[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 139 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9953-S9959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
2918, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 2918, making 
     appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, having 
     met, have agreed that the House recede from its disagreement 
     to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an 
     amendment, and the Senate agree to the same. Signed by all 
     the conferees on the part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of Thursday, September 24, 2009.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
upon disposition of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2918, the 
Senate then proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 191, a 
correcting resolution; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to present the 
conference report on H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
Act of 2010.
  I will start by thanking the ranking member of the subcommittee, 
Senator Murkowski, for her help throughout the process of completing 
the bill. We worked very well together, and the result is a true 
bipartisan product.
  I also thank Chairman Inouye and Vice-Chairman Cochran for their 
support and direction this year as well.
  At the request of the full committee, a clean, 1-month continuing 
resolution has been attached to this conference report.
  I believe the bill we have before us today is a good one. This bill 
will allow the legislative branch to continue to operate and move 
forward during the next year.
  When Senator Murkowski and I began our hearings this year, we both 
agreed we should lead by example in the legislative branch--being good 
stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. Fiscal year 2010 would be a year of 
``must haves'' versus a year of ``nice to haves.'' With one notable, 
important, and understandable exception, I think we have been 
successful.
  The final conference report contains $50 million for the renovation 
of the Cannon House Office Building. The conferees included this 
funding at the request of the House. As a matter of comity, the House 
and Senate defer to the other body on funding decisions related to 
their side of the Chamber. The $50 million for the Cannon Building 
Historical Fund accounts for most of the new overall spending above the 
cost-of-living increases in our bill.
  The conference report before us today totals $4.65 billion, which is 
$156 million, or 3.5 percent, over fiscal year 2009, $386 million below 
the budget request.
  The bill provides $926 million for the operations of the Senate, 
which is $31 million, or 3.4 percent, above fiscal year 2009, and $83 
million below the request. I am happy to say we were able to reduce the 
Senate funding by $8 million from the Senate-passed bill. In addition, 
$1.37 billion is included for the operations of the House in fiscal 
year 2010.
  The bill also provides $328 million for the Capitol Police, which is 
$22 million, or 7 percent, above fiscal year 2009. This amount fully 
funds the current onboard strength of 1,799 officers and provides for 
an additional five civilian employees to assist with the implementation 
of the radio project. Congress made the decision earlier this year to 
move forward with this long-overdue project. So now it is critical that 
the Capitol Police has the personnel it needs to bring this project in 
successfully--on time and on budget. No excuses.
  The Library of Congress is funded at $643 million, an increase of $36 
million, or 6 percent, above current year, including full funding 
requested for the Library's information technology upgrades, which is a 
top priority of Dr. Billington.
  The conference agreement includes $602 million for the Architect of 
the Capitol. Setting aside the $50 million for the renovation of the 
Cannon House Building, this mark represents a $22 million, or 4 
percent, overall increase for the Architect of the Capitol. The bill 
includes a very good balance of energy reduction, deferred facilities 
maintenance, and code compliance projects within the funding provided.
  The Government Accountability Office is funded at $557 million, an 
increase of $26 million, or 5 percent, above fiscal year 2009. This 
funding supports additional staff to assist GAO in carrying out its 
vital role in the oversight of the Federal Government.
  The Government Printing Office is funded at $147 million, an increase 
of $7 million, or 5 percent, above current year. This increase provides 
funding for several of GPO's high-priority information technology 
projects and much needed repairs to the elevator system of the GPO 
building.
  The conferees included $45 million for the Congressional Budget 
Office, which is an increase of $1 million above fiscal year 2009. This 
will provide CBO with the support it needs to fulfill its mission 
serving Congress.
  The Office of Compliance is funded at $4.4 million, which is 
$305,000, or 7 percent, over current year.
  Finally, the conference report includes $12 million for the Open 
World Leadership Fund. This represents a decrease of $2 million below 
current year and $2.5 million below the Senate-passed fiscal year 2010 
level.
  Mr. President, in closing, I thank the staff members who have 
assisted us throughout this process. First, from Senator Murkowski's 
staff, I thank Carrie Apostolou and Sarah Wilson for their hard work on 
this bill. From my staff, I thank Nancy Olkewicz, Kate Howard, and Teri 
Curtin for their assistance in producing this important legislation.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator in Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Legislative Branch 
conference report, which includes a continuing resolution allowing the 
government to maintain normal operations until October 31, 2009.
  I thank Chairman Nelson and Ranking Member Murkowski for their hard 
work on this bill. I believe the final product before us is fiscally 
responsible legislation that meets the essential needs of both the 
House and Senate. I applaud their efforts to urge its adoption by the 
Senate.
  With regard to the continuing resolution, I note that today is 
September 30, the last day of the fiscal year. With our men and women 
in uniform fighting on two fronts, and with our economy at a critical 
stage in its recovery from the worst recession we have faced in several 
generations, it is inconceivable that we would allow for any disruption 
of the essential services provided by the Federal Government. We simply

[[Page S9954]]

must pass this bill today and send it to the President for his 
signature.
  The continuing resolution before us is clean and does not contain any 
controversial provisions. It increases funding for our veterans health 
care services in order to meet the needs of our wounded warriors 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The continuing resolution increases funding for the Census Bureau to 
allow that agency to continue to ramp up its necessary activities prior 
to the 2010 census.
  Mr. President, I note that the continuing resolution prohibits any 
funding for ACORN, and it extends a number of necessary authorizations.
  Finally, in order to cover a budget shortfall, the continuing 
resolution allows the Postal Service to reduce by $4 billion a payment 
designed to prefund retiree health benefits.
  Continuing the operations of this government should not be a partisan 
issue. I note to my colleagues that in both 2006 and 2007, the Congress 
attached a continuing resolution to an appropriations conference 
report.
  In 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed the conference report and 
the attached continuing resolution by a vote of 100 to 0.
  In 2007, the Democrat-led Senate passed the conference report and the 
continuing resolution by voice vote.
  When I assumed the chair of the Appropriations Committee, my first 
priority was to work with my colleague and vice chair, Senator Cochran, 
to return the appropriations process to regular order. This is a tall 
order given that we did not receive the administration's budget until 
May.
  Today, we have our second and third conferences scheduled with the 
House, and we expect to hold several more in the coming weeks. This 
short-term continuing resolution will give us time to consider a good 
number of appropriations bills under the regular order.
  Mr. President, we have more work to do to pass all 12 bills. But I am 
proud of the committee's efforts thus far, and I look forward to 
reporting continued progress throughout the month of October.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Legislative 
Branch conference report, which contains this short-term continuing 
resolution. I congratulate the chair and the ranking member.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to speak today once again 
concerning the really astounding, irresponsible, unjustified increases 
in spending we have seen in this Congress. I don't believe this Nation 
has ever seen anything like it in the non-defense area, and it is 
threatening this country's long-term financial health. So I am going to 
focus today on some of the appropriations bills considered in this 
Chamber as well as the next highway trust fund bailout, which is in the 
works.
  I have some prepared charts, and my staff will bring those here in a 
minute, which will show the runup in appropriations spending we are 
seeing today, which is pretty much unprecedented in the history of this 
Congress.
  Take for instance the agricultural appropriations over the past 8 
years. They are dramatic. We passed that recently. Agricultural 
appropriations increases were 14.5 percent in this year's 
appropriations bill over last year's. That would double the 
agricultural budget in 5 years if we maintained those increases. That 
is a stunning number. The average increase in agriculture spending was 
2.1 percent compounded over the 7-year period from 2003 to 2009. Yet we 
now jump up, in this time of unprecedented deficits and debt, to where 
we have a 14-percent increase. The 2.1-percent average we had from 2003 
to 2009 was criticized by many as being excessive, but it was about the 
rate of inflation. As we know today, inflation is virtually 
nonexistent, and yet we end up with a 14-percent increase.
  If you look at the Department of the Interior, those changes over the 
past 9 years are also dramatic. We just passed the Interior 
appropriations bill. Interior and EPA, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, have now been put together. Their increases were 16.6 percent 
in over the previous year in the 2010 Senate bill.

  This chart just shows in graphic detail how agricultural spending has 
gone. I know my colleague from Nebraska believes in agriculture, and I 
do, too, but this is one of the few times I have not been able to 
support an agriculture bill. We don't have the money to increase 
spending 14 percent.
  President Bush, they said you spent too much on agriculture. We heard 
that a lot, didn't we, I say to Senator Nelson. But it was pretty 
frugal over the years. Here we have, in 2009, a 15 percent increase, 
and in 2010 a 14.5 percent increase in spending. Our debt today is so 
much greater than what we had in those years, it makes us wonder how 
did we get here.
  If you look at Interior, as I just mentioned, we see the same thing. 
The Environmental Protection Agency has not always been a part of this 
funding mechanism, but we worked hard to try to make sure we are 
comparing apples to apples, and you see less than 1 percent in 2002, 
5.6, 1.6, a minus 1.3, minus 4.0, then 16 percent this year. I couldn't 
vote for that. I do not think our colleagues are listening to their 
constituents back home. They know something is going awry up here. They 
think we are detached from reality. Doesn't this chart suggest that 
they are correct?
  I will just mention the Environmental Protection Agency. Their 
increase this year is 33 percent. That would double EPA's funding in 2 
to 3 years.
  Let me add, these funding levels do not count the largest 
appropriations bill in the history of America, which we passed in 
February--wait a minute. I hear my wife right now: Jeff, would you quit 
saying ``we'' passed, when you voted against it? The Senate passed $800 
billion. If you add the stimulus funding the Interior bill agencies 
received, that would add another $11 billion to their spending and take 
it to over a 50-percent increase.
  So Interior got a lot of money out of the stimulus bill. This chart 
is not including the stimulus spending; this is baseline spending. So 
next year, they will want an increase again and it will be on a much 
higher baseline, a 16-percent higher baseline than the previous year.
  I will get to this one next, the T-HUD appropriations, as we call it 
around here, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.
  Since the Transportation-HUD bill has only been around for 3 years in 
this configuration, together, this is what we have been able to graph 
out for those two bills. The average of all discretionary 
appropriations increases for all appropriations bills that we have had, 
from 1995 to 2009, 15 years, averaged 5.2 percent compounded. So when 
you see a 23-percent increase this year in the fiscal year 2010 bill, 
that is over four times the 15-year average of appropriations for 
discretionary spending in our cup. At a 23-percent rate, spending on T-
HUD would double every 3 to 4 years.
  Next, let's look at Commerce-Justice-Science. Although CJS has also 
only been around for the past three years, we were able to reconstruct 
the funding levels for all agencies going back to FY2003. What we 
discovered was surprising. The average spending increases from 2003 to 
2009 for CJS was 4.4 percent. However, this year we have a 12.3-percent 
increase in the baseline funding for the CJS bill. At that rate, 
spending in that CJS--Commerce-Justice-State spending would double 
every 6 years, and that doesn't include the $16.9 billion CJS accounts 
got from the stimulus legislation.
  Finally, there is the State and Foreign Operations bill. The State 
and Foreign Operations has only been around together in this 
configuration for 3 years, and that is all we have been able to graph. 
However, we can once again compare it to the average of all 
appropriations increases for all the bills from 1995 to 2009, which I 
said was 5.2 percent.

[[Page S9955]]

  So the 33-percent increase in the fiscal year 2010 State and Foreign 
Operations bill is over six times the 15-year average increase for 
discretionary spending. At a 33-percent rate, the spending would double 
every 2 to 3 years, at a time of unprecedented deficits.
  This week, we are going to have the Legislative Branch appropriations 
bill, our budget. It increases spending at a 5.9-percent rate compared 
to fiscal year 2009. That is four times the rate of inflation excluding 
food and energy, which, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is 
1.4 percent for the last 12 months. So, excluding food and energy, we 
have inflation at the rate of 1.4 percent, and we are funding our own 
selves in the legislative branch at a 6-percent increase. If you 
include the cost of food and energy--and there is some good news here: 
inflation has gone down, actually. We are in a period of deflation. It 
has gone down 1.5 percent when you figure that over the entire year, 
including food and energy prices, which have dropped considerably from 
the huge gasoline prices we remember not long ago. So if you add the 
stimulus and the supplemental funds from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal 
year 2010 instead, you come up with an 8.2-percent increase.
  So what is wrong with spending 23.2 percent or 16 percent more on 
these bills than last year, or on the average? The simplest way to put 
it is, we don't have the money. We are going to have to borrow money to 
do this spending. We borrow the money. It is not free money. We don't 
have the power just to spend money. When we go into debt, we borrow the 
money, and people buy Treasury bills and notes, and we use that money 
to pay the debt, the shortfall between what we spend and what we take 
in in taxes. We are going to have to borrow money from a lot of people, 
but China is our biggest loaner of money. Other countries lend as well.
  Shortly after President Obama's inauguration, he released a budget 
entitled ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' Here are some quotes from his 
passage in that document:

       Therefore, while our Budget will run deficits, we must 
     begin the process of making the tough choices necessary to 
     restore fiscal discipline, cut the deficit in half by the end 
     of my first term in office, and put our Nation on sound 
     fiscal footing.

  That is a good statement. I just have to say that I am still looking 
to where those tough choices are going to be made. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, our independent source of information, the 
President's budget doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it in 10. 
This is the Congressional Budget Office. This is a nonpartisan group, 
although our Democratic majority on the Budget Committee, of which I am 
a member, has the votes to select the Director. Since the history of 
the founding of this Nation, we ran up a total debt, national debt, of 
$5.8 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
President's budget would double it in 5 years, by 2013, to $11.8 
trillion, and in 2019 it would be $17.3 trillion, thus tripling the 
national debt in 10 years. I know people do not think that is true, but 
those are the numbers we have, and we are on track to get there. This 
does not include unprecedented increases in discretionary spending that 
we are seeing on the floor of the Senate. It also doesn't include 
health care. This number was scored before we talked about spending $1 
trillion or more on health care additions.
  I have to mention interest on the debt because the numbers are so 
large that people have difficulty comprehending them. People tell me 
that all the time: A trillion dollars, I have difficulty understanding 
how large that is.
  What about interest? We know what it takes when you pay your mortgage 
interest or your credit card interest. You have to pay the underlying 
debt and then you pay the interest on top of that. Sometimes interest 
can put you in the poorhouse.
  This year, 2009, the interest on our total national debt is $170 
billion. That is a lot of money. Alabama's State budget, including 
education, is about $15 billion. We are about one-fiftieth of the 
Nation in size. Interest this year will be $170 billion, and it will go 
up dramatically. CBO scores the annual payment of the United States to 
people we owe money to at the end of 10 years, as almost $800 billion. 
If interest rates go up a little higher than they had projected, and 
many have projected interest rates will go up higher, particularly the 
Blue Chip Forecast, which is a highly respected group of economists who 
forecast various things, they forecast it would be $865 billion because 
they forecast a higher interest rate. And if we have what some people 
fear will occur, which is a surge in interest rates, as we had in the 
late 1970s because of our irresponsible spending, it could hit $1.29 
trillion or $1,290 billion in interest.
  So we spend about $40 billion a year on highways, we spend about $65 
billion in this Congress on aid to education, and we are going to see 
from $170 billion to $800 billion or more we have to pay in interest? 
There is no free lunch. You can't borrow your way out of debt. When you 
spend money you do not have, you borrow it and you have to pay interest 
on it.
  We have low interest rates today. That seduced some of our masters of 
the universe to say: Let's run up a little debt right now. Running up a 
little debt is one thing, but the interest rates are going to go up, as 
CBO projects. They are pretty low today because of the slow economy.
  I am very concerned about this. What I am concerned about is our 
spending in these appropriations bills indicates we are oblivious to 
this. This is reality. I am not making this up. This is reality, and 
the American people intuitively understand it and they are really 
worried about it. I think they should be. We are the ones who seem to 
be not connected to reality.
  The President also stated these words in his budget submission 
documents:

       Then there are the years that come along once in a 
     generation, when we look at where the country has been and 
     recognize that we need a break from the troubled past, that 
     the problems we face demand that we begin charting a new 
     path. This is one of those years.

  It does seem apparent that we are having a break with our past. We 
are definitely seeing increases in spending, the likes of which we have 
never seen before in our basic baseline appropriations bills. Even the 
deficits I have mentioned assume not a recession in the next 10 years 
but robust growth in the next few years and solid growth in the last 5 
years. Basically, the projections on the deficit and the interest rate 
we are going to have to carry are greater.
  And the deficits--let me share this with my colleagues. I get asked 
this at townhall meetings: Well, when do we pay back the debt? When do 
we pay it off? I am paying my mortgage. I pay principal and interest. 
When is the Federal Government going to pay back its debt? The answer 
is: We have no plan to do so. The only plan we have is to pay interest 
and increase the debt.
  For example, this year the budget deficit has been estimated to be 
$1.8 trillion, the largest ever. Last year it was $450 billion. It is 
$1.8 trillion this year. The CBO forecasts that the lowest deficit, 
annual deficit, we will have in the next 10 years is over $600 billion.
  How can you pay any debt down when the lowest deficit you are going 
to have is $600 billion? The best year they are projecting, we increase 
the debt by $600 billion. Indeed, what is even more troubling is in the 
outer years, years 8, 9, and 10, the deficit is growing. In the 10th 
year, they project that the deficit that will result from the 
President's spending policies would be over $1 trillion.
  So there is no plan to pay this back. It is only a plan to increase 
the total debt, which inevitably increases the interest burden that is 
going to fall on our children and grandchildren. We are reaching into 
the future to pour money into today to satisfy our current needs 
because some say we are in a crisis and we have to get out of this 
crisis; let's just spend money.
  We are using that as an excuse to increase our legislative branch 
spending, our interior spending, our agriculture spending that, at 
baseline level, is higher than anything we have ever done in recent 
memory. Let's hope the scenarios I mentioned do not happen. I think it 
is possible. I have a lot of confidence in the American people that 
somehow, some way their voice is going to be heard. There are going to 
be some changes in Washington. If we do not do it ourselves, they are 
liable

[[Page S9956]]

to send someone up here to replace us who will do it.
  But it appears that some of our major creditors are taking note of 
the debt we are running up. Our creditors are looking at these numbers. 
They are not oblivious to what is going on. There is a special kind of 
Treasury Bond that we sell to get people to loan the government money 
called treasury inflation-protected securities or TIPS. Unlike regular 
bonds that would be at a certain interest rate and that could be 
devalued when inflation increases, TIPS adjust their value if inflation 
goes up. So if people with a lot of money looking at these numbers, are 
they betting that we will see inflation go up or are they expecting 
inflation to go down? It is pretty clear that they expect inflation to 
go up because investor interest in the TIPS is soaring.
  The Dow Jones Newswires reported September 13 that prices on TIPS 
have risen 8.7 percent this year; whereas, the prices of regular 
Treasury bonds have shrunk by 2.6 percent.
  Smart Money magazine reported September 23 that investors poured $8.5 
billion into TIPS in the second quarter of this year alone, double the 
amount for the same period last year. The Wall Street Journal reported 
the same day that investors have poured $17 billion into TIPS so far 
this year; whereas, they purchased only $10 billion in TIPS all last 
year.
  Meanwhile, the Chinese, who are some of our biggest creditors, with 
more than $800 billion in Treasury bonds, have expressed concerns about 
inflation here and have shown a corresponding interest in buying TIPS. 
According to the Wall Street Journal, they discussed TIPS at high-level 
talks in Washington at the end of July.
  The United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled ``China 
Alarmed by U.S. Money Printing,'' on September 6, even quoted a top 
Chinese Communist Party official lecturing the United States on 
spending and then quoting Benjamin Franklin to the Americans.
  He said: ``He who goes borrowing goes sorrowing.'' How ignominious is 
that, to be lectured on spending by Communists. Due to interest from 
both the Chinese and others, the spread in the interest rates between 
the 10-year TIPS and the regular 10-year Treasuries has grown from 
about zero--they both had about the same rate of interest at the 
beginning of this year--to nearly 2 percent.
  That means one can get nearly a 2-percent better rate by buying 
regular Treasuries. But people still want TIPS. Why? Because they 
believe and are afraid that as the years go by, inflation is going to 
rise, and they will get more interest back by buying TIPS, even though 
it is 2 percent below the basic Treasury rate.
  Meanwhile, the dollar is hovering at a 1-year low, partially because 
the Fed recently decided to have interest rates unchanged at basically 
zero percent, and decided to extend through March its timeframe for 
purchasing $1.25 trillion in mortgage securities and $200 billion in 
government agency debt.
  The dollar has slid 6.2 percent this year on inflation fears, while 
gold has soared 15 percent. Gold goes up on inflation fears in the 
future.
  Confidence in the dollar has sunk so low that the U.N. proposed 
replacing the dollar as the global reserve currency in its U.N. 
Conference on Trade and Development annual trade report, published 
September 7. China has also expressed interest in an alternative 
currency.
  Not only that, because of all this borrowing, we are about to hit our 
$12.1 trillion debt limit, which was last raised when? Not too many 
months ago, when we passed the $800 billion stimulus package in 
February.
  Our debt has increased by $1.1 trillion just since President Obama 
was inaugurated. The Treasury Department has been holding record 
auctions of Treasury bills and notes to keep up with the deficit and 
the debt.
  Another aspect of the continuing resolution that we will be 
considering this week is yet another bailout of the Postal Service. 
This is the third Postal bailout in 8 years. The Post Office was 
supposed to be completely self-funding by now. But they still refuse or 
are unable to pay for their outyear benefits and expenses.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, they face about $95 
billion in total unfunded liabilities--$95 billion--which is why they 
are supposed to make payments that are being suspended by the 
continuing resolution. They are scheduled to make $5.1 billion in 
payments this year for the unfunded pension liabilities. But in this 
bill, we are letting them only pay $1.1 billion.
  There is nothing free here. OK? We will let them not pay the full 
amount. Those payments are to make their benefits actuarially sound. 
This $4 billion in relief is in addition to the $7.1 billion that was 
provided in 2003 and the $1.5 billion that was provided in 2006.
  CBO, our Congressional Budget Office, says this is costly because it 
shifts money from future accounts to current expenses. But if we keep 
doing this without structural reforms from the Postal Service, 
taxpayers will wind up on the hook for a good portion of those unfunded 
liabilities.
  Why is the Post Office in such a financially poor position? In terms 
of efficiency, labor costs consume 80 percent of their revenue; 
whereas, UPS and FedEx spend 65 and 45 percent, respectively, on their 
labor costs.
  The Postal Service is nearly insolvent despite not paying any taxes. 
They have to have some reform in the Postal Service. I am not going to 
go into detail now, but a recent Federal Times article pointed out some 
of the inefficiencies. We cannot continue this.
  Let's turn to the highway trust fund. We are going to be asked to 
pass an extension of the trust fund spending. It struck me as perhaps 
coincidental that our highway trust fund keeps running out of money 
year after year after year. What is happening here? Why is it always 
running out of money? After all, the highway program is supposed to be 
funded by the gas tax and to be deficit neutral.
  However, last year we were told we had to borrow $8 billion from 
people who loan us money, including China and Saudi Arabia and others, 
to replenish the highway fund. This year, we have already borrowed 
another $7 billion to fix the shortfall.
  Although the bill before us this week does not borrow additional 
money from the Treasury, it also does nothing to address the constant 
deficit the trust fund faces. I am told the fund has been facing and 
will face a deficit of about $10 billion a year, which means this bill 
is just kicking the can down the road, and we are going to be asked for 
either another bailout or a tax hike in the future.
  We cannot savage the highway budget. We have to maintain a reasonable 
spending level for our highway budget. But we have not been going about 
this responsibly. We are basically funding it by increasing our debt. 
That is no way to go.
  Some make the point that people are driving less and they pay less 
gasoline taxes. There is some truth to that. But the most recent 
authorization bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act, contained a timebomb in it that created the 
crisis we are in today.
  It appears to have been written with the objective of drawing down 
the highway trust fund rapidly to zero and perhaps beyond. The previous 
highway bill had some safety mechanisms built into it to prevent 
declines in our revenue from bankrupting the trust fund. But the 
SAFETEA-LU weakened both of them, one known as revenue aligned budget 
authority and one known as the Byrd test, to the point that they are 
basically irrelevant today.
  The combination of constantly increasing spending and disabled safety 
mechanisms to contain spending means that a crisis was almost 
inevitable. As early as April of 2006, the Congressional Budget Office 
was predicting significant negative balances in the outyears of 
Transportation spending. But did we take any action to confront that 
looming shortfall?
  No, no action was taken either in the authorizing committees or the 
appropriations committees. The predictable gap between authorized 
spending and predictable revenue, a prediction that the highway trust 
fund will soon go bankrupt, which is where the balances hit zero and 
the timebomb goes off. Despite predictions from CBO that this would 
happen, to this day, no action has been taken by either the authorizers 
or appropriators to rein in spending or create the kind of revenues 
necessary to sustain the program.

[[Page S9957]]

  Instead we are supposed to keep borrowing, borrowing, debt, debt, 
debt. The excuses we keep hearing to justify these bailouts is that the 
highway trust fund has been raided at various times in the past. But 
that is not accurate.
  It is inaccurate. According to the GAO, an independent agency, the 
general fund paid for $39 billion in highway expenses from 1956 to 
1996. Including interest, these payments were worth $164 billion. So it 
seems that at best, the highway trust fund isn't owed anything, and at 
worst, it perhaps actually owes money to the general fund. In fact, GAO 
determined in that report that as of 1998, if the highway trust fund 
had been forced to pay for all highway expenditures, it would have been 
in deficit $152 billion. We are not raiding the highway fund. We have 
been putting in extra money. Where did we get it? By borrowing more 
money and increasing our debt.
  Those transfers didn't stop in 1997 either. Before the current series 
of bailouts began, Congress already provided for $31 billion in 
transfers over 10 years from the general fund to the highway trust fund 
as part of the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act.
  As I mentioned before, we have before us this week a highway trust 
fund extension that does nothing to help with the constant deficit in 
the program except borrow more money to put into it. All it does is 
keep spending at levels we know we don't have the money to sustain. In 
fact, if we keep spending at the current levels, the highway trust fund 
will require $87 billion in bailouts from 2010 to 2019. I remember a 
few weeks ago, in a stunning vote, Senator Vitter from Louisiana 
offered a fine amendment. We were told that the stimulus package that 
had to be passed so quickly in February to save jobs was going to 
rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and our highway programs, creating 
permanent improvements that would benefit the Nation for years to come.
  Most people perhaps missed the fact that less than 4 percent of the 
$800 billion that was appropriated in February went to highways. 
Hundreds of billions of dollars of the stimulus bill have still not 
been spent. Senator Vitter said: We said we were going to use this 
money for highways. We are having a shortfall in the trust fund. It is 
going to cause serious repercussions in the transportation industry. 
Let's take the money and fix it on a more permanent basis, 18 months, 2 
years, and take the money from the stimulus bill that hasn't been 
spent.
  I voted with Senator Vitter, but the amendment was voted down, the 
effect of which was to say that the Senate prefers to borrow the money 
necessary to fix the highway trust fund and increase our debt rather 
than using the money we basically told the American people we were 
setting aside for highways. That was a very irresponsible vote. It 
spoke volumes. Basically, with few exceptions, the Democratic majority 
made up their minds how they wanted to handle this shortfall which was 
increasing the debt. They refused to consider taking it from the 
already appropriated stimulus package.
  Unfortunately, CBO scores are not the clearest when it comes to these 
bailouts. I am not sure that is all CBO's fault or the Budget 
Committees'. One would think a bill that allows billions of dollars in 
additional deficit spending would score as much. But according to the 
CBO, highway spending is discretionary; therefore, what matters in 
terms of the deficit is what is appropriated not what is authorized. Of 
course, if we ask the appropriators, they will simply say they provide 
what is authorized. For fiscal 2010, the appropriators provided what 
they expected to be authorized by simply assuming that this extension 
of spending and eventual general fund transfer would happen. That is 
one of the reasons there was an incredible 23-percent increase in 
spending in the Senate-passed bill.
  The committees are playing a shell game with taxpayer dollars. 
Somebody has to step up and start taking responsibility for the 
seriousness of the situation. If we look at how much transportation 
spending has increased over the last 10 years and where it is expected 
to go, the 2005 highway bill provided $286 billion in spending over 5 
years and allowed spending to increase 23 percent over that 5-year 
period. The 2007 spending it provided represented a 92-percent spending 
increase from 1997; 10 years, almost double. I offered an amendment in 
2005 to reduce that spending and fund it properly. It failed 84 to 16.
  The House Transportation Committee apparently wants the next major 
reauthorization to spend $500 billion over the next 6 years. That is a 
per-year increase in spending of 46 percent.
  One thing we are pretty unified on is that we need to adequately fund 
highways. I thought we had unanimous agreement that the stimulus bill 
would emphasize highways and bridges and roads and infrastructure, but 
it did not. But we still spent the money.
  The reason we are not getting nearly as much jobs impact from this 
Federal stimulus package is too much of it is going to amorphous things 
that don't create positive benefits and jobs. Regardless, the number we 
show on this chart of the debt of the United States, projected to 
triple in 10 years, is unsustainable. Everybody says that, but when do 
we get serious? We are not getting serious in this year's budget. It is 
an unprecedented increase in spending.
  The long-term budget the President submitted to us and what was 
essentially approved by this Congress shows it tripling in the next 10 
years, based on what their projections are for spending. I am troubled 
by it. We have to keep talking about this. We need to listen to what 
the American people are telling us. If we do, we will be acting in a 
much more responsible way than we are today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 12:30 
recess be extended so that I may finish a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the Senate floor this morning, there has 
been some debate about one of the provisions in one of the proposals 
that will ultimately make up the health insurance reform bill, a bill 
that will finally make it more affordable to live a healthy life in 
America. I welcome such a debate. It is an important part of a 
democracy. It is how we do business in the Senate. I would like to take 
a little time to respond.
  My Republican colleagues made two primary points this morning. The 
first is that they were upset that we are helping the hardest hit 
States in the country. It is hard to comprehend, but that is what they 
were saying. The second is, they were upset that we want to address an 
urgent national problem such as the health insurance crisis.
  Let's talk about them one at a time. First, Republicans are upset 
that we are helping the hardest hit States. The specific section they 
mentioned would look at all States in the Union and see which are 
suffering the most in our troubled economy, which citizens are 
suffering the most from an unhealthy health care system, and make sure 
these States' Medicaid Programs get the support they need to make 
people's lives a little easier. The four States affected are Michigan, 
Oregon, Rhode Island, and the State where I was born, Nevada.
  Were these four States selected at random? No. Were they just picked 
out of a hat in the Finance Committee? No. Were they chosen to 
intentionally exclude 46 other States? Of course not. These States are 
suffering more than most, and that is an understatement. Three of the 
four are the top three in unemployment, and as national legislators, we 
know our job is to help States in precisely that position.

  First, Michigan. Time magazine this week: ``The Tragedy of Detroit.'' 
Look at this picture. I was in Detroit a few months ago. I am not an 
expert on Detroit. I have been there a few times, but I was stunned by 
the buildings

[[Page S9958]]

boarded up, the streets in distress. ``How a Great City Fell.'' That is 
what it says in Time magazine, a major feature article. Who can say 
that Michigan is not bleeding? Who can say its Medicaid Program doesn't 
need a hand? The cover of Time magazine shows a dilapidated city, 
dilapidated streets with debris covering the road and windows knocked 
out of abandoned buildings. It looks like a ghost town.
  I am pulling for Detroit. I know I am going to upset everybody here, 
but I was glad they beat the Redskins. They have lost so many games in 
a row, they needed a lift. It is not going to hurt the Redskins to be 
on the losing side of playing the Detroit Lions. I am pulling for the 
Detroit Tigers. They are a game or two ahead, and they might make it to 
the playoffs. Detroit needs a little boost.
  If we look at this cover--windows knocked out, debris covering the 
roads--it is like a ghost town. The cover reads: ``The Tragedy of 
Detroit.'' The State of Michigan is in trouble. Even Sports Illustrated 
put Detroit on its cover this past week and wrote about how the city is 
trying to cope with its unparalleled plight. The cover stories in both 
these national magazines tell the distressing tale of the largest city 
in our most populous States, a State where unemployment is more than 15 
percent. Do Senators want to come here and say Michigan doesn't need a 
little shot in the arm? That is higher than any State in the country. 
That is why we are supporting Michigan's Medicaid Program. That is what 
this legislation is all about in the Finance Committee that people 
complained about today.
  Second, Oregon. Oregon's unemployment is more than 12 percent. In 
March the unemployment rate was 12.1 percent, and many economists said 
that was as bad as it could possibly get. Guess what. It got worse. Not 
only did the unemployment rate rise, but the rate of underemployed 
people in Oregon, those looking for full-time jobs who can only find 
part-time work, went up also. Together the unemployed and the 
underemployed in the great State of Oregon is almost 23 percent. Yet 
people are coming to the Senate floor saying Oregon doesn't deserve 
this little shot in the arm they get from Medicaid. Almost a quarter of 
the people in that State cannot find the work they want. That is why we 
are supporting Oregon's Medicaid Program.
  Third, Rhode Island. Unemployment in that State is 12.8 percent. It 
has been hit very hard by job losses, foreclosures, and evictions. In 
fact, last month a record number of Rhode Island residents sought 
emergency shelter. At no month in the 219-year history of that State 
did more citizens seek emergency shelter than in August of this 
year. That is tragic, and that is why we are supporting Rhode Island's 
Medicaid Program. People should be embarrassed to come and complain 
about trying to help Michigan and trying to help Rhode Island with 
their Medicaid Programs.

  Let's talk about Nevada. We have talked about Michigan, we have 
talked about Oregon, and we have talked about Rhode Island. Let's talk 
about my State, I repeat, where I was born, a State that was on a 
financial uptick for more than two decades. Well, there is not a single 
State in the Nation now that has felt the full force of the foreclosure 
crisis like Nevada. We have led the Nation in foreclosures for 31 
months in a row. Let people come and complain about trying to help 
Medicaid recipients in Nevada.
  In the nationwide housing crisis that has been both a cause and an 
effect of the global economic crisis, Nevada has been hit the hardest. 
We lead. It is nothing we are proud of, but it is true. On top of that, 
our unemployment rate is more than 13 percent. The people of Nevada are 
hurting, and I make absolutely no apologies, none, for helping people 
in my State and our Nation who are hurting the most.
  Let me repeat, Mr. President, I make absolutely no apologies for 
helping Michigan, Rhode Island, Oregon, and my State of Nevada. That is 
why we are supporting Nevada's Medicaid Program.
  In fact, that is what our entire health care debate is all about: 
helping those who are hurting. That is what our jobs are all about--
yours, Mr. President, and mine--looking out for our constituents who 
give us the incomparable honor of representing them and serving their 
interests.
  I said this before, but it bears repeating: The price of living a 
healthy life in America is simply unaffordable with many people. Those 
with health insurance are at the whim of insurance companies that look 
out only for their bottom line and drop patients left and right, even 
when they need coverage the most.
  Those without health insurance are forced to file foreclosure, go 
into bankruptcy, or simply succumb to curable diseases because of 
exorbitant costs and abusive policies. Those fortunate enough to have 
health insurance are already paying a hidden tax to cover those who do 
not. Surely, that is no way for the wealthiest and greatest Nation in 
the history of the world to treat its citizens. We should not do that. 
We have to do better.
  I said I wanted to comment on two points my Republican colleagues 
made on the floor this morning. I have done one. The second is their 
objection to how this bill is moving through the Senate. They are 
complaining it is moving too fast. That is a subject for a Jay Leno 
comedy spot.
  Since May 2008, the Senate Finance Committee has held 20 roundtables, 
summits, and hearings on their proposal for fixing our health care 
system. They are complaining the process is going too slowly?
  If I told you the Senate Finance Committee held more than 50 meetings 
on their proposal for fixing our health insurance system--including 
more than a dozen member meetings, hundreds of hours of negotiations 
with the bipartisan group of six members of that committee--we have 
watched that on national television over the last several months--well, 
you could be excused, I guess, for thinking the other side is 
complaining that this process is moving too slowly.
  If I told you the Senate Finance Committee is adding to that number 
as we speak, since it is now in its second week of marking up their 
proposal for fixing our health insurance system, you might assume the 
complaints are that the process should be sped up.
  I could go on, Mr. President. If I told you when the HELP Committee 
drafted its own proposal to fix our health care system, it held 14 
bipartisan roundtables, 13 bipartisan committee hearings, and 20 
bipartisan walk-throughs, you might think they are complaining that 
this process is going too slowly. Hard to comprehend.
  If I told you that committee accepted more than 160 Republican 
amendments on the HELP bill, you might say the same.
  If I told you we have known our health care system is headed for 
disaster since Harry Truman was President, you might think the 
complaint is that we are taking too much time.
  But here is the surprise: Republicans think this process is going too 
fast, not that it is moving too slowly. We have talked about all these 
hearings. Republican Senators are on the record saying they will vote 
against health insurance reform, even though they admit they do not 
need to read the bill to draw that conclusion. Pretty good. But it is 
just another excuse.
  They have all these diversions. They come up with them: death panels, 
frightening people who are old in America, which is absolutely 
untruthful. Not a scintilla of evidence that is true. Then they came up 
with one: All these Democrats want to do is give insurance to illegal 
immigrants. Absolutely false. And there are many other red herrings 
they have thrown up along the way. It is just more evidence that for 
some on the other side there will never be a good time for health care 
reform--never. It is just more proof they want to defend the status 
quo, refuse to take care of their suffering and struggling 
constituents, and ignore the will of the American people. Their 
accusations are false, their complaints are disingenuous, and their 
rhetoric is dangerous.
  Under the Republicans' plan, insurance companies can deny you 
coverage for a preexisting condition, because you are getting old or 
you are a woman. Under their plan, insurance companies can take away 
your coverage when you need it the most. They want the status quo. That 
is what that is.
  Under our plan, if you like what you have, you can keep it, but if 
you do

[[Page S9959]]

not, there will be affordable choices for you that cannot be taken 
away. We will protect Medicare, we will not raise taxes on the middle 
class, and we will not add a dime to the deficit.
  Mr. President, debates are great. But the reason--my being a trial 
lawyer--you have a judge determining what happens in a trial is because 
the judge makes sure what takes place is honest from both parties. Here 
we do not have that kind of a judge. So people can come to the floor 
and make the most false accusations, and it is up to us to explain to 
the American people whether what they are saying is true. Just because 
someone comes to this floor and says something, it does not mean it is 
true. And the complaint of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
about Michigan and Rhode Island and Oregon and Nevada getting special 
consideration is false.
  Mr. President, I ask the Chair to put the Senate in recess at this 
time.

                          ____________________