives. In my State of Mississippi, teachers and university professors are making progress to increase geography education in the schools through additional professional training. To date, there are 555 members of the Mississippi Geographic Alliance who teach geography. Last year, the Mississippi Geographic Alliance conducted a statewide workshop titled Introductory World Geography to help prepare teachers to meet the State's new graduation requirement in geography. The Alliance conducted two, week-long residential summer institutes that provided grade- specific geography content and teaching strategies; provided a field- based local Mississippi geography workshop; and conducted two workshops that introduce pre-service teachers to the scope of modern geography and effective geography teaching strategies. I hope the Senate will consider the serious need to invest in geography, and I invite other Senators to cosponsor the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. The purpose of this bill is to improve geographic literacy among K-12 students in the U.S. by supporting professional development programs for their teachers that are administered in institutions of higher education and other educational institutions. This bill also assists States in measuring the impact of education in geography. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``To solve most of the major problems facing our county today--from wiping out terrorism, to minimizing global environmental problems, to eliminating the scourge of AIDS--will require every young person to learn more about other regions, cultures, and languages.'' We need to do more to ensure that the teachers responsible for the education of our students, from kindergarten through high school graduation, are prepared and trained to teach these critical skills to solve these problems. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has expressly identified geography as a core academic subject. Yet, when we review No Child Left Behind, geography education is the only subject without a dedicated source of support for educational training and innovation. This bill prepares students to be good citizens of both our nation and the world. John Fahey, President of the National Geographic Society, stated that ``geographic illiteracy impacts our economic well- being, our relationships with other nations and the environment, and isolates us from the world.'' When students understand their own environment, they can better understand the differences in other places, and the people who live in them. Knowledge of the diverse cultures, environments, and the relationships between states and countries helps our students to understand national and international policies, economies, societies, and political structures on a more global scale. To expect that Americans will be able to work successfully with the other people in this world, we need to be able to communicate and understand each other. We need to prepare our younger generation for global competition and ensure that they have a strong base of understanding to be able to succeed in the global marketplace. The 2005 publication, What Works in Geography, reported that elementary school geography instruction significantly improves student achievement and proved that the integration of geography into the elementary school curriculum improves student literacy achievement an average of 5 percent. That is the good news. However, the 2006 National Geographic-Roper Global Geographic Literacy Survey shows that 69 percent of elementary school principals report a decrease in the time spent teaching geography, and less than a quarter of our nation's high school students take a geography course in high school. This survey shows that many of our high school graduates lack the basic skills needed to navigate our international economy, policies, and relationships. According to statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 30 percent of the annual U.S. GDP, that is 4.3 trillion dollars, results from international trade. According to the CIA World Factbook of 2005, U.S. workers need geographic knowledge to compete in this global economy. Geographic knowledge is increasingly needed for U.S. businesses in international markets to understand such factors as physical distance, time zones, language differences, and cultural diversity among project teams. In addition, geospatial technology is an emerging and innovative career available to people with strong geography education. Professionals in geospatial technology are employed in Federal Government agencies, the private sector, and the non-profit sector. These professionals focus on areas such as agriculture, archeology, ecology, land appraisal, and urban planning and development. According to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the information gathering necessary to protect critical infrastructure has resulted in an enormous increase in the demand for geospatial skills and jobs. A strong geography education system is a necessity for this industry's continued advancement. The U.S. Department of Labor has identified geospatial technologies as one of the most important high-growth industries, with the market growing at an annual rate of 35 percent. These are high-tech, high-wage jobs in which America can and must compete. It has been both the private and non-profit sectors working to ensure that the critical skills and knowledge provided by geography education are provided to our schools. Over the last 20 years, the National Geographic Society has awarded more than $100 million in grants to educators, universities, State geographic alliances, and others for the purposes of advancing and improving the teaching of geography. Their models are successful, and research shows that students who have benefitted from this teaching out-perform other students. In all 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, there are state geographic alliances and partnerships between higher education and K-12 school systems. Thirty States, including Mississippi and the District of Columbia, are endowed by grants from the National Geographic Society. But these efforts alone are not enough. The bill I am introducing establishes a Federal commitment to enhance the education of our teachers, focuses on geography