on vote: the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 39, the nays are 59. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. murray: move to reconsider. mr. bond: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: can we

have order, please. order in the senate. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment numbered 2370, offered by the senator from oklahoma. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president? mr. coburn: mr. president, could not hear you. mrs. murray: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the senate will be in order. take your conversations out of the well, please. let me repeat. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on amendment number 2370, offered by the senator from oklahoma. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, the senator from oklahoma has the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the presiding officer: can we have order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment 2370. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

under the previous order there, will now be two minutes of debate evenly divided on amendment number 2372, offered by the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: 13,000 people died on american roads last year because of the quality of the roads or the bridges. we've spent $48 million in the last four years on museums, some of which are already closed. the money we collect from taxpayers should be for -- prioritized to -- the presiding officer: can we please have order for the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: -- should be prioritized to build roads, bridges and highways. this amendment is a simple amendment. it just says we shouldn't be spending right now this next year only, no money for museums until we get the roads back. i reserve the balance of my time. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i yield my one minute to the senator from delaware. the presiding officer: the

senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: will the senate please be in order. the senator from delaware. mr. carper: colleagues, i'd like to have your attention for just one minute, if i could. mrs. boxer: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. will you please take your conversations out of the well and off the floor. can we please listen to the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. colleagues, when you take the train up the northeast corridor, the train stops in wilmington, dell, but in the middle of what was 60 years ago a vibrant shipbuilding area, we helped to win world war ii. when the war was over, it was an area turned into a wasteland. then we transformed it. today it's sprifer walks, where people -- riverwalks, it's a beautiful place where people can live and walkk and work. and we will build a science few

gleep up amuseum as well. we raised the money out of this bill and the h.u.d. funding, there's $190,000 to help us complete the package. a small amount of money, bu buta great spay off for kids who visit that science museum and hopefully will go on to be scientist and inventors. i would ask for your help in defeating this amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators in the chamber that want to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 41, the nays are 57. the amendment fails. mrs. murray: mr. president, i move to reconsider. a senator: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, the

senate's not in order. the presiding officer: will the senate please come in order. please take your conversations out of the well. out of the well. out of the well. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on amendment 2366 offered by the senator from mississippi, mr. wicker. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i would let all senators know that we have two more votes remaining -- the presiding officer: would the senate be in order so that we can hear. mrs. murray: so if the senators would allow the speakers to speak, we'll be able to move through this expeditiously and i ask unanimous consent that the remaining amendments be 10 minutes in length. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bond: i would urge all senators to stay around and vote and get on with the business an if anyone wants to have lunch,

they can have lunch. mr. wicker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: is it in order now for me to speak for one moment in support of this amendment? the presiding officer: the senator has one minute. mr. wicker: very simply, this amendment would allow law abiding amtrak passengers to securely transports firearms in their checked baggage. under current practices, all of the american domestic airlines permit firearms in their checked luggage. other american passenger railroads also allow checked firearms. only the federally subsidized amtrak prohibits law-abiding american citizens from existing their second amendment rights in checked baggage. on april 2 of this year the senate passed a similar amendment to the budget with 63 in favor of the wicker amendment and only 35 against. during the time since then, amtrak has made no effort to

respond to this overwhelming bipartisan vote. it is my hope that we could get a similar overwhelming bipartisan vote today and result in amtrak ending this unfair practice. i urge a vote in favor of the amendment. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well and out of the senate. mrs. murray: mr. president, i would ask all of our senators to please -- the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: to pay attention to ask what we're voting on. we did vote on a similar amendment during the budget the debate. these amendments are very different. the amendment to the budget resolution never put amtrak's funding at risk. that amendment would have prohibited an extra reserve fund from going 0 amtrak if it didn't allow firearms. the amendment that we're now considering does something much more drastic, it will put at risk amtrak's appropriations. in order to receive any federal funding under this amendment,

amtrak would have six months to build a process for checking and tracking firearms. it would have to find the manpower necessary to screen and guard firearms and it would have to purchase the equipment necessary. now there is nothing in the underlying appropriations to pay for any of that. so this amendment is going to put a severe burden on them and if they do not comply, amtrak will shut down. mr. president, i think it's very important that we be careful what we're voting on here and i ask my colleagues to oppose the wicker amendment. the presiding officer: the question he is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change your vote? if not, the ayes are 68, the nays are 30. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: move to reconsider. mrs. murray: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will be in order. under the previous order there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on amendment number 2376, offered by the senator from louisiana,

mr. vitter. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: members, this should be a noncontroversial amendment. it simply retains in present law the current community service requirement which congress passed into law for public housing tenants who are able bodied over a decade ago. the house has tried to take out this requirement. it's a very -- the presiding officer: order, please. mr. vitter: it's a very modest eight hours per month of community service for able-bodied tenants, automatically exempted are folks over 62, caretakers, folks who meet the taniff work requirements. it is a reasonable work requirement which has been in lawsuit for years, and i urge all of us to retain it through

this yes vote and retain that in the law. and i reserve the balance of my time. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, the senator from louisiana has offered an amendment that would require the continued enforcement of public service for people who live in public housing. well, i oppose this amendment for two reasons of first of all, it's current law. but, secondly, i am very concerned in this economic downturn when we have a lot of families who are struggling, the most struggling families we're putting this requirement on them, therefore, i am going to oppose this amendment and will be voting no. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. vitter: madam president, do i have any time remaining? the presiding officer: six seconds. mr. vitter: madam president, this excludes folks who have a work requirement under taniff and so it excludes those folks as well -- the presiding officer: your time is up. the question is on the amendment.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 73, the nays are 25. the amendment is agreed to.

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: move to lay that on the table. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, we have made great progress on the transportation and housing appropriations bill and i thank all the senators for working with us. we have several amendments left to do and i would now like to ask unanimous consent that senator landrieu be given five minutes to speak on amendment number 2365, followed by senator gregg with 20 minutes equally divided on amendment 2361. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, at this time, then, we will move to those two amendments. we have several other senators who wish to offer amendments who've notified us. for the information of all members, we hope to have votes on at least the two amendments that i've just spoken of, landrieu and gregg, at 2:30. if there are other amendments that we're able to move at that time, we will then vote on those as well. but again, we're making great progress. we have a few left and i urge any senator who has an

amendment, you just have a few hours left to get it to us so we can work it out. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: thank you. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i appreciate the chairman allowing me the opportunity to offer this amendment and also working with senator bond, who i understand supports this amendment as well. and i offer this amendment on behalf not only of myself but senator harkin, senators hutchison, senator grassley, and senator cornyn. so we have a strong bipartisan group of senators that's coming to the floor to ask our colleagues to approve an amendment that has to do with a change and modification in the community development block grant program that has been put in place to help communities recovering for and from disasters. this amendment is going to affect all communities in a positive way across the country

that were -- that received community development block grant funding in a very significant way. if this amendment is passed by this body today and continues in this bill, the communities that have received special allocations of community development block grant money will be able to use those funds to match other federal funds available. this is the way the normal community development block grant program has operated, i understand, since its inception. and as you can see from this chart, in every single situation except for two in the last 17 years, that has been the case. so my amendment is basically allowing the floods and natural disasters of 2008 to be included in this -- in this effort.

to -- in other words, to say, if you receive community development block grant funding, you can use those funds as a local and state match for other federal funding. this is important for two reasons. one, it's been done in that way the last 17 years, for good reason, because these communities, you could argue, have even greater challenges than normal considering that in any time it's tough to provide housing or to build roads or to help their small businesses get back on their feet. but after a catastrophic disaster, it's sometimes five if not ten times harder. so why restrict their money when -- at the time when they need the greatest flexibility? and that's all that this amendment does. again, this is the way it's been done in general community development block grants since the beginning of the program. it's the way it was done with disaster community development in every case, and our amendment

simply will make that uniform policy for the states affected by the 2008 disaster. this will be a great help to texas that is still recovering from the storm of ike. i'll be visiting and having a field hearing through my subcommittee both on small business and disaster. senator hutchison will be attending that field hearing and visit to galveston just on friday. so this -- approval of this amendment would bring a lot of hope and encouragement to the people along the gulf coast, not just in louisiana but, as i said, in texas as well. california will be bee benefites well as iowa and some of the states that were affected by the floods. so, again, this is amendment 2365. i will submit a more formal statement to the record, but i think my explanation was sufficient about what this amendment does and what a great help it will be to mayors and

parish officials and county officials struggling to rebuild. and what a smart way to use and to leverage moneys to get these communities rebuilt quickly for people in these very difficult economic times. and i yield the floor. i see my good friend, senator gregg. the presiding officer: has the senator offered the amendment? ms. landrieu: yes, i believe i have, but if i have not, let me submit it at this time, amendment 2365 and ask the clerk to read the amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report amendment. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, ms. landrieu, for herself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 2365. ms. landrieu: and i suggest we don't have to read the whole amendment and we'll leave it lying until we can vote on it later today. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. gregg: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: i would ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 2361. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: the senator from new hampshire, mr. gregg, for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 2361. mr. gregg: madam president, i ask the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: madam president, this is an amendment that shouldn't have to be order, to be very honest with you. today there are a lot of projects being pursued urn th the -- under the stimulus package and every one of those projects that's a road project, unfortunately, finds itself having to put up a sign that that says this is a really good project being paid for with tax dollars. these are self-congratulatory signs. they're political signs. they're so that lawmakers can pat themselves on the back and say, "wow, look at this project we're doing." but these signs cost money. actually, when you add them all up, they cost a lot of money. and they're a total waste of money. there's no reason to have these signs by every project that occurs in america. it's projected there will be somewhere around 20,000 to

22,000 projects. the signs cost from about $400 in new hampshire, they cost as much as -- i think it was around $3,000 in new jersey. for each sign. new hampshire is a little more efficient. i suspect north carolina, they don't cost probably much more than $400. but you take that and you multiply that out, you're talking about a cost of somewhere between $6 million and $15 million being spent on signs. that's -- that's inexcusable -- that's an inexcusable waste of money. that money could be used for something valuable, for example, rather than a sign. but the practical effect of that is that the signs really should say, "wasting taxpayers dollars." project funded by future generations of americans, if they're going to be honest signs. but i'm not asking that there be any signs. there shouldn't be any signs. but, instead, the department -- the highway departments across this country are being basically required to put these signs up as the projects are built out.

in fact, there was one example in new hampshire -- no, there are lots of examples in new hampshire, but there was one community in new hampshire where the leadership that have community said we don't want to put the signs up because we think they're a waste of money and they were told if they didn't put the signs up, they wouldn't get the money. and that's happening all across the country. so, really, this -- this amendment is -- should be unnecessary. this should be obvious. obvious that we don't have to put these signs up. they shouldn't -- that we shouldn't be spending money in this way. if we're going to spend $ $6 million to $18 million to $20 million on something, let's spend it on something that actually produces some value rather than creates a self-congratulatory event for the local political leaders and for the -- and for the congress. you know, we -- we do enough self-con grasp laight around here. -- self-congratulating around

here. they shouldn't make the taxpayers pay for it. instead, we should be a little more responsible with the taxpayers' money. so it's a very simple amendment. that's why i'm not going to spend a lot of time on it because i think it's so obvious that it should be accepted and passed that it would -- it should just occur. i mean, you know, it's one of those amendments where you sort of scratch your head and say, why do we even have to offer this amendment? why should we have to offer an amendment to say you don't put signs up spending taxpayers' dollars to congratulate yourself for a project that the taxpayer paid for? but we do, unfortunately, in this instance because the department has insisted on -- on these signs across america. so that's what the amendment does. and i reserve the balance of my time. mrs. boxer: madam president? mr. gregg: and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i rise in opposition to senator gregg's amendment and i want to say why i think there are many

reasons not to support it. i started off my political career as a county supervisor, and it is true that when we're undertaking a major road project, we put up a sign, first of all, to let people know work is underway and what it's about. okay? because a lot of times people don't know it's going to be a month project, a day project. we would put up a sign, let people know who's funding the program, let people know whether it was a state project, a local project. no big deal. and with did this and we do this under republican leadership, under democratic leadership. it's information. now, i think the true source of this amendment is a frustration. this is my own opinion. i'm sure my friend absolutely won't agree with me, but it's my sense that there's a frustration by the people who voted "no" on the economic recovery act, the

stimulus bill, there's a frustration that it's working. they predicted gloom and doom. and let me tell you what's happening in this great nation of ours. we have a long way to go to get jobs up and running, there's no question about it, but the stimulus job has already saved or created a million jobs. and let me tell you what else. we're looking at growth for the first time in this economy. and when we were faced with the worst recession since the great depression, madam president -- and i know it, because you have the same issue as you looked at what to do -- we had to decide whether it made sense to do some job creation here. and we didn't get many republican votes, but thank goodness we got three. and thanks to those good people for joining us, because i can tell you this, in my home state, we're starting to see it happen. we're going to get tens of billions of dollars. so now i think the issue here is

a frustration with the fact that we won that vote and we got that done and those jobs are being created as we speak. slowly but surely, we're being lifted out of of this dark bnes. now, here we have a small amendment, i agree -- and do you know what, if it passes, no harm. but i have to say, why on earth would you want to hide from the american people the fact that the recovery package we passed is putting people to work? people want to know. not everybody has a computer. not everybody is going up to follow the transparency that this administration has put in place. they're showing it every day who's working, where it's happening and so on and so forth. not by name but how many jobs are created and the like. so it seems to me, if you're improving our highways, our transit systems, our water infrastructure, our government buildings, and the source of funding is the stimulus program,

the economic recovery act, let people know. why would we prohibit funds under this act from being used for these signs that simply informed taxpayers that a project is being made possible by taxpayer dollars from the stimulus program? i think it's a question of making our people more informed, giving them information. and my friend says it costs money to do a sign. i couldn't agree more. everything costs money. it costs money to do a sign. guess what? people work in those places where those signs are made. people proudly work on those jobs and get paid a good amount and can support their families. so this is a jobs program. part of it is to tell the people, yes, with a sign, your -- the funding for this project is paid for by the stimulus program, the economic recovery program, and, yes,

people were paid to work in places that make these signs. it just seems to me -- i just don't think it's logical to keep this information from the people. what purpose is served? it's going to save a little bit of money, but the fact of the matter is, the purpose of the stimulus bill was to create jo jobs. and you're going to take away jobs from people who are making those signs. so i think that's an antijobs amendment that we have before us. look, the recovery act is working. i think it's frustrating those who predicted it would never work, and they'll predict it never worked till they have a last breath, because that's the nature of politics. you're going to spin it one way or another. but we know the economy is turning around. we also know we need to create many more jobs. and this amendment will not create one more job.

i don't believe that it will. and, you know, the fact that we're doing some really good things with this funding, making buildings more energy firveght , upgrading flood protection, let the american people know that their funds are being spent well. now, i think that's being spent well. some of them may see a progra program -- by the way, i'd say to my good friend -- and they don't like it. they say, why on earth are they using my money t do this particular project? let them know. let them know, so if they like what they see, they understand where it came from. if they don't like what they s see, they understand where it came from. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the gregg amendment. i don't think it's -- i agree with my friend, it's not a major amendment, but i think it speaks to the point that the american people should have an easy way of knowing where this economic recovery -- where these funds are going and the projects that

they're building. we certainly had a big enough battle on the floor of the united states senate -- oh, boy, did we have a battle trying to find those three votes. so it passed. it was controversial. you know? some in america don't support it. others in america do. but i think they should have the right to know if a project is being brought to them by way of this important bill that i think is helping turn around economy around. i thank you very much, and i yield the floor and would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from -- will the senator withhold? mrs. boxer: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: madam president, the issue here isn't the stimulus package, although i have very serious reservations about that. i would be happy to debate that with the senator from california at some length because clearly i think adding almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars of new debt to our children's backs on a package which will spend out through

2019 is hardly stimulus. and especially when you see that only 20% of that package is going to spend out by thent of this year and maybe -- end of this year and maybe 50% by the end of next year. and we just had chairman bernanke say we're essentially out of the recession. so clearly that spending is going to be outside the recession, it's going to be excessive spending, and it all comes from borrowing that our children will have to pay. and in my opinion, that's not fair to our children to pass that sort of debt on to them. $787 billion. but that's not the debate here. the debate is about whether or not we should be self-congratulating ourselves with tax dollars. this is self an congressma-aggrt the expense of the taxpayer. this is buying advertising going out and promote ourselves and having the taxpayer pay for it. we can clearly spend these dollars more efficiently doing something else. i mean, sure, they're not a loft dollars. but when you add them all up, you know, $18 million is some

money and you can do something constructive with that besides putting a sign up that says we're wonderful because we're spending your money. i mean, how absurd is that? if we want to put a sign up that says we're -- we're really doing great things for you, so here's the sign telling us what wonderful things we're doing for you, rather than having the people have to pay for that sign to tell them they're going to have money spent for them, let's have the democratic senatorial committee pay for the sign. let's have the republican senatorial committee pay for the sign if they -- if we really think it's that important a piece of political promotion -- which is isn't. i don't think the democratic senatorial committee would pay for these signs because they'd see them as a waste of money. i would hope so. i know the republican senatorial committee would -- or at least i would speak forcefully to my doe say that this is a waste -- to my committee to say that this is a waste of money, we don't want to pay for signs like this. so these signs are simply a waste of money. now, do they create jobs? well, actually the signs in new hampshire are made in the prisons. they cost money because the materials cost money. i guess that's why we get them

for 300 bowks. now, they must -- in new jersey, they cost $300 a sign so maybe they're farming them out to some local patronage group to get a sign. but as a very practical matter, i don't think you can argue that making these signs is somehow stimulating the economy. all it's doing is saying, hey, we're wonderful, look awhat we've done with your money, we're going to take your money and tell what you a wonderful job we're doing with your money. it's just -- it's just not fair, it's not appropriate and, therefore, that's why i hope people will support the amendment. and as has been mentioned by the senator from california, this is not a major amendment but it's an amendment that's -- that states an attitude towards how we spend money. so i do think it's important on that context. and i yield the floor and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. ensign: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. ensign: i ask that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from nevada. mr. ensign: madam president, i am going to have a motion momentarily. i will wait for the manager to come out before sending that up. but i will start talking about it right now. i will going to be offering a

motion to recommit the bill back to the appropriations committee at last year's spending level. on the front of this bill, the bill says that last year's spending level was at a level which included last year's spending plus the stimulus money. so when they say this year's spending level, it looks like there's a huge cut when in fact when you compare it with last -- the true last year's bill, there's actually a 23% increase in this year's spending bill over last year's. so, madam president, what -- the motio--what the motion that i'mt to make is asking to do is to report it back to the committee, with the committee to make whatever specific recommendations within that level but to do it at last

year's spending level and not a 23% increase. both sides of the aisle -- i've heard rhetoric from politicians in the house and the senate, from the president talking about how serious of a problem we have with the deficit. how serious of a problem that we have with the debt in our country. that's one of the reasons you saw hundreds of thousands of people on the mall here this last weekend is because people are really concerned about the direction of our country. we've heard from economic experts that are talking about america actually approaching its borrowing capacity for the united states. if our country ever reaches its borrowing capacity, it's economic disaster. it would be like a business having all these expenses out there, no cash in the bank, and the bank says -- and all her to lenders say -- sorry, we're not giving you anymore money. well, we owe people from all over the country. we owe china, we owe japan, and

other sovereign wealth funds across the world. they hold a lot of our debt. the more that we continue to borrow, the more we become beholden to these other countries, and when the next trillion dollars needs to be borrowed, what if these other countries say to us, either, no, we're not going to do it -- but the other thing they could also say is, yeah, we'll give that you next trillion dollars. we'll loan that to you. but it's going to be at a hire interest rate than what you want to pay. and, by the way, the other debt that we also hold that you owe us, we're going to raise the interest on that. you see, we're not going to be in a position to say, no, that's not exactly what we want to do. the more debt that we run up, the less of a position to be able to bargain that we're going to be in as a country. we literally cannot sustain the level of debt that we have here in the united states. that we're developing. and i seat pages down in front of us here, these younger

generations and the djourning -- and the younger generations across our country are being saddled with this debt that this congress, this president, the past president, past congresses have run up. well, unfortunately, instead of slowing that borrowing down, we're increasing it by faster and faster rates. so this is a very simple motion. this just says, let's start taking these appropriations bills and let's start at least freezing spending. that's basically what this amendment does. it just says, freezing spending. and, by the way, a lot of the programs that are in this appropriations bill, were already dramatically increased in the stimulus bill. and so not only did we increase last year over the previous year with the regular appropriations

process, we then added money to the stimulus bill on top of that. so what do they do this year? instead of being fiscally responsible and saying, hey, let's at least freeze spending, i bet the american people would even say, hey, we are in tough economic times, make we should just do a little haircutting and actually cut spending a little bit. but no, no, no, no. the majority has said, we're actually going to increase the level of spending in this bill by 23%, way above inflation and it's at a time in our country where we cannot afford it. so, madam president, this is, i think, a place to start showing some fiscal responsibility. there will be other opportunities where we can. we all know that entitlement spending is out of control in this country. we all know that that needs to be addressed. medicaid and medicare alone will

bankrupt the country. the president talked about some of that the other night. one of the reasons that we need to actually get entitlements under control in our health care bill -- which, by the way, none of the health care bills do -- but we do need to get entitlement spending under control. but we also need to get p what is called discretionary spending or these annual appropriations bills. we need to get them under control as well. we're not talking about small amounts of money anymore. even though the entitlements are the big of the part of the budgets, the discretionary or the annual spending bills are a very significant amount of money these days. as i mentioned before before, this year's bill is a 23% increase over last year's. now, the committee report says that it isn't, it's actually a cut from last year.

but they do that -- leat me explain exactly how they do that. they took last year's bill, added on the money that we spent in the stimulus bill to last year's bill, and they called that that's what we're going to spend last year. so this year we're going to spend less than what we did in the combination of those two bills. so they call that a cut in spending. well, i mean, that's phony washington math. that's how we end up with the deficits and debt that we have in this country because people are claiming to cut spending when it's actually, if you compare apples with apples it is a 23% increase over last year. so, madam president, i think it's time -- it's time -- it really is time. republicans and democrats should join together and say, let's think about -- it's not even just the next generation. let's think about today. let's think about what we are doing to this country today, and let's start showing some fiscal

responsibility around here, some fiscal restraint. let's start joining together as americans and not running up this massive amount of government debt. let's start saying no to some of the special interests that come into our office and say, we need this project. we need this promise. we need that program. let's start saying that. so, madam president, i would ask -- i have a motion at the deive and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. ensign, moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3288 to the committee on aeption pros with instructions to report the same back to the senate with changes to produce -- mr. ensign: i ask that utter reading be dispense -- i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ensign: this is a motion to report the bill back to the

committee. can't say it cuts any one individual program. the appropriations committee would have the authority to be able to put their priorities within the bill. but it says we're not going to spend more money than we spent last year. that's very simple imlai it says. we're going to freeze the level of spending to last year instead having a 23% increase over last year. and to reiterate, in the stimulus bill, tens of billions of dollars were added to these very same programs that are in this spending bill already. last year. so i think that it's the responsible thing to do for us to vote on this amendment and show that we are rea serious abt controlling the debt and the deficit in the united states of america. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspend and the pending business before -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending business before the senate be set aside in order to consider amendment number 2403. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the snrr arizona, mr. mccain, proposes amendment numbered 24036789 on page 318 between lines 11 and 12 insert the following mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent further praoegd of the amendment be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, the amendment is very simple. it prohibits, as recommended by the president, the use of funds under this act to carry out the brownfields economic development initiative grant program that is administered by the department of housing and urban development. in may of this year, president obama released a list of 121 programs that he recommended be terminated or reduced. one of the programs the

president recommended for terms is the brownfields economic development initiative. the administration stated specifically that this grant program is extremely small relative to other programs that address this need. they added that local governments have access to other public and private funds that can address the same purpose. in justification for the termination, the administration wrote -- and, mr. president, i quote from the document "terms, reductions and savings: budget of the u.s. government fiscal year 2010," that is issued by the office of management and budget. in other words, it's a number of terminations and reductions that the administration wants carried out with justification for doing so. and, you know, so far i've had amendments on several of these, and they have all been

overridden. and our amendments have not been carried. so the moral of the story is -- and i would imagine that i'll lose this amendment also. but the moral of the story is why didn't o.m.b. stop this? because clearly it's being totally disregarded by the appropriators. the american people, i think, pay attention to the president's recommendations, but now i've had a number of amendments that have been in keeping with the president's request, the same president that said we go line by line in the appropriations bill and eliminate those that are unnecessary. well, again, the office of management and budget has said the brownfields economic development initiative is a competitive grant program whose purposes are served through much larger and more flexible federal programs. it is designed to assist cities with the redevelopment of abandoned, idle and underused industrial and commercial facilities where expansion and

redevelopment is burdened by real or potential environmental contamination. these funds are targeted for redevelopment of brownfield sites for the purpose of economic development and job creation." and then they go on to say, "while these are very important objectives, the program is very small, and local governments have access to other public and private funds, including the much larger cdbg community development block grant, the 2010 budget funds community development block grant at $4.5 billion, or 14% above the 2009 enacted level." here we are talking about trying to reduce spending, and the cdbg program is now 14% -- $4.5 billion -- above the 2009 enacted level. in 1999, the government accountability office report found that about $469 million

was planned and $413 million in federal funds were obligated for brownfields activities since 1997 and 1998. of the planned total appropriations $25 million contributed just 5% of the planned expenditure. by terminating this program, the department of housing and urban development is also able to reduce the administrative workload associated with managing a small and duplicative program. focusing staff on higher-impact and higher-return activities is a priority for the agency. again i quote from the office of management and budget. i'm sure that the opponents of the amendment will argue, they'll argue that the senate didn't include funding for this program in the underlying bill. in fact, the committee report states -- quote -- "the committee does not recommend an appropriation for the brownfield

redevelopment program consistent with the budget request. the committee notes that other federal appropriations are available for the same purpose through the environmental protection agency. communities may also use cdbg funds to develop brownfields sites. that's the committee report. and then if you look into the legislation, you will see the committee report also contains three specific earmarks totaling $1.3 million for the redevelopment of brownfields properties as economic development initiatives. it makes no sense. so in here, despite the committee saying that they're eliminating the program, we have $600,000 for the redevelopment of brownfields property into a business park in cincinnati, ohio; $500,000 for the

redevelopment of brownfields properties in waterbury,. mr. connecticut. so, here we are unemployment approaching 10%. the deficit for this year is estimated to be $1.6 trillion. the projected ten-year deficit jumped from $7.1 trillion to $#.1 trillion. our public debt is expected to reach $12.1 trillion by october, and when's it going to stop? when is it going to stop? so again i urge my colleagues to listen to the american people. the american people are rising up everywhere. and although it is a bit dried and underestimated, the tea parties and the democrat --

parties last weekend, people came from all over the country to march. yuma, arizona, 1,000 to 2,000 people decided to demonstrate and it's still pretty warm in yuma, arizona at this time of year and all over my state. what do we do? we say we're going to terminate a program in the committee report, and then, of course, we cannot resist earmarks and the pork-barrel spending which has led to corruption. there's a trial going on right now, mr. president, on a -- trial of a lobbyist who some years ago engaged in paying off legislators for earmarks. that person, if convicted, will be the 23rd person convicted or pled guilty in the abramoff scandal. and i'd like to tell the american people that things have improved, that things have improved since the abramoff scandal broke and people pled guilty and went to prison. but i can't. i can't tell them there's been

any improvement. i can't tell them that corruption doesn't go on here in washington. i can't tell them that there's no more duke cunninghams out there residing in federal prison. and you know what? they're sick and tired of it. this is only $1.3 million. that's less than chicken feed around this place. but we've got to start somewhere, and we might start with implementining the recommendations of the president of the united states and the office of management and budget, and get rid of a program that is obviously unneeded. so, mr. president, i don't want at that take too much more time of the body except to again say there's a peaceful revolution going on out there, and it isn't just over health care reform. it's over the out-of-control spending and the trillions and trillions and trillions of debt that we have laid on future

generations: our children and our grandchildren are inheriting an unsustainable situation while we do business as usual here in the united states senate. i can go back to coast guard vessels that the coast guard and the navy never needed. i can go back to museums that were funded and are now closed all over america. and a lot of the other abuses that have taken place. but i hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment. and those that don't, i hope that people at home will pay attention, will pay attention to the out-of-control spending that continues here and the mortgaging of our children's futures and what we're doing in the commission of generational theft. mr. president, i yield the floor. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered.

the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i ask that the quorum call be suspended.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, there seems to be some possibility of ambiguity in the amendment. i appreciate the senator from washington bringing it to my attention. so, i would ask unanimous consent, if necessary, to be able to modify the amendment before the vote. with the intent of the elimination of these three earmarks as i have argued on the amendment. mrs. murray: mr. president, i would just ask the -- the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i would just ask the senator that he doesn't need to ask unanimous consent. we're happy to work with your staff so that you can modify for the intent of what you are trying to do. i will not object. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. a senator: i ask consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. demint: and, mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and bring up the amendment number 2410. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. demint, proposes an amendment numbered 2410. mr. demint: i ask the reading of the amendment be suspended. thank you, mr. president. if i could just take a few minutes to talk about this amendment to the transportation h.u.d. bill that we are on this week. i think, if there is one expenditure of the federal government over the last ten years that has drawn the attention of the american people more than the bridge to nowhere, it's probably the $200 million that's gone to the john murtha airport in johns town, pennsylvania. americans are greatly concerned about the level of spending and debt, particularly the spending that they consider wasteful or maybe even corrupt. there have been a number of media documentaries on the john murtha airport, and i'd just

like to talk about it a little bit today because my amendment would disallow the use of any funds in this bill to be used to administer any additional subsidies or grants to this particular airport. we disagree a lot on federal spending here, and there are different things, different priorities that we can debate about. but if there's any such thing of waste, it is this airport.and il tell you why. over the last 10 years -- or actually 20 years, this little airport in johnstown, pennsylvania, has received about $200 million in federal funds, $150 million of that was steered directly by congressman murtha himself who uses the airport to come back and forth to washington and for campaign stops. it only has three commercial flights a day to one destination, and that's to

washington, d.c. only an average of about 20 passengers a day use this airport. the american taxpayers are on the hook for about $1.5 million a year in federal subsidies. every ticket to washington and back is subsidized for about $100, which means that the american taxpayers pay almost as much for the ticket as the passenger does, not just for one trip or two but continuously, year after year. so in spite of the fact that major media outlets for a number of months have used this as an example of the fleecing of america, this continues to go on. in fact, when the stimulus bill was passed, with all the promise of transparency and priority use, $800,000 of funds went to

this airport to repave an alternate runway which is seldom, if ever, used. now, a lost us here in the congress and the senate have worked for years on small rural airports to try to get some money to extend the runway so that corporate aircraft could come in, so maybe businesses would locate in areas where there wasn't commercial traffic. just getting $100 thowfer,000 for an airport is a major accomplishment sometimes. but $200 million for an airport that averages 20 passengers a day. many times there are more people handing security at this airport than there are people going through the lines. this is something that we need to stop. and if we can't stop it, we can't stop anything. last saturday here in front of the capitol, hundreds of thousands of people gathered. it was not a republican gathering. i can tell you that, because i was there.

it was average americans, moms and dads with their children, grandmas, grandpas, people who have never been involved with politics before, who are just very concerned about the level of spending, not just with this administration. this is not a crit simple of this administration. we are talking about the last 15 or 20 years. people are concerned about the level of spending and borrowing and debt, taxes and government takeovers in all areas of our economy. health care is certainly something that brought it to a head. but these people are here concerned about the fact that they believe our country is on the edge after cliff and they'd like to see us here in the congress begin to move back away from that cliff and take some of the things that aren't necessary here in washington and begin to trim them back. but i think we can say here, if we cannot the funding of this little airport in pennsylvania named after the congressman that's helped to get $200 million, if we can't stop

funding it and stop subsidizing the tickets, if we can't look at the facts in this case and decide as a congress to stop this, then there is nothing that we can cut here, then there's no such thing as waste, and there's no such thing as fraud and corruption throughout this federal government, if we can't agree here as members of the senate to stop this. we're not taking away the $200 million they've already gotten. the $800,000 for the alternate runway that they have there which didn't need repaving in the first place, we're not closing down the airports or stopping any travel there. we're just saying, enough is enough. we've bought equipment there radar equipment, spent millions of dollars that's not being used, not being staffed. it's time that we at least focus on one thing and say, hey, we can begin the process of moving this country away from a cliff of economic and financial

disaster and i hope on this bill with this amendment that we can in a bipartisan way agree, this is one thing that we don't have to have at the federal level, that we can begin to shift priorities to those things we're supposed to do at the federal level. and it's certainly not to fund a pet project of one congressman to the tune of $200 million. i encourage all of my senate colleagues, republican and democrat, to support an amendment that would simply disallow the use of any funds in this bill to be used to continue the administration of subsidies or grants to this airport. i thank you, mr. president. i yield back. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. mrs. murray: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: for the information of all senators, we are about to set up a series of votes to occur shortly. we will make that unanimous consent agreement in the next few minutes. in the pending time, i will speak against the -- one of the amendments that will be considered and that is the within that was offered by the senator from nevada. it is a motion to recommit and reduce spending for our transportation and housing appropriations bill. mr. president, i would like to point out to all of our colleagues that the funding

levels that are contained in this bill are consistent with the budget resolution that this entire senate agreed to in the spring and $1.2 billion below the level of funding that was requested by the president in his request. the majority of the funding increases that are contained in our bill support our nation's vulnerable citizens and the needs of the communities. those increases include funding to support rental assistance for low-income families, elderly and disabled tenant whose use section 8 voimps, living in project-based housing or those in public housing. the funding provided ensures that families receiving assistance will maintain that. this is really critical because without assistance, these individuals and families would be at the risk of homelessness at a time when all of us know many of our citizens are struggling today. we have increased funding for homeless programs, which will help prevent more families from becoming homeless. last year, we should all note,

that there was an increase of 9% in family homelessness in this nation. we've increased funding to support our states and our local communities to address their housing needs and support economic activities through the community development block grant program. we increased funding in our nation's infrastructure that will both improve the safety of our nation's roads and bridges and read and sustain critical jobs. and we've increased funding for safety inspectors at the federal aviation adminstration, as well as funding for a new program to invest in railroad safety. in comparison there are drastic consequences we should note to freezing funding for this bill at last year's level. funding frozen at the fiscal year 2009 level could result in tens of thousands of people who currently hold vouchers to lose their housing. during this economic crisis, mr. president, we shouldn't be putting our low-income families at risk and out on the street.

in addition, a funding level frozen at the fiscal year 2009 level would put at risk our critical funding in here for air traffic controllers. my colleague from missouri has talked about the importance of having increased air traffic controllers and we know that the federal aviation administration is facing a shortage of experienced air traffic controllers, and we cannot afford to ignore the safety needs of the aviation system. so i would say to my colleagues, this subcommittee carefully weighed the merits of all of the programs before us. we cut programs below the president's request and achieved additional savings. further reductions that are now requested by this amendment would seriously undermine critical transportation safety activities. so i ask our colleagues to reject that amendment when we vote on it shortly. mr. president, again, we should have a unanimous consent very

shortly to have votes starting in the next several minutes. i would ask -- i would suggest the absence of a quorum while we work out the details. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president if. the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments and motion in the order listed and that no amendments be in order to the amendment or the motion prior to a vote, that prior to the stacked votes in this sequence, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form, that after the first vote, the succeeding vote be limited to 10

minutes each. and it's the gregg amendment number 2361 and the ensign amendment to recommit. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. gregg: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire of the. mr. gregg: what's the regular order? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. gregg: i ask unanimous consent the further proceedings under the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the gregg amendment. mr. gregg: mr. president, i understand i have a minute under this unanimous consent request. to present the terms of my amendment again. this amendment does a very simple thing. it simply says that we don't have to -- have to pay for, the taxpayers don't have to pay for these signs that tell the taxpayers that their money is being spent well. it makes no sense at all that taxpayers should be spending millions of dollars to put up

signs to tell them their money's being spent well. it's just -- has to be extraordinarily frustrating to most taxpayers to see that happening and it's certainly not a good use of their money. the money can be used in a lot of other things: building roads, making more bridges, improving buildings that need to be improved or improving parks that need to be improved. but let's not put up signs on every one of these sites across america saying that we congratulate ourselves for doing the project. it's self-congratulatory, it's political and it's inappropriate. these truly are the signs to nowhere. a total waste of money. they shouldn't be required, and we should reject them as being required and that's what this amendment does. the presiding officer: time has expired. who yield time in opposition? the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, this is the most political amendment. i got to thinking after senator gregg said we can't show a sign

where the economic recovery funds are being fought use in a road or a bridge or a highway, we should keep it from the people because he says it's self-congratulatory. it's not self-congratulatory. some people may not like the project. some people may. it's about transparency and openness. i haveto say to you this makes o sense. where was senator gregg and his friends on the republican side when george bush and the republican congress spen spent $33 million to send out a letter telling everyone that their economic recovery act was working by way of refunds. i never heard one word out of the senators from the other side of the aisle. that cost $33 million, and i ask unanimous consent to put in the record the copy of the tax rebate letter that went to every american. and i would say to you this is politics. this is going to save senator gregg's amendment $4 million. this cost $33 million.

i yield the floor. i hope we vote no. mr. gregg: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for a pointed clarification. i didn't vote for president bush's stimulus package either. mrs. boxer: i ask for a rebuttal here. this isn't about whether you voted for the stimulus. it's about whether you objected to spending money to tell people what the stimulus does. it seems to me under republican leaders, we didn't hear anything, now we area that. and i would yield the floor. mr. gregg: mr. president, do two wrongs make a right? the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question is on the gregg amendment. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have yet voted or who wish to change their vote? if not, on this amendment, the ayes are 45, the nays are 52.

the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, for the information of all senators, we have one more vote right now. we expect to be debating several amendments over the next hour or so. we have, i believe, about four or five amendments left. we want to finish this bill this afternoon. if you have any issues, please bring them to the committee when this -- during this vote or when this vote's over so that we can move later this evening or early this evening, i hope, to the final votes on this bill. with that, mr. president, i believe the motion to recommit is in order by the senator from nevada. the presiding officer: who yields time on the ensign amendment? mr. ensign: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. ensign: mr. president, this

is the committee report here. it says "2009 appropriations, $117 billion." this is the kind of fuzzy math that we deal with here in washington, d.c. last year's -- mr. president, can we have order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. ensign: last year's appropriations bill was $55 billion. it wasn't $117 billion. it's only $117 billion if you count in the money from the stimulus bill. that looks like it's being counted here so that they can claim they're actually cutting last year's bill. this bill has a 23% increase over last year. witwhat this motion to recommit says, let's show some fiscal restraint around here and let's freeze spending to last year's level. so we want to recommit the bill back to the appropriations committee. the appropriations committee can determine where they want the spending to go but it need to be at last year's level. mr. president, every state in our country right now is -- they're not freezing their

budgets, they're cutting their budgets, and yet here in washington, we have an appropriation bill in front of us that increases spending by 23%. this is outrageous and we need to show some fiscal discipline in this place, so i urge you to vote for this amendment. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. and the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. for the information of all of my colleagues, the funding levels that are contained in this bill are consistent with the budget resolution that the senate passed and agreed to this spring. we are $1.2 billion below the level funding requested by the president in his request. we have worked very hard to balance the important safety transportation and housing needs of this nation and we urge you to defeat this amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. all time is yielded back.

the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

:

the presiding officer: is there any senator who wishes to vote or wishes to change his or her vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 33. the nays are 64. and the amendment -- the motion is not agreed to. without objection. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i'm concerned that we in this congress are not properly attached to reality.

i spent time in my state over the recess, and people talked to me repeatedly about their concern about excessive government spending. and i think it is a real national issue. we know that our national deficit, the total deficit is on track to double in five years and triple in ten. that's the public debt that this country owes, and we have to pay interest on. to* countries like china and individuals all over the world. we pay a lot of interest every year, and the interest is going to surge over the next ten years under this proposal. and i just feel like we're not connected. we're not hearing it. we think it's business as usual, and it's not business as usual. states throughout our country, cities throughout our country are cutting expenditures, trimming budgets, trying to be more efficient, looking for ways to save money and be within

their budget. and a lot of states, most states have a billion-dollar budget amendment. they have to stay within their -- have a billion-dollar budget amendment. they have to stay within their budget. we came one year ago with a balanced budget amendment, but it failed. and now we're proceeding on a stunningly reckless course of spending. and let's look. i've always tried to support agriculture. it's a big thing in my state. but i could not vote for the last ag bill that we had. it was a 14% increase in ag spending. you know the rule of seven. most people tkofplt if you increase something at a rate of 7% a year, it will double in ten years. at 14% it will double in five years. the ag bill was on track to double, the entire agriculture bill of the united states in

five years at that rate. that did not include the stimulus extra money that came out of the stimulus bill which is significant. if you included that, it would amount to a 67% increase in agriculture funding. i just bring that up. this is a bill i care about. well, the transportation and h.u.d. bill that's before us today is worse. it has a 23% increase in spending, which is on top of a 13% increase in spending in the bill last year. and that does not include the stimulus package spending. at a 23% rate, spending on h.u.d. -- housing and urban development and transportation would double in three to four years. now, if you include the stimulus package money, which we passed in february, and is pouring out

$800 billion and not near as much of it went to highways as you probably thought. it was supposed to be the road to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. you heard that? only 4% or less of that money out of $800 billion went to roads and highways. but if you still put that money on top of this, it's 165% increase in spending from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2010. and that is a stunning increase at a time we don't have the money. and the american people know it. that's one of the complaints about health care. it's all part and parcel of a concern by the american people. they're saying what i understand them to say to me is: have you guys lost your minds up there? are you no longer feel a sense of responsibility? you're going to double, triple the national debt in ten years?

how can you justify that? and we have vote after vote after vote, and they fail. we need to be containing spending. we had an amendment that was offered on the -- to deal with a shortfall in transportation money. we got a problem. we've got a real problem. people are using less gasoline, and the taxes for our highway primarily come from people paying tax per gallon. and if they use less gallons, we've got less money coming into the basic highway budget. i'd like to see that number lifted. how can we do it? senator vitter proposed a very commonsense cal amendment. he said put up $18 billion out of the stimulus bill, most of which was promised to be for

roads anyway but hadn't been spent. he said let's take that money and fix the shortfall in the transportation bill. i voted for that and it failed because they preferred to fix the shortfall in the transportation bill by borrowing more on top of the $800 billion stimulus bill. every penny of which is borrowed. we don't have the money. we have to borrow it. we pay interest on it. and somebody's got to pay that for the indefinite future, because the ten-year budget that the president has submitted us has no hint that it will contain spending. in fact, the deficit's grow in the out years, which is why we have such a terrible problem. so, gosh, we earlier had today an amendment by senator ensign that said let's freeze spending. let's show some restraint like

our states are doing, like our families are doing. no. flat spending. because, you see, transportation and these other programs that are in this bill, they're getting stimulus money on top of that, out of the $800 billion. so why do they need a baseline increase of 23%? the baseline next year, we'll be hearing, say, well, we're only going to do a 15% increase on the baseline and be proud of that or something. so i don't like the way we're doing this. i don't think we're listening to the american people. and, it's not the right thing to do. i've got a few charts that i would just like to share that bear repetition, because i'm not making these numbers up. these are numbers by the

congressional budget office. they are basically nonpartisan group of fine folks that try to give us honest data on which we can make decisions. the chairman of it is selected by the congress, and of course the congress is a democratic majority, and they were able to select the director. this is what they scored president obama's budget. this is the public debt of the united states of america, much of it held by china and other countries around the world, individuals around the world. they buy our "t" bills, we pay them interest. so, this is trillions. the entire history of our country up through trait, we had accumulated a public debt of

$5.8 trillion. a lot of people think that's too high. i think that's too high. we're carrying a big, big debt, and we don't need to continue it. but under the budget that's before us today, that we passed, it looks like we're spending at least on that level, if not more, based on the bills we're seeing coming forward. our spending will double in five -- double the entire national debt in five years to $11.8 trillion. and in ten years, according to the congressional budget office, it's $17.3 trillion. that is a stunning figure. it should put chills through the backbones of everybody in this congress. how can we justify this? states are trimming their budgets, doing all these things, and we've got a 14% increase in

ag not long ago we voted on. and now we've got a 23% increase in h.u.d. this is not responsible. well, -- so, we came in to this year with a deficit. the president said we had to rush through a stimulus bill, and they passed it by just a couple of votes, $800 billion. every bit of it borrowed because we didn't have the money. we were already in debt. if you're going to spend more money and you're in debt, how do you get it? you borrow it. you have to get people to buy your treasury bills. interest rates were under 2%, i think, or around 2% in january. they're now 3.5% or so on a ten-year treasury bill because people are getting worried. they think we may have an inflationary spiral out here. they think interest rates may go up. so they're not so willing to loan money at a low interest

rate over ten years like they were a few years ago -- a few months ago. so this causes a problem. let me show you this chart, which i think brings the numbers home in a way that we can comprehend them, because it is difficult to comprehend numbers this big. people assume when i throw these trillion-dollar figures around, surely people up there know what they're doing, and, sessions, you're just exaggerating. you just don't like to spend money, and i know you're exaggerating. it's not an exaggeration. we're talking about the entire debt of america tripling in ten years. look at the interest. we spend approximately $100 billion, i think, now on highways. i said 40. but i think with the stimulus, we spend about $100 billion on our highways. we spend about $100 billion on

education. well, in 2009, september 30, the estimate was that we would pay $170 billion in interest. we get nothing for it. it's just like paying interest on your credit card. the bank gets it. you don't get it. they loan you money, you owe money to keep the money they loan you. but as the debt increases and we have a modest adjustment in the interest rate -- not a big adjustment, but one the congressional budget office projects will occur raising from the relatively low interest rates we have today, as those go up, the -- as those go up, the interest we will pay each year, the burden that we pay first before we can buy anything with the taxpayers' money is increasing. and you see the numbers here in

this budget. so that in 2019, ten years from today, the congressional budget office estimates that the united states government will be paying out $799 billion a year in interest. we don't get anything for that. it goes out to people all over the world who bought our treasury notes. we send out this interest. send it to some americans who buy it, and they get this interest. and it's money we don't have to do things with we want to do for our constituents. and, in fact, in essence, as a moral matter, we are reaching into the future, and we're taking money from the future and spending it today to meet our own gratification, our desires today, without doing what our states and cities and counties are doing: figuring out how to get by with less in tough times

and looking forward to the day that they'll be able to see growth again and be able to not have to be on such a spare budget. but that's life. we're not able to pass a law to reverse life and the challenges and difficulties and uncertainties that we face every year in our personal lives and in our national lives, in our economic lives. if you took -- so that's the lower number. that's assuming that things are going pretty well. but if you look at the interest rates that the blue chip forecast of economists, who are a supergood group of people and they make forecasts and people are -- they're pretty good. they've been more accurate than the gunfight over the years. blue chip says the interest rate is going to be more than the c.b.o. scores. they say the interest rate in

the 10th year would be $865 billion. and if you had interest rates -- could surge, as they did during the late-1970's and early -- really, late-1970's where president reagan took office and we had 10% interest rates, if you had that kind of interest rates, you would be $1.29 trillion spent for more -- spent first, before we do anything to purchase things for our constituents. and, remember, the highway money is about $1 unh. billion. education is about $100 billion. we're spending $8 billion now on interest? $600-plus billion more than we spent this year just on interest because of irresponsible spending. so i just would say, mr. president, count me as somebody that's getting the message, both from my own study of what's occurring here, being

on the budget committee; and from what i'm hearing from my constituents. they say it's time for you guys to get responsive. we're upset. why shouldn't they be upset? somebody came at a town meeting and they weren't -- they were a little hot with their congressman or their senator. are we supposed to think that this is a threat to democracy when we've got this kind of behavior going on in the congress? they ought to be hot. there's every reason to be hot. we do not need to be doing this. and you say, well, we're having a hard time economically, senator. we ought to spend a little money now to get this thing going. the out-year budget projections, according to the congressional budget office, assume robust growth. i think -- in ten, they were projecting 4% growth. we're not going to have 4%

growth f we don't have 4% growth, we're going to have larger deficits than they're projected on that matter. and in the outer years, they're projecting solid 2%, 3% growth out there. no recession in this. so this is not a projection based on an assumption of a recession, putting us in this kind of debt. and our basic -- how much do we spend each year? well, it's about $3 trillion. that's how much $1 trillion is. and we've got, well, maybe four. and we've got $1.8 trillion in debt this year. we will be short this year $1.8 trillion. we'll spend $1.8 trillion more than we take in. that's $1,800 billion.

and those are things that should cause us to think about what we are doing. we've never done it before, nothing like this i don't think in -- except maybe the life-and-death struggle in world war ii when people all over the country were drafted. but i would note this: 43 cents out of every dollar that we're spending this year is borrowed. that is not acceptable. this whole budget you've heard from administration officials, from alan greenspan and other experts, this whole budget picture is unsustainable. that's what they say. tv commentators, editorial writers say it's an unsustainable debt cycle we're

in. well, let me ask this: what does "unsustainable" mean? it means just that; it cannot be allowed to continue. yet, according to the congressional budget office analysis, the deficit in the 10 designate -th-- i had somebody e airport, when are you going to start paying it down, like i have to do in my house with my credit card, my mortgage? the answer is, there is no prospect of paying it down. last year was the highest deficit we've had -- $450 billion in one year -- this year will be $1,800 billion. in the next ten years, according to c.b.o., the least deficit we'll have, they're projecting two or three years from now, $600-plus billion.

the lowest. then it starts back up again. in the tenth year it's over $900 billion. there is no prospect of a balanced budget anywhere out there. and we act like it's business as usual. we can just spend, spend. so 23% on this bill, 14% on that bill, at a rate that's stunning, on top of the stimulus money we've put in. but we really -- what we really should do is have at least level funding with the stimulus money piling into the economy, the $8 $800 billion there. i just would repeat and close up by saying that we're not getting -- we're not listening to the american people. we're not even reading our own budget numbers. and we're hurting our country. this $800 billion in interest every year, this is what we pay

in one year, will devastate our ability to fund the government. not only that, it will require either more and more and more borrowing or more and more and more taxes. neither one of which is good for this economy. it's not good for america. we do not have to do this. and i think -- i don't want to be partisan about it -- and republicans have got -- and their hands aren't clean on this either. but the leadership in this senate needs to understand these fundamental principles. they need to send some signals that they understand this and are prepared to do something about it, and that includes the president of the united states of america. he needs to understand what is happening to this country as a result of his budget and take some steps that will show in reality that we're going to bring this ship back on course

again. and you say, well, you've got this health care bill. the health care is not in there. this budget analysis was done before health care even came up. it'll just cost more, of course, to make these numbers look even better. so we've got to grow up and be responsible. our republic is depending on us to lead and tell the truth. and the truth is we're on an unsustainable course. and the truth is, this administration and the leadership in this senate and in the house of representatives has no plan to get us off this unsustainable course. the american people are the only ones, it looks like, have sense enough to know what's occurred. and i hope they'll continue to make their voices heard. i thank the chair and yield the floor.

mrs. murray: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask that any quorum call be vitiated if there's one ongoing. the presiding officer: no objection. mr. vitter: i ask that amendment 2359 be called up. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. vitter: i ask that the modified version of the amendment be made pending. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter proposes amendment 2359 as modified. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this amendment is very straightforward and it's very narrowly drawn. first of all, it only affects public housing assistance in new

orleans, louisiana. nowhere else. and it prohibits funds in this bill from going to any housing assistance to benefit drug dealers or members of violent gangs. folks who have actually been convicted of these offenses, drug dealing -- not simple possession -- drug dealing, conviction of that, or conviction of crimes that involve being a member of a violent gang. mr. president, after hurricane katrina, there was an enormous rebuilding effort in new orleans that continues. and part of that effort involves public housing in new orleans. and, quite frankly, mr. president, that system had been plagued for many years with tremendous problems. the biggest of which was crime in those projects. and there's been an ongoing effort to rid those projects of

violent crime. that effort continues, and it -- that battle certainly hasn't been won yet. because, unfortunately, new orleans continues to be a capital in the country for violent crime with very, very high violent crime levels. mr. president, as we rebuild those projects, using a fundamentally different model, a mixed income model, less dentisty. certainly one of the changes we need to make is to ensure that drug dealers and members of violent gangs do not set up shop, once again, in those public housing projects and do not get other taxpayer assistance. in this bill, mr. president, i is $7.25 billion for public housing assistance. some of that will go to new orleans. certainly it's reasonable and productive and positive that we simply say we're not going to

send this assistance to folks who have been convicted of being violent gang members, have been convicted of drug dealing. not simple possessn, drug dealing. this is important policy. it's a very important -- important for the continued recovery of new orleans coming out of hurricane katrina. and i urge my colleague to accept this amendment and support this amendment and pass it into law. with that, mr. president, i reserve the balance of my time.

mr. vitter: and, mr. president, reclaiming my time, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: two weeks ago the world trade organization handed down a ruling in one of our nation's most important trade cases to date. the ruling was in a case that the united states government, through our trade representative, brought against the european union for providing market-distorting subsidies for the european aerospace company airbus. it was a case that was brought against the e.u. not because of minor trade infractions or

insignificant manipulation of the international market. it was brought because of decades of playing outside the rules, billions in government subsidies and repeated warnings by the united states to end the unfair practice of providing a damaging subsidy called launch aid. what the w.t.o. ruled by all accounts is very clear. launch aid is illegal. it creates an uneven playing field. it has harmed american workers and companies, and it needs to end. mr. president, for me, this is an important decision that is long overdue. that's because in my home state, the home state of much of our country's aerospace industry, the consequences of competing with the treasuries of large european governments has been very real for a very long time. it's been felt in communities, in local economies and in lost jobs. and that's why, as my colleagues know, i have been speaking out

against europe's market-distorting actions in commercial aerospace for many years. i've raised my concerns with other senators, with foreign leaders, and administrations of both parties. in 2005, i helped pass a unanimous resolution here in the senate on the need to level the playing field for fair global aerospace competition. and that same year after the european union mocked our efforts to negotiate in good faith by continuing to provide launch aid, i urged the bush administration to move forward with this w.t.o. case. mr. president, make no mistake about it, i understand the value of healthy competition in the international marketplace, but i also believe that competitors must abide by the same set of rules. one reason i have fought so hard to end these illegal subsidies is because i know there is a fundamental difference in how

our country and europe view the aerospace industry in fair competition. for us here in america, commercial aerospace is seen as a private business. some companies will win. some companies will lose. but we allow the marketplace to decide. american aerospace companies like boeing take tremendous financial risk when they develop and market a new aircraft. their workers and developers and researchers put their jobs and billions of dollars on the line each time. they literally here in this country bet the company with each new plane they develop. but in europe, aerospace is a jobs program. and to fund that program, they use billions of dollars in what is called launch aid. so they're not quite as concerned when airbus loses money. in fact, they don't even require airbus to repay that launch aid if the aircraft they developed is unsuccessful. it's no risk or reward.

but, as the w.t.o. has now ruled, it's also a violation of international trade rules and fair competition. mr. president, the plain truth is that these illegal subsidies have cost american jobs. the commercial aerospace industry employs well over 500,000 americans with family-wage salaries. but in the past 20 years as airbus has continued to grow, thanks to billions in subsidies, we here have lost hundreds of thousands of american aerospace jobs. these are scientific and technical jobs. they are jobs that keep the economies of communities large and small stable in states all throughout our country. they're jobs that support our families, pay mortgages, and create other jobs. they are jobs that are increasingly precious at a time when we are facing double-digit unemployment. mr. president, american innovation led to the birth of

the air spay -- aerospace stroeufr 100 years ago and since that time we have made air travel safer and brought growth and innovation to our economy. although we led in the first century of flight, unless we recognize the damages that these subsidies pose and fight for our workers, we might not have a major role in the next century in aerospace. and that's why this w.t.o. ruling is so important. this ruling is much more than a confirmation that airbus has been breaking the rules. it is a victory for american workers who produce the world's best planes but who have been forced to fight an uphill battle. it is a warning to other countries considering entering the aerospace marketplace that launch aid is the wrong example to follow. it reaffirms the spirit of free and fair trade in the international marketplace and it reminds us that we have to be vigilant, because this is certainly not the end of this

fight. in fact, there are already signs that the e.u. and airbus will flaunt the will of the w.t.o. already very publicly the governments of france, germany, and the united kingdom have said that they will move forward with plans to provide airbus with nearly $5 billion in launch aid for the development of airbus's latest generation of airplane, the a-50, tkes -- the a-350 despite any ruling by the w.t.o. in other words, in the face of clear condemnation of their practices, they said they will do as they please. that's why on monday i twroet president obama urge -- i wrote to president obama urging him and his administration to take the strongest possible actions to prevent european governments from providing airbus with an additional illegal trade-distorting subsidy. but it will be all of our responsibilities to ensure that the rules are followed, american jobs are not further endangered

and the future of the aerospace industry is protected. unless we wake up to the threat that continued illegal subsidies pose, we will lose an industry that we created that is critical to our economic recovery and will help sustain our nation's continued growth. i thank the president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. bond: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent that the call for the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bond: mr. president, while we have an opportunity, there are some important comments i want to make about this bill. we've heard some people concerned about the deficit and the national debt. wrulereally, they are tremendouy concerned, and any discussion of our overall economy must take into consideration the debt we're running up that will be on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. and i have opposed many spending packages that have come through and many of the things that have

gone on. but when we are looking at priorities which are funding ongoing programs, which are within the budget of our committees, then we need to focus on spending what will prove beneficial for the american people and the economy. the bill before us, transportation, housing, and urban development, funds infrastructure development for everything from roads to bridges to airports, which is critical to attracting businesses, creating jobs, and economic growth in our communities. the bill also provides funding to help the nation's most vulnerable populations, the homeless, low-income families and seniors, housing for the disabled, and housing for our returning vernths who've served overseas. now, this bill provides increased investment in the federal aviation system. the f.a.a. gets money for 200 additional safety inspectors. and i've spoken on this floor

about the need for safety inspectors, because we have airlines flying with very subpar qualifications, and too often they get away with sending out people who are not qualified, should not be pilots, have not been properly trained, and for all of us who fly -- and awful our constituents -- that's a major concern. but we need to accelerate programs as well related to reducing congestion, increasing safety. that means getting us to the next generation air traffic system. now, nobody will claim that this is a perfect bill, but it is one that provides the needed funds for programs that not only make a difference in the lives of everyday americans, but also enable job creation, economic growth, and the kind of treatment we wish to provide for those in need, especially in the housing area. i have asked my colleagues and will continue it ask them to support this bill. there have also been attacks,

and there will be some more, before we get out of here on earmarks. every year we have a debate about whether congress should have a role in setting priorities or simply pass the buck to those in the executive branch of government. within my state are state and local experts that i turn to, as well as people whose lives are inextricably linked to housing, transportation, and economic development. most of these people know a great deal about these issues. they know a lot more about these issues and how they affect the people of missouri than most folks sitting in a bureaucracy in washington, d.c., who may never have been there, don't know what the challenges are, don't know where the local people are putting their priorities, don't know what the plans are, don't know how they see their communities grow, their state grow. i think a lot of these people know more about housing, transportation, and economic development than people at o.m.b. and those who ultimately

produce budget submissions from their distant washington offices. now, we've heard a lot of talk about the bad earmarks. i'm opposed to bad earmarks, and people who abuse the system, who do so criminally, should be punished and put in jail, as they have been. there's no debate there. the debate is not what is written about, but it's who should earmark, because every dollar that's spent by the government is directed by somebody. who is making the decisions? some argue it should be a mix where congress earmarks roughly 2% of discretionary funds with a balance roughly 98% being earmarked by agency employees of the executive branch. i think you could make a good argument that it should be even higher. under this -- however, under this scenario, with full disclosure, elected officials have a role in listening to and speaking for the people of their state, the leaders of their

communities, the leaders of the institutions. and we can make those recommendations, and the full congress can look at them and the president can ratify them. and this is reflected in the bills before us this session. others argue that congress should have no role. executive branch officials elected by no one should have 100% monopoly power over spending, that people unaccountable to the votes should have this monopoly power is their position. congress can, however, and does set criteria, but the more criteria we set, the more it becomes a congressional earmark. the less criteria we serkts the more it remains an executive branch earmark. in executive agencies, people have their own agendas and political leanings. their own political bosses in either the bush administration our the obama administration have their own agenda. i don't like monopoly power of

the obama administration on spending and i didn't support it during the clinton or either bush administration as well. i have to admit that i find it puzzling to lair some of my self-professed conservative friends suggest that the way to reform spend something to turn it all over to the obama administration to earmark. i am not arguing they should have no role. i'm arguing today that congress should have a role. the constitution, article 1, section 9, says very clearly -- it gives the congress the power of the purse. it states, "no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." guess what? that's what we're supposed to do, right here in article 1, section 9. i think it would be extreme, probably excessive to suggest that congress should earmark all money, just as i believe it would be extreme, wrongheaded to suggest that the obama

administration should earmark all money. a bad earmark is a bad earmark, no matter who does it. frankly, one of the reasons -- when i left the governorship of my state -- that i felt it was important to run for the senate to exercise the voice and the views of missourians in the spending process, because i had seen too many instances where bureaucrats in washington made very, very bad decisions. they've made bad decisions that absolutely turned the prierlts around. they told us they had to spend all of our money for cleaning up waste water, putting tertiary treatment on major metropolitan sewer systems which would then have to put cleaner water into the missouri and the mississippi river. the state's priority was t