Floor Statements

Mr. President, I stand to briefly discuss my amendment, No. 2549, which is about the so-called czar issue that has a number of Members on both sides of the aisle very concerned.

As I introduce this amendment, Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent to add Senators Grassley, Bunning, Roberts, and Brownback as coauthors of the amendment.

Mr. President, at this point, I call up amendment No. 2549.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be disposed with.

Mr. President, I did just waive reading of the amendment, but I am going to read it. It is very short and very to the point, and I think simply reading the language is the best way to introduce the concept.

The language is very clear:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be

obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded

by this Act and led by Senate-confirmed appointees

implementing policies of the Assistant to the President for

Energy and Climate Change (commonly known as the ``White

House Climate Change Czar'').

That is the entire amendment, and the amendment is, again, very simple and straightforward. The point it is making is that we have Cabinet-level appointees. They come before the Senate for vetting and they come before the Senate for confirmation. After they are confirmed, they come before the House and Senate on a regular basis as part of our oversight responsibilities. This constitutional structure should not be superceded by these so-called czars which have grown enormously under this administration.

In making this argument, let me say that this argument has nothing to do with Carol Browner and her qualifications. It is not an attack on her. It is an attack, quite frankly, on the concept of these multitude of czars and the fact that they are an end run around the constitutional process by which top Cabinet and other officials of any administration are confirmed by the Senate and regularly come before the House and Senate as part of our oversight process.

We all know this particular administration has developed an unprecedented number of these so-called czars. We have seen a dramatic increase in this phenomenon. Politico wrote that President Obama ``is taking the notion of a powerful White House staff to new heights'' and that he is creating ``perhaps the most powerful staff in modern history.'' Specifically, the President has created 18 new czar positions, and I want to focus on those 18 positions.

This czar concept is obviously very general and somewhat undefined. What I am talking about are those 18 positions because none of those positions are established by statute. Congress has not authorized or established any of those positions, No. 1; No. 2, none of those individuals have come before the

Senate for confirmation; and No. 3, none of those positions preexisted this administration. As I said a while ago, this has raised concerns among a number of Senators and certainly among the American people.

As I began my remarks, I added as coauthors of this amendment Senators Grassley, Bunning, Roberts, and Brownback. In addition, the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who chairs the relevant authorization committee, has expressed grave concern about this same phenomenon and, in fact, has another amendment about this very issue. Unfortunately, that amendment is going to be struck down as legislating on an appropriations bill. But she has expressed concern. She spearheaded a letter signed by herself and Senator Alexander and others which she sent to the President.

In addition, and this is very important, this has been a bipartisan concern. Going back to February of this year, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, wrote the administration expressing strong and grave concern about the constitutional implications of all of these czars. Again, the 18 I am talking about are not created by statute, have not been confirmed by the Senate, and never existed prior to this administration. Also, within the last 2 weeks, Senator Feingold, in addition, has expressed strong and serious concern about exactly the same issue and has written to the administration.

The purpose of my amendment is to say quite simply that when we have an agency, when we have a department that is led by a Senate-confirmed appointee, we shouldn't have a so-called White House czar ordering that appointee or ordering that agency or that department to do things, particularly when that White House czar is not an office created by law through Congress, is not a Senate-confirmed position, and did not exist in any form or fashion prior to this administration.

In terms of my specific amendment, I have chosen to focus on the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, commonly known as the White House climate change czar, for one simple reason: First, she is among this 18 never created by statute, never confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration, and she is clearly in a very powerful position--apparently giving orders to Senate-confirmed appointees such as the head of EPA. Of course, the EPA is governed by this appropriations bill now on the floor, so that is why I chose to focus on this particular czar position.

Clearly, this particular czar meets all of those criteria which give rise to my concerns. The President himself, when he appointed this czar, said, ``She will be indispensable in implementing an ambitious and complex energy policy.''

In addition, there have been several media reports about her dominant stature and dominant role in these sorts of considerations. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, on September 11 of this year, reported:

Ms. Browner helped broker a fuel-standards deal between the

administration and automakers earlier this year and has been

a conspicuous presence in climate negotiations with Congress.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, meanwhile, has been largely tied

up administering billions of dollars in stimulus projects.

Ms. Browner, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

Also, Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, and Carol Browner were key in crafting a plan to impose the first-ever national carbon limits on cars and trucks.

On May 20, the New York Times reported the following:

In an interview yesterday, Nichols said Browner quietly

orchestrated private discussions from the White House with

auto industry officials.

The obvious question this gives rise to is, What about the head of the Senate-confirmed Energy Department? What about the head of the EPA, Senate confirmed? Those folks seem to be shoved to the side, and this new super agency head, a super Cabinet Member seems to be playing a far more dominant role in key issues that are clearly under the purview of the Energy Department and the EPA. Again, this gives rise to serious constitutional concerns. A number of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, have expressed these concerns--Senator Collins, Senator Byrd, Senator Feinstein, Senator Alexander. So this is a germane limitation amendment that goes absolutely to the heart of the matter: Should these czars, positions never created by Congress or by statute, never confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration--should these czars have a role that is more significant than Senate-confirmed Cabinet Secretaries or agency heads?

Again, I have very carefully crafted an amendment to go specifically to this point. Let me read it word for word. It is not long.

None of the funds made available by this Act may be

obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded

by this Act and led by Senate-confirmed appointees

implementing policies of the Assistant to the President for

Energy and Climate Change (commonly known as the ``White

House Climate Change Czar'').

It does not say you cannot implement policies of the President of the United States. Obviously, the President is elected by the people and the President obviously ranks higher than the head of EPA or anyone else. But it does say the head of EPA, a Senate-confirmed position, should not be ranked below some so-called czar, a position never before created by Congress, never confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration.

I encourage all my colleagues to stand up for the rights and the proper constitutional role of the Senate. We play a vital role, particularly with regard to Presidential appointments because only the Senate has advice and consent powers. I urge my colleagues to stand up for that constitutional role, to preserve that vital constitutional role, and not to allow so-called White House czars to be an end-run around it and to minimize that role in a significant way.

This is a significant constitutional issue, it is a significant bipartisan issue, and I urge support of my amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I want to very briefly rebut some of the arguments of the distinguished Senator from California. First of all, in her last sentence she characterized the amendment as an amendment to eliminate the position. Of course it does not eliminate the position in any way.

She said earlier that Carol Browner does not tell EPA what to do. If that is the case, then this amendment will not have to change anything she does or how she operates and we should all come together to support the amendment to help allay concerns of the public. The amendment does not prohibit her from advising the President. The amendment does not prohibit her from coordinating multiagency meetings. The amendment is very clear, and it simply prohibits her from ordering around the EPA, which has its own Senate-confirmed head.

Again, I underscore the fact that this amendment is very carefully and narrowly written and does not prevent any of the legitimate advisory responsibilities that Senator Feinstein has discussed.

I yield the floor.

I would be happy to explain through the Chair what it means. The agency I have in mind, which is funded by this act and led by a Senate-confirmed position, is EPA. So it simply means that EPA cannot use any of its funds to implement orders, policies, from Carol Browner--the White House czar's policies. If the President wants to direct them, obviously the President outranks the head of EPA. But a White House czar, in a position not created by Congress, not confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration, should not be giving orders to a Senate-confirmed Cabinet Member.

Mr. President, to wrap up, my amendment says none of that. My amendment does not prevent this climate change czar from informing and assisting the President. My amendment does not prevent her from convening multiagency and multidepartment meetings. My amendment doesn't say any of that and doesn't prevent any of that. It simply prevents her from ordering the EPA, headed by a Senate-confirmed appointee, to do certain things.

With that, I yield the floor.

Through the Chair, my answer is no, I don't believe that. My amendment has nothing to do with that, and, by the way, that position is created by statute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of recognition before we move away from this issue.

Mr. President, I will be brief. I wish to compliment my distinguished colleague from Maine on her amendment. It was very well tailored and very carefully put together. I do think it is a shame that it won't be able to come to any vote because of this procedural move by the assistant majority leader.

I want to underscore three points:

No. 1, maybe we can talk about some other universe when we debate the Beck amendment, but we are not debating the Glenn Beck amendment, we are talking about the Collins amendment, and we will get to vote on the Vitter amendment. What all of us have been talking about are appointees of the President whose offices were not created by statute in any way and who were never Senate confirmed.

No. 2, I also want to underscore the point that this is clearly a bipartisan concern, as evidenced by Senator Byrd's letter of February and the recent comments of Senator Russ Feingold. It is a very serious and very bipartisan concern.

No. 3, we will have an opportunity to vote on this issue today under my amendment. The climate change czar is one of those 18, and she clearly threatens to supercede and overshadow Senate-confirmed Cabinet members such as the head of EPA. My amendment is very simple. It says EPA shouldn't have to carry out orders of the climate change czar when it is supposed to be headed by a Cabinet member, a Senate-confirmed appointee, directly at EPA.

So again I compliment the Senator from Maine on her efforts. I will certainly pledge ongoing support on the issue, including through my amendment.

I yield back my time.

Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent to have equal time on the amendment.

I have no objection to the modified request.

Mr. President, of course, nothing in my amendment prevents the Interior Department from reading all those comments, from digesting them. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It says: Remember last summer where almost all of America said this is ridiculous, drill here, drill now, let's use our own resources and not be held captive to foreign interests. Remember that. My amendment is about whether we listen to that or whether we will ignore it. Right now this administration and this Interior Department have pledged to ignore that and have pledged to forestall and put off the OCS development plan previously developed that is on the books and about to move forward. This question is simple: Did we listen to the American people when they spoke so loudly, so clearly, or is Congress going to ignore the clear will of the American people yet again?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2454.

Madam President, I find this very frustrating. As I understand it, the Chair who is handling the bill on the floor is not objecting personally but on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida. I find it frustrating because this is a completely germane amendment to the bill. It is a limitation amendment which is completely germane to the bill. I don't think there is any reasonable argument that something so directly pertinent and germane should not be open for discussion and vote on the Senate floor.

I think, quite frankly, it is unreasonable for Senator Nelson to block an amendment in this way. Having been

forced to do this, I now send to the desk a motion to recommit with instructions so that this amendment can be considered and heard in that manner.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I will be happy to explain the substance of this amendment. Again, I am forced to file this motion to recommit simply to have this germane, relevant amendment heard and voted on with regard to the bill.

What does the amendment do? The amendment is very straightforward. It simply says:

None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used

to delay the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and

Gas Leasing Program from 2010-2015 issued by the Secretary of

the Interior under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf

Lands Act.

We all know we face enormous energy needs in this country. That became particularly acute and particularly obvious last summer when the price at the pump went through the roof and rose to $4 a gallon for gasoline. At that time, people rightly became enraged that we were not doing more to control our own destiny and our own energy future. People started demanding that Congress act, that Congress do something with regard to oil and gas and other energy resources we have right here at home.

That is when the petition began: Drill here, drill now. That is when every Member of this Congress was deluged with calls and e-mails and letters saying: Let's get ahold of our own destiny and produce that energy which we have right here at home.

In that time period last year, Congress heard that message loudly and clearly. So for the first time in years, the moratorium on offshore oil and gas production was lifted by Congress, and President Bush similarly lifted a more limited executive moratorium on offshore production. So those barriers and those hurdles were finally lifted because of the demands of the American people, when the American people said very loudly, very clearly: This is ridiculous. We have resources here at home. We have domestic energy. Let's use that domestic energy rather than being held hostage by foreign powers. That was real progress. That was moving, certainly, in the right direction.

The problem is, the new administration and the new Secretary of the Interior have made it clear that--despite all of those actions, despite all of that clear communication by the American people, despite Congress taking that historic action of lifting the moratorium, despite the previous administration lifting the executive moratorium--they are not in any hurry and they are not going to take any action in the near future to move forward with the 2010 to 2015 offshore planning area and lease sales.

So what, unfortunately, Secretary Salazar has said pretty clearly is he is not going to take action in the foreseeable future to actually move forward with that going after domestic production and domestic resources. That is really a shame because, while the price at the pump has stabilized somewhat from last summer, and that is a good thing, the need--particularly the medium- and long-term need--is still there. Over the next 20 years, U.S. demand for energy is only going to grow. It is particularly going to grow as we get out of this recession and come back into a more normal economy. Overall, it is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.4 percent. That is going to demand more energy. We need to conserve. We need to develop new technology. We need to develop new energy sources. But that need is still going to grow, so that short term we will have increased demand for the types of energy we use.

We have enormous potential right here at home. The question which this amendment poses is, are we going to tap that potential or are we going to use the resources we have so that we cannot be held hostage any longer by hostile foreign powers.

According to conservative estimates from MMS, there are about 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 52 billion barrels of oil in the OFC, off the lower 48 States. That is an enormous amount of energy as yet untapped. That is enough oil to maintain current production for 105 years. That is enough natural gas to maintain production for 71 years. That is enough oil to produce gasoline for 132 million cars and heating oil for 54 million homes for 15 years. It is enough natural gas to heat 72 million homes for 60 years or to supply current industrial and commercial needs for 28 years or to supply current electricity generating needs for 53 years. Further, the MMS reports that the waters off Alaska's coast hold about 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is in addition to all of the potential, all of the resources I was just talking about.

Make no mistake about it, we need to move to a new energy future. We need to develop new technology. We need to develop new sources of energy. But we need a bridge to get to that future, and certainly current fuels--oil and natural gas, particularly natural gas, which is a relatively clean-burning fuel--are an absolutely vital bridge to get to that future.

The American people are scratching their heads. We have enormous needs, particularly the need to build an energy bridge to a new, exciting energy future. The good news is we have enormous domestic resources that can help get us there, particularly natural gas. So why are we not matching those two things that should match up so well? The American people demanded that last summer. Because of their loud and clear voice, they got dramatic action out of Congress, lifting the moratoria. The problem is, the new administration and the new Secretary of the Interior are simply saying: We are not in any hurry to get there. We are not going to lift a finger to actually move forward with the concrete work that needs to be done.

That is really inappropriate. That is ignoring the clear clarion call of the American people. So, again, that brings us to my amendment, amendment No. 2454, which my motion to recommit would add to the bill. It simply says:

None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used

to delay the draft proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and

Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015 issued by the Secretary of

the Interior under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf

Lands Act.

The American people have spoken: Drill here, drill now; build an important bridge to the future. No, it is not the future, but it is a necessary bridge to get us there. Let's adopt that common sense of the American people. Let's respond to that clear call of the American people dating back to last summer. Let's pass this clear limitation amendment, perfectly germane to this bill, so we can move forward with developing our domestic energy resources right here at home to build a more stable energy future.

I yield my time.

Madam President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. It simply says that no public housing assistance will be granted to anyone who is convicted of a crime involving drug trafficking, not simple possession but distribution, et cetera, or being a member of a violent gang. These are serious adult offenders. I don't believe we should use taxpayer funds with housing assistance, particularly in public housing projects, in that manner. It specifically focuses on New Orleans, LA, only New Orleans, where we are pouring massive amounts of Federal dollars to rebuild public housing projects in a fundamentally different, better way after Katrina, ridding those projects of the crime problem which had previously been embedded there. It is very important in terms of that recovery.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, we are not talking about drug possession, we are talking about trafficking. HUD and the housing authority have the ability to negotiate for other family members to stay in public housing and not be penalized.

Madam President, this should be a noncontroversial amendment. It simply retains in present law the current community service requirement which Congress passed into law for public housing tenants who are able-bodied over a decade ago. The House has tried to take out this requirement. It is a very modest 8 hours per month of community service for able-bodied tenants. Automatically exempted are folks over 62, folks who have a disability, caretakers, folks who meet the TANF work requirements, et cetera. It is a modest, reasonable work requirement which has been in the law for years. I urge all Members to retain it through this vote.

This excludes folks who have a work requirement under

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask that any pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 2359 be called up.

Mr. President, I ask that the modified version of the amendment be made pending.

This amendment is very straightforward, and it is very narrowly drawn. First of all, it only affects public housing assistance in New Orleans, LA, nowhere else, and it prohibits funds in this bill from going to any housing assistance to benefit drug dealers or members of violent gangs, folks who have actually been convicted of these offenses--drug dealing, not simple possession, drug dealing, a conviction of that--or convicted of crimes that involve a member of a violent gang.

After Hurricane Katrina, there was an enormous rebuilding effort in New Orleans that continues. Part of that effort involves public housing in New Orleans. Quite frankly, that system has been plagued for many years with tremendous problems, the biggest of which is crime in those projects. There has been an ongoing effort to rid those projects of violent crime. That effort continues and certainly that battle has not yet been won because, unfortunately, New Orleans continues to be a capital in the country for violent crime, with very high violent crime levels.

As we are rebuilding these projects using a fundamentally different model--a mixed-income model, less density--certainly one of the changes we need to make is to ensure that drug dealers and members of violent gangs do not set up shop once again in those public housing projects and do not get other taxpayer assistance.

In this bill is $7.25 billion for public housing assistance. Some of that will go to New Orleans. Certainly it is reasonable and productive and positive that we simply say we are not going to send this assistance to folks who have been convicted of being a violent gang member, have been convicted of drug dealing, not simple possession but drug dealing.

This is very important policy, very important for the continued recovery of New Orleans coming out of Hurricane Katrina. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and support this amendment and pass it into law.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2376.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, my amendment, No. 2376, is very simple and straightforward. To understand it, we need to go back a little bit, to 1998. In 1998, Congress passed the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, a law requiring all able-bodied people living in public housing to perform 8 hours per month of community service, with the idea that individuals who are getting this benefit from all of the other taxpayers should give back, should contribute to the community as some partial repayment for the very significant benefit they are getting. I think that concept had--and I certainly hope it still has-- widespread consensus, bipartisan support. It has been the law since 1998.

Unfortunately, some folks in Congress--I believe a minority, but some folks in Congress--want to throw this basic, straightforward community service requirement out the window. In fact, in 2001, these proponents actually got language included in the VA/HUD appropriations bill which temporarily, for that one fiscal year, did do away with this community service requirement. It was just that 1 year. That is the only year since 1998 where the requirement was thrown out the window, but it did happen in that year.

Unfortunately, those same folks, like-minded folks, have made the attempt again, and in this year's VA/HUD appropriations bill on the House side, before a lot of advocates for the community service requirement were

able to take notice, a similar amendment doing away with the community service requirement was passed through the House by voice. Again, this slipped through. The advocates of the community service requirement did not notice; otherwise, they would have demanded a rollcall vote. But it did slip through by voice.

It is very important that we correct that and preserve the community service requirement in the Senate version of the bill so we can also preserve it in the final version of this appropriations bill. This is a very basic, straightforward idea with which I believe the huge majority of the American people agree. It is simply saying: If you are getting a benefit from the taxpayer, you are getting free or highly subsidized public housing, and you are able-bodied, then you should help repay for that benefit by simply devoting 8 hours per month--not per week, 8 hours per month--to community service.

I want to emphasize a few things. No. 1, this applies to fully able- bodied recipients of the benefit only. Exempted residents, for instance, include those who are 62 years old or older, those who are disabled and can certify they cannot comply with the requirement, caretakers of a person with a disability, those engaged in work activities or are exempt from work activities under TANF, family members in compliance with TANF, or the State welfare program's work requirements. That is separate, and they would be exempt and are exempt from this.

Still, according to the Congressional Research Service, after you take all those exempt individuals out, HUD estimates there are approximately 100,000 to 150,000 households that include folks who would have to meet this requirement.

I believe, when you consider the requirement, 8 hours of community service per month, when you consider the exemptions for folks over 62, for folks who have any disability, for folks who are not able-bodied in any way, this public service requirement is truly minimal and thoroughly reasonable. I believe that is why it passed into law in 1998 with broad public and bipartisan support. I believe that is why we should retain it in law today and make sure the House attempt to throw that requirement out the window is not successful.

Public housing authorities are given broad discretion in implementing and enforcing this requirement. There is no absolute penalty for not meeting this requirement. Folks are not immediately thrown out of their public housing. All of this has been done in an as modest, frankly, and absolutely reasonable way as possible. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to retain this important part of present law, to retain this commonsense approach that a wide majority, a broad majority of the American people support. I certainly hope this amendment could be accepted or, if not, retained by a good vote on the floor of the Senate that is overwhelming and bipartisan.

With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will.

I will be happy to consider that offer and get back to the distinguished Senator. My only concern is we have as much ammunition as possible to retain this provision in conference, which a very good rollcall vote could perhaps give us. That is my only concern, since the House version of the bill has taken this language out. I will be happy to consider that offer and personally follow up with the distinguished Senator.

I yield my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to call up Vitter amendment No. 2303 to the pending legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I urge bipartisan support of the Vitter amendment. It is very simple and straightforward but important. It ends the TARP bailout program on a date certain, the date certain originally set out, which is December 31 of this year.

Under the TARP bailout legislation, the program is supposed to end on that date. However, there was some fine print. The fine print said the Treasury Secretary unilaterally can say: No, we need to extend it. On his own, with no additional vote of Congress, he can extend it until October 3, 2010.

I think any such extension would be absolutely contrary to the best interests of the Nation, and I believe we should act and simply take that extension authority back and wind down the program and end the program, the bailout, in an orderly way on the original intended date of December 31 of this year.

I think we should do this for three clear reasons. First of all, the biggest reason is simply the TARP bailout program was rushed through Congress in what was described as an impending and indeed a cataclysmic crisis. We were told by several experts certainly, including the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that the financial system was in imminent danger of collapsing. I am not exaggerating. I am simply repeating their statements from last fall.

So Congress, certainly over my objection, passed the TARP bailout program in that atmosphere of absolute crisis. Well, we may disagree about where we are getting toward recovery and what we see for the next year. But I think we can all agree that imminent collapse, if it was ever before us, is not before us now; that huge so-called cataclysmic crisis, if it was ever a threat, has passed. So the whole rationale for the extraordinary $700 billion TARP bailout program, that crisis, has clearly passed.

Again, I am not saying we are out of this recession. I am not saying we are not in tough economic times. I am not saying we do not have a lot further to go in recovery. I am saying no one believes the world financial system is in imminent danger of collapse or will be, thankfully, anytime soon.

Clearly, the entire rationale for such an extraordinary and unprecedented use of government power and intervention and the use of $700 billion of taxpayer funds, that rationale has passed.

Reason No. 2 is that the TARP bailout, in practice, has become nothing more than a political slush fund and has been used in many different ways, never as it was originally designed.

Of course, we all heard, when it was originally proposed, that it was a toxic asset purchase program; it would be used for one purpose and one purpose only--for the government to buy toxic assets to get them off the balance sheets of troubled financial institutions. That was the sum and substance, 100 percent of the original design and rationale. As we all know, it never was used in that way. Literally within a few weeks of Congress passing the program last fall, it morphed completely. We weren't going to use it to buy toxic assets anymore. Then it morphed into an equity investment program for the largest banks that were deemed too big to fail. That, of course, has been carried out to the tune of not just $700 billion but trillions of dollars, as this money is constantly reprocessed.

Next TARP was morphed again and used as a slush fund to bail out two auto companies. Specifically, the administration--at the time, the Bush administration--said: No, TARP is not about manufacturers, auto companies, at all. It is not about that. It is about financial institutions. Nevertheless, it was morphed again, used as a slush fund to bail out two auto companies. And there are many different, smaller programs which have been devised and funded out of the TARP bailout slush fund.

TARP has been consistently used by the government for whatever different purpose, whatever new bright idea the administration--first, the Bush administration and now the Obama administration--decides is a good thing to do. It has truly become a slush fund, open-ended, no limits, that the administration can use pretty much however it wants. There doesn't seem to be any real or meaningful limitation. So far the original $700 billion program has grown to reach $3 trillion. That is because some money is paid out. It is paid back in. It is reprocessed.

According to SIGTARP, the group that monitors this, the total financial exposure of TARP and TARP-related programs, when we look at all of the myriad activities, may reach $3 trillion.

Third and finally, the third important reason we should establish this date certain to wind down the TARP bailout slush fund is that from the very beginning, TARP has not been transparent. It has been very opaque. It has been ripe for fraud. Unfortunately, there are numerous pieces of evidence and media accounts to bear this out. For instance, on July 21, Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the TARP program, issued a quarterly report to Congress. In it, he said: As of June 30, there are 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations about misuses of money; Federal felony charges against Gordon Grigg, FTC action against misleading use of MakingHomeAffordable.gov, and on and on.

In its quarterly report issued in July, SIGTARP said that the Treasury ``has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations that SIGTARP believes are essential to providing basic transparency and fulfill Treasury's stated commitment to implement TARP `with the highest degree of accountability and transparency possible.' ''

Specifically, SIGTARP had four key recommendations, and they have not been implemented in any meaningful way.

The Vitter amendment is very simple, very straightforward. Let's abide by the original end date for the TARP bailout fund--December 31 of this year. Let's take back the unilateral authority the Secretary of the Treasury now has to extend that to October 3 of 2010, for three simple reasons: No. 1, there is no impending crisis anymore; No. 2, TARP has been used as a slush fund for everything under the Sun except the original purpose of buying troubled assets; and No. 3, TARP has never been transparent, open, and aboveboard. It is rife with fraud and misuse, unfortunately, documented by criminal prosecutions, IG reports and the like.

I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this reasonable amendment.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Amendment No. 2306

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It simply says the TARP bailout fund will end when we originally said it would end: December 31 of this year. Under the original TARP bill, the Treasury Secretary has the authority to extend it another almost full year, until October of 2010. We would take that authority away. We would retain that responsibility and say we will wind down the TARP bailout fund at the end of this year.

Clearly, the crisis, the imminent collapse of the financial system, has passed and is not before us. If we are serious about the bailout being temporary, being necessary because of truly unusual circumstances, if we are serious about that, we will vote yes on this amendment and end TARP at the end of this year in an orderly way.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I urge all colleagues to come together, as the American people surely want us to do, and adopt this amendment. I truly believe this amendment is the responsible way to address the shortfall in the highway trust fund.

This amendment funds the highway trust fund shortfall by using money from the already-passed stimulus bill. That is important because otherwise we are racking up yet more deficit and more debt on top of the mountains of

debt we have already accumulated to pass on to our children and grandchildren. This is important so that, yes, needed highway work can be done, particularly needed work in the midst of a recession, but it can be done without racking up yet more debt to weigh down the economy and burden our children and grandchildren.

I wish to make two central points about this idea and why this amendment is necessary. First, the level of debt we are accumulating is truly staggering. It is beyond our ability to get our hands around. This year alone, the deficit has surpassed $1 trillion. This year's deficit spending has gone beyond $1 trillion. By the way, we are not finished this year. It continues to grow. This year, we have racked up over $1.8 trillion of new debt because there is the $1 trillion in the normal year's spending plus the huge stimulus bill of $800 billion. In terms of racking up new debt to put on the backs of our children and grandchildren, there is $1.8 trillion of new debt this year. That is way beyond anything we have experienced in our lifetime. Just the trillion dollars of deficit spending rivals the sort of numbers we used to talk about not so long ago for the entire Federal budget.

But, unfortunately, it gets worse. It gets significantly worse because this Congress, over my objection, passed President Obama's budget, and that budget takes those mountains of debt I just described--at already sky-high historic levels--and what does it do? Does it work it down? No. It doubles that level of debt in 5 years. It more than triples that level of debt in 10 years. That is the path we are on, and that is the legacy we are handing to our children and grandchildren. That is simply completely irresponsible. To have this mountain of debt already accumulated this year, at historically high levels--$1.8 trillion accumulated this year alone, and it is growing-- and then to have a budget plan that doubles that in 5 years and triples it in 10 years is inexcusable. In that 5-year period, this President will have racked up more debt than every predecessor President before him combined. We need to get off that path, and the American people know it.

The American people understand, through their common sense, that this is a recipe for disaster. All of us as parents want to hand our kids a better world, a world of more opportunity, a better future than even we had handed to us from our parents. Yet we are on a path to do exactly the opposite and hand our kids an enormous burden, hand them a tomorrow full of clouds and uncertainty, particularly dominated by this threat-- central fundamental economic threat--of deficit and debt. We cannot accept that. Yet here we are on the floor with the other side proposing to fund the highway trust fund with--guess what--more debt, more borrowing, more borrowing by the government from whoever buys our debt, including wonderful allies around the world like the Communist Chinese Government.

We need to get off this path, and this is one important step in doing that, saying: Yes, we will continue vital highway programs, but we will do it by taking from the already-appropriated stimulus funds. That is appropriate money that is already appropriated through the process. We will not do it by borrowing yet more money.

The other side has fancy arguments about: Well, this is really taking back a loan we sent the general fund 8 years ago. Let's make no mistake about it, that money is long gone. This is racking up more debt, purely and simply. For that very reason--because it is racking up more debt, because it increases outlays in this fiscal year--it has a budget point of order against it, which I will raise before our final vote. So if you need any further proof that the underlying bill requires borrowing yet more money, racking up yet more debt, it is nailed down by the fact that there is a budget point of order against the underlying bill, which I will raise.

The second critical reason we should adopt the Vitter amendment and fund highway projects from stimulus money and not rack up yet more debt goes to the nature of the stimulus and the attempt which has been very slow and very faltering of using those stimulus dollars to help revive the economy. Of course, that was the whole argument behind the stimulus: We are in a severe recession. We need to do something. We need to get spending and economic activity out the door. We need to hold down unemployment. That was the whole argument. From the very beginning, I did not think that would be the result. That is why I voted against the stimulus, both because of the nature of the spending--it is a lot of big government programs, not a lot of true shovel-ready infrastructure spending--and because of the timing of the spending. I thought from the very beginning that relatively few dollars would go out the door immediately and a lot of the stimulus money would not be spent for years. Well, unfortunately, all of that is coming true. Again, if you look at the nature of the spending in the stimulus and the timing of it, it leaves a lot to be desired.

I think all of us in this body, and Americans across the country, favored infrastructure spending as the centerpiece of the stimulus. Yes, let's do real, concrete, shovel-ready projects. Let's build roads and highways and bridges as the best example of a true, concrete, shovel-ready infrastructure project. I certainly strongly supported that element of spending as a way--not the only way but as a way--to help revive our economy.

Unfortunately, that type of project was never a major part of the stimulus bill as passed. In fact, if you take all of the roads and highways and bridges, all of that construction in the entire stimulus, how much of the bill do you think it is? Fifty percent? Certainly not. Thirty percent? Keep going down. Twenty percent? No. Ten percent? Try 3.5 percent. Mr. President, 3.5 percent of the entire stimulus focused on what the American people thought really could be spent to help stimulate the economy: shovel-ready infrastructure projects on roads and highways and bridges.

My amendment is a way to increase that part of the stimulus that goes to that project to increase highway funding through the stimulus, which I think there was a very broad consensus to do from the beginning, but it never got done in the stimulus.

The second big problem with the stimulus is the timing of that money. It has gone out the door very slowly. Of the entire $800 billion stimulus bill, which was supposed to be immediate relief for the economy--let's start turning the corner on this recession immediately passing that bill--today, months later, a half a year later, 10 percent has gone out the door. Only 10 percent has been spent. That is ludicrous.

Of that tiny slice that was roads and highways and bridges--the 3.5 percent--guess how much of that money has gotten spent. Mr. President, 1 percent of that. Not 1 percent of the whole bill, not almost a third of the 3.5 percent. I mean 1 percent of the 3.5 percent; in other words .035 percent of the entire bill--a meaningless amount. So let's increase the amount of money we take from the stimulus pot and immediately get it out the door for vital highway projects.

Because of those factors in the stimulus--the nature of the spending, which was never focused on real, shovel-ready infrastructure; only 3.5 percent going to roads and highways and bridges; and the timing of the money, which has been amazingly slow; only 10 percent of the stimulus spent right now and only 1 percent on roads and highways and bridges-- what has been the effect on the economy? Well, of course, the effect has been slim to none.

This chart I have in the Chamber says it all. This graph is what the proponents of the stimulus bill say would happen to unemployment over time: We pass the stimulus, and it is going to help revive the economy. It is going to make sure unemployment peaks at less than 8 percent and then comes down. Well, unfortunately, the reality has been very different, because compared to this prediction by the proponents of the stimulus, this is the reality, as I show you on this chart. This is what unemployment has been doing in the last several months--going up and up and up, well beyond the peak that was predicted, reaching almost 10 percent today.

Again, this is the second fundamental reason we need to adopt the Vitter amendment, because the stimulus, as it was put together, is not

weighted nearly enough toward real infrastructure such as roads and highways and bridges, and it is not weighted nearly enough on spending now versus years from now. This Vitter amendment will help change that for the better. It will reweight the stimulus, at least at the margin, to more roads and highways and bridges and more spending now because we need it now in the midst of this recession now.

So again I urge all of my colleagues to come around and embrace and support this Vitter amendment. Doesn't it make sense to say we need to start now in terms of rejecting this path of more and more and more debt? Because the underlying bill, make no mistake about it, is funded by more borrowing, more debt. That is why a budget point of order lies against the underlying bill. I will raise that budget point of order before the end of our debate.

Secondly, doesn't it make sense to say: Look, the stimulus idea was about exactly this sort of spending? Americans across the country favor stimulus spending that is really focused on roads and highways and bridges and real infrastructure, things that are truly shovel ready. They do not favor big government waste programs and they do not favor spending 3 years from now because that is going to have no impact to get us out of this recession right now.

This amendment, again, will fine-tune the stimulus in the positive direction, toward spending on roads and highways and bridges, and virtually all of us support more of that spending, including the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She had an amendment on the stimulus to do just that, which was opposed and defeated by the other side.

This amendment will also fine-tune the stimulus to get more money out the door now. Don't we need that? Only 10 percent of the $800 billion has been spent. Don't we need to front-load it a lot more than that to have any sort of significant positive impact on this recession?

Again, tragically, the unemployment figures say it all. The prediction: Peak at 8 percent, come down from there. The reality: We continue to go up and up and up--perilously close right now--toward 10 percent.

Again, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join together, to work together, as the American people want us to do, around a basic commonsense idea. Let's stop the debt. Let's stop racking up yet more debt, putting it on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Let's front-load the stimulus and do shovel-ready infrastructure now rather than big government projects 3 years from now.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, let me briefly address some of the issues and misconceptions that have come up by focusing on four key points.

First, I believe the Senator from Illinois said: Why would we want to take anything out of the stimulus and stop job creation? I have a news flash: There is no job creation. Unemployment is going up. Again, unfortunately and tragically, the unemployment numbers say it all. This was the projection from the proponents of the stimulus about unemployment peaking at 8 percent and then coming down. Tragically, this is the reality. Joblessness goes up and up, toward 8 percent. So there is no job creation right now.

No. 2, the Senator from Illinois said: Why would we want to move money from one pocket into another pocket? That doesn't do anything. Well, it does a lot if the pocket we are removing money from is stuff that would not be spent until after 2011, and we move it

to a pocket focused on real, concrete roads, highways, and bridges-- spending that can be done now. That is a big change in terms of the type of spending we are talking about. It is a big change in terms of the timing of the spending.

The biggest reason for the stimulus having no significant impact on unemployment is the type and the timing of the spending. On the timing side, only 10 percent of the entire $800 billion stimulus has been spent to date. On the type of spending, only 3.5 percent of the whole bill was ever for roads, highways, and bridges. Only 1 percent of that--1 percent of the 3.5 percent--has been spent yet. So, yes, we are moving money from one pocket to another so as not to run up more debt. In the process, we are having a lot more immediate, positive impact on employment. That is very important.

Point No. 3: In direct response to the Senator from California, if she would like to wall off any stimulus money--the money for roads, highways and bridges and the money for flood control--and say the President cannot use that money in this transfer, I would be very open and supportive of such a second-degree amendment.

I did not do that simply to give the administration maximum flexibility in terms of working out those details. However, again, if the Senator from California would like to propose a second-degree amendment to wall off true highway funding or flood control funding, or whatever, I would be happy to support that.

Fourth and finally, I couldn't believe my ears, but I think the Senator from California said the underlying bill involves deficit reduction. Let's get real. I know Washington is a fairy tale world. I know things are turned upside down so often, like Alice in Wonderland, but the underlying bill involves racking up more debt, more deficit. That is the whole motivating factor of my amendment. The underlying bill does nothing but borrow more. Don't take my word for it; look at the fact that there is a budget point of order against the underlying bill which I will point out and raise for consideration by the Senate.

So the underlying bill clearly involves more debt. How could it not? We are taking money from the general fund to fill in the highway trust fund. Guess what. We are deficit spending in the general fund. We are already, through the general fund, racking up a deficit. So if we take money from there, we have to backfill that if we spend the same amount with more borrowing, more deficit, more debt.

Again, if we care about turning the corner on deficit and debt, this is the responsible amendment to support and the responsible approach to take. The underlying bill racks up more debt; the Vitter amendment avoids that.

Again, there is a budget point of order against this underlying bill about which, with the cooperation of the Senator from California, I believe she needs to make some introductory comments, but I will make that budget point of order now.

I yield the floor to the Senator from California.

Madam President, I will make that point of order. The underlying bill is such a great deficit reduction that it would involve more borrowing and more debt and more mandatory spending. It would specifically increase mandatory spending and exceed the committee's section 302(a) allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the bill pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I rise and urge strong bipartisan support for the Vitter amendment. The Vitter amendment simply moves $7 billion from the stimulus--less than 1 percent of the original stimulus program--to backfill and take care of the need in the highway trust fund.

This is important to do for two reasons.

First of all, we need to stop the reckless borrowing. We are borrowing ourselves into oblivion. We are borrowing our children into poor economic times. We need to reverse that trend. The underlying bill fixes the hole in the highway trust fund simply by racking up more debt, and that is why there is a budget point of order against it. So we need to stop this never-ending upward spiral of borrowing.

No. 2, by doing this, we can focus a little bit of the stimulus on something I believe we all think it always should have been focused on: infrastructure spending and spending now versus later. This will move the $7 billion toward roadway spending now, which is effective stimulus.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this is about a budget point of order. That

means the bill, since it was not amended as I would have liked, is contrary to the Budget Act. It has more outlays this year. It also requires us to rack up more debt, borrow more money. In the face of $2 trillion of new debt this year, doubling that in 5 years, and tripling it in 10, this is a critical vote. Either you vote yes and say let's continue to go down that path or you vote no and say we need to change course about debt.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about something I have brought up several times on the floor of the Senate, which is the fact that the highway trust fund, essential to continuing to build out our highway infrastructure, and particularly essential in the midst of a recession, is about to run out of money. We need to do something about that and we need to act responsibly; not merely increase debt, increase deficits, borrow more money but act responsibly to replenish this trust fund in a way that doesn't drive up yet more the public debt and the Federal Government debt. I have a proposal to do that, but it is essential we consider this issue now, this week, and not wait until next week when the House of Representatives will not even be in session so we can correctly address this issue and act in a responsible way.

Again, it is very clear the highway trust fund is running out of money. I think it is a near universal consensus that we need to act, we need to do something about it so the highway program doesn't end and essential construction in all our States around the country doesn't come to a screeching halt. But how do we do that? That is the issue.

There is absolutely no reason we need to do this by driving up the debt yet more, borrowing yet more money from our lenders, whoever they may be, including the Chinese Government. We can do this with already appropriated dollars. How do we do it? Well, let's move some of the stimulus dollars--a very small percentage of the stimulus bill which is already passed, dollars which have already been appropriated--to the highway trust fund. This solves the problem and does it in a responsible way, without increasing our debt level, without borrowing yet more money from all sorts of sources, including foreign sources.

I summarized this proposal in a letter to Senator Reid, cosigned by about 35 of my colleagues, and we sent the distinguished majority leader this letter on July 21. We urged him to get behind in support of this proposal, but we also urged him to take up this matter of the highway trust fund now--sooner, not later--so we can have a full and fair debate on the issue and come to a proper resolution.

Why does it matter when we take this up? Well, for a very simple reason:

This week we could address the issue; we could have a full, fair debate; we could amend House action and send it back to the House and include the proposal that funds be shifted from the stimulus to meet this essential need. Next week, we can do the same thing, but I can tell my colleagues the first thing that will come out of the mouth of the majority leader and others will be: Well, the House is gone. The House has left town. It is take it or leave it. It is accede to everything they want. We can't amend it one comma, one period.

That is bogus. We can amend it. We can, in particular, amend it if we act this week. That is what we should do, as soon as we conclude consideration of the Energy and Water appropriations bill, which is on the floor now.

I urge all my colleagues to come together in a reasonable, responsible debate to consider this commonsense solution of replenishing the highway trust fund but doing it out of stimulus dollars, so we don't increase the debt yet more. After all, highway construction is exactly the sort of stimulus we can all agree on. It is precisely the sort of stimulus spending that has very broad, near universal, bipartisan support. So it is fully consistent with the broad goals of the stimulus.

With all that in mind, I would repeat a unanimous consent request that I proffered several days ago. Several days ago, I asked for unanimous consent that the Senate call up and pass S. 1344, my bill to use stimulus funds to protect the solvency of the highway trust fund. This request was objected to on the Democratic side.

I would now renew that request and specifically ask unanimous consent that the Senate enter a unanimous consent agreement that would provide for a time certain, immediately following the conclusion and consideration of the Energy and Water appropriations bill, to consider this bill and allow for relevant amendments.

Will the Senator yield before she gets off the floor?

I ask the Senator, through the Chair, to consider the fact that if we don't take up this matter--however you want to fund it or consider it--take it up now, this week, then the argument will be made next week that we have to accede to whatever the House has done, and we cannot do anything differently. That includes a much shorter extension.

I support the idea of an extension for 18 months, as does the distinguished chair of the authorizing committee. But the House is going to pass and is passing now a much shorter extension.

Would the Senator not agree it is a good idea to take up the general matter now, immediately following the Energy and Water bill, and not have the terms of our action dictated to us next week simply because the House has gone out of session?

I very much agree with that plan forward. In that cooperative spirit, I would amend my unanimous consent request and ask unanimous consent that immediately following consideration of the Energy and Water appropriations bill, the Democratic proposal the Senator is referring to, which has been hotlined, be made the order on the floor and a time certain to consider that bill and allow relevant amendments, including the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I renew the plea that we work on that sort of agreement to consider the matter this week immediately following the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

Yes, I absolutely want a Vitter amendment considered because that is the whole issue I have been pushing--to fund this out of the stimulus, not to run up debt. I believe we can have an agreement for a very limited number of

germane amendments. But it is essential for that discussion to be meaningful and that it happen this week.

I renew my encouragement of the chairman to help put together an agreement for consideration of the bill this week, a limited number of amendments, including the concept of funding it out of the stimulus. I believe that is the way we can act responsibly and not be held hostage and be married to whatever the House says is the right answer, simply because they are leaving town at the end of this week.

I look forward to working with the chair of the authorizing committee toward that end. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 1618.

I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment, along with dozens of other Senators on a bipartisan basis. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

The second amendment is a valued constitutional right. Thank God, the

courts, particularly in recent years, have expressly recognized that. Of course, the Supreme Court, in the landmark Heller decision, ruled that ``the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation'' is a protected fundamental constitutional right. Even the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court, based in California, ruled that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is ``deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition'' and has long been regarded as the ``true palladium of liberty.'' That court also wrote that ``nothing less than the security of the nation--a defense against both external and internal threats--rests on the provision [second amendment].''

That is why this amendment is a fundamental right. What does that mean in everyday terms? It means the ability of citizens, particularly those more vulnerable in our society, such as women, to protect themselves, people such as Sue Fontenot in Louisiana, who told me:

When my family and I go out at night, it makes me feel

safer just knowing I am able to have my concealed weapon.

It is personal safety and security. It is a fundamental ability to protect one's self, one's family, and one's property. So if that is a fundamental right, and if we have reasonable laws and reasonable permitting processes, why shouldn't Sue Fontenot have that freedom, right, and security when she visits other States, which also allow concealed carry?

This isn't just anecdotal quotes, this is also backed up by criminological studies. Studying crime trends around the country in the United States, John Lott and David Mustard concluded:

Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent

crimes. . . . When State concealed hand gun laws went into

effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent and rapes and

aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.

In the 1990s, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz found guns were used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually. That number, of course, dwarfs these tiny numbers and anecdotal evidence of limited, very tiny numbers of improper use of guns by folks with concealed carry permits.

Responding to the Kleck and Gertz study, the late Marvin Wolfgang, self-described ``as strong a gun control advocate as can be found among criminologists in this country,'' said he agreed with the methodology of the study.

Our amendment will simply allow law-abiding Americans to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense, by using the full faith and credit clause of our U.S. Constitution.

As we do this, as we protect that fundamental individual right, we also protect States rights. I think it is very important to address some of the arguments with regard to States rights that have been made by the other side.

We do not mandate the right to concealed carry in any State that does not allow the practice. Some States, such as Illinois and Wisconsin, fall into that category. We do not mandate a concealed carry right in those States. In addition, our amendment does not establish national standards for concealed carry. It does not provide a national concealed carry permit. It simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home States to also carry in other States, but only if those other States have concealed carry permits.

We also respect the law of those other States, in terms of where guns can be carried and where they cannot be carried. So we explicitly respect that State law by requiring that State laws concerning specific times and locations in which firearms may not be carried must be followed by the visiting individual, and that is very important.

Finally, we absolutely protect and enshrine current Federal law, in terms of background checks and people with criminal problems or mental problem, who cannot carry guns. If an individual is prohibited by current Federal law from carrying a firearm, we absolutely protect and enshrine that. Let me say that again. If under current Federal law an individual is prohibited from carrying a gun, that is fully protected.

At the end of the day, this is, again, a fundamental debate about what is the problem in terms of violent crime? Is the problem law- abiding citizens who follow the law, who take all of the time and all of the trouble needed to get concealed carry permits, go through background checks, fill out forms, and do everything that is required by their home States? Is that class of people the fundamental cause of violent crime or is the dominant, 99.9 percent fundamental problem in the violent crime arena people who don't follow the law, who ignore the law, who ignore a concealed carry law, ignore those requirements, as well as every other law on the books--unfortunately, including laws against murder and armed robbery and other violent crime?

Clearly, in the minds of commonsense Americans, it is the latter category of folks that is the problem, not the former. The statistics and the evidence and the history bear that out. So concealed carry is a useful and essential tool for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves and stop and deter violent crime. It is not any significant source of violent crime whatsoever. We have the numbers that bear that out. We have some States that allow reciprocity now. Ten States now allow reciprocity under their State law.

Have they seen incidents of problems with concealed carry permits from other States? No. Have they seen spikes in violent crime because of this reciprocity? No. Again, because this is a fundamental right, and because it goes to people's security, because criminological and other studies are on our side and don't show any spike in violent crime by this but in fact show crimes prevented and deterred by concealed carry, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important reciprocity amendment.

Groups around the country who respect the second amendment and find that a fundamental and important right are certainly supporting this amendment. The National Rifle Association, NRA, is a strong supporter of this amendment. I thank them for that and for their leadership. They are also specifically scoring this amendment in terms of Member votes. Gun Owners of America, another leading gun rights second amendment group, is a strong supporter of this amendment and is specifically pushing for passage and scoring Members' votes. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the Passenger-Cargo Security Group, and many other groups around the country are strong supporters of this amendment, because the second amendment is a fundamental right because concealed carry does work, because it prevents crimes and deters crime and doesn't significantly add, in any meaningful way, to the crime problem.

Again, like with a lot of gun control debates, this comes down to a pretty fundamental question: Do you think the big problem with regard to violent crime is the law-abiding citizen, the one who takes the time and goes to the trouble of filling out the forms and following all the rules for concealed carry? I don't. Or do you think the fundamental problem--99.99 percent of the problem--is the criminal who doesn't respect that law, because he doesn't even respect laws against murder, armed robbery, and other violent crimes? That is the problem. Commonsense Americans know that.

This amendment will protect law-abiding citizens and provide another effective and important tool against those criminals who are the problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, in September of this year, just a couple of months away, the highway bill--the program under which we build bridges and roads and highways around the country--is set to expire. Even more worrisome, in August of this year--next month--the highway trust fund, which funds all of that activity, is scheduled to run out of money. So I think--I hope--there is a broad consensus here that we need to act to continue the ongoing highway program. To not act--to allow the highway trust fund to run out of money, to allow the highway program to end--would be an enormous antistimulus for the economy because a lot of significant, productive infrastructure spending and activity would just stop overnight.

So we must act, and I believe everyone acknowledges that. What I am concerned about is that we are going to go right up to the eleventh hour, to the precipice, and then we are going to be given one choice, and one choice only, here on the floor of the Senate, rather than have a calm and reasoned debate about the best way to act and the best way to pay for that. So I strongly urge the Senate to take up this matter sooner rather than later and to consider all of the reasonable and all of the available options.

As I understand it, the Obama administration will propose an 18-month extension of the current highway program, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I plan to support that. The key issue in my mind is how we pay for that extension, how we replenish the trust fund, at least for the next 18 months. We faced this shortfall late last year, and unfortunately there was no good idea, no option presented except to spend more money--borrowed money--and increase the debt to keep that trust fund going.

I suggest that with our debt rising so dramatically, with all of the actions this Congress has taken--the stimulus, the budget that doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it in 10--we need a better solution than merely to print more money or borrow more money from the Chinese. That is why I have introduced my proposal, S. 1344. That bill specifically is called the Highway Investment Protection Act. It would extend and reauthorize the highway program for an initial 18 months, and it would fund that out of existing stimulus dollars which have already been appropriated.

Some may ask: What is the point of that? The point is real simple. If we use existing, already appropriated stimulus dollars, we are not borrowing more money, we are not printing more money, we are not borrowing more money from the Chinese, and we are not yet again increasing the deficit and increasing the debt. That is very important. We are also not increasing taxes, which is a horrible thing to do, particularly in the middle of a very serious recession.

One of the clear lessons from the Great Depression is the things you don't do, which, unfortunately, leaders back then did, in some cases. One of the things you don't do is to increase taxes, which made the Depression far worse and far longer in duration than it otherwise needed to be.

So this program doesn't print more money, it doesn't borrow yet more from the Chinese, and it doesn't raise taxes. That is the great advantage of it.

In addition, it is specifically structured to give maximum flexibility to the Obama administration in terms of where to find those stimulus dollars. So we don't say specifically take it from this account, which they may favor; take it from that account, which they may prefer. We give the Obama administration maximum flexibility. And I think virtually everyone acknowledges that at the end of the day, when the entire $800-plus billion stimulus program is worked through, there will be over this amount of money that remains unspent and unobligated. There will be more than what is required for the next 18 months for the highway trust fund--about $20 billion--which cannot be spent out of the stimulus anyway. So this is simply capturing that money and using it to extend this vital highway program and this important infrastructure spending.

Several months ago, when we debated the stimulus here on the floor of the Senate, there were many of us--Democrats and Republicans alike--who wanted more infrastructure spending, more highway spending in the stimulus. It is very clear from every poll that was published that the American people felt that way. One of the absolute top categories of stimulus spending money the American people supported was highway construction--roads, bridges, highways. So this is very consistent with the idea of a broad-based stimulus program. It is not inconsistent with that at all.

Again, the alternatives are to simply move money from the general fund. That means we are borrowing more money from the Chinese or whomever--in a sense, printing more money--or there may be a proposal to increase taxes to pay for it, which I believe, no matter what the source, is a very bad idea in the middle of a serious recession. That is very antigrowth.

My fear is that given our very constricted busy schedule between now and the August recess, this matter is going to be pushed to the very end, right before we are set to leave for the August recess, and there will be one alternative and one alternative only: Just print more money. Just borrow more from the Chinese. My fear is there is going to be an attempt to rush that through the Senate, and I don't think that is the way to get the best result and the most consensual result on this important issue.

I propose we think about this now, sooner rather than later. I propose we discuss all the reasonable alternatives and certainly look at the very commonsense alternative of using already appropriated stimulus dollars--again, no new debt, no new spending; use what has already been appropriated in the stimulus; give the administration maximum flexibility in terms of how to do that.

Finally, I would also point out that the bill is drafted very carefully, so that within these 18 months, if the Congress were to enact a new highway reauthorization program, a new multiyear program, this extension would automatically dissolve and go away and this money from the stimulus would automatically stop and whatever the provisions of that new multiyear highway bill would be would come into full force and effect. I urge all my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to consider this commonsense approach.

In that vein, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1344

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1344, a bill to use stimulus funds to protect the solvency of the highway trust fund; and I ask unanimous consent that the technical amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Well, in light of the objection, I would ask the distinguished Senator from Michigan, if the Senator would at least agree to a unanimous consent request to allow this bill to be the next order of business after the current Defense authorization bill is fully dealt with which would provide for limited time agreements and relevant germane amendments?

Mr. President, in closing, let me say that I think it is unfortunate we don't take up this serious matter next after the Defense authorization bill and that we don't take it up in plenty of time to look at all of the reasonable alternatives.

I hope when we finally take it up, it isn't in a mad dash to the August recess; that it isn't under all of the normal artificial pressure that is built up where we must act in the next few hours and we have one choice and one choice only. We have heard all that before. We have heard it before when we were forced into quick consideration of the bailouts. We heard it about the stimulus. Now we are hearing it about health care.

Let's try to do some things right and not just quick. This has to be done before the August recess because the highway trust fund will run out of money during the August recess. So let's take this up sooner rather than later.

Let's take this up right after the current Defense authorization bill on the floor is dealt with and look at all the available alternatives, including using stimulus funds already appropriated so we don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession, so we don't increase the debt and so that we don't borrow more money from the Chinese and print more dollar bills. The American people are very fearful of that growing trend.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to oppose cloture on the nomination of Robert Groves to be Census Director.

As we all know, the 2010 Census is right around the corner. This is a very important process that should not be taken lightly. The census, of course, is an official count of the country's population mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and it is used to determine distribution of taxpayer money through grants and appropriations and the apportionment of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives.

Every U.S. household unit, including those occupied by noncitizens and illegal immigrants, must be counted. We must take every effort to make this a fair and accurate census that is not skewed in any way by political influence or using poor statistical material. With that in mind, I have very serious concerns about some of the administration's plans for the census, particularly with regard to ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

ACORN signed up in February 2009 to assist the U.S. Census Bureau as a national partner, and they signed up specifically to help recruit 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the

United States. So they are a ``2010 census partner''--an official census partner given this delineation by the U.S. Census Bureau. There was a very full report on this by the Wall Street Journal just last month, in June of this year. I have very serious concerns about this.

As did Senator Shelby, I wrote the administration asking for assurances that ACORN would have no role whatsoever in the Census. I believe Senator Shelby originally wrote his letter in March. I sent my letter in early June. Today we have gotten absolutely no response.

Let me remind my colleagues why this should be a very serious concern for all of us. And we don't have to look far in terms of history to understand these concerns; the last election cycle will do. In May 2009, Nevada filed charges against ACORN. The complaint includes 26 counts of voter fraud and 13 counts for compensating those registering voters, both felonies. From July 27 through October 2 of 2008, ACORN in Nevada also provided additional compensation under a bonus program called Blackjack or 21-Plus that was based on the total number of voters a person registered. A canvasser who brought in 21 or more completed voter registration forms per shift would be paid a bonus of $5.

There are other serious complaints that have been made against ACORN. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 phony voter registration forms. In 2007, Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations.

I think it is fair to say the American public does have strong concerns about ACORN because of this long history of voter registration and voter fraud. So why should this organization be signed up as an official 2010 census partner to do exactly the sort of activity of listing people, signing up people as they did fraudulently with regard to voter registration?

Again, this is very worrisome. What is even more worrisome is that for months, these clear concerns have been brought before the Obama administration, and the administration has done absolutely nothing to dispel these very deep and very legitimate concerns. Again, my colleague, Senator Shelby, who will be speaking in a moment, sent his letter in March of this year outlining these strong concerns, asking the administration to state categorically that ACORN would have nothing to do with the census. I sent a similar followup letter in June of this year. To date, we have gotten no response.

As it stands now, we are going to sign up ACORN to do exactly the sort of activity they have done over and over and over again fraudulently, illegally, with regard to voter registration. It is outrageous when so much is on the line with this next very important census.

For these reasons, I will strongly oppose this cloture vote for the census nominee. I continue to urge the administration to assure us that ACORN will have nothing to do with the process, after they have built up a long and storied record, unfortunately, of fraud with regard to similar activity in terms of voter registration.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I reserve the right to object.

Yes, I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, just that I may speak for up to 5 minutes.

Madam President, as the manager of this bill, who has been very cooperative, and others on the floor know, I have been working hard to get a vote on my reimportation amendment. It is a very simple, straightforward amendment. It is a limitation amendment--at least it will be once it is perfected and modified. In fact, it is an amendment that has passed the Senate before, in 2006. So it is not new. It has actually passed the Senate before.

Unfortunately, because of the nature of the issue and, in fact, because of the powerful nature of the pharmaceutical interests who oppose this amendment, this is being blocked using every procedural tool in the book. That is unfortunate, but it seems as if that is going to be the case.

If I cannot get a fair hearing and a fair vote on this amendment, I am going to use the procedural tools available to me to block votes on other nongermane amendments, on other amendments that are subject to points of order--which I think are most, if not all, of the other pending amendments.

At this point, given the fairly certain nature of certain Members' fierce opposition to this reimportation provision, I simply suggest we move forward and not waste folks' time. I am certainly amenable to moving to dispense with any pending amendment which is germane, which does not have a point of order against it, move through those and then move to final passage of the bill as quickly as possible. I am certainly open to that and would encourage that and would like to move forward in that vein.

Mr. President, I certainly share the desire to move forward and resolve these issues and go through these votes. In that vein, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Dodd amendment.

This is a straight limitation amendment. It is a germane amendment with no points of order against it, which would simply enact legislation that the Senate enacted in 2006 with regard to reimportation.

I would be happy to explain the amendment more fully if it is appropriate to have a debate either now or in the near future on it. But again, it enacts language that was previously enacted by the Senate in 2006. It is a straight limitation amendment, which is germane, and does not have points of order against it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to present my second-degree amendment.

In a few minutes we will be voting on the Vitter second-degree amendment to the Dodd amendment. This is very straightforward and is something this body has considered very directly before. This amendment simply prohibits funds in the bill from being used by Customs and Border security to prevent the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada only and for personal use only. So it is a reimportation amendment but only from Canada and only for personal use. It is very limited in that regard.

Also, it only limits funds with regard to enforcement by Customs and Border security. There are numerous other agencies in the Federal Government, such as the Justice Department and many law enforcement agencies, which regularly are in the business of going after counterfeits and other problems in the drug trade. This amendment doesn't limit that activity in any way because it only impacts Customs and Border security.

Finally, this exact amendment was considered and passed by the Senate in July of 2006. It was not only passed by the Senate, but that Vitter amendment, essentially identical, was adopted 68 to 32. A few months later, modified language passed the entire Congress. It was somewhat modified, but it passed the entire Congress and is law now.

So based on all that history, I urge a strong bipartisan vote in favor of this amendment as we had in 2006. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I wish to briefly address some of the issues brought up by my distinguished colleague from Utah.

First, this amendment is only about individuals, and you can look at the clear language of the amendment. It is about individuals, not corporations, not mega businesses, not anything else but individuals.

Secondly, it is only about personal use. It is only about businesses not in the business of importing prescription drugs. So these individuals cannot be in that business, cannot be in that activity as a business. We specifically refer to the relevant portion of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, section 801(g).

Third, it is for personal use because of that limitation.

Fourth, we are only limiting funds that go through border security for this purpose, not any other law enforcement agency; and there are many that are involved in the fight against counterfeits and other things, including the Department of Justice.

Fifth, and finally, this language was passed by this body in 2006 by a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32 and, as Senator Hatch said, a modified version was actually passed into law and has operated in law for 3 years, with no apparent safety problems that we are aware of.

I yield back my time and look forward to the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, Senator Hatch and I have both spoken, and I am prepared to yield back the time.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.