starttime 1267470033.52173
LEGISLATION TO EXTEND THE
PROGMS WHICH EXPIRED AT
MIDNIGHT ON SUNDAY.
SENATOR BUNNING OBJECTED TO
$10 BILLION MEASURE SAYING IT
WOULD ADD TO THE BUDGET DEFICIT.
LIVE SENATE COVERAGE NOW HERE ON
C-SPAN2.
THE CHAPLAIN: LET US PRAY.
O GOD WHOSE APPROVAL WE SEEK
ABOVE HUMANITY'S HOLLOW
APPLAUSE, WE PAUSE TODAY TO
EXPERIENCE THE WARMTH OF YOUR
PRESENCE, AS YOU LIFT THE LIGHT
OF YOUR COUNTENANCE UPON US.
GIVE TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY
PURE HEARTS AND A PASSION TO
FAITHFULLY SERVE YOU AND
COUNTRY.
ACROSS THEIR TOILING HOURS, KEEP
THEIR HEARTS FIXED ON YOU, THE
AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF THEIR
FAITH.
IN A WORLD OF SUSPENSE AND
SUSPICION AND TURMOIL, BREATHE
NOW IN THIS QUIET MOMENT YOUR
PEACE ON EVERY HEART.
LORD, PREPARE SOLUTIONS FOR OUR
SENATORS' COMPLEXITIESND
RESOLVE THEIR CONFLICTS IN A WAY
THAT WILL GLORIFY YOU.
WE PRAY IN YOUR SACRED NAME.
AMEN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: PLEASE
JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE TOHE FLAG.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE
TO THE FLAG
OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,
AND TO THE REPUBLIC
FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION
UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE,
WITH LIBERTY
AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL READ A COMMUNICATION
TO THE SENATE.
THE CLERK: WASHINGTON, D.C,
MARCH 1, 2010.
TO THE SENATE:
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 1,
PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STANDING
RULES OF THE SENATE, I HEREBY
APPOINT THE HONORABLE MARK R.
WARNER, A SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, TO
PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE CHAIR.
SIGNED: ROBERT C. BYRD, PRESIDENT
PRO TEMPORE.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY LEADER.
MR. REID: FOLLOWING THE LEADER
REMARKS, THERE WILL BE A PERIOD
OF MORNING BUSINESS UNTIL 3:00 P.M.
SENATORS PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR
UP TO TEN MINUTES EACH.
AT 3:00 P.M., WE'LL TURN TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4213, THE
TAX EXTENDERS LEGISLATION.
SENATOR BAUCUS WILL BE
RECOGNIZED TO CALL UP THE AMENDMENT.
AS PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED, THERE
WILL BE NO ROLL CALL VOTES
TODAY.
THE FIRST VOTE OF THE WEEK WILL
OCCUR AT 12:15 P.M. TOMORROW.
THAT VOTE WILL BE ON THE MOTION
TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE
NOMINATION OF BARBARA KEENAN TO
BE A UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
MR. PRESIDENT, THERE ARE TWO
BILLS, I'M TOLD, AT THE DESK DUE
FOR SECOND READINGS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: H.R. 4626, AN ACT TO
RESTORE THE APPLICATION OF THE
FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS TO T
BUSINESS OF HEALTH INSURANCE TO
PROTECT COMPETION AND
CONSUMERS.
H.R. 4691, AN ACT TO PROVIDE A
TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF CERTAIN
PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD
OBJECT TO ANY FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO
THESE TWO BILLS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION IS HEARD.
THE BILLS WILL BE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, EVERY
NIGHT, TOO MANY OUT-OF-WORK
NEVADANS AND AMERICANS, PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO WORK, WHO NEED TO
SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES BUT CAN'T
FIND A JOB, GO TO BED WITH AT
LEAST THE COMFORT OF HAVING
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND
HEALTH BENEFITS.
LAST NIGHT, MORE THAN A MILLION
OF THEM, PEOPLE THROUGHOUT
AMERICA, WENT TO SLEEP RELYING
ON THOSE BENEFITS WOKE UP
WITHOUT THE CONFIDENCE THEY WL
BE THERE NOW.
EARLY THIS MORNING WHEN THEY
WOULD RATHER BE SPENDING THEIR
MORNINGS WORKING, MOTHERS AND
FATHERS IN EVERY STATE WOKE UP
AT THE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE IN A
LONG LINE.
NEWS REPORTS TODAY THAT THESE
LINES ARE REALLY LONG TODAY, ALL
OVER THE COUNTRY, FROM VIRGINIA,
NEVADA, TO KENTUCKY.
THEY ARE LONG BECAUSE THESE
PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT HOW
THEY ARE GOING TO PUT FOOD ON
THE TABLE AND PAY THE BILLS.
FOR FAR TOO MANY AMERICANS,
THOSE BENEFITS WERE SET TO
EXPIRE LAST NHT.
SO SIX TIMES LAST WEEK,
DEMOCRATS ASKED TO EXTEND THEIR
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR A
SHORT TIME WHILE THEY WORK ON A
LONGER EXTENSION.
SIX TIMES, REPUBLICANS SAID NO.
THEY DIDN'T JUST SAY NO TO US,
THAT IS MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
THEY SAID NO TO THEIR FAMILIES
IN THEIR OWN STATES AND ALL OUR
STATES COUNT ON US TO ACT WHEN
WE NEED ACTION.
THEY COUNT ON US TO RESPOND IN
THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY.
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY.
E REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE
ARE STANDING BETWEEN THESE
FAMILIES AND THE HELP THEY NEED
WHILE THESE BENEFITS EXPIRE AND
EXPIRED.
IT MIGHT WORK UNDER THE SENATE
RULES THEY CAN DO THAT, BUT IT
CERTAINLY DOESN'T WORK FOR
WORKING FAMILIES.
THE NEED TO BUY GROCERIES DOES
NOT EXPIRE.
THE NEED TO HEAT YOUR HOMES, PUT
GAS IN YOUR CAR, MAKE PAYMENTS
FOR THE FURNITURE YOU BOUGHT,
THE CAR YOU BOUGHT, YOUR HOUSE
PAYMENT.
THE NEED TO TAKE MEDICINE OR
SUPPORT AN AGING PARENT OR TAKE
CARE OF THE KIDS, THEY DON'T
EXPIRE.
THOSE OPPOSED TO HELPING OUR
FELLOW CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF
GREATEST NEED WANT TO TALK ABOUT
PROCESS, PROCESS.
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES CAME TO
THE FLOOR AND TALKED ABOUT PROCESS.
THEY HAD A RIGHT TO DO THAT.
WELL, UNDER THE RULES, I GUESS
THAT'S TRUE, MR. PRESIDENT.
IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO FEE YOUR
KIDS, THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING
ANYTHING -- MEAN ANYTHING TO
THEM ABOUT PROCESS.
WE TALK OFTEN ABOUT THE COST OF
INACTION.
IT'S THE REASON WE INSIST ON
CREATI JOBS AND MAKING HEALTH
CARE MORE AFFORDABLE AND
STRENGTHEN OUR INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY.
WHEN WE LK ABOUT THE COST OF
INACTION, IT'S MORE THAN JUST
RHETORIC.
IT COMES WITH DIRE CONSEQUENCES.
THE AMERICANS WHO WOKE UP THIS
MORNING WITHOUT THE BENEFITS
THEY NEED NOW KNOW THAT BETTER
THAN ANYONE ELSE.
MR. PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED PRESS
RUNS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, NEWS
WIRE.
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THIS ARTICLE
SAYS THIS MORNING, 2,000 FEDERAL
TRANSPORTATION WORKERS WILL BE
FURLOUGHED WITHOUT PAY TODAY.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, THE REASON
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 2,000, THIS
DOESN'T COUNT THE THOUSANDS AND
THOUSANDS, UP TO A MILLION
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE
ANY -- HAVE JOBS AS A RESULT OF
NOT EXTENDING THE HIGHWAY BILL.
THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
LET THESE PEOPLE WORK.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IS
EVEN THE INSPECTORS CAN'T GO OUT
AND DO THEIR JOBS, SO PEOPLE ARE
JUST WALKING AWAY FROM THESE JOBS.
SECRETARY LAHOOD, THE SECRETARY
OF TRANSPORTATION -- BY THE WAY,
A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN UNTIL
HE WAS APPOINTED HERE -- SAID
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WILL BE
SENT HOM FROM JOB SITES BECAUSE
FEDERAL INSPECTORS MUST BE
FURLOUGHED.
THEY MEAN A LONG LIST OF
CONSTRUCTION SITES THAT WILL BE
HALTED -- GEORGE WASHINGTON
PARKWAY IN
BRIDGE -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE
THAT IS, BUT IN VIRGINIA.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION IN CORD CA
LEAN, IDAHO.
ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, IT'S HAPPENING.
THE TRANSPORTATION INSPECTORS,
SAFETY INSPECTORS, NO PAY SO
THEY HAVE TO LEAVE, AND NOTHING
IS HAPPENING.
THIS IS GOING TO LEAD TO UNTOLD
NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.
I SAID UP TO A MILLION PEOPLE
WON'T BE ABLE TO WORK.
IT'S JUST REALLY WNG WHAT'S
TAKEN PLACE HERE, MR. PRESIDENT.
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO RIGHT THAT
WRONG.
I HOPE REPUBLICANS WILL
RECONSIDER, THINK ABOUT THEIR
CONSTITUENTS STANDING IN THE
UNEMPLOYMENT LINE A WE SPEAK.
BASED ON THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THE SENATE PROCEED TO H.R. 4691,
WHICH I A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF
PROVISIONS WHICH EXPIRED
YESTERDAY.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, COBRA,
THE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PEOPLE
OUT OF WORK, FLOOD INSURANCE,
SATELLITE HOME VIEWER ACT.
A MILLION AND A HALF PEOPLE ARE
UNABLE TODAY TO WATCH THE TV
THAT THEY COULD LAST NIGHT AT MIDNIGHT.
HIGHWAY FUNDING -- AND I'VE
TALKED ABOUT THAT.
S.B.A. BUSINESS LOANS, SMALL
BUSINESS PROVISIONS IN THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY ACT, AND THE
DOCTORS FIX, S.G.R. AND POVERTY GUIDELINES RECEID FROM THE
HOUSE AND AT THE DESK.
THAT THE BILL BE READ THREE
+WMES, PASSED, THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE LAID UPON THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
A
THE ESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION
IS HEARD.
MR. REID: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. BUNNING: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER A
PREVIOUS ORDER, THE LEADERSHIP TIME IS SERVED.
THERE WILL NOW BE A PERIOD OF
MORNING B
WITH SENATORS PERMITTED TO SPEAK
THEREIN FOR UP TO TEN MINUTES
EACH.
MR. BUNNING: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.
MR. BUNNING: THANK YOU.
JUST A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF WHY
WE ARE WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THIS
EXTENSION BILL, THE BRIEF
EXTENSION OF 30 DAYS.
THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE
MINORITY LEADER IN THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE, SENATORS BAUCUS AND
GRASSLEY, ON A THREE-MONTH
EXTENSION OF THESE VERY SAME
PROVISIONS.
THERE WERE MORE PROVISIONS IN
THE BILL ALSO.
IT COST A LITTLE MORE THAN THE
THE $10 BILLION THAT IS ASKED
FOR BECAUSE IT WAS A THREE-MONTH
EXTENSION.
SENATOR REID PULLED THAT BILL
FROM THE FLOOR OF THE U.S.
SENATE.
HE DID IT.
THE LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATS
PULLED THAT BILL FROM THE FLOOR.
I SUPPORT EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS, COBRA BENEFITS, FLOOD
INSURANCE, HIGHWAY BILL FIX, DOC
FIX, SMALL BUSINESS LOANS,
DISTANT NETWORK TELEVISION FOR
SATELLITE VIEWERS.
IF WE CAN'T FIND $10 BILLION TO
PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT WE ALL
SUPPORT, WE WILL NEVER PAY FOR
ANYTHING ON THE FLOOR OF THIS
U.S. SENATE.
I HAVE OFFERED SEVERAL WAYS TO
DO THIS, INCLUDING TRYING TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE MAJORITY
LEADER'S STAFF.
NONE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
WE CANNOT KEEP ADDING TO THE DEBT.
IT'S OVER $14 TRILLION AND GOING
UP FAST.
IF THE BUDGET THAT IS BEFORE US
PASSES, IT WILL ADD ANOTHER
ANOTHER $1.5 TRILLION TO THE
DEBT.
LAST WEEK, -- WELL, NOW IT'S A
LITTLE PAST LAST WEEK -- WE
PASSED PAY-GO.
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT
PAY-GO IS, IT MEANS YOU HAVE TO
PAY FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU
BRING BEFORE THE SENATE, AND YOU
CAN'T CHARGE IT ON THE DEBT.
YOU CAN'T CHARGE IT.
THAT'S WHAT PAY-GO SAYS.
SO UNDERSTANDING THAT, I HOPE
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND
MY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
SENATE PROCEED TO THE IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4691, THAT
THE AMENDMENT AT THE DESK WHICH
OFFERS A FULL OFFSET BE AGREED
TO, THE BILL AS ANDED BE READ
A THIRD TIME AND PASSED, AND THE
MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID
UPON THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
MR. REID: RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, HISTORY
IS SOMETHING I THINK YOU HAVE TO
BE INVOLVED IN TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT REALLY TRANSPIRED.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS NO BILL
ON THE FLOOR FOR ME TO TAKE OFF
THE FLOOR.
THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ON THE
THURSDAY BEFORE WE LEFT FOR THE
LAST WK-LONG BREAK THAT WE TOOK.
I WAS IN THE BACK HALL HERE WITH
SENATORS GRASSLEY, BAUCUS, AND
McCONNELL, AND SENATOR
McCONNELL, MY FRIEND, SAID
THAT THEY WEREN'T READY TO AGREE
TO ANYTHING YET.
WELL, IT'S VERY CLEAR,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT IF WE'RE
GOING TO EXTEND BENEFITS FOR A
LOT OF TAX PROVISIONS THAT ARE
VERY IORTANT TO BUSINESS, WE
SHOULD AT LEAST CONSIDER
EXTENDING BENEFITS FOR PEOPLE
WHO ARE DOWN AND OUT FOR THE
SAME PERIOD OF TIME.
SO UNDERSTAND THE BILL THAT CAME
BEFORE THE SENATE INCLUDED A
JOBS PACKAGE THAT EXTENDED THE
HIGHWAY BENEFITS FOR ONE YEAR,
SAVING A MILLION JOBS, CREATING
JOBS BY ALLOWING SMALL
BUSINESSES OR ANY BUSINESSES TO
HIRE SOMEBODY THAT HAS BEEN OUT
OF WORK FOR 60 DAYS.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY THEIR
WITHHOLDING TAX AND THEY GET A
A $1,000 TAX CREDIT AT THE END
OF THE YEAR.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, SMALL
BUSINESSES, MR. PRESIDENT, MADE
A PROVISION IN THERE TO ALLOW
SMALL BUSINESS TO WRITE OFF, NOT
DEPRECIATE UP TO $250,000 OF
PURCHASES IN A YEAR.
VERY IMPORTANT TO STIMULATE BUSINESSES.
WE ALSO HAD A FROITION STIMULATE
THE ECONOMY BY EXTENDING THE
BUILD-AMERICA BONDS THAT WAS SO
SUCCESSFUL IN O RECOVERY ACT.
THOSE FUNDS HAVE EXPIRED.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT,, WE CAN HAVE
ALL THE EXCUSES ONE WANTS.
THE FACT IS MY FRIENDS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE
OPPOSING EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT
OF WORK.
I WOULDLSO SAY THIS:
PAYGO IS VERY INTERESTING.
I'M GLAD MY FRIEND BROUGHT THAT
UP.
I'M GLAD HE BROUGHT UP THE BIG
DEFICIT BECAUSE IT IS VERY BIG.
BUT WHERE WAS MY FRIEND FROM
KENTUCKY WHEN WE HAD TWO WARS
THAT WERE UNPAID FOR DURING THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION?
TAX CUTS
TRILLION, UNPAID FOR, WHERE WAS
MY FRIEND AND THE REPUBLICANS
OBJECTING TO THAT?
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, PAYGO IS
IMPORTANT, AND WE PASSED PAYGO
HERE -- WE, THE DEMOCRATS,
PASSED IT.
MY FRIEN
IT PASSED BECAUSE DEMOCRATS
VOTED FOR IT.
NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED
FOR T WE HAD THESE IN EFFECT
DURING THE CLINTON YEARS, AND IT WORKED.
WE PAID DOWN THE DEBT IN THE
LAST CLINTON YEARS.
WE ALSO UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT
THE DEBT OF THIS COUNTRY IS,
BUILT UP -- STARTED TO BUILD UP
SO STRONG DURING EIGHT YEARS OF
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
WE BROUGHT TO THIS FLO THAT
THE PRESIDING OFFICER -- NO ONE
WORKED HARDER THAN THE PRESIDING
OFFICER TO COME UP WITH
SOMETHING TO ADDRESS THE DEBT,
WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE AND OTHERS.
WE WANTED A DEBT COMMISSION, AND
WE BROUGHT TO THIS FLOOR A DEBT
COMMISSION, A GOOD ONE,
MR. PRESIDENT.
IT WAS BASED UPON WHAT WE DID
WITH BASE CLOSINGS, MILITARY
BASE CLOSINGS.
WE TRIED FOR DECADES TO CLOSE
BASES THAT WERE UNNECESSARY IN
THE COUNTRY ANYMORE, AFTER WORLD
WAR II WAS GONE, KOREA WAS GONE, VIETNAM.
WE DIDN'T NEED AWFUL THOSE BASES.
BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENS IN
TRYING TO CLOSE A BASE BECAUSE
OF LOCAL POLITICS, WE COULDN'T
DO IT SO WE PASSED A BILL THAT
SAID, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DEBT CLOSING COMMISSION.
THEY WILL COME BACK WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THE HOUSE
AND THE SENATE HAS A CHOICE:
EITHER VOTE "NO" OR "YES" ON
THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY
VOTED "YES," BOTH THE HOUSE AND
SENATE, AND WE CLOSED NUMEROUS
BASES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
THE DEBT COMMISSION WE
ESTABLISHED WAS BASED UPON THAT
THE SAME THING.
AND WE VOTED -- WE DEMOCRATS VOTED.
IT WOULD HAVE PASSED.
WHY DIDN'T IT PASS?
BECAUSE SEVEN REPUBLICANS, WHO
COSPONSORED THE LEGISLATION,
VOTED AGAINST IT.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, WE DON'T NEED
LECTURES HERE ON DEBT.
WHAT WE NEED ISO RECOGNIZE
THAT THERE ARE POOR PEOPLE ALL
OVER AMERICA WHO ARE DESPERATE
TODAY, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE
WORKING, MAKING GOOD MONEY ON
THESE ROAD PROJECTS ALL OVER
AMERICA TODAY THAT ARE BEING
TOLD TO GO HOME BECAUSE WE DON'T
HAVE INSPECTORS TO TAKE CARE OF
YOUR WORK.
THEREFORE, MR. PRESIDENT, I OBJECT
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
OBJECTION IS HEARD.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT,
UNLESS MY FRIEND HAS MORE TO
SAY, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. ALEXANDER: THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE.
MR. ALEXANDER: MR. PRESIDENT,
CALL BE VITIATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: MR. PRESIDENT,
I ASK CONSENT TO SPEAK IN
MORNING BUSINESS FOR UP TO 15
MINUTES. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: THANK YOU.
MR. PRESI WOULD THE CHAIR
PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN I HAVE
CONSUMED 12 OF THE 15 MINUTES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: YES, SIR.
MR. ALEXANDER: THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
MR. PRESIDENT, IT WAS MY
PRIVILEGE LAST THURSDAY, ALONG
WITH SOMOTHER MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE, TO ATTEND A HEALTH CARE
SUMMIT AT THE INVITATION OF PRESENT OBAMA.
IT WENT ON A LONG TIME, AND WE
LEARNED ONE THING WE ALREADY
KNEW, THAT OUR PRESIDENT IS
SMART, KNOWS A LOT ABOUT HEALTH
CARE.
AND SO I STAYED THE WHOLE TIME.
BUT IT GAVE THOSE OF US ON THE
DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE AS OFTEN, WHICH IS TO BE ON
CENTER STAGE AND LET THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW, A, WHO WE
ARE AND, B WHAT OUR IDEAS ARE.
SO IT WAS A TERRIFIC IDEA FOR US
TO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE ARE
-- OUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE HEALTH
CARE COSTS, THAT WE'D LIKE TO
MOVE STEP BY STEP TOWARD THAT GOAL.
WE IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF AREAS,
FOR EXAMPLE, ALLOWING INSURANCE
TO BE TRANSFERRED ACROSS STATE
LINES, LIMITING JUNK LAWSUITS,
WHICH WOULD BRING DOWN THE COST
OF PREMIUMS, WHICH IS WHAT
AMERICANS WANT.
DURING THE DISCUSSION EARLY ON, ACTUALLY, THE PRESIDENT AND I
HAD A LITTLE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT
WHETHER HIS PLAN, WHICH IS BASED
ON THE SENATE BILL, WHICH PASSED
ON CHRISTMAS EVE, WOULD RAISE PREMIUMS.
WHAT I HAD SAID IN MY OPENING
REMARKS ON BEHALF OF REPUBLICANS
WAS THAT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS
UNDER THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN WOULD
PAY HIGHER INSURANCE PREMIUMS
BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT MANDATES
AND TAXES.
THE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT'S WRONG.
I CITED A CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFCE REPORT TO SHOW I WAS
RIGHT, AND RATHER THAN DISPUTE
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IN PUBLIC, I THOUGHT I
HAD HAD ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE MY
CASE -- I SAID I WOULD SEND LI
HIM A LETTER, WHICH I DID THAT
SAME DAY.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE LETTER THAT I GAVE
TO PRESIDENT OBAMA ON THURSDAY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: THE PRESIDENT'S
ARGUMENT -- BUT TODAY WHAT I'D
LIKE TO DO IN THE NEXT FEW
MINUTES IS EXPLAIN WHY I BELIEVE
I AM CORRECT; THAT UNDER THE
PRESIDENT'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PLAN, WHICH IS BASED UPON THE
SENATE PLAN, FOR MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS PREMIUMS WOULD GO UP,
BECAUSE OF ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL
GOVERNMENT MANDATES, BECAUSE OF
TAXES THAT ARE PASSED ON TO
CONSUMERS, BUT FOR OTHER REASONS
AS WELL -- BY SHIFTING COSTS
WHEN YOU DUMP 15 MILLION PEOPLE
OR 18 MILLION PEOPLE INTO A
PROGRAM CALLED MEDICAID, WHAT
HAPPENS IS, WE DON'T PAY THE
DOCTORS AND THE HOSPITALS WELL
ENOUGH TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE
FOLKS SO THEY SHIFT THE COST TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE AND PREMIUMS
GO UP.
COSTS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE WILL GO
UP UNDER THIS PLAN BECAUSE IF
YOU PUT IN A RULE AT THAT SAYS
MY INSURANCE AT MY AGE CAN'T GO
UP MORE THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT,
COMPARED WITH MY SON'S
INSURANCE, THEN HIS INSURANCE
GOES UP.
AND BECAUSE IN A SCHEME LIKE THE
DEMOCRATIC PLAN DEPENDS UPON
REQUIRING EVERYBODY TO BUY
INSURANCE, THERE IS A WEAK
PROVISION FOR THAT, AND I
SUSPECT MANY YOUNG PEOPLE WOULD
JUST RATHER PAY THE $750 FINE
RATHER THAN THE $2 -- BY A
$2,500 INSURANCE POLICY, WHICH
THEY THINK THEY CAN'T AFORWARD.
THE PRESIDENT MADE THE POINT IN
HIS UNUSUAL VERY PERSUASIVE WAY,
THAT WAIT A MINUTE, YOU'D BE
GETTING BETTER INSURANCE.
AS GEORGE WILL SAID ON ABC'S
"THIS WEEK" YESTERDAY, HE SAI
"IF THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRED YOU
TO BUY A BETTER, MORE EXPENSIVE
CAR, EVEN IF IT WAS BETTER THAN
THE CAR YOU'VE GOT, IT WOULD
STILL BE MORE EXPENSIVE,
WOULDN'T IT?"
AND THAT'S THE CASE WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE PLAN.
IN FACT, PREMIUMS WILL GO UP FOR
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.
UP MORE THAN THEY OTHERWISE
WOULD OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL
YEARS, AND WE ALL KNOW HOW
RAPIDLY THEY'RE RISING.
AND THE WHOLE EXERCISE THAT
WE'RE GOING THROUGH OVER THE
LAST YEAR IS TO BRING PREMIUMS
DOWN.
NOT HELP DRIVE PREMIUMS UP.
WHAT I SAID TO THE PRESIDENT
WITH RESPECT WAS THAT THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ON
NOVEMBER 30 SAID THIS ABOUT THE
SENATE BILL.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
-- QUOTE -- "AND THE JOINT
COMMITTEE ON TAXATION ESTIMATE
THAT THE AVERAGE PREMIUM PER
PERSON COVERED FOR NEW NONGROUP"
-- THAT MEANS INDIVIDUAL
POLICIES -- "WOULD BE ABOUT 10%
TO 13% PRIOR IN 2016 UNDERSTAND
THAT THE SAME IN THE SAME YEAR
UNDER CURRENT LAW.
IF YOU BUY AN INDIVIDUAL POLICY
THAT MEANS NOT A POLICY WITH
YOUR EMPLOYER, THAT BY 2016, IT
WILL BE AT AN AVERAGE OF 10% TO
13% HIGHER THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INCLUDE IN THE RECORD
THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30 TO SENATOR
EVAN BAYH ON THIS POINT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: THE PRESIDENT
SAID WAIT A MINUTE, THE PREMIUMS
IN THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET WILL GO
DOWN 14% TO 20%.
THAT'S ALSO IN THE SAME LETTER.
AND, OF COURSE, HE'S RIGHT ABOUT
THAT, THEY GO DOWN BECAUSE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCIES AND
NEW ENROLLMENT, BUT HE LEFT OUT
THAT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS
THERE THAT THE GOVERNMENT
MANDATES WILL DRIVE THEM UP 27%
OR 30% OR, IN THE END, THE
AVERAGE, AS THE C.B.O. SAID,
PREMIUM PER PERSON COVERED IN AN
INDIVIDUAL POLICY WOULD BE UP
10% TO 13%.
NOW, THE BILL HAS SUBSIDIES IN
IT FOR SOME AMERICANS.
THE SAME LETTER SAYS ABOUT HALF
OF AMERICANS WHO BUY IN THE
INDIVIDUAL MARKET WILL GET A
SUBSIDY.
WELL, WE ARE PAYING FOR THAT
SUBSIDY BUT LET'S CONCEDE THAT
POINT.
STILL, THAT LEAVES HALF OF THE
PEOPLE IN THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET
FOR WHOM PREMIUMS WILL GO UP ON
AN AVERAGE OF 10% 2013%.
NOW, WHY -- MY 10% TO 13%.
NOW, WHY IS THAT?
ONE REASON IS BECAUSE THE SENATE
BILL SAYS PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO
BUY A RICHER POLICY THAN THEY HAVE TODAY.
THAT MEANS IT HAS A HIGHER
ACTUARIAL VALUE.
THEY CALL IT IN THE BILL MINIMUM
CREDITABLE COVERAGE.
IT MEANS THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF
INSURANCE I THINK YOU SHOULD
HAVE BEFORE YOU BUY A POLICY.
THAT MIGHT B A GOOD DECISION.
IT UNDOUBTEDLY WOULD BE GOOD TO
HAVE THE INSURANCE.
IT JUST COSTS MORE, 27% TO 30%
MORE THAN TODAY'S AVERAGE.
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION O
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES WROTE A
DECEMBER 12 LETTER IN OPPOSITION
TO THE SENATE BILL SAYING --
QUOTE -- "THAT THE BENEFIT
MANDATES WILL PUT SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS" -- QUOTE -- "AT RISK OF
HAVING TO DROP COVERAGE DUE TO
INCREASES THAT OUTPACE
THEIR HEALTH BUDGETS."
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INCLUDE THE
LETTER FROM NFIB FROM SENATOR
REID AND SENATOR McCONNELL OF
DECEMBER 8.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: THE ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL PROVISION IN
THE DEMOCRATIC BILL SAYS THAT
ALL INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL GROUP
POLICIES MUFF AN ACTRIAL --
MUST HAVE AN ACTUARIAL VALUE OF 60%.
NOW, SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS OF
MAINE, WHO WAS THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER IN MAINE HERSELF,
MADE A SPEECH ON THE SENATE
FLOOR AND POINTED OUT THAT 87%
OF THE POLICIES, THE INDIVIDUAL
POLICIES THAT ARE PURCHASED IN
MAINE TODAY WOULD COST MORE
UNDER THE REID BILL.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INCLUDE IN
THE RECORD SENATOR COLLINS'
REPOS OF DECEMBER 18.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHO
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: SHE USED THE
EXAMPLE THE MOST POPULAR
INDIVIDUAL MARKET POLICY SOLD IN
MAINE COST A 40-YEAR-OLD ABOUT
$185 A MONTH.
UNDER THE SENATE BILL, THAT
40-YEAR-OLD WOULD HAVE TO PAY AT
LEAST $420 A MONTH, MORE THAN
TWICE AS MUCH FOR A POLICY THAT
MEETS THE NEW MINIMUM STANDARD
OR FACE A $750 PENALTY.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT MAINE
CITIZENS, LIKE ALL AMERICANS,
ABOUT HALF OF THEM WOULD RECEIVE
SUBSIDIES TO HELP THEM BUY THAT
POLICY, BUT THE OTHER HALF OF
THE7%, THEIR AVERAGE PREMIUM
IS GOING TO GO UP UNDER THE
DEMOCRATIC BILL.
WE BELIEVE AMERICANS OUGHT TO
HAVE MORE CHOICES THAN THAT.
THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE
OF OPINION.
SHOULD WASHINGTON DECIDE YOU
NEED TO BUY A RICHER POLICY OR
SHOULD YOU DECIDE THAT FOR
YOURSELF BASED UPON THE OTHER
NEEDS IN YOUR FAMILY?
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
DOES STATE, AS I HAVE MENTIONED,
THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
ENROLLEES, ABOUT HALF, WOULD
HAVE THE SUBSIDIES AND THAT'S IN
THE LETTER THAT I'VE ALREADY
INTRODUCED INTO THE -- INTO THE RECORD.
BUT SOMEONE'S PAYING FOR THOSE
SUBSIDIES, MR. PRESIDENT: THE
TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THEM.
WHICH BRINGS UP THE SECOND
REASON THAT I SAID ON THURSDAY
THAT PREMIUMS FOR MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS IN THE INDIVIDUAL
MARKET WILL GO UP.
THE COMMONSENSE IDEAS THAT IF
YOU TAX AN INSURANCE COMPANY OR
A MEDICAL DEVICE COMPANY OR A
MANUFACTURER OF DRUGS, THEY'LL
PASS THE TAXES ON TO WHOM?
TO US, WHO ARE BUYING INSURANCE
POLICIES, OR MEDICAL DEVICES, OR
DRUGS.
SO WE END UP PAYING.
IN FACT, ONE PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL
DELIRATELY DOES THAT.
IT'S A 40% EXCISE TAX ON
INSURANCE COMPANY FOR WHAT WE
CALL CADILLAC PLANS, THE
HIGH-COST PRIVATE INSURANCE
PLANS.
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
ON FEBRUARY 24 -- AND I'D LIKE
TO ASK CONSENTO INCLUDE THEIR
LETTER IN THE RECORD -- THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: -- SAYS THAT THAT
40% EXCISE TAX WILL RAISE
$32.7 BILLION, ALL OF WHICH WILL
BE PASSED ALONG TO CONSUMERS IN
THE FORM OF HIGHER INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
NOW, THAT MAY BE A GOOD THING,
MR. PRESIDENT, BECAUSE, IN FACT,
I THINK IT IS BECAUSE IT HELPS
TO DISCOURAGE THE PURCHASE OF
MORE EXPENSIVE POLICIES BUT IT
DOES RAISE PREMIUMS IN THE
INDIVIDUAL MARKET.
AND THE -- THE JOINT COMMITTEE
ON TAXATION MEMORANDUM ON
HIGH-COST PLANS DATED SEPTEMBER
29 SAYS THE EXCISE TAX WOULD BE
MAINLY PASSED ALONG THROUGH
INCREASES IN PREMIUMS.
I'D LIKE TO ASK CONSENT TO
INCLUDE THAT LETTER IN THE
RECORD THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: AND BECAUSE THE
NEW TAXES INDEX TO REGULAR
INFLATION PLUS 1% INSTEAD OF
MEDICAL INFLATION, WHICH GOES UP
VERY MUCH HIGHER AND QUICKER,
THE NEW TAX, LIKE THE
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX, WILL
PRETTY SOON START TO HIT CHEVY
AND BUICK INSURANCE POLICIES AND
NOT JUST CADILLAC POLICIES.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER TAXES IN THE
PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL -- THEY'RE
UP TO $500 -- HALF A TRILLION
DOLLARS IN NEW TAXES -- WHICH
WILL BE PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS.
$20 BILLION ON EXCISE TAXES ON
LIFESAVING MEDICAL DEVICES,
$33 BILLION ON DRUGS,
$60 BILLION ON HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES.
IN A C.B.O. AND J.C.T. LETTER TO
SENATOR GRASSLEY OF DECEMBER AND
OCTOBER, BOTH OF LAST YEAR, BOTH
SAID THESE TAXES WILL BE PASSED
ON TO PATIENTS, INCREASING
HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THOSE
LETTERS IN THE RECORD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: THE CENTER FOR
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES,
THE CHIEF ACTUARY OF THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, SAID "WE
ANTICIPATE SUCH FEES WOULD BE
GENERALLY PASSED THROUGH TO
HEALTH CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF
HIGHER DRUG AND DEVICE PRICES
AND HIGHER INSURANCE PREMIUMS."
THAT WAS ON DECEMBER 10 OF THIS
YEAR ABOUT THE SENATE BILL.
I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE -- I ASK
CONSENT TO INCLUDE THE RELEVANT
PORTIONS OF THAT LETTER IN THE
RECORD. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: THE LEWEN GROUP
SAID ON OCTOBER 30 -- QUOTE -- "
"COSTS WOULD INCREASE STEADILY
REFLECTING THE VARIOUS EXCISE
TAXES INCLUDED UNDER THE ACT.
TOTAL HEALTH INSURANCE SPENDING
WOULD INCREASE BY 32.1% BY 2019."
I'D LIKE TO ASK CONSENT TO
INCLUDE WITHIN THE RECORD THE
RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE LEWEN GROUP REPORT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES LETTER SAYS THE SAME.
I THANK THE PRESIDENT.
THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY THE
PREMIUMS WILL GO UP.
THERE IS -- MR. PRESIDENT,
SEEING NO ONE ELSE HERE, I
WONDER IF I MIGHT ASK FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANR: I THANK THE PRESIDENT.
HERE'S A THIRD REASON, IN
ADDITION TO GOVERNMENT MANDATES
AND TAXES, THAT WILL CAUSE
PREMIUMS TO RISE.
WE CALL IT COST-SHIFT.
PREMIUMS WILL INCREASE BECAUSE
THE BILL DUMPS 15 MILLION --
15 MILLION TO 18 MILLION MORE
AMERICANS INTO THE GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM CALLED MEDICAID.
THIS IS THE ANALYSIS OF THE
CHIEF ACTUARY ON JANUARY 8, 2010.
I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THE RELEVANT
PORTIONS -- I ASK CONSENT TO
INCLUDE THAT IN THE RECORD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: THE POINT IS, IS
MEDICAID ONLY PAYS DOCTORS AND
HOSPITALS ABOUT 60% OF THE COSTS
OF SERVING THE 60 MILLION
PATIENTS WHO ARE NOW THERE.
THE DEMOCRATIC BILL WOULD ADD
15 MILLION TO 18 MILLION MORE
PATIENTS, SO WHAT DO THE DOCTORS
AND HOSPITALS DO?
THEY SEE THESE PATIENTS BUT THEN
THEY SHIFT THE COSTS TO THE
PATIENTS THEY SEE WHO HAVE
PRIVATE INSURANCE.
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAID THAT
THAT ADDS ABOUT $1,000 TO EVERY
POLICY TODAY, THIS
COST-SHIFTING.
AND I -- AND I'VE INCLUDED THAT
FROM -- THAT COMMENT FROM THE
CHIEF ACTUARY.
THE PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS
REPORT ON THE SENATE FINANCE
BILL ON OCTOBER 2009 SAID --
QUOTE -- "THE NET EFFECT OF THE
BILLS BEFORE CONGRESS WILL MADE
THE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
COST-SHIFT EVEN MORE SEVERE,
RAISING THE COST OF PRIVATE
INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR LARGE
EMPLOYERS BY $255 A YEAR BETWEEN
2015 AND 2019."
I'D LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO INCLUDE THE RELEVANT
PORTIONS OF THE PRICEWATERHOUSE
COOPERS REPORT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: YOUNGER AMERICANS
WILL PAY HIGHER PREMIUMS UNDER
THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN BECAUSE, AS
I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT WILL
MANDATE THAT THERE CAN'T BE MORE
THAN A DIFFERENCE OF -- THAT I
CAN'T PAY MORE THAN THREE TIMES
AS MUCH AS MY SON COULD PAY FOR
AN INSURANCE PREMIUM.
THAT MIGHT HELP KEEP MY PREMIUMS
DOWN BUT IT'S GOING TO SEND HIS
UP, PRETTY FAR UP, BECAUSE 42
STATES, INCLUDING TENNESSEE,
ALLOW MORE VARIANCE OF THAT.
SO YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA,
WHO INCLUDE ABOUT 40% OF THE
UNINSURED, ARE IN FOR A BIG
SURPRISE WHEN THEIR POLICIES
JUMP UP 30% TO 35%, IS WHAT THE
OLIVER WYMAN REPORT OF SEPTEMBER
28 SAID THEIRS MIGHT DO.
OR WHEN, SINCE THEY'RE
UNINSURED, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO
BUY INSURANCE AND THEY FIND THE
INSURANCE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO
BUY IS VERY EXPENSIVE.
I'D LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO INCLUDE IN THE RECORD
THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THELY
OLIVER WYMAN REPORT. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: FINALLY,
MR. PRESIDENT, THE YOUNG AND THE
HEALTHY CAN SKIP OUT OF THAT.
THAT WILL DRIVE UP PREMIUMS.
THEY MAY DECIDE THEY WILL PAY
$750, FINE, THAN PAY $750 FOR AN
INSURANCE POLICY THEY THINK THEY DON'T NEED.
THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
ACTUARIES WROTE A LETTER ON THE
REID BILL ON NOVEMBER 20, SAID,
"ANY PREMIUM VAIRGSES BY AGE
LIMITED TO 3.1 RATIO BETWEEN THE
HIGHEST AND LOWEST PREMIUMS,"
AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY,
"WOULD CAUSE HIGHER PMIUMS ON
AVERAGE RELATIVE TO CURRENT
PREMIUMS."
I ASK CONSENT TO INCLUDE IN THE
RECORD THE LETTER FROM THE
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES,
NOVEMBER 20, 2009.
NOW, ALL IN ALL, MR. PRESIDENT,
THESE FACTORS SUGGEST WHY, WHEN
SENATOR COLLINS TOOK A LOOK AT
MAINE, SHE FOUND THAT 87% OF
PEOPLE IN MAINE ARE PAYING LESS
FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL POLICIES
THAN THE POLICIES WOULD COST
UNDER THE REID BILL.
IT IS TRUE THAT HALF OR MORE OF
THEM WOULD RECEIVE SOME SUBSIDY
WHICH WOULD REDUCE THEIR COST,
BUT AROUND HALF OF THEM WILL PAY MORE.
AND IN TENNESSEE, BLUECROSS
BLUESHIELD, WHICH COVERS ABOUT
ONE-THIRD OF TEN'S INDIVIDUAL
MARKET -- OF TENNESSEE'S
INDIVIDUAL MARKET, ESTIMATES THE
PREMIUMS FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS
WILL INCREASE BY 30% TO 45% UNDER THE REID BILL.
AND I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
INCLUDE A CHART WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. ALEXANDER: AT OUR SUMMIT ON
THURSDAY, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
GOOD IDEAS ABOUT REDUCING HEALTH
CARE COSTS THAT THE PRESIDENT
SEEMED TO SHARE WITH REPUBLICAN
MEMBERS WHO WERE THERE, AND
THERE WAS SOME OBVIOUS
IRRITATION ON THE PART OF THE
MAJORITY LEADER AND OTHERS WHEN
WE SAID TH THERE ARE A
TRILLION DOLLARS OF CUTS IN
MEDICARE, WHICH THERE ARE,
MR. PRESIDENT.
AND OUR REAL OBJECTION TO IT IS
THAT THE CUTS ARE NOT USED TO
VE MEDICARE, WHICH IS GOING
BROKE, BUT SPENT ON A NEW
PROGRAM.
AND THERE ARE A HALF A TRILLION
IN NEW TAXES.
THERE ARE A HALF A TRILLION IN
NEW TAXES.
AND AS I JUST SAID, THEY TEND TO
INCREASE PREMIUMS FOR MILLIONS
OF AMERICANS.
THERE ARE PREMIUM INCREASES.
THERE IS A DEFICIT INCREASE.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT THE C.B.O.
HAS SAID THAT WHAT WAS PRESENTED
TO THEM DIDN'T INCREASE THE
DEFICIT BUT WHAT WAS NOT
INCLUDE -- INCLUDED IN WHAT
WAS PRESENTED WAS PAYING DOCTORS
TO SERVE PATIENTS IN THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
THAT'S LIKE HAVING A HORSE RACE WITHOUT THE HORSES.
I MEAN, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO
HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE
BILL AND NOT INCLUDE WITHIN ITS
COST PAYING DOCTORS TO SERVE
PATIENTS IN THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.
AND WHEN YOU PUT IT IN, THE
DEFICIT GOES UP.
AND THEN THERE'S THE PROBLEM OF
THE PASSING OFF TO STATES THESE
EXPANDED MEDICARE -- MEDICAID
COSTS WITHOUT PAYING FOR THEM.
I KNOW AS A FORMER GOVERNOR --
AND I SEE THE FORMER GOVERNOR OF
VIRGINIA IN THE CHAIR -- I
STRUGGLED WITH THAT EVERY SINGLE
YEAR, AND ALL THE GOVERNORS ARE
TODAY OF BOTH PARTIES.
THEY DON'T WANT US SENDING THEM
A BILL FOR EXPANDED HEALTH CARE.
THEY CAN'T PAY THE BILLS THEY'VE
GOT.
AND -- AND WE
SHOULDN'T DO THAT.
IF WE WANT TO EXPAND IT, WE
SHOULD PAY FOR IT.
THAT'S ANOTHER PART OF THE BILL.
MR. PRESIDENT, I CAME TO THE
FLOOR TODAY TO, ONE, TO EXPRESS
MY APPRECIATION TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR INVITING US THURSDAY.
IT GAVE US A CHANCE TO SHOW WHO
WE ARE AND WHAT WE'RE FOR.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD DISCUSSION.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE EIGHT OR
TEN, MAYBE A DOZEN DIFFERENT
GOOD IDEAS SENATOR COBURN AND
PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE SUGGESTED.
SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE
IDEAS, BUT BASICALLY THEY
REPRESENT A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD
TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE OUGHT TO
DO.
WE DON'T DO COMPREHENSIVE VERY
WELL IN THE UNITED STATES
SENATE.
IMMIGRATION, COMPREHENSIVE
IMMIGRATION FAILED OF ITS OWN
WEIGHT.
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMY-WIDE
CAP-AND-TRADE SEEMS TO BE
FAILING AGAIN OF ITS OWN WEIGHT.
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE IS
VERY DIFFICULT TO PASS.
THAT SHOULDN'T BE A SURPRISE TO
ANY OF US.
THIS IS A VERY BIG, DIFFICULT,
COMPLICATED COUNTRY WITH PEOPLE
OF MANY DIFFERENT BACKGROUND.
IN MY JUDGMENT, WE'RE JUST NOT
WISE ENOUGH FOR A FEW OF US TO
REWRITE THE RULES FOR 17% OF OUR ECONOMY, AND I THINK THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TUNED IN TO THAT.
THEY WANT US TO FIX HEALTHARE,
BUT THEY WANT US TO REDUCE COSTS.
I WOULD SAY AGAIN THAT WE ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE ARE READY TO SET
THAT GOAL.
AND AS WE SAID 173 DIFFERENT
TIMES ON THE SENATE FLOOR LAST
YEAR, WE'VE OFFERED SIX STEPS TO
MOVE TOWARD THAT GOAL.
MAYBE THE PRESIDENT CAN THINK OF
SIX MORE.
MAYBE WE CAN THINK OF SIX MORE.
WE D THAT WITH THE "AMERICA
COMPETES" ACT.
WE ASKED NATIONAL ADEMIES WHAT
ARE THE TEN STEPS THAT WOULD
HELP US TO BECOME MORE
COMPETITIVE AS A COUNTRY.
THEY GAVE US 20.
WE PASSED MOST OF THEM.
IN CLEAN ENERGY WE'RE COMING
CLOSER TOGETHER ON NUCLEAR
POWER, OFFSHORE DRILLING AND
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.
THOSE ARE STEPS TOWARDS A GOAL
THAT WOULD BE A MORE SENSITIVE
WAY FOR US TO WORK.
IN THE MEANTIME, THE UNPLEASANT
TRUTH IS THE CURRENT BILL THAT'S
BEING CONSIDERED -- CUT MEDICARE
AND NOT SPEND IT ON MEDICARE --
WILL RAISE TAXES.
AND IT WILL, AS I'VE TRIED TO
DEMONSTRATE TODAY WITH RESPECT
TO THE PRESIDENT, RAISE PREMIUMS
FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS
BECAUSE OF ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL
GOVERNMENT MANDATES AND TAX INCREASES.
MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD FINALLY
LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
INCLUDE, FOLLOWING MY REMARKS
AND THE OTHER DOCUMENTS, TODAY'S
EDITORIAL FROM THE "WALL STREET
JOURNAL" DETAILING HOW THE
MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE PLAN
HAS UNEXPECTEDLY CAUSED PREMIUMS
TO RISE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS AND WHAT LESSON THERE
MIGHT BE IN THAT FOR U
I THANK THE PRESIDENT.
I YIELD TH FLOOR.
I NOTICE THE
QUORUM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLER
QUORUM CALL:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. BAUCUS: I ASK THAT FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE QUORUM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MORNING BUSINESS IS NOW CLOSED.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER THE
SENATE WILL PROCEED TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
WHICH THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: H.R. 4213, AN ACT TO
AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
OF 1986 TO EXTEND CERTAIN
EXPIRING PROVISIONS AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THATHE
FOLLOWING STAFF BE ALLOWED FLOOR PRIVILEGES DURING CONSIDERATION
OF THE PENDING BILL: RANDY
OSENBERG, ASLYN BAKER, BRITTANY
DURRELL, DUSTIN STEVENS, GREG
SULLIVAN, MAX UPDIKE AND ASHLEY
ZUELIKE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OAB.
-- WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. BAUCUS: I NOW CALL UP MY
AMENDMENT AND BY NUMBER TO BE CONSIDERED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
THE CLERKWILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM
MONTANA PROPOSES AMENDMENT
NUMBER
MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT,
MARTIMARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. SAID,
LIFE'S MOST URGENT QUESTION IS:
WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR OTHERS?
MR. PRESIDENT, PRETTY MUCH ALL
OF US CAME TO THE SENATE TO WORK
ON THAT QUESTION AND PRETTY MUCH
ALL OF US CAME HERE TO HELP
OTHER AMERICANS.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, ON A NUMBER
OF LEVELS THE LEGISLATION BEFORE
US TODAY IS URGENT LEGISLATION.
THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US TODAY
IS URGEN BECAUSE IT WOULD
PREVENT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS
FROM FALLING THROUGH THE SAFETY
NET.
THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US IS
URGENT BECAUSE IT WOULD EXTEND
VITAL SAFETY-NET PROGRAMS THAT
EXPIRED YESTERDAY.
THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US IS
URGENT BECAUSE IT WOULD PUT CASH
IN THE HANDS OF AMERICANS WHO
COULD SPEND IT QUICKLY, BOOSTING
ECONOMIC DEMAND.
AND THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US
TODAY IS URGENT BECAUSE IT WOULD
EXTEND CRITICAL PROGRAM AND TAX
INCENTIVES THAT CREATE JOBS.
AND THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US
TODAY IS URGENT BECAUSE IT IS AN
IMPORTANT THING THAT WE HERE CAN
TO FOR OTHER AMERICANS.
MR. PRESIDENT, SINCE THE
RECESSION BEGAN, MORE THAN SEVEN
MILLION AMERICANS HAVE LOST
THEIR JOBS.
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE REMAINS
NEARLY 10%.
FOR AMERICANS WITHOUT A JOB,
THIS GREAT RECESSION IS A GREAT DEPRESSION.
IF YOU TONIGHT HAVE A JOB, IT'S
A DEPRESSION.
LAST WEEK WITH A SOLID
BIPARTISAN VOTE WE PASSED
LEGISLATION TO HELP CATE JOBS.
WE CAN AND SHOULD DO MORE.
AND EXTENDING THIS PACKAGE OF
VITAL PROVISIONS WE CAN DO JUST
THAT.
THE PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL ARE
IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN FAMILIES.
THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE SUFFERED
FROM A NATURAL DISASTER.
THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO BUSINESSES
COMPETING IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.
THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO FURTHERING
AMERICA'S COMMITMENT TO ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, THE NEED IS
URGENT.
YESTERDAY MANY OF IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS EXPIRED.
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE BEING
PUT AT RISK.
THE EXPIRATION OF THESE
PROVISIONS HAVE LEFT GAPING
HOLES IN THE SAFETY NET.
AMONG THE PROVISIONS THAT
EXPIRED YESTERDAY ARE THESE:
EXPANDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
BENEFITS, COBRA SUBSIDIES TO
HELP PEOPLE KEEP THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE.
THE PROVISION THAT KEEPS FOLKS
AT THE POVERTY LINE FROM LOSING
THEIR BENEFITS.
THE SMALL-BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM.
THE TEMPORARY MEASURE TO PREVENT
A 21% CUT TO DOCTORS UNDER
MEDICARE.
THE FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, THE
SATELLITE HOME VIEWER ACT.
UNLESS WE REINSTATE THE PROGRAMS
IN IN BILL, THERE WILL BE REAL
WORLD CONSEQUENCES FOR THE
PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON THESE
PROGRAMS TODAY.
TAKE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE,
THIS BILL WOULD EXTEND THE
PROGRAM FOR EXPANDED
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
THESE BENEFITS EXPIRED ON
SUNDAY.
THE BILL WOULD EXTEND WHAT'S
CALLED FEDERAL EMERGENCY
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
THIS BILL WOULD EXTEND 100%
FEDERAL EXTENDED BENEFITS.
THAT'S A PROGRAM WHERE STATE THE
GOVERNMENTS NORMALLY HAVE TO PAY
50%.
AND WE WOULD ALSO EXTEND THE
ADDITIONAL $25 A WEEK FOR EACH
BENEFICIARY RECEIVING
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT,
5.6 MILLION PEOPLE ARE CURRENTLY
BENEFITING FROM ONE OF THE
FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS,
5.6 MILLION PEOPLE TODAY BENEFING.
BETWEEN MARCH AND NOVEMBER OF
LAST YEAR, WE DISTRIBUTED NRLY
NEARLY $8.3 BILLION IN
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO THE
ADDITIONAL $25 WEEK SUPPLEMENT.
MY OFFICE RECEIVED WORD OF ONE
UNEMPLOYED MONTANA WORKER WHO
LIVED IN A HOMELESS SHELTER FOR
MORE THAN A MONTH.
HE USED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO
MOVE CLOSER TO AN OUT OF STATE RELATIVE.
THE RELATIVE HELPED THE MONTANAN
DURING THIS DIFFICULT TIME.
WITH THE HELP OF THE
UNEMPLOYMENT EMERGENCY
COMPENSATION AND THE HELP OF A
FAMILY, THIS MONTANAN WAS ABLE
TO FIND PLOYMENT AGAIN.
IT ALSO MAKES GOOD ECONOMIC
SENSE.
THE NONPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES THAT
EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS GENERATES
UP TO $1.90 IN ADDITIONAL GROSS
DOMESTIC PRODUCT.
THAT IS $1 TO $1.90.
IT MAKES UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT
ONE OF THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE
POLICIES FOR STIMULATING THE ECONOMY.
BY HELPING OUR UNEMPLOYED
NEIGHBORS THROUGH THIS LONG
RECESSION, WE HOPE TO KEEP THE
NEIGHBORHOOD GAS STATION OPERATING.
WE HELP TO KEEP A HOUSE FROM
FORECLOSURE.
AND WE HELP TO KP OUR ECONOMY
FROM FURTHER DAMAGE.
WE MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY TO HELP
THE MORE THAN ONE MILLION PEOPLE
WHO HAVE LOST THEIR BENEFITS
YESTERDAY.
MY HEART GOES OUT TO THEM AND
THEIR FAMILIE
I HOPE THAT THEY CAN HOLD ON
WHILE WE WORK TO CLEAR UP THIS
MESS OR TO -- IN ORDER TO CLEAR
THIS BILL TO BRING THEM THE HELP
THAT THEY DESERVE AND THEY'VE
BEEN DEPENDING ON.
THE SECOND VITAL PROGRAM IN THIS
BILL THAT EXPIRED YESTERDAY IS A
PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES A TAX
CREDIT FOR COBRA HEALTH
BENEFITS.
WHAT'S THAT?
THAT'S THE PROGRAM THAT HELPS
WORKERS WHO LOSE THEIR JOBS TO
KEEP THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE.
WHEN WORKERS LOSE THEIR JOBS,
THEY LOSE MORE THAN JUST THEIR PAYCHECKS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY OFTEN LOS
THEIR ABILITY TO AFFORD HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE AS WELL.
TODAY ROUGHLY 60% OF THE
NONELDERLY POPULATION REIVE
HEALTH INSURANCE THROUGH THEIR JOBS.
IN MOST CASES UNEMPLOYMENT
RKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP
THEIR WORK COVERAGE FOR UP TO 18
MONTHS THROUGH THE COBRA
PROGRAM.
BUT TO RECEIVE COBRA HEALTH
BENEFITS, WORKERS MUST TYPICALLY
PAY ALL OF THE PREMIUM COSTS
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 2% FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
THEY PAY $102%.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR THE AVERAGE
MONTHLY COBRA PREMIUM IS ROUGHLY ROUGHLY $1,100.
FOR MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT OF
WORK, THAT'S SIMPLY
UNAFFORDABLE.
HOW CAN A FAMILY THAT IS OUT OF
WORK PAY HEALTH BENEFITS AT AT
RATE O $1,100 A MONTH?
THEY CAN'T DO IT.
THE ACT HELPS TO COVER THE
COSTS.
IT HAS HELPED MILLIONS OF
UNEMPLOYED FAMILIES TO MAINTAIN
HEALTH INSURANCE WHILE THEY LOOK
FOR A NEW JOB.
UNFORTUNATELY COBRA ASSISTANCE
EXPIRED YESTERDAY AND THAT'S THE
PROVISION THAT THEY GAVE 65% SUBSIDY.
IT EXPIRED YESTERDAY.
THAT MEANS THAT WORKERS WHO LOSE
THEIR JOB TODAY OR AFTERWARDS
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE COBRA ASSISTANCE.
THEY CAN HAVE THE HEALTH
INSURANCE THROUGH THE COBRA
PROGRAM IF THEY CAN FIND THE
CLASS TO PAY FULL FREIGHT.
THAT'S 102% OF THEIR CURRENT
PREMIUM.
SO FOR MANY FOLKS, THAT'S SIMPLY
UNAFFORDABLE.
AND SO UNLESS WE ACT, THE RANKS
OF THOSE LIVING IN FEAR WITHOUT
HEALTH INSURANCE WILL GROW EVEN
MORE.
THIRD, WITHOUT THIS LEGISLATION
PHYSICIANS WHO TREAT OUR SENIORS
AND MILITARY FAMILIES WILL FACE
AN IMMEDIATE 21% PAY CUT.
THAT'S RIGHT.
AN IMMEDIATE 21% CUT IN PAY
THAT'S MORE THAN FAMILIES LOST
IN NET WORTH DURING THE WORST OF
THE RECESSION IN 2008.
THAT'S NEARLY TWICE AS MUCH AS
HOME PRICES FELL LAST YEAR.
THIS CUT WOULD FORCE DOCTORS TO
STOP SEEING PATIENTS.
THIS CUT WOULD MEAN LESS ACCESS
TO CARE FOR OUR PARENTS AND OUR
GRANDPARENTS.
THIS CUT WOULD MEAN THAT OUR
DOCTORS WOULD BE FORCED TO CUT
THEIR OWN COSTS POTENTIALLY
FORCING THEM TO LAY OFF STAFF.
THANKS THANKFULLY THE
ADMINISTRATION -- THANKFULLY THE
ADMISTRATION ANNOUNCED ON
FRIDAY IT WILL USE ITS EXISTING
AUTHORITY TO DELAY THIS CUT FOR
THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.
BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO LAST
VERY LONG.
WE CANNOT DELAY ACTION ANY
LONGER.
SENIORS, MILITARY FAMILIES AND
PHYSICIANS DESERVE BETTER.
IN MONTANA 2,000 DOCTORS SERVE
140,000 SENIORS WHO DEPEND ON
MEDICARE FOR LIFESAVING HEALTH.
AND MONTANA HAS 2,000 MILITARY
FAMILIES WHO SHOULD NOT BE
TURNED AWAY FROM THEIR DOCTOR'S DOOR.
THEY DESERVE THE BEST HEALTH
ACCESS WE CAN GIVE THEM AND THEY
DESERVE A SENATE THAT PUTS
POLITICS ASIDE AND HELP THEM FIRST.
THIS BILL WOULD AVERT THE 21%
CUT BECAUSE OF SO-CALLED
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE.
WE ADOPT HERE ANOTHER SHORT-TERM STOP GAP.
NEXT TEAM WE HOPE AND EXPECT TO
COME BACK FOR A LONGER-TERM SOLUTION.
WE MUSS FIND ONE.
BY EXEMPTING PART OF THE S.G.R.
FOR THE NEW STATUTORY PAYGO RULES.
THE SENATE REALIZED THAT A
LONG-TERM SOLUTION REQUIRES A
SHORT-TERM INVESTMENT.
THE HOUSE FOLLOWED SUIT.
I HOPE THAT THIS PUSH WILL AID
US IN FINDING A PERMANENT
SOLUTION FOR THE SAKE OF OUR
SENIORS CONTINUED ACCESS TO
MEDICARE.
A FOURTH PROVISION IN THIS BILL
AFFECTS THE 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
LET ME TELL YOU.
DOZENS OF PROGRAMS ARE AVAILABLE
TO HELP LOWER INCOME AMERICANS.
WE ALL KNOW THE IMPORTANT ROLE
THESE PROGRAMS PLAY IN KEEPING
THOSE LESS FORTUNATE FED, KEEP
THEM HEALTHY AND SAFE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT PROGRAMS LIKE
MEDICAID, THE SUPPLEMENTAL
NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS FOOD STAMPS,
THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM AND THE
LOW-INCOME HOME EMERGENCY
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS
ELIGIBLE -- ELIGIBILITY FOR
THESE AND MANY OTHER PROGRAMS IS
BASED ON THE FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES.
THESE GUIDELINES ARE UPDATED
EVERY YEAR FOR INFLATION.
THE UPDATE FOR THIS YEAR, 2010,
WILL CAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE
CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE FOR AND
BENEFITED FROM THESE PROGRAMS TO
LOSE THEIR ELIGIBILITY.
YOU MAY WONDER WHY IN A TIME OF
ECONOMIC CRISIS OUR POVERTY
BASED PROGRAM ELIGIBILITIES
WOULD DECREASE.
YOU MIGHT THINK THAT'S SOUNDS COUNTERINTUITIVE.
ONE OF THE EFFECTS OF THE
CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS IS THAT
INFLATION WENT DOWN.
THAT MEANS THAT THE AVERAGE COST
OF EVERYDAY THINGS LIKE CLOTHES,
TRANSPORTATION, AND RENT IS LESS
THAN IT WAS THE YEAR BEFORE.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL
POVERTY GUIDELINES ARE BASED ON
THE AVERAGE COST OF EVERYDAY
GOODS, THE POVERTY LEVEL FOR
2010 WOULD BE LESS THAN IT WOULD
BE FOR 2009.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE
HISTORY OF THE GUIDELINES THAT
SUCH A DECREASE WOULD OCCUR.
THAT CLEARLY IS NOT THE RIGHT OUTCOME, THOUGH.
WE SHOULD NOT MAKE FEWER PEOPLE
ELIGIBLE FOR POVERTY-BASED
PROGRAMS AT PRECISELY THE TIME
WHEN THOSE SAFETY NET PROGRAMS
ARE SERVING THE VERY PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THEY WERE CREATED.
SAFETY NET PROGRAMS ARE THERE TO
HELP PEOPLE WHEN TIMES ARE TOUGH.
THAT'S THEIR PURPOSE.
BUT THERE IS A SIMPLE SOLUTION.
WE CAN SIMPLY LEAVE THE
GUIDELINES DEVELOPED FOR 2009 IN PLACE.
THAT WAY, PEOPLE WHO ARE
ELIGIBLE CAN REMAIN ELIGIBLE.
LEAVING THE 2009 GUIDELINES IN
PLACE WOULD MEAN THAT PEOPLE
WOULD NOT LOSE THEIR HEALTH CARE
BY BEING KICKED OFF OF MEDICAID.
IT WOULD MEAN THAT FAMILIES
WOULD NOT GO HUNGRY BECAUSE THEY
LOST THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR A
NUMBER OF NUTRITION PROGRAMS.
IT WOULD MEAN THAT LOW-INCOME
FOLKS COULD STILL KEEP THEIR
HOMES IN A COLD AND SNOWY
WINTER, THANKS TO LIHEAP.
KEEPING THE 2009 GUIDELINES IN
PLACE WOULD NOT INCREASE ELIGIBILITY.
IT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD
AVOID PULLING THE SAFETY NET OUT
FROM UNDER THE PEOPLE IS
THERE TO PROTECT.
FIFTH, FOR INDIVIDUALS AND
FAMILIES, THIS BILL PROVIDES A
MUCH-NEEDED TAX RELIEF AT A TIME
OF ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY.
FOR EXAMPLE, MANY STUDENTS DON'T
HAVE THE BOOKS OR SUPPLIES THEY NEED.
SOME TEACHERS HAVE TO BUY
CLASSROOM SUPPLIES USING MONEY
FROM THEIR OWN POCKETS, IF YOU
CAN BELIEVE IT.
THIS BILL EXTENDS THE TEACHER
EXPENSE DEDUCTION FOR TEACHERS
BUYING SCHOOL SUPPLIES FOR THEIR
CLASSROOM AND EXTENDS THE
QUALIFIED TUITION DEDUCTION TO
HELP WITH COLLEGE COSTS.
THE BILL PROVIDES MUCH-NEED
RELIEF TO FAMILIES WHO HAVE
SUFFERED FROM NATURAL DISASTERS.
IT EXTENDS A PACKAGE OF DISASTER
RELIEF PROVISIONSES DECLARED TO
GIVE ALL DISASTER AREAS WITH
IMMEDIATE, RELIABLE, AND ROBUST TAX RELIEF.
AND IT EXTENDS IMPORTANT
BUSINESS PROVISIONS TO EXTEND
JOBS AND MAKE OUR COMPANIES
COMPETITIVE IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY.
THE WE RANK FIRST AMONG ALL
COUNTRIES IN RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT, BUT RELATIVE TO THE
SIZE OF OUR ECONOMY, AMERICA IS
IN SIXTH PLACE, AND THE TRENDS
SHOW THAT MAINTAINING AMERICAN
LEADERSHIP IN THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON INCREASED COMMITMENT TO
SCIENCE AND RESEARCH.
YET OUR R&D TAX CREDIT EXPIRED
AT THE END OF LAST YEAR.
THIS WILL PUT AMERICAN
CORPORATIONS AT A COMPETIVE DISADVANTAGE.
CORPORATIONS ARE UNSURE IF THEY
WILL BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE R&D
CREDIT NEXT YEAR, AND THEY NEED
TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.
THE AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICE
COMPANIES SUCCESSFULLY COMPETE
IN WORLD FINANCIAL MARKETS.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
U.S. TAX RULES DO NOT CHANGE
THAT.
THIS LEGISLATION EXTENDS THE
ACTIVE FINANCING EXCEPTION TO
SUB PART M.
IN SO DOING, IT PRESERVES THE
INTERNATIONAL COMPETIVENESS OF
AMERICAN-BASED FINANCIAL
SERVICES COMPANIES WHILE
CREATING SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE
THAT ONLY TRULY ACTIVE BUSINESSES BENEFIT.
THIS PROVISION HAD PUT THE
AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
INDUSTRY ON AN EQUAL FOOTING
WITH FOREIGN-BASED COMPETITORS
WHO WERE NOT TAXED ON ACTUAL
FINANCIAL SERVICES INCOME.
SEVERAL ENTERING TAX INCENTIVES
ALSO -- SEVERAL ENERGY TAX
INCENTIVES ALSO EXPIRED AT THE
END OF LAST YEAR.
THIS BILL EXTENDS THOSE
INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE
CONTINUED INVESTMENTS IN
TECHNOLOGIES THAT PMOTE
CONTINUED ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE BILL EXTENDS
INCENTIVES FOR A NEW CORPORATE
BATTERY TECHNOLOGY IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
ENERGY-EFFICIENT HOMES.
SIXTH, IN ADDITION TO THESE
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS THAT
PROVIDE DIRECT ASSISTANCE IN JOB
CREATION, THE BILL INCLUDES
OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WILL
PROVIDE RELIEF FOR BUSINESSES
AND INDIVIDUALS.
ONE SUCH PROVISION IS PENSION
FUNDING RELIEF.
THESE DAYS AMERICAN EMPLOYERS
ARE FACED WITH A NEED TO MAKE
HIGHER PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS.
ALL FACTORS THAT COMBINE TO
REQUIRE THESE HIGHER CONTRIBUTIONS.
THERE ARE THE FUNDING CHANGES OF
THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006.
THERE WAS A SLIDE IN THE STOCK MARKET IN 2008.
AND THEN THERE IS THE ENSUING
GREAT RECESSION.
THESE REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHER
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE COMING UPON
EMPLOYERS JUST WHEN THEY ARE
FACING LOWER ASSET VALUES AND
LOWER CASH FLOW.
MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS COULD
DIVERT RESOURCES THAT EMPLOYERS
COULD USE TO KEEP WORKERS ON THE PAYROLL.
WE ADDRESS THIS BIND TEMPORARILY
IN THE WORKER RETIREE AND
EMPLOYER RECOVERY ACT OF 2008,
BUT EMPLOYERS ARE STILL FACING
THE PROSPECT OF CLOSING PLANTS
AND STORES.
EMPLOYERS ARE STILL FACED WITH
THE POSSIBILITY OF TERMINATING
WORKERS OR TO MAKE UP FOR LOST
ASSET VALUES.
THE BILL CONTAINS ADDITIONAL
TEMPORARY TARGETED AND
APPROPRIATE RELIEF FOR THESE
EMPLOYERS, AND AT THE SAME TIME
THE BILL STILL MAINTAINS THE
PENSION SECURITY SYSTEM.
SEVENTH, THIS BILL WOULD ALSO
EXTEND SEVERAL IMPORTANT "HELP"
PROVISIONS THAT EXPIRED AT THE
END OF 2009.
NOTABLE AMONG THESE IS THE
EXCEPTIONS PROCESS FOR MEDICARE
THERAPY CAPS.
EXTENDING THIS PROVISION WILL
HELP ENSURE THAT MANY CARE
BENEFICIARIES WILL CONTINUE TO
RECEIVE ACCESS TO THE THERAPY
SERVICES THAT THEY NEED, AND
SEVERAL RURAL POLICIES ARE ALSO
EXTENDED.
EIGHTH, THESE TOUGH ECONOMIC
TIMES HAVE HIT THE STATES HARD
AS WELL, SO INCLUDED IN THIS
BILL IS A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF
THE ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE FOR STATE MEDICAID PROGRAMS.
THIS WILL ALLOW STATES TO PLAN
FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR WITH
THE CERTAINTY OF CONTINUED HELP
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL MEDAID
MATCH MONEY KNOWN AS FMAP, HELPS
THE ECONOMY GROW, AND ACCORDING
TO ECONOMIST MARK ZANDE, THIS
FUNDING HAS RETURNED ON THE
INVESTMENT OF ABOUT $1.40 FOR
EVERY DOLLAR INVESTED.
THE NATION'S GOVERNORS HAVE
REPEATEDLY ASKED FOR AN
EXTENSION OF THIS FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE, AND THIS BILL
ANSWERS THEIR PLEAS.
WITH SO MANY AMERICANS OUT OF
WORK, OUR COUNTRY NEEDS CONGRESS
TO ENACT THIS LEGISLATION.
THIS BILL CONTINUES VALUABLE TAX
INCENTIVES TO FAMILIES AND
BUSINESSES THAT WILL HELP THEM
IN THESE DIFFICULT ECONOMIC
TIMES, AND THE BILL SUSTAINS
VIOLATE -- VLT SAFETY NET
PROGRAMS WILL ALSO HELP FOSTER
ECONOMIC GROWTH.
AS I SAID AT THE OUT-OF-THE, --
AT THE OUTSET, MR. PRESIDENT,
THERE IS JUST NO ORDINARY
LEGISLATION, THIS IS URGENT
LEGISLATION.
IT WOULD PREVENT MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS FROM FALLING THROUGH
THE SAFETY N.
IT WOULD EXTEND VITAL PROGRAMS
THAT EXPIRED YESTERDAY, EXPIRED
YESTERDAY AND PUT CASH THE
HANDS OF AMERICANS WHO WOULD
SPEND IT QUICKLY, BOOSTING
ECONOMIC DEMAND.
IT WOULD EXTEND CRITICAL
PROGRAMS AND TAX INCENTIVES THAT
CREATE JOBS.
IT IS AN IMPORTANT THING THAT WE
HERE CAN DO FOR OTHER AMERICANS.
AND SO LET US HELP AMERICA'S
BUSINESSES TO CREATE MORE JOBS.
LET US JOIN TOGETHER TO WORK
ACROSS THE AISLE ON THIS
COMMONSENSE LEGISLATION, AND LET
US ENACT THESE TAX INCENTIVES
AND SETY NET PROVISIONS INTO
LAW.
MR. PRESIDENT, I SUGGEST
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. GRASSLEY: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM IOWA.
MR. GRASSLEY: I ASK THAT THE
CALLING OF THE QUORUM BE
OBJECTION.
MR. GRASSLEY: I YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MIGHT CONSUME.
MAYBE I BETTER ASK, ARE WE UNDER
A TIME AGREEMENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THERE IS
NO TIME AGREEMENT.
MR. GRASSLEY: OKAY.
MR. PRESIDENT, TODAY THE SENATE
STARTS DEBATE ON EXPIRINTAX
AND HEALTH PROVISIONS FOR PEOPLE
OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON, AROUND
HERE THOSE TAX PROVISIONS ARE
GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS --
THROUGH THE WORD "EXTENDERS."
BUT BEFORE I DISCUSS THE BILL
BEFORE US, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A
COUPLE OF POINTS ON THE PROCESS
BEFORE I GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE SUBSTITUTE BEFORE THE
SENATE.
WHILE I FIND -- WHAT I FIND
SURPRISING IS THAT WE'RE TAKING
UP A PACKAGE THAT, LE LAST
WEEK'S EXERCISE, ABSOLUTELY
BELONGS TO THE SENATE DEMOCRATIC
LEADERSHIP, THAT IS TO SAY THAT
WE'RE NOT TAKING UP A A BIPARTISAN
PACKAGE THAT I PUT TOGETHER WITH
MY FRIEND, FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN BAUCUS.
TO BE SURE, SOME OF THE
STRUCTURE REFLECTS THE AGREEMENT
THAT I HAD WITH SENATOR BAUCUS,
BUT THIS PACKAGE IS ALMOST THREE
TIMES THE SIZE OF A PACKAGE THAT
WE AGREED UPON.
VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL
COST IS DUE TO PROPOSALS THAT I
WOULD NOT HAVE AGREED TO IN
REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF IOWA
OR THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT
THE SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP
WAS GENUINE IN ITS ENTIRE TO
WORK ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS, BUT
CLEARLY I WAS MISTAKEN.
ALTHOUGH THE SENATE DEMOCRATIC
LEADERSHIP WAS HIGHLY INVOLVED
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT
ORIGINAL BIPARTISAN BILL, THEY
ARBITRARILY DECIDED TO REPLACE
IT WITH A BILL THAT EXCUSE
TOWARDS -- THAT SKEWS TOWARDS
THEIR LIBERAL WING.
SO MY FIRST COMMENT TO MY
COLLEAGUES, ALSO TO THE MEDIA
AND TO THE ENTIRE NATION IS,
DON'T LET THIS PASSAGE BE
MISLABELED AS THE
BAUCUS-GRASSLEY PACKAGE.
IT IS NOT THE PACKAGEHAT MY
FRIEND, CHAIRMAN BAUCUS, AND I NEGOTIATED.
AGAIN, THE PACKAGE BEFORE THE
SENATE DRAMATICALLY DIFFERS IN
COST, BALANCE, AND DRAMATICALLY
DIFFERENT IN INTENT FROM THE
BAUCUS-GRASSLEY COMPROMISE
ANNOUNCED ON FEBRUARY THE
12th.
MY SECOND PRELIMINARY COMMENT
GOES TO THE WAY IN WHICH THESE
EXPIRING TAX PROVISIONS HAVE
BEEN DESCRIBED BY MANY ON THE
OTHER SIDE, INCLUDING THOSE IN
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.
IF YOU ROLL THE VIDEOTAPE BACK A
WEEK OR SO, YOU'D HEAR A LOT OF
DISPARAGING COMMENT ABOUT THESE
ROUTINE BIPARTISAN EXTENDERS.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THOSE
COMMENTS WERE MADE IN AN EFFORT
TO SULLY THE BIPARTISAN
AGREEMENT REACHED BY CHAIRMAN
BAUCUS AND THIS SENATOR.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT NEWSPAPER
ACCOUNTS OF A WEEK OR SO AGO,
YOU'D COME AWAY WITH THE
IMPRESSION THAT THE TAX
EXTENDERS ARE PARTISAN WORK OF
REPUBLICANS AND ONLY FOR
REPUBLICAN INTEREST.
A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE COMES
FROM ONE REPORT WHICH DESCRIBES
A BIPARTISAN BILL AS -- QUOTE --
"AN EXTENSION OF SOON-TO-EXPIRE
TAX BREAKS THAT ARE HIGHLY
BENEFICIAL TO MAJOR
CORPORATIONS, KNOWN AS TAX EXTENDERS, AS WELL AS OTHER
CORPORATE GIVEAWAYS THAT H
BEEN DESIGNED TO WIN G.O.P.
SUPPORT."
END OF NEWSPAPER QUOTE.
"THE WASHINGTON POST" INCLUDED
THIS ATTRIBUTION TO THE SENATE
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN AN
ARTICLE LAST WK -- QUOTE --
"WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE," SAID
FRIDAY DURING A TELEVISION
APPEARANCE IN NEVADA, ADDING
THAT HE THOUGHT -- QUOTE -- "FAT
CATS" WOULD HAVE BEEN FITTED TOO
MUCH --
WOULD HAVE BENEFITED TOO MUCH
FROM A LARGER BAUCUS-GRASSLEY BILL.
AND THAT HAPPENS TO BE FROM THE
MAJORITY LEADER.
THE PORTRAIT THAT WAS PAINTED BY
CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY
ECHOED WITHOUT CRITICAL
EXAMINATION, AND IN SOME PRESS
REPORTS WERE OUTRIGHT INACCURATE.
FOR ONE THING, THE TAX EXTENDERS
INCLUDED PROVISIONS SUCH AS
DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED TUITION
AND RELATED EXPENSES AND ALSO
THE DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN
EXPENSES FOR ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY SCHOOLTEACHERS.
NOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO
SCHOOL OR IF YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE A GRADE SCHOOL TEACHER --
IF YOU'RE GOING TO COLLEGE, I
SHOULD SAY, OR IF YOU'RE A GRADE
SCHOOL TEACHER, THE SENATE
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP APPARENTLY
VIEWS YOU AS A FAT CAP. CAT.
IF YOUR HOUSE WAS DESTROYED IN A
RECENT NATURAL DISASTER AND YOU
STILL NEED ANY OF THE TEMPORARY
RELIEF PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
THE PRESENT EXTENDERS PACKAGE?
WELL, TOO BAD, BECAUSE HELPING
YOU WOULD AMOUNT TO A CORPORATE
GIVEAWAY IN THE EYES OF SOME.
SO SUCH A DISTORTION OF THE
EXTENDERS, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A LONG
PERIOD OF TIME.
SOME OF THEM PASSING THIS BODY
BY CONSENSUS, AND BELITTLE
HELPING SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE NEEDS.
AGAIN, I WANT TO SAY THE TAX
EXTENDERS HAVE BEEN ROUTINELY
PASSED REPEATEDLY BECAUSE
THEY'RE BIPARTISAN AND, QUITE
FRANKLY, VERY POPULAR.
DEMOCRATS HAVE CONSISTENTLY
VOTED IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING
THE TAX PROVISIONS.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT HOUSE
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI RELEASED
RECENTLY, A VERY STRONG
STATEMENT WHEN THE HOUSE PASSED
THESE VERY SAME TAX EXTENDERS
JUST AT THE END OF LAST YEAR,
SAYING -- QUOTE -- "THIS WAS
GOOD FOR BUSINESS, GOOD FOR
HOMEOWNERS, AND GOOD FOR OUR
COMMUNITY."
WELL, THAT'S THE END OF THE
QUOTE.
DECEMBER OF 2009 WAS NOT VERY
LONG AGO.
IN 2006, THE THEN-DEMOCRATIC
LEADER RELEASED A BLISTERING
STATEMENT -- QUOTE -- "AFTER
BUSH REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE
BLOCKED PASSAGE OF CRITICAL TAX
EXTENDERS BECAUSE AMERICAN
FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES ARE
PAYING THE PRICE BECAUSE THIS
DO-NOTHING REPUBLICAN CONGRESS
REFUSES TO EXTEND IMPORTANT TAX
BREAKS."
RECENT BIPARTISAN VOTES IN THE
SENATE ON EXTENDING EXPIRING TAX
PROVISIONS HAVE COME IN THE
EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION
ACT OF 2008, THE TAX RELIEF AND
HEALTH CARE ACT OF 2006 -- AND,
BY THE WAY, THAT PASSED THE
SENATE BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT --
AND THEN WE HAD THE WORKERS --
THE WORKING FAMILY TAX RELIEF
ACT OF 2004 WHICH ORIGINALLY
PASSED THE SENATE BY VOICE VOTE,
ALTHOUGH THE CONFERENCE REPORT
ONLY RECEIVED 92 VOTES IN FAVOR
AND A WHOPPING TH AGAINST IT.
SO LET ME GIVE YOU WHAT THE
NONPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH SERVICE HAS TO SAY
ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THESE
EXTENDERS WHICH ARE NOW BEFORE
US, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN
PASSED IN DECEMBER, HAVE -- HAVE
BEEN CONSISTENTLY WIDELY
SUPPORTED.
BECAUSE THEY MENTION THE TAX
RELIEF EXTENSION ACT OF 199 9,
WHICH PASSED THE SNALTS BY
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND ONE VOTE
AGAINST IT --
WHICH PASSED THE SENATE BY
UNANIMOUS CON IS ONE VOTE
AGAINST IT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
ON PARTY SAID, "OUR SIDE ISN'T
SURE THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE
REAL INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING
GOOD POLICY AND MOVE FORWARD
TOGETHER.
INSTEAD, THEY'RE MORE INCLINED
TO PLAY ROPE-DOPE AGAIN.
MY OWN VIEW IS, LET'S THEM."
SO WE'RE TESTING EACH OTHER WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MERELY
REIMPOSING SE POLICY THAT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A LONG
PERIOD OF TIME AND JUST HAPPENS
TO SUNSET TO FORCE SOME REVIEW
BY CONGRESS.
WE HAD ANOTHER MEMBER OF THIS
LARGE 59-VOTE MAJORITY
EXCLAIM -- QUOTE -- "IT LOOKS
MORE LIKE A TAX BILL THAN A JOBS
BILL TO ME
WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IS
GOING TO PUT ON THE FLOOR IS
SOMETHING THAT'S MORE FOCUSED
FOR JOB CREATION THAN TAX BREAKS."
NOW, READING THESE COMMENTS, I
FOUND MYSELF, OBVIOUSLY,
SCRATCHING MY HEAD.
THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THIS
BEHAVIOR IS THAT CERTAIN
SENATORS DECIDED LAST WEEK THAT
IT SERVES A DEEPLY PARTISAN GOAL
TO SLANDER WHAT HAVE BEEN FOR
SEVERAL YEARS BIPARTISAN AND
POPULAR TAX PROVISIONS
BENEFITING MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE
PEOPLE.
"THEASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE I
QUOTED FROM EARLIER INCLUDES A
STATEMENT FROM A DEMOCRATIC
SENATE LEADERSHIP AIDE SAYING
THAT -- QUOTE -- "NO DECISIONS
HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT ANYONE
EXPECTING US IMMEDIATELY TO GO
BACK TO A BILL THAT INCLUDES TAX
EXTENDERS WILL BE SORELY
DISAPPOINTED."
YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT TODAY, A
LITTLE OVER A WEEK AFTER THESE
COMMENTS, I CAN SCRATCH MY HEAD
ONCE AGAIN.
WE HAVE BEFORE US THE EXPIRING
TAX AND HEALTH PROVISIONS THAT
WERE DISPARAGED JUST A SHORT
TIME AGO.
HAVE THEY MORPHED FROM CORPORATE
TAX PORK?
HAVE THEY SUDDENLY REQUIRED
THEIR -- REACQUIRED THEIR BIPARTISAN CHARACTER?
ARE THESE TIME-SENSITIVE ITEMS
NOW EXPIRED FOR MORE THAN TWO
MONTHS SUDDENLY JOBS RELATED?
NOW WE'RE BEGINNING OTHER
DEBATE, A JOBS BILL DEBATE.
SO I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE
ECONOMY, SMALL BUSINESS AND JOBS
AFTER GIVING YOU THAT
PARTISANSHIP THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE
EXISTED A WEEK AGO, TO EXPLAIN
THAT IT EXISTED, AND NOT MUCH
HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN, BUT ALL
OF A SUDDEN SOME IDEA OF BEING
BIPARTISAN.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE
SUBSTANCE OF THIS BILL.
WE ALL AGREE THAT OUR NATION IS
CURRENTLY FACING CHALLENGING
ECONOMIC TIMES.
WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SIGNS
OF IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH AS THE
RECENT GROWTH IN OUR GROSS
DOMESTIC PRODUCT, JOB LOSSES
CONTINUE TO MOUNT AND MANY
HARD-WORKING AMERICANS ARE
STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF LABOR
STATISTICS, OVER 8 MILLION JOBS
HAVE BEEN LOST SINCE OUR ECONOMY
OFFICIALLY SLIPPED INTO
RECESSION DECEMBER 2007.
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS
CURRENTLY 9.7%, WHICH IS SIMPLY
AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL.
THE LACK OF JOB CREATION
CONTINUES, DESPITE AGGRESSIVE
ACTION TAKEN AT THE FEDERAL
VEL IN ORDER TO STABLIZE THE
ECOMY.
THIS INCLUDES THE ENACTMENT OF
TARP AND THE $800 BILLION
STIMULUS BILL.
HOWEVER, THESE BILLS WERE ALL
MISSING A CRITICAL INGREDIENT
FOR SPURRING JOB CREATION, AND
THAT WAS SUBSTANTIAL TAX RELIEF
TARGETED TO SMALL BUSINESS.
AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT SMALL
BUSINESS IS WHERE THE JOBS ARE
CREATED IN AMERICA.
70% OF THE NET NEW JOBS.
IN OCTOBER 2008, CONGRESS
ENACTED THE TROUBLED ASSETS
RELIEF PROGRAM THAT W ALL CALL
TARP AROUND HERE, T-A-R-P.
THAT WAS ADS 700 BILLION
FINANCIAL BAILOUT TBHAIL WE WERE
TOLD HAD TO BE ENACTED
IMMEDIATELY IN ORDER TO DEAL
WITH THE SO-CALLED ASSETS
TO PREVENT CREDIT FROM DRYING
UP, WHICH WOULD HAVE CHOKED OFF
THE LIFEBLOOD OF AMERICAN
ECONOMY.
WHAT WE ACTUALLY GOT, BECAUSE WE
SURE DIDN'T TAKE OUT THOSE TOXIC ASSETS.
SO WHAT WE ACTUALLY GOT WAS
DIRECT INFUSION OF CASH INTO THE
LARGEST WALL STREET BANKS, WHICH
WAS A 180 DEGREES DIFFERENT THAN
WHAT WE WE TOLD BY TREASURY
BEFORE THAT BILL WAS VOTED.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT BILL.
-- AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT BILL
AS WELL.
AND LATER CAME THE BAILOUT OF
GENERAL MOTORS AND CHRYSLER
USING TARP MONEY AFTER THE
SENATE HAD JUST VOTED NOT TO
CHRYSLER OUT.
THIS CREATED UNCERTAINTY IN THE
FINANCIAL MARKETS AND THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
MOREOVER, EXORBITANT BONUSES
WERE PAID TO EXECUTIVES AND
MANAGERS OF FIRMS THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN OUT OF A JOB IF NOT
FOR CONGRESS AND TREASURY AND
FEDERAL RESERVE INTERVENING.
AND HOW EFFECTIVE WAS THE
BAILOUT AT IMPROVING THE CREDIT
MARKETS?
IN OCTOBER 2009, THE GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RELEASED A
REPORT REVIEWING TARP'S
FIRST-YEAR PERFORMANCE.
THE G.A.O. REPORT FOUND CREDIT
HAD IMPROVED BASED ON CERTAIN
MARKET INDICATORS.
HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO
DETERMINE HOW MUCH, IF ANY, WAS
ATRIBILITIED TO TARP -- WAS
ATTRIBUTED TO TARP AS COMPARED
TO GENERAL MARKET FORCES OR
OTHER FEDERAL ACTION.
WHILE IT IS UNCLEAR TO THE
EXTENT CREDIT HAD BEEN FREED UP
AS A RESULT OF TARP, IT IS CLEAR
WHO HAS REAPED THE BENEFITS OF
THOSE PROGRAMS.
THIS PAST YEAR MANY FINANCIAL
FIRMS, INCLUDING GOLDMAN SACHS,
J.P. MORGAN CHOICE AND OTHERS
WHO RECEIVED TARP FUNDS, POSTED
RECORD OR NEAR-RECORD PROFITS.
WHILE WALL STREET EXECUTIVES
HAVE CLEARLY BENEFITED FROM
TARP, SMALL BUSINESSES AND THEIR
EMPLOYERS HAVE NOT BEEN THAT
FORTUNATE.
SMALL BUSINESSES CONTINUE TO
STRUGGLE TO OBTAIN CREDIT IN
ORDER TO EXPAND THEIR
OPERATIONS, PURCHASE
INVENTORIES, AND EVEN MAKE
PAYROLL.
THE SO-CALLED STIMULUS BILL
ENACTED ALMOST SOLELY BY AN
OVERWHELMING DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY
IN CONGRESS LAST FEBRUARY HAS
NOT SPURRED JOB CREATION EITHER.
THIS MASSIVE $800 BILLION
SPENDING BILL WAS HASTILY RUSHED
TO THE FLOOR WITH LITTLE TIME TO
DELIVER ITS MERITS.
LAWRENCE SUMMERS, THE DIRECTOR
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NATIONAL
ECONOMIC COUNCIL, SAID THE TEST
FOR STIMULUS IS WHETHER IT IS
TIMELY, TARGETED, AND TEMPORARY.
THIS STIMULUS BILL HITS THE
TRIFECTA.
IT'S FAILED IN ALL THREE.
THUGH A REPORT ISSUED IN
JANUARY 2009 BY THE CURRENT
CHAIR OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS,
CHRISTINA ROA
ADMINISTRATION PREDICTED THAT
THE STIMULUS WOULD CREATE 3
MILLION JOBS.
WE WERE TOLD BY THE BARACK OBAMA
THAT IF THE BILL WAS NOT PASSED
QUICKLY, WE WOULD EXPERIENCE
UNEMPLOYMENT OF 9% AND AT THIS
POINT I WANT TO -- WE HAVE A
CHART HERE OF THE MIDDLE LINE
WHERE IT SAYS 9%.
THE WHITE HOUSE PROJECTED
UNEMPLOYMENT IF NO STIMULUS.
HOWEVER, WE WERE ALSO TOLD BY
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THAT IF
THE STIMULUS BILL, UNEMPLOYMENT
WOULD NOT GO OVER 8%.
AND THAT WOULD MEAN THE BOTTOM
LINE.
WELL, THE BILL WAS PASSED, BUT
WHAT DID WE GET FOR THE $800
BILLION IN DEBT BEFORE INTEREST
THAT WAS LAID AT THE FEET OF OUR
CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN?
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE JUMPED
FROM 7.7% IN JANUARY RIGHT
BEFORE THE STIMULUS WAS ENACTED
TO A HIGH OF 10.1% IN OCTOBER.
WHILE UNEMPLOYMENT RECENTLY
DIPPED SLIGHTLY TO 9.7% -- AND
YOU CAN SEE THAT'S THE RED LINE
AT THE TOP THERE -- THIS WAS NOT
DUE TO JOB CREATION BUT BECAUSE
MILLIONS OF INDIVIDUALS HAVE
LITERALLY GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR
WORK AND OBVIOUSLY DON'T SHOW UP
IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ALSO
STATED THAT -- QUOTE -- "MORE
THAN 90% OF THE JOBS CREATED ARE
LIKELY TO BE IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR" -- ENOF QUOTE.
INLL, .3 MILLION JOBS HAVE
BEEN LOST SINCE THE STILL US
WILL BILL WAS ENACTED.
AND THAT'S THE 3.3 MILLION
COMPARED TO THE 3.7 MILLION THAT
THE PRESIDENT SAID.
AND OF COURSE WE'VE HAD 3.2
MILLION OF THOSE JOBS WERE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
SO LET'S GO BACK TO -- 3.2
MILLION OF THOSE WERE IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS
INACCURATE REGARDING ITS
STIMULUS JOBS PROTECTION.
AT THE TIME THE STIMULUS BILL
WAS PASSED, I RAISED CONCERNS
THAT THE BILL WAS NOT TARGETED
ENOUGH AT SMALL BUSINESS AND JOB
CREATION.
HOWEVER, MY POINT OF VIEW LOST
OUT AND LESS THAN .5% OF THE
BILL INCLUDED TAX RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESS.
THE MONEY IN THE STIMULUS BILL
TO GIVE TAX CREDITS TO PEOPLE
WHO BUY ELECTRIC PLUG-IN GOLF
CARTS OR TO PAY FOR RATTLESNAKE
HUSBANDRY AMONG OTHER
ILL-ADVISED PROVISIONS WOULD
HAVE BEEN BETTER ALLOCATED TO
SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF, THE
PLACE WHERE BUSINESSES -- THE
PLACE WHERE EMPLOYMENT STARTS.
SINCE THE STIMULUS, SMALL
BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN BEARING THE
BRUNT OF JOB LOSSES IN OUR ECONOMY.
HOWEVER, THE WORDS OF THOSE ON
THE OTHER SIDE REGARDING THE
IMPORTANCE OF SMALL BUSINESS AND
JOB CREATION DOES NOT MATCH
THEIR ACTIONS WHEN LOOKING AT
THE PALTRY AMOUNT OF SMALL
BUSINESS TAX RELIEF BEING
PROVIDED.
AGAIN, IN THE JOBS BILL OR
STIMULUS BILL OR WHATEVER YOU
WANT TO CALL IT THAT PASSED THE
SENATE LAST WEEK, THERE WAS ONLY
ONE PROVISION DIRECTED SOLELY TO
SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF.
THAT WAS A PROVISION THAT I
SUPPORTED INCREASING EXPENSING
OF EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY SMALL
BUSINESSES.
BUT IT IS A VERY SM
PROVISION, AND IT ONLY GAVE
SMALL BUSINESSES WHAT THEY'VE
ALREADY BEEN GETTING FOR THE
LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, JUST
EXTENDING -- INTHER WORDS,
JUST EXTENDING THAT FIGURE.
THAT PROVISION WAS ONLY $35
MILLION OUT OF $62 BILLION.
THE $15 BILLION TT EVERYBODY
TALKS ABOUT PLUS THE $47 BILLION
FOR THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT
IS TYPICALLY NOT MENTIONED.
LAST YEAR I INTRODUCED S. 1381,
THE SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT.
MY BILL WOULD DOUBLE THE AMOUNT
OF EQUIPMENT THAT SMALL BUSINESS
COULD EXPENSE AND WOULD MAKE
THOSE HIGHER LEVELS PERMANENT
INSTEAD OF JUST FOR ONE YEAR, AS
THE REID BILL DID.
IN MY NEGOTIATIONS ON THE JOBS
BILL, I SOUGHT TO INCLUDE
PROVISIONS FROM MY SMALL
BUSINESS TAX RELIEF BILL, BUT
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO PUT
SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF
PROVISIONS FROM MY BILL IN THE
BIPAISAN COMPROMISE THAT WE
REACHED.
INSTEAD, WE WERE ASKED TO DEFER
THOSE PROVISIONS TO A FUTURE TAX
BILL.
ACCORDING TO 80-P NATIONAL DATA
FROM JANUARY 2009 THROUGH
JANUARY 2010, SMALL BUSINESSES
WITH FEWER THAN 5 EMPLOYEES SAW
EMPLOYMENT DREY KLEIN -- WITH
FEWER THAN 500 EMPLOYEES SAW
EMPLOYMENT DECLINE BY 2.67
MILLION JOBS WHILE LARGE
BUSINESSES WITH 500 OR MORE
EMPLOYEES SAW EMPLOYMENT DECLINE
BY 694,000.
WHILE I'M SURE MANY OF US
DISAGREE ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE FINANCIAL BAILOUT AND
STIMULUS SPENDING GETTING OUR
ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK, I KNOW
FOR SURE THAT WE ALL AGREE THAT
THERE'S BEEN A LACK OF JOB
CREATION AND TOO MANY PEOPLE
CONTINUE TO BE UNEMPLOYED.
BECAUSE THE STIMULUS BILL HAS SO
CLEARLY FAILED WHAT IT WAS
SUPPOSED TO DO, WHICH IS TO
CREATE JOBS, AND THE
ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP ARE
RUNNING AWAY FROM THE WORD
"STIMULUS" THAT OF THER THAN THE
TRIPLE-CROWN WINNING HORSE
SECRETARIAT, EVERYTHING PROPOSED
NOW IS CALLED A JOBS BILL, EVEN
IF IT INCLUDES PROPOSALS THAT
WERE ALWAYS LABELED "STIMULUS"
IN THE PAST.
ONLY 6% OF THE AMERICANS BELIEVE
THAT THE STIMULUS BILL CREATED JOBS.
THAT'S LESS THAN THE 7% OF THE
AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE THAT ELVIS
IS STILL ALIVE.
LAST WEEK THE SENATE PASSED A
BILL THAT INCLUDED A PROVISION
DESIGNED TO INCREASE HIRING.
THIS INCLUDES A PAYROLL TAX
HOLIDAY FOR BUSINESSES THAT
HIRED UNEMPLOYED WORKERS AND A
TAX CREDIT FOR THE RETENTION OF
NEWLY HIRED INDIVIDUALS
THROUGHOUT ALL OF 2010.
THE PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY PART OF
THIS PROPOSAL IS LIKELY TO SPARK
SOME MODEST HIRING AT BUSINESSES
AT THE MARGINS.
AMONG THOSE THAT HAVE SEEN SOME
IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR BUSINESS.
BUT ARE ON THE FENCE ABOUT
WHETHER TO HIRE SOMEBODY NOW OR
WA A WHILE.
HOWEVER, MANY BUSINESSES
CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE AND WON'T
HIRE NEW EMPLOYEES JUST BECAUSE
IT IS THE STATED POLICY GOAL OF
CONGRESS.
BEFORE A BUSINESS CAN HIRE NEW
EMPLOYEE, THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT
THAT NEW EMPLOYEE WILL GENERATE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT EXCEEDS
THE COST OF THE EMPLOYEE.
THE LATEST SURVEY OF THE SMALL
BUSINESS ECONOMIC TRENDS -- AND
THAT'S PRODUCED BY THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION
BUSINE
MOW IT -- SHOWS THAT MANY SMALL
BUSINESSES MAY NOT BE IN A PLACE
THAT THEY COULD AFFORD TO HIRE
NEW EMPLOYEES, EVEN WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THAT BILL PASSING
THE SENATE LAST WEEK CALLED THE
PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY.
I HAVE A CHART FROM THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES THAT I NOW WANT TO
REFER TO.
THAT CHART HAS SELECTED
COMPONENTS FROM THE SMALL
BUSINESS OPTIMISM INDEX.
WHILE MANY COMPONENTS OF THIS
INDEX IMPROVE SLIGHTLY FROM
DECEMBER, IT IS CLEAR THAT SMALL
BUSINESSES CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE.
YOU'LL SEE FROM THE CHART A NET
NEGATIVE 1% OF OWNERS PLAN TO
CREATE NEW JOBS IN THE NEXT
THREE MONTHS.
YOU'LL SEE FROM THE CHART A NET
POSITIVE OF ONLY 1% OF BUSINESS
OWNERS EXPECT THE ECONOMY TO
IMPROVEMENT ONLY 4% OF BUSINESS
OWNERS SAID IT WAS A GOOD TIME
TO EXPAND.
A NET NEGATIVE 42% OF OWNERS
REPORTED HIGHER EARNINGS.
THIS LAST COMPONENT IS
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR
BUSINESSES WHEN IT COMES TO
HIRING NEW EMPLOYEES.
IF EARNINGS ARE DECLINING,
THERE'S A LITTLE -- IF EARNINGS
ARE DECLINING, THERE IS LITTLE A
PAYROLL HOLIDAY WILL DO TO SPARK
HIRING SINCE BUSINESSES NEED TO
KNOW THAT THE REVENUE GENERATED
FROM T ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
WILL EXCEED THE COST NOT JUST
TODAY, BUT IN THE FUTURE.
BEFORE I GO ON TO THIS NFIB
SURVEY, I WANT TO TELL YOU, AT
THE GRASS ROOTS OF MY STATE I
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY NOT THIS
LAST WEEKEND,UT THE PREVIOUS
WEEKEND, TO SPEND PART OF A
FRIDAY AND PART OF A SUNDAY
AFTERNOON AT WHAT'S CALLED THE
DES MOINES HOME AND GARDEN SHOW;
PROBABLY BEEN AROUND FOR 30
YEARS OR SO THAT ONE WEEKEND A YEAR.
ON THE SATURDAY IN BETWEEN, I
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND A
LIGHT SHOW CALLED THE HOME
IMPROVEMENT SHOW IN WATERLOO, IOWA.
YOU WALK AROUND AND YOU TALK TO
THESE VENDORS,
SMALL-BUSINESSPEOPLE.
YOU KIND OF LOOK AT WHAT DO THEY
EXPECT CONGRESS TO DO ABOUT
CREATING JOBS.
I NEVER GOT ANYTHING POSITIVE
ABOUT SOMETHING WE MIGHT DO, BUT
I GOT A LOT OF IDEAS THAT
THEY WANT US TO DO THAT SAID
YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE US SOME
CERTAINTY.
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY QUOTED?
THEY QUOTED THIS BIG TAX
INCREASE COMING UP AT THE END OF
THIS YEAR AT SOME OF THAT
UNCERTAINTY.
YOU KNOW, THEY QUOTED THE
CAP-AND-TRADE TAX THAT POSSIBLY
COULD PASS THE SENATE.
AND THEN THEY QUOTED -- THEY
QUOTED THE POTENTIAL COST TO
SMALL BUSINESS, BECAUSE THE
HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL.
AND THEY SAID JUST TAKE ALL OF
THOSE POTENTIAL THINGS OUT OF
THE PICTURE, AND WE'LL START HIRING.
BUT IT'S THE UNCERTAINTY THAT'S
OUT THERE OF WHAT CONGRESS IS
GOING TO DO TO US THAT'S KEEPING
US FROM HIRING PEOPLE.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE NFIB SURVEY.
WHEN BUSINESS ARE ASKED WHAT THE
SINGLE-MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM
FACING THEIR BUSINESS IS, THE
ANSWER IS: LACK OF SALES.
THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE
UNCERTAINTY I JUST TOLD YOU ABOUT.
BUT THIS IS CLOSELY FOLLOWED IN
BY WHAT I DID SAY.
TAXES AND THEN GOVERNMENT
REGULATION AND RED TAPE.
I'M GLAD THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE HAVE RECOGNIZED
THAT THE TRUE JOB CREATION COMES
THROUGH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND
HAVE, THUS, SOUGHT HIRING
INCENTIVES THROUGH PAYROLL TAX
RELIEF.
HOWEVER, THIS MINOR TAX RELIEF
IS A DP IN THE BUCKET
CONSIDERING THE CHALLENGES SMALL
BUSINESSES ARE FACING DUE TO THE
ECONOMY AND PROPOSED INCREASED
TAXES AND RED TAPE INCLUDED IN
THE FEDERAL PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.
WHETHER WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT
CAP-AND-TRADE THAT WILL
DRASTICALLY INCREASE THEIR
ENERGY COSTS, HEALTH CARE
REFORM, THAT WOULD MANDATE SMALL
BUSINESSES TO OFFER HEALTH
BENEFITS THAT WILL INCREASE THE
COSTS OF LABOR OR THE CALL FOR
TAX INCREASES ON THE SO-CALLED
WEALTHY TAXPAYERS EARNING OVER
$200,000 THAT WILL LARGELY FALL
ON THE BACKS OF SMALL
BUSINESSES.
IF OUR INTENTION IS TO INCREASE
LONG-TERM EMPLOYMENT, THE LAST
THING WE SHOULD BE DOING AT THIS
TIME OF ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY IS
TO INCREASE TAXES AND PLACE
ADDITIONAL BURDENS ON THOSE WHO
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING 70%
OF THE JOBS IN OUR ECONOMY,
NAMELY, SMALL BUSINESS.
PROVIDING SMALL BUSINESSES A
PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY WHILE
INTENDING TO IMPOSE INCREASED
TAXES, REGULATIONS AND MANDATES
AMOUNTS TO THROWING THEM JUST A
FEW PEANUTS WHILE TAKING AWAY
THEIR SUPPER.
IN RECENT MONTHS I'VE SPOKEN AT
LENGTH ABOUT THE IMPACT OF TAX
INCREASES SET TO KICK IN TEN MONTHS FROM TODAY.
I'VE EXAMINED THE IMPACT OF
THESE TAX INCREASES TO THE SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND I THK YOU OUGHT TO
CLOSER LOOK AT IT BEFORE WE
ACTUALLY ENACT THESE BIG TAX HIKES.
THE PRESIDENT AND MY COLLEAGUES
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
HAVE PROPOSED INCREASING THE TWO
MARGINAL TAX RATES FROM 33 AND
35 TO 36 AND 39.6% RESPECTIVELY,
INCREASING THE CAPITAL GAINS AND
DIVIDENDS TO 20%, REINSTATING
THE FULL EXEMPTION PHASEOUT FOR
THOSE MAKING OVER $200,000 AND
FULLY REINSTATING THE LIMITATION
ON ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR THOSE
MAKING MORE THAN $200,000.
WITH THESE PROVISIONS FULLY
INSTATED THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE
TOP TWO RATES COULD SEE THEIR
MARGINAL TAX RATES INCREASE OVER
15% OR MORE.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE RESPOND THAT THESE
PROPOSALS WILL ONLY HIT QUO,
UNQUOTE WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS AND
ONLY A PERCENTAGE OF SMALL
BUSINESSES FALL INTO THIS
CATEGORY.
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL THEM
FOR THREE OR FOUR YEARS THAT
WHAT THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT A
SMALL PERCENTAGE OF SMALL
BUSINESSES FALLING INTO THAT
CATEGORY, I'M NOT GOING TO
CONVINCE THEM BECAUSE I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THEY'RE READING, BUT
THEY'RE JUST WRONG BECAUSE SMALL
BUSINESS IS GOING TO BE HIT VERY
DEFINITELY BY THESE INCREASES.
WHAT MY COLLEAGUES FAIL TO
UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE
BUSINESSES THAT FIT IN TO THIS
GROUP IS NOT STATIC, BUT
CONSISTS OF DIFFERENT BUSINESSES
OVER TIME THAT GO IN AND OUT OF
E TOP TWO TAX BRACKETS,
DEPENDING ON WHAT?
THE MARKET.
DATA FROM THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON
TAXATION, WHICH IS A NONPARTISAN
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL
SCOREKEEPER ON TAX ISSUES, SHOW
THAT 44% OF THE FLOWTHROUGH
BUSINESS INCOME WILL BE HIT WITH
INCREASE IN THE TOP TWO TAX
RATES PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT.
THIS HITS SMALL BUSINESSES
PARTICULARLY HARD SINCE MOST
SMALL BUSINESSES ARE ORGANIZED
AS FLOWTHROUGH ENTITIES.
IT WILL INCREASE TAXES ON SINGLE
SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS THAT MAKE
MORE THAN $200,000 PER YEAR EVEN
IF THEY PLOW ALL OF THEIR INCOME
BACK INTO THEIR SMALL BUSINESS
TO KEEP PAYING THEIR WORKERS AND
HIRE ADDITIONAL WORKERS.
INCREASING
PUNISHES THEIR SUCCESS.
IT LIMITS THEIR ABILITY TO
REINVEST IN THEIR COMPANY.
IT PREVENTS THEM FROM PUTTING
AWAY FUNDS FOR TOUGH ECONOMIC
TIMES TO KEEP THEIR BUSINESS AFLOAT.
GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY CREATING
A CLIMATE OF UNCERTAINTY WHERE
THE PRIVATE SECTOR DOES NOT KNOW
WHAT WE WILL DO NEXT, WHAT TAXES
WILL BE RAISED AND WHAT
REGULATORY BARRIERS WILL BE PUT
IN THEIR WAY.
WE CAN START TO PUT SOME
CERTAINTY BACK INTO THE BUSINESS
WORLD BY DECLARING WE WILL NOT
INCREASE TAXES ON BUSINSES ONE
DIME, BY MAKING THE 2001 AND
2003 BIPARTISAN TAX MEASURES PERMANENT.
LET ME BE CLEAR.
BUSINESSES DO NOT WANT TO BE
CERTAIN THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS
GOING TO RAISE THEIR TAXES AND
MAKE THEM GO UP THROUGH MORE RED
TAPE.
THEY WANT TO BE CERTAIN THAT'S
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
UNTIL THEN MANY WILL SIMPLY SIT
ON THE SIDELINES AND NOT HIRE
MORE WORKERS AS I REPORTED TO
YOU FROM MY WEEKEND AT A COUPLE
FAIRS IN THE STATE OF IOWA
WEEKEND BEFORE LAST.
MOREOVER, WE CAN DIRECTLY
PROVIDE TARGETED RELIEF TO SMALL
BUSINESSES.
LAST JUNE I PROPOSED LEGISLATION
TO DO JUST THAT.
SO I INTRODUCED THE SMALL
BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT TO LOWER
TAXES ON JOB-CREATING SMALL
BUSINESSES.
SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP
BARRED ANY AMENDMENTS LAST
YEAR -- OR LAST WEEK, I'M
HOPEFUL THAT WE'LL DEBATE AND
VOTE ON AN AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
SENATOR THUNE.
MANY PROVISIONS IN MY BILL ARE
CONTAINED IN THE THUNE BILL.
MY BILL CONTAINS A NUMBER OF
PROVISIONS THAT WILL LEAVE MORE
MONEY IN THE HANDS OF SMALL
BUSINESSES SO THAT THEY CAN HIRE
MORE, CONTINUE TO PAY THE
SALARIES OF THEIR CURRENT
EMPLOYEES AND MAKE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS.
THIS INCLUDES ALLOWING
FLOW-THROUGH SMALL BUSINESSES
PARTNERSHIPS, S-CORPORATIONS,
L.L.C. AND SOLE PARTNERSHIPS TO
DEDUCT 20% OF THEIR INCOME,
EFFECTIVELY REDUCING THEIR TAXES
BY 20%.
MY BILL ALSO INCLUDES TAX RELIEF
FOR SMALL-BUSINESS OWNERS FROM
THE UNFAIR ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM
TAX THAT TAKES GENERAL BUSINESS
CREDITS SUCH AS THE EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILD CARE
CREDIT OUT OF THE ALTERNATIVE
MINIMUM TAX.
THIS WOULD ALLOW MOM AND POP
RETAIL STORES THAT PROVIDE CHILD
CARE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES TO GET
THE SAME RELIEF THAT FORTUNE 500
COMPANIES GET WHEN IT PROVIDES
CHILD CARE FOR ITS EMPLOYEES.
MY BILL WOULD ALSO ALLOW MORE
THAN NEARLY 2 MILLION SMALL "C"
CORPORATIONS TO BENEFIT FROM THE
LOWER TAX RATES FOR THE SMALL
"C" CORPORATIONS.
THERE ARE SO MANY SMALL "C"
CORPORATIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE
FORMED AS "C" CORPORATIONS
BEFORE OTHER ENTITIES SUCH AS
L.L.C.'S BECAME MORE WIDELY USED.
AMONG OTHER PROVISIONS, MY BILL
WOULD ALSO LOWER THE POTENTIAL
TAX BURDEN ON SMALL "C"
CORPORATIONS THAT CONVERT TO "S" CORPORATIONS.
THE NFIB HAS WRITTEN A LETTER
SUPPORTING MY SMALL-BUSINESS TAX
RELIEF BILL STATING -- QUOTE --
"TO GET THE SMALL-BUSINESS
ECONOMY MOVING AGAIN, SMALL
BUSINESSES NEED THE TOOLS AND
INCENTIVES TO EXPAND AND GROW
THEIR BUSINESSES.
S T 138 -- S.1381 PROVIDES THE
OLS THAT SMALL BUSINESSES NEED."
END OF QUOTE FROM THE NFIB.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR TWO
BIPARTISANSHIP THAT WOULD KILLED
BY THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.
THE SAME DAY THAT CHAIRMAN
BAUCUS AND I RELEASED A BILL
THAT CONTAINED SIGNIFICANT
COMPROMISES BEHIND CLOSED DOOR
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS
CHERRY-PICKED JUST FOUR
PROVISIONS OUT OF THE LARGER
BILL THAT CIRMAN BAUCUS AND I AGREED TO.
THOSE PROVISIONS HAD BEEN AGREED
TO IN A MEETING OF SENIOR
MEMBERS OF THE OTHER SIDE ONLY
WHILE CHAIRMAN BAUCUS AND I WERE
NEGOTIATING.
I WAS EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED TO
SEE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP
BLOW UP THE BIPARTISAN DEAL THAT
CHAIRMAN BAUCUS AND I REACHED.
TO POUR A LITTLE SALT INTO THE
WOUND, THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP
THEN PROHIBITED ANY SENATOR ON
EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE FROM
EVEN OFFERING AN AMENDMENT TO
IMPROVE A BILL THAT HE HIJACKED.
ONE OF THE FOUR PROVISIONS THE
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS CHERRY-PICKED
IS THE BILL "AMERICA BUYS."
FUNDAMENTAL BEEN JUST ME
DRAFTING THE -- IF IT HAD BEEN
JUST ME DRAFTING THE BILL, I
WOULDN'T HAVE INCLUDED THE
PROVISION.
HOWEVER IN THE SAME OF
COMPROMISE, I RELUCTANTLY AGREED
THAT PUTTING THIS PROVISION IN
THE BILL WOULD NOT CAUSE THE
OVERALL BILL TO LOSE MY SUPPORT.
BUILD AMERICA BONDS IS A VERY
RICH SPENDING PROGRAM DISGUISED
AS TAX CUTS.
BLOOMBERG REPORTED THAT LARGE
WALL STREET INVESTMENT BANKS
HAVE BEEN CHARGING 37% HIGHER
UNDERWRITING FEES ON BUILD
AMERICA BONDS DEALS THAN ON
OTHER DEALS.
THEREFORE, AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
APPEAR TO BE FUNDING HUGE
UNDERWRITING FEES FOR LARGE WALL
STREET INVESTMENT BANKS AS PART
OF THE BUILD AMERICA BONDS
PROGRAM.
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP HAS
SAID THAT THE BUILD AMERICA
BONDS PROGRAM IS ABOUT CREATING
JOBS.
SO, I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER IT'S
ABOUT LINING THE POCKETS OF WALL
STREET EXECUTIVES.
SO LAST WEEK I ASKED GOLDMAN
SACHS C.E.O. A NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE MUCH
LARGER UNDERWRITING FEES
SUBSIDIZED BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.
I EXPECT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION SHORTLY.
TURNING BACK TO THE BILL BEING
DEBATED THIS WEEK, THE THUNE
AMENDMENT, WHICH INCORPORATES
MANY OF THE PROVISIONS FROM MY
SMALL-BUSINESS TAX RELIEF BILL,
PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL
SML-BUSINESS TAX RELIEF AND
SHOULD BE ADOPTED.
IN THIS BILL, I HOPE THAT WE CAN
ALL WORK TOGETHER TOWARDS
IMPROVING OUR ECONOMY, NOT
THROUGHORE GOVERNMENT, BY
LETTING THE ENGINE OF JOB
CREATION -- MEANING SMALL
BUSINESS -- KEEP MORE OF THEIR
OWN MONEY IN THE FORM OF
RELIEF.
AND I YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
DEMOCRATIC
MR. DURBIN: LET ME SERVE
NOTICE ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE
THAT I'LL BE
CONSENT REQUEST ABOUT THE
EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
SO THAT SENATOR BUNNING OR
SOMEONE ELSE ON HIS BEHALF WILL
BE ON THE FLOOR IF THEY CARE TO
OBJECT.
LET ME SAY BEFORE MY FRIEND FROM
IOWA LEAVES THE FLOOR, ONE OF
THE REASONS WE CAN'T GET TO THE
ISSUES THAT YOU WANT IS BECAUSE
WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF A
FILIBUSTER BY THE SENATOR FROM
KENTUCKY, WHO HAS STOPPED
FROM EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS, COBRA BENEFITS FOR 30 DAYS.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT
FILIBUSTER NOW APPLIES TO A
NONCONTROVERSIAL JUDICIAL NOMINEE.
SO WE HAVE MULTIPLE FILIBUSTERS
THAT ARE HOLDING US BACK FROM
CONSERING SOME OF THE MEASURES
YOU MENTIONED.
I MIGHT SAY THAT SOME WE MIGHT
FIND APPEALING AND HOPE WE CAN
MAKE THEM PART OF THE PACKAGE.
THE REASON WHY YOUR INITIAL
AGREEMENT WITH SENATOR BAUCUS
MET RESISTANCE ON OUR SIDE OF
THE AISLE IS WE THOUGHT THERE
WAS A LACK OF BALANCE THERE.
THOUGH I SUPPORT THE TAX
EXTENDERS BEING EXTENDED FOR THE REMAINDER.
YEAR, IN YOUR INITIAL AGREEMENT
WITH SENATOR BAUCUS, THE
EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS WITH COBRA WAS FOR A
FEW MONTHS AND WE FELT BOTH
SHOULD BE EXTENDED UNTIL THE END
OF THE YEAR AND I HOPE WE CAN
REACH THAT AGREEMENT AS SOON AS
THE FILIBUSTERS THAT HAVE BEEN
INITIATED BY THE SENATOR FROM
KENTUCKY ARE COMPLETED.
LET ME SAY A WORD FILIBUSTERS.
WE TRIED LAST WEEK TO EXTEND FOR
30 DAYS UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
THAT WERE GOING TO RUN OUT
ACROSS AMERICA.
STARTING LITERALLY AT MIDNIGHT
LAST NIGHT.
AND THERE WAS ONE OBJECTION FROM
SENATOR BUNNING FROM KENTUCKY,
WHO OBJECTED TO EXTENDING
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND COBRA BENEFITS.
THE NET RESULTF THIS ONE
SENATOR'S OBJECTION IS TO PUT US
INTO PROCEDURAL PROCESS THAT
COULD LITERALLY TAKE DAYS.
NOW WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE
WHO WERE ON UNEMPLOYMENT DURING
THAT PERIOD OF TIME?
THEY'RE CUT OFF.
15,000 PEOPLE
ON UNEMPLOYMENT IN ILLINOIS WERE
CUT OFF BECAUSE OF THE OBJECTION
OF THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY AND
ROUGHLY 400,000 NATIONWIDE HAVE
SEEN THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
CUT OFF.
I MET WITH TWO OF THOSE PEOPLE
IN CHICAGO YESTERDAY.
EY HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED FOR
EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME AND
THEY HAVE SPENT LITERALLY EVERY
DAY FINDING A JOB.
E OF THEM HAS A 3-YEAR-OLD
DAUGHTER, AND I ASKED WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN NOW THAT YOU
DON'T HAVE AN UNEMPLOYMENT CHECK?
HE SAID, I DON'T KNOW, THE FIRST
THING I'LL DO IS DEFAULT ON THE
STUDENT LOAN.
I'LL HAVE TO DO THAT.
I CAN'T MAKE THAT PAYMENT IF I
CAN'T PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.
THERE ARE REAL-LIFE CONSEQUENCES
TO YOUR OBJECTION.
AND THE REALIFE CONSEQUENCES
ARE TO INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE
LOST THEIR JOB AND CAN'T FIND
ONE IN AN ECONOMY WHERE WE HAVE
FIVE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE FOR EVERY
JOB THAT'S AVAILABLE.
MY STATE, YOUR THE STATE,
VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY IS
STRUGGLING.
SOME OF THEM HAVE REACHED THE
END OF THEIR ROPE.
THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS THAT
NEITHER YOU OR I WANT TO FACE.
ABOUT WHETHER TO GIVE UP A HOME.
LITERALLY WHETHER TO GIVE UP A HOME.
IT COULD HAPPEN.
IT'S GREAT TO HAVE A DEBATE IN
THE SENATE. WE SHOULD.
THAT'S WHAT THE SENATE SHOULD BE
ABOUT.
BUT WHEN THE VICTIMS IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE DEBATE ARE
UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE, I DON'T THINK
THAT'S FAIR.
I DON'T THINK IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR.
THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING.
THIS ONE YOUNG MAN, DAVID
SENIOR, SHOWED ME A LIST OF 300
APPLICATIONS THAT HE HAD MADE TO
Y TO FIND A JOB DURING THE
LAST YEAR.
HE SAID I GO ONLINE EVERY DAY.
AND THIS IS A MAN WHO WORKED FOR
YEARS.
HAD A STRONG WK RECORD UNTIL
HE WAS LAID OFF.
AND HE SAID I JUST CAN'T FIND
ANYTHING.
I'M DESPERATE.
I'M TRYING EVERYTHING THAT I CAN
THINK OF.
AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO CUT OFF
MY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
SO, FRANKLY, WE CAME TO THE
FLOOR LAST THURSDAY NIGHT TO
URGE THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY
TO RECONSIDER HIS OBJECTION.
YOU KNOW, THE NET RESULT IS
GOING TO CREATE HARDSHIP ACROSS
AMERICA AND IT GETS WORSE BY THE DAY.
WE ESTIMATE THAT ROUGHLY 2,000
MORE PEOPLE TONIGHT WILL LOSE
THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IN
ILLINOIS AND SO BY NEXT SUNDAY
NIGHT INSTEAD OF 15,000 LOSING
THEIR CHECK, IT WILL BE UP TO NEAR 30,000.
BY THE END OF MARCH THE TOTAL IS
ESTIMATED TO BE 65,000 PEOPLE
WHO WILL LOSE THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT
CHECKS BECAUSE OF THE OBJECTION
OF SENATOR BUNNI OF KENTUCKY
D THIS INITIATION OF A
FILIBUSTER.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT
WE SHOULD DO.
THIS IS AN ECONOMIC EMERGENCY
FACING THIS NATION.
IT IS NOT THE FwwST TIME THAT
SENATOR BUNNING HAS BEEN ASKED
TO EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
THAT WERE NOT PAID FOR.
YOU SEE, THAT IS HIS ISSUE.
YOU'RE NOT PAYING FOR THE
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
YOU SHOULDN'T EXTEND THEM.
SENATOR BUNNING VOTED FOR THE
FISCAL 2008 WAR SUPPLEMENTAL
BILL WHICH EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR 13 WEEKS.
HE ALSO SUPPORTED ENDING DEBATE
AND DIDN'T OBJECT TO THE VOICE
VOTE OF A MEASURE TO EXTEND
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR AN
ADDITIONAL SEVEN WEEKS FOR
WORKERS WHO EXHAUSTED THEIR
CURRENT COMPENSATION BY
MARCH 31, 2009.
THAT BILL ALSO EXTENDED BENEFITS
FOR AN ADDITIONAL 13 WEEKS.
HALF THE DURATION OF REGULAR
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FOR
WORKERS IN STATES WITH
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OF 6% OR
HIGHER.
NEITHER OF THE EXTENSIONS WHICH
HE VOTED FOR WON IN -- ONE IN
RECORD VOTE AND ONE BY VOICE
VOTE HAD ANY BUDGET OFFSETS.
SO TO ARGUE THAT NOW WE'RE
TAKING A STAND ON PRINCIPLE, THE
FACT IS THAT TWICE, AT LEAST, I
DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE MORE
TIMES, THE SENATOR HAS REACHED
AN OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.
AGREEDITH THE MAJORITY, THE
BIPARTISAN MAJORITY THAT WE WERE
TRULY IN AN ECONOMIC EMERGENCY.
THERE IS ONE OTHER ASPECT TO
THIS, WHICH IS TROUBLING, AND
THAT IS THE FIRST CASUALTY OF
MOST PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED IS HEALTH
INSURANCE.
THE EMPLOYER IS NOT PAYING ANY LONGER.
IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE HEALTH
INSURANCE, COBRA LET'S YOU PAY
FOR IT ALL.
AND IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
ROUGHLY 1,300 A MONTH FOR A
FAMILY IN MY STATE OF ILLINOIS
AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION IS ABOUT $1,100.
DO THE MATH.
UNDERSTAND THAT MOST PEOPLE
CAN'T DO IT.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID AS PART OF
OUR EFFORT TO THUNDER ECONOMY
AROUND, WE WILL HELP PEOPLE PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE
THROUGH COBRA.
WE'LL PAY, I BELIEVE THE FIGURE
IS 65% OF THE PREMIUMS SO THAT
PEOPLE WILL BE PAYING ONE-THIRD
OF THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS WHEN THEY'VE LOST A
JOB.
STILL A SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF MONEY.
$300 OR $400 THAT THEY'D HAVE TO
PAY EACH MONTH.
BUT, IMAGINE, IF YOU HAD A SICK
CHILD AT HOME AND IMAGINE IF
THAT CHILD NEEDED AT LEAST THE
POSSIBILITY OF COVERAGE SHOULD
THEY BE HOSPITALIZED FOR
DIABETES OR CANCER OR WHATEVER
THE CAUSE MAY BE.
IF YOU GET A GAP IN COVERAGE AND
YOU LOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO MAKE
THE PAYMENT, YOU CAN FIND
YOURSELF IN A PREDICAMENT WHERE
YOU NOT ONLY HAVE HEALTH
INSURANCE, BUT THE PROSPECT OF
BUYING ADDITIONAL HEALTH
INSURANCE IS NEXT TO ZERO.
SENATOR BUNNING'S OBJECTION CUT
OFF THIS BENEFIT, THE 65%
BENEFIT, ON HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND WE HAD TO TRY TO EXTEND IT FOR 30 DAYS.
SO THAT MEANS THESE PEOPLE WILL
NOT ONLY LOSE THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT
CHECK, THEY WILL LOSE THIS HELP
WITH THEIR COBRA BENEFIT.
I CAN'T -- I HAVE BEEN ONCE IN
MY LIFE IN A PREDICAMENT OF
BEING A FATHER WITH A SICK CHILD
AND NO HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT I WANT TO
TELL YOU, IF THERE'S SOMETHING
THAT TEARS YOU APART AS A DAD,
IT'S GOI IT INTO A HOSPITAL
WITH NO HEALTH INSURANCE WITH A SICK BABY.
I'VE BEEN THERE.
I'VE DONE THAT.
THANK GOD IT HAPPENED YEARS AGO
AND MY LITTLE GIRL MADE IT
THROUGH THAT EPISODE.
BUT WE ARE FORCING LITERALLY
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
AMERICANS INTO THIS SITUATION
BECAUSE OF THE OBJECTION AND THE
FILIBUSTER OF ONE SENATOR FROM
KENTUCKY.
THAT IS UNFAIR.
NOT ONLY UNFORTUNATE, BUT
UNFAIR.
IF WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT A BATTLE
OVER OUR BUDGET DEFICIT AND GET
INVOLVED IN LENGTHY DEBATES, AS
WE CAN, THERE ARE PLENTY OF
CHANCES TO DO IT.
WE'LL HAVE A BUDGET RESOLUTION
IN JUST A FEW MONTHS.
WE'LL HAVE SCORES -- OR AT LEAST
A DOZEN APPROPRIATION BILLS TO
FIGHT THIS BATTLE OVER IT, AND I
THINK THE BATTLE CAN BE JOID.
NOW, WE SAID TO THE SENATOR FROM
KENTUCKY, IF YOU WANT TO OFFER
AN AMENDMENT TO PAY FOR THE
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND THE
COBRA BENEFITS, YOU'RE ENTITLED
TO OFFER THAT AMENDMENT.
YOU'RE ENTITLEDDOM TO THE FLOOR,
EXPRESS YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON
HOW THIS SHOULD BE PAID FOR AND
TO ACCEPT THE WILL OF THE
SENATE.
LET THEM VOTE ON YOUR AMENDMENT.
IF THEY AGREE WITH YOU, FINE.
IF THEY DISAGREE, IT WILL BE
MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
YOU'LL HAVE YOUR DAY ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE, WHICH IS
ABOUT THE MOST OF US CAN HOPE FOR IN THIS JOB.
BUT THE SENOR FROM KENTUCKY
SAID NO, I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT
BECAUSE I MIGHT LOSE MY AMENDMENT.
WELL, YES, YOU MIGHT WIN AND YOU
MIGHT LOSE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE ALL FACE WHEN
WE COME FORWARD WITH AN IDEA ON
HOW TO DEAL WITH THE BUDGET DEFICIT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO
INSIST THAT IT'S MY WAY OR THE
HIGHWAY WHEN IT COMES TO
SOMETHING AS BASIC AS
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND HEALTH
CARE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
UNEMPLOYED ACROSS AMERICA.
AS I VISIT THESE UNEMPLOYMENT
OFFICES AND MEET WITH THESE
PEOPLE, I FIND A LOT OF
DETERMINED FOLKS WHO YOU THINK
WOULDAVE GIVEN UP A HECK OF A
LONG TIME AGO STILL TRYING.
THEY CONSIDER IT A VICTORY IF AT
THE END OF THE DAY ONE OF THE
POSTED JOBS ON THE INTERNET
LEADS TO AN INTERVIEW.
THEY'RE THAT DESPERATE.
AND, YET, WE ARE SAYING TO THEM
WE'RE GOING TO CUT OFF THE MONEY
YOU NEED TO FEED YOUR FAMILY IN
AN EFFORT TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT
DEFICIT REDUCTION.
NOW, I THINK, IS UNFORTUNATE.
WE HAVE ASKED FOR