no longer be in the public record. they also wanted to dispel any idea that this man who is such a great pillar of the church could ever have been homosexual. something very amazing happened. they dug it up and found that the bones had so disintegrated that the two bodies were indistinguishable. there was nothing left to separate. and i think at some level that should teach the current holy fathers something and is a kind of a beautiful rebuke to so much fear that has permeated so much pain for so long. thank you. [applauding]

[applauding] >> one second. i'm sorry. sam wants to ask one last question. >> this wonderful experience. as chair of the committee i did want to claim the right to ask one last. >> i'm really sorry. >> it is a follow-up to the natural law question. i want to ask it from a secular perspective from my own identity as a neuro-scientist american. [laughter] >> i think you should be protected from discrimination myself. >> we have an organization, and we are going to keep it. when i hear discussion of natural law in the context of the previous question about prejudice and irrationality, when i look at natural law i worry that natural law is a code phrase for intuitions, maybe prejudices, but these intuitive feeling that we have about how human relations ought to be.

my question is on your -- in "the daily dish" you write a lot. i wonder as the foundations of behavior become understood in terms of circuitry and the things that make us who we are do you think that is going to change our perception of what is normal, not normal? if we start understanding the foundations of behavior is that a way of replacing, in my optimistic view, turning the question into a different kind of question. i want to you which you have to say about that. >> i do. i do think it will open whole new worlds of understanding of what human, what being human is. i am fascinated, for example, of the neuroscience faith. i am fascinated by the studies of the brains of people in deep meditation compared to people who are not. i am fascinated by the

possibility of understanding the homosexual mind and the heterosexual mind and see if there are differences and how subtle all those things are and obviously the change over time. my view is that aquinas, for example, was desperately seeking the truth about what human beings were. in the 13th century, 14th century it wasn't -- what i feel in the discussions of natural law is exactly that, actually a resistance to understand nature they resisted. but i have to say also that if darwin didn't do it we are 150 years after darwin. religious fundamentalists have never been stronger in this country or around the world. the great problem, i think, is that the more we know the truth

about who we are and all our complexity the more terrifying it will become for us to abandon the easy certainties and prejudices of the past. what we are really seeing in the world right now, and this goes far beyond the question of homosexuality. it is the central question of my book, the conservative soul." i think that fundamentalism is an erotic response to the truth as is being revealed by science, as is being revealed by human experience. it is sometimes humankind cannot bear much reality. the reality, neuroscience is opening up. the possibility of seeing a

revolution in thinking which i think is coming again may instead of opening the human mind provoke a response in the way that emancipation created jim crow. people can't handle it. we have to remember that galileo, what happened to him. the people that stumble upon the truth are the people most dangerous. they are the most, and the reaction to them is sometimes most ferocious. the reparation, in a way, which discovered the scriptures, which removed the authority of certain people to tell people what was in the bible. the printing press gave us witch hunts, witch trials, burnings at the stake, the inquisition, the

most horrifying perio d of religious power and fundamentalist reaction. i took my husband back to my hometown. parts of it are beautiful. it goes right back to the middle ages. i was showing him around. we came to the oldest church at the top of the town. we saw these three big recessions down there. we thought, well, these people must be really, i had not been there in a while. here lies the remains of three martyrs of the protestant faith to were burned at the stake to 30 years to the left, right next to the starbucks. [laughter] you laugh, but people iran right now right next to what they thought was starbucks are being tortured because they are standing up for freedom against this kind of fundamentalism.

it is happening. one major political party in this country sees that fundamentalist religion does little to endorse the executive power to seize anybody in this country. this country sat by and let it happen. do not believe this stuff can't happen again. do not believe that human beings or human science or human truth will somehow march constantly forward without some horrifying reaction. in this particular moment we have forces at work of fundamentalism both in the middle east and in this country, of all religions whether it be the hideous fanaticism of the revolutionary guard in iran or in the biblical fundamentalists in this country, the defending mark, vice president cheney's

speech writer goes on television and defends the use of torture as a good thing and catholic thing to do. and there are settlers on the west bank have judean somalia who believe that they are there forever. if necessary, they would launch a war against other countries to protect that. everybody has nuclear weapons. i mean, i don't think -- maybe i'm being hysteric. maybe it is excitable andrew again. rightly so sometimes. i think things i kind of scary right now. i think the more we get closer to the truth about human beings the more terrified the reactions will be. it is the fact that people in

fundamentalist societies are seeing, because they can't push away anymore through mass media, images of liberated women that is fermenting the greater repression of women, a regression in the middle east toward basically enslavement f women in the most hideous fashion. to greater degrees. there are very few countries out there that are not becoming more fundamentalist. this is a flight from reason. it is an anti-enlightenment. i believe in enlightenment because i think in the end god has to be compatible with truth. god is truth. so i don't fear science in that way, but i absolutely understand those who have clung to a certain doctrines as the meaning

of their lives for whom this truth is simply too scary to contemplate and whose response is a frightened and terrified and violent repression. [applauding] [applauding] [inaudible conversations] >> live thursday daylong coverage of the white house health care summit starting at 10:00 eastern president obama will meet with congressional leaders and other members. live from blair house. we will also include your

reaction. >> now congressman ron paul from the cpac, in the washington. won with 37% of the vote. [applauding] >> thank you very much. thank you. wow. thank you. they key you. [cheering] thank you. [cheering] thank you. [cheering] it sounds to me like the revolution is alive and well.

[cheering] wonderful. it is great to see such a nice crowd. quite a few year. 10,000 people, all interested in promoting good government, limited government, and personal liberty. i would say this is a grand opportunity for all of us to come together because something is brewing. this is a different year than anything we have ever experienced before. i am optimistic to believe that a lot of good is going to come out of what is happening in this country today whether it is the cpac meeting or the tea party movements are the recent victories in the elections. believe me i think this country is going to be a lot better off. [cheering] you know, the one thing i think brings so many of us together

has been the idea of having change. as a matter of fact, somebody won an election using that slogan. there is a change that we want that we have not got yet. i think that is what we are here to talk about. what kind of change do we really want? what can we agree on so that we are not talking about different things. it is important we understand what conservatism means. to me to be a conservative means to conserve the good parts of america and to conserve our constitution. [cheering] i first got involved in politics in the 1970's because i was very concerned about the financial situation, the agreement broke down. the gold standard was cast aside. this will usher in the age of

big government. that came in under a nixon administration. since that time we have been struggling. we have been struggling with the conservative message, and we have had bits and pieces of this coming together, but we really have not had the follow-through. we had a revolution of sorts with ronald reagan. [applauding] then, of course, we had 1994. we to cover the congress. that, of course, was very good, and that was designed to limit government. government kept growing. in the year 2000 we had a remarkable event, something that has that happened in more than 40 years. a republican president, a republican congress, but we did not get the revolution. there was a lot of desire. a lot of pressure by people like you saying what we want is limited government. we want balanced budgets. we want our liberties back!

[applauding] you know, and i think what happened, i think what our problems are in philosophical terms. i think what happened, especially back in the teens of the last century when the woodrow wilson was president. >> boo! >> and those boos are rightly deserved. let me tell you. [applauding] but i also use this as an opportunity to put up the pressure on conservatives to have some of their views changed. just think of what woodrow wilson stood for. he stood for world government. he wanted an early united nations, league of nations.

the conservative republicans stood up against it. how many are saying none of you belong to the united nations? [applauding] [cheering] 1913 wasn't a very good year. 1913 gave as the income-tax, the 16th amendment, and the irs. what is wrong with getting rid of the income tax and the 16th amendment? i think it would be a great idea. [cheering] and, of course, i am already taking a position on a monetary position. we should just end the ban.

[chanting] >> there other things that went on during the wilson administration, foreign policy change. his goal was to save democracy. something we should have never gotten into. we as conservative have accepted this principle that it is our moral and legal constitutional responsibility to engage ourselves and make the world safe for democracy. i don't think it is possible. as a matter of fact if you think back just a short time ago to the year 2000 when george bush was running, guess what he ran on and one on?

he was running against an intervention. clinton's policy of intervention, nation building. he was elected on that. there is nothing wrong with being a conservative and come up with a conservative belief in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense if we don't go to war so carelessly. [cheering] [applauding] what is not conservative about saying don't go to war unless we go to war properly with a full declaration of war and no other

way? [applauding] unconstitutional wars cost a lot of money. they undermine our constitutional principles. as randolph ward said, war is the health of the state. if you like small government you need to work hard at having a strong national defense that is not so militant. personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty, not to run your personal lives, not to run the economy, and not to pretend we can tell the world how they ought to live. [cheering] now for those who disagree i have a few comments because that understand the disagreement. i have been there.

i know all the arguments. the bottom line eventually for all conservatives and all constitutionalists will be how are we going to pay for it. it is driving us into bankruptcy. we are now spending $1 trillion a year to manage. we are in a 140 countries. quite frankly, have you noticed the debt is exploding. it is not all because of medicare. believe me, we don't have enough conservatives on the hill to start tinkering with medicare. they're not going to get that. eventually this country probably will do what i suggest, back off and back down, spend only the money that is constitutional. i have made two promises to my district. i will always vote what i have promised and always vote the constitution as well as i will not vote for one single penny that isn't paid for because of

debt is the monster. that is what is going to eat us up. that is why our economy is on the brink. we had the collapse and correction. we are on the brink of a cataclysmic event because we are leading to because we spend too much, borrow to much. at the present time the chinese have backed off of what they're learning us. inflation factors are coming up. believe me. the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar. the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event. then your personal liberties are going to be severely stressed because then it will usher in people who say, we have had an event. it is not the democrats alone. democrats and republicans, oh, there is an event. what we should do is spend more money, stimulate the economy.

borrow more money. it still won't be enough. we go to the fed and tell the fed to print more money. believe me. it won't last. it is going to end. you can't double the money supply -- [cheering] you can't double the money supply and not expect some of really big events with inflation. but back again to woodrow wilson. he was not an individual who respected civil liberties. the conservative republicans at the time fought him on the espionage and sedition act. the republicans did not like him. he arrested thousands of people because they showed descent against the war. how do you want it? how do you want it that way? we all ought to be together that you have a right of dissent and you should never be put in prison for dissenting.

[applauding] a famous person, i would not have agreed with his political beliefs, but he was a famous person is spoke out about the war, which he had a right to do. eugene dent was put in prison. woodrow wilson did not like him. the congress passed these laws. he was put in prison indefinitely. and i guess because of woodrow wilson's illness and all toward the end he never got a pardon. do you know who gave him the pardon? warren g. harding. a republican. [applauding]

there is nothing wrong with describing conservatism has protecting the constitution, protecting all things that limit government. government is the enemy of liberty. government should be very restrained. [applauding] and as i have said so many times, it is times that we do study and understand from a conservative viewpoint on how much we should be engaged around the world. we have good backing from good republicans, but now that is the past. i don't live in the past. i see freedom as a very progressive and modern movement. since woodrow wilson's time week, as conservatives, too many have taken on this saying that we are responsible. that is a neo conservative viewpoint and not true conservatism. [applauding]

who do you think it was that tried to keep us out of wars? republicans did. one of the greatest republicans is called mr. republican. a statue over in washington. that is robert pam. he works hard to keep us out of wars. he also thought that it was a violation of our rights to have a military draft. he strongly opposed the draft. [applauding] he was strongly opposed to nato and did not like the united nations. here we have casually accepted all of this. who was it that kind the word the military is a national complex and beware of it. it was eisenhower that told us about that. [applauding]

so there is every reason for us to think seriously about what we really believe and what conservatism actually means. in 1956 i was in college. i thought a draft was coming because the french and the british, you know, got into a fight over the suez canal with the egyptians. so i was worried because at that i would be drafted. that was not drafted for ten years after that. they came to and a system and s aid take care of us. eisenhower said, i'll have no part of it. [applauding] back 100 years ago what happened in this country is we took freedom and chopped into pieces. we don't think of freedom as

something unified. there is only one type of freedom. our lives come from our creator, and our liberty comes from our creator. it has nothing to do with government granting. if you want small government that is well and good. that is what the founders believed. that is what the constitution was written for. if we have some group over here defending economic liberty is good. that's right, we do. except a republican president says it we have been living with economics. how many people on the hill are saying end the fed? [applauding] but personal liberty, if our liberties come to us as individuals they are not collected. freedom does not come in groups. you don't have freedom because you are a hyphenated american.

you have freedom because you are an individual, and that should be protected. [applauding] i do not believe freedom can survive, and i do not believe we as conservatives can contribute much if we still think freedom only comes in pieces. you can protect economic liberty but not personal liberty. sure, everybody in this crowd would say, protect our right of free speech and our right to a religious value. as soon as it comes to put something in your mouth or lungs you saying you don't have enough sense to decide what you should do. we are going to use that the hand of government to come down and protect you against yourself. [applauding] we gone a long way from the dictates of the constitution. the constitution, of course, says that only on the

declaration of war can we go to war. we are in perpetual war in every country in the world. it is going to last a long time until we go bankrupt. we have done a few of the things that aren't conservative as far as i am concerned. both is that we have now endorsed the principle of preventive or another term for preventive war is aggressive war, starting wars because somebody might do something to us. that is not part of the american tradition. [cheering] >> we are leaving the last few minutes of this. if you can see on c-span.org. other members opened the day with two votes related to the $15 billion jobs bill. we expect the second bill to be

final passage on the legislation which includes tax breaks and spending as well as extending the highway trust fund. after that the chamber issued short-term extensions to a number of measures. live now to the floor of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

o lord our god, in whom we trust, put your hand upon the members of this body to guide and strengthen them. bless them in moments of stress and tension, renewing their strength so that they mount up on wings like eagles. lord, give them the moral and spiritual stamina to do what is right, as you give them the light to understand your will. may they fulfill their high calling to serve you and this nation. and exemplify to all the oneness

of a shared commitment. make their lives an expression of your truth, righteousness and justice. we pray in your strong name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., february 24, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1,

paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president, following leader remarks the time until 9:55 will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 9:55 the senate will proceed to a series of up to two roll call votes. the first will be on the motion to waive the applicable budget points of order with respect to the reid amendment 3310. the points of order waived we will proceed to a vote on the motion to concur to the house amendment to the senate bill to bill h.r. 2947 with the reid substitute amendment. following the votes, the senate will proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. we hope we'll be able to reach an agreement to pass a short-term extenders legislation today. the next item of business on the floor will be the bipartisan travel promotion legislation. mr. president, following the remarks of the senator from

kentucky, i would yield four minutes to the senator from new york, senor schumer. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, earlier this week the white house unveiled its latest iteration of the democratic plan for health care reform. and to put it quite simply, it was a major disappointment. it was our hope that when the administration called for a health care summit at the white house, it would be an opportunity for both sides to come together and to start over. now it's perfectly clear the administration had something else in mind entirely. the plan we saw monday is hardly a starting off point for a bipartisan discussion on commonsense reforms. it's really just more of the same: a massive government scheme with all the flaws of the previous proposals that the american people have already seen and rejected. changing the name and increasing

the cost is not what the americans have been asking for, and it certainly is not reform. to make matters worse, even as lawmakers head down to the white house for this health care summit tomorrow, democrats on capitol hill are working behind the the scenes on a plan aimed at jamming this massive health care spending bill through congress against the clear wishes of an unsuspecting public. what they have in mind is a last-ditch legislative sleight of hand called reconciliation that would enable them to impose government-run health care for all on the american people, whether americans want it or not. and we know that americans don't in fact want it. americans have seen these proposals before. they don't want them. so this is the height of legislative arrogance. if you don't like the corn husker kickback, get ready.

this is the cornhusker kickback on steroids. it's hard to imagine what the purpose of thursday's summit is. if the white house wants real bipartisanship, then it needs to drop the proposal it posted monday, which is no different in its essentials than anything we've seen before, and start all over. and they need to take this last-ditch reconciliation effort off the table once and for all. then we can work on the kind of reform americans really want: step-by-step proposals that will actually get at the problem, which is cost. that's what the american people have been asking us to do for a year. if ever there were a time for the administration to show it's actually listening, it's now. reform is too important. we can't let this opportunity pass. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the prious oer, the

leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message with respect to h.r. 2847, which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 2847, an act making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice and science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: tphopz, the time until 9:55 will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the senator from new york is recognized for four minutes. a senator: mr. president, would the senator allow me to ask unanimous consent that i be recognized after the national? mr. schumer: certainly. mr. gregg: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the remarks by the senator from new york that i be recognized. mr. schumer: mr. president, the time will be equally divided, i presume. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: thank you. thank you, mr. president. on a more bipartisan note than

the speech from the minority leader, we are now moving towards some legislation that has two bits of good news for the american people. one, it will help create jobs and employ those who have been out of work for too long a time. second, it is bipartisan. for the first time in a long time we have a bill that is supported by both democrats and republicans. i'd like to salute the five republicans from the other side who joined us in moving the bill forward, and i'm very hopeful that there will be a large number of those from the other side of the aisle who will join in this bipartisan measure that will show the american people that at least when it comes to jobs, we can and must for their good work together. first let me discuss the proposal, the part of the proposal offered by senator hatch and myself. it is very simple. it is a holiday from the payroll

tax for any employer who hires a worker who has been out of work for 60 days. let me discuss why i think it will work. first, it is immediate. most businesses, particularly small businesses, if you tell them they'll get some kind of tax credit if they hire someone but they'll get that credit a year from april, they're not very interested. this occurs immediately, the minute the worker is hired. second, it is simple. again, if you tell a businessperson, particularly a small business person, that they have to fill out 30 pages, maybe hire an accountant to get a tax credit for a new worker, that's not life. they're going to tell you fret it. but here -- they're going to tell you forget it. but here all the new employ has to show is that he or she was out of work for 60 tkaeurbgs and

it immediately -- 60 days and it immediately takes effect. third, it goes right to small business. and so this is not a large government program. the money goes right to small business and is cost effective, which is the fourth point. if 3 million people are hired by this tax credit, it will cost $15 billion. now, that is a lot of money. but compared to the stimulus of $880 billion, it's much smaller and the money is cost effective. it goes right to where it should. and finally, my last point, mr. president, it's bipartisan. the country is asking us to come and work together, and obviously there are diverse views both within the parties and certainly between the parties. but that doesn't mean on areas that are getting close to emergency that we can't work together. and this proposal, let it be the start, let this proposal be the start of us coming together on

issues where we can agree on. there are some jobs proposals that my colleagues on this side of the aisle would support and my colleagues on the other wouldn't. and vice versa. there are some that they would support and we wouldn't. but there are a large number we can all agree on, and we ought to endeavor to do those. because what the american people want is not us just talking at one another and accomplishing nothing, but us getting something done. finally, going back to the merits of this proposal. it should not be sold as a panacea. this is not a magic wand that is going to be waved and all our joblessness will decline. but what it does do is harness the job growth that we've seen in the last quarter -- 5.7% -- and translate it into the creation of jobs. and let me explain. you cannot have large -- the last quarter there was job growth -- sorry. the last quarter there was

economic growth, 5.7%, but hardly a job was created. you cannot sustain an economy and get an economy moving upward unless jobs are created. but the growth gives us an opportunity -- not every employer, but a significant number of employers are getting new orders. and they're thinking to themselves, should i hire that new worker or should i just extend overtime or cut back somewhere else? this job provision, a payroll tax holiday, says to the employer -- to some, not all, but to many -- i'm going to take that gamble and hire that worker, and hire them now. so it will help jump-start our economy. it will work for businesses, not who see declining, sales are flat, but who begin to see sales go up, and translate those increased sales into increased jobs, which will then, mr. president, hopefully create

the virtuous cycle of more jobs, more money in the economy, more jobs still, more money in the economy still, and we can get out of this awful, awful recession. in conclusion -- and i want to save enough time for my friend from new hampshire -- i traveled around my state this last president's week break, mr. president. and in every corner of my state i sat with the unemployed. it was heartbreaking. i think of those people and those faces and what they had to say late at night. a woman from rochester had worked for 20 years for xerox, lost her position in human services up in rochester and has been looking for two years, close to two years for a job. she made a very good salary. she didn't have a family. her job was her life. she has turned things inside out to try and find comparable work. she can't.

i met a man who was a blue-collar worker. he had risen to the top of his craft, tool and dye. thought he had a great life. worked hard, had six children, a good marriage. a year ago lost his job, still paying the mortgage. his wife can't work to support him because of his six kids, one of whom was two years old, as i recall. what is he going to do? you meet people like this again and again. young college students get out of college bright-eyed and bushy tailed, can't find work. how disillusioning at the beginning of their careers. we have an imperative to do something. we have an imperative not to say it has to be my way or no way. we have to put these people back to work. that is what senator hatch and i attempted to do with our proposal. leader reid -- and i want to pay him tremendous tribute. he was just focused on getting

this done. he took brickbats left and right, but the ultimate wisdom of what he did is now being seen as we move this bill on the floor today, and hopefully it will go through the house and be on the president's desk shortly. thanking senator hatch and all of my colleagues who hopefully in a few minutes will come together in a bipartisan way and tell those workers who are unemployed, yes, there's some hope, and tell the voters from massachusetts, yes, we have heard you. we're focusing on jobs. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mr. gregg: i believe one of the obligations of a government, especially congress, is to live by its own words and live by its own rules. with great fanfare just a couple weeks ago, the democratic leadership and the democratic

membership passed a pay-go piece of legislation which says essentially that when you bring spending legislations to the floor of the senate, it should be paid for, and there was great breast beating on the other side of the aisle about how this was going to discipline our government and make us a fiscally responsible government. now we see as the first piece of legislation to come forward since that pay-go resolution was passed a bill which violates that pay-go resolution. this bill spends $12 billion that is not paid for under the pay-go rules over the next five years. it is in violation of the concepts and the rules which were put forward by the other side of the aisle as the way we were going to discipline our economy -- our spending here. now, i understand and i think most of us understand the issue of the economy is critical in getting people -- and getting people back to work is critical, but i don't think you get people

back to work in this nation by loading more and more debt onto the next generation. i think probably you create an atmosphere where folks who are willing to go out and invest and create jobs are a little reticent to do that because they don't know how all that debt that the federal government is putting on its books is going to be paid for. and i presume that's one of the reasons why the pay-go legislation was brought forward a couple weeks ago, was to try to give some certainty to the markets and to the american people especially who are very upset with all the deficits and debts that are running around here that we would discipline our own house. so what happens? first bill that comes forward violates the rules of the senate by adding $12 billion of spending that isn't paid for, it will be deficit spending and it will go on our debt. i'm just not sure how you vote for this bill when it violates that rule, which you just voted for two weeks ago. it just seems to be a bit of

inconsistency there that's even hard for a political institution to justify. on top of that, of course, this bill has passive gamesmanship in the out years. it's a stated bill of of $15 billion, $18 billion, something like that as its spending, but actually because of the games that are played here and the highway accounts, it adds $140 billion of spending that's not paid for. $140 billion will be added to the debt if this bill is passed. that's a hard number. that's a big number. that's a real number. the simple fact is that this bill and the classic gamesmanship that we see from the highway committee spends money we don't have and then claims that we have the money. but in the end, all that money has to be borrowed, has to be borrowed because there is no place to -- there is no revenues to cover it. and so there will be, if this

bill is passed, $140 billion. $140 billion of new debt put on our kids' backs as a result of this alleged small number. i forgot what the number is that they claim is actually in the bill. now, how does that happen, because i think this bit of gamesmanship ought to at least be explained because it keeps being undertaken here by the highway committee in the most i think egregious way relative to proper fiscal management. in fact, if this were done in an accounting cycle that was subject to accounting rules, the people who claim this sort of sleight of hand would go to jail. it's that simple. they would go to jail because this is such a fraud on the american taxpayer. what they're claiming is that the highway fund which they have committed to spend much more money than is coming in, which

they knew they were going to spend more money than was coming in, because they wanted to spend more money than was coming in, what they are claiming is that that highway fund lent the general fund money ten years ago and that that money should have had interest paid on it. well, of course at the time they actually waived the interest, assuming interest should ever be paid on that. and that interest has been recouped a couple of times now, allegedly, even if it were owed. but what they claim is that because the money is coming out of the general fund now to fund the highway fund, they're calling that an offset, an offset so it won't score. well, unfortunately under the present rules that we budget around here, it doesn't score because it is built into the base line. and it adds up to $140 billion over the next ten years, approximately, that is going to come out of the general fund to fund the highway fund because the highway fund -- the people who run the highway fund don't have the courage -- and it's that simple -- to fund what they

want to spend. so they're going to take it out of the general fund. well, where does the general fund get its money? it borrows it. it borrows it from our children and our grandchildren. it runs up debt. and that's why under any scenario, no matter what gamesmanship you play around here, on naming this event, it turns out to be the same thing -- debt added to our children's burden. now, our children already have got a fair amount of debt coming at them as a result of this congress. in fact, under the president's budget, the deficit is going to double in the next five years, going to triple in the next ten years. we'll add $11 trillion of new debt, new debt to the backs of our children over the next ten years under the president's initiatives. every year for the next ten years we will average deficits of a trillion dollars or more.

now, the american people intuitively understand that that can't keep up, and it can't keep up. we are on an unsustainable course. we are running this nation into a ditch on the fiscal side of the ledger. we are putting this nation into a financial bankruptcy because of the fact that we're running up deficits and debt far beyond our capacity to repay them, far beyond our capacity to repay them. in fact, if you look at it, at least deficits and debts, just in the context of what other industrialized nations do -- for example, the european union -- they don't allow their states to exceed deficits of 3% or get public debt to g.d.p. ratio of 60%. well, the way this works out, we're going to run deficits of about 5% every year for the next ten years, and we're going to have a public debt situation of well over 60% next year, and

we're going to get to 80%, 85% before -- before the next ten years is out. and those are numbers which lead to one con collusion -- -- conclusion -- that we're in trouble, we're in deep, deep trouble. and yet we come here today with a bill which aggravates that situation relative to the pay-go rules by $12 billion and relative to the highway fund by by $140 billion. i believe i have the floor, mr. president. mr. inhofe: mr. president, for unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire has the floor. mr. gregg: i will yield for the purposes not of giving the floor up, but if the senator has a unanimous consent request, i will be happy to consider it. mr. inhalf: that's all i have. i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the senator from new hampshire, that i be recognized for up to

three minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. gregg: and so what we have before us today is a bill which first violates the pay-go rules which we just passed here a couple weeks ago to the tune of of $12 billion, and second puts in place a glide path -- glide path, it should be called a nose dive -- towards $140 billion of new debt being put on our children's back in the alleged justification that it is offset when, in fact, the offset is -- is superficial and nonexistent. i thank the chair. let me make this last point. we cannot keep doing this. we cannot keep doing this to our children. we cannot keep coming out here and claim that we are being fiscally disciplined when at the exact same time we're doing just the opposite, spending money that we don't have and passing

those bills on to our kids. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: when the senator from new hampshire talks about what we can and can't do to our children, i remind my fellow senators, i happen to be blessed with 20 kids and grandkids. i'm probably more concerned than anyone else here is about the future generations. let me just say -- and i hope the senator from new hampshire will stay on the floor -- i -- to redeem myself in advance, i have been -- i'm a conservative. i have been ranked number oneaway the a.c.u., man of the year by human events. yet i think we're supposed to be doing something when we come up here to washington. i have always said and i say on the stump when i run for office that our two main things we're supposed to do are to defend america, our defense system, and infrastructure. and yes, i am the ranking member on the environment and public works committee. i was the sponsor of the bill in 2005, and i'm proud of it, because we have to do something about infrastructure. i don't know, maybe there aren't any roads in new hampshire, but i can tell you right now don't

buy into the argument that we're -- we're -- this is all debt. we're talking about $12 billion. we're talking about taking the road program -- well, this bill actually does two things. one, it has some very good reductions in -- in taxes. and i remember so well that john kennedy back in the days when he was president said we have to raise more revenue and the best way to do that is to reduce marginal rates. if we reduce marginal rates, it went from 1961-1968, $94 billion to $153 billion. that's in this thing. but the main thing here that i'm concerned about is we keep doing nothing about roads and highways and infrastructure in america, and that's what we are supposed to do. i know the senator is sincere when he comes up with this, but where was his concern back when he voted to give an unelected bureaucrat $700 billion? that wasn't offset? yes, we can say that was a loan. we all know better than that.

let's just stop and think. there are some things that we are supposed to be doing in america. the second most important thing in my position -- and i have stated this -- i know others don't share this, but the second most important thing is to do something about infrastructure. this bill does it. this carries on to the end of the fiscal year, about 11 more months, i guess it is. now, if we don't do it, it's costing about a billion dollars a month by inaction. if we try to do this by extending it month by month, each one of news this -- in this body is going to lose a lot of money that goes to roads and highways and infrastructure. we just last week had a crumbling bridge in my state of oklahoma where no one was killed but it came very close to killing people. we saw what happened up in minnesota. we have got to do something here instead of worrying about and spending all of our money as this administration is doing in social engineering, we need to start building bridges and roads and repairing them.

mr. gregg: mr. president? a senator: inquiry? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma has the floor. mr. inhofe: i thought my time has expired. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mr. gregg: i would ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the senator from oklahoma for two minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. schumer: i am going to have to object because the vote was called for 9:55. the presiding officer: objection having been heard. mr. schumer: i believe i have one minute to conclude? the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: mr. president, let me just say that we have had so much gridlock, partisan gridlock. today we have a real community to show that this new year, this new legislative year would break through that and something -- in something meaningful to the american people, a jobs bill. i am hopeful that many colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join. there has been great input from senator inhofe, senator hatch.

these are people who are conservative, have different voting records than i would, but they say we have to do something and i want to thank our senator from massachusetts, our new senator, for leading the way and maybe breaking through from the asthma we have here. this is a good bill, it's a focused bill, it's a modest bill, but it will do some good for the hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions who are looking desperately for work. when they find jobs, our economy begins to move forward. that's long overdue. both sides of the aisle can show the american people we have heard you by overwhelmingly passing this well-crafted, well-honed, modest piece of legislation aimed at issue number one, the jobs, jobs and the economy. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the motion offered by the senator from maryland, mr. cardin, to waive the budget

act and budget resolutions with respect to the motion offered by the senator from nevada, mr. reid, to concur with the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2847. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. v: vote:

# #

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 62, the nays are 34. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirma, the motion is agreed to.

under the previous order, amendment numbered 3311 is withdrawn. the question is on the motion to concur with an amendment in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2847. is there a sufficient second? the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

is vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 70, the nays are 28. on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2847 with an amendment numbered 3310 is agreed to. without objection. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. burris: mr. president? the presiding offer: the senator from illinois is

recognized. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. this monday, i was honored to stand before this chamber and read george washington's farewell address. this annual tradition invites members of the senate as well as the american people to pause and reflect on the wisdom of our first president. in this historic text, the father of our country lays out a unique view of the nation he helped to create. it is a testament to the american spirit and a tribute to the american people that this country has come such a long way since the days of our ancestors. washington's version was especially poignant to me, having traced my personal

ancestries back to the days of slavery. so, mr. president, as i look out over this chamber -- as i looked out over this chamber on monday, i thought about the reasons we celebrate each february as black history month, and this year as black history draws to a close, i cannot help but reflect that washington's address reminds us that black history and american history are inseparable from one another. that the american story cannot be distilled into the black experience and the white experience, but that both are essential components of the american experience. the story of this country is the story of expanding equality and opportunity, of people and institutions grappling with social change and striving to live up to the promise of a

single line in the declaration of independence which laid out the creed that came to define this nation, and i quote -- "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men with created equal." end of quote. with these simple words, a slave owner named thomas jefferson laid the cornerstone of the free america we know today, even if this noble sentiment was not realized for all americans until more than a century later. and although we have seen such injustice through our journeys toward freedom and equality is far from over, we can draw great strength from the promise that was woven into the fabric of our nation on the day we declared our independence. black history month is a time to remember those who have taken part in every step of that ongoing journey and to celebrate

the legacy they have left behind for each of us. at every moment in our past, mr. president, african-americans have stood shoulder to shoulder with their countrymen, from all races, backgrounds and walks of life to help chart our course and define who we are to become. from the slaves who laid the very foundation of this capitol building to the businessmen and entrepreneurs who helped build our modern economy, from the king who dared to dream of an america he could never live to see, to the president who reached the mountaintop. the man who was born into the bonds of slavery to his great grandson who stands today before his peers in the united states senate. each of these stories no matter

how remarkable illustrates how black history is woven deeply into the broad canvas of american history and why the two are inseparable from each other, from one another. for me, this reality was brought to light the moment i stood at the front of this chamber and began to read the words that our first president wrote to his countrymen more than two centuries ago, and yet, it was the visionary leadership and high ideals of men like washington and jefferson which transcended the prejudice of their times and made it possible for later generations to tear their inequalities to the ground. mr. president, all americans have benefited from this profound legacy, and we have an interest in preserving the history we share.

so in the closing days of this black history month, i would urge my colleagues to reflect not only upon the ways that african-americans have contributed to american history, but also upon the ways we can move forward together as one nation, just as washington calls us to do in his farewell address. i thank you, mr. 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:

quorum call: