[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 139 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9970-S9975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3326, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3326), making appropriations for the 
     Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 2010, and for other purposes.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page S9970, September 30, 2009, the Record reads: . . . for 
the fiscal year ending December 30, 2010 . . .
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2010 . . .


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 2558, to strike amounts available for 
     procurement of C-17 aircraft in excess of the amount 
     requested by the President in the budget for fiscal year 2010 
     and to make such amounts available instead for operation and 
     maintenance in accordance with amounts requested by the 
     President in that budget and for Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army, for overseas contingency operations.


                           Amendment No. 2558

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 2558 offered by 
the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I again quote from a letter from the 
Secretary of Defense:

       The President's defense budget request has requested no 
     additional C-17s. This position is based on the Department's 
     firm judgment that we have acquired a sufficient number of C-
     17s to meet the Nation's military needs. . . . More 
     specifically, the $2.5 billion it will cost to purchase 10 
     additional C-17s plus the $100 million per year it will cost 
     to operate them will invariably result in a reduction in 
     critical warfighting capabilities somewhere else in the 
     defense program.

  I understand there will be a budget point of order. I wish to tell my 
colleagues we will be voting up or down on this issue because if this 
is defeated, I will have another amendment simply to kill this 
unneeded, unnecessary porkbarreling exercise in the power of lobbyists 
in our Nation's Capital.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am prepared to go right to the heart of 
the underlying amendment rather than go through this point of order, 
but let me just point out that there are those who have supported a 
provision in the fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization bill that would 
prohibit the Defense Department from retiring the 40-year-old C-5As. 
These are the people who are now promoting this amendment to kill the 
C-17. In effect, the proponents of the McCain amendment are tying the 
hands of the Air Force, by requiring the Pentagon to upkeep a fleet of 
C-5s--aircraft that are outdated, costly to operate, and are less 
capable than the C-17. The Air Force should be allowed to replace them 
with C-17s and not be forced to waste hundreds of millions of dollars 
to extend the life of the C-5.
  It is less costly to build a C-17 than it is to repair a C-5. That is 
the reality. If we are looking for cost savings and deficit reduction, 
then what the committee has advocated actually makes more sense 
fiscally to do. But instead, the McCain amendment in effect promotes a 
40-year-old aircraft, getting older by the day, rather than an aircraft 
like the C-17 that has the capability of landing almost anywhere on the 
globe for that matter, highly versatile.
  We have nearly 100,000 new troops who have been added to our armed 
services in 4 years. We need to have an airlift capacity that meets our 
larger force's needs. I urge the rejection of the McCain amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my continued 
support for the C-17 cargo aircraft program and urge my colleagues to 
retain funding for 10 additional aircraft in the fiscal year 2010 
Defense appropriations bill.
  The C-17 is critical to our national security and our ability to 
efficiently carry out important missions around the world. Not only is 
this aircraft an indispensable asset in supporting military and 
humanitarian missions in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan; it 
has a proven record of versatility and high performance, and it 
sustains jobs that are essential across 43 States--including my home 
State of California.
  First, I would like to talk about the types of missions where we use 
the C-17. According to the Air Force's budget justification for 2010, 
the C-17 ``is a major element of America's National Military Strategy 
and constitutes the most responsive means of meeting U.S. mobility 
requirements. . . . The C-17 will perform the airlift mission well into 
this century.''
  The C-17 is essential to our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan 
particularly because of its versatility. It is used to transport 
equipment, supplies and our service members. For example, the C-17 can 
land on a dirt runway to deliver needed supplies in remote regions of 
Afghanistan.
  We also use the C-17 to evacuate our wounded men and women from Iraq 
to Germany, and then back to the United States for treatment. And in 
some instances, it has even been used to transport our service members 
across a combat zone, reducing the risks that they face when they 
travel on land by convoy.
  And the uses don't stop there. The C-17 is used to deliver 
humanitarian supplies. In January of this year, a C-17 delivered 18,000 
pounds of supplies to Nicaragua, one of the poorest nations in the 
Western Hemisphere.
  The C-17 has also been used to bring relief to Americans, including 
during Hurricane Katrina. It can deliver a 100-bed, fully equipped 
hospital to nearly any area with an unimproved airstrip.
  This is an amazing capability, and one we cannot afford to lose.
  Second, the C-17 has a proven record of performance. Quite simply, it 
is the workhorse of our military. And we are using them at a much 
higher rate than the Air Force originally intended.
  C-17s have flown over 1.3 million flight hours since 2002. Many are 
flown at 150-180 percent of their anticipated flight hours.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the C-17 was 
designed to fly 1,000 hours per year over 30 years, but the fleet has 
averaged 1,250 hours per aircraft over the last ten years. Some have 
even reached 2,400 flying hours in a single year.
  And finally, the C-17 is the last strategic airlift production line 
in the Nation. Every day 30,000 employees from 43 states go to work in 
direct support of the C-17. In addition to those 30,000 direct jobs, 
over 100,000 workers depend on this production line. In my home State 
of California, 13,800 people work on the C-17. And 19,200 worker's have 
an affiliation with this aircraft.
  Too many American jobs depend on this vital program. Before we take 
any action to shut down the line, we must be absolutely certain that we 
have all of the aircraft we need.
  We cannot take the chance that we ``may'' have enough aircraft, 
particularly without reviewing two studies that are due by the end of 
the year.

[[Page S9971]]

  The Department of Defense Mobility Capabilities and Requirements 
Study and the congressionally mandated study being done by the 
Institute for Defense Analyses will determine if our airlift 
requirements are being met.
  We expect these studies to be complete by the end of this year. 
Without the results of these studies, we cannot determine that our 
Nation's airlift capability has been met. It would be incredibly 
shortsighted to shut down this production line without that 
information.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in maintaining funds for the C-17, 
and to defeat the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 302(F) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of 
the Budget Act with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  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 West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 34, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Franken
     Gregg
     Kaufman
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Nelson (FL)
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Specter
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Landrieu
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 34, the nays are 
64. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, the point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Signing Authorization

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority 
leader be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills and joint 
resolutions for the remainder of today, Wednesday, September 30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to ask the managers this. I have 
three amendments I wish to have called up and placed in order. One is 
amendment No. 2580, one is amendment No. 2581, and the third is 
amendment No. 2575.
  The first is to strike the amount for the C-17 aircraft, which is not 
subject to a point of order, I am told. The second is to add $2.5 
billion for operations and maintenance, which is also not subject to a 
point of order. The third one is to have testimony before Congress by 
General McChrystal and General Petraeus before the Congress of the 
United States.
  I would be glad to agree to a brief debate on all three of those 
amendments, and I will be glad to enter into a time agreement or 
whatever their desires are on all three. On the first two, the issue 
has been debated pretty well. I would only need a few minutes. On the 
third, I think it is pretty straightforward, calling for the testimony 
of General McChrystal and General Petraeus before the Congress of the 
United States.
  I call up those amendments and ask for their consideration in 
sequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to considering the 
amendments en bloc?
  Mr. McCAIN. Not en bloc, in sequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendments being 
brought up in sequence? Will the Senator specify the sequence?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 2580, 2581 
and 2575--I call up those amendments. I think that is my right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Arizona, who 
said the first two were in order because they strike and replace money, 
is the Senator saying the same about the third amendment? Is it in 
order on an appropriations bill?
  Mr. McCAIN. I believe it is in order. I will be glad to have a vote 
on whether it is a violation of any of the Senate rules.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will not object to the first two. On the third, I will 
object until we have a chance to look at it more closely.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Parliamentary inquiry: Do I have the right to call up an amendment 
that is filed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, one amendment at a time.


                           Amendment No. 2575

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2575 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2575.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for testimony before Congress on the additional 
  forces and resources required to meet United States objectives with 
                  respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Testimony Before Congress on Meeting United 
     States Objectives on Afghanistan and Pakistan.--The officials 
     specified subsection (b) shall each be made available, by not 
     later than November 15, 2009, to testify in open and closed 
     sessions before the relevant committees of Congress regarding 
     recommendations for additional forces and resources required 
     to achieve the objectives of United States policy with 
     respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan stated pursuant to 
     section 1117(a) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 
     (Public Law 111-32; 123 Stat. 1907).
       (b) Officials.--The officials specified in this subsection 
     are the following:
       (1) The Commander of the United States Central Command.
       (2) The Commander of the United States European Command and 
     Supreme Allied Command, Europe.
       (3) The Commander of United States Forces-Afghanistan.
       (4) The United States Ambassador to Afghanistan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I call up amendment No. 2580 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment? The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding--
  Mr. McCAIN. I am not seeking unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Sorry. I thought the Senator made a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. McCAIN. I just called up the second amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate requires unanimous consent to 
consider an additional amendment.

[[Page S9972]]

  Mr. McCAIN. I see.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Arizona, our mutual friend, 
Senator Levin, asked to be on the floor when the first amendment was 
being considered. I have to say, on his behalf, that I will object to 
moving to another amendment until he has a chance to come to the floor 
and debate the Senator's first amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. We will certainly accede to his 
request. I would like to tell my colleagues that I do not intend to 
conclude debate on this legislation until such time as we have straight 
up-or-down votes on the two amendments about which I talked. One is 
striking the funding for the C-17, $2.5 billion and adding $2.5 billion 
for operations and maintenance. I will be glad to discuss it with the 
managers of the bill how that sequence will take place, how much 
debate. I do not intend to hold up the bill in any way. I just wish to 
tell my colleagues I want consideration and recorded votes on both of 
those amendments.
  What we have done tonight by not waiving the budget, the rule, is an 
outrage and is going to damage very badly the men and women who are 
serving this country because we are not giving them the equipment they 
need to operate in harm's way--120,000 of them in Iraq, 68,000 of them 
in Afghanistan. That is the opinion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, General Petraeus, General McChrystal, and the Secretary of 
Defense. It is a remarkable moment--a remarkable moment--in the history 
of the Senate, although I have seen it happen before. Congratulations 
to the lobbyists from Boeing. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                    Amendment No. 2555, as Modified

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I ask that amendment No. 2555 be called up. 
With that, I am sending a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Before we go to the reading, if I could send a 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment as 
modified.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Johanns] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2555, as modified.

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To ensure the availability of not less than $30,000,000 for 
           High Priority National Guard Counterdrug Programs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) High Priority National Guard Counterdrug 
     Programs.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title VI under the heading ``Drug Interdiction 
     and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', up to $30,000,000 
     shall be available for the purpose of High Priority National 
     Guard Counterdrug Programs.
       (b) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount made available by 
     subsection (a) for the purpose specified in that subsection 
     is in addition to any other amounts made available by this 
     Act for that purpose.

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise briefly this evening to speak 
about this amendment. The amendment would help maintain, in fiscal year 
2010, the current level of funding for the National Guard's counterdrug 
efforts throughout the United States. It is important legislation.
  As a Governor, as a mayor, I can tell you what I think everybody 
knows. One of the toughest problems we face in this Nation is fighting 
drug abuse and addiction and putting the tools in place to deal with 
that.
  We all know firsthand that drug addiction rips families apart and 
tears communities down. It is accompanied by an endless parade of 
violence.
  Reducing drug abuse and crime was a top priority of mine as mayor and 
Governor. In part because of steps we took, we were able to bring crime 
numbers down. I am proud of that.
  I know drugs are not a unique challenge to Nebraska. It is a national 
challenge. Meth distributors commonly commit violent crimes as they 
traffic in methamphetamine. Meth users often commit property crimes, 
burglary, and identity theft. This drug is an enormous burden on public 
health departments and treatment centers in our region. Meth-related 
violence and child abuse have also strained local foster care systems, 
not only in our State but in other States. Because of its highly 
addictive nature, it takes longer treatment programs and it has a very 
high recidivism rate. Treatment, needless to say, is enormously 
difficult.
  In the face of this problem, we need to keep up our pressure on drug 
trafficking groups and work on providing more consistent funding to 
Federal, State, and local drug task forces. The National Guard's 
Counterdrug Support Program has been supporting law enforcement and 
community-based drug reduction coalitions now for 20 years. However, 
this program often faces considerable uncertainty over its funding, and 
that hampers operations. Consistent funding would allow police to keep 
many of the same officers in the drug task force. This would improve 
communication between multiple different law enforcement agencies, and 
it would increase their effectiveness.
  Rural States are especially hurt by cuts and uncertainty in their 
counterdrug budgets, since they often have a great deal of territory to 
cover with very small departments.
  To get to the crux of this amendment, my amendment would help address 
these problems by helping restore counterdrug funding back to its level 
last year. We are just asking for a level budget. Last year, Congress 
added $22.5 million to the President's level of funding. The year 
before it added $20 million. While the Defense authorization this year 
authorized an additional $30 million in counterdrug support, it was not 
included in the appropriations bill.
  This money goes across our country, all 50 States, and some of our 
territories. Our counterdrug operations depend on the funds.
  If the current shortfall continues, the National Guard would not be 
able to effectively support law enforcement in their fight against 
drugs. Our law enforcement and National Guard personnel must be given 
the tools they need to carry on this battle.
  Tonight, in a very large appropriations bill, I ask what I believe is 
a very necessary amount of money to help fight this war on drugs in 
your State, Mr. President, in mine, and across this country. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment. My hope is there will be a very 
bipartisan, strong statement that we stand behind this very important 
piece of this budget.
  For the record, if it is acceptable--and I don't know if there is an 
agreement on this or not--but I want to indicate for the record that I 
will be more than happy to move this amendment with a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator for bringing 
to the attention of the Senate this suggested change. We have no 
problem with having this amendment adopted on a voice vote, if that 
suits the manager on the other side.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 2555, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2555), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wonder if the managers would allow me to 
make a unanimous consent request on a totally other issue, the issue 
dealing with the highway trust fund, at this time. I will take about 2 
or 3 minutes; is that all right?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection to the Senator discussing her 
suggestion.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3617

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are in a very bad situation with the 
highway trust fund. We are working very hard on both sides of the aisle 
to resolve it. Senator Inhofe and I are absolutely in agreement on what 
we should

[[Page S9973]]

do. But yet still there is objection from the other side of the aisle, 
our Republican friends. I wish to explain where we are, and then I am 
going to make a unanimous consent request.
  In the SAFETEA-LU program, which was the last highway bill, there was 
an $8 billion rescission that was made. The promise at that time years 
ago was that we would fix it in the days, months, and years ahead. It 
was not fixed, and if we don't repeal the rescission tonight, what will 
happen immediately is that there will have to be layoffs, there will 
have to be cancellation of contracts, and the order will go out from 
here to our States. Mr. President, 17,000 jobs are on the line. We have 
to repeal this rescission. It translates into about $300 million.
  I have been working with Senator Inhofe, and we reached agreement 
and, frankly, the leaders, I believe, reached agreement that what we 
ought to do is repeal this rescission and, as a paid-for, cut the TARP 
money because we know that a lot of those funds have been paid back, 
cut that program by the equivalent of $300 million. We would repeal the 
rescission, everybody keeps working, the contracts are still going, and 
we pay for this repeal by cutting $300 million from TARP, the Toxic 
Asset Relief Program, not very popular in the country, I might add.
  I have to say I asked the administration for some other ideas and 
they had none. I believe in pay as you go. So I said to Senator Inhofe 
that I was with him on this. He and I are in agreement.
  At this time, I am going to make this formal unanimous consent 
request to repeal this rescission and pay for it by cutting TARP.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 3617, received from the House and at the desk; 
that the Boxer substitute amendment at the desk be considered; further, 
that the Boxer-Inhofe second-degree amendment with an offset be 
considered and agreed to, the substitute amendment, as amended, be 
agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the 
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements 
relating to the bill be printed in the Record, without further 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to object. My understanding is 
there is an objection on our side of the aisle relative to this 
approach. Thus, I rise this evening to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me say how, frankly, shocked I am at 
this objection. We have the chairman of the EPW Committee, the ranking 
member of the EPW Committee--this is an amendment that was brought to 
us by Senator Kit Bond of the other side of the aisle. I do not 
understand how the Republicans can take this position when we can see 
these contracts abrogated as a result of our lack of action.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator from California will 
yield for a question. If the objection of the Senator from Nebraska 
holds and if the Republican side of the aisle does not change its 
position, it is my understanding that there will be a rescission of 
some $8 billion, which means cutting the highway funds going to 
Nebraska, the highway funds coming to Illinois, and the highway funds 
coming to California; is that what the outcome will be because of the 
objection from the other side?
  Mrs. BOXER. I think, with due respect to the Senator from Nebraska, 
that he is saying that several of his colleagues will not allow this to 
go through. I don't want to blame him for this. He is the messenger.
  But the bottom line is, the $8 billion in authorizing numbers 
translates to $300 million in contracting authority. So as of tomorrow 
morning, unless this is reversed, we are going to see cuts to the 
highway program of $300 million. And it has to be made from existing 
contracts, so people in your State, in my State, in Kentucky, in the 
State of the Senator from Nebraska--all of our States are going to 
suffer. There will be 17,000 people thrown out of work because the 
Republicans cannot agree with the chairman of the EPW, the ranking 
member, and both leaders.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from California would further yield, so 
what the Republican side is objecting to is that we would take money 
out of the toxic asset relief program--money that was sent to the 
banks, if you will recall, to help them out of their troubles--and put 
it into the highway trust fund to save or create 17,000 jobs across 
America, and if we don't, we stand to lose those jobs--the Republican 
side is objecting to that?
  Mrs. BOXER. The Republican side has objected to an agreement reached 
by myself and Senator Inhofe and I believe the two leaders that would 
say we are going to replenish the highway trust fund, we are going to 
repeal the rescission that was done and as a result the States will be 
shorted $300 million, and it is my understanding that starting tomorrow 
morning a lot of these contracts will be canceled or delayed unless we 
fix this. We could fix it at a later date, but every day that goes by, 
it makes it more difficult because we are operating under a midnight 
deadline tonight.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield for one last question, just so 
that I understand, the result of the Republican objection is that we 
are going to protect the TARP funds, the toxic asset relief program 
funds that were used to bail out banks, at the expense of jobs for 
people across America at a time of high unemployment? Is that the 
result of that objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is right. But I want to give credit to Senator 
Inhofe. He is with us. There are many Members on his side of the aisle, 
however, who are letting this happen. But my friend has it exactly 
right. The Republicans who are objecting to this are protecting the 
toxic asset relief program and they are jeopardizing 17,000 jobs across 
America.
  I am as stunned as you are, and I guess I am going to try one more 
time. If I hear another objection, we will leave it for another day. I 
will try it one more time. Maybe I have convinced my friend. Maybe my 
friend needs to leave the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 3617, received from the House and at the desk, 
and that the Boxer substitute amendment at the desk be considered; 
further, that the Boxer-Inhofe second-degree amendment with an offset 
be considered and agreed to, the substitute amendment, as amended, be 
agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements 
relating to the measure appear in the appropriate place in the Record 
as if read, without further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Let me, if I might, through the Chair, inquire of the 
Senator from California if the Senator would renew her request with one 
change: to include a different second-degree amendment from Senator 
Vitter which would provide an offset from non-defense and non-veteran 
stimulus funds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, that is easy. If you believe we have a recession, 
if you believe the unemployment rate is too high, why in God's green 
Earth would anyone recommend cutting the economic recovery fund, the 
fund that is providing stimulus and that is putting people to work? I 
absolutely would not agree to that. That particular fund is giving 
money back to taxpayers in tax breaks. It is fixing highways and 
bridges and all the other. Why on Earth would we cut that when we can 
cut the toxic asset relief program--the TARP money--that went to the 
wealthiest banks? Why on Earth would we take away jobs from working 
people and allow the bankers to keep their little fund up there?
  No way. We will object to that approach.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, then I do raise an objection. And here is 
the point, in fairness to the process here. There are many who believe 
that the TARP money, which was originally designed to buy toxic assets, 
has drifted so far away from its original purpose that we haven't kept 
faith with the taxpayer who paid the bill for all this. On the other 
hand, the stimulus--which, incidentally, I did not support--

[[Page S9974]]

had money in it to do highways and that sort of thing, and that is 
where the objection is coming from.
  So I do stand to object, and I continue the objection.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Whether the Senator voted for the stimulus bill or not--
and I know he did not--the stimulus bill provided tax breaks for 
working families, provided money for his State and mine for 
infrastructure projects that will build highways and bridges and create 
jobs, and it is halfway through. They haven't really finished all the 
spending on that.
  In the midst of this recession, you are suggesting that the way to 
save the 17,000 highway jobs is to cut the jobs that are being created 
by the stimulus package? Wouldn't it be better to take the money away 
from these banks that have received billions of dollars, that have been 
bailed out over and over, than to take it at the expense of working 
people in Nebraska and Illinois?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question, but 
here is what I would say. You can restart the debate on the whole 
stimulus plan, and I can point to you the promises that were made of 
all the jobs that were going to be created, and I can point to you the 
evidence that in fact that has not occurred. But the argument tonight 
was, look, if we can just get our hands on some TARP money, then we can 
do all these things. And we are saying, well, look, if the promise of 
the stimulus was to create jobs, let's use the stimulus. Why not use 
that fund?
  But fundamentally here is the problem. People came to the American 
people and said: Look, our credit is melting down, our financial system 
is in serious shape, and the solution to that problem is to buy toxic 
assets. And low and behold we bought car companies, we bailed out 
insurance companies, and it just goes on and on. And that is why the 
objection is coming from over here because this isn't anything near 
what TARP was intended to do.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be brief, but the Senator from Nebraska just made 
the argument against TARP. That is where we want to take the money from 
to protect these jobs. The Senator said the TARP money was misspent, 
and we are saying we agree with the premise; that this is a better 
place to take money rather than to take it away from tax cuts to 
working families in the stimulus or the infrastructure projects that 
generate jobs.
  I don't know that the Senator from Nebraska wanted to assume this 
role this evening. Occasionally, many of us are cast in these roles 
where we are objecting on behalf of other people who are not here. But 
I think when he reflects on this debate tonight, he will understand why 
Senator Boxer's approach to this is the most reasonable one. We are 
trying to protect 17,000 jobs across America. We are going to take the 
money out of the TARP funds from banks, and I think it is money well 
spent to create jobs across the United States. But to take it away from 
the stimulus program is to take away money that is going right now, 
today, into Nebraska for tax relief for your working families and into 
Illinois for the same.
  I am sure most Republicans would agree that tax relief is a good 
thing. I myself think it is a good thing for working families. So I 
think what Senator Boxer has suggested is a much more responsible 
approach.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I think sometimes these debates go off on tangents and 
they are hard to follow. They get caught up in a lot of rhetoric. But I 
think this one tonight says it all to me. We have to ask ourselves a 
question: Whose side are we on? Whose side are we on? Tonight, we know 
what side the Republicans are on.
  We are ready to save 17,000 jobs and to do it by paying for it out of 
the money that was given to the biggest banks in this Nation--the banks 
that got away scot-free while Americans suffered, whether they were 
shareholders or workers, taxpayers all. We want to take that money from 
the big banks; they want to take it from the working people, the 
working families of America, the ones who are out there getting their 
hands dirty and building the roads and the bridges. That says more 
about the differences here than many of the other things we do, and I 
am stunned.
  I particularly want to again thank Senator Inhofe for stepping up. He 
tried his best. He spoke to all his Republican friends, and he couldn't 
get this. But you know what, we are not going to give up. We will have 
this battle on the floor. We will. We will get time for this, and we 
will get agreement on offering these two offsets. You just had a taste 
of what the debate will be, and it will be a tough debate, and I look 
forward to it. But I am very stunned that tonight we couldn't cross the 
aisle that divides us tonight. We should have. We should have done that 
for all the States--the red States and the blue States, all the States, 
the United States--because all are going to lose these jobs. We can say 
we stood here at 7:30 on this night and we had a program that would 
easily stop those layoffs, easily stop them, but our colleagues on the 
other side wanted to protect the big banks. I will take that argument 
back to my home State, but I am not happy we couldn't resolve this.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California for yielding for a 
question, and I agree.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is debating a 
short-term extension of the surface transportation bill SAFETEA-LU. 
With the fiscal year ending at midnight tonight this is an urgent 
matter. We cannot afford to let Federal highway programs authorizations 
expire. It would be a disaster if transportation projects across the 
nation were halted because we failed to extend their authority. 
Congress needs to rewrite the surface transportation bill, but that 
will take some time. This short-term extension allows the program 
authority to continue until a longer reauthorization bill can be 
passed.
  Importantly, the Senate bill includes language to repeal the 2009 
rescission contained in the SAFETEA-LU bill that required that on 
September 30, 2009--today--$8.7 billion of apportioned contract 
authority provided to states for investment in infrastructure be 
rescinded. This rescission could require states to de-obligate projects 
in order to free up the rescinded contract authority if they don't have 
contract authority balances. This is critical to Michigan and all the 
other States across the Nation that cannot afford to have Federal 
infrastructure funding cut at a time of severe budget constraints. The 
rescission repeal language would ensure that Michigan and other States 
do not lose these needed Federal transportation funds. Michigan's share 
of the rescission is estimated to exceed $260 million or roughly 25 
percent of its fiscal year 2009 apportionments.
  Congress has been strong in its support for transportation 
infrastructure funding as a way to create jobs and jump start an 
economic recovery during the severe economic downturn. For instance, 
Congress provided $27 billion for highway projects in the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Congress also recently provided an 
additional $7 billion to the highway trust fund in order to keep it 
solvent on top of the $8 billion that it added to the trust fund last 
year. It would make no sense to undermine the recovery efforts and 
jeopardize the health of our surface transportation system by allowing 
an $8.7 billion cut in highway funding to go through tonight.
  Time is of the essence in restoring these needed transportation funds 
to every State in the Nation. I hope this important legislation will be 
adopted immediately by the Senate and the House of Representatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9975]]

                             2016 Olympics

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, more than 100 years ago, four American 
cities competed to host the world's Columbian Exposition. Elected 
leaders and proud citizens traveled here to Washington to make the case 
for their hometowns. After much debate, Congress decided that the 
exposition would take place in the center of the American heartland--
Chicago, IL.
  The Chicago delegation had made the strongest case and shown the most 
pride and conviction in their city. They bragged that their hometown on 
the beautiful banks of Lake Michigan was the perfect site for the 
Columbia Exposition and that no other city could compare. Folks from 
Chicago argued so long and so hard that a reporter referred to their 
hometown as ``that Windy City,'' and the nickname, of course, has stuck 
throughout the years.
  The Columbian Exposition of 1893 was a resounding success. Almost 
one-fourth of the entire U.S. population came to Chicago, and the city 
overflowed with happy visitors from across the country and all over the 
world.
  Today, Chicago remains an economic and cultural center of America. 
The city that hosted the Columbian Exposition has boomed into a world-
class metropolis. And once again the proud citizens of the Windy City 
have stepped forward to make the case for our hometown.
  In 2016, 10,000 athletes from more than 200 countries will come 
together to celebrate the human spirit. Tourists, visitors, and 
millions of dollars will flow into a single place as a part of the 
greatest spectacle on Earth.
  The whole world will be watching the city that hosts the Olympic 
Games, and in 2016 that city should be Chicago, IL. From Lake Shore 
Drive to the West Side, it is a diverse and inclusive city that 
represents the very best of what it means to be American. It has always 
been a global leader in culture, art, architecture, commerce, sports, 
and even cuisine.
  I know Chicago will shine on the world stage in 2016, just as it did 
more than a century ago. The Olympic and Paralympic Games are a 
powerful force for global unity. It is time to bring the games back to 
the United States.
  President Obama understands what the Olympics will mean to our Nation 
and for Chicago. New construction and infrastructure improvement will 
revitalize the Midwest; tourist dollars from all over the world will 
begin flowing to American businesses once again; jobs will be created, 
revenue will increase, our local economy will be jolted back to 
prosperity as we prepare to host the games.
  It doesn't stop there. This impact will also be felt at the national 
level. Foreign visitors who travel to the Olympics in Chicago will also 
stop in Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, Miami, Seattle, New Orleans, 
and a dozen other cities during their stay in the United States. The 
international spotlight will be focused on America and it will bring 
prosperity and good will. That is why I support President Obama's 
decision to travel to Copenhagen in support of our Olympic bid.
  Some have criticized this trip. Some say it is an unnecessary 
distraction from the challenges we face. But I believe it is just the 
opposite. It shows that the President is more focused than ever on 
bringing economic prosperity and international prestige back to the 
United States.
  A few days ago I was meeting with the mayor of Chicago and I told 
Mayor Daley that I thought the President and the First Lady would go to 
Copenhagen. There was some consternation as to whether he was going to 
appear, but because of the importance of the Olympics to Chicago and 
the Nation, I knew the President's decision was going to be made that 
would allow him to make an appearance in Copenhagen. I know they are 
proud Chicagoans, and I am pleased they have decided on strong support 
for their hometown. The trip will be a short one, but it could make a 
world of difference for Chicago and for America, because this is not 
just about Chicago or Illinois, it is about bringing the Olympic Games 
back to the United States of America. The Olympics will be a boon to 
our economy and they will strengthen our friendship with other nations.
  By appearing before the International Olympic Committee in person, 
President Obama can make the case that America is ready to lead once 
again, ready to light the torch of cooperation and prosperity for all 
of the citizens of the world. He can show the committee that Chicago is 
by far the best choice among the four remaining finalist cities. For 
the athletes, world-class training facility and event locations would 
be very close together, allowing for convenience and ease. For 
visitors, outstanding public transportation and modern infrastructure 
would make all events easy to attend. For residents of the city and 
people all across the United States, Chicago would shine on the world 
stage and dollars would pour in from across the globe to make it clear 
it is alive and well in my hometown.
  The Chicago 2016 Committee recognizes the importance of the games in 
renewing old friendships around the world as well as establishing new 
ones. Its ideals and the value of ``friendship through sport'' is at 
the heart of the city's Olympic bid.
  Let us support President Obama as he travels to Denmark in hopes of 
bringing the Olympics and Paralympic Games back to the United States. 
They are a powerful, inspiring force for unity in a world divided. Let 
us come together once again to welcome the people of every continent to 
our shores. Just as the people of Chicago did more than 100 years ago, 
let us celebrate our Nation by sharing one of the greatest cities with 
all of the world, by sharing its greatest city with the rest of the 
world, that great city on the lake--Chicago.
  I yield the floor and 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk with 
respect to the substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee-
     reported substitute amendment to H.R. 3326, the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
         Daniel K. Inouye, Harry Reid, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty 
           Murray, Jon Tester, Jack Reed, Ben Nelson, Richard 
           Durbin, Mark Begich, Bill Nelson, John F. Kerry, Edward 
           E. Kaufman, Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
           Carl Levin, Byron L. Dorgan, Daniel K. Akaka.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion on the bill at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 3326, the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
     2010.
         Daniel K. Inouye, Harry Reid, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty 
           Murray, Jon Tester, Jack Reed, Ben Nelson, Richard 
           Durbin, Mark Begich, Bill Nelson, John F. Kerry, Edward 
           E. Kaufman, Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
           Carl Levin, Byron L. Dorgan, Daniel K. Akaka.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________