John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 635, as Modified

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have made no secret of the fact that the appropriations bill we have in front of us today is one that I think is way too large relative to what we should be doing in light of the fact that 2 weeks ago we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill which will fund many of the same programs that are funded under this appropriations bill. This appropriations bill creates an increase of 8.3 percent in funding over last year's appropriated level, which is the largest increased appropriation, year over year, that we have seen since the Carter administration. In fact, an 8.3-percent increase represents more than twice the rate of inflation. Most Americans and families today are trying to survive and live at a time when they are dealing with diminishing revenue coming into their households and certainly are not getting an increase that is the same as the rate of inflation. We have an appropriations bill in front of us today that is more than twice the rate of inflation. So I would daresay the Federal Government is certainly not leading by example when it comes to tightening our belts. I think when American families are struggling to make ends meet and tightening their belts, it is important that we also do the same thing, and this appropriations bill is anything but that. The 8.3-percent increase, as I said, is more than twice the rate of inflation and represents the largest year-over-year increase in appropriations since the Carter administration. Having said that, I expect at the end of the day it is probably going to pass in the Senate. What we have tried to do as we have debated it is make improvements in it and address different priorities all of us bring to this debate. I have one in particular that I think needs to be adopted, an amendment that needs to be adopted. It is filed, it is pending at the desk, and hopefully we will have a vote on it later today. What it does is reduce discretionary spending throughout the bill by $400 million, which equals the fiscal year 2009 authorized amount from PEPFAR. Now, PEPFAR was an emergency--well, the PEPFAR itself was the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act, which passed last year. But the Emergency Fund for Indian Safety and Health was established as part of that legislation. It was an authorization. And of the $50 billion that was authorized in the so-called PEPFAR bill, $2 billion of that was set aside to address what are very urgent needs on America's Indian reservations, the argument being that there are needs that are great abroad, other places around the world, but we have some very urgent and pressing needs right here at home. So the $2 billion authorization was a 5-year authorization, which would represent $400 million each year, and what my amendment would do is simply fund at $400 million that first-year level of authorization that was created by the PEPFAR legislation we passed last fall. In order to do that, because there wasn't any funding for the emergency fund for Indian safety and health in the underlying bill, we have to find the money somewhere else. What my amendment does, very simply, is reduce by one-tenth of 1 percent each program funded in the bill. So bear in mind, you have an 8.3-percent increase over last year's appropriated level in the base bill. With my amendment, what you would do is reduce the 8.3-percent increase each of these programs would receive in this bill to 8.2 percent and take that one-tenth of 1 percent and distribute it into this emergency fund for Indian safety and health, which was created as part of the PEPFAR legislation that we passed last fall. It is done in a very straightforward way. It distributes money where it is needed most. Keep in mind it doesn't do anything to the significant funding that was included for many of these same programs that received a portion of the stimulus bill funding we passed a couple of weeks ago. Why is this important to people in Indian Country? There are a number of reasons because what that authorization did is, it allowed money, money that would come through appropriated funds later after it was authorized, to be used for three purposes: One is law enforcement, public safety; one is Indian Health Service and health care on reservations; the third one was water development. We separated those out in the bill and allocated a certain amount of funding to each of those particular categories. The reason that is so important is because in many places, particularly on Indian reservations, these very basic needs many of us take for granted are not being met. Nationwide, 1 percent of the U.S. population doesn't have access to safe and adequate drinking water and sanitation needs. On Indian reservations, if you can believe this--I said 1 percent is the average across America. On the Nation's Indian reservations that number climbs to 11 percent, and in some parts of Indian Country, the worst parts in terms of not having access to some of these necessities that most people expect--water and sanitation services--that number climbs to 35 percent. Lack of reliable safe drinking water leads to high incidences of disease and infection. The Indian Health Service estimates for each $1 it spends on safe drinking water and sewage systems, it receives a twentyfold return in the form of health benefits. The Indian Health Service estimates in order to provide all Native Americans with safe drinking water and sewage systems, they would need--this is the backlog--over $2.3 billion. What we are talking about represents a small amount of what the need is that exists out there, but that being said, we could go a long way, by enacting this amendment, toward meeting that need. With respect to health care, nationally Native Americans are three times as likely to die from diabetes as compared to the rest of the population. An individual who is served by the Indian Health Service is 50 percent more likely to commit suicide than the general population. An individual who is served by the Indian Health Service is 6.5 times more likely to suffer an alcohol-related death than the general population. On the Oglala Sioux Reservation in my State of South Dakota, the average life expectancy for males is 56 years old. I want you to compare that with some other countries around the world. In Iraq, the average life expectancy for a male is 58. In Haiti, it is 59 years. In Ghana, the average life expectancy for a male is 60 years old--all higher than right here in America. On the Oglala Sioux Reservation in my home State of South Dakota, the average life expectancy for males is 56. In South Dakota, between 2000 and 2005, Native American infants were more than twice as likely to die as nonnative infants. In South Dakota, a recent survey found that 13 percent of Native Americans suffer from diabetes. This is twice the rate of the general population, where only about 6 percent suffer from the same disease. With respect to public safety, one out of every three Native American women will be raped in their lifetimes. According to a recent Department of Interior report, tribal jails are so grossly insufficient when it comes to cell space that only half of the offenders who should be incarcerated are being put in jail. That same report found that constructing or rehabilitating only those detention centers that are the most in need would cost $8.4 billion. Again, it is way more than what we are talking about here. But, certainly, what we could do today, in the form of this amendment, would be to put a downpayment on and begin to address what is a very serious need of adequate space for people who have committed crimes. The South Dakota attorney general released a study at the end of last year on tribal criminal justice statistics. That study found that homicide rates on South Dakota reservations are almost 10 times higher than those found in the rest of South Dakota. Forcible rapes on South Dakota reservations are seven times higher than those found in the rest of South Dakota. These are all things that statistically point to the very serious public safety needs that exist on America's Indian reservations today and point to the importance of us adopting the amendment I will put before the Senate and have a vote on later today. These critical, unmet needs have consequences in the day-to-day operations for tribal courts and law enforcement. I talked about public safety, how that translates. You see all the statistics and data. That is stunning enough. But then you talk about how that actually impacts a lot of our reservations. I will give a couple examples. At the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court, a tribe that is a supporter of the amendment, on June 19, 2008, the tribal prosecutor scheduled to attend court proceedings that day did not appear at court. Alarmed, the tribal judge sent a court employee to the police department to ensure the prosecutor was not hurt in an accident. Once it was clear the prosecutor was not injured but instead did not show, all cases scheduled that day had to be dismissed because no replacement prosecutor was available. Cases that were dismissed that day included sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and DUIs. At Standing Rock Reservation, another example, another reservation that borders or crosses the line in South Dakota and North Dakota--in early 2008, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation had six police officers to patrol a reservation that is geographically the size of Connecticut. This meant during any given shift there was only one officer on duty to cover that entire area. One day the only dispatcher on the reservation was out sick. This left only one police officer to act both as a first responder and also as the dispatcher. Not only did this directly impact the officer's ability to patrol and respond to emergencies, it also prevented him from appearing in tribal court to testify at a criminal trial. Later in the year I was able to work with my Senate colleagues in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to bring additional police officers to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation through Operation Dakota Peacekeeper. That operation, which was a success, was only possible because of the Bureau of Indian Affairs being able to dramatically increase the number of law enforcement officials on the reservation during what we referred to as the surge. This dramatic increase in officers was only possible because the Bureau had been given additional public safety and justice funds in 2008, something I would like to continue with my amendment. The way these dollars would be used, if my amendment is accepted, also is spelled out in the amendment. It is actually spelled out in the statute, the authorization bill. But the $400 million would be distributed as follows: $200 million will go to congressionally approved water settlements; $150 million will go to public safety and justice; $74 million for detention facility construction, rehabilitation, and placement through the Department of Justice; $62 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs public safety and justice account which funds tribal police and tribal courts; $6 million for investigations and prosecution of crimes in Indian Country by the FBI and the U.S. attorneys; $6 million would go to the Department of Justice Office of Justice Program for Indian and Alaska Native Programs; $2 million for cross-deputization or other cooperative agreements between State, local, and tribal governments; $50 million to health care which would be divided as the Director of Indian Health Services determines between contract health services, construction and rehabilitation of Indian health facilities, and domestic and community sanitation facilities serving Indian tribes. Passage of the original amendment to PEPFAR, which occurred last year, showed a commitment by the Senate on a bipartisan basis to address these domestic priorities that are faced by Native Americans in Indian Country. That was a bill that had, and the amendment I offered to that bill had, bipartisan cosponsorship. There were a number of people on both sides of the aisle who supported it. Vice President Biden was a supporter. Secretary of State Clinton was a cosponsor of the amendment. A number of colleagues have supported the effort we made to demonstrate a commitment to addressing these very serious needs, which I have alluded to that exist today in Indian Country. What my amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill before us does is ensures the underlying bill, the bill that we authorized, actually gets funded, and the dollars we committed are actually appropriated for the purpose of addressing these very serious needs. I ask that when this comes to a vote, amendment No. 635, my colleagues support it in the same sort of bipartisan way we were able to support the underlying authorization that was approved last year. There is no greater need. The statistics in Indian Country, both in South Dakota and other reservations in other States, are dire. We, as the Senate, have a responsibility to address those needs, particularly at a time when we are already funding or going to pass a bill which increases spending in this appropriations bill by as much as it does. One-tenth of 1 percent is all we are saying would be necessary to provide the $400 million that is necessary to fund this amendment and the important priorities it would serve. I hope my colleagues will be able to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might respond to the remarks of the distinguished chairman, and I understand what I am doing here may create some technicality with regard to the budget rules, but we do this all the time, and we routinely waive the budget. The only reason it does is because it does take that one-tenth of 1 percent from across the entire nine appropriations bills as opposed to taking it out of one particular appropriations bill. What that does is attempts to distribute that reduction across the board so no one area is hurt in a significant way relative to the others. But, again, I would simply point out--and I appreciate what the chairman said about these other areas in the budget, these programs being cut--bear in mind, this is an 8.3-percent increase, year over year, over last year's appropriated level in all these accounts. There is not any account in this appropriations bill that is receiving a cut. They are all receiving an increase. The question is, Will it be an 8.3-percent increase or an 8.2-percent increase? What I am simply saying is, you make it an 8.2-percent increase and use that one-tenth of 1 percent to fund a program this Congress, this Senate voted to authorize last year, specifically, for Indian health care, for water development, and for public safety on our reservations. Of course, there is funding in the underlying bill for some of these things, but none of which is adequate to address the need, which is precisely why so many of the reservations in my State have the high incidents of crime, the data they have in terms of the many areas I mentioned. When it comes to prosecutions, when it comes to detention facilities, when it comes to law enforcement personnel and officers, we are deficient in the responsibility we have. So, again, it is not a question of whether all the programs that are funded in the bill are going to get an increase. They are all going to get an increase, a substantial increase. Under my amendment, it is simply an 8.2-percent increase as opposed to an 8.3-percent increase. It seems to me, at least, the least we can do to honor the commitment we made by passing the emergency fund for Indian safety and health we passed last year is to provide funding for it. So I appreciate the chairman's observations. I would simply ask my colleagues to look beyond whatever technicality may be raised with regard to where the one-tenth of 1 percent is coming from. It is coming from all nine appropriations bills across the board as opposed to from one particular area or account. But that, to me, seems to be the fair way in which to do this in a way that distributes that one-tenth of 1 percent reduction evenly. So I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order the Senator raised under the Budget Act.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I be able to call up amendment No. 635 and make it pending.

Mr. THUNE. Let me explain very simply what this amendment does. Last summer, President Bush signed into law a $50 billion foreign aid bill; HIV and AIDS was the purpose, the direction of the bill. Included as part of that PEPFAR bill was a $2 billion authorization that I and a bipartisan group of Senators worked on, including that redirected money to critical public safety, health care, and water needs in Indian Country. All of the Senators who worked on the amendment's inclusion in the final package, including now Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton, recognized there are great needs internationally, but they also realized we have equal or maybe even greater needs right here at home on our Nation's reservations. The final PEPFAR bill created a $2 billion, 5-year authorization beginning in fiscal year 2009 for an emergency fund for Indian health and safety. Over the 5-year authorization, $750 million could be spent on public safety, $250 million on health care, and $1 billion for water settlements. In order to ensure that the emergency fund for Indian health and safety was funded as quickly as possible, I and six of my colleagues sent a letter to President Bush last year asking that he include funding in the fiscal year 2010 budget for the emergency fund. Then we worked to get a total of 21 Senators to send a similar letter to President Obama on November 24, 2008. I believe this continued bipartisan effort underscores the support for addressing the needs that exist in Indian Country. What the amendment does is seek to remedy this without raising the overall cost of the omnibus bill. It simply reduces discretionary spending throughout the bill by $400 million, the fiscal year 2009 authorized amount from PEPFAR, and redirects that money to the emergency fund for Indian safety and health. This amounts to less than one-tenth of 1 percent cut from each program funded in the omnibus bill. Bear in mind the omnibus bill includes an overall funding increase of 8.3 percent over last year's appropriated level--that on top of the stimulus bill that passed earlier this year that, as we all know, poured billions of dollars into many of these Federal agencies. So what I am suggesting is we carve out one-tenth of 1 percent of the cost of this bill. As I said, take the overall increase in this year's bill from 8.3 percent over last year's appropriated amount to an 8.2-percent increase over last year's amount. Since this appropriations bill was put together--I think it was put together in very short order behind closed doors, not to mention the fact that none of the nine appropriations bills were ever voted on in the Senate--I believe my amendment is a commonsense proposal that will ensure that we allocate tax dollars where they are needed the most. The needs are great in Indian Country and I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree. Nationwide 1 percent of the U.S. population does not have safe and adequate water for drinking and sanitation needs. On our Nation's reservations this number climbs to an average of 11 percent and in the worst parts of Indian Country to 35 percent. This lack of reliable safe water leads to high incidences of disease and infection. The Indian Health Service has estimated that for each $1 it spends on safe drinking water and sewage systems it gets a twentyfold return in health benefits. The Indian Health Service estimates that in order to provide all Native Americans with safe drinking water and sewage systems in their home they would need over $2.3 billion. Nationally, Native Americans are three times as likely to die from diabetes compared to the rest of the population. An individual that is served by Indian Health Service is 50 percent more likely to commit suicide than the general population. On the Oglala Sioux Reservation in my home State of South Dakota the average life expectancy for males is 56 years old. In Iraq it is 58, Haiti it is 59, and in Ghana it is 60, all higher than right here in America. One out of every three Native American women will be raped in their lifetime. According to a recent Department of the Interior report, tribal jails are so grossly insufficient when it comes to cell space, that only half of the offenders who should be incarcerated are being put in jail. That same report found that constructing or rehabilitating only those detention centers that are most in need will cost $8.4 billion. The South Dakota attorney general released a study at the end of last year on tribal criminal justice statistics and found: homicide rates on South Dakota reservations are almost 10 times higher than those found in the rest of South Dakota and forcible rapes on South Dakota reservations are seven times higher than those found in the rest of South Dakota. Clearly there are great needs in Indian County and my commonsense amendment would be a good step forward in addressing some of these needs because the emergency fund for Indian safety and health can be used for: detention and IHS facility construction, rehabilitation, and replacement; investigations and prosecutions of crimes in Indian Country; cross-deputization and other cooperative agreements between State or local governments and Indian tribes; IHS contract health care; and water supply projects approved by Congress. Passage of my original amendment to PEPFAR clearly shows a commitment by the Senate to addressing domestic priorities for Native Americans. I urge support for my amendment to fund this authorized emergency fund for fiscal year 2009.

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the Senator's amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Through the Chair, I thank the leader for his answer. And I will be available. Mine are filed, and I would love to get them actually up.

Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. President. If I might speak to one or both of these amendments, one in particular right now that I would like to reference, let me start by saying that H.R. 1105, which is under consideration now by the Senate, is yet another voluminous document, not unlike the stimulus bill we considered a couple of weeks ago. This one actually is 1,122 pages long and represents over $400 billion of spending by our Government. The fact that it is this long and represents several hundred million dollars per page here of spending would suggest that it ought to be legislation that is given a lot of consideration in the Senate, on which many amendments can be offered and different points of view expressed. It would appear that process is going to be short- circuited on this bill and that we are not going to have the opportunity to offer amendments to it. With regard to the general bill itself, I would simply point out what a number of my colleagues already have; that is, this appropriations bill, although having passed a trillion-dollar stimulus bill a couple of weeks ago, still represents over an 8-percent increase over the previous year's level. So 2009, fiscal year 2009, which we are currently in, this is work that did not get completed last year by September 30, which is the end of the fiscal year. So we passed a continuing resolution that expires on March 6; therefore, the reason we have to be before the Senate trying to pass nine appropriations bills that were not completed in the form of this 1,122-page Omnibus appropriations bill. But an 8.3-percent increase over the same nine appropriations bills that were passed last fiscal year, after having already passed over $1 trillion in the stimulus bill, much of which will be directed to the agencies that will receive the plussed-up funding under this bill. But over 8 percent is more than twice the rate of inflation. So having passed a trillion- dollar stimulus bill, we are now coming on the heels of that and taking up a piece of legislation that is going to increase Federal spending by over 8 percent over last year's spending level. That would suggest that this is something we ought to take a little time with because many of the agencies that are funded under this appropriations bill already received huge infusions of new funding in the stimulus bill. The Labor, Health, and Human Services-Education bill, along with the stimulus bill, and the funding that is included in this bill, will receive a 99-percent increase in funding over last year. There is another appropriations account that will get a 150- percent increase over last year's appropriated level. These are gargantuan increases in funding. It would seem to me that we ought to at least be able to bring this appropriations bill in at last year's level. There is going to be an amendment, perhaps one already offered by Senator McCain, to extend the continuing resolution which would save taxpayers over $32 billion because that would represent the 8.3-percent increase that is included in this bill on top of all the additional funding that many of these agencies are going to receive as a result of the stimulus bill. I regret the fact that the majority is not going to allow us to offer amendments to this bill. It would appear they want to move this quickly. I can see the rationale for that, when you are spending this amount of money in this short of a time period. The more the American people have an opportunity to see what is in it, the more concerned and the more resistance would build and you would see a tremendous at-the- grassroots level movement to try and stop this kind of spending spree we have seen in Washington. I would hope the process will be opened whereby Members on both sides can offer amendments to this bill that can be considered and perhaps voted on and maybe even bring some fiscal sanity to it by getting us back into a form that actually would save the American taxpayers a significant amount of money, after we have just asked the American taxpayers and our children and grandchildren to fund a stimulus bill to the tune of over $1 trillion with interest and much more than that, over $3 trillion, if much of the spending in that bill is continued and not terminated in the 2-year period for which it was intended. I wanted to speak to an amendment that I have filed at the desk and asked to have made pending, which was objected to by the majority-- again, an indication of how amendments are going to go on this piece of legislation. I offer this amendment because last week 87 Members of the Senate voted to uphold our first amendment rights by supporting a statutory prohibition of the so-called fairness doctrine. This amendment was accepted as part of the DC voting rights bill, which is currently awaiting action by the House of Representatives. My concern is that once the House considers this bill, whenever it may be that the Senate and House versions get conferenced together, that provision will no longer be part of the final DC voting rights bill. I am hopeful the DeMint amendment is retained in the final version of the DC Voting Rights Act, but I am fearful it will be stripped out behind closed doors. I filed an amendment at the desk to the Omnibus appropriations bill that would prohibit the FCC from using any funds to reinstate the fairness doctrine during the remainder of fiscal year 2009. If this amendment is accepted to the omnibus bill, the 87 Senators who last week supported this prohibition will have assurances that the fairness doctrine will not be reinstated for the remainder of this year, regardless of whether the DeMint amendment remains part of the DC voting rights legislation. By way of background, many of my colleagues heard this discussion last week, but the so-called fairness doctrine has a long and infamous history. The FCC promulgated the fairness doctrine in 1949 to ensure that contrasting viewpoints would be presented on radio and television. In 1985, the FCC began repealing the doctrine after concluding that it actually had the opposite effect. They concluded then what we all know today: that the fairness doctrine resulted in broadcasters limiting coverage of controversial issues of public importance. Recently, many on the left have advocated reinstating the doctrine, arguing that broadcasters, including talk radio, should present both sides of any issue because they use the public airwaves. However, recent calls to reinstate the fairness doctrine fail to take into account several considerations. The first is, in reality the fairness doctrine resulted in less, not more, broadcasting of issues of importance to the public. Because airing controversial issues subjected broadcasters to regulatory burdens and potentially severe liabilities, they simply made the rational choice not to air any such content at all. Second, the number of radio and TV stations and the development of newer broadcast media such as cable and satellite TV and satellite radio have grown dramatically in the past 50 years. In 1949, there were 51 television and about 2,500 radio stations. In 1985, there were 1,200 television and 9,800 radio stations. Today there are nearly 1,800 television and nearly 14,000 radio stations. There is simply no scarcity to justify content regulation like the fairness doctrine. The third observation is that the development of new media, social networking, and access to the Internet has changed media forever. Supporters of government-mandated balance either ignore the multiple new sources of media or reveal their true intention, which is to regulate content of all forms of communication and ultimately stifle certain viewpoints on certain media such as talk radio. The fourth observation I would make is this: Broadcast content is driven by consumer demand. Consumers of media show whether they are being served well by broadcasters when they choose either to tune in or turn off the programming that is being offered. The fairness doctrine runs counter to individual choice and freedom to choose what we listen to or see on the air or read on the Internet. The fairness doctrine should not be reinstated. Last week, the Senate acted in a strong bipartisan manner in opposition to the fairness doctrine. What I am asking the Senate to do is to consider one additional measure to ensure that our first amendment rights are protected and that consumers have the freedom to choose what they see and hear over our airwaves. This amendment ensures that the FCC does not use any resources to reinstate the fairness doctrine through the end of the fiscal year until a more permanent solution can be reached through a statutory prohibition. It is a very straightforward amendment and one that follows along the lines of the debate held last week. I wish I was confident that the prohibition on reinstatement of the fairness doctrine that was included last week in the DC voting rights bill would be retained in the conference with the House. I have reason to believe that will be stripped out, and this is one additional way in which this body can weigh in and ensure that the fairness doctrine is not reinstated, not put back into effect, and that American consumers have the freedom to choose what they want to see and what they want to hear over our airwaves. I hope at some point I will be able to get it pending, to perhaps have a vote on it. It would be unfortunate on a bill of this consequence and magnitude, when, again, we are talking about 1,122 pages of this legislation, all of which is spending another $400-some billion--$410 billion or thereabouts in additional spending on top of the $1 trillion stimulus passed a couple weeks ago--that we would have an opportunity at least to offer amendments, to debate amendments, to get amendments voted on, and this is one that I would like to have a vote on. It would certainly be my sincere hope that the majority at some point would open the door to those of us on both sides who would like to have amendments voted on which, frankly, could improve the bill. There will be others that will be offered and, hopefully, considered which will get at the overall size and cost of the bill which, as an 8.3-percent increase over last year's appropriated level, last year's spending level, a $32 billion increase over last year's level, is an enormous amount of money in light of all the spending that is going on around here. I might mention as well, that is the largest 1-year hike in annual appropriated spending since the Carter administration. What we are talking about is 8 percent, over 8 percent, more than twice the rate of inflation, but also the largest 1-year hike in annual appropriated spending since the Carter administration. That is, again, on the heels of $1 trillion spent a couple of weeks earlier, much of which was directed at these very same agencies of Government that will receive funding under this 1,122-page bill. We need to open this process. We need to be able to offer amendments. We need to get amendments voted on. It would certainly be my hope that would be the case. I have one other amendment which I will speak to perhaps tomorrow which would move some money from one account to another to fund something that was a very important priority the Congress established last year during the PEPFAR debate. I offered, along with Senators Dorgan and Kyl, Senator Clinton and a number of others, an amendment that carved a couple billion out of that $50 billion authorization for needs on Native American reservations; specifically directed to law enforcement, which is a security issue; to health care, which is something that is desperately lacking on many reservations; and at water development--all critical needs and all important priorities and things we ought to be concerned with. I would move money from another account in this bill to actually provide funding for the authorization that Congress created as part of the PEPFAR bill a year ago. This ought to be a priority for the Congress. We are talking about spending this amount of money and funding all these various accounts and agencies. We certainly ought to find room to fund some of the priorities that were created as a result of the PEPFAR legislation. I will be offering that amendment as well and will also be requesting that it be made pending and that we have an opportunity to vote on it. It would seem to me that many of the other amendments that Members on our side would like to offer, as well as Members on the other side would like to offer, ought to be able to be put before the Senate and voted upon in an attempt to try to make this bill stronger and better. We all have different ideas about how to make this a better bill. I hope the majority will allow us to do that. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two amendments that I have filed at the desk to H.R. 1105 be called up and made pending.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I will simply ask, through the Chair, if I might: The leader talked about being able to offer amendments. I have filed a couple amendments. Is there some point at which--you mentioned the one amendment you have an agreement on now that will be voted on tomorrow--where other amendments will be able to be made pending and voted on, that Members will be able to get their amendments actually--

Mr. THUNE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I had filed an amendment and have pending at the desk amendment No. 579, which is a concealed carry amendment. I talked about it yesterday on the floor of the Senate. I would like to have had a vote on it and certainly believe it is something the Senate ought to consider. It is worth voting on. My State of South Dakota is one of many States around the country that has concealed carry laws. What my amendment simply would have done is allowed those who have concealed carry permits in a particular State to have reciprocity with other States that have concealed carry laws, respectful of the laws of those other States, but it would have allowed people of this country under the second amendment to exercise the individual right to carry firearms insofar as they are adhering and following the laws of the State not only in which they reside but the State in which they would be carrying that firearm. That is something for which I think there is a lot of support. I introduced a bill in the Senate. It has 19 cosponsors. As I said, I offered the amendment to this particular piece of legislation. My understanding is the other side does not want to vote on it. What I have tried to ascertain is whether the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, would be willing to hold a hearing. He informs me he will do that. I will have a hearing on the bill itself. With that understanding, Mr. President, my intention is to withdraw amendment No. 579 and hope that we will have an opportunity to consider it at some point at a future date.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my amendment is a very simple amendment. It allows individuals the right to carry a lawfully concealed firearm across State lines while at the same time respecting the laws of the host State. It is very similar to legislation I introduced earlier, a stand-alone bill, S. 371, which currently has 19 Senate cosponsors. As I believe and the Supreme Court found last June, the second amendment of the Constitution provides law-abiding citizens have the right to possess firearms in order to defend themselves and their families. As such, I believe a State's border should not be a limit on this right. Today, there are 48 States that have laws permitting some form of concealed carry. While some States with concealed carry laws grant reciprocity to permit holders from other select States, what my amendment would do is eliminate the need for these laws by allowing an individual to carry a concealed firearm across State lines if they either have a valid permit or if under their State of residence they are legally entitled to do so. After entering another State, the individual must respect the laws of the host State as they apply to conceal-and-carry permits, including the specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried. Reliable empirical research shows that States with concealed carry laws enjoy significantly lower violent crime rates than those States that do not. For example, for every year a State has a concealed carry law, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent. My amendment is relevant to this debate because it underscores the selective support that the District of Columbia has when it comes to individual rights such as the second amendment, and together with Senator Ensign's amendment will increase these rights. Specifically, anytime the word ``State'' is mentioned throughout my amendment, DC is also explicitly mentioned as well. My amendment is a common-sense measure that will strengthen public safety throughout the Nation. And I would hope if the Senate is willing to pass the unconstitutional legislation that is before us--the underlying bill creating an additional Member of Congress within the District of Columbia--then the Senate should also be able and willing to pass amendments which are constitutional and protect each citizen's second amendment rights. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment that is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the moment of truth is almost here, the time when we will all have to cast our votes. I submit this is a sad day for our country, for the American taxpayer, and it is a sad day for future generations, who will be left paying for this trillion dollar spending bill. The American people are hurting and they are demanding action. Unfortunately, Congress has failed the American people and lost an incredible opportunity to empower small business owners, fix our housing crisis, and turn our economy around. So many things could have been done with this legislation that could have meaningfully led to job creation and economic stimulus. In the few short hours that the final bill has been available, it is clear that the Democratic leadership has turned a deaf ear to the American taxpayer. The final spending bill still includes spending on wasteful Government projects that have outraged taxpayers across the country. The final bill includes: tax benefits for golf carts, electric motorcycles, and ATVs; $300 million for Federal employee company cars; $1 billion for ACORN-eligible block grants; $50 million for arts endowment; $165 million for fish hatcheries; $1 billion for the census. Instead of mouse habitats, electric golf carts, and fish barriers, Congress should have focused on serious proposals to address the housing crisis and create jobs through small business tax relief. There were a number of opportunities. I view this as the question of what could have been. A number of amendments that were offered last week would have addressed this crisis with respect to housing and job creation and getting the economy back on a path to a recovery. Senators McCain and Martinez and other Republican Senators offered an alternative proposal that would have cut wasteful Government spending and focused on targeted investments and tax relief. This proposal was a well thought out and fiscally responsible proposal. It included a commonsense provision that would have cut off new spending after two consecutive quarters of economic growth greater than 2 percent of inflation-adjusted GDP. The alternative plan would have invested about $45 billion in transportation infrastructure, $17 billion in defense facilities and resetting our combat forces. This targeted spending would have rehabilitated our military facilities and equipment while creating jobs over the next 9 months--important tax relief that would have put money back into the hands of average middle-income families in this country and incentives for small businesses to create jobs, hire employees, and purchase equipment. What is unbelievable and, in my view, a major flaw in the Democratic stimulus bill is this simple fact: The bill we will be voting on spends $6 billion on Federal buildings and only $3 billion on small business tax relief. Small businesses create most of the jobs in our economy-- three-quarters to 80 percent of the jobs in this country. We ought to be figuring how can we get that economic engine going again so small businesses are making those investments. As I said before, this bill contains $6 billion for Federal buildings and only $3 billion for small business tax relief--a small, minuscule amount. One-third of 1 percent of the final stimulus bill is going to small business tax relief. In terms of the way the bill breaks down, 27 percent of the entire almost trillion dollar bill is in tax relief in some form, or tax provisions. Many would argue that it was meaningful tax relief. There are a lot of better ways to deliver tax relief. The rest is in the area of spending. Forty-seven percent of that spending doesn't occur in 2009 or 2010. Only 11.3 percent will be spent in 2009, which means one thing--there is a lot of spending in the bill that cannot be characterized as stimulus. In other words, it is spending that will go on and on for years to come. What is remarkable about it--the late President Ronald Reagan once said that the closest thing to immortality on this planet is a Government program. There is a letter out from the CBO in response to a question posed by a House Member regarding some spending in the bill: What would happen to the 20 most popular Government programs that are funded in this bill if, in fact, at the end of the 2 years the funding doesn't terminate? In other words, a lot of this spending will go on and on over time. What CBO found was the total cost of the bill, if those programs are expended--bear in mind that these are popular items on which it will be difficult to turn off the spigot. If the spending continues past that 2-year window, the cost of this explodes to $3.27 trillion. The interest alone is $744 billion. So it will be $3.27 trillion for much of the spending in this bill if it continues beyond the 2-year window. As I said, according to CBO, only 47 percent of the spending part of the bill gets spent in 2009 and 2010. There are so many better ways this could have been done. We offered amendments last week. I mentioned the McCain amendment. I offered an alternative focused on tax relief for middle-income families and small businesses, which, according to the methodology developed by the President's own economist, Christina Romer, would have created twice as many jobs at half the cost--6.2 million jobs--and the cost of this amendment voted down last week was about $440 billion or, in rough terms, half of what we are looking at in the bill we are voting on today. The last amendment I offered last week, toward the end of the debate, would have taken the total amount. I don't agree that we ought to spend this amount of money. I think it is stealing from future generations. If we are going to do it, the question is, should Washington spend it or should the American people? I took the total amount and divided it by every tax filer in the country--182 million people who file a tax return in this country--and we could have given a rebate of $5,403 to a single filer and to a couple filing jointly, $10,486--if we take the total amount of the bill and divide it among the taxpayers in this country. I would be willing to bet that the American people would much rather have that check than have money going to Washington, DC, to spend on these new programs, many of which will create obligations and liabilities for generations to come. I think we have missed a golden opportunity here. I think we have created a whole new realm of spending that will go on for some time into the future. It is not fair to our children and grandchildren. The Federal Government needs to learn to live within its means. I can tell you as somebody who comes from the prairies, when the prairie pioneers settled South Dakota and places such as that, they understood a basic principle or ethic, which was that they were going to have to sacrifice so their children and grandchildren and future generations could have a better life. What we have done with this bill is turn that very ethic entirely on its head. What we are asking future generations to do is sacrifice by handing them a trillion dollar debt so that we here and now can have a better life, and we cannot live up to the obligations we have to pay our bills on time. It is a sad day; it is unfortunate. This could have been much different. There could have been more input from our side. It is a bill heavy on spending, not only temporary but spending that will continue to go on for some time into the future and create obligations down the road. If this is correct and the CBO response in this letter is accurate, if these programs continue to be funded and don't terminate at the end of the 2-year period, there will be $3.27 trillion in liabilities that we are creating today by voting for this legislation. It is not fair to our children and grandchildren and to the future generations who will bear the cost of the fact that we cannot live within our means and cannot come up with a way to fund an economic recovery plan that creates jobs and helps stimulate the economy and gets this recovery underway in a fashion that is fiscally responsible. I regret that I will be voting no on this bill. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to do the same. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Yes, that is correct. We had an opportunity to vote on a number of alternatives. The McCain alternative, which you and I both supported, was one that, in my judgment, made a lot of sense because it got you about twice the effectiveness, twice the job creation, at half the cost. It was focused, as you mentioned earlier, and as our colleague from Wyoming mentioned, on the central issue of housing, which is so critical to bringing our economy back on a pathway to recovery. It also focused on tax relief for middle-income Americans and for small businesses which are responsible for creating most of the jobs in this country. It had an appropriate focus on infrastructure, which many of us agree is an area that can create jobs. It also had a trigger in there, a hard trigger that said when you have two consecutive quarters of economic growth, the spending would cease or would terminate. In other words, when we start to get our way out of the recession, we would actually bring some fiscal responsibility to this debate. What troubles me about where we are going with this particular bill right now is it does not have that. In fact, much of the spending in here is long term and extends well beyond the so-called period we are looking at in terms of getting some stimulus into the economy. Many of the commitments that are made, many of the obligations will be obligations we are going to experience for months and years to come. Much of the spending in the bill is on what we call mandatory spending; in other words, spending that will be factored into the baseline and that we are going to be responsible for going into the future. Senator McCain's amendment would have addressed that issue. It would have brought some fiscal responsibility to this proposal. Unfortunately, it was defeated. But that being said, there are lots of things in here that still I think the average American, when they look at this, they will wonder: What is Washington doing, and why are they spending money on these sorts of things? I am looking here at another proposal: $750 million for the replacement of the Social Security Administration's National Computer Center. Now, that is almost a billion dollars we are talking about, and you have to ask the question: What does this do to create jobs? How is it that this in any way stimulates anything other than perhaps some jobs in a government agency in Washington, DC? We have $2.5 billion to turn Federal buildings into green buildings; $1 billion for the U.S. Census; $850 million in new subsidies for Amtrak; $650 million in additional funds for digital TV conversion boxes; $645 million for new and repaired facilities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; $448 million for the headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security in Washington; $300 million for new cars for government workers; $228 million to the State Department for information technology upgrades; $125 million for the Washington, DC, sewer system; $20 million for the removal of fish barriers. These are all things that are included. I forgot this one: $3 million tax benefit for golf carts, electric motorcycles, and ATVs, provided they don't exceed 25 miles per hour. These are all things that are in this legislation, and I think it would be very hard to convince the majority of the American people these have anything to do with stimulus. Furthermore, as the Senator from Tennessee has very appropriately pointed out on many occasions, with some of the spending in here, what the States are asking for in terms of assistance--because many of them have shortfalls in their budget. My State is an example of Medicaid now constituting a bigger portion of our State's budget. It was 15.83 percent of the State's budget in 2000, and in 2008 it was 23.33 percent of the budget--a dramatic increase. What we are talking about is sending a lot more money out there. I have heard the Senator from Tennessee talk about it as the States asking for a life raft, and we are sending them the yacht from Washington, DC--

Mr. THUNE. Who controls the time, Mr. President?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use up to that amount of time.