[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20275-20283]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HIGHWAY TRUST FUND EXTENSION--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the transfer of 
the highway trust fund money. I do, of course, support having the money 
in the highway fund because so many States need to have this money and 
we need to assure it is there. I also support the amendments that would 
use the stimulus money so it would not be new money.
  But I do wish to talk about the highway trust fund because I think it 
is important, as we are talking about this very important 
transportation issue for our States, that we begin the debate about 
whether the highway trust fund is now the appropriate vehicle for 
keeping our Federal highways repaired and also doing the best for every 
State in transportation. What concerns me is that the first reason for 
the highway trust fund back in President Eisenhower's day over 50 years 
ago has been achieved. Yet we are still continuing to have the same 
formulas where some States are winners and some States are losers. But 
every State today has the capacity to determine its own priorities and 
the capacity to fund those priorities, unlike 50 years ago when there 
were many States that had very little capacity. They had little 
property, they had little taxable revenue sources, and therefore there 
was a need for a national system of highways to assure that we had 
national security. That was the first reason for it--but also mobility 
and commerce.
  Today, however, I think it is time for us to start all over. I think 
it is time for us to allow States to opt out of the highway trust fund.
  Of course, I am speaking for the largest donor State in America. We 
give more back to other States than any other State. We are a State 
that has more highway miles than any other State; therefore, we collect 
more taxes. Because we are a donor State, we give the most away. If 
these were States that could not meet their own needs and my State of 
Texas was a State that had its needs covered, maybe you could argue 
that would be OK. But, in fact, that is not the case. In fact, Texas is 
facing a huge shortage in our highway funding. We now have two cities 
that have mass transit systems that are certainly very successful but 
very far behind the curve when it comes to the transportation glut on 
our highways. We need to have the money in Texas to start meeting our 
great transportation needs.
  This also affects our environment, because when we have people 
clogged in traffic, sitting on freeways hour after hour, of course it 
is bad for the ability to get where you want to go, but it is also bad 
for the environment to have the fumes going in the air.
  I think today it is time for us to start the debate. Why not let a 
State opt out, agree to keep in good repair the Federal highway system 
and allow the States to use their own taxpayer dollars for their own 
priorities to meet their own transportation and mobility needs? If 
Texas could keep all the money it raises, rather than toll roads, which 
are now being contemplated throughout our State, perhaps we could have 
a mobility plan that would include highways, rapid transit, high-speed 
rail, and more innovative ideas that are very costly, which we cannot 
afford at this time.
  Obviously, today we are going to go forward with extending the trust 
fund and replenishing the highway trust fund because that is what 
people want to do because we don't have time to address the whole issue 
of reauthorization at this very complicated time. I wish we were not 
going to consider an 18 month extension in September because I think we 
ought to have a short-term extension, so we do have the reauthorization 
of the highway bill, so we can start discussing these priorities--so we 
can start maybe thinking outside the box. Maybe we can start all over.
  The highway trust fund and the highway authorization bill is a 
mishmash of different projects. I don't think there is fairness in the 
system at all. You have donor States, you have winner States, and the 
winner States have all the capacity. The loser States have as much need 
as the winner States, and the winner States have the ability, I 
believe, to fund their own options.
  Even though I know we are going to extend the highway bill for 18 
months by the end of September, and I know we are going to replenish 
the highway fund today--and I wish it would be from our stimulus 
package so it would not be yet another deficit-inducing measure from 
this Congress--I think I am going to lose all the arguments I am 
making. But I do think it important that we bring this issue to the 
forefront.
  There is no reason in this country today for winner States and loser 
States. Our States should be able to plan for themselves, make their 
own priorities, meet their needs, be able to be more efficient, have 
multimodal systems--which is what I hope for Texas--and be able to use 
our own tax dollars for our own needs. Were we a State that did not 
have needs, were we a State that was not growing, maybe we could afford 
to continue giving 8 cents back for every $1 we send to Washington. 
Maybe we could afford to leave the 8 cents in Washington.
  Instead, we are getting 92 cents back for every $1 we send to 
Washington. That is hundreds of millions of dollars that we need for 
our high-growth State that has many traffic problems and congestion 
problems today. We will repair our highways. We would sign an agreement 
to repair our highways so there would be no Federal responsibility for 
that. But I hope this argument will be the beginning of a debate so we 
can instate a system that will be more in tune with today's times, 50 
years after the National Highway System was created--a wonderful system 
that connects our country but one, now, that is finished. We have our 
National Highway System. We do have connectivity among our States. Why 
not allow the States to go out from those Federal highway miles and 
lanes, to go into their States in the best way for each individual 
State?
  I thank Senator Brown for allowing me to speak on this issue. I hope, 
as we go through, we will have more of a discussion.
  I do have a bill introduced that would allow States to opt out. It is 
something I think the time has come to address.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak in time counting against 
the Ensign amendment. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business and the time be counted against the Ensign amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I first congratulate the Presiding Officer 
for his first time in the Presiding Officer's chair and wish him many 
more of these. I know the experience will continue to enrich him and 
enrich the Senate. I thank the Presiding Officer of the Senate.
  Mr. President, last week, more than 1,500 Ohioans woke up at dawn to 
wait in a line that snaked around the W.O. Walker Center, co-owned by 
the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospital.
  Last week, President Obama also visited the Cleveland Clinic--one of 
our Nation's premier health care centers.
  He observed firsthand how the Cleveland Clinic and cutting-edge 
health care centers like University Hospitals and Metro Health are 
providing high-quality care while reducing patients' costs.
  But the more than 1,500 Ohioans who stood in line at 5 a.m. last 
Saturday morning were not waiting for President Obama.
  They were waiting to see one of hundreds of dermatologists, nurses, 
urologists, cardiologists, neurologists, infectious disease 
specialists, dentists, and