education research, and develops reliable, advanced technology-based classroom resources. A 5 year, $15,000,000 grant program would be created under the bill to achieve these objectives. In my State of Mississippi, teachers and university professors are making progress to increase geography education in the schools through additional professional training. To date, there are 555 members of the Mississippi Geographic Alliance who teach geography. Last year, the Mississippi Geographic Alliance conducted a statewide workshop titled Introductory World Geography to help prepare teachers to meet the State's new graduation requirement in geography. The Alliance conducted two, week-long residential summer institutes that provided grade- specific geography content and teaching strategies; provided a field- based local Mississippi geography workshop; and conducted two workshops that introduce pre-service teachers to the scope of modern geography and effective geography teaching strategies. I hope the Senate will consider the serious need to invest in geography, and I invite other Senators to cosponsor the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, before yielding the time so we can vote, I wish to commend and thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for his leadership of the Appropriations Committee, particularly in our negotiations that we have had with Members of the other body. We are not legislating in a vacuum. These proposals and provisions of this bill have been carefully reviewed by our committee. In this case, it includes I think about seven bills that were individually written and proposed to the full committee by the subcommittees, after a series of hearings reviewing the administration's requests for funding, listening to outside groups that had opinions and views about the level of appropriations for many accounts and programs. But our true leader who deserves praise for this final work product, as I said, is the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed; that prior to each vote, except as noted below, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments in this agreement; that after the first vote in the sequence, the remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes each; that prior to the vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 634, there be 10 minutes of debate, with 5 minutes each for Senators Kyl and Lautenberg; Murkowski, No. 599; Inhofe, No. 613; Thune, No. 635, as modified; Kyl, No. 634; and Crapo, No. 638.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. I understood that under the order previously entered today, the Senate was to begin voting at 5:30 on amendments to the pending legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 634

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the leader is correct.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, in keeping with the statement of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that amendment No. 634 by Senator Kyl, No. 613 by Senator Inhofe, and No. 638 by Senator Crapo be called up.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, in presenting the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to the Senate. This bill contains the nine regular appropriations bills that have not been enacted and accounts for nearly half of all regular discretionary spending for the 2009 fiscal year. I am supporting the approval of this bill by the Senate even though the process that has brought us to this point has left a lot to be desired. I also share with those on my side of the aisle the concerns about the level of discretionary spending contained in this bill, which is $20 billion over President Bush's request. I voted against the budget resolution that established the discretionary spending allocations for this bill, and I voted in favor of Senator Gregg's motion to instruct the conferees on the budget resolution to lower the discretionary caps to more modest levels. That motion was defeated by one vote, and the conference report on the budget resolution was adopted. I commend my distinguished friend from Hawaii for resisting pressures to add controversial new policy matter to this bill. This is new legislation as opposed to a conference report, and as such any number of policy riders could have been included in the bill. A few provisions, such as language dealing with the Endangered Species Act, were included, but, largely, the bill stays within the legislation represented by the House and Senate bills. Of the nine bills in this omnibus measure, none were ever considered on the floors of the House or the Senate. Two of the bills were never marked up in the Senate committee, and six of the bills were not marked up in the House committee. But I can assure the Senate that the content of the legislation before us is consistent with the parameters established by the individual House and Senate bills, even though some of those bills were never presented formally to either body. Previous omnibus bills have been comprised of individual bills reported by the House and the Senate committees, and generally of bills that were passed by at least one of the legislative bodies. The bill before us today is a new kind of legislative document which I hope we will not see replicated in the future. Last year, the bicameral leadership made a conscious decision not to engage President Bush on spending issues and to avoid taking votes on extending the ban on Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing. Perhaps that decision had some political benefits for some Members, but procedurally and substantively, it had detrimental impacts. First of all, the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing has been removed from the Interior appropriations bill. Second, for the last 6 months, most Federal agencies have been compelled to operate at funding levels very similar to those they would have received had we simply enacted the individual bills in a form that President Bush would have signed. Today, we could be discussing the merits of supplemental appropriations if they had been needed rather than starting from scratch halfway through the fiscal year. Had we enacted the appropriations bills last fall, agencies would have been carrying out their responsibilities with approved levels of funding. Funding for buildings, roads, trails, and water projects would have provided jobs and would have been obligated by now. To the extent those activities might have helped stimulate the economy, they would have been very beneficial. Instead, due to inaction by Congress, agencies have been in a holding pattern for nearly half of the fiscal year under the terms of the continuing resolution. Two weeks ago, Congress sent to the President a huge stimulus bill. It contains some $311 billion in appropriations for a variety of programs. We had a vigorous debate about the bill in the Senate, and it passed with the minimum number of votes required. I voted against the stimulus bill in part because the bill included large amounts of funding for programs that are not immediately stimulative such as health information technology and broadband deployment. These would have been more appropriately considered in the context of a Presidential budget and at the more measured pace of the annual appropriations process. We will be living with the impacts of these decisions made in the stimulus bill--all made in great haste--for years to come. It is fair to ask to what degree does the omnibus bill duplicate the stimulus bill. There is no question that the order in which we are considering the stimulus and the omnibus is exactly backward. We should have used the stimulus bill to supplement regular appropriations, not the other way around. There are a number of accounts and programs funded in this omnibus bill that are also funded in the stimulus bill. In most cases the omnibus funds those programs at or near prior year levels, and one can argue the stimulus funding for those programs was a deliberate supplement. In other cases, the omnibus funds the same accounts contained in the stimulus but for different purposes. There are a few programs in the omnibus that, quite frankly, should have been scaled back based on the contents of the stimulus bill. So despite the unconventional and unfortunate process by which this bill was produced, it does represent a product that was fairly negotiated. Some would like us to enact a continuing resolution for the remainder of the year that holds programs to their fiscal year 2008 funding levels, thereby saving billions of dollars. But knowing the impact that a full-year continuing resolution would have on individual programs, I don't think the majority would propose such a measure, and I don't think the President would sign it either. Another possible outcome would be a modified continuing resolution similar to that enacted for fiscal year 2007--something that would eliminate all manner of congressional directives and oversight mechanisms but spend no less money than we are currently considering. Surely there are other possible outcomes. But, in my view, continued uncertainty in the day-to-day operations of the Federal Government at a time of national crisis is not worth the marginal and highly speculative gains that might come from defeating this bill. We now have received a preliminary budget from the new President. In a few weeks, we will be considering the budget resolution for fiscal year 2010, and we will be debating such things as appropriate discretionary spending levels. I look forward to a debate on that as there is much in the President's budget request worth debating. But it is time to put the fiscal year 2009 budget to rest. I am committed to do everything in my power not to repeat the dismal process that has brought us to this juncture, and I know the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, shares that commitment. Neither of us wants to deny Senators the opportunity to help shape appropriations bills in the early parts of the process through amendment and discussion of alternatives. Neither of us wants to hide anything from the scrutiny of the legislative process, and neither of us wants Members to have to pass judgment on nine appropriations bills all at once rather than individually. I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for the job he has done as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is leading the committee through a trying time, but he is doing it in the very best sense of bipartisanship and establishing working relationships that will serve the interests of not only the Senate but of the American people. These are relationships our committee can contribute to in the future, and I know they will under his leadership. I look forward to continuing to work with him to achieve timely and open consideration of other appropriations bills. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, yesterday marked the 139th anniversary of the seating of Hiram Rhodes Revels, as a United States Senator from the State of Mississippi. He was the first African-American to serve as a U.S. Senator. Senator Revels was born in Fayetteville, NC. His father was a Baptist preacher, his mother was of Scottish descent. He moved north to complete his education at Beech Grove Quaker Seminary in Liberty, IN. In 1862, Hiram Revels recruited soldiers to serve in the Union Army and became Chaplain for a Black regiment in Mississippi. Senator Revels began his political career after the war as an alderman in Natchez, MS. In 1869, he won a seat in the reconstructed Mississippi State Senate. One of the primary tasks of the newly elected State senate was to fill U.S. Senate seats in preparation for the State's return to the Union. In 1870, the new Mississippi State Legislature elected Hiram Revels to fill a term due to expire in 1871. During his service in the United States Senate he worked on education issues. Upon his return to Mississippi, he became the first president of Alcorn State University. During Black History Month it is appropriate that Hiram Rhodes Revels be remembered for his leadership and significant contributions to Mississippi and our Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Biographical history of Mr. Revels and a New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, although I voted against the motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, the so-called stimulus bill, and on the adoption of the conference report to H.R. 1, I must acknowledge the courtesies and thoughtful leadership of the Appropriations Committee by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye. He carried out his responsibilities as chairman of our committee in a fair minded way that reflected credit on the Senate. This legislation was written by our committee, but in many respects it reflected the attitude and interests of the other body. The bill in my opinion creates too many new programs and policies that will have a major impact on the Federal budget for years to come. Our Nation faces an economic emergency, but a health information program is not an emergency and should not have been included in this bill. Upgrading the elective grid is not an emergency and neither is improving our Nation's scientific capacity, but they should have been considered in the President's budget request and through a deliberative congressional process. There are many things like this that should not have been included in this bill. The process has been anything but deliberative.