mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. feingold: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. feingold: mr. president? the presiding officer: senator? mr. feingold: i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so i may call up amendment number 3368. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator wisconsin, mr. feingold, proposes amendment numbered 3668. mr. feingold: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. feingold: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senator coburn be added as a cosponsor. the presidingthe presiding officer: without objection. mr. feingold: i rise too offer an amendment to take a small

step toward addressing the growing problem of federal deficits. the underlying bill we are considering would extend many vitally important programs, including various tax provisions unemployment benefits cobra health benefits, and other provisions to help the millions of americans who have lost jobs or are just struggling in this economy to get back on their feet again. now, while i support these provisions, i am disappointed that the bill is not fully paid for. my amendment won't cover the whole cost of the bill, but it will make a small dent as we try to get our financial house in order and make the tough choices to avoid hamstringing future generations with this debt. there is no single or easy solution to the massive deficits we face, but one thing we should be doing is taking a hard look at the federal budget for wasteful or unnecessary spending. hard-working american families have to make these kinds of decisions every week to make ends meet, whether it's skipping a trip to the movies or clipping coupons or paying attention to the sale aferreds.

but in the end by -- to the sale ads. but in the end they try to get their budget back in order and i think we should be doing the same thing fl my proposal to rescind old unwanted transportation earmarks would bring down our deficit by a modest sum by washington, d.c. standards around $6 million00 billion. but this is real money back in wisconsin, and one step on a path that is going to have to include many additional cuts. put together a number of proposals for where we should begin tightening our belt, including the one for this amendment in the piece of legislation i introduced last fall called the "correctly spending now" act. the bill would cut the federal deficit by about half a trillion dollars over ten years. this amendment that's before us now would build off of a proposal put forward in president george w. bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal

to rescind $626 million in highway earmarks that were over a decade old and still had less than 10% of of the funding utilized. when an analysis was done, they found that over 60% of the funding -- $389 million -- was in 252 earmarks that had no funding spent or obligating from them. these are clearly unwanted or low priority for the designated recipients. this is nothing against transportation funding eemplet i fully realize the need for investment in our crumble l infrastructure and its potential for jobs. but having hundreds of millions of dollars sit in an account untouched at the department of transportation does nothing to address our infrastructure needs and it does nothing to put people back to work. so what i've done is build on president bush's concept a little and my amendment expands this rescission to all transportation earmarks that are

over 10 years old with unobligated balances of more than 90%. recently at a hearing before the budget committee i asked transportation secretary ray lahood about these unwanted and unspent earmarks and whether he supported my proposal to rescind them. secretary lahood responded "yes, we are supportive of your proposal and we have identified significant millions of dollars worth of earmarks." mr. president, it is unclear exactly how many hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars would be saved by this proposal being expanded to other transportation earmarks in addition to the previous estimate of $626 million that would be rescinded from unwanted highway earmarks in the first year. this proposal would also be permanent so there would likely be additional savings, as the unwanted earmarks in the most recent highway bill reach their ten-year anniversary. i think this is a very modest proposal going after just the

lowest of the low-hanging friewd fruit. i would support going even further and make it cover even more of federal agencies with the uncertainty of how many many of these unspent and unwanted earmarks across the federal government my amendment requires a report by the o.m.b. o.m. b.-to-. as you can see there's bipartisan support from the last two administrations for this proposal and there is bipartisan support in this senate for this amendment. this really shouldn't be a hard decision and i hope to have more strong bipartisan support here in the senate. we can't agree to take old earmarks & use the money to pay down the deficit then how are we ever going to get our fiscal house in order. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. a senator: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i also ask unanimous consent to set aside temporarily the pending amendment so that i may call up my amendment which is at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from massachusetts, mr. brown proposes an amendment numbered 3391 to amendment number 3336. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i also ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you. i also intend to come back tomorrow and would like to explain the pending amendment and allow my colleagues an opportunity to review the amendment. i would also thereafter like to yield the floor. a senator: mr. president 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 north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and to call up amendment 3389. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report it. the clerk: the senator from

north carolina, mr. burr, proposes an amendment numbered 3389 to amendment number 3336. mr. burr: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president i'm going to set this amendment aside and talk on it later. so at this time i would ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. burr: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 3390. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from north carolina, mr. burr, proposes an amendment numbered 3390 to amendment number 336 -- mr. burr: i ask unanimous consent the a read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president an amendment that's pending is an amendment by senator sanders to offer a $250 stipend to seniors veterans and those disabled to

replace -- to replace the lack of a cost-of-living increase, a cola increase. as we're all aware the formulas that drive the cost-of-living increase are predominantly affected by inflation. and with the lack of inflation seniors, veterans, the disabled didn't receive a cost-of-living increase for this year. senator sanders' amendment is very clear. he wants to provide a $250 stipend. i think that has broad-based support within the senate body. but i think it's responsible to say that to do this, we should pay for it. to do this, we shouldn't go and print more money borrow that money just to provide a $250 check. i think most our nation's seniors, veterans and disabled would agree with that statement. because to ignore the fact that

we're not paying for it would be to say that we're going to pass this stipend to our children and our grandchildren that we're going to take the money that we're going to borrow and that debt and the obligation for that debt and we're going to pass it generationally down. as the parent of a 25- and 24-year-old, i don't think they deserve it. at some point i hope they're both going to have children, and i don't think their children deserve for me to shove this down. and i think most members of the united states senate probably agree that it's time that we start paying for it. how does this get back? senator sanders makes this an emergency, an emergency declaration to spend. well, there are a lot of priorities that we've got and there's probably not a priority that doesn't deserve us to pay for it, to find somewhere where we've prioritized and decided here's how we're going to pay

for it versus to continue to go out and borrow. let me remind my colleagues, we've got the largest debt we've ever had t. continues to climb every day. for every dollar we spend we borrow 43 cents. over the next ten years right now our country is obligated at $5 trillion in interest payments. that's interest with a "t." the most popular bumper sticker in washington today is "don't tell congress what comes after a trillion." not sure we know yet. at the rate we're going, we're going to find out. you know who's going to be saddled with that debt? our children and our grandchildren. nobody wants to leave our seniors, our veterans, disabled without the means that they need to live, but i think even the people that are the recipients of these checks would look at us and say "pay for it.

don't put it on my grandchildren or my great-grandchildren." my amendment 3390, is very seufrp. it says this -- is very simple. it says this, pay for the $250 stipend and use the unobligated stimulus money the money we've already appropriated. you can't borrow it twice. you can only borrow it once. use the unobligated stimulus money. a little over 14 -- i think it's about $14.4 billion -- to pay for the stipend. let's do the cola, but let's in fact make sure that the cola is paid for. the amendment is almost identical to senator sanders' amendment which provides the emergency benefit it just pays for it. and i don't think there's anything unreasonable on that. the congressional budget office estimates the cost of the sanders' amendment to be at at $12.07. i understand that the sanders

amendment may be modified, so that may be slightly higher. and millions of seniors veterans are struggling on fixed incomes in this troubled economy. this amendment also provides them the ability to get through those tough times, but it also gives them the comfort of looking at their grandchildren and their great grandchildren and saying, i'm not a burden on you because this was paid for. we accounted for it. senator bunning came to the floor yesterday and he said, i think we were talking about $10 billion yesterday. he said how can a country this great not find a way to pay for $10 billion? well we didn't and as that makes its way through we're going to borrow the $10 billion. that $10 billion is going to equate to $10 billion of interest payments over the next 10 years. let me say that again. what we did yesterday is going

to compute to $10 billion worth of interest payments over the next 10 years. no payment down of principle. just an obligation of interest on the debt. now, maybe some are smart enough here to tell me exactly what the interest rates are going to be in the open market places we finance our debt three years five years, 10 years down the road. i don't think it's going to be where it is today. there's every indication it's going higher. so when i state the number number $5 trillion over the next 10 years you have to understand that's a static interest rate that we applied to it. it 3.45. it's the projections of the congressional budget office. an they've said if it averages at this point then we're going as a nation, owe $5 trillion if we didn't borrow another dime. well not only do we continue to borrow money but the likelihood is that with the economic

conditions with the fragile nature of the international economy, anybody that buys our debt anybody that loans us their money is probably going to want to require more than 3.45% to take the risk. when countries like greece are on the precipice of default that drives the international market up. it drives the cost of risk up. it will drive the cost of our risk up. what's $5 trillion today we might not borrow another dime, it may end up being next week, next month next year, year, $10 trillion over five years. just with a change in interest rates. just what it costs us to go out and attract somebody to loan us money. so i think i'm giving us the best case scenario at saying that we owe $5 trillion in the next 10 years -- excuse me. $5 trillion plus $10-more

billion that we spent last night. are we going to add another another $14 billion to it? that's the question in front of congress. my amendment 3390, provides a a $250 stipend. what it does that the sanders amendment doesn't do, it pays for it. it assures every recipient senior veteran disabled, that they're not putting the obligation of their check on their grandchildren and great grandchildren. that we're taking the responsibility now to fund that. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. lemieux: the baucus substitute amendment gives preferential treatment to unemployment insurance cobra and what's knows as fmap, which is the federal government's aid

that it provides to states in the payment of medicaid. these are laudable things to do, especially in this difficult economic environment. in my home state of florida we have nearly 12% unemployment. it's the highest that anyone can remember and people are struggling. so these are laudable things to do. the challenge is that we're not going to pay for these spending programs. we are going to put them on the backs of our children and grandchildren. as my colleague senator burr, just remarked in his comments. now last -- a couple of weeks ago we passed a bill here in the senate called paygo. and the president just signed this bill into law. and i will tell you, mr. president, i struggled with my vote on paygo being a new member to the senate and being very concerned about spending i thought about voting for it. i thought about voting for it because anything that cuts spending around here on its face

seems like a good idea to me. but the challenge that i found out from some of my colleagues is that we don't really enforce pay-go. and they came to me and they said look, they're not going to use this as a real measure to control spending. so it passed along party lines and although i didn't support it i hoped for the best. now here we are just a couple of weeks after the president signed this law. and i want to remind the senate of the comments of majority leader reid upon arguing for the passage of bill. he said this paygo pay-as-you-go rule, we are proposing for the government is the same one americans use every day in their individual lives. the same ones we teach our children. in order to spend a dollar, we have to have that dollar in our wallet. this law will enforce that commonsense approach. sounds reasonable. sounds like the right thing to do. the president when he signed the law said, you have to medicare

hard choices about where to spend and where to save. well here we are just a few weeks later, mr. president and unfortunately, the prediction of my colleagues that this was not really a true enforcement mechanism on spending have come true. because we are going to designate if these -- the extension of these three programs as emergencies. they are emergencies. and if they're emergencies then we don't have to make them play by the rules. we don't have to cut spending in order to pay for these programs. unfortunately we seem to designate whatever we choose as an emergency and therefore we don't have to do the things that leader reid we don't have to do the things that president obama said. now, families sitting around their table who have a bill to pay can't say this is an emergency, therefore, i can go in to spend something for --

spend for something that i don't have. families can't do that. businesses can't do that. and even stat governments that have to balance their budgets can't do that. what is proper to designate? we can think of circumstances that could be an emergency a situation of war the financial meltdown we had a couple of years ago. that would certainly justify an emergency. the budget act of 1974 lays out five different criteria, first necessary or vital. second sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up over time. three, an urgent and compelling need requiring immediate attention. four unforeseen, unpredictable unanticipated, not permanent temporary nature. well, mr. president none of these three extensions are that. we saw these coming. to see this is an emergency is like putting $5 of gasoline your car and running out of gasoline and saying, i have an emergency

i couldn't forsee that the $5 wasn't going to get me very far. again, mr. president these are laudable programs. the point of order i'm about to make isn't going to stop this from coming forward. it only says that you can't declare something an emergency that's not and we should pay for this by the end of the year. what a commonsense idea to bring to washington and the united states congress that we pay for the programs that we spend. that we don't balance it on the back of our kids and grandkids. as senator burr just said that we don't borrow $10 billion to spend $10. the spending in washington is unsustainable. so let's do these good programs, but let's take a novel approach and let's pay for them. so, mr. president this -- at this time i'd like to make a point of order pursuant to section 4g-3 of the statutory pay as you go act of 2010, i raise a point of order against the designation in the pending

amendment. a senator: mr. president? mr. baucus: pursuant to congressional budget act of 1974 and section 4g-3, i move to waive all applicable sections of those act for purposes of the substitute amendment and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? mr. lemieux: second. the presiding officer: there appears to be. mr. baucus: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president this is a killer motion that the senator from florida's making. this amendment kills jobs. this amendment tells people who are currently unemployed, you're not going to get unemployment checks. this amendment tells people who are trying to get health insurance under cobra sorry no more. this amendment tells doctors who are trying to take care of patients medicare patients,

they're not going to get paid what they should be paid. let me give you a few numbers. half a million workers lose their jobs -- who lose their jobs get help today under cobra that's the health insurance substitute provision for those who lost their jobs. half a million workers who lose their jobs today will not get insurance benefits under cobra. this amendment says that to them. this amendment also will have the effect, if adopted to prevent nearly 40 million medicare beneficiaries an nearly 90 million -- nine million tri tricare beneficiaries from getting care. this will prevent 400,000 americans from getting unemployment insurance benefits. that's just starters. this motion, if adopted is not a poison amendment it's a killer amendment. it kills the bill that we're

trying to pass in a short period of time. the bill is basically to extend unemployment benefits, to extend the cobra benefits, to make sure that -- that people who should get relief under current law are able to maintain that. now, this is very similar to the situation we face because of the efforts by the senator from kentucky not long ago. we finally resolved that, mr. president. that was a 30-day extension. and the senate voted 87-19 -- 78-19 to continue those benefits under that 30-day provision. the senator from kentucky tried to stop it. the senate relented and the senate agreed by a vote of 78-19 that we should proceed and pass that 30-day continuation. this is an emergency. we're in an economic emergency mr. president. unemployment is close to 10%.

you know, this economy is still in a recession. it's slowly getting better, but if this amendment were to pass, the amendment offered by the senator from florida become law then frankly just think of the signal that would send to -- to the -- to americans who are now relying upon cobra benefits an unemployment benefits -- and unemployment benefits. this point of order is a killer, we need to waive the point of order in order to vote for a bill that will come before us this -- later on this evening. so i urge senators when the vote comes on this -- when this waiver that we waive the budget point of order because otherwise the senator from florida's provision will just send a terrible signal to millions of americans. mr. lemieux: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. lemieux: with all due respect to my colleague the chairman of the finance committee, my point of order will not stop these programs

from being extended. what it will do is make sure we pay for them by the end of the year. a novel idea that we actually pay for a program. so we look at programs that we have now perhaps and we cut other programs. do we not think that there's some inefficiency within the administration of the federal government? we had a proposal that we tried to pass lass last year to require all of the governments of the federal agency to cut 5% when they've had 5%, 10% 20% increases year after year after year. surely governing and leadership it about making decisions. i voted for the 30-day extension. i want to vote for this bill, but i want to pay for it. i want to make sure that we're not borrowing money from the children and grandchildren of florida and america to pay for this bill. i want to make sure that we're not going to pay interest to the chinese to pay for this bill. i think it makes perfectly good sense that we require by the end of the year that we find money

to pay for this. every dollar we spend is a choice. it's a choice on what we should spend it on. and in this body and in this congress it's a choice, unfortunately, to put a burden on our children and grandchildren because we spend much more than we have. so i am supportive of extending unemployment compensation. i am supportive of extending cobra, which is health care. i am supportive of helping out the states with medicaid payments. all i'm asking is let's pay for it. surely, there are some other programs duplicative in government inefficiencies that we can find to offset this payment. this is not a killer. this is just responsibility. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i hope we could vote on this fairly soon. basically, let's remind ourselves that this is an emergency. we have lost over seven million jobs in this recession.

we're not out of the recession. unemployment is close to 10%. we hope it comes down. this is an emergency. in emergency situations, you take emergency action. that's why this legislation is necessary now. i hope that when the economy does recover that we have the fortitude, mr. president to start to live within our means as we should. nobody debates that. but we are in a situation now we have got to make sure that -- that we extend those benefits and that medicaid dollars go to the states right now because we are still in an emergency. so i urge, frankly the motion to waive the point of order is successful. mr. burris: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: i would like unanimous consent to speak about five minutes on morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. burris: thank you mr. president. we just had a press conference this afternoon in reference to the don't ask don't tell action

that we want to take in the united states senate for our military people. i would just like to make some brief remarks mr. president in that regard. i come to the floor today because i believe in the basic principle not just a political cause. i come to the floor because courage and valor are blind to race religion, philosophy and sexual orientation. i believe that every single man and woman who puts on a military uniform is equally deserving of our thanks and our respect and that when we dismiss the sacrifices made by those with a different sexual orientation we undermine the strength of our fighting forces. when we fail to recognize the brave contributions that gay and lesbian soldiers continue to make every single day we diminish ourselves as much as we diminish their service. that is why i am pleased to join mr. president the following colleagues -- chairman

lieberman, chairman levin senator gillibrand, senator udall, senator wyden in introducing legislation to repeal the military don't ask don't tell policy. a policy which is discriminatory outdated, and detrimental to our national security. let us start by addressing every serviceman and woman to those who have served in our armed forces in the past. let's give them a big shout out and a big thank you mr. president. this nation honors the service and sacrifice of all of our veterans and those who are still serving today. let me say that the day of serving in silence their days are numbered. this legislation will recognize that every soldier sailor, airman and marine is equal to every other warrior so that no one will be forced to lie about who they are if they wish to serve this country.

now i know that there are some who believe that this is too big a change, that it isn't right we need to wait. to them, i would say that the -- it did boil down to basic fairness mr. president. i would remind them that the united states military has made policy changes before and with resounding success. the repeal of don't ask don't tell is not just another vote for me. it is a very personal issue of basic fairness. when i was about 6 or 7 years old, mr. president, i have a vivid memory of my family members went off to war my uncles and uncles-in-law and great uncles who choose to go to war and defend our country. regardless of the color of their skin or their occupation or who they were as an individual, that choice defined them as patriots. i have never forgotten this -- their patriotism or their commitment to this country but

i have also never forgotten that the united states military was a very -- was very different in those days. my family members volunteered to protect this nation but simply because of who they were they had limited opportunities to serve. for all their skill their talent their intelligence and their valor they were forced to do two or three roles mr. president. they were forced to either be a cook or they were forced to dig ditches or forced to drive trucks. the only thing that separate my uncles from their brothers in arms was the color of their skin mr. president but in those days, some people argued that racial integration would undermine the cohesion of our fighting forces. yet, the u.s. military came to recognize that this is -- this was not the case. successive generations proved that everyone who volunteered to serve was capable of the same patriotism bravery and heroism

that memory is especially crisk crisk -- crisp as i stand in this chamber today to bring an end to this discriminatory policy that forces our best and brightest to be willing to lie for our nation while denying that they are who they truly are. this too is an issue of basic fairness mr. president. more than 60 years ago president truman recognized the wisdom of integrating the armed forces. he understood that in so doing the armed forces grew stronger and the nation safer. today we recognize that it is time to end the don't ask don't tell. this repeal of don't ask don't tell will allow our service members to live their lives openly honestly, and still fight for the country we all love. so regardless of sexual orientation our race or any other factor, the day we stand up to say we are grateful to the brave patriots who chose to

defend our nation and we salute them. this is about fairness. this is about more than right versus left or republican versus democrat. this is about fighting for those who fight for us every day. ending this policy is a fair thing to do, it's the right thing to do, and it is long overdue, mr. president. i thank you and yield the floor. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president i think we will soon enter an order to vote on several amendments. i would just like to point out that the theme of these amendments most of which are offered on the other side, are to come back recovery act dollars, take away stimulus dollars. we know the stimulus program has created millions of jobs. at least that's what c.b.o. says so it certainly has

created a good number of jobs. so when these amendments come up mr. president i would just like all members to know the basic theme of these amendments pay for them by cutting stimulus dollars which i think is a bad idea. we shouldn't be cutting stimulus dollars. we should be maintaining the recovery act with the stimulus program. we will soon get an order so we can start voting on amendments. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that at 5:55 p.m. this evening the senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments -- on the baucus motion to waive in the order listed. that prior to each vote the sequence there be two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form. after the first vote in the sequence the remaining votes be 10 minutes' duration.

i might say that the two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled be amended to four minutes of debate equally divided and controlled with respect to the two bunning amendments. those two bunning amendments are numbers 3360 and 3361. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. baucus: i believe -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. baucus: and mr. president just to make it clear what the amendments are it's burr amendment 3390, sanders amendment 3353 as modified, amendment 3360, bunning amendment 3361 and the baucus motion to waive the budget act. thank you. i thank the chair. mr. baucus: mr. president for the information of all senators, the first vote will be on the

burr amendment, which is similar to the sanders amendment. one big difference is that burr will limit -- will take stimulus dollars to pay for the sanders amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. there are two minutes evenly divided prior to vote on the burr amendment. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president i'll take my minute to simply say that my amendment does exactly what the sanders amendment does. it provides a $250 stereotyped to seniors veterans, the disabled who didn't receive a cost of living increase because the inflation formula did not provide one this year. the difference between mine and sanders is novel. i actually pay for the the $14 billion that we're paying out to seniors veterans, and the disabled. i'm saying to every recipient of the check we're not going to bill this to your grandchildren and your great grandchildren.

we're going to pay for it now with money that's unobligated but already appropriated by the united states congress. i think this is a reasonable approach. i think every member should support it. we should be pleased that we're doing a stereotyped to seniors but we should sleep well tonight because we paid for it. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president the senate voted yesterday 53-43 against the bunning amendment to cut back recovery act funds for the 30-day extension bill. earlier today the senate voted 61-38 against the thune amendment to cut back recovery act funds to pay for more tax cuts and now we have the pending burr amendment to cut back recovery act funds. in all three cases we turned away those efforts to cut back recovery act slash stimulus funds. i think we should do the same here so people can get their benefits -- excuse me -- so that

this sanders amendment can get passed. mr. president, mr. president mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president i make a point of order -- mr. president, i raise a point of order against the emergency provisions in the amendment. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: i make a motion to waive the appropriate provisions in the budget act. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion to waive. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senato change their vote? if not the yeas are 38, the nays are 59. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president i raise a -- the presiding officer: let's have order in the senate, please. the presiding officer: order in the senate. the senatofr mr. baucus: mr. president i

raise a point of order that the pending burr amendment violates the pay-as-you-go provision in the senate concurrent resolution 13 the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010. the presiding officer: the point of order is sustained. the amendment falls. mr. gregg: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new. gregg: what is the pending -- what is the regular order? the presiding officer: there is to be two minutes evenly divided for the vote with respect to the sanders amendment. who yields time? mr. gregg: well, mr. president i raise a point of order. i understand the senator may wish to speak before i raise the point of order. if he does, that's fine, i would suggest he speak and then i'll raise the point of order. mr. baucus: mr. president, i would encourage you to call the senate to the order so we can hear the business we're conducting.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. take your conversations out of the senate. please senators. thank you. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: mr. president if we could have order here, please. the presiding officer: will the senate be in order. please take your conversations out the senate. thank you. mr. sanders: thank youhe senator from vermont. mr. sanders: for the first time in 36 years seniors and disabled veterans and persons with disabilities will not be receiving a cost-of-living adjustment, a cola, on their benefits. and the argument for that is that they're not seeing inflationary costs. you go back home and you talk to your seniors you talk to your disabled veterans and they will tell you they're paying sky-high costs for prescription drugs and health care. this amendment is supported by aarp the american legion, the v.f.w. the national committee to preserve social security, and

a wide number of veterans' organizations and senior citizens' organizations who know that it is wrong to turn our backs on seniors in this moment of economic difficulty. thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is mr. gregg: mr. president this amendment would add literally billions of dollars to the deficit which would have to be paid for by our children. and, of course, the reason the cola is not being given this year is because the law says it shouldn't be given. and, therefore, i would raise a point of order that the sanders amendment violates section 403-a of the budget resolution. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974 and section 4-g-3 of the statutory pay-as-you-go act of 2010, i move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment and i ask for the yeas and nays.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the question is on the motion to waive. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presidinors in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their votes? if not on this vote the yeas are 47, the nays are 50. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the aff the motion is not agreed to. sustained. the emergency designation is stricken.

vote: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: may we have order in the senate,se. the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mr. gregg: i make a point of order that the amendment viements section 201 of senate con. res. 21. the presiding officer: of the 110th congress. mr. gregg: of the 110th congress. the presiding officer: the point

of order is sustained. the amendment falls. the presiding officer: there will be minutes evenly divided before a vote in relation to the bunning amendment number 3360. the senator from kentucky is recognized. senators -- will the senate will be in order. senators, take your conversation out of the senate, please. senators. will the senate be in order. will the senate be in order. the senator from kentucky is recognized.

mr. bunning: mr. president it's my understanding that there are four minutes equally divided on these two amendments. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. bunning: thank you, mr. president. amendment 3360 is simple. it contains all the extensions in the baucus substitute. but rather than adding over a -- the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. the senators please take your conversations out of the senate. thank you senator. mr. bunning: thank you, mr. president. but rather than adding over over $100 billion in costs to the deficit and debt, which the baucus substitute does, my amendment pays for the spending in this bill by rescinding

unspent stimulus funding. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated repeatedly that c.b.o. considers money spent stoning unemployment -- extending unemployment benefits to be one of the best kind of stimulus because the people who receive it are likely to immediately spend it. so let's bring back money from an ineffective stimulus bill in which some of the funding won't be spent until fiscal year 2013, or beyond. let's stimulate the economy now. and prevent a massive increase in the debt at the same time. now, i have heard -- i'm having a hard time understanding why some senators believe stimulus funding is so sacred. was the stimulus brought down from the mountain top by moses? and if that is the case, why did the majority raid stimulus money to pay for an extension of cash for clunkers.

-- clunkers? i'll be the first to admit that neither side of the aisle has clean hands when it comes to out-of-control spending. we can't control what was done in the past, but we can control what happens today. it is time to take a stand a stand for our children and grandchildren so they won't have to pay back trillions more in debt. i am tired of china holding the mortgage on our country. i am tired of the massive national debt that will be doubled in five years and tripled in 10. it's hard for me to look my grandchildren in the eye -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. bunning: our spending has got to stop. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. montana. sorry. mr. baucus: mr. president

the -- this is -- this bunning amendment is the fourth amendment in two days to pay for emergency safety net programs by cutting back stimulus spending -- by cutting back the recovery act. this is the same amendment. we voted on this basic topic four times. yesterday the senate voted 53-43 against the bunning amendment to cut back recovery act funds for the 30-day extension bill. earlier today the senate voted 61-38 against the thune act to cut back recovery act funds. just a few minutes ago the senate voted down the burr amendment. now we have pending the bunning amendment to cut back recovery funds, again to pay for the pending bill. c.b.o. does say that the recovery act has added jobs. between 1 million and 2.1 million jobs has been added to our economy because of the stimulus act. that was -- actually you might say that -- the presiding officer: will the senate be in order please.

will the senate be in order and take your conversations out of the senate. will the senate be in order please. proceed, senator. mr. baucus: just repeat the c.b.o. said that the recovery act will add 1 million and 2 million to the number of americans employed in the fourth-quarter of last year and it replaces the full-time equivalent jobs between 1.4 million and three million jobs. the recovery act is creating jobs. so i think the last thing that we should do is scale back something that's working. if it's working, don't change it. if it's working let's continue with it. i move to table the bunning amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion to table. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing and hearing none, the motion to table 56 yeas, 41 nays. the motion is tabled.

there are minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the bunning amendment 3361. mr. bunning: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: mr. president let me briefly describe -- the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: let me briefly describe my amendment 3361. like other amendments, this contains all the extensions in the baucus substitute and it also completely pays for that spending. but it provides a different -- the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: but it provides a different alternative for paying for it: eliminating wasteful and duplicate government programs. many of these programs are the one presidents obama has recommended terminating and others have been highlighted by the c.b.o. and the congressional research service as wasteful.

i want to thank senator coburn publicly for the good work he has done come compiling this list of programs. we voted on a similar spending reduction when the senate passed a record $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit to $14.3 trillion. i hope we have a different outcome today. i hope my colleagues will not choose bloated bureaucracy over our children and grandchildren. they will face over $100 billion more in debt and compounding interest on the debt if we do not pay for this bill. enough is enough. if we can't find the money to pay for programs, we ought to make the hard choices to reduce the deficit and debt. i hope that my colleagues will make the right choice today and support my amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. inouye: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii.

mr. inouye: mr. president we find ourselves debating an amendment that we voted down just last month. proponents make the rescissions sound like good policy when you listen to them but mr. president, members need to understand that this amendment causes harm to our national and international security and to our economy. first, amendment proposes re -- first, the amendment proposes resitiondzrescissions throughout the agencies that are completely random and based on subjective assumptions. second rescinding discretionary funds that have been available for more than two years will jeopardize our national defense our homeland security and the well-being of our citizens. this is simply responsible governing. for example mr. president a ship is not built in a year or two years.

a hospital is not built in a year. and if they're not built in a year these funds are rescinded. this amendment proposes to cut billions in funding that the congress voted on and agreed to provide just months ago. this amendment is not based on careful review and if passed, would have serious consequences on our procurement process and many critical programs for fy 2010. a majority of the members acted responsibly in january and rejected the same approach. i urge my colleagues to do the same today and accordingly mr. president, i move to table the bunning amendment and 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.

vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber that wish to vote or

change their vote? the motion to table is 61 yeas, 36 nays. the motion is tabled. the amendment is table. there are twaolts minutes confide -- two two minutes prior to a vote on amendment 3336. who yields time? the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from florida. mr. lemieux: mr. president i made this point of order not because i'm not in favor of the extensions of the unemployment insurance or cobra or the money for medicaid but only for the fact that we should pay for them. a few weeks ago this chamber voted to pass a paygo that the president signed. it said that we will pay as we go. but we have designated these three extensions as emergencies.

they are not emergencies. under the 1974 budget act the requirements that are it be sudden quick coming into being, unforeseen, unpredictable. it is none of those things. all my point of order does, it says by the end of the year we would have to pay for these extensions. it will not stop them from going forward, but it will make sure that we have to pay for them just as the paygo law requires. these are not emergencies. i urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to waive the point of order. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come to ofrpltd take your conversations out of the well. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president this is a killer point of order. this point of order would kill the underlying substitute amendment. it would prevent people from getting cobra benefits. it would prevent people from

getting their unemployment checks. it would cause the doctors to have their payment -- medicare pa*euplts patients to be cut -- medicare patients to be cut 21%. it would kill unemployment insurance benefits for 400,000 americans. this point of order would in effect kill the bill. that's why it's vitally important that the senators vote to waive the point of order so we can pass the bill. mr. lemieux: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator has no time. is there a sufficient

vote: the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing, hearing none, on this -- the senator is recorded as a "no." on this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 37. three-fifths of the senators duly sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the senator from montana. [inaudible] without objection.

the presiding officer: the mr. baucus: mr. president, i would ask consent the senate move to morning business in which time period senators be allowed to speak up to ten minutes per senator. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: