Highway Trust Fund Restoration

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield further, I am trying to see whether there is net job creation from the Senator's amendment or if we would lose ground with it. If our goal is to create more jobs in America--I listened to the Senator's explanation, and I would like to ask the Senator from California this: Even if we just take the money out of one pocket and move it to another pocket, how does that create new jobs in America?

Mrs. BOXER. Clearly, it is not even moving funds, it is slashing funds from the stimulus program, which has one purpose, and that purpose is to create jobs.

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. We have heard from our Republicans friends over and over again, who voted against the stimulus--although I have to say some of them are standing in front of projects built with stimulus dollars, but we will forget that for now--we are hearing from them that the stimulus isn't working fast enough. What do they want to do today but cut the funding?

What I have suggested--and I want to get my friend's reaction to this--to my friends on the other side--because I agree we ought to extend the highway trust fund for 18 months; I don't like the way they are paying for it--is to wait until the end of the stimulus program, and if there is funding at that time that hasn't been obligated, that has been left on the table, take those funds and add them to the highway trust fund.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will further yield, I ask the Senator from California this: Since the Senator from Louisiana didn't support the President's recovery and reinvestment program, and most of those on his side of the aisle did not, those of us who voted for it did it with the understanding it would do a number of things. It provides tax relief for families, and it provides a helping hand to those who are unemployed, so they can afford health care insurance if they have lost their job, for example. It does provide infrastructure programs and projects. It is my understanding we are a little over 4 months into this 2-year stimulus program--not quite 5 months into it--and the Senator from Louisiana wants to basically declare it a failure, never having voted for it. I ask the Senator from California, when the Senator from Louisiana talks about the number of dollars committed, the number of projects we have agreed to, it was my understanding that, as of a couple weeks ago, we had obligated over $200 billion out of the $787 billion, meaning we promised we will pay, once the projects are underway and the jobs are actually created, and that number is going to continue to grow as we obligate it. Is it not also true that we want to make certain, whether we are spending money for projects under the highway trust fund or the stimulus bill, that we don't waste taxpayer dollars; we want to look carefully at each project to make sure it serves a public purpose and make certain Americans are going to work at a decent wage, and when it is over, we not only get through the recession, but we have a legacy of projects that will serve our economy and our Nation.

If the Senator from Louisiana has his way, he is going to take the money out that we are currently investing into creating jobs in America and move it into the highway trust fund. I am wondering if the Senator could respond. Does it make any sense for us to take a different approach on the stimulus and not be careful that the money we spend is actually spent well?

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I will yield to the Senator from Louisiana on his time, but I will keep my time right now. It is very important we thread this needle in the right way. We want those jobs out there, and we want them out there as fast as they can get there.

Out of the $27 billion for highway projects, there is $10 billion remaining. I can assure both my friends that it is very important to be careful in the way you do it. If you do it too quickly, you know what will happen on the floor of the Senate. We will have our friends on the other side saying: `` they rushed.'' We want to be careful, but we don't want to, at this point, as we see this recovery starting to take hold--we all believe and hope it is true--we know employment is the lagging indicator. This is not the time to throw a dagger into the heart of job creation. That is what the Senator's amendment will do.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from California, if I have the appropriate amendment before us, does the Senator from Louisiana go beyond the highway trust fund in the money that is transferred? Does he apply some of the money from the stimulus to unemployment and to mortgage insurance or is that a separate amendment? I know his amendments were filed late last night, and I am not sure.

Mrs. BOXER. I believe the Senator's amendment--and he can explain it--deals with the trust fund, and others will have similar amendments for UI and mortgage insurance.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator--and this is a legitimate inquiry, as I don't know the answer--on the stimulus projects we are funding, what is the requirement for a local match for those projects, as opposed to requirements for projects under the highway trust fund?

Mrs. BOXER. My understanding is it is 100 percent because it is the stimulus. We are trying to do that because our States are suffering--yours is and mine. We saw our Republican Governor talk about how heavy our hearts are back there, and we decided to help our State. This is very different. It is 100 percent offset.

Mr. DURBIN. The stimulus is 100 percent Federal, which means projects go forward even if States are struggling with the budget. If the money goes into the highway trust fund for projects, most of that required a State or local match, right?

Mrs. BOXER. That is correct; 20, 30 percent.

Mr. DURBIN. Most States, including Illinois, California, and others, would have a more difficult time moving projects forward through the highway trust fund rather than the stimulus, which is 100 percent Federal dollars.

Actually, the Senator from Louisiana is cutting down the opportunity, reducing the opportunity for infrastructure projects by requiring this match through the highway trust fund; isn't that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. I say to the assistant majority leader, he is absolutely correct. I understand the need to extend the trust funds to 18 months. On that part, Senator Vitter and I are in agreement. But the way he funds it is hurtful to the American people, to the American workers, to our businesses, and to our contractors. Even though we know a lot of us want to see these funds get out there quicker, they are on the verge--Vice President Biden has said we have committed more than a fourth of the Recovery Act total funds. We are on track to meet the deadline set when the act was passed in February, spending 70 percent by the end of September of 2010. He points out that the purpose of the stimulus was the jolt for immediate help but then a long-term economic recovery.

This kind of amendment--and the others we will see--which says to the American people: Gee, it is 4 months and we want to forget about this whole notion--doesn't make sense. The timing of this is way off. If at the end of the 2-year period, within which the stimulus is supposed to act, there is money left over, I will be the first one saying: Let's either reduce the deficit with it or let's put it into the highway trust fund. I do believe infrastructure should have gotten more funds from the stimulus, but that is another point.

Mr. DURBIN. My last question to the Senator from California--and I join her in opposition to this amendment--is this: If the net result of the Vitter amendment is not to increase jobs in America but actually will reduce jobs in America, it seems like it is the opposite of what we ought to be doing in the middle of a recession, with so many Americans losing work. We want to create good-paying jobs here at home, and the Vitter amendment, by increasing the need for a State and local match, for example, is going to decrease the likelihood of creating jobs. The stimulus money--100 percent Federal money that is for shovel-ready projects--will move more quickly into the economy and into paychecks and will help us rebound from this recession we are in.

I say to the Senator from California, I thank her for her opposition to this amendment. I hope our colleagues on both sides will realize that even if you didn't vote for the stimulus, voting for the Vitter amendment is going to take money away from projects in your States that will create good-paying jobs.

Mrs. BOXER. Before my friend leaves, I think I can put some specifics out to him. We already know there are $10 billion worth of highway projects that have not been obligated. That is at risk right away. We know there are Superfund cleanups that are long overdue. We have funds for that. We have $5.5 billion in construction-related activity that deals with cleaning up underground leaking storage tanks and the specialized, good-paying jobs that those activities create. We have $300 million to restore our Nation's wildlife refuges. We have $100 million in a great program Republicans and Democrats have been lauding in my committee--the Economic Development Administration--where you leverage those funds from business. That would be at risk. We have $5 billion available for flood control. It is ironic that my friend from Louisiana--I have been working with him and Senator Landrieu to do everything in our power to stop flooding. We have problems in our State, and Lord knows and the world knows about the problem in Senator Vitter's State; $5 billion was available for flood control, for water supply and harbor maintenance, all of which are focused on job creation, and the irony of ironies is that those funds could well be cut under the Vitter amendment.

Mr. DURBIN. So the Senator's amendment would effectively cut funds used in the stimulus for flood control?

Mrs. BOXER. Any funds not obligated out of the $5 billion available. As we know, Vice President Biden says, on average, 25 percent of the funds have been obligated. That means a good portion of the $5 billion for flood control would, in fact, be at risk.

I thank my friend for coming over and helping me explain to our colleagues and the American people why we oppose this amendment, even though it may be well intentioned. At the end of the day, it hurts our people and their chance to get good jobs.

I yield the floor and reserve my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator from Louisiana suggests the stimulus bill the President enacted is not creating jobs because we still have unemployment. The fact is, it is creating jobs and we are still in a recession. Were we not working with the stimulus bill to put money back in the economy to create American jobs, it would be worse. We all know that.

When the President came to office, he encountered an economy that was losing on average 700,000 jobs a month. Our growth rate had hit a negative 6.3 percent. Foreclosures were at record levels, and residential investment had fallen. Banks were in crisis and freezing lending. Madam President, $10 trillion in wealth had been lost. Virtually every American with a savings or retirement account had taken a hit. That is when the President took his hand off the Bible and accepted the responsibility of office, and that is what he inherited.

He came to Congress and said: Let's put money in the economy and get Americans back to work. Let's invest in things that will pay off in the long run. Let's build the bridges, the highways, the airports. Let's make sure we make investments that not only create jobs today, but we can rely on in the future to build our economy. And we did it, with limited help from the other side of the aisle.

The Senator who is offering this amendment voted against it. The position for most Senators on the other side of the aisle was, let's do nothing; let's let the market work this out.

Do you have any idea where we would be today if the market was still working this out? I am afraid we would be in sorry shape. We would continue to see job loss and continue to see more and more unemployed Americans, which is exactly the opposite of what we want.

Now comes the Senator from Louisiana who opposed the stimulus package in the midst of this economic crisis and now says: Let's take money out of the stimulus package that is creating good-paying jobs in America. Let's take it away from the States where they get 100 percent Federal funding for their projects. Let's put it in a different fund. It isn't creating any new investment, but let's put it in a different fund that now requires a State match.

What that means is, if your State budget is struggling--we know a lot of States are--the Senator from Louisiana does you no favor. He is taking a project in your State that is important for your economic future, closes it down and says: We will be glad to give you some of that money back as long as you can come up with matching funds.

I am afraid that is not helpful. It is hurtful at a time when this economy needs all the help it can get. When it comes to the stimulus package, understand, we are a little over 4 months into this stimulus, this 2-year stimulus package.

The Senator from Louisiana says: I am prepared to declare it a failure; let's stop right now.

I am not prepared to declare it a failure. In fact, I think there is an indication that it is starting to put America back to work.

Because of the Recovery Act, on which the Senator from Louisiana wants to reduce spending--listen to this--95 percent of working families are already getting tax credits in their paychecks. Those dealing with job loss are collecting an extra $25 a week if they are out of work. That does not sound like much if you have a job, but if you are out of work, it means something.

There also is help for unemployed people to pay health insurance. I don't know if the Senator from Louisiana didn't vote for that. I don't know if he thinks that is a good idea. If I were unemployed, I would want my family to have health insurance. That is pretty basic.

There is money to help seniors and college students, many of whom have faced the idea of suspending their college education because mom and dad are struggling at home. The Senator from Louisiana may be opposed to that; I am not. I want them to stay in school. I want them to get their degrees because they will lead America.

We provided $34 billion in funds for States for Medicaid because our States are struggling to provide health care for the poor. The Senator from Louisiana may oppose that. That is his right to do. I happen to think that providing basic health care to the poor in America is evidence we are a caring and compassionate nation and will continue to be.

The money that has gone to States and local governments has avoided the layoffs of teachers and police officers and other law enforcement in Louisiana, Illinois, California, and around the Nation. The Senator from Louisiana may think that is a waste of money, we never should have done that. But for a safer America and for an America where kids can go to school and have the teachers they need, I think the money was well spent.

Beyond that, this Recovery Act in which we are involved is one that is starting to make some results. Just starting. I am not being Pollyanna-ish about this. We are still in a recession. I think we are coming out--I hope we are coming out.

In January, the month before this Recovery Act went into law, we lost 741,000 jobs. Terrible. By June, the economy was losing one-third fewer jobs. I wish we were not losing any jobs, but the fact is the stimulus is starting to work.

The Senator from Louisiana, who did not support it, who had no plan for this economy, now wants to take the money out just at the moment it is starting to work. Boy, the perfect Washington answer. Let's move in right now, 4 months into a 2-year program, and declare it a failure. That may be his approach, but I don't think it works for America.

In less than 160 days, more than 30,000 projects have been started under this bill--30,000 across the country. I went to Peoria, IL. There is a project at the airport which is critical to its economic future funded by the stimulus bill, creating good-paying local jobs right in the heartland of Illinois. More than $23 billion will be made available to fund over 6,600 shovel-ready construction projects; 3,200 are underway. If the Senator from Louisiana has his way, we will stop right there. We will start cutting back on these projects right now. That is his idea of economic recovery.

Over $369 million has been put into rural water systems. I can tell you, representing a State with a lot of small towns, such as Louisiana, they need this money to make sure their drinking water is safe for the people who live there. The Senator from Louisiana says: Enough said; let's start cutting back on that.

Madam President, $2 billion has been moved out to State governments and community organizations for weatherization and energy efficiency on low-income homes, and half a billion in overdue cleanup of Superfund sites. The Senator from Louisiana says: Let's cut that money; let's reduce that money. I don't think that makes sense.

We know if we did not have this Recovery Act, there would be more unemployment, more people out of work, fewer dollars being paid in taxes to the Federal Government and State governments. Our situation would be worse when it comes to the deficit. The more people who are unemployed, the fewer who are paying taxes, the more people need services. It is a recipe for a deficit that grows.

The Vitter amendment, by reducing the spending power of the stimulus funds, will make our deficit worse. That is a fact. He must acknowledge that. I hope he does.

In terms of obligating these funds, I want to make sure at the end of the day, having voted for this and supported it, that the money is well spent. I don't want a single dollar wasted. We are going to take care to make sure these projects make sense, that we have a justification for them, and they will serve America and our economy's future. That is responsible and accountable transparency.

I know the Senator from Louisiana says we are 4 months in, we have not gotten it spent, it is time to bail out. That kind of shortsightedness will not work. The idea that we would cut back on funds for flood control in the States of Louisiana and Illinois makes no sense whatsoever. The Senator from Louisiana is wanting to cut back those funds so he can transfer money into the highway trust fund.

I think we are on the path to recovery. I hope that path is a short one and we reach it soon. In the meantime, the Vitter amendment will not help. The Vitter amendment makes it worse. The situation is that the projects we are counting on to get America back to work, good-paying jobs right here at home, are in danger because of this amendment.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, even if they didn't vote for the stimulus package, do the math--100 percent Federal money for the project in that State, as opposed to the Vitter approach which would require 20 percent or more from the State before they could go forward with any projects at a time when most States are struggling. This is not the answer. This will not be the only part of the problem; it will be a big part of the problem.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, our national debt is a national challenge and a national problem, and we can face it and face it honestly, Democrats and Republicans. We can't leave these debts to our children. That is a fact. But let's have some honesty in recounting the history of this debt.

When President Clinton left office 9 years ago, he gave to President George W. Bush a surplus not a debt, a surplus. He had not only balanced the budget, he was generating a surplus, and it was giving longer life to Social Security. President George W. Bush inherited this surplus and an accumulated national debt over the 200-year history of the United States of $5 trillion--$5 trillion. Remember that number because 8 years later, when President Bush left office, the national debt had doubled--doubled--with the support of his party.

Why did it double? It doubled because he fought a war and didn't pay for it. He accumulated debt year after year--in addition to the terrible casualties and losses of our brave fighting men and women--and left that debt to future generations. Then, in the midst of this, he cut taxes. For the first time in the history of the United States of America, a President, in the midst of war, cut taxes for the wealthiest people in our country, supported by the same party that comes now and preaches to us their sermon of fiscal integrity.

So when President Bush left office, he left President Obama a deficit and a national debt that had doubled under his watch, with Republican congressional leadership support.

That is a fact. Those are facts. President Obama inherited that debt and inherited the problems that came with it and the sickest economy America had seen in 75 years. That is what he was given.

So President Obama said: We have to be serious about our debt, but we have to be honest about it too. Until we get out of this recession, until we stop this rampant unemployment where people are losing their jobs and can't fend for their families and can't pay taxes--obviously, because they do not have work--we are going to see this deficit continue to grow. To stabilize this economy, we need to put people back to work.

The President said: I know it is tough to spend money when you are in debt, but at this moment in time it is like buying a tourniquet to stop the bleeding. We have to do it, even if it takes every penny we have. And he put together a stimulus bill to get this economy back on its feet. With the exception of three then-Republican Senators, not a single one of them would support this effort to stop the recession.

When President Obama came to office, we were losing 741,000 jobs a month. Now, 4 months into our 24-month stimulus, we have cut that number by one-third, and I hope we have turned the corner. But this massive economy of ours, connected throughout the world with so many other global economies, it is pretty tough to turn this battleship and move it in the right direction. I think the President has done the right thing.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana is an amendment which says: Give up. Give up on stimulating this economy. Give up on stopping this recession. Stop building these projects that create American jobs--good-paying jobs. Stop investing in our infrastructure for future generations. Stop addressing this recession head on and pray for a good outcome.

I am sorry, but I can't buy it. The Senator from Louisiana is offering a proposal to take money out of the President's recovery and reinvestment package that was determined to stabilize this economy. He wants to take the money out of it when we are 4 months into it. He says this morning: We are not spending this money fast enough.

Incidentally, he voted against this, but now he is criticizing it saying we are not spending it fast enough. Well, I want to spend it quickly, but I want to spend it wisely, and I want accountability. At the end of the day, the taxpayers will hold us all accountable: Did you spend our tax dollars wisely? Did you spend them on projects that really do benefit our country? Did you waste it? Was there fraud? I want those questions answered in the positive frame of mind that we have done everything we can do. So it is not being spent as fast as its critics say, but I think it is being spent wisely, and we are creating jobs all across America.

Thousands of projects are on line now creating good-paying jobs. The amendments we are considering today on the Republican side of the aisle, all from Members who opposed the President's effort to stop this recession with the stimulus bill, every one of them wants to put an end to the stimulus package. With 150 days into this 2-year bill, they want to put an end to it by starting to take money out of it. They have given up on it. They have given up on a package which, incidentally, provided a tax break for 95 percent of the working families in America.

Does that help? You bet it does. These families are struggling in the recession too. They have seen their life savings devastated by the stock market in the last year. Giving them a helping hand is a sensible thing to do.

It is a bill they voted against--the President's bill--which says let's give unemployed workers $25 more per week so they can get by. Sure, it doesn't sound like a lot of money, except when you don't have a job and every penny counts. They want to criticize, as well, the President's idea of providing health insurance to unemployed workers. No, they said that was a terrible idea. They voted against it.

Think about this: You have just lost your job, you may lose your house, your child has to go to the doctor with a raging fever, and you pray to God a diagnosis isn't going to come down that will wipe out your life savings. For them it is an extravagance--the idea of providing health insurance for unemployed people. For me, it is part of America, a caring country that stands by people when they are facing the misfortunes of losing their job.

The list goes on and on, and they oppose all of it. They now come and say, we not only opposed it at the outset, we are going to start taking money out of it. We are going to pass it around, moving it in a lot of directions. Some want to put it in the highway trust fund, some in unemployment insurance, and some want to put it in housing programs. But the net result is the same. It takes the money the President wanted to use to stimulate this economy and create good-paying jobs. We need to resist these amendments.

Mr. President, I understand Senator DeMint wants to offer an amendment, and we are supposed to close at 2. So I don't know if he is prepared at this time, but if he is, I would be happy to yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source