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side. We appreciate the accommodations of the manager of the bill.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am bringing to the attention of the Senate my opposition to an amendment that has been offered on this bill. Earlier today, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, offered amendment No. 140 to create a so-called ``earmark point of order'' that would lie against appropriations provisions before the Senate. This amendment, if it should be adopted, serves no desirable purpose. In my opinion, on the contrary, it would only serve to weaken the Congress as an institution, and in relationship in particular to the administration, and would yield more authority to the unelected bureaucracy of the Federal Government to make decisions that all of our constituents in all of our States sent us here to make. It is, in effect, a restriction of the power of Congress and the direct representatives of the people and the States. Individual appropriations bills should be brought to the floor subject to amendment by any Senator, whether a member of the Appropriations Committee or not, without any restrictions. This makes the Senate different from the House of Representatives, as all Senators know. The House has a Rules Committee. When legislation is brought to the floor of the House of Representatives, the originating committee has to go before the Rules Committee and basically get permission to call up the bill and present it to the body. The Rules Committee decides whether amendments will be in order and, if so, which amendments, and how much time for debate on the amendments. Here, we don't have a rules committee; it is not necessary. Each Senator is, in effect, the member of the rules committee. The Senate decides under its rules as a body, with each individual Senator having equal power and equal say as to what amendments can be offered. Any Senator should have the right to offer an amendment to any bill, and it doesn't have to be germane, unless cloture has been invoked. So what this amendment seeks to do, intentionally or not, is to limit the power of this body to be involved in the process of deciding how taxpayer funds are going to be spent by the Federal Government and for what purposes. So this is an unnecessary abrogation of a constitutionally vested responsibility in the Senate. It subrogates the Senate to the power of the executive, and this amendment should be defeated. The bill that contains the legislation offered by the Senator would not do anything about $100 billion in new programs that are being funded in this stimulus bill to which the amendment is being offered. There are 128 pages of legislation in the bill before the Senate dealing with health information technology, and $23 billion of funding is associated with that language--$23 billion. It is a new program that has not been authorized by the relevant committee. Is that subject to a point of order, I ask the Senate? I don't think so. But under the language of this amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin, I suppose it would be subject to a point of order, but nobody is demanding a point of order against the bill containing that provision. Since I have been in the Senate, I have served on authorizing committees and the Appropriations Committee. The authorization process is an important function of our Senate. The Appropriations Committee works closely with authorizing committees. If any Senator opposes authorizing language that is contained in an appropriations bill, the Senator can offer an amendment to strike it. The Senate can strike the language if it determines that is the appropriate thing to do. Now, all the committees produce earmarks, not just the Appropriations Committee. When I served on the Agriculture Committee, the farm bill customarily contained specific authorizations for expenditures of funds--entitlement to Federal dollars by certain classes of producers of agriculture products. If any Senator had an objection to any portion of that authorizing bill, he or she could offer an amendment to strike it or amend it. Individual Senators are free and have the power to modify any bill before the Senate, and appropriations bills are no different. But to give a Senator a point of order to raise over some provision with which they disagree is not an appropriate change in the rules of the Senate and should not be tolerated in this legislation. It should be stricken. My experience has shown that because a program is authorized doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea or that it will be funded. And that is another point. Supporters of the amendment have made it clear their goal is to get rid of all earmarks--however earmarks may be defined by them-- regardless of what committee may produce them, regardless of whether they have been specifically authorized. This amendment is a step toward that goal, in my opinion. So I suggest that the Senate should look carefully and consider seriously the impact that this amendment may have, and when it is called up, if it is, I hope the Senate will vote it down.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no one seeking recognition, I have no objection to yielding back the time, but I wouldn't want to do it without consulting the distinguished Senator from Maryland.

Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection.