[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3195-3203]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 3196]]

     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 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

[[Page 3197]]

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-- 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.

[[Page 3198]]

  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. 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

[[Page 3199]]

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. 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

[[Page 3200]]

     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 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.

[[Page 3201]]

  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, 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

[[Page 3202]]

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 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

[[Page 3203]]

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 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.

                          ____________________