[[Page 20276]]

other volunteers who were providing free health care for one of 
Cleveland's first mass health clinics.
  Need a pair of glasses? Lead optician Dr. Rob Engel checked your 
vision while volunteer Sharon Connor helped you select a pair on the 
spot.
  Need prescription medicine? You were able to visit Margo and Rob 
Roth, who ran the clinic's pharmacy.
  Worried about women's health services? Dr. Laura David, an 
obstetrician from University Hospitals, was ready to help.
  Along with volunteers Maria Parks and her husband Lee, I helped sign-
in and register a number of Ohioans.
  Many of them were members of hard-working families worried that they 
might join the 14,000 Americans who lose health insurance each day.
  Maria, Lee, and I heard one organizer call a medical volunteer a 
``hero'' for stepping forward to help their neighbors.
  That same volunteer responded by saying the real heroes are the 
fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters struggling every day in the 
shadow of a looming health care crisis that threatens to send their 
family into financial ruin.
  In fact, most of the people who sought health services at the weekend 
clinic were from middle class families who had fallen on hard times.
  Together with MetroHealth, St. Vincent's, University Hospitals, Case 
Western Reserve University, and the Cleveland Clinic, Medworks 
volunteers provided the kind of health care all Americans need, but too 
many don't receive.
  Medworks founder Zac Ponsky turned not only to his community but to 
his family to contribute their time.
  Zach's wife Taryn helped coordinate the many moving parts of the 
clinic. Kim Ponsky, Zac's sister, is a professional photographer who 
documented the weekend.
  Meanwhile, Zac's father Jeff, brothers Lee and Todd, and sister-in-
law Diana--all physicians--provided a standard of care that most of the 
patients that day had never received.
  During a single weekend, the generous volunteers of Medworks taught 
us the meaning of compassion and humility.
  They led by example.
  Many patients received multiple services, while doctors made instant 
referrals to other Cleveland-area doctors for those patients not 
originally scheduled.
  Over the course of the weekend, seven people needing advanced care, 
once diagnosed, were able to receive it at local hospitals.
  More than 130 women had pap tests and nearly 100 women received 
vouchers for free mammograms at Women's Diagnostics.
  Nearly 300 people either walked out of the clinic with a brand new 
pair of glasses or will be receiving a new pair soon.
  A number of patients received vouchers for follow-up eye care at St. 
Vincent's Charity Hospital, an exceptional hospital in Cleveland.
  Approximately 50 people were tested for HIV. But it was not just 
health care services that were provided. Each patient also spent time 
with a social worker who provided counseling and information about 
followup services. The Ohio Benefits Bank was on hand to offer 
prescreening for medical, housing, energy, tax, employment and other 
programs. Approximately 100 patients took advantage of that service.
  All told, approximately 300 community members, 100 doctors, 175 
nurses, and social workers volunteered their time and services during 
this Saturday/Sunday event. This includes a number of volunteers who 
simply showed up unannounced. It included a few patients who were so 
grateful for the care they then volunteered to stay after their 
appointments to help.
  Building on effectiveness of the weekend, MedWorks is now focused on 
patient followup. Currently, a team of doctors is reviewing medical 
records to follow up with emergency cases and to help those people 
suffering from chronic illness.
  MedWorks volunteer and chief of surgery at University Hospitals, Dr. 
Jeff Ponsky, said:

       We're very hopeful that this will become a regular part of 
     our community. We'll get better at it, and we'll be a leader 
     for the country.

  We can do more for the millions of Americans who are one illness away 
from financial ruin. We can do more for the 14,000 Americans who lose 
their insurance every day. We can do more for the 45 million uninsured 
and the tens and tens of millions of underinsured in this country.
  Today is the 44th anniversary of President Johnson's signing of 
Medicare. Medicare changed our Nation. It helped pull millions of 
seniors out of poverty; it fostered personal independence; it fueled 
our economy; and it helped retirees live long and healthy lives.
  Just as those who worked tirelessly 44 years ago to secure health 
care for America's seniors, the generous MedWorks volunteers in 
Cleveland are doing all they can for their community.
  In Washington, we are working to effect change in our health care 
system. That is our duty, to make this historic change, to reform the 
health insurance industry, to allow our Nation to move on from human 
tragedy--from the health care related bankruptcies, from the 
competitive disadvantage American businesses face from the huge costs, 
the burden that small businesses face in this country. We can keep 
working, keep fighting for the change Americans are demanding.
  The Ohioans I met in Cleveland last Saturday, and every Ohioan from 
Lima to Zanesville, from Chillicothe to Ashtabula, every American in 
every town in every State in this Nation all deserve the humane justice 
of stable and secure health care. That means quality and affordable 
health care options, public and private both. It means the health care 
plan that was voted out of the HELP Committee on which the Presiding 
Officer sits. It means the plan that came out of that committee 2 weeks 
ago, a plan that injects competition between private insurance plans 
and a public option, an option that people can choose. It will make 
those plans work better, cut costs, and keep the insurance companies 
honest. That will mean people, if they are laid off--if people are laid 
off in Marion or Dayton, OH, people who have lost their insurance, 
people in Wapakoneta, in rural Ohio, all will have a public option to 
compete with sometimes all too few private insurance companies in their 
areas.
  To all the MedWorks volunteers, including Jack Ponsky and his family, 
including Karil Bialostosky, Joel Goldstein, and Brian Smith, I thank 
all of you for your commitment, your compassion, and your care for 
those in need.
  Now it is up to us to provide the kind of health care to protect what 
works in our health care system and to fix what is broken in our health 
care system.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent now that the 
debate time remaining with respect to amendments offered be yielded 
back; that after Senator Thune offers his amendment, then debate time 
on that amendment extend until 3:45 p.m., divided as previously 
provided; that at 3:45 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in 
relation to the amendments and motion to waive in the order listed, 
with 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled, in order prior 
to each vote, with the vote time after the first vote limited to 10 
minutes each as follows:
  Vitter amendment No. 1907, as modified; Ensign amendment No. 1905, as 
modified; Bond amendment No. 1904; the Thune amendment I have referred 
to; and the Boxer motion to waive the applicable Budget Act point of 
order; that with reference to amendment No. 1904, if a Budget Act point 
of order is raised against the amendment, then a motion to waive the 
applicable point of

[[Page 20277]]

order be considered made, further that all other provisions of the 
previous order remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are going to vote on a series of 
Republican amendments to a bill that has come over from the House of 
Representatives that funds the highway trust fund until September 30, 
that funds unemployment insurance, and that helps us with the housing 
crisis and allows us to see more mortgages go to qualified families of 
America.
  It is important to note that if we don't accept the House package, we 
are really playing Russian roulette with the highway trust fund. As the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who works very 
hard with my colleague Senator Inhofe across party lines to ensure we 
have a robust infrastructure program, I want to be clear: If we don't 
pass this House bill, then we are up against the wall. We send a very 
bad signal to the people who are counting the contracts that go out for 
the highway program and the work that follows. We have many working 
people who count on these jobs.
  I support one of these amendments. The Bond amendment makes eminent 
sense. I do take issue with the timing because we have been told by our 
House colleagues that this is all we are going to do; if we amend this 
bill, then we are stuck. So it is one of those awkward and difficult 
moments.
  Truth be told, the people out there who are working hard are not 
going to get all the subtleties of the moment. They want to make sure 
their job is there in the morning.
  So even though I support one of these amendments, the Bond 
amendment--and I have stated and Senator Bond understands that I will 
be supporting him when we reauthorize this bill September 30; we will 
take care of this rescission--we don't have to take care of it now. 
What we must take care of today is the highway trust fund. It is 
running out of funds. We have to act. I hope we can do it across party 
lines.
  The other thing I support is an 18-month extension of highway 
programs. That is, again, something I have done with my Republican 
colleagues. We passed out of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, on a unanimous vote, an 18-month extension. Senator Baucus, 
over on Finance, was able to come up with an intergovernmental transfer 
that does not add to the deficit of about $27 billion to ensure that we 
can go forward for 18 months while we sit down across party lines and 
figure out the long-term answer to funding our highway and 
transportation needs over the next 5 years.
  There is a split between the Senate approach and the House approach. 
The House approach, which I don't agree with, is to keep making short-
term extensions as a way to force us to act in the long term. But we 
all know we have to figure out a funding source that will take us 
through the next 5 or 6 years. It is going to take time, and we need to 
do it right. I believe in making sure we have a pay-go system. I am not 
willing, as the chairman of the committee, to simply hand off a huge 
bill to the Finance Committee without any recommendations. So it will 
take us a little while. We have a difference between the House approach 
and the Senate approach.
  But here is the point and why I believed it was important to be heard 
before we vote. The House has a very short-term extension. That is what 
they have given us. They have told us that if we don't take this, we 
are not going to be able to ensure that the highway trust fund is 
solvent. I, for one, am not willing to play games with this. It is too 
serious. Even though I don't agree with the House approach, we have 
other days left to make the case.
  The other point I want to make is that the Republican approach to 
this is the 18-month extension, which I fully support, and the way they 
pay for it is by saying: We are going to take money out of the stimulus 
program, the economic stimulus program that has just begun to take hold 
in the country. The Republicans didn't vote for it, most of them--three 
of them did, but the others didn't--and they want to stop it. It is 
counterproductive, in a time of recession, to stop a jobs program right 
in the middle. These are jobs for highways, transportation, cleaning up 
Superfund sites. These are jobs that are dealing with water 
infrastructure, with education. Of all the times to come up here and 
recommend that we stop this jobs program now, this is wrong.
  I am totally willing to work with my colleagues so at the end of the 
stimulus bill, at the end of that time, which is in about 18 months, if 
we have not spent some of those funds, we should take a hard look at 
putting those funds into the Treasury to reduce the deficit, perhaps. 
Perhaps we need at that point to use some of it for the highway trust 
fund. But today is not the day.
  If I could summarize where I see things today, we have a series of 
Republican amendments that basically say we should stop this, we should 
take funds out of the stimulus package now in order to pay for 
unemployment insurance, in order to pay for the highway trust fund, and 
in order to pay to help our people with their mortgages. And it is 
counterproductive.
  On the one hand, they are doing something to help the economy by 
helping our people with mortgages, by ensuring there is unemployment 
insurance, and ensuring there is money in the highway trust fund. On 
the other hand, they are stopping jobs to do it, and it is not 
necessary. The House bill, although I do not appreciate the fact that 
it is a very short-term extension of the highway trust fund, is deficit 
neutral. CBO has so scored it. So we do not have to do this, and we 
should not do this.
  As I understand it, it is time now to have that series of votes. So I 
make a parliamentary inquiry as to what time we are having those votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time under the previous order has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. Then I would yield the floor, and I hope we 
would be voting at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Sessions is going to get one more amendment in, and then we will start 
the voting; is that correct?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, that would be my preference. I would be 
pleased to call up this amendment now. I do not know what the time 
agreement is at this point.
  Mr. INHOFE. We are ready to vote as soon as the Senator brings it up.


                           Amendment No. 2223

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call the 
amendment up and to be able to speak for 2 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. That sounds good.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have an opportunity to save $200 
billion. It is time for us to do the right thing. We cannot keep 
spending more and more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2223.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To restore sums to the Highway Trust Fund and for other 
               purposes in a fiscally responsible manner)

       Strike all after the enacting clause and replace:

     SECTION L. FUNDING OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       Subsection (f) of section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to determination of trust fund balances 
     after September 30, 1998) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2), and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new

[[Page 20278]]

       ``(2) Increase in Fund Balance.--Out of money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is hereby 
     appropriated (without fiscal year limitation) to the Highway 
     Trust Fund $7,000,000,000.''.

     SEC. 2. ADVANCES TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND AND OTHER 
                   FUNDS.

       The item relating to ``Department of Labor--Employment and 
     Training Administration--Advances to the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund and Other Funds'' in title I of division F of the 
     Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8; 123 Stat. 
     754) is amended by striking ``to remain available through 
     September 30, 2010'' and all that follows (before the heading 
     for the following item) and inserting ``such sums as may be 
     necessary''.

     SEC. 3. FHA MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMMITMENT AUTHORITY.

       The item relating to ``Federal Housing Administration--
     Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account'' in title II of 
     division I of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-8; 123 Stat. 966) is amended by striking 
     ``$315,000,000,000'' and inserting ``$400,000,000,000''.

     SEC. 4. GNMA MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES GUARANTEE COMMITMENT 
                   AUTHORITY.

       The item relating to ``Government National Mortgage 
     Association--Guarantees of Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan 
     Guarantee Program Account'' in title II of division I of the 
     Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8; 123 Stat. 
     967) is amended by striking ``$300,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$400,000,000,000''.

     SEC. 5. USE OF STIMULUS FUNDS TO OFFSET APPROPRIATION OF 
                   FUNDS.

       The unobligated balance of each amount appropriated or made 
     available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5) is rescinded pro rata such that the 
     aggregate amount of such rescissions equals the aggregate 
     amount appropriated under the amendments made by this Act. 
     The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     report to each congressional committee the amounts so 
     rescinded within the jurisdiction of such committee.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  We cannot keep spending more and more. We have several different 
problems--we have housing problems; we have a problem with unemployment 
insurance because more people are unemployed than had been predicted; 
and we have a problem with a shortfall in the highway fund.
  Some Senators could argue we do not need to fix every one of these 
because we do not have the money. But in a way we do have the money 
because we passed $800 billion in a stimulus package earlier this year. 
It was supposed to be primarily, we heard, for roads. But only 4 
percent went to roads. So we can fix the shortfall in the highway trust 
fund by using some of the $800 billion we have already spent. We can 
fix the other two problems--unemployment insurance and housing--in the 
same fashion. Those can be fixed out of this fund.
  This amendment would do that. It would reduce the other accounts 
across the board. Of course, we will still be in session this year and 
next year. If we need to adjust other things in some way, we can. Don't 
let anybody tell you this is going to savage some other account because 
we can fix those accounts.
  I will just say--I know my time is short--this is $200 billion that 
will either go to increase spending and increase debt, or we can meet 
these needs--which hopefully are all necessary--out of the funds we 
already have out there. If we do not start making these kinds of 
decisions soon, we are going to have a real problem. According to the 
scoring of the President's own budget, the total debt of America debt 
has gone from $5 trillion this year, to $11 trillion 5 years from now, 
to $17 trillion 10 years from now.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.


                    Amendment No. 1907, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes, 
equally divided, on the Vitter amendment.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise and urge strong bipartisan support 
for the Vitter amendment. The Vitter amendment simply moves $7 billion 
from the stimulus--less than 1 percent of the original stimulus 
program--to backfill and take care of the need in the highway trust 
fund.
  This is important to do for two reasons.
  First of all, we need to stop the reckless borrowing. We are 
borrowing ourselves into oblivion. We are borrowing our children into 
poor economic times. We need to reverse that trend. The underlying bill 
fixes the hole in the highway trust fund simply by racking up more 
debt, and that is why there is a budget point of order against it. So 
we need to stop this never-ending upward spiral of borrowing.
  No. 2, by doing this, we can focus a little bit of the stimulus on 
something I believe we all think it always should have been focused on: 
infrastructure spending and spending now versus later. This will move 
the $7 billion toward roadway spending now, which is effective 
stimulus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 1 minute.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I urge strong bipartisan support against 
the Vitter amendment. There is nothing about reckless borrowing going 
on. I have already put into the Record today the CBO analysis of the 
House bill that is before us that says it even creates a little bit of 
surplus because of how this is handled. This is not going on the debt. 
So let's not stand here and say what it is about.
  The second point is, there are tens of billions of dollars in unspent 
funds that we authorized on a bipartisan vote on the stimulus package. 
I know most of my colleagues on the other side never wanted to do that 
stimulus package. I understand that. I respect it. But the fact is, we 
finally see these funds going out and hiring the people we want to make 
sure have jobs. We see and we hear from our Governors that the funding 
is helping them retain teachers, police officers. We see funding is 
helping them move forward with shovel-ready projects.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 1907), as modified, was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 20279]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1905, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, the next amendment we are going to vote 
on is a very simple vote, similar to the last one. What it says is the 
States right now are borrowing from the Federal unemployment trust 
fund, and that trust fund has been depleted. There are more States that 
are going to need to borrow from it. It is temporarily putting back 
into that trust fund a little over $7 billion.
  Next year, there is going to be about $30 billion that is going to be 
needed. Does anyone around here, with the dire straits States are in, 
believe we will not forgive this debt for the States? That is why I am 
saying don't just borrow the money--even though CBO says this is 
deficit neutral, let's not borrow the money, which is what is going to 
end up happening. Let's take it out of the stimulus funds and let's be 
fiscally responsible around here. States need the help. Those who are 
unemployed need help. Let's give the help but do it in a fiscally 
responsible way. That is really the purpose of this amendment. I 
encourage all Senators to vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Ensign 
amendment. I know the Senator has the best of intensions. The 
underlying bill takes care of the unemployment insurance account. It 
does it in a deficit-neutral fashion. In fact, it generates a surplus, 
extra funds beyond what is needed for this purpose.
  What the Senator from Nevada wants to do, if you can imagine, is he 
wants to cut back on spending in the stimulus program, which is 
building highways and projects across America. He wants to reduce the 
President's effort to create jobs, thereby creating more unemployment 
in order to have more money for unemployment in America. It does not 
work.
  We have a good program here. The underlying program takes care of the 
need of the UI fund, and the President's stimulus package, now 150 days 
into operation, is generating jobs and opportunities across America. We 
do not need to kill the stimulus package at this moment. We need to 
make sure it works to get America back to work.
  Please defeat the Ensign amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--56

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 1905), as modified, was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1904

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes evenly divided before a 
vote with respect to the Bond amendment.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, if I could have the attention of my 
colleagues, please, this measure simply ends the rescission in the 
SAFETEA-LU highway funding bill we passed 4 years ago which otherwise 
takes $8.7 billion out of highway and bridge contract authority for the 
States. Best estimates are that this would cost 250,000 jobs in all 50 
States.
  To the argument that we have to take this exactly as the House has 
passed it because they won't stick around--well, they are in session. 
If this is right, let's do it.
  And for the Budget Act point of order, if you wanted to have this 
paid for, you should have taken the Vitter amendment. The underlying 
bill requires the Budget Act point of order waived because it is funded 
by claiming the nonexistent interest on intergovernmental transfers. 
That is a transparent sleight of hand or a sleight of pen.
  If you want to keep from taking the shovels out of the hands of 
workers on shovel-ready jobs in every State in the Nation, please vote 
aye on the waiver of the Budget Act point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to ask my colleagues if 
they will follow me for just one moment. This is a little complex, but 
if you will follow me.
  First, I agree with Senator Bond's amendment and will vote for it, 
but not at this moment. Here is why. This rescission Senator Bond wants 
to achieve is something most of us agree with. If it doesn't happen, 
the penalties will come to our States on September 30. What we have is 
the assurance of the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee that she will put this rescission in the reauthorization of 
the highway trust fund before September 30 so there would not be any 
loss to States.
  So what is the problem? Why don't we do it today? Because if we do it 
today, we jeopardize this extension of the highway trust fund until 
September 30. We are trying to get this done in short order so we can 
end the session and come back and do the right thing before September 
30. All we are asking today is for you to join us in saying to Senator 
Bond: Thank you for your good thought, but hold that thought until 
September.
  We still have time to make sure we do the right thing, and we have 
the assurance of the chairman that it is going to happen. It pains me 
greatly to raise a point of order against my friend from Missouri on an 
amendment whose substance I agree with, but if we want to protect the 
highway trust fund and we want to have an orderly adjournment to the 
session and not jeopardize jobs, then we need to vote against the Bond 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, do I have any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time as well.
  Under the previous order, a motion to waive is considered made.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 20280]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 34, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Leahy
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Voinovich
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--63

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corker
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 34, the nays are 
63. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2223

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 2223, 
offered by the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, among some of the things I think most 
Members would like to accomplish is fixing the highway trust fund, 
fixing the unemployment insurance shortfall, and to do something about 
the housing loan authority. Those are three matters we can address 
without increasing our deficit. There is $7 billion in the highway fund 
this amendment would fix, which is the short-term fix the House did; 
another $7 billion for unemployment insurance; and the $185 billion for 
the housing fix. Those things we can do within the stimulus package.
  Only 11 percent of the $800 billion will be spent by the end of this 
fiscal year. We can use that money to fund these programs, take care of 
them as we planned to do from the beginning but without increasing the 
debt.
  People say the underlying bill will not increase the debt. That is 
not accurate. If we agree to this amendment, we will prevent increasing 
the Nation's debt by $200 billion.
  I urge your support for the amendment. At this point in time we need 
to save a few billion dollars.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I hope colleagues will listen. What this 
Sessions amendment does, it takes all the corrections that are in the 
underlying bill--making sure the highway trust fund does not go bust, 
making sure the unemployment trust fund is full, making sure we have 
help for our middle-class families seeking to get mortgages--and it 
funds it instead of in a deficit-neutral way that is in the underlying 
bill which I put in the Record, the CBO score which actually scores 
positive in terms of the surplus over the 10 years, it slashes the 
stimulus funding right as it is beginning to take hold.
  If you want to take care of all these things, and I think we all do, 
let's do it the right way. Let us not do it the wrong way and slash 
funds from the stimulus bill as we are beginning to see it take hold.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Sessions amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the Sessions amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 2223) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to 
waive.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield 30 seconds to Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is a very significant vote. I am 
very upset that we have a lot of things in here I didn't want--the 
unemployment insurance loans, the Federal Housing Administration loan 
limit increase. That should not be there. The amendments failed. I wish 
they had passed. I voted for them.
  The thing that bothers me more than anything else is the House put us 
in this position. They said: Here is the bill; you do it; we are 
leaving town. That is exactly what happened.
  So this is the final vote. We have to have 60 votes. For all 
practical purposes, this is the final vote. I urge my Republican 
friends to support waiver of the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my ranking member. He and I, as 
everyone knows, don't always agree. But when we do agree, we hope our 
colleagues will follow. We do not want to play Russian roulette with 
the highway trust fund. We have to make sure it stays solvent. I urge 
an ``aye'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this is about a budget point of order. 
That means the bill, since it was not amended as I would have liked, is 
contrary to the Budget Act. It has more outlays this year. It also 
requires us to rack up more debt, borrow more money. In the face of $2 
trillion of new debt this year, doubling that in 5 years, and tripling 
it in 10, this is a critical vote. Either you vote yes and say let's 
continue to go down that path or you vote no and say we need to change 
course about debt.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page 20281]]

  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), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 71, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     McCain
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 71, the nays are 
26. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, when the stimulus bill was 
being debated, I advocated that any package include a robust investment 
in rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. While the stimulus takes a 
big step in the right direction to address the needs of our aging 
transportation system, many more steps need to be taken.
  I believe that the issues that we face with the solvency of the 
highway trust fund is an opportunity to make sure that more funding 
from the stimulus is directed towards our Nation's roads, while not 
adding new spending and increasing the Federal deficit. I would 
encourage any unobligated funding that is redirected as a result of the 
passage of the amendments offered today be in addition to any stimulus 
funding already provided for road projects; especially in the case of 
local road projects. Road projects at the local level will be vital 
part of the engine that drives our Nation's economic recovery in 
communities across the country and not maintaining funding for those 
projects would be a step in the wrong direction.
  Finally, an investment in our Nation's roads is a two-for-one: it 
creates jobs while helping to rebuild our infrastructure. By making 
sure the highway trust fund remains solvent and continuing to invest in 
important transportation projects, we can rededicate our efforts to 
addressing our transportation system needs.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  In addition to the important sections dealing with transportation and 
unemployment insurance, the bill before us today includes two important 
provisions that are crucial to our Nation's housing market--it 
increases the authority of the Federal Housing Administration--FHA, to 
insure loans and the authority of the Government National Mortgage 
Association--GNMA, to guarantee securities backed by FHA loans.
  Just about 2 years ago, the housing market started to implode as the 
predatory and abusive loans that were pumped out by banks and mortgage 
lenders started to fail in great numbers. These loans were made by 
lenders who knew these borrowers could not afford to repay them, and 
they were made under the eyes of regulators who were indifferent to the 
fate of the borrowers and who underestimated the impact on our 
financial system.
  These loans were originated by mortgage brokers or retail lenders 
with funds provided by Wall Street. Nobody took any responsibility for 
the quality of these loans because everyone thought they were laying 
the risk off on the next guy by securitizing the loans and selling them 
off. Regrettably, it is the American people--and the economy--that is 
paying the price today in the form of a severe credit crunch that is 
affecting homeowners, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and every 
consumer that uses a credit card.
  As we all know, foreclosures have skyrocketed. Some analysts predict 
that 8 million homeowners will lose their homes to foreclosure before 
this crisis is over.
  In fact, as the mortgage market has ground to a halt, housing prices 
have fallen all over the country, in many places by 20 percent or more. 
This problem is being exacerbated by foreclosed homes flooding the 
market, driving home prices down further.
  The only mortgage credit available in this country is credit that is 
provided, directly or indirectly, by the Federal Government. A key 
component of this, accounting for about 30 percent of the new mortgages 
being made in the market today, is FHA-insured mortgages.
  The legislation before us would increase FHA's authority to insure 
mortgages. If we do not do this, FHA could shut down while we are away 
on recess. That would mean that about 30 percent of the mortgage credit 
that is available today to homebuyers and homeowners would simply 
vanish from the marketplace.
  The impact of this would be immediate and devastating--a likely spike 
in interest rates; more foreclosures; and fewer home purchases as 
buyers withdraw from the market.
  Just this week, we heard some data which indicate that home prices 
may be stabilizing. But the situation is fragile. If we eliminate FHA 
from the marketplace, we could eliminate tens of thousands of potential 
home buyers from the market, as well. As demand dropped, so would home 
prices, starting a new cycle of economic despair and disinvestment in 
our cities and towns. That is why the National Association of Realtors, 
the National Association of Home Builders, and the Mortgage Bankers 
Association all strongly support this legislation.

  The story is much the same with the GNMA increase. GNMA makes it 
possible for lenders to make FHA loans, and then sell them in federally 
guaranteed loan pools. GNMA creates an essential outlet for FHA loans 
so that banks and other lenders can make more mortgage credit 
available. Without the increased commitment level included in this 
bill, GNMA will also be forced to close its doors.
  These two provisions of the bill before us are crucial for working 
American families. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this 
legislation so that we can send it to President Obama for his 
signature.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, as the Highway Trust Fund Act moves 
through the Senate, I would like to take a moment to stress the 
importance and urgency of reforming our national transportation system.
  I commend Chairman Boxer for her leadership on this effort to keep 
the trust fund solvent. But the fact that we needed this emergency 
infusion indicates a much greater problem with the transportation 
system and how it is funded. I recognize and appreciate the desire to 
pass a clean 18-month extension of SAFETEA-LU. However, I think we can 
all agree that fundamental reform will be needed when the time comes to 
consider a full 6-year authorization bill.

[[Page 20282]]

  Our Nation's infrastructure is currently inadequate to preserve our 
global competitiveness and the way we allocate funds for surface 
transportation lacks true accountability. In short, we do not tie 
funding to performance. To move to a true performance-based system, 
there are some immediate steps that should be taken.
  An 18-month extension provides a unique opportunity to take some of 
these steps. Without making any policy reforms or adding any programs, 
we can begin to collect information on how well transportation funds 
are serving the public, which will ease our transition to a reformed 
and effective long-term policy. I have drafted an amendment that would 
direct the Secretary of Transportation to coordinate with states, 
metropolitan planning organizations and our new chief performance 
officer to develop metrics to address the following factors: (1) 
National Connectivity: How have transportation investments improved the 
connection of people and goods across the Nation?
  (2) Metropolitan Accessibility: How have transportation investments 
allowed Americans in metropolitan regions to access their jobs and 
other activities more reliably and efficiently?
  (3) Energy Security and Environmental Protection: How have 
transportation investments reduced carbon emissions and petroleum 
consumption?
  (4) Safety: How have transportation investments improved safety by 
reducing fatalities and injuries associated with transportation?
  My proposal outlines how States and metropolitan regions can begin to 
report these measures. The factors above are outcome-oriented, 
objective and measurable. They are also designed to cut across all 
modes of transportation, and to measure performance across an entire 
region as opposed to measuring specific projects in a vacuum.
  This legislation will help ease the transition to a more performance-
based system. Not only will it provide us with actual performance data, 
but it will help clarify what additional resources states will need to 
better provide such data in the future.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this 
initiative to ensure its inclusion in any extension of SAFETEA-LU.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have worked with the chairmen of the 
Environment and Public Works, Banking, Commerce and Finance Committees 
over the last month to put a bill together to address two urgent issues 
facing the Nation's highway program. First, the highway trust fund is 
going to run out of money sometime in the next few weeks and will 
require an infusion of $5 to $7 billion to get us through the rest of 
fiscal year 2009. Second, SAFETEA the 2005 highway bill, is set to 
expire in 9 weeks. With no realistic chance of Congress passing a fully 
funded reauthorization before the program expires, it is essential to 
provide funding certainty with a longer term extension. States cannot 
afford to move forward with transportation development activities 
without confidence in long-term and consistent future Federal 
reimbursements.
  Unfortunately, the House chose not to address both issues, but rather 
just provide the money necessary to ensure that the highway trust fund 
does not go broke over the August recess. Their decision has put the 
Senate in a situation of taking or leaving their bill. I do not like it 
and frankly think the responsible thing would have been to take up the 
Senate bill, which would have provided for an 18-month extension of the 
existing program. The House has been short sighted in forcing the 
Senate to only address the trust fund fix; with so many other important 
issues facing Congress, the Senate now must return in 30 days to do 
this all over again before the program expires at the end of September. 
I also did not like the added provisions of the loans to unemployment 
insurance fund or the increase in the Federal Housing Administration 
cap on loans they can authorize under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance 
Program. Finally, I thought all the amendments offered by my Republican 
colleagues were improvements to the bill, but unfortunately, none of 
them were adopted. Nonetheless, I supported final passage and most 
importantly voted to waive the point of order that was raised because 
we cannot afford to allow the highway trust fund to become insolvent. 
While the bill we adopted today only addresses the immediate trust fund 
shortfall I look forward to taking care of the extension of the program 
when we return in September along with the fix of the $8.7 billion 
rescission as proposed by Senator Bond's amendment. Given the fiscal 
pressures on states and the current economic downturn, I agree with the 
administration that this uncertainty would be devastating to States and 
would translate into job losses, and so we need to provide certainty 
until we are able to pass a comprehensive bill.
  I am hopeful that as soon as we return from August recess that we 
will immediately consider the extension legislation introduced earlier 
this week by all the relevant committees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read 
the bill for the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--17

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Johanns
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Byrd
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The bill (H.R. 3357) was passed.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to thank 
everyone. This was a very complicated series of amendments. It was 
daunting to figure out what each one of them meant.
  The bottom line is that we did replenish the highway trust funds 
until September 30. Most of us would have liked to have done better 
than that. We helped with unemployment insurance, and we helped 
families get mortgages. We also made a commitment to Senator Bond that 
we are going to take care of his amendment at the appropriate moment.
  I particularly thank Senator Durbin for all his help on the floor. 
Again, this was a confusing series of amendments. I am pleased with the 
outcome.

[[Page 20283]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, for the information of all members, I have 
had a number of conversations with Senator McConnell this afternoon. It 
appears, at this stage, we have a path toward completing our work next 
week. We are going to move forward with the Agriculture appropriations 
bill this evening. We will be on that tonight and tomorrow, and it will 
be open for amendments. It appears, on that matter, we will either have 
a vote after 5 o'clock on Monday on final passage or on cloture on that 
appropriations bill.
  Tuesday, we will move to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia 
Sotomayor. I haven't had a chance to talk with the chairman and ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee. With their approval, we will move to 
that matter on Tuesday.
  We will set a time certain to vote on cloture on the Travel Promotion 
Act. We need a time certain because, as everyone knows, Senator 
Mikulski is in the hospital now having repair work done on her leg as a 
result of a fall. We will set that time. And there may be some 
nominations we will need to deal with.
  At this stage, I think that is where we are headed. There will be no 
votes tonight or tomorrow. It appears the next vote will be Monday 
afternoon. I have spoken to Senator Kohl and Senator Brownback, and 
they agree on the appropriations bill that is the way to move forward. 
I appreciate everyone's cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

                          ____________________