[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 35 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1429-S1437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX ON BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1586, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses
received from certain TARP recipients.
Pending:
Rockefeller amendment No. 3452, in the nature of a
substitute.
Sessions/McCaskill amendment No. 3452 (to amendment No.
3452), to reduce the deficit by establishing discretionary
spending caps.
Lieberman amendment No. 3456 (to amendment No. 3452), to
reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program.
Amendment No. 3458 to Amendment No. 3452
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any
pending business and to call up Vitter amendment No. 3458.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 3458 to amendment No. 3452.
Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify application requirements relating to the coastal
impact assistance program)
At the end of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 7__. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.
Section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1356a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Application requirements; availability of funding.--
On approval of a plan by the Secretary under this section,
the producing State shall--
``(A) not be subject to any additional application or other
requirements (other than notifying the Secretary of which
projects are being carried out under the plan) to receive the
payments; and
``(B) be immediately eligible to receive payments under
this section.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) Environmental requirements.--A project funded under
this section that does not involve wetlands shall not be
subject to environmental review requirements under Federal
law.
``(2) Cost-sharing requirements.--Any amounts made
available to producing States under this section may be used
to meet the cost-sharing requirements of other Federal grant
programs, including grant programs that support coastal
wetland protection and restoration.''.
Mr. VITTER. I have already discussed my amendment.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 3454 to Amendment No. 3452
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily
set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment No. 3454,
which is at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 3454 to amendment No. 3452. Mr. DeMINT. I
ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2010 and
2011)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2011 EARMARK MORATORIUM.
(a) Bills and Joint Resolutions.--
(1) Point of order.--It shall not be in order to--
(A) consider a bill or joint resolution reported by any
committee that includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or
limited tariff benefit; or
(B) a Senate bill or joint resolution not reported by
committee that includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or
limited tariff benefit.
(2) Return to the calendar.--If a point of order is
sustained under this subsection, the bill or joint resolution
shall be returned to the calendar until compliance with this
subsection has been achieved.
(b) Conference Report.--
(1) Point of order.--It shall not be in order to vote on
the adoption of a report of a committee of conference if the
report includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited
tariff benefit.
(2) Return to the calendar.--If a point of order is
sustained under this subsection, the conference report shall
be returned to the calendar.
(c) Floor Amendment.--It shall not be in order to consider
an amendment to a bill or joint resolution if the amendment
contains an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff
benefit.
(d) Amendment Between the Houses.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be in order to consider an
amendment between the Houses if that amendment includes an
earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(2) Return to the calendar.--If a point of order is
sustained under this subsection, the amendment between the
Houses shall be returned to the calendar until compliance
with this subsection has been achieved.
(e) Waiver.--Any Senator may move to waive any or all
points of order under this section by an affirmative vote of
two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(f) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section--
(1) the term ``earmark'' means a provision or report
language included primarily at the request of a Senator or
Member of the House of Representatives providing,
authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee,
grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an
entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or
Congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
(2) the term ``limited tax benefit'' means any revenue
provision that--
(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or
preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of
beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in
application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such
provision; and
(3) the term ``limited tariff benefit'' means a provision
modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
(g) Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011.--The point of order under
this section shall only apply to legislation providing or
authorizing discretionary budget authority, credit authority
or other spending authority, providing a federal tax
deduction, credit, or exclusion, or modifying the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
(h) Application.--This rule shall not apply to any
authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if such
authorization is not specifically targeted to a State,
locality or congressional district.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senators
McCain, Graham, Coburn, Grassley, LeMieux, and Feingold. An identical
bill has 16 cosponsors, including Senators Burr, Chambliss, Cornyn,
Crapo, Ensign, Isakson, Johanns, Kyl, McCaskill, Risch, Sessions, and a
number of others.
This is an amendment for a 1-year moratorium on earmarks. The fact
that we are even having this debate shows how out of touch Congress is
with the American people. I have had a chance over the last week to
speak to thousands of Americans in several States, and all you have to
do to get them on their feet cheering is say: The time for excuses and
explanations is over. It is time to end the practice of earmarking. And
people will stand up, people of both parties. They understand earmarks
are the most offensive form of government spending. They are wasteful
porkbarrel projects delivered by lawmakers to curry favor with small
constituencies back home and special interest groups. We have heard the
excuses for years. But it is time to end this practice.
I have introduced this bill before. At the time President Obama was
running for President of the United States, he flew back to Washington
to vote on it. He cosponsored the bill with me. He essentially said:
The era of earmarks is
[[Page S1430]]
over. I think we will see, as I talk a little bit more, that is the
opposite of what is true.
We have all heard of the crazy earmarks that have been brought up--
the infamous ``bridge to nowhere.'' We have things that sound so
ridiculous that people do not even believe it is true--the tattoo
removal earmark, the Totally Teen Zone earmark, and the midnight
basketball earmark. You go through the list and you say, how does this
make sense in light of the fact that the same people who are asking for
these earmarks come onto this floor, onto the House floor, and in the
White House and say: Our debt is unsustainable. It is a crisis. We
cannot continue to spend and borrow and create debt. Yet I need $1
million for tattoo removal or a bridge to nowhere or a local museum.
The American people are onto us. They know it makes absolutely no
sense for us to focus so much time and energy on parochial earmarks for
our press releases rather than working on the issues of our country,
the general welfare of our Nation.
All of these projects add up. Last year alone, according to the
Congressional Research Service, President Obama--who said he would not
sign bills with earmarks--signed bills with 11,320 earmarks, totaling
$32 billion for the last fiscal year. That is an increase from the
$28.8 billion in earmarks in fiscal year 2008 and the $30 billion in
earmarks in fiscal year 2009. Big and small, these earmarks are adding
up and are causing our budget to balloon out of control, and they are
saddling our children with an overwhelming debt.
Beyond just the inherit wastefulness of earmarks themselves is the
effect they have on spending. Quite simply, they grease the skids for
the wasteful spending that is bankrupting our country--the ``Cornhusker
kickback'' being a case study at the top of the list right now.
Fortunately, it seems we are making some progress, some headway in
putting an end to the favor factory we call earmarks here in
Washington. Just this week, Roll Call reported that Speaker Pelosi is
considering an earmark moratorium. Additionally, just this morning, the
House Republican Conference unilaterally declared a moratorium on
earmarks. This is an exciting first step, and I commend the Republican
leadership in the House and all of their Members for taking a stand on
behalf of the American people on this issue that is so clear and
obvious to everyone except many here in Washington.
It is time for the Senate to lead and demand that we stop this
wasteful earmark spending. Keep in mind, I am not asking that we end
the practice forever but to take a 1-year timeout while we try to
figure out how to create a system that is within the scope of the
Constitution, within the general welfare of our country, and does not
turn this Federal Government into some kind of sponsorship of many
local projects.
My amendment will do just that. It is very simple. It puts an end to
earmarking by prohibiting the consideration of any bill, joint
resolution, conference report, or message between the Houses that
contains earmarks. And we use the same definition currently in the
Senate rules of what an earmark is. We require a two-thirds
supermajority to waive the rules. So if there is some kind of emergency
where we have to designate spending, we can do it if there is a
consensus here.
President Obama, as I said, highlighted the need for this amendment
when he cosponsored the identical language in 2008. He rightly stated:
We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks
based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the
merit of the project.
Despite his support and election, the problem has not gotten any
better. Citizens Against Government Waste, in their 2009 Pig Book,
pointed out:
While the number of specific projects declined by 12.5
percent, from 11,610 in fiscal year 2008 to 10,160 in fiscal
year 2009, the total tax dollars spent to fund them increased
by 14 percent, from $17.2 billion to $19.6 billion.
A lot of my colleagues will say: Jim, you are making a big deal out
of nothing. Really $20 billion or $30 billion is such a small part of
our budget that you shouldn't make an issue of it. But this is like
saying an engine is a small part of a train. If you want to look at
what is pulling through the bad policy and the overspending, all you
have to do is look at earmarks.
So we continue the same type of wasteful projects since President
Obama spoke these words, and we need to stop it. And we can stop it. My
amendment will put these kinds of things to an end--at least for a year
while we look at it. What will immediately happen if we do this? We
hear the argument here: If we do not designate spending here in
Congress, the executive branch will. But the first thing we would do,
if we turned off our own earmark spigot, is every appropriations bill
would require that the administration only spend money according to
nonpreferential formulas or to merit-based competitive grants. We could
bring an end to earmarking in the executive branch as well as in
Congress and focus the attention on the Federal Government on true
national interests rather than what we have now, which is nearly 535
Congressmen and Senators who think it is their job to come to
Washington to get money for their States and congressional districts.
If you want to know what happens if we allow that to happen, you can
look at what is going to be at the end of this year: $14 trillion in
debt--when people see the Federal Government as a cow to milk rather
than having a constitutional oath we need to keep.
The time for excuses is over. Enough is enough. We are not here to
get money for our States; we are here to fulfill our oath of office to
protect and defend the Constitution that would not allow money for
local bridges and local roads and local museums. All of these are good
projects, and many of them are very necessary, but that is not the
purpose of the Federal Government.
Again, I commend the Republican leadership in the House for taking a
bold stand against the practice of earmarks. I challenge my colleagues,
Republicans and Democrats, to vote for this bill President Obama
cosponsored and many here voted for so we can show America we are
listening, we understand that perception is reality, and the corruption
that takes place, the vote-buying with earmarks--the ``Cornhusker
kickback'' and ``Louisiana purchase'' and all this we have heard
about--that we are going to end at least for 1 year while we prove to
the American people we can break this addiction to spending.
So, again, the amendment number is 3454. I encourage my colleagues to
support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, yesterday we made good progress on
the bill that is the underlying bill, which is FAA reauthorization. It
is in the interest of the traveling public that we start on the
glidepath to passing this bill. We need to make progress on amendments.
But I have to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle if they
would be very careful about offering amendments that are not germane to
this bill. The FAA reauthorization is not a legislative vehicle that
can carry a lot of highly controversial provisions.
The previous FAA reauthorization expired in 2007. Since then, we have
passed 11 short-term extensions and we will be drafting the 12th in the
next 2 weeks because the current extension expires at the end of this
month. While another extension is likely inevitable, we have to go to
the final bill and see if we have the opportunity to pass a final bill
in the next 2 weeks.
The repeated use of short-term FAA extensions does not provide the
long-term stability and funding predictability we should be giving to
our airports, the traveling public, and the airlines that are looking
at what we are going to be doing with airports. We have to have a
predictable roadmap if we are going to have a sound fiscal investment
in our aviation infrastructure and, in turn, aviation safety.
Senator Dorgan mentioned earlier today the many safety provisions
that are in this bill in response to the Colgan Buffalo, NY, accident
that happened last year, and they are very good provisions.
There are some common themes we can all support throughout our
country in this bill. It would improve safety--
[[Page S1431]]
safety of airlines, safety of pilots, safety of our traveling public,
and especially in the area of human factors that have long been a
challenge for this industry. The bill would modernize our antiquated
air traffic control system and move us one step closer to an efficient
and effective use of our national airspace. We are not up with many of
the other countries around the world in the modernization of our air
traffic control system. We are back in the 1960s in our technology.
This bill would move us toward the satellite-based system that is much
more reliable, much more efficient, and we need to move forward on it.
But, again, since 2007 we have not been able to have a stabilized
approach because we have been doing these short-term extensions. The
bill would provide infrastructure funds for our vast national airport
system, along with streamlining the approval process for airport
projects. The bill would improve rural access to aviation and the
economic opportunities that go along with air service. The bill would
provide the foundation for robust consumer protections and the
disclosure of industry practices.
I support most of the amendments I have heard being offered; I just
do not support them on this bill. I hope we will take those up and have
the ability to truly argue about those amendments and pass them, if
possible. I just hope we will not jeopardize, once again, a permanent
FAA reauthorization that is in the interest of every American who
travels on airlines and who thinks it is important that we have
airports for not only people moving but product moving. Our commerce
depends on a good aviation system.
I am going to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to let us
go to cloture on this bill, let us assure that the traveling public is
going to be able to at least have a bill that will move us one step
toward this.
This bill is not an easy bill. My colleague, the distinguished
chairman of the committee, knows we have hammered out a lot of
differences already. But we have differences with the House on this
bill as well. The Senate is in pretty much agreement on the
fundamentals of what is in this bill on both sides of the aisle. And my
colleague, Senator DeMint, who just offered an amendment, is actually
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, so he knows this
bill is a good bill that has been hammered out, and it will be the
Senate position.
But extraneous amendments, regardless of our view on the amendment's
substance, will kill this bill. I think it is in our best interests,
and certainly our responsibility, to put this bill forward for the
interests of the traveling public.
I urge my colleagues to work with us to have the ability for their
amendments to come up and be debated and voted on. I am going to
support everything I have heard so far. But I hope we will keep this
bill on aviation--on aviation security, on airport infrastructure, on
modernization of our air traffic control system--because that is what
our job is and that is what this bill is about.
I hope our colleagues will come forward with their aviation-related
amendments, of which there are several that are certainly worthy of our
discussion, and let's move through those. But I hope we will limit the
extraneous amendments and try to move this bill in an expeditious and
commonsense way.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, just one word on what my
distinguished colleague Senator Hutchison said.
I completely and totally agree. This is kind of a feast, I guess, for
some who want to bring all their frustrations about government and put
them into the aviation authorization bill, but it is so frustrating
because we have been working on this for so long. There have been 11
delays on this when we were not able to go forward with anything. If
they keep doing what they are doing with extraneous amendments, we have
no hope for this bill.
What they need to consider is that as they take down our bill, which
is important for the Nation, they will take down their amendments,
should they prevail, as well. So that doesn't make any sense.
I am so proud, as always, of the Senator from Texas and her work to
try to get rid of extraneous amendments, discourage those, and to work
on Federal aviation. This is very important work.
I know the Senator from Kansas wishes to speak, and I yield the
floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
support of this bipartisan agreement. Yes, there is a bipartisan
agreement in regard to this bill. It can be done. It has been reached
by the Senate Finance and Commerce Committees on the reauthorization of
the Federal Aviation Administration and Airport and Airway Trust Fund;
i.e., the Rockefeller substitute amendment No. 3452.
I thank Chairman Rockefeller for his leadership. He is right; we need
to move this bill. He referred to the 11 times it has been delayed. I
have been working on this bill for 4 years. I know he has been working
very hard, very diligently, and we do have a workable compromise. I
think it represents the true meaning of that word. It shows what is
possible when we roll up our sleeves and go to work together. So
special thanks to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and to
Senator Rockefeller and all of his staff and all of Senator Baucus's
staff, everybody's people who have been working on this.
In 2006, at my invitation, then-Secretary of Transportation Mary
Peters joined me and Congressman Tiahrt from the fourth district of
Kansas, local officials, all sorts of representatives from the aviation
businesses in Wichita, for a roundtable discussion about the importance
of aviation to Kansas and to the country. We then toured Cessna's
manufacturing lines to see firsthand an example of the great work of
Kansans who build 50 percent of the world's general aviation aircraft.
Reauthorizing the FAA and the Airport Airway Trust Fund is not only a
top national priority to, obviously me, Senator Brownback, and the
Kansas delegation, but a top Kansas priority.
We tried to pass this bill 2 years ago, and at that time 40,000
employees were in Wichita and the surrounding counties and they made
their living building planes, manufacturing parts, and servicing
aviation. Now, unfortunately, after delay and delay and delay due to
the rough economic climate and conditions, that number has dropped to
just over 25,000. That is a tremendous decrease with an awful lot of
hurt for a lot of families in Kansas.
Kansas is home to nearly 3,200 aviation and manufacturing businesses,
including Cessna, Hawker-Beechcraft, Bombardier-Learjet, Boeing,
Spirit, AeroSystems, Garmin, and Honeywell, to name a few. However,
aviation isn't simply an economic engine in Kansas; it is part of our
history, our way of life and, most importantly, part of our future. It
is an example of our entrepreneurial spirit.
Throughout this debate, I wish to point out that general aviation has
been called to increase its contribution to the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund to help pay for what everybody knows needs to happen: the
modernization of our air traffic control system. All along the way,
general aviation has stepped to the plate and agreed to help pay for
the necessary increases to move our aviation infrastructure into next-
generation technology.
I cannot recall a time when any industry has come to me and said, We
want to help and we are willing to support an increase--65 percent, by
the way--in our taxes to do so, but that is exactly what the general
aviation community did. Their only request has been that they be able
to pay through the current efficient and effective tax structure, the
fuel tax. So the agreement reached between the Finance and the Commerce
Committees respects this request and allows the general aviation
community to be part of the modernization solution without creating a
new bureaucracy or any additional redtape. This raises an additional
$113 million dedicated to updating the air traffic control technology
that will increase safety and decrease congestion. At the same time,
our commercial airlines and passengers are held harmless from tax
increases.
So, again, I am pleased this agreement recognizes the value of both
commercial aviation and general aviation to our Nation's transportation
system.
[[Page S1432]]
I realize there have been strong feelings on both sides of this debate
for a considerable number of years.
My goals as we drafted the bill were very clear: First, ensure that
our air traffic control system is upgraded and remains safe for all
passengers and aircraft. Secondly, protect the general aviation
community and Kansas jobs which would have been threatened by a new
user fee.
This legislation represents the best of a bipartisan compromise and a
real effort to make our skies safer. I am very proud to be a part of
this compromise, as are tens of thousands of workers employed in Kansas
in aviation manufacturing.
Our State has always been and remains the air capital of the world,
and under this agreement it will continue. I thank my colleagues for
helping us to reach a compromise that will maintain our world standing.
I am very hopeful the Senate will continue to work in this spirit of
bipartisanship on this bill. Yesterday Senator Brownback in his
remarks, Senator Rockefeller in his remarks just a while ago, and
Senator Hutchison made these same comments. We need to move quickly to
a conference committee and eventually have this bill signed into law
before the current program expires. I know when a train moves,
everybody wants to put their car on the train. However, let's try to
keep extraneous amendments--I don't mind Senators at all talking about
their concerns, whether it be education, gay marriage, or earmarks; and
I would expect we would hear a lot of speeches on earmarks--but we need
to keep this bill the way it is and move this bill. Then there will be
another train or I will have Kansas general aviation provide an
aircraft for a more speedy amendment to go over to the House if that is
the case.
So let's try to keep our extraneous amendments if we can, despite our
strong feelings, off this bill, and let's get something done. It has
been languishing here for over 4 years and probably longer than that.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for
his very cogent remarks. Kansas probably is the airplane center of the
country, if not the world. The point he makes is that it is bipartisan
and that we have been working on it a long time.
Anybody can come down and offer extraneous amendments. We don't
preclude that in our system. It is possible under the Senate rules. It
is also possible under the Senate rules to make extraneous amendments
unacceptable and unactionable. I think what we want to do is try to
avoid some of those processes. I know the leaders on both sides are
trying to figure out a way to deal with this problem of extraneous
amendments. If it has to do with aviation, we are all for it. If people
simply want to talk about subjects they care about but not offer
amendments, that is fine. If people want to offer aviation amendments,
please come forward. Those are important.
This is a 3- to 4-year effort we have been on, trying to do an
aviation bill. The Presiding Officer certainly understands the
consequences of aviation delays and all the rest of it. It is something
we have to do as a country and we cannot dally. This is not the Senate
acting in its finest tradition. We have a chance to change that, and I
hope the Members will cooperate in that effort.
I thank the Chair and note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Without my losing the floor, does the Senator wish to
speak after I speak?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
remarks of Senator Gregg, I be recognized.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Fiscal Policies
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise to discuss the issue of fiscal
policies, which we talk a little bit about around here but on which we
are not focusing, in my opinion, with the intensity we should, and the
fact we are now seeing in Europe the meltdown of a major nation-state's
financial situation, Greece. Greece has become a precursor for many
other industrialized nations in this world which are finding themselves
grossly overextended in the amount of debt they put on their books. As
a result, in the situation of Greece, they are incapable of repaying
their national debt, or what is known as their sovereign debt.
Fortunately, the European Community has rallied around and has tried
to stabilize the situation. But the fact that the situation may be
being stabilized should not allow us to take much solace because this
is not a unique problem to Greece.
As we look at the debt levels of a large number of nations in the
industrialized West, especially, many of them are in serious trouble.
Many are grossly overextended. We have seen, obviously, pressures on
Ireland, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Italy, and, of course,
Greece is so overextended that it was about to default potentially.
What does this mean for us as a nation? Unfortunately, we are on the
same track. People talk in terms of default and overextension and too
much debt and their eyes sort of glaze over.
What does that mean? Essentially, it means we as a nation see a
fundamental drop in our standard of living. If our debt gets to a
certain point, we basically as a nation, in order to pay for that debt,
have to reduce the standard of living of our people.
What is that point? There is general consensus that a public debt;
that is, debt owned by other countries and by the people of the nation
who is running it up, a public debt that amounts to about 35 percent or
40 percent of your gross domestic product--what you are producing as a
nation--is a very good status. But as that moves up by running
deficits--and, remember, we are running a $1.6 trillion deficit this
year, and under the President's budget we will be running over $1
trillion in deficits over the next 10 years--as that debt goes up--
which means you are basically borrowing money and borrowing it from
Americans, but mostly now from other countries, especially the Chinese
and Saudi Arabia--it starts to cross certain thresholds. The next most
significant threshold is to have a debt-to-public-production ratio of
about 60 percent. That gets serious.
In fact, that is such a high debt-to-public-production ratio that in
Europe you can't even join the European Union if you have a debt
situation that big. Well, unfortunately, later this year, because of
all the debt we have put on the books in the last 3 years, we are going
to pass the 60-percent threshold as a nation. Then you start moving
into waters which are more than uncharted and choppy, they are
dangerous. You start to move into the waters that Greece finds itself
in. Because when your public debt gets up around 70, 80, 90 percent of
your gross domestic product, you have trouble paying it back without
doing some very horrible things to your people--things such as massive
inflation or massive tax increases, both of which cost Americans jobs
and reduces their savings and their ability to live a better lifestyle.
Under the President's budget, as proposed, and under the scenario
which is clearly in front of us--it is like a railroad track that is
almost impossible to get off unless we do something very significant--
we hit 80 percent within 6 years, or approximately 80 percent. So we
are basically where Greece is 6, 7, 8 years from now, and the
implications for us as a society are catastrophic.
What are we doing about this? Not a lot. In fact, we are aggravating
it every day. Just yesterday, we passed another bill, or the day
before, that spent $100 billion--$100 billion that wasn't paid for. It
went to the debt. Last week, we passed another bill that alleged to
spend $10 billion, but buried in it were some parliamentary games which
actually meant it spent another $100 billion that wasn't paid for in
highway funds.
[[Page S1433]]
So $200 billion in 2 weeks. And the week before that, we did another
bill that spent $15 billion unpaid for. Not only are we not addressing
this problem, but we are fundamentally aggravating the problem. Now the
House has this Senate health care bill over there. What are the fiscal
implications of that? It grows the Federal Government by $2.5
trillion--$2.5 trillion.
It is claimed the bill is paid for. But how is it paid for? It
alleges it is going to reduce Medicare spending by $500 billion. But
rather than using that money to make Medicare more solvent, it takes
that money and creates two new entitlements--or expands one and creates
another one. We know from our history that entitlements are never fully
paid for. Then it takes money from a fund, which is supposed to be an
insurance fund, and it spends that money--long-term care insurance. So
that when those insurance IOUs come up to be paid, there isn't going to
be any money to pay them. It is called the CLASS Act. It is a classic
game of pyramid accounting. In fact, if you did it in the private
sector you would go to jail.
So that is the course we are on--a massive expansion in our debt,
leading us to a situation where our capacity to pay that debt will be
virtually impossible to accomplish without huge negative implications
for the standard of living of our children and our grandchildren, and
even our generation, quite honestly. It is going to arrive pretty soon.
In fact, today, there was a CNBC question put out: Should you continue
to invest in American debt in light of what we are headed toward? How
do you avoid the impending meltdown?
As people start to sense this coming at us, the cost of selling our
debt is going to become extraordinarily expensive, because people will
have to price in either massive inflation or an economic cost through
reduction in productivity due to massive taxes, which will reduce our
capacity to repay this debt in any sort of reasonable way. This is a
serious problem, and yet we do not seem to be willing to face up to it.
There is something else we need to focus on. Not only is it the
sovereign nations of the world that have this debt problem, it is our
States. Think about this for a moment. California's debt problem is so
severe they are represented as being close to potential default. What
is the implication of that for us as a country if one of our States
were to default on their debt? The domino effect would be
extraordinary. Do we have enough gas in our tanks, so to say, to come
in and resolve this from the Federal level? I doubt it. We have used up
most of our running room. If we go into a fiscal cardiac arrest, which
is approximately what we are going to do--it is exactly what we are
going to do, a fiscal cardiac arrest--4 or 5 years from now, and we
reach for the defibrillators, there isn't going to be any power. There
won't be any power to activate them because we have used up all our
resources already. We have spent it. We can't borrow any more, and we
certainly don't want to inflate our way out of it. It will be severe,
and the arrest may become terminal for certain parts of our economy and
certain people's lifestyles--basically, regular Americans living on
Main Street. So the issue is out there and it is pretty clear.
Greece is a precursor, California is an example, and our own
profligate attitude here in the Congress about it is not helping the
problem at all. You don't have to listen to me on this. Mohamed El-
Erian, who is a senior member of a group known as PIMCO, the largest
bond dealer in the world and one of the leading authorities on debt and
the purchase and selling of debt in the world, wrote a very thoughtful
article, and this article hits the nail on the head about the threat we
confront as a nation for our failure to face up to this debt situation
now and allowing it to erode and continue to grow.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the article I just referred to.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
How To Handle the Sovereign Debt Explosion
(By Mohamed El-Erian)
Every once in a while, the world is faced with a major
economic development that is ill-understood at first and
dismissed as of limited relevance, and which then catches
governments, companies and households unawares.
We have seen a few examples of this over the past 10 years.
They include the emergence of China as a main influence on
growth, prices, employment and wealth dynamics around the
world. I would also include the dramatic over-extension, and
subsequent spectacular collapse, of housing and shadow banks
in the finance-driven economies of the US and UK.
Today, we should all be paying attention to a new theme:
the simultaneous and significant deterioration in the public
finances of many advanced economies. At present this is being
viewed primarily--and excessively--through the narrow prism
of Greece. Down the road, it will be recognised for what it
is: a significant regime shift in advanced economies with
consequential and long-lasting effects. To stay ahead of the
process, we should keep the following six points in mind.
First, at the most basic level, what we are experiencing is
best characterised as the latest in a series of disruptions
to balance sheets. In 2008-09, governments had to step in to
counter the simultaneous implosion in housing, finance and
consumption. The world now has to deal with the consequences
of how this was done.
US sovereign indebtedness has surged by a previously
unthinkable 20 percentage points of gross domestic product in
less than two years. Even under a favourable growth scenario,
the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to continue to increase
over the next 10 years from its much higher base.
Many metrics speak to the generalised nature of the
disruption to public finances. My favourite comes from Willem
Buiter, Citi's chief economist. More than 40 per cent of
global GDP now resides in jurisdictions (overwhelmingly in
the advanced economies) running fiscal deficits of 10 per
cent of GDP or more. For much of the past 30 years, this
fluctuated in the 0-5 per cent range and was dominated by
emerging economies.
Second, the shock to public finances is undermining the
analytical relevance of conventional classifications.
Consider the old notion of a big divide between advanced and
emerging economies. A growing number of the former now have
significantly poorer economic and financial prospects, and
greater vulnerabilities, than a growing number of the latter.
Third, the issue is not whether governments in advanced
economies will adjust; they will. The operational questions
relate to the nature of the adjustment (orderly versus
disorderly), timing and collateral impact.
Governments naturally aspire to overcome bad debt dynamics
through the orderly (and relatively painless) combination of
growth and a willingness on the part of the private sector to
maintain and extend holdings of government debt. Such an
outcome, however, faces considerable headwinds in a world of
unusually high unemployment, muted growth dynamics,
persistently large deficits and regulatory uncertainty.
Countries will thus be forced to make difficult decisions
relating to higher taxation and lower spending. If these do
not materialise on a timely basis, the universe of likely
outcomes will expand to include inflating out of excessive
debt and, in the extreme, default and confiscation.
Fourth, governments can impose solutions on other sectors
in the domestic economy. They do so by preempting and
diverting resources. This is particularly relevant when there
is limited scope for the cross-border migration of
activities, which is the case today given the generalised
nature of the public finance shock.
Fifth, the international dimension will complicate the
internal fiscal adjustment facing advanced economies. The
effectiveness of any fiscal consolidation is not only a
function of a government's willingness and ability to
implement measures over the medium term. It is also
influenced by what other countries decide to do.
These five points all support the view that the shock to
balance sheets is highly relevant to a wide range of sectors
and markets. Yet for now, the inclination is to dismiss the
shock as isolated, temporary and reversible.
This leads to the sixth and final point. We should expect
(rather than be surprised by) damaging recognition lags in
both the public and private sectors. Playbooks are not
readily available when it comes to new systemic themes. This
leads many to revert to backward-looking analytical models,
the thrust of which is essentially to assume away the
relevance of the new systemic phenomena.
There is a further complication. Timely recognition is
necessary but not sufficient. It must be followed by the
correct response. Here, history suggests that it is not easy
for companies and governments to overcome the tyranny of
backward-looking internal commitments.
Where does all this leave us? Our sense is that the
importance of the shock to public finances in advanced
economies is not yet sufficiently appreciated and understood.
Yet, with time, it will prove to be highly consequential. The
sooner this is recognised, the greater the probability of
being able to stay ahead of the disruptions rather than be
hurt by them.
Mr. GREGG. It is time for us to act. It is time to, first, stop
spending. That
[[Page S1434]]
is the bottom line. It is like a diet. The only way you can lose some
weight is to actually stop eating the wrong way. We have to stop
spending, and then we have to come up with some pretty aggressive ideas
addressing the very systemic problems we have as a country relative to
the growth of our debt, so that if we do them now it will have less
negative impact on people than if we have to do them in a crisis
situation.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 3470 to Amendment No. 3452
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 3470.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
Coburn, and Mr. Brown of Ohio, proposes an amendment numbered
3470 to amendment No. 3452.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam 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 provide for the rescission of unused transportation
earmarks and to establish a general reporting requirement for any
unused earmarks)
At the end, insert the following:
TITLE ___--RESCISSION OF UNUSED TRANSPORTATION EARMARKS AND GENERAL
REPORTING REQUIREMENT
SEC. _01. DEFINITION.
In this title, the term ``earmark'' means the following:
(1) A congressionally directed spending item, as defined in
Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
(2) A congressional earmark, as defined for purposes of
Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
SEC. _02. RESCISSION.
Any earmark of funds provided for the Department of
Transportation with more than 90 percent of the appropriated
amount remaining available for obligation at the end of the
9th fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
earmark was made available is rescinded effective at the end
of that 9th fiscal year, except that the Secretary of
Transportation may delay any such rescission if the Secretary
determines that an additional obligation of the earmark is
likely to occur during the following 12-month period.
SEC. _03. AGENCY WIDE IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTS.
(a) Agency Identification.--Each Federal agency shall
identify and report every project that is an earmark with an
unobligated balance at the end of each fiscal year to the
Director of OMB.
(b) Annual Report.--The Director of OMB shall submit to
Congress and publically post on the website of OMB an annual
report that includes--
(1) a listing and accounting for earmarks with unobligated
balances summarized by agency including the amount of the
original earmark, amount of the unobligated balance, the year
when the funding expires, if applicable, and recommendations
and justifications for whether each earmark should be
rescinded or retained in the next fiscal year;
(2) the number of rescissions resulting from this title and
the annual savings resulting from this title for the previous
fiscal year; and
(3) a listing and accounting for earmarks provided for the
Department of Transportation scheduled to be rescinded at the
end of the current fiscal year.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment,
along with Senators Coburn and Sherrod Brown, to make a small but
necessary step toward addressing the growing problem of Federal
deficits. This is the second time in as many weeks that we are offering
this amendment, and I hope we will be able to have a vote and get it
accepted on the FAA reauthorization bill. The underlying bill we are
considering reauthorizes many vitally important programs, including
investments in our aviation infrastructure and the long overdue
modernization of air traffic control. While I support many of these
investments, I think it is also critically important that we take a
close look at where our spending can be cut as we try to address the
looming deficit.
Of course, my amendment won't come close to solving this whole
looming problem, but it will make a dent as we try to get our financial
house in order and make the tough choices to avoid burdening future
generations with debt. There is no single or easy solution to the
massive deficits we face, but one thing we should be doing is taking a
hard look at the Federal budget for wasteful or unnecessary spending.
Hard-working American families have to make these kinds of decisions
every week to make ends meet, whether skipping dinners out, making do
with old clothes instead of buying new ones, or finding new ways to
trim their grocery bill. People are looking at everything in their
household budget to cut back in tough times, and the Congress should be
doing the same things, looking to save the taxpayers' money everywhere
we can.
What I am trying to do here is a proposal to get rid of old, unwanted
transportation earmarks that would save about $600 million right away
and perhaps a few billion dollars over time. It won't eliminate the
Federal deficit on its own, but it is real money, in places such as
Racine or Fond du Lac, WI, where I recently held townhall meetings. It
is one step on a path that is going to have to involve many additional
cuts.
I have put together a number of proposals for where we should begin
tightening our belt, including the one for this amendment, in a piece
of legislation I introduced last fall called the Control Spending Now
Act. The combined bill would cut the Federal deficit by about $\1/2\
trillion over 10 years.
This amendment, my bipartisan amendment here with Senators Coburn and
Brown of Ohio, would build off of a proposal put forward in President
George W. Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal to rescind $626
million in highway earmarks that were over a decade old and still had
less than 10 percent of the funding utilized. When Transportation
Weekly did an analysis of these earmarks at the time, they found that
over 60 percent of the funding--$389 million--was in 152 earmarks that
had no funding spent or obligated from them. These clearly are either
unwanted or a low priority for the designated recipients.
This is nothing against transportation funding either, of course. I
fully realize the need for reinvestment in our crumbling infrastructure
and its potential for job creation in hard-hit segments such as
construction. But hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in an account
untouched at the Department of Transportation does nothing to address
our infrastructure needs or put people back to work.
I have tried to build on President Bush's concept a little and my
amendment expands this rescission to all transportation earmarks that
are over 10 years old with unobligated balances of more than 90
percent. At a hearing before the Budget Committee 2 weeks ago, I asked
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood about these unwanted and unspent
earmarks, and whether he supported my proposal to rescind them.
Secretary LaHood responded:
The answer is yes, we are supportive of your proposal, and
we have identified significant millions of dollars worth of
earmarks.
So at the suggestion of the chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee, we have also included a provision to allow the
Secretary of Transportation to delay a rescission if the project is
expected to be obligated within the next 12 months. I know there are
sometimes extenuating circumstances and delays that pop up, and this
seemed like a good way to deal with these situations while still
ensuring that the intention to eliminate unwanted and low-priority
projects was retained. I also hope this will help alleviate concerns
and ensure that the potential for extenuating circumstances is not used
as a reason to somehow oppose our amendment.
It is unclear exactly how many hundreds of millions or even billions
of dollars would be saved by this proposal being expanded to other
transportation earmarks in addition to the previous estimate of $626
million that would be rescinded from unwanted highway earmarks in the
first year. This proposal would also be permanent, so there would
likely be additional savings as the unwanted earmarks in the most
recent highway bill reach their 10-year anniversary.
I think this is a very modest proposal, going after the lowest of the
low-hanging fruit and would support going even further and make it
cover all Federal agencies. But with the uncertainty about how many of
these unwanted and unspent earmarks there might be across the whole
Federal Government,
[[Page S1435]]
our amendment instead requires an annual report by the OMB to collect
information from each agency and include recommendations on whether
these other unobligated earmarks should be rescinded.
As you can see, this is a proposal with bipartisan support both in
the Senate and from the past administration and this current
administration. This shouldn't be a hard decision and I hope we have
strong support here in the Senate. This is simply about instituting a
good government principle of returning unused funds to the Treasury,
and it shouldn't be controversial. If we can't agree to take old
earmarks that no one wants and use the money to pay down the deficit,
then how are we ever going to get our fiscal house in order?
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of the remarks of Senators Ensign and Brown of Ohio, the
Senate then stand in recess until 2 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unemployment And Foreclosures
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, first, let me start by complimenting the
Senator from Wisconsin for addressing the spending going on in
Washington, DC. I applaud his efforts. He understands this is a modest
effort, but we have to start someplace. For my whole 10 years in the
Senate, I have been talking about spending and getting our debt under
control, not passing debt on to our children across America. This is a
huge debt burden we are passing on to them. I applaud the efforts, even
though they are small. Anything we can do around here to address the
deficits and the debt I think is very important.
I want to talk about unemployment and foreclosures, especially how
they are affecting Nevada and the overall economy. I think everybody
admits the our economy is hurting. There are people all over the
country in need of employment. Many are hurting because of foreclosures
or potential foreclosures on their houses.
In new unemployment numbers just released, Nevada has a 13-percent
unemployment rate, with Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, now
at almost a record high of 13.8 percent; Washoe County, which is where
Reno is, a 13.5-percent unemployment rate. The Review Journal, the
largest paper in Nevada, pointed out this week that the salary and job
outlook for Nevadans is going from bad to worse. Wages are declining
across industries in our State, and experts recently told the paper if
we were to count discouraged workers who have given up looking for
employment and part-time employees who wish to work full time, the real
unemployment rate in Nevada would actually hover somewhere around 25
percent.
In fact, if we were to count those who are self-employed--for
instance, if you are a realtor and you are not selling homes, you may
still be classified as employed but you are effectively unemployed. If
we counted all the self-employed people who are not counted in the
normal unemployment rates, these numbers would even be higher.
Housing in Nevada is still hurting severely. We are leading the
Nation in home foreclosures and there does not seem to be a solution to
this problem coming out of Congress. Instead, Congress has gone off on
a wayward path in trying to muscle through health care reform when the
immediate focus of this institution should be on the millions of
Americans who have lost their jobs, are at risk of losing their homes,
or even worse--both.
In fact, nearly 5 million Americans have lost their jobs during the
time Congress has shifted its focus away from the economy onto health
care. I will point out, however, if you live in the Washington, DC,
area you are actually OK. There have been 100,000 new jobs created in
this city in the last year. These are government jobs; not private
sector jobs, government jobs. This is a direct result of a massive
expansion of the Federal Government.
I do not believe that growing the Federal Government and creating
jobs in Washington does anything to help the unemployment in Nevada or
around the rest of the country. Health care reform proposals that the
majority is trying to push through both Houses are not designed to
incentivize job creation at a time when we need a lifeline. Instead,
their bills will be job killers.
The National Federation of Independent Business, which is the largest
organization that represents small businesses in America, believes
their health care reform proposals will actually cost millions of jobs
in small businesses over the next 4 years. It also will greatly add to
the Nation's debt when we are already borrowing from future
generations, as the Senator from Wisconsin just talked about.
It is time for Congress to shift our focus back to creating jobs, and
do it in a responsible way by reducing wasteful government spending and
thinking about the future of our country. One spending bill after
another that comes before this Senate is not going to solve the
economic problems our country is facing. It is actually just going to
make the situation worse over the next several years because as we
borrow more money, inflation and interest rates will increase.
There are concerns about the strength of the dollar in the world.
Adding to our debt intensifies those worries. We all, as Republicans
and as Democrats--really, as Americans--ought to be concerned about
what this debt is going to do to the future of our country.
We need real solutions to our economic problems. We need to get the
country back on track. To do that, we need to get control of out-of-
control spending, especially wasteful spending.
Job creation needs to be our number one focus, and we cannot
incentivize job creation when our Nation is buried in debt. This means
we are all going to have to start taking some difficult votes to
reverse the wild spending spree we are on. Here in Washington it is
much easier to get reelected if you are giving money away to people. It
is much more difficult politically to take votes that actually cut
spending because for every government program that is out, there is a
constituency that lobbies to keep that gravy train coming from the
Federal Government.
Last week we had two options in the Senate. We had the option to pay
for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits with unspent
stimulus funds, money we have already taken out of the pockets of
taxpayers, or we had the option of adding more debt to the credit card
of this Nation. I voted to extend unemployment insurance without having
American families foot yet another government bill. Unfortunately, the
majority party did not pass this bill. Instead, they voted to continue
adding to our Nation's debt. Over $100 billion was added to our
Nation's debt just yesterday by this Senate.
By the way, $100 billion used to be a lot of money around this place.
It is tossed around like it is almost nothing now. $100 billion is a
huge amount of money. It passed and hardly got any notice around the
country. That is what we added to our deficit and our debt yesterday.
I stress again that job creation needs to be our number one focus,
but we cannot begin to incentivize job creation just by adding more
debt. I have been focused on introducing legislation that will help
create jobs in Nevada while not increasing the debt--for example, the
recent passage of my legislation with Senator Dorgan, called the Travel
Promotion Act. This will incentivize tourists from across the world to
come to the United States and visit our world-class destinations. This
will spur job growth across Nevada and our entire Nation. These will
not be government jobs; these will be private sector jobs. These jobs
will not be paid for by the American taxpayer; these will be jobs that
will be a lifeline for our economy.
Legislation like the Travel Promotion Act illustrates that we need to
get past the idea that government spending creates jobs and showcases
that we need to institute policies that incentivize the private sector
to create jobs. We can do this by lowering taxes on small businesses.
They are the engine of our economy. We can start creating employment
opportunities throughout the United States. These private sector jobs
will help get our country back on the road to recovery and will not add
to the financial burden of the United States.
The majority party seems to believe the only way to spur job creation
is to
[[Page S1436]]
pass spending bill after spending bill. As we have witnessed over the
past year, this does not seem to be working. But this has not lessened
the resolve of those across the aisle. This week, House Education and
Labor Committee Chairman George Miller announced that he will unveil a
jobs bill--that is what he called it, a jobs bill--aimed to save or
create a lot of jobs in local governments. It is a $100 billion bill--
another $100 billion.
The problem with this is these jobs are going to be paid for by the
Community Development Block Grant Program, which, in simple English,
means we are adding to the debt. This is money the taxpayers are going
to have to pay for in the future--borrowing once again from our
children and adding to our Nation's credit card debt. This is not a
solution to create jobs in the long run.
The Federal Government spending money on legislation whose only
connection to job creation is putting the phrase in the title of the
bill is not working. In the short term, will it save some local
government jobs? No question, in Nevada it probably would. But Nevada
is making tough choices right now. They are actually looking where
there is waste. They are looking how they can make government more
efficient. We are not doing that at the Federal level. We are actually
discouraging it by sending more and more money to the States. But at
the Federal Government level we are certainly not looking for any
efficiencies because all we continue to do is spend more and more
money, add more and more government agencies, more and more government
programs.
We should be tightening our belts like every family, every business,
local government, and State government are doing across the country.
That is one of the reasons many of us have cosponsored legislation for
a balanced budget amendment. If we were required to balance the budget
we would be required to take those tough votes. That is why we get
elected, to do something, to make a positive difference for our
country. Adding to our debt is not that positive difference. We need to
think about the future of our country instead of just getting reelected
by being able to give money away to some of our constituents.
I will conclude with this: Job number one needs to be about creating
jobs in a responsible way--not government jobs, private sector jobs. We
need to stop adding to the deficit, get government spending under
control, and cut taxes for small businesses so that entrepreneurs
across this country can create jobs. These are what the priorities of
this body should be.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to
address the Senate for about 10 minutes under morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Deficit
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I came to the floor to talk about
a young woman in Cincinnati, OH, but I guess I am just amazed at the
amnesia in this body. I hear colleagues on the other side of the aisle
say Democrats vote for spending to keep that gravy train going; that
Democrats believe that job creation is always the government; that
Republicans believe we have to get spending under control and how
politically unpopular it is to vote to cut spending. I hear these
things over and over, and I hate cliches but, you know the Yogi Berra
line: ``It's deja vu all over again.''
I was in the House of Representatives for the first 6 years of this
decade, and I saw what happened. What happened was my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle--when one bird flies off the telephone wire,
they all fly off the telephone wire--voting on issue after issue to
bankrupt this country and to drive our economy into the ditch. In 2001,
tax cuts for the rich, George Bush's tax cuts which went overwhelmingly
to the richest taxpayers and, as the Presiding Officer from North
Carolina knows, using reconciliation to drive these tax cuts through in
2001, 2003, 2005, bringing Vice President Cheney in so they not only
used reconciliation, they had to bring the Vice President in, who is
almost never here, as the Presiding Officer knows, to vote in passing
that with 51 votes.
We had a surplus in those days. We had a surplus, and they took that
surplus and they enacted tax cuts for the wealthy. Then they started
the war with Iraq but did not pay for it. I disagreed with going to
war. I voted against it. But at least we should have paid for it. They
didn't pay for the war in Iraq and still have not.
Then they did this huge, tens of billions of dollars in giveaways to
the drug companies and insurance companies, all in the way of
privatization of Medicare.
So when I hear them preaching to me about Democrats want to spend
money on unemployment compensation, or Democrats want to spend money on
health care--such as COBRA, for those people who have lost their health
insurance--or Democrats want to spend money on reimbursing doctors at a
fairer rate for Medicare, they attack us for doing that yet they took a
budget surplus and ran this economy into the ground by deregulating
Wall Street, by cutting taxes on the richest people in this country, by
turning the surplus into deficits to the tune of hundreds and hundreds
of billions of dollars.
We had projected in 2000 a budget surplus--projected--of $1 trillion.
One trillion dollars is 1,000 billion dollars. We now have a projection
of $1 trillion in budget deficit. They come here and they preach that
Democrats should quit spending money on unemployment compensation
because all these workers, they do not want to work, they want to
receive their unemployment benefits.
Well, what somebody needs to explain to them, and perhaps my friends
on the other side of the aisle do not know anybody who is exactly
getting unemployment compensation because they spend too much time with
people similar to us, wearing suits and hanging around places such as
this and not enough time in places in Charlotte and Dayton and Winston-
Salem and Cleveland, with people who have lost their jobs and talking
about it.
But it is not unemployment welfare, as they would like to say it is,
it is unemployment insurance. That means when you are employed, you pay
into a fund, and when you lose your job you get money out of that fund.
It is called insurance, unemployment insurance. They should remember
that.
remembering esme kenney
Madam President, I would like to commemorate the life of Esme Louise
Kenney of Cincinnati, OH, whose life was tragically cut short 1 year
ago this past Sunday.
Esme was a bright, inquisitive, and spirited young girl with many
talents and a limitless imagination and a boundless love for life.
She was an artist, a musician, an avid reader, an expressive writer,
and a budding water-skier.
The beloved daughter of Tom Kenney and Lisa Siders-Kenney, the caring
sister of Brian, Meghan and Frances, and a loyal and loving friend to
so many, Esme touched many hearts in her short time with us.
From all accounts, Esme's compassion and enthusiasm always warmed the
room and lifted the spirits of everyone she met. Her loving brother
described her as a real ``people person,'' one who loved meeting
people, talking with them, learning about them, and sharing her life
with them.
For all of those whose days were brightened by Esme's radiant joy and
love of life, this week marks an anniversary filled with sorrow and
heartache.
One year ago, Esme's life was taken from her under tragic and
horrifying circumstances.
The 13-year-old left the house one day to go for a jog, and would
never return.
One man's rage and delusion resulted in the brutal and senseless
murder of an innocent, virtuous, and loving child.
Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that Anthony Kirkland, the
confessed murderer, was already a convicted killer and registered sex
offender when he committed this atrocity. He had served 16 years in
prison for the sadistic assault and murder of another young woman.
My wife Connie and I extend our deepest sympathy to Esme's family,
friends, and community during this unthinkably difficult time. We lost
Esme a year ago, but I know she will be part of our lives always.
The recurrence of these horrible acts underscores the urgent need to
review our criminal justice system, and that is why I join the Kenney
family in support of legislation introduced by my
[[Page S1437]]
colleague, Senator Webb: S. 174, the National Criminal Justice
Commission Act of 2009.
This bill would establish the National Criminal Justice Commission to
undertake a comprehensive review of the current system and submit a
report to Congress and the President that outlines findings and
recommendations for changes in criminal justice policies.
Such action is vital to keeping our children safe. We must not be
complacent in the face of such inconceivably violent and destructive
acts as the crime that took Esme from us.
____________________