[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1371-S1387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job 
     preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy 
     efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and 
     State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Reid (for Inouye-Baucus) amendment No. 98, in the nature of 
     a substitute.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today, we continue consideration of the 
economic recovery bill. Our country is facing a serious economic 
challenge. America is in the middle of the most significant economic 
downturn in the lifetimes of most Americans, and the bill before us is 
a serious response.
  The Finance and the Appropriations Committees have sought to assemble 
the most effective tools available to help our economy recover. Ninety-
nine percent of the Finance Committee's response will take effect in 
the first 19 months of the bill. I repeat: 99 percent of the Finance 
Committee's response will take effect in the first 19 months of the 
bill.

[[Page S1372]]

  Today, we begin work in earnest on the bill. We hope to consider a 
number of amendments. We have taken extraordinary steps to ensure the 
Senate is considering this bill with a fair process. We posted the 
Finance Committee part of the bill on the Internet last Friday, and 
Chairman Inouye and I submitted our substitute amendment to the 
Congressional Record last Friday as well. So the legislative text of 
the measure before us has been available for 4 days.
  During the Finance Committee's consideration of the bill in 
committee, we had a thorough and open amendment process. The committee 
considered the bill over the course of 11 hours. Senators filed more 
than 200 amendments. The committee voted on 30 amendments.
  As we proceed to consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, we 
also hope to have an open amendment process. We hope it will proceed 
much as it did on the children's health bill last week. As Senators 
will recall, last week the Senate considered the children's health bill 
over the course of 4 days. Senators offered 27 amendments, and the 
Senate conducted rollcall votes on 14 amendments. I do not believe we 
turned any Senator away from offering an amendment last week. We had a 
thorough process, and the Senate passed the children's health bill with 
an overwhelming 66-to-32 vote.
  This week, on the economic recovery bill, we hope once again to 
process a number of amendments. We intend to begin with an amendment by 
the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, regarding infrastructure. 
This afternoon, we expect to consider amendments by Senator Mikulski 
regarding automobiles, Senator Boxer regarding repatriation, and 
Senator Feingold regarding earmarks.
  We hope to consider multiple amendments during the day. This is a 
significant bill. We have a work product from both the Appropriations 
and the Finance Committees represented in the pending substitute. 
Senators Inouye and Cochran will manage the bill for the appropriations 
matters and Senator Grassley and I will be managing the bill for 
finance matters.
  I urge Senators to let the managers know of their intentions to offer 
amendments. We will want to make sure the appropriate manager is here 
to respond to the amendment. As much as possible, we would like to give 
all Senators notice about what subjects will be coming up. In other 
words, we are working on possibly grouping subjects so as to give 
Senators a little more notice and to help make the process a little 
more orderly.
  I thank all Senators for their cooperation, and I look forward to a 
healthy debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to talk about not just 
the stimulus bill but how we need to address this overall economic 
crisis, which the more we hear about, the worse it gets. If we don't 
watch out, we are going to be in a downward economic spiral.
  Look back to where we got into the mess. Wall Street allowed banks to 
make too many bad home loans. They were home loans the homeowners could 
not afford, and many times they were rushed into signing these kinds of 
agreements when their income level would not support that kind of 
mortgage. Then Wall Street bundled thousands of those mortgages--
sometimes you heard them referred to as subprime--and sold them as a 
security. Those were bought and sold throughout the financial process, 
from financial institution to financial institution. They were sold at 
a profit. There was little or no regulation. Of course, the bankers 
walked away with billions of dollars in bonuses and the taxpayers now 
have to clean up the mess.
  Well, what began as trouble in the housing market quickly spread to 
the financial system and, from there, to the economy as a whole. The 
revenue stream for these mortgages was cut off because people weren't 
paying their monthly payments on the mortgages, and therefore the 
revenue from these bundled securities of bad mortgages weren't paying 
off, and that started rippling through the entire financial system for 
whoever held those bundled mortgages.
  What started as an American problem now has become a global problem. 
Foreign governments, many of their investors, had invested in these 
bundled securitized mortgages. Foreign governments have seen their 
exports decline, and they are finding themselves shut out when they 
seek loans from the world's banks. The banks aren't lending because 
they do not have the security of knowledge that those borrowers are 
going to pay off. Lo and behold, since this thing has spread globally, 
even to foreign governments, some of the governments may even default 
on their own debts, which would be a devastating blow for any nation.
  That is a story that has yet to be told. We may have foreign 
governments defaulting on their debts and going into insolvency. Such 
defaults could clearly pose a national security threat for us, as 
already fragile governments fall and are replaced by forces that are 
hostile to American interests.
  At the same time, our current economic crisis will soon become a 
financing problem for our own Government. We are running up a large 
tab. We are spending nearly $900 billion in this bill to stimulate the 
economy. Maybe we are going to have to spend that much again to relieve 
the banks of the toxic assets--these bad assets that are so 
underwater--in order to get these toxic assets off the books of the 
banks.
  Well, when you look down the road, it is hard to fathom that we are 
going to put this financial burden on our children, but economists--
conservative and liberal--across the spectrum agree that the burden 
could be far worse if we don't take bold and immediate action, as 
evidenced in what is on the floor of the Senate now. We need to act, we 
need to act boldly, and we need to act now.
  This economic recovery bill that we will consider this week begins to 
move us in the right direction. Now, there ought to be some tweaks and 
some iterations on it, and we are going to consider that in the 
amendatory process, but let's consider the thrust of it. It funds 
shovel-ready infrastructure--those projects that are ready to go--which 
are going to strengthen our Nation while creating jobs in the 
construction sector.
  We heard the chairman of the Finance Committee say that over 90 
percent of all the spending that occurs as a result of the tax cuts and 
the tax incentives--he said over 90 percent of all the tax portion of 
the bill is going to take effect in the first 19 months. Now that is 
the kind of stimulus we need.
  This bill provides health and education assistance to State 
governments. It protects the most vulnerable, while putting money back 
into the economy. The legislation before us creates incentives for the 
private sector to put money into innovative ideas in health care 
technology, in energy efficiency, and in a smarter electricity grid.
  I think this bill moves us in the right direction. But we have to 
watch out that we do not get sidetracked. We need to make sure we are 
investing in sectors where the economy is idle, where Americans stand 
ready to work on the projects we fund. As we debate the bill's tax 
provisions, we need to make sure they provide incentives for employers 
to create new well-paying jobs.
  I saw something that is disturbing to me. I saw that a group of our 
Senators is trying to do some cuts in this, and in a publication this 
morning they singled out NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has helped 
those of us who work in this kind of specialty here before the Senate. 
What this group of Senators does not realize is that is directly 
related to job stimulus because of the horrible situation we have 
ourselves in where we are going to shut down our American vehicle to 
get to space, the space shuttle, and it is going to be another 5 years, 
under the present plan, to get the new rocket ready to get to our own 
space station that we have built and paid for. As a result, the Kennedy 
Space Center, the Johnson Space Center in Texas, and the Marshall Space 
Center in Alabama are looking at massive layoffs. My space center in 
Florida is looking at 5,000 jobs being laid off. The chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, who has an insight into this, has provided 
that money for stimulus for those jobs. So let's keep that

[[Page S1373]]

goal in mind--jobs. That is what we want to do with this stimulus bill.
  The legislation alone is not going to move us beyond the total 
problem we are facing, the potential downward spiral. Experts, liberal 
and conservative, now agree that the Nation's banks are going to need 
ongoing support at a cost that might exceed what we have committed 
already. If the banks are going to continue receiving Government 
support, they must grant taxpayers a meaningful ownership stake. They 
must boost lending to individuals and to small business, and they must 
accept real limits on executive compensation.
  Of course, there is another story chronicled in this morning's 
newspapers about how all of these banks have gotten all of these 
billions of dollars, and that not only has not increased lending, their 
lending to borrowers has actually decreased. That is unacceptable.
  If we provide the banks with more support--and I suspect we are going 
to have to--in this next tranche of $350 billion, then we still are 
going to have to address the mortgage foreclosure crisis, which is the 
root cause of the current circumstance. We need a credible plan for 
Government-backed mortgage refinancing, whether it is through Freddie 
or Fannie, the FDIC, or whether we create a new loan facility that is 
created specifically for that purpose. I talked to the Secretary of the 
Treasury three times about this, and I am encouraged that the 
administration appears to support such a plan.
  I am telling you, every one of us knows that our constituents, 
particularly those near retirement age and retired, are dramatically 
concerned about the loss of their retirement savings which has 
accompanied the markets' collapse.
  Since the 1980s, what happened? We have seen a shift away from a 
defined benefit pension, toward a market-based individual retirement 
account. Many Americans now rely on such accounts as a vital source of 
retirement income--the IRAs, the 401(k)s--and for those who have 
reached retirement--and every one of us has a lot of retirees in our 
State--or for those who hope to retire in the near future, the markets' 
collapse has delayed or laid waste to their plans, all the while Wall 
Street executives walk off with billions of dollars in bonuses. These 
are folks who have worked. They played by the rules. They have saved 
all of their lives. They deserve our attention more than the bankers 
who got us into this mess.
  I want to quote from an Indiana newspaper, the Evansville Courier. To 
our colleagues from Indiana, I wish to compliment the editorial from 
your newspaper on February 2:

       The middle class retirees who saved in their IRA and 401(k) 
     plans, and who intended to use their Social Security 
     entitlement to supplement their investment income, and 
     thereby to live out their days in modest comfort, now face 
     the complete loss of that dream. It was not a dream of 
     luxury, just a hard-won freedom from daily work and maybe a 
     trip to somewhere warm in the winter.

  That is what they saved for. And once this economy recovers--and it 
will, hopefully sooner than many predict--we are still going to have a 
lot of work that will remain. We need to look at the current causes of 
our crisis, and we need to better regulate our financial markets. As 
the economy recovers, we will need to keep a close eye on the Nation's 
monetary policy. Interest rates now are at historic lows, and our 
monetary policy is looser than it has been in decades. As we step on 
the fiscal gas, in addition to the monetary loosening, we need to make 
sure we do not overshoot the mark and trigger a new period of 
inflation.
  So our problems are many and our options are few. Things may get 
worse before they get better. If we put aside the differences and 
reason together, they will get better.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am going to proceed for a few moments on my leader 
time.
  Evidently, the President had a meeting with House and Senate 
Democratic leadership last night, impressing upon them, obviously, the 
urgency of approving a stimulus bill that actually works. But I think 
it is safe to say that the version House Democrats approved last week 
certainly does not meet that test. Most of the infrastructure 
projections it includes would not impact the economy for at least a 
year.
  I was recently talking to my Governor, and he indicated basically 
that the spend-outs were in year 2 and 3 in much of this, thereby kind 
of illustrating my point that in terms of immediate impact, it is quite 
deficient. Worse still, permanent spending--or what we call, inside the 
Beltway, ``entitlement spending''--is actually increased by $200 
billion.
  The President has talked on a number of occasions--I know I have 
spoken with him about it--about my willingness to work with him on a 
bipartisan basis to get entitlements or permanent spending under 
control. We know it is going to ruin our country in the near future. 
This bill, in the name of stimulus, actually increases permanent 
spending, entitlement spending, by $200 billion, making an already 
incredibly difficult problem worse. As everybody--almost everybody--is 
now fully aware, the House bill was, of course, additionally loaded 
with wasteful spending. Unfortunately, the version Senate Democrats put 
forth is not a whole lot better.
  President Obama said 75 percent of the bill's discretionary projects 
should be paid for within 2 years. Yet more than half of the spending 
in the Senate version would not be spent until after 2 years. President 
Obama said 40 percent of the bill should be tax relief. Yet less than 
one-third of the spending in the Senate version would go to tax relief. 
And like the House bill, the spending portion in the Senate version is 
simply way too big. The spending portion is way too big. If you include 
the interest payments on all of this money we are purportedly about to 
spend, the Senate Democratic bill is nearly $1.3 trillion. So I cannot 
imagine President Obama is terribly pleased with the proposal Democrats 
in the House or the Senate have put forward at this point. I am hoping 
he convinced them last night that it is time to put forth, together, a 
bill that gives an immediate jolt to the economy and creates jobs right 
now, not a bill that increases permanent spending, not a bill that 
spends out in years 3 and 4. A stimulus package ought to do something 
right now to stimulate the economy.
  President Obama has acknowledged that Senate Republicans have a 
number of good ideas that he would like to incorporate into the final 
bill. So has the senior Senator from New York. Republicans will be 
pursuing these ideas this week, and how they would help President Obama 
achieve his goal for the stimulus bill. We Republicans think we can 
send the President a simpler, more targeted stimulus bill that gets 
right at the root of our current economic troubles, that does not waste 
money we do not have on projects that do not create jobs now.
  Most people recognize that housing is at the root of the current 
economic downturn, so we would fix this problem before we do anything 
else. Republicans believe that one way to do that is to provide a 
Government-backed, 30-year fixed mortgage at approximately 4 percent to 
any creditworthy borrower. That would reduce monthly mortgage payments 
and increase demand for homes. According to this proposal, the average 
family would see its monthly mortgage payment drop by over $400 a 
month. That comes out to over $5,000 a year. Over the life of a 30-year 
loan, that is a savings of over $150,000. That is a proposal to get 
right at the housing problem now.

  Next, in order to get money into the economy quickly, Republicans 
propose that we cut income tax rates for working Americans right now. 
The Federal Government imposes a 10-percent tax on married couples for 
incomes up to $16,700. By cutting that rate in half, we put $500 into 
the pockets of every working family and give an immediate jolt to the 
country. Incomes between $16,700 and $67,900 are taxed at 15 percent. 
Republicans would cut that rate to 10 percent, putting another $1,100 
into the pockets of working couples. And single filers would get 
similar rate reductions. In other words, everyone who works and pays 
income taxes would see an immediate increase in pay. This simpler, 
targeted plan gets at the root of the problem, which is housing. It 
puts money into people's pockets immediately.
  President Obama asked Congress to put together a bill without 
wasteful

[[Page S1374]]

spending that creates jobs now. We Republicans believe we have better 
ideas for doing both. We look forward to having the chance to explain 
these ideas this week to the American people through our amendments, 
and we look forward to having votes on those amendments in the hope 
that many of them will pass.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington State 
is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 110 to Amendment No. 98

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself, Senator Feinstein, Mr. Specter, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, 
Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. 
Stabenow, Mr. Levin, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Lieberman, 
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Begich, and 
Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, 
     Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Specter, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, 
     Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. 
     Stabenow, Mr. Levin, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. 
     Whitehouse, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 110 to amendment No. 98.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 110) is as follows:

  (Purpose: To strengthen the infrastructure investments made by the 
                                 bill)

       Beginning on page 118, line 4, strike ``$6,400,000,000, to 
     remain available'' and all that follows through 
     ``$2,000,000,000 shall be for'' and insert in-lieu thereof 
     ``$13,400,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2010, of which $10,000,000,000 shall be for making 
     capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving 
     Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act, as amended; of which $3,000,000,000 shall be for''.
       On page 232, line 16, insert ``and other surface 
     transportation'' prior to the word ``investment'', ``
       On page 232, line 20, strike ``$27,060,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$40,060,000,000''.
       On page 239, line 24, strike ``$8,400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,400,000,000''.
       On page 242, after line 10, insert the following:


          Supplemental Grants for Fixed Guideway Modernization

       For an additional amount for capital expenditures 
     authorized under section 5309(b)(2), $2,000,000,000, to 
     remain available through September 30, 2010: Provided, That 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall apportion the funding 
     provided under this heading using the formula set forth in 
     subsection 5337(a)(7) of title 49, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That the federal share of the costs for 
     which a grant is made under this heading shall be at the 
     option of the recipient, and may be up to 100 percent: 
     Provided further, That the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall not be commingled with funds available under 
     the Formula and Bus Grants account.


            Supplemental Funds for Capital Investment Grants

       For an additional amount for ``Capital Investment Grants'' 
     as authorized under section 5338(c)(4) of title 49, United 
     States Code, and allocated under section 5309(m)(2)(A) of 
     such title, to enable the Secretary of Transportation to make 
     discretionary grants as authorized by section 5309(d) and (e) 
     of such title, $1,000,000,000, to remain available through 
     September 30, 2011: Provided, That in awarding grants with 
     funding provided under this heading, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to projects that the grant funding can expedite 
     their completion and their entry into revenue service: 
     Provided further, That such funding shall be allocated 
     without regard to the requirements of section 
     5309(m)(2)(A)(i) of title 49, United States Code: Provided 
     further, That the federal share of the costs for which a 
     grant is made under this heading shall be at the option of 
     the recipient, and may be up to 100 percent: Provided 
     further, That the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     not be commingled with funds available under the Capital 
     Investment Grants account.
       Each amount provided in this amendment is designated as an 
     emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs 
     pursuant to section 204(a) of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th 
     Congress) and section 301(b)(2) of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolutions on the budget for 
     fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, last year was tragic for workers who 
lost their jobs and their homes in this economic crisis. Through no 
fault of their own, millions of people are now wondering where they are 
going to find the next dollar to pay for groceries or to keep a roof 
over their heads. For them, putting money away to save for college or 
for a secure retirement is simply a dream. It is clear we need to take 
bold action to get us through this recession and back on the road to 
economic recovery. I believe the American recovery and reinvestment 
plan now before the Senate is that kind of bold investment.
  Before I continue, I particularly congratulate our new Appropriations 
chairman, Senator Inouye, and commend him for his management and 
tremendous work on getting this bill and this part of it to the floor. 
He has always shown evenhandedness and poise, as he has managed dozens 
of bills on the Commerce and Appropriations Committees. We are very 
fortunate to have him as our chairman on the Appropriations Committee, 
helping us with this critical piece of legislation. I also thank our 
former chairman and ranking member for his long dedication to the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran. I truly appreciate his 
contribution to this committee.
  I rise to offer an amendment that will make this good bill even 
better by boosting our investment in infrastructure and creating 
thousands more good-paying American jobs. Our economy needs a jolt. We 
have to create jobs, and we have to get commerce going again. I believe 
one of the best ways we can do that and bring stability to communities 
is by investing in construction projects throughout the entire country. 
The amendment I offer today will get more than 650,000 Americans back 
to work by injecting $25 billion into our highways and roads, mass 
transit systems, and water and sewer networks.
  Investing in construction projects is the tried and true way to put 
people back to work. My amendment not only supports over 650,000 jobs, 
it supports the kind of good-paying jobs we desperately need to help 
families put meals on the table or send their kids to school or save a 
little money for retirement. These are also the jobs our State 
Governors and local mayors say they are praying for to help their 
communities. States and municipalities have felt the economic crisis 
particularly hard. They have had to make some painful cuts and layoffs. 
They are even canceling projects now under way to conserve cash. This 
weekend Governor Granholm from Michigan told CNN that her State could 
``have dirt flying within 180 days'' if we pass a bill that increases 
Federal infrastructure investments.
  With the amendment we are offering today, States such as Michigan 
could create jobs as fast as they are able to spend the money, and 
thousands of people in all 50 States would benefit. It would support, 
for example, more than 18,000 jobs in Georgia, 27,600 jobs in Florida, 
over 20,000 jobs in Michigan, more than 13,000 jobs in the State of 
Washington, to name a few.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a chart that displays 
what this will do for every State.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S1375]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS03FE09.001



[[Page S1376]]

  Mrs. MURRAY. But this amendment doesn't only help the economy today 
by creating new jobs. This amendment will literally pave the way for 
future economic growth across the country. These investments will help 
communities provide cleaner drinking water and roads that are free of 
congestion. They will help create modern railroads that will get 
workers to their jobs more quickly and safely. They will help improve 
our ports so they are more efficient and more competitive. We all know 
businesses need good transportation and stable water and sewer systems. 
Less traffic means more productivity, cleaner air, and a stronger 
economy. These investments will pay off for years to come because 
communities will be stronger and more competitive in the global 
economy.
  Finally, this amendment is critically needed because roads, bridges, 
and water and sewer systems are literally falling apart. Year after 
year, we have had to put off repairs, while we have spent billions of 
dollars in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In August of 2007, we all 
stood aghast and watched in horror as the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis 
collapsed into the Mississippi River. That tragedy brought home to 
everyone how critical it is that we invest in the national highway 
system.
  Last week, we had another reminder when the American Society of Civil 
Engineers issued its annual report card on the condition of America's 
infrastructure. The results were truly dismal. The leading experts on 
the state of our Nation's infrastructure have reduced the grade point 
average of our entire system of roads and bridges and transit and sewer 
plants to a D. Let me make it clear, that was a D average for all of 
the Nation's infrastructure. Several specific areas which I am 
targeting in the amendment did even worse. Wastewater treatment 
systems, on which I have worked with Senator Feinstein, got a D-minus. 
The engineers pointed out that leaking pipes across the country lose an 
estimated 7 billion gallons of drinking water each and every day. The 
Nation's roads got a D-minus since a third of the major roads are 
considered to be in poor or mediocre condition. More than a third of 
urban highways are congested. American families now spend about 4.2 
billion hours each year stuck in traffic. That is costing the economy 
almost $80 billion every single year. These are roads in every one of 
the States. It is time to fix them.
  Our transit systems only got a D, but that is still not acceptable. 
With ridership skyrocketing, it could get worse, if we don't make the 
upgrades and improvements so dramatically needed.
  Speaking as a mom and a former teacher, a D-minus or a D is not going 
to cut it. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to infrastructure, a 
D stands for disappointment. A D means demand change, demand attention, 
and demand investment.
  The amendment I have offered is going to help us address these 
deficiencies head on and put over 655,000 Americans back to work. For 
any of my colleagues who are worried about whether we can spend 
infrastructure dollars fast enough, I want to be clear: More than a 
million workers across the country are today ready and able to start 
tomorrow. The unemployment rate in the construction industry is now 
just under 16 percent. More than 1.5 million construction workers are 
out of a job, a 54-percent increase over a year ago. Skilled workers 
all across the country are now forced to try to pick up whatever odd 
jobs they can to pay for their week's groceries. This amendment is 
about bringing jobs back to those workers and stability to their 
families and making the kinds of investments America has ignored for 
too long.
  I am proposing in the amendment that we invest another $25 billion in 
this bill, bringing the total spending on infrastructure to $167 
billion. My amendment would increase transportation investments from 
$45.5 billion to more than $63.5 billion, with the largest boost going 
to highway construction. It would give all States and communities the 
equivalent of 2 years of Federal highway contributions at once, 
enabling them to support 362,000 construction jobs alone, and another 
$5 billion would go to mass transit, supporting 139,000 jobs. Senator 
Feinstein will discuss how it will increase water and sewer grants 
within the Environmental Protection Agency by $7 billion, supporting 
154,000 new jobs.
  It is a scary time for millions of families across America. They are 
extremely worried about their stability and the future of their 
families. They are worried about how they will pay their bills and 
whether they will be able to keep their homes. They have put their 
faith in all of us and in our new President to set us on a path that 
will not only turn things around but leave our country stronger and 
more resilient than ever. Today they are watching this debate, and they 
are expecting us to take bold, swift action to get us started. This 
amendment is that kind of bold action. It supports 655,000 new, good-
paying jobs. It will help us rebuild roads, bridges, mass transit 
networks, water and sewer systems that we have neglected for too long. 
Most importantly, these investments will leave communities stronger and 
more secure in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and help put thousands 
of American workers back on the job and the country back on its feet.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. INOUYE. I am extremely impressed by the Senator's presentation. I 
am proud to say that I support the measure. It will provide 655,000 new 
jobs. As the boys in the back room would say: This is just what the 
doctor ordered. Congratulations.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the matter before this body is the 
majority's stimulus bill. It merges the products of last week's markup 
in the Finance Committee and the Appropriations Committee. Twenty-three 
Senators were involved in the Finance Committee markup. In that group, 
there were 13 Democrats, 10 Republicans. Thirty Senators were involved 
in the other committee's markup, the Appropriations Committee. In that 
group, there were 17 Democrats and 13 Republicans. So if we add that 
up, it means over half the Senate has been involved in either the 
Finance Committee part or the Appropriations Committee part of this 
legislation. For the first time, however, all Senators will have to 
consider this very large and complicated piece of legislation. That 
started yesterday and will go on for a week. So the public who want to 
follow Congress will have a long time to follow the issue.
  We ought to take that sort of time with an $800, almost $900 billion 
piece of legislation. First, I will discuss process and then focus on 
substance. Because I am the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, 
I will focus on the Finance Committee's portion. I, like 69 other 
Senators, am still studying the Appropriations Committee part.
  First, I thank my friend from Montana, Chairman Baucus, for 
courteously and professionally consulting Members on this side. We had 
one bipartisan Members' meeting where Chairman Baucus patiently heard 
all of us out. In addition, Chairman Baucus apprised me of the 
negotiations between Democratic leadership of both bodies and the Obama 
administration. Those Democrats-only negotiations were extensive. Folks 
on our side who read press reports could see how extensive they were. 
Further evidence of that deal making is the relatively small 
differences between the basic structure of the Committee on Ways and 
Means of the House of Representatives and the Finance Committee of the 
Senate. I congratulate Chairman Baucus on those negotiations. The fruit 
of that labor is the Finance Committee package.
  One significant change followed a recommendation I made in early 
January. That change was made in committee. That was the addition of 
the alternative minimum tax patch for this year which means over 24 
million families need not worry about an average tax increase of at 
least $2,000 per family for this year. But let no one be mistaken that 
this bill is the result of bipartisan negotiations. While Republicans 
were courteously consulted at the Member and staff level, we were never 
at the negotiating table. Speaker Pelosi best described the bottom line 
of the process from the Washington

[[Page S1377]]

Post, dated Friday January 23, when she said:

       Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.

  Indeed, there was a rumor floating around about an informal agreement 
among Democratic Members. The agreement appeared to be to vote against 
any Republican amendments, no matter what the merits of the amendments 
might be. As proof of that, if one would review the markup, they will 
find that nearly all Republican amendments were defeated on a virtually 
party-line vote. They will also find, for the first time in recent 
Finance Committee tax legislative history, small issues or 
modifications raised by dissenting Members, with a couple exceptions. I 
thank the leadership for those exceptions. None of these smaller issues 
were even accommodated.

  So let's be clear. We knew at the outset the markup would be 
ratifying a deal made between Democratic leaders of the House and 
Senate: No Republican ideas need apply. With the exception of that AMT 
patch amendment, this was the basic outcome.
  Since the largely partisan markup process finished, we have been told 
by the President and members of the Democratic leadership that this 
bill is open to improvement by amendment, and I am hopeful we will see 
that follow through, and before the day is over, I am sure we are going 
to have some votes where we can do that.
  If I could define ``bipartisanship'' just for a minute, I would 
define it kind of the way I have seen it work over the past decade in 
the Finance Committee but probably other committees do the same thing. 
Days before you want to bring up a bill, you sit down and you negotiate 
between the two leaders, and maybe other people, but you consider every 
member's position to some extent, and you come out with what is called 
a bipartisan mark.
  In our committee, for some times that was Grassley-Baucus, for other 
times it was Baucus-Grassley. It is a little bit like buying a new car. 
If it is going to be a family operation, Chuck Grassley does not go up 
to Barbara Grassley and say: I have made a determination that we are 
going to buy a Ford Taurus, and it is going to be blue, and it is going 
to have these accessories, et cetera, et cetera. No. You sit down. 
Chuck and Barbara Grassley sit down, and we decide what color car do we 
want, what brand do we want, what do we want for accessories, et 
cetera, et cetera. And you go to the dealer, and you have a uniform 
family position of what kind of a car you buy.
  That is the way bipartisanship ought to work here. That is the way I 
define it. That is the way it has worked over a long period of time. 
But it is not the way it worked in the product we have before us.
  Now we have the President of the United States saying to leaders of 
his party, when they meet at the White House: Republicans have good 
ideas, and we want to work toward bipartisanship. Now we have a process 
in place. Will the President's leadership make a difference to the 
majority party here on Capitol Hill?
  Before I get into substance, though, I wish to pull back and talk 
about the larger picture for a couple minutes. Majority Leader Reid 
opened debate on this bill yesterday. Yesterday we also had Groundhog 
Day. My first chart is a depiction of Punxsutawney Phil, that famous 
weather forecaster there in Pennsylvania. Yesterday, Phil saw his 
shadow. Groundhog Day is a recurring event. ``Groundhog Day'' is also 
the title of a famous film starring Bill Murray.
  I have another picture for you of Phil and Bill driving along. In the 
movie ``Groundhog Day,'' Bill Murray finds himself continually 
repeating the same routine. Now, my friend, Chairman Baucus, last year 
rightly pointed out the message of the film. The message was that Bill, 
guided by Phil, eventually had to figure out what he was doing wrong. 
Once Bill figured it out, he escaped the infinite loop.
  On this bill before us, we need to learn from Bill's and Phil's 
adventure. We cannot and we should not legislate in a hasty manner and 
place ourselves in an infinite loop of repeating the same exercise. 
Democrats and Republicans and the President need to get this right, 
particularly in the time of the terrible economic recession we are in. 
We cannot casually deficit spend and ask American taxpayers to clean up 
the fiscal mess with high taxes down the road.
  To me, there is a particularly compelling irony to the fact that we 
are debating another stimulus bill at roughly the same Groundhog Day 
timeframe. One year ago, almost to this exact date, the Senate spent a 
week debating an economic stimulus package. The target time set for 
enacting legislation was similar to the one for this package. I am 
talking about the Presidents Day recess. Let's keep the Groundhog Day 
irony in mind as we move forward this week and next week. Let's not 
repeat the same exercise, except this time with even much bigger 
dollars. Let's get it right.
  Now to substance. I want to make it clear that most on our side agree 
with President Obama that stimulus is necessary. The economy is flat on 
its back. Too many Americans who want to find work cannot find those 
jobs. A lot of Americans are worried their job will be the next to go. 
We get that on our side. Everyone here knows we need to do everything 
we can to get the economy moving again. Where we differ between parties 
is the degree to which the engine ought to be Government or the engine 
ought to be the private sector, especially America's biggest job 
creator, our small business sector, where you hear quite regularly from 
economists that 70, 80 percent of the new jobs are created. In fact, in 
the year 2007, big business created no new jobs. All the new jobs in 
2007 were created by small business.
  These are honest, well-intentioned, philosophical differences between 
our two parties: Government or the private sector. But those are 
differences that are there. On our side, we want the new jobs to come 
from the private sector. On the other side, the preference is to grow 
employment through an expansion of Government.
  Many on the other side and opinion makers who agree with them are 
invoking the example of Iowa-born President Hoover. Iowa is my home 
State. They seem to be doing it to portray anyone who questions the 
trillion-dollar package as a reincarnation of what we call Hoover 
economics. It is an unfair characterization. Again, let's be clear. 
Folks on our side recognize the need for action. So do not accuse us of 
Hooverism.
  Also, though Iowans are rightly respectful of the only Iowan to be 
President, President Hoover, you have to recognize history. I would 
instruct the other side on a couple lessons from the Hoover era, too, 
where President Hoover was wrong. One lesson: Do not obstruct free 
trade. The highest tariff levels in the history of this country--the 
Smoot-Hawley tariffs--were enacted in the middle of his Presidency, and 
it shut down world trade. We have to think about that right now because 
the latest reports have the first reversal of the growth of trade 
worldwide since 1982. There is little doubt those protectionist 
barriers that were put up in 1930 or 1931 made the Great Depression 
worse. So let's not repeat that mistake. There is some evidence on the 
other side of the aisle that they do want to repeat that mistake and 
build up protectionist walls.
  Now, there is another lesson from the Hoover era I want the other 
side to be aware of. President Hoover signed into law significant tax 
increases that made that Depression worse. Like high tariffs, economic 
history tells us that these burdensome taxes retarded the economy's 
ability to recover--a recovery that did not happen until World War II 
came along. We do not want war to get us out of a recession.

  On this side, we agree the lessons from the Hoover era need to be 
learned. We cannot be passive. President Hoover was passive. Errors of 
omission on fiscal stimulus should be avoided by all of us. Likewise, 
errors of commission on fiscal stimulus, such as impeding free trade 
and raising taxes, also should be avoided.
  By the conclusion of this debate, those differences will be plain to 
people at the grassroots of America. I will tell you, all you have to 
do is go to Iowa, go to church on Sunday, go eat at the Village Inn 
after church with your family, go to a University of Northern Iowa 
basketball game, and talk to your neighbors. The public knows what is 
going on here. They see this as a big spending bill and not a stimulus 
bill.

[[Page S1378]]

  We will see differences fleshed out in the debate and on the 
amendments. That is the way it should be. As I indicated above, most on 
our side want to improve this bill. Our amendments, large and small, 
will be offered as improvements. We hope the other side is sincere and 
will follow our President's admonition yesterday in their desire to 
change the bill in a way that can garner a bipartisan majority. Whether 
Republicans or Democrats have been in control, the test of proper 
stimulus boils down to three words.
  That famous Harvard economist, former Secretary of the Treasury, a 
good person, Larry Summers, had this to say that ought to be a lesson 
for both political parties:

       As with any potent medicine, stimulus, if misadministered, 
     could do more harm than good by increasing instability and 
     creating long run problems. A stimulus program should be 
     timely, targeted, and temporary.

  He may not be an MD, but there is a lesson from that Ph.D. we can 
learn. It is a lesson of medicine: First, do no harm. Well, we want to 
measure this bill according to what Dr. Summers says. If you apply the 
three ``T's'' test to much of the spending in this proposal, you will 
find it fails the test. We will get into that when we examine and 
debate the bill.
  Some folks might ask: What is the problem if we overshoot and flunk 
the test? The first problem is running out of budget room. The bill 
before us will, when interest costs are included, add up beyond that 
$900 billion to $1.3 trillion added to the deficit. All of this extra 
deficit increase would be proposed when the baseline deficit for this 
fiscal year will hit $1.2 trillion. That amount exceeds all historical 
records. As a percentage of our economy, that will mean 8.3 percent of 
gross domestic product.
  I have read some economists saying that is more stimulus than we have 
ever had in the history of this country. Maybe 8.3 percent is enough. I 
think in a bipartisan way, and with the President, we concluded it is 
not enough. But above that, it seems to me, we ought to be cautious and 
make sure it is timely, temporary, and targeted because this amount of 
8.3 percent easily exceeds the 5.7 percent in 1983. It is almost 50 
percent above any comparable post-World War II levels.
  The figures on Federal debt held by the public are likewise 
staggering. In the period of 2001 to 2007, debt held by the public 
increased by comparatively smaller amounts, roughly 1 percent per year. 
This year's change easily exceeds all of that, as you can see from this 
chart of how the deficit continues to go up. You also see it there, as 
a percent of gross national product, higher than it has been for a 40-
year average.
  So we need to acknowledge the deficit situation we are in. It is very 
serious. So whatever we do, we ought to not make the long-term fiscal 
situation worse than it is. You can see from this chart in the outyears 
how bad that situation is going to be.
  The other problem is if we prime the pump too much and the pumped-out 
stimulus does not materialize until after the hoped-for recovery is 
upon us, then we might risk too much stimulus. The result could be 
inflation.
  Let's look at the timely part of Dr. Summers' statement. That needs 
to be brought into sharper focus. The Congressional Budget Office tells 
us that less than half of the appropriations amounts will be spent out 
by the end of fiscal year 2010. So only half of the spending in the 
bill is timely. The Finance package does a little better. Ironically, 
the tax policy stimulus, much maligned by the hardcore of both 
Democratic caucuses, helps the spend-out ratio greatly in the Finance 
package.
  The theory for erring on the side of overloading the spending side is 
that we need to direct dollars to the folks most likely to spend them. 
This is the reason we are told we need extra FMAP money, expanded 
entitlements, and other State aid.
  It misses the point that the U.S. fiscal policy system already has an 
arsenal of antirecessionary automatic stabilizers directed to the very 
same populations. These stabilizers provide immediate assistance to 
those most vulnerable who have been hit by an economic downturn. The 
Congressional Budget Office says that these benefits, including food 
stamps, unemployment insurance, and Medicaid, will grow to $250 billion 
this year. That built-in, lower income-population stimulus will be 
equal to 1.8 percent of gross national product.
  It also misses the point, when you argue that you ought to err on the 
side of overspending, about ensuring that the lessons of moral hazards 
apply to the States. The fiscal problems faced by many of our States 
and localities are largely the result of their inability to keep 
spending in line with revenue. Between the third quarter of 2006 and 
the third quarter of 2008, State revenues increased 7 percent and State 
spending increased twice that amount--15 percent. In other words, the 
States and localities spent $2.22 for each additional dollar of 
revenue. The States have been on a spending spree, and they have dug 
themselves into a hole.
  Now, we will hear that the Medicaid money we are adding--which I 
refer to as a slush fund for States--is necessary to avoid tax 
increases at the State and local level. We will also hear that vital 
services will be cut unless we cut a big blank check to States. Just as 
we did during the Finance Committee markup, some on our side will test 
these assumptions with amendments on these points. An open-ended slush 
fund is not targeted. It is not going to bring about sound, responsible 
fiscal policy in the States that need it, and this is true no matter 
how you dress up this issue.
  Perhaps the most disturbing stimulus test failure is on the third 
``t''--that it should be temporary. This is what bothers me most about 
this bill. I am referring, of course, to the temporary test. In this 
package, there are many new popular spending programs labeled 
``temporary.'' Those programs total $140 billion. If these programs are 
extended or made permanent, we can expect another $1.3 trillion added 
to future deficits. I will challenge anyone on the other side to tell 
me these programs will be turned off once enacted. With large 
Democratic majorities and a Democratic President, I would say any such 
promise is dubious in this Congress. It is about as deliverable as a 
promise to sell the Brooklyn Bridge.
  Just so appropriators don't get too far out on a limb, I wish to 
quote from what Chairman Miller of one of the House committees had to 
say. He was talking about these built-in expenditures that are going to 
go beyond the 2 years; things that ought to be handled by the 
Appropriations Committee on an annual basis, considering all of the 
priorities that come to us from all segments of the economy and from 
all government programs. If you think you are building this into the 
base, this is Chairman Miller--I am going to quote here from Congress 
Daily:

       Chairman Miller in the House was asked about the fact that 
     funding for education programs disappears in two years, and 
     he said the word he got from the Obama administration is that 
     these funding levels will NOT become the baseline and that in 
     two years, we can expect that the President's Budget Request 
     will be lower than these new levels. That means schools will 
     see a short-term jump for these programs, but any teacher or 
     programs they put in place may be cut in two years.

  Now, let me just ask my colleagues about that. Is it smart to use 
something that is absolutely needed--a stimulus bill--for an excuse to 
jack up spending well into the future? That is going to be done in 1 
week. Isn't that something appropriations committees generally take 
several months to do before they make decisions to go down that road? 
That is something for my colleagues to consider.
  To sum it up, this package meets a different three t's test. We start 
with trillion-dollar deficits. We have a bill that, with interest 
added, adds more than another trillion dollars to future deficits. We 
have a bill that has new spending ostensibly labeled as ``temporary'' 
but likely to be extended, that bakes into the cake another $1 trillion 
of future deficits. Passing this three t's--as in trillions--test ought 
to be a Senator's pause, and we hope during this debate that pause 
happens. From our side's view, these are major shortcomings on the 
substance.
  Although we saw execution of a deal to vote down our amendments in 
committee no matter whether our ideas were meritorious or not, we would 
like to be and will be constructive, and we will build on parts of the 
package that we support. But make no mistake about it, we are going to 
try to use Dr. Summers' guideline of, first, do no harm--he didn't say 
that--but the

[[Page S1379]]

three t's test he put on the chart from his quotation. In other words, 
we hope our amendments will be more openly received on the Senate floor 
than they were in committee.
  In this respect, we will go back to major differences between the 
parties on how to get the economy moving. On our side, we would like to 
push more incentives for long-term growth of private sector jobs. There 
is a good start on a broad-based middle-income tax cut in the package. 
We would like to expand the tax cut to cover all middle-income 
taxpayers.
  During this fall's campaign, the President described as middle class 
families making less than $250,000. Many of the tax cuts don't apply to 
millions of families making less than $250,000. It doesn't make sense 
to me to call a proposal a middle-class tax cut if it doesn't apply to 
millions of middle-class families. We would like to direct that at 
labor and capital income earned by middle-income taxpayers.
  Since we weren't at the negotiating table to offer these progrowth 
ideas, you will see them arise as constructive offers to improve the 
package.
  I wish to speak for just a minute to some health provisions in the 
bill.
  Spending in this bill should be judged based on two criteria: Will it 
stimulate the economy, and is the money being well spent? In committee, 
we aired our honest disagreements over whether several of these 
provisions were actually stimulative. Improving health information 
technology is critical for health care infrastructure. I support many 
of those provisions, but I have to ask: Will it stimulate our economy, 
and is this money we should add to the deficit rather than offsetting 
it?
  It wasn't so long ago that $16 billion was a lot of money around 
here. Providing assistance to States makes sense if we are concerned 
about States raising taxes or cutting spending. But is $87 billion the 
right number, and is increasing Medicaid spending the right way to do 
it beyond what is necessary to take care of the millions of people who 
are going to lose their health insurance? That is a much smaller 
figure; somewhere around $10 billion to $12 billion rather than $87 
billion. Could we better stimulate economic recovery using all or part 
of that money elsewhere?
  The Finance Committee package also includes a 2-year extension of our 
current Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs. I am working with the 
chairman to see if we can agree with our counterparts on the House Ways 
and Means Committee on a broader reauthorization of these programs, but 
that is still a work in progress.
  Apart from trade adjustment assistance, I am disappointed that this 
administration isn't focusing on trade as a component of an economic 
stimulus package. As I said, we should heed an important lesson from 
the Hoover era. Economic growth comes from expanding free trade, not 
contracting it, because protectionism in the 1930s brought us to World 
War II. Opening new markets for U.S. exporters should be a part of the 
mindset to stimulate our economy.
  Right now, 20,000 people are being laid off from Caterpillar. I don't 
think John Deere has laid off very many yet, but 22 percent of John 
Deere workers have their jobs because of international trade--tractors 
made in Waterloo, IA, getting on boats in Baltimore to go overseas. We 
don't want to shut down those kinds of jobs, and without emphasis upon 
trade being a very important part of a stimulus package, we are sending 
a message that trade does not matter. Trade does matter. For instance, 
we have these pending agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea 
which would provide significant opportunity to do just that, and they 
should be implemented as soon as possible.
  As we go through the bill, our side will offer several amendments 
that I hope will be accepted to try to make the bill better and answer 
the questions I and other Members have raised. The people back home see 
Congress spending vast amounts of taxpayers' money. They are counting 
on us to ensure their money is spent wisely and not wastefully, and 
that means to make sure this is a stimulus bill and not a ``porkulus'' 
bill.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know the Senator 
from California wishes to make a statement.
  Very briefly, I might just say first how much I enjoy working with my 
good friend, Senator Grassley from Iowa. He is a joy to work with. I 
know of no finer Senator. He is a man of his word. He is a man of 
integrity and good will. He is a terrific Senator. I have enjoyed 
working with him on the committee in many respects.
  I also wish to thank him for his kind words about the openness with 
which I have attempted to conduct the committee. I also wish to commend 
him for his AMT amendment to make sure Americans don't pay more taxes 
over the next year. The amendment he offered, as well as the Senator 
from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez--the two of them offering the amendment 
was the right thing to do. Some have suggested we drop that amendment. 
I vigorously resisted that because I think it is a good idea that we 
have the AMT patch.
  There are other provisions in here which remind all of us to help 
taxpayers. One is extending the small business expensing provision for 
2 years. That is going to help small business. That also included an 
entire threshold that was enacted last year. Added to that, we have 
payback periods for net operating loss extended from 2 years to 5 
years, as well as business tax credits extended from 2 years to 5 
years. So businesses can carry back losses with respect to credits they 
have otherwise earned, whether it is an R&D tax credit or an energy 
credit.
  So I want to continue working with the good Senator from Iowa as we 
improve this bill. I do not know whether I agree with all of the 
amendments some Senators on his side of the aisle will be offering, but 
we will certainly do our very best to keep improving the bill. There 
are some very good tax provisions in here to help individual taxpayers 
and business taxpayers.
  So I just wish to thank the Senator for working with us on this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
Senator Murray has just sent to the desk which would add $25 billion to 
the infrastructure portion of the bill. I thank her for her work on 
this amendment.
  I also thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Inouye. Senator 
Inouye became chairman of the committee approximately 1 week before 
this bill came out of committee, so it really represents a great deal 
of work in a very short period of time, and I believe he is to be 
commended for that.
  In my view, as a former mayor, a stimulus means job production, very 
simply. As this bill stands, only 16 percent of the stimulus package 
goes toward infrastructure, which is the physical basis on which a 
nation's economy functions, while 39 percent would finance tax cuts.
  To be very candid with you, I am one of those who do not believe tax 
cuts are necessarily stimulative. The reason I don't believe that is 
because I believe the buying habits of Americans in this particular 
crisis have changed. I don't think $80 a month in the form of a tax 
credit is going to change that. We put $135 billion out in a rebate, 
and less than 15 percent of it, it was estimated--by the best chance--
went into the economy. So I really worry that this package is tax cut 
heavy and doesn't do what it should do with respect to the production 
of jobs to repair this physical base on which a nation's economy can 
function.
  The amendment, as Senator Murray said, is cosponsored by 21 of us. I 
very much appreciate all of the Senators' support. It adds $18 billion 
for highway and rail. Those of you who have ridden high-speed rail from 
Tokyo and Osaka know that it was built in the mid-sixties. Here we are 
in 2009, and we don't have a real high-speed rail, either by MAGLEV or 
steel wheel, anywhere in this country today. If you travel through 
Europe, you travel on fast trains. If you go from Pudong in Shanghai to 
the airport by transit, you can take a MAGLEV system, which does 30 
miles in less than 20 minutes. Our highways are jammed. People go to 
work in gridlock. The newspaper this morning reported that metropolitan 
Washington, D.C. has some of the highest commuter travel times in 
America.

[[Page S1380]]

  We need to repair this infrastructure, and the beauty of doing it as 
part of this package is that it puts people to work immediately on 
projects that are shovel ready. So I believe $18 billion in this bill, 
which is for highway and rail, and an additional $7 billion in 
revolving loan funds for clean water and sewer projects is really 
necessary. You might say: $25 billion--what does that do in this 
package? I will tell you what it does. It raises the percentage of 
infrastructure from 16 to 19 percent. That is all it does. That is how 
big this package is and how little of it is really the kind of 
infrastructure we should be producing.
  For the water infrastructure portion alone, this amendment could 
create as many as 154,000 additional jobs beyond that which is 
estimated in the stimulus package. The transportation portion of the 
amendment would add 501,000 jobs. So, as Senator Murray said, in total, 
this amendment would create a net new 655,000 jobs--jobs that are 
desperately needed to put Americans back to work and revive our 
country.
  I come from a State that is big. It is the seventh or eighth largest 
economy in the world. It has stopped all public works projects, and it 
is furloughing State employees. It is in deep trouble. Where California 
goes, because it is such a big part of the economic infrastructure of 
this Nation, affects other States as well.
  I want to expand a bit as chairman of the Interior and Environment 
Subcommittee of Appropriations because I am very concerned about what I 
believe has been insufficient funding for clean water and sewer 
projects. We put over 50 percent of our allocation into these projects. 
It wasn't enough. We have a huge water infrastructure problem in 
America. Our sewer systems are deteriorating; they are old and they are 
broken. Each year, aging and overburdened sewer and storm water systems 
overflow; they break and release more than 860 billion gallons of 
partially treated sewage into our rivers and streams, polluting them. 
Last year, contamination from these spills and overflows was the second 
leading cause of beach closings and water health advisories 
nationwide--more than 4,000 closings and advisories--and the problem is 
only getting worse.
  Investment in our Nation's water systems has not kept pace with the 
population growth or sprawling development.
  The Government Accountability Office and EPA report that the Nation 
faces a $300 billion to $500 billion water and wastewater funding gap 
over the next 20 years. So by investing now in needed water and 
wastewater infrastructure, we can, in fact, create millions of jobs 
here at home and better protect human health.
  With this amendment, the total for the water and wastewater State 
revolving fund will be $13 billion, with $10 billion for wastewater 
projects and $3 billion for drinking water projects. As I said, the 
EPA, which oversees this Federal program, has indicated to us that they 
can move these additional dollars quickly. These funds will go directly 
to the States, which in turn make them available to local communities. 
Because the law is a revolving loan fund, there is language in this 
that effectively makes these loans grants to States. The $6 billion 
currently in the bill will fund 1,290 wastewater projects and 769 
drinking water projects. By increasing this funding by $7 billion, for 
the total of $13 billion, this amendment would triple the number of 
wastewater projects to 3,226 and provide 30 percent more drinking water 
projects.
  The States will choose these projects based on their most urgent 
needs. Here are some of the projects that have been funded in the past 
through this program:
  The aquifer in Rockland County, NY, was being polluted by sewer waste 
from septic tanks. The local sewer district used $80 million from the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund to replace these septic systems with a 
new collection system and wastewater treatment plant. The county also 
installed advanced treatment technology to protect the millions of 
residents downstream of its facility.
  The town of Easton, MD, was flushing huge nutrient loads into the 
Chesapeake Bay. It received a $20.5 million loan to expand its 
wastewater system to install enhanced nutrient-removal technologies and 
now exceeds Chesapeake Bay's water quality goals.
  A subdivision with septic systems in Lexington County, SC, needed a 
connection to the nearest town's public sewer. The area septic systems 
had been improperly maintained and were in jeopardy of contaminating 
the groundwater. Thanks to funding from this program, it has a 
connection.
  In my State, Orange County is using $162.9 million to implement a 
ground water replenishment system, the largest of its kind in the 
world. Highly treated wastewater will be pumped into basins, where it 
will percolate back into the ground. This project not only improves 
water quality but reliability and supply in an area facing long-term 
drought.
  This amendment, as I said, waives the State match requirement in an 
effort to maximize the use of the funds. This funding, which can be put 
to use immediately, will assist the municipalities of our Nation in 
upgrading their wastewater systems and ending the damage to our 
environment. But it is not only these benefits that speak to the merits 
of increasing this funding--and we could do more; we could do at least 
another $3 billion more under EPA's ability to move the money.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that every dollar spent on 
wastewater infrastructure generates a return of $3 to $7 that flows 
back directly into the economy. The Commerce Department estimates that 
for each additional job created in the water and sewer industry, 3.68 
jobs are created in all industries. So it has a ripple effect.
  The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Administrators indicates that nearly $20 billion of shovel-ready 
wastewater infrastructure projects await financing today throughout the 
country.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, the problem I have with this package is 
that, in my view, it is heavy on tax cuts which go right to the bottom 
line of the deficit and the debt and will reduce allocations to 
appropriators to fund the next 2 years' budgets, unless we drive this 
country deeper into debt and deficit. It is shy on the infrastructure, 
which is the stimulus projects.
  Let me make one other point on the change of America's buying habits 
which I believe has taken place. If you look at people actually laid 
off from Caterpillar and you look at retail closures--the latest of 
which is Macy's, as of last night, indicating that they are terminating 
7,000 people from their jobs--you will see that people are buying less. 
It is reflected in automobile sales, it is reflected in tractor sales, 
and it is reflected in shopping and electronic equipment shopping.
  I believe the important thing of this package is to put people back 
to work. My State has 1.7 million people who are out of work. We need 
to do those things that are necessary, such as extend unemployment 
insurance, protect the safety net, and have a massive program to 
rebuild what is a failing economic infrastructure in this country, so 
that America can compete in this new millennium.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
cosponsors Senators Schumer and Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein for her 
cosponsorship and working with me and the chairman on including this 
amendment that would provide 655,000 jobs.
  I heard the Senator from Iowa earlier talking about providing or 
increasing Government jobs. I would let our colleagues know that this 
amendment before us is about private construction jobs.
  In fact, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
letter from AGC of America, Associated General Contractors, as well as 
a letter from FasterBetterSafer, Americans for Transportation Mobility, 
which represents the American Public Transportation Association, the 
American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Associated 
Equipment Distributors, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the 
Associated General Contractors, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers 
International Union of

[[Page S1381]]

North America, the National Asphalt Pavement Association, the National 
Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, the United Brotherhood of 
Carpenters and Joiners of America, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in 
support of this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                  Arlington, VA, February 2, 2009.
     Re: Support Murray/Feinstein Amendment.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: The Associated General Contractors of 
     America urges you to support the Murray/Feinstein amendment 
     to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The 
     amendment will provide additional funding to critical surface 
     transportation and water infrastructure projects across the 
     country.
       Construction employment has tumbled by 899,000, or 11.6 
     percent, since peaking in September, 2006. Unfortunately 
     because of dwindling public and private funding more than a 
     million more good workers could face layoffs in 2009 without 
     significant construction stimulus.
       Providing a significant investment in funding for 
     construction projects would help address our nation's 
     infrastructure investment gap and create good jobs in 
     communities across America. AGC estimates that, an additional 
     $1 billion of investment in nonresidential construction 
     supports or creates 28,500 jobs. More than half of the gain 
     would impact non construction elements of our economy, as 
     workers and owners in the construction and supplier 
     industries spend their added income on a wide range of goods 
     and services.
       We estimate that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
     would create or support more than 1.85 million new jobs 
     between now and the end of 2010, including over 620,000 
     construction jobs, 300,000 jobs in supplying industries and 
     930,000 jobs throughout the broader economy.
       The construction industry stands ready to participate in 
     the economic recovery spawned by the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009. Thousands of AGC members across the 
     country have expressed their personal commitment to putting 
     this funding to use quickly. Please support the Murray/
     Feinstein amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                             Jeffrey D. Shoaf,

                                        Senior Executive Director,
     Government and Public Affairs.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                 February 2, 2009.
       To the Members of the U.S. Senate: The Americans for 
     Transportation Mobility (ATM) Coalition strongly supports the 
     inclusion of funding for highways and public transportation 
     in S. 336, the ``American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009,'' and urges the Senate to increase funding levels for 
     highways and public transportation to at least the levels 
     provided in H.R. 1, the House-passed version of this 
     legislation.
       Preserving and creating jobs through highway and public 
     transportation infrastructure investment is a key element of 
     this economic recovery package. The investments in near-term 
     transportation projects supported by this legislation would 
     protect and create jobs to support broad recovery and address 
     particularly hard hit sectors like construction. 
     Transportation spending also results in long-term economic 
     benefits: transportation infrastructure plays a critical role 
     supporting the nation's economy by facilitating safe, 
     efficient, and reliable movement of people and goods.
       The recovery package is an important step toward renewing 
     highway and transit infrastructure, but it is only a 
     beginning. The ATM Coalition looks forward to working with 
     the Senate in the coming months on reauthorization of the 
     Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
     Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which must build on the 
     investment in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by 
     providing the policy and programmatic reforms as well as 
     long-term funding needed for highways and public 
     transportation.
       ATM urges you to increase funding for highways and public 
     transportation investments in S. 336 to at least the House-
     passed levels.
           Sincerely,
                            Americans for Transportation Mobility.
       ATM Management Committee Members: American Public 
     Transportation Association, American Road and Transportation 
     Builders Association, Associated Equipment Distributors, 
     Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Associated General 
     Contractors, American Society of Civil Engineers, 
     International Union of Operating Engineers, Laborers 
     International Union of North America, National Asphalt 
     Pavement Association, National Stone, Sand, and Gravel 
     Association, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 
     America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the point is these are private sector 
jobs. In fact, less than 1 percent of these will go to Government jobs, 
and those jobs will be oversight and accountability to make sure our 
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
  I look forward to having a vote on this amendment as soon as our 
chairman determines the time. I ask our Senate colleagues to join us in 
making sure we create the kind of investment, infrastructure, job 
creation that we have told America about, and we know will get us back 
on our feet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from Washington in 
bringing this point to the attention of the American people, as I have 
been trying to do, that in this stimulus bill--and the same is true on 
the House side--there is far too little construction, far too little 
jobs.
  I found it very difficult to believe that in the bill that came over 
from the other side there was only some $30 billion. I can share now, 
because it has been public, that 8 days ago on Monday, President Obama 
addressed our conference. During that conference, we talked about the 
stimulus bill. He was very generous with his time. In fact, he was 
there for an entire hour. I said: It is inconceivable to me--and here 
we were talking about the bill that was being considered on the other 
side--that with some $800 billion or $900 billion--that is without 
interest--it is going to be over $1 trillion when you add interest--but 
with those amounts, you only have $30 billion of roads and highways.
  Quite frankly, President Obama was not sure my statement was 
accurate, and he asked Larry Summers, who was in the meeting. We were 
all a little bit confused about that, except I wasn't because very 
specifically it said $30 billion on roads and highways.
  To be fair, there is another $19 billion in water projects. 
Infrastructure was a little higher than that. My concern is roads and 
highways.
  The reason I am concerned is that we went through the 2005 
Transportation reauthorization bill. At that time, Republicans were in 
the majority, so I was taking the lead on passage of that bill. I had 
the support of the ranking member at that time, who was Senator Boxer 
from California. We worked closely together on that bill. We actually 
were increasing all we could as time went by because the idea of 
funding infrastructure and funding roads and highways has a history to 
it.
  When I was first elected, every year we had huge surpluses in the 
highway trust fund. That is probably the most popular tax out there. 
With the highway trust fund, people know or they believe that money is 
going to be used to increase capacity and increase the condition, the 
repairs, the maintenance of the transportation system we have now.
  Senator Boxer and I worked together on that bill to do all we could 
to enhance it, to raise the amounts because even as large as that bill 
was, that did not even maintain what we have today.
  Over the years, as people saw the surpluses in the highway trust 
fund, their tendency, as is always the tendency around this place, was 
let's grab it and put it into something else. We started having hiking 
trails, we started having other elements of transportation, over and 
above roads and highways, bridges and maintenance. Those are the things 
that originally the highway trust fund, way back in the early fifties, 
was there for. That is what was established back in the Eisenhower 
administration.
  We have gone over the years, and this took a turnaround a few years 
ago with so many people loading on to the highway trust fund and less 
and less was used for maintenance and expansion of our highway system. 
We got into the position where in 1998, during the Clinton 
administration, he witnessed the very large surplus that was in the 
highway trust fund. He took it and put it into the general fund. The 
total amount was $9 billion. That was something to which I was very 
much opposed because I thought of that as a moral issue. The people of 
this country were led to believe that if they paid for gas at the pump, 
that money was going to enhance our highway system. That used to be the 
situation. Anyway, we were able to successfully remove that and bring 
that back into the highway trust fund a matter of a few weeks ago. We 
improved that a little bit. Still, we have a deficit that cannot do the 
job the American people expect.
  I am considered by some of the rating organizations to be one of the 
most

[[Page S1382]]

conservative Members of the Senate. Yet I am a big spender in some 
areas--national defense, infrastructure. That is what we are supposed 
to be doing, and we have these opportunities to do it.
  As I said, I applaud the Senator from Washington for recognizing the 
need to increase the amount of money for roads and highways.
  During the reauthorization bill of 2005, we talked about what our 
needs were. We happen to have a guy in the State of Oklahoma, a guy 
named Gary Ridley, the best highway director anywhere in the United 
States. What he has done is put together what do we have in the State 
of Oklahoma that is spade-ready to employ people tomorrow if we are 
able to have enough money to take care of some of the things that are 
already authorized; we don't have to go through the environmental 
impact statements and other statements. This is all ready to go.
  For that reason, I thought if this job stimulus bill is going to do 
something to stimulate the economy, it is going to have to hire people. 
To hire people, you are going to have to get a much larger percentage.
  Getting back to 8 days ago when President Obama was before the 
Republicans, at that time I said: If I am right and you are wrong in 
terms of the fact that you only have 3.5 percent of the total amount of 
money that will go to roads and highways, would you be willing to raise 
that to some 10 percent? I am not sure the answer was very clear, but 
nonetheless, it is something that is very reasonable to make as a 
request.
  I have one problem with the Murray bill. First, I agree that we need 
to have a larger percentage of the money going into roads and highways. 
But I think we also need a little bit of truth in advertising. If we 
are going to call this package a stimulus bill, then we need to direct 
the resources to the programs that have demonstrated the ability to 
create jobs immediately. However, merely adding the total number, as 
this amendment does, without giving priority to programs that are truly 
stimulative is perhaps not all that responsible.
  In addition, the major problem I have is that the stimulus needs to 
be offset. You cannot tell me, if we are looking at $900 billion out 
there, we cannot find something to offset in order to take care of the 
immediate problems we have in this country in terms of our 
infrastructure.
  I do not see the Senator from Washington on the floor now, but I 
would ask her--and I asked her a few minutes ago--if she was willing to 
offset this money. I believe her response was not at the present time. 
So if it changes as this develops, then perhaps I will change.
  I will say this: If you are not going to be able to offset this 
amount, then I certainly would oppose this amendment. There will be 
lots of opportunities to increase the infrastructure investment over 
the next few days that do not add to the size of the bill. We cannot 
add to the size of this bill.

  To me, the whole idea--well, the amount is inconceivable to most 
people, most thinking people, in America, and it cannot be increased.
  We have numerous opportunities. We have the Boxer-Bond amendment to 
increase highway investment by $5.5 billion. It is fully offset. I 
strongly support Senator Boxer and Senator Bond in this effort. The 
program they eliminate is a discretionary program that would not even 
select projects for an entire year.
  Then the program provides an additional 3 years to finish the 
project. That makes sense to me. My chairman, Senator Boxer, and I as 
the ranking member of Environment and Public Works Committee, go along 
with a bipartisan group of colleagues who will have a second amendment 
to add $50 billion to highway transit and clean drinking water. This 
amendment would take funds not obligated within a year up to $50 
billion from programs in the stimulus that are not spending and 
redirect them to infrastructure projects that are ready to have a 
contract awarded within 120 days after receiving the funding. That is 
what we call a stimulus. That puts people to work in jobs. And it 
doesn't add to the cost of the bill.
  Those are two opportunities coming up; we will have to get this done. 
It also moves the money from programs that are not stimulating the 
economy, which I think is a good idea.
  I at this time urge my colleagues to oppose the Murray amendment even 
though I agree with what she is trying to do. I want to have this 
offset. We have these two opportunities that I mentioned coming up 
where we will have the opportunity to accomplish the same objective and 
have them offset.
  Frankly, the amount she is talking about is not as much as I would 
like. I would like it to be an additional $50 billion which we will be 
talking about in another amendment coming up.
  Since it is not going to be offset, I make a point of order against 
the Murray amendment's emergency spending designation under 204(a)5A of 
S. Con. Res. 21 of the 110th Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Inouye be able to make a UC and then I be granted the floor to speak in 
favor of the Murray amendment and for the waiver she will need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:20 p.m. 
today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Murray-Feinstein-
Specter and others amendment No. 110 and that time until then be 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that if a budget 
point of order is raised against the amendment, that a motion to waive 
the relevant point of order be considered as made; and that no 
amendments be in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation 
thereto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THUNE. Reserving the right to object, can I clarify exactly then 
what the UC is? The Senator from Hawaii would have an opportunity to 
respond and offer a unanimous consent request, and then the Senator 
from California would have how much time?
  Mrs. BOXER. I have not asked for a specific time. I would take 15 
minutes.
  Mr. THUNE. I was hoping I would have an opportunity to make some 
remarks before the vote. The vote is going to occur at 12:20. Very 
good.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise as the chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee in favor of the Murray-Feinstein amendment, 
and I hope we will vote to waive this budget point of order. I want to 
tell you why.
  Senator Inhofe is correct that I will be working with him very 
proudly on a couple of amendments which will all be offset. But in 
general, we are in such a crisis in this country that we need to look 
at three things in this package: jobs, jobs, jobs. This package falls 
short. Once we get to the conference, I think some things will fall 
away. I do. But we need to boost the spending, it seems to me, on the 
most efficient programs that create jobs, and not just any type of job 
but good jobs--jobs in the construction industry where we have seen 
devastation hit our families.
  In my State of California, we have a 9.2-percent unemployment rate. 
Let me reiterate. In my State of California, we have a 9.2-percent 
unemployment rate. Were it not for our environmental laws which are 
putting people to work, putting solar rooftops on and the rest, I hate 
to think of where we would be because housing construction has 
literally stopped in its tracks.
  The importance of the Murray-Feinstein amendment is this: jobs, jobs, 
jobs. That is what the people want us to invest in. We know very well 
that when we invest money in the type of infrastructure we are talking 
about--highways, water systems, sewer systems--the jobs come along with 
it.
  We also know a lot of our physical infrastructure is failing. We can 
never get out of our minds the tragic collapse of the bridge in 
Minnesota. And when we look at the condition of our bridges across this 
great Nation of ours, we find there are way too many--maybe a quarter 
of them--in need of repair. So when we talk about this amendment, we 
are talking about adding funding

[[Page S1383]]

for roads, for bridges, for transit, for rail, for ports, for drinking 
and wastewater infrastructure, which are the most efficient job 
creators.
  I think it is fair to ask, are our States and localities ready to 
spend these dollars or will they go there only to sit? The answer is, 
our States are more than ready. According to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, the backlog of needed improvements to simply maintain 
the current bridge and highway network is $495 billion. That is the 
backlog. This amendment is $25 billion, and as I understand it, that is 
being added to $27 billion. So we are at least adding more funding that 
is real.
  To me, it is not enough. That is why Senator Inhofe and I are going 
to have an amendment that says if the rest of the funds in this bill 
are not committed by a time certain, we are going to put up to $50 
billion more into these accounts. I hope that passes, but this is a 
very important amendment. I hope we will pass it on a bipartisan vote, 
but the first step is to allow the budget act to be waived.
  The Department of Transportation also told us something else. They 
said that for every $1 billion invested in highways and bridges at the 
Federal level--and if that funding is matched--we could create and 
maintain 34,800 jobs. That is 34,800 jobs for $1 billion invested at 
the Federal level. I want to sort of shake my friends, in a nice way, 
and remind them that a million jobs were lost in this great Nation in 
the last couple of months--a half million in December and a half 
million in January. By the way, a half million also in November. I want 
you to think about your States and how many families that is. The 
number of jobs that have been lost is bigger than some States--bigger 
than some States. Close your eyes and imagine the whole State of 
Delaware with every person unemployed. That is what has happened so 
far, and worse.
  We need to get ahead of ourselves here. What worries me about the 
Senate is that we are kind of chasing after this tiger called 
recession. It took the Bush administration forever to call it a 
recession. Then they finally called it a recession and said, well, 
hopefully, we will get over it quickly. But we keep chasing it, trying 
to grab it by the tail. We have to get in front of this recession or it 
will become a depression. You get in front of it by doing the things 
you know will create jobs.
  Now, is every single item in this bill something I support? No. But I 
support the infrastructure part, I support the help to the energy 
sector so we can get off foreign oil, I support building a smart grid, 
I support making sure people who are long-term unemployed get the 
chance to feed their families, and I support doing more about housing. 
But I surely know this, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, a dollar invested in the physical infrastructure, in 
rebuilding it, is a dollar that will create jobs--thousands and 
thousands and thousands of jobs. This amendment is a good amendment. It 
doesn't overreach. It underreaches. But it is a start.
  The next question might be: Well, Senator, I agree with you that this 
investment will create jobs, but have the States identified projects 
that will qualify? The State departments of transportation, according 
to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials, have identified over 5,000 projects of over $64 billion in 
value which could create nearly 1.8 million jobs. We could restore the 
jobs that have been lost in the last 2 months with this amendment. Our 
committee, the Committee on Environment and Public Works--and I have my 
good staff here--has surveyed many of these States and we have 
determined these projects are shovel ready.
  So let me say it again: $64 billion of shovel-ready projects, ready 
to go--1.8 million jobs. And the underlying bill falls short. The 
underlying bill falls short. If we pass the Murray-Feinstein-Boxer, et 
cetera, amendment, we will in fact move toward equaling that shovel-
ready number we have.
  The American Public Transportation Association tells us that States 
have identified 787 ready-to-go public transit projects totaling $15.9 
billion that would sustain thousands of jobs. The U.S. Conference of 
Mayors tells us there is a total of 15,000 ready-to-go infrastructure 
projects in 641 cities. So you have the States telling us they are 
ready, you have the transit districts saying they are ready, and you 
have the U.S. Conference of Mayors saying they are ready. And when I 
look at the underlying bill, I believe it didn't fund these projects to 
the tune they should have.
  This amendment also increases investments in drinking water and 
wastewater infrastructure. We are so far behind on those programs. If 
our kids can't drink the water, that is trouble. We need to make sure 
the drinking water is safe. If we have a sewer spill, that is a 
disaster. We need to get out ahead of that. A recent EPA study--and, 
Mr. President, you will be interested in this--found that failure to 
increase investment in water and wastewater infrastructure could result 
in a $500 billion water infrastructure gap in the next 20 years. That 
EPA study was done under George Bush. Okay, George Bush's EPA told us 
we could have an infrastructure gap of $500 billion in the next 20 
years. So let's invest in water infrastructure. It will replace aging 
water pipes, expand treatment facilities, reduce pollution flowing into 
our Nation's rivers and streams and allow for implementation of 
projects to improve water efficiency.
  The Murray-Feinstein amendment, my friends, is critical. We don't do 
enough in the underlying bill. And for those who worry about an offset, 
we will find those in conference. We are going to keep this bill where 
President Obama wants it. We know that. But let's walk down the 
bipartisan lane on this one. We all know our States and our localities 
are crying out. We all know our people are hurting because they are not 
working. With this amendment, we create jobs in areas that we have to 
pay attention to anyway. Are we going to wait for our sewers to 
overflow into the streets? Are we going to wait for more bridges to 
collapse? I say that is ridiculous. You can't be a great economy when 
bridges are collapsing all around you, and our bridges are in trouble.
  So to say you won't vote for this amendment because it is $25 billion 
in an $800-plus billion, almost $900-plus billion bill, is 
shortsighted. I commit to working with my friends on the other side to 
find the offsets in this bill. It is not going to be that hard. I agree 
with Senator Inhofe, they are not in this bill, but we can work to get 
some offsets in the conference.
  Local people are saying to us, please, Senators, do something to help 
us get out there, spend the money on these shovel-ready projects--the 
highways, the bridges, the transit systems, the sewer systems, the safe 
drinking water issues. Help us do it. We can make this a far better 
bill. Private industry wants this, and these are private sector jobs. 
These are contracts that will be let for local contractors, small 
business, big business, union members, and nonunion members. This is 
what we should be doing in this bill.
  I signed a letter with Chairman Baucus on this very topic and, guess 
what, Senator Inhofe signed it, Senator Bond signed it, and we said we 
need to do more building of the infrastructure of our great country. 
The unemployment rate for construction workers is double the national 
unemployment rate. Listen to this: The unemployment rate for 
construction workers is 15.3 percent--15.3 percent in December--
compared to a 7.1-percent national unemployment. There are plenty of 
workers available. They are ready and they are excited to get to work. 
They have to support their families. They are suffering, they are 
worried, and they do not want to be on the Federal dole. They do not 
want to get food stamps. They do not want it. They want to work. They 
want to work.
  This is an important test of whether the Senate has a heart, frankly, 
and a brain, because I think this is where your brain and your heart 
come together with a yes vote. Because with our heart we know people 
are suffering. With our heart we know construction workers are 
suffering. With our brain we know that when they go to work and they 
pay taxes, we all benefit. With our brain we know when we rebuild the 
physical infrastructure our country is stronger and we set the 
predicate for a very strong economic recovery into the future.
  So I feel very strongly, as I am sure you can tell from the sound of 
my voice. I just hope we don't have a partisan vote. I think this is 
one where we

[[Page S1384]]

should come together. We will find new offsets. President Obama is 
going to have a cap. He is going to say we don't want to spend more 
than X. We will make this work, but let's have a good vote on this 
motion to waive the budget act. I think our country will be better for 
it, and the people out there who are watching this debate will feel 
good that we know our construction workers are suffering and our 
construction companies are suffering, and this would go a long way to 
boost their confidence.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from South Dakota 
wants to speak for 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Michigan, notwithstanding the pending unanimous consent request, 
be allowed to speak for 5 minutes following Senator Thune of South 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this is a very important debate for the 
American people. We have an economy that is struggling, we have a lot 
of people who are hurting, and I think in the context of that debate, 
it is very important that we remember these dollars we are spending are 
the American people's dollars. Yes, we want to be able to respond to 
the economic crisis the country is experiencing in a way that allows 
people to spend more money, that gets more money back into the hands of 
the American people, that will help grow the economy and create jobs, 
and provide the necessary incentives for small businesses to invest, 
but I think it is important at the outset of the debate that we give 
serious consideration and thought to what we are doing here and what we 
are talking about in terms of the dimensions and the scale of what we 
are talking about.
  When we throw around numbers here in Washington, DC, when we talk in 
millions and we talk in billions, and in this case a trillion dollars, 
we treat it as if it is something abstract. I think it is sometimes 
important to boil it down so that we put in perspective the dimension, 
the scale, the scope, and the size of what is being talked about this 
week on the floor of the Senate.
  I want to put up a chart that illustrates that very point. Imagine 
thinking about a trillion dollars, and putting it back to back or if 
you put a bunch of hundred dollar bills back to back on top of each 
other and asking people around the country how high that stack would 
go.
  I am sure you would get a lot of varying answers. You would probably 
have some people say it might go 300 yards into the air. Some people 
might say: Well, it might go 5 miles into the air. But the reality is, 
if you took hundred-dollar bills and stacked them on top of each other, 
you would have a stack that goes 689 miles high, back to back to back. 
That is hundred-dollar bills. We are not talking about dollar bills, we 
are talking about hundred-dollar bills.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question on this point?
  Mr. THUNE. I would say to the Senator, through the Chair, the Senator 
from California just had an opportunity. I would like to finish my 
remarks. Then I would be happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I will stay on the floor.
  Mr. THUNE. The point I am making is, you have to sometimes illustrate 
this in a sometimes very graphic way to help us understand what we are 
talking about. So I would make my point simply again: Hundred-dollar 
bills stacked back to back to back, if you stacked them on top of each 
other, would equal 689 miles.
  Now, another way of looking at this is, if you took hundred-dollar 
bills and wrapped them around the Earth at the Equator, in other words, 
you took hundred-dollar bills, not stack them on top of each other but 
wrap them side by side all the way around the Earth, if you can believe 
this, it would go around the Earth almost 39 times. That is 969,000 
miles of hundred-dollar bills that would go around the Earth if you 
took a trillion dollars and broke it down that way.
  That very simply puts into perspective what it is we are talking 
about. Someone else has described it this way: If you started spending 
a million dollars a day on the day Christ was born, and you spent a 
million dollars every single day up until today, you still would not 
have spent a trillion. That is the dimension of what we are talking 
about.
  I remember when I was in business school, we had our little business 
analyst calculators that we used to do financial calculations. You 
could not even get to this. You could not even get to a trillion 
dollars on calculators back at that time. I hope, today, for purposes 
of doing economic calculations, because of the scale we are talking 
about, these calculators go that far.
  But my point is, this is an enormous amount of money, an enormous 
amount of money. We are talking about $1.26 trillion of our children's 
and grandchildren's money over the next 10 years. I think there is a 
basic principle that all Members of the Senate should consider when we 
are spending our fellow citizens' hard-earned dollars. That principle 
is this: We should not spend money we do not have on things we do not 
need. Let me say that again. We should not spend money we do not have 
on things we do not need.
  Families and business owners understand this principle. 
Unfortunately, it is a principle that has been lost and escaped our 
colleagues on the other side who have drafted this 700-page, trillion-
dollar spending bill, which is filled with lots of Government spending 
that I think most Americans would characterize as wasteful. I am not 
saying all Government spending is bad. Government spending, if it is 
properly focused and highly scrutinized, may have some countercyclical 
impact. One example of that would be infrastructure spending that we 
use to improve our roads and bridges and provide access to clean 
drinking water, that can provide jobs in the short term, and can create 
economic opportunity in the long term.
  The problem we have is this bill is laden with unfocused, 
unnecessary, and wasteful spending. Now, the stated goal of a stimulus 
proposal, as stated by, I think, Larry Summers earlier this year, was 
it should be timely, temporary, and targeted. I may not be saying these 
in the right order but basically timely, temporary, and targeted, 
basically three criteria, three metrics by which we would measure a 
stimulus proposal and whether it is effective and whether it works.
  I would argue this particular bill is none of the above. It is slow, 
it is unfocused, and it is unending. It makes commitments way beyond 
the 1-year, 2-year window that we are talking about if we want to have 
an impact and create jobs with stimulus.
  So even with a price tag that is greater than any previous stimulus 
package in the history of our country, the majority of the spending in 
this bill is not focused on job creation and fails to meet the job 
creation goals our President called for and I think the American public 
expects.
  With record deficits in the near term, this bill, as drafted, is a 
mistake that I do not believe we can afford to make. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, we have a $1.2 trillion deficit in fiscal 
year 2009, before any financial stabilization or stimulus measures are 
passed by this Congress.
  Now, again, we are going to spend $1 trillion. I would point out what 
$1 trillion means. If you took hundred-dollar bills, you put them side 
by side, 969,000 miles, and that is the amount we are talking about 
spending. It is also the amount of the deficit in this particular 
fiscal year, fiscal year 2009. That is before, as I said before, any 
financial stabilization or stimulus measures are passed by this 
Congress. Frankly, we expect other requests to come forward in the area 
of financial stabilization.
  To put the $1.2 trillion deficit into perspective, that is roughly 
triple the previous record of $455 billion that the deficit came to in 
fiscal year 2008. So it is important to note that already this deficit 
in fiscal year 2009 will exceed by almost three times the deficit in 
the year 2008. It is going to be over $1 trillion before we do any of 
these other things.
  It is also important to note that the Congress, not the executive 
branch, has the constitutional authority to raise

[[Page S1385]]

and to spend revenue; that is, the power of the purse, by our 
Constitution, falls to Congress. So if we are looking for a scapegoat 
in this whole fiscal imbalance, we need to look no further than the 
Halls of Congress.
  In fact, in the last couple years--the Democrats regained the 
Congress back in 2007, the Federal deficit has ballooned from $160 
billion or 1.2 percent of our gross domestic product in 2007 to over $1 
trillion or 8.3 percent of our gross domestic product this year, in 
fiscal year 2009.
  Now, if we include just the additional spending for this proposal 
before us, the 2009 projected deficit, I am talking about now stimulus 
and the deficit as I mentioned earlier that is already projected for 
2009, it would increase to $1.43 trillion, almost $1.5 trillion, in 
deficits or, put another way, about 10 percent of our gross domestic 
product.
  I have to remind my colleagues that we are still very early in the 
year. We have almost 9 months left in this fiscal year to spend even 
more of our children's and grandchildren's tax dollars. The Congress is 
soon going to consider an omnibus spending bill for the remainder of 
2009.
  We also will have to consider a war supplemental bill and the 
potential of additional bailouts for the financial sector and we are 
told that request may be coming as early as next week.
  Without a question, we are going to end 2009 in perhaps the worst 
financial condition the Nation has ever seen. In fact, the last time we 
had a single-year deficit that the GDP ratio was over 8 percent was the 
year 1945, during the height of World War II.
  Now, for comparative purposes, the European Union, the Federal 
deficit there that we have this year of 10 percent, if you add the 
stimulus in, would not even be good enough to get into the European 
Union. According to European Union rules, member nations have to have a 
budget deficit of 3 percent or less. Our Federal deficit this year will 
be three times higher than the maximum threshold to get into the 
European Union.
  Of course, European countries are also dealing with the same 
contractionary forces that we are dealing with in this country, which 
are driving up their collective deficit to GDP ratios to record highs. 
But even with those factors and influences in those economies, the Euro 
zone's collected deficits will only reach 4.7 percent in 2009. That is 
4.7 percent of their gross domestic product, which will be less than 
half the U.S. total.

  When you talk about being faced with such unsustainable deficits, 
Congress, I would argue, has to carefully analyze any and all deficit 
spending. Any additional Government programs that are financed with 
more deficit spending need to meet the highest standards of job 
creation and return on taxpayer investment.
  Unfortunately, the spending bill we have before us contains a long 
list of Government programs that fail to meet that standard. I can 
start to go down the list--I will not go through the entire list 
because it would take too long--$1 billion for the Census; $20 billion 
for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers; $400 
million for STD prevention; $25 million to rehabilitate ATV or 
recreational vehicle trails; $34 million to remodel the Department of 
Commerce headquarters in Washington, DC; $70 million to support 
supercomputer activities for climate research; $208 million for 
disconnected youth; $1.2 billion for summer employment; $246 million in 
tax breaks for Hollywood filmmakers; $6 billion so bureaucrats in 
Washington can enjoy the benefits of green technology.
  I happen to be one who supports green technology. I think we ought to 
be moving in that direction. But we also have many opportunities, 
energy bills we have made on a regular basis around here, in order to 
engage in how we invest to be moving our country in a green direction.
  These programs do not create jobs. They hardly justify a $1.2 
trillion debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.
  So I would encourage my colleagues, as we go through the debate this 
week to scrutinize every line item in this 700-page bill and ask 
themselves if these provisions will create jobs and justify making 
record deficits even worse. We should not spend money we do not have on 
things we do not need.
  Over the next few days, several amendments are going to be offered to 
strike or replace wasteful spending items in this bill. I would call on 
my colleagues to consider these amendments with an open mind and a 
clear understanding of the dangerous consequences of a trillion-dollar 
mistake. A trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste.
  What we are talking about, as I mentioned in terms of the dimensions 
of this, if you look at hundred-dollar bills side by side, 38.9 times 
it goes around the Earth at the Equator. That is what I am talking 
about.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am astounded by this new-found fiscal responsibility I 
hear from the other side of the aisle. I wish to ask my friend a 
question: Do you know what the debt was when Bill Clinton left office 
and George Bush took over and there was a Republican Congress? Do you 
know what it was at that time?
  Mr. THUNE. I would say I am not sure I know the answer, but I am sure 
I am going to hear it.
  Mrs. BOXER. The debt was $5.7 trillion when George Bush and the 
Republicans took over. I will say to my friend, not to ask him a 
question, the debt today is $10.1 trillion; a doubling of the debt was 
brought to you courtesy of the Republicans.
  Does my friend know--I am sure he does--that when Bill Clinton left 
office, we had a surplus in our budget. We not only did not have a 
deficit, we had a surplus. My friend knows what George Bush left us 
with--hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars 
of debt.
  So for him to stand up now that the people are suffering and 
struggling and they need jobs and become the Herbert Hoover of current 
day times, I think it is hurtful to the American people. I say to my 
friend: Why is it that my friend now is suddenly talking about debt and 
did not discuss it when the Republicans were in charge?
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her 
question. I think we can all talk about what has come before, what has 
happened in the past. Frankly, there are lots of reasons why we are in 
the situation we are in.
  But I would remind my colleague from California that the President of 
the United States does not appropriate a single penny; that is done by 
the Congress. That is done by the Congress. We in the Congress have 
created this problem. Now, arguably it has happened under Republican 
Congresses, it has happened under Democratic Congresses. But the point 
is, we are here talking about spending an additional trillion dollars 
on the top of a historic amount of debt that we have in the country and 
deficits that this year are going to be $1.2 trillion. That is without 
adding in the stimulus. That is without talking about the financial 
stabilization request that is going to come later. That is without the 
omnibus spending bill, which is for the first time, I might add, going 
to be over $1 trillion, and that is without the supplemental bill that 
will be coming our way later this year.
  This Congress is talking about going on a spending spree that is 
unprecedented in American history. Yes, we can all point to the 
mistakes that were made in the past, but I am here to talk about today 
my concern for the future and what we are doing in the future, to 
future generations and our children and grandchildren, when we impose 
this kind of burden on them.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I have 60 seconds?
  Mrs. MURRAY. May I ask how much time is left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes allocated to the Senator 
from Michigan. That is all the remaining time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. As the sponsor of the amendment, I ask unanimous consent 
for 30 seconds prior to the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. And I ask unanimous consent to extend that for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to take 60 seconds to respond to Senator Thune. He 
says he doesn't want to point fingers. He is pointing fingers all over 
the place. He says we are here today talking about a trillion dollars. 
Let me tell

[[Page S1386]]

my colleagues what we are talking about: the deepest recession since 
the Great Depression, jobs being lost at 500,000 and 600,000 a month. 
All of a sudden some of our Republican friends have said: Whoops. Now 
that we can't give tax breaks to the people who are earning over a 
million and now that the Iraq war is winding down, we are not that 
interested in spending money.
  Democrats, when we were in control, had our priorities straight. We 
said: Put families first. We balanced the budget, and we will do it 
again. But we must restore this economy. When I use the phrase 
``Herbert Hoover,'' which has become kind of a symbol for doing nothing 
in the face of the middle class crumbling, I know what I am saying. I 
hope we will vote for the Murray amendment. It will create thousands of 
jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. STABENOW. Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray for her 
amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I strongly support the 
motion to waive the Budget Act. When my friend from South Dakota said 
we should not spend money on things we don't need, we need jobs. We 
need jobs, and that is exactly what this amendment does. The additional 
resources in this amendment of $25 billion, according to the normal 
formulas used, by my calculation would create over 1,187,500 new, good-
paying jobs. That is exactly what we need to do to get this economy 
going again. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, the reality is, we have had 8 years of their philosophy, 8 
years of a philosophy focused on the supply side of supply and demand. 
Start at the top, it will trickle down. What has that gotten us? In the 
last year alone, what that has meant to us is 2,956,000 good-paying 
American jobs gone, in 1 year. Over the last 8 years in manufacturing, 
which is the backbone of the middle class, we have lost over 4.1 
million manufacturing jobs.
  What this amendment is about, what this recovery plan is about, is 
changing the way we do business, changing priorities, focusing on 
middle-class workers, communities, folks working hard to stay in the 
middle class or get into the middle class, the people who need money in 
their pocket to buy things so we can have a strong economy again. We 
are talking about, in this proposal, creating jobs. That is what this 
is about.
  The philosophy that has been operating for the last 8 years has put 
us in a situation where we lost more jobs last year than any other time 
since 1945: Eleven million people are out of work. Something has to 
change.
  I commend our committee chairmen for their leadership, Senators 
Baucus and Inouye, and all of the good work that has gone into changing 
direction.
  The reality is, we are at a point in time where we have to focus on 
the folks who want a job, who want to go to work in the morning, to be 
able to pay the bills and keep the mortgage and put the kids in college 
and put food on the table. That is what this amendment does. This is 
about rebuilding America. At the end of it, we as taxpayers get 
something for it. We know a quarter of our bridges are in dangerous 
condition. We know we need to focus on roads and bridges and water and 
sewer systems, building 21st century schools for children, more focus 
on public transportation. We need to focus on creating good-paying 
jobs. That is what this amendment is all about. We have had enough of 
policies that only focused on a few. We have had enough of policies 
that asked the majority of Americans to sit and wait for something to 
trickle down to them and their families. This recovery plan rejects a 
philosophy that has not worked. Frankly, it is a philosophy that was 
rejected last November. People are saying they want to change the 
focus.
  What have we done? We have put together a recovery plan that focuses 
on jobs and rebuilding America. That is what the Murray amendment does. 
We focus on green manufacturing and green technologies, which are so 
important to our future, because as manufacturing was the backbone of 
the middle class for the last century, a green economy will build on 
manufacturing, will build on the middle class of the future. We have 
significant investments that move us in that direction, that not only 
make sure we are growing fuels and that we are operating in a more 
efficient manner, but that we are building the green technologies here 
so the jobs are here. That is what this is about. I believe strongly 
that we need to waive the Budget Act. We need to get on with the Murray 
amendment, because the bottom line of all of this is rebuilding the 
middle class.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment we have before us is of 
critical importance. By adopting this infrastructure amendment, we will 
improve this package by increasing its focus on repairing and upgrading 
our Nation's infrastructure. The fact is, our Nation's highways, 
bridges, and transit and water systems are just not keeping pace with 
our country's needs.
  For our economy, our workers, and our future, we have to rebuild 
America. This amendment will instantly translate into construction 
projects in communities across our country and send a quick jolt 
through our economy.
  In all, this amendment will create 655,000 new jobs. We cannot forget 
that unemployment in construction is higher than in any other sector.
  We know transportation investments are one of the most effective ways 
to grow our economy. For every dollar we invest in transportation, we 
get an immediate $1.59 in return.
  But make no mistake--this amendment is not just a short-term fix. It 
is a long-term investment that will pay off for our entire Nation.
  The truth is, as a Nation, we have neglected our pressing 
infrastructure needs. More than 25 percent of our Nation's bridges are 
deficient. Let us not forget the catastrophic bridge collapse in 
Minneapolis just a year and a half ago. Gridlock on our highways means 
each commuter spends an average of 38 hours a year sitting in traffic, 
burning 26 gallons of gas while going nowhere. And travelers in many 
parts of our country are stuck in their cars simply because they don't 
have the option to board a train. Our economy--the largest in the 
world--still doesn't have a world-class passenger rail system.
  This amendment will allow States to invest in highways, bridges, 
transit systems and expanded rail service.
  And it will put people back to work. Right now, families across our 
country are suffering. Every day more and more people join the 
unemployment line, a line that is right now 11 million people long.
  We have a tremendous opportunity before us to rebuild our 
infrastructure, reinvigorate our economy, and create jobs.
  We have a lot to do in the next week, and I hope we will meet our 
obligations and get the job done.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this amendment directs $25 billion to a 
targeted list of infrastructure programs, including highway, transit, 
and water and sewer programs. Adopting the amendment will make 
investments in our Nation's physical infrastructure a clear focal point 
in the economic recovery bill. And it will create 654,818 jobs.
  We have shovel-ready projects in every jurisdiction in my home State 
of Maryland.
  Let me take just a few minutes to explain how this amendment will 
benefit my State. It is a story that will be repeated across America.
  Transportation:
  The amendment calls for a $2 billion increase in transit grants for 
local communities, which will be allocated by well-established formula. 
This provision alone would increase Maryland's share of transit funds 
by $35.8 million.
  Fixed guideway modernization funding will be increased by $2 billion 
as well, resulting in an $88 million boost for Maryland. Together these 
two transit provisions will provide nearly 3,000 jobs in Maryland.
  The highway provisions in the bill will add $13 billion to repairing 
and improving our network of roads. Maryland's share will be $208 
million, creating 5,580 jobs here in this state alone.
  Water:
  Drinking water: the amendment sends an additional $13.8 million for 
drinking water projects to Maryland to upgrade our aging drinking water 
facilities.
  Clean water: this amendment will send an additional $146.4 million 
into Maryland. We have over a billion dollars in needs to repair and 
upgrade our sewer systems in Maryland. These additional funds will 
protect Marylanders

[[Page S1387]]

from the health effects associated with sewerage overflows. It will 
improve our water quality in rivers and streams across the State, 
including our national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay.
  Together the water infrastructure funds total an additional $160.2 
million in Maryland that will create 6,270 jobs.
  This is an amendment that meets our critical infrastructure needs and 
creates jobs right away, giving our economy the stimulus it needs.
  But this is also an amendment that is temporary and targeted. We will 
get major infrastructure improvements that will last much longer than 
the funds themselves. These are investments roads, bridges, sewer 
systems, drinking water facilities--that typically last 30, 40 even 50 
years. This is a smart investment in America's future.
  I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to give it their enthusiastic support. This is an 
amendment that is an investment in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington, under a previous 
order, is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Carper and Tester 
be added as cosponsors of the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senator from Pennsylvania be given 2 minutes prior to my 
closing remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe we do need a stimulus package. 
I have not had an opportunity to speak on the bill generally but will 
do so later today to express concerns I have about not following 
regular order in having hearings. But I understand the President is 
concerned about very prompt action. I support this amendment for $25 
billion in infrastructure. I believe the bill is too heavily weighted 
on items which ought to be in the budget process, very important items, 
but not in the stimulus package, and more heavily directed to 
infrastructure on projects which are shovel ready. This amendment is 
directed to that objective. Governor Rendell has assured me and the 
public that he can have highway jobs ready in 6 months, shovel ready to 
proceed. So I believe this is what the stimulus ought to be doing.
  I would have preferred to have seen an offset for this $25 billion. 
There are funds where it could have been offset; for example, in the 
State Stabilization Program, $79 billion, which is broad, wide-ranging 
discretion to the Governors, which ought not to be a part of the 
stimulus package. We will have an opportunity in the balance of this 
bill to find the savings of this $25 billion. The overall bill ought to 
be less than the $819 billion passed by the House. But for the present 
time, I will vote to waive the budget, looking for an opportunity to 
find the $25 billion offset later and looking for other opportunities 
to have an effective stimulus which is not quite so expensive.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I 
urge my colleagues to approve this $25 billion for the 655,000 jobs 
across the country to rebuild roads, bridges, sewers, and 
infrastructure. This amendment will put people to work, and it will get 
the country back to the point where we feel strong again. I have heard 
the arguments about offsets, and I know there are a number of Senators 
who are working to find agreement on how we can reduce the cost of the 
underlying bill. We will work with them. But let's make sure we 
understand that infrastructure is a priority and approve this 
amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected and the emergency 
designation is stricken.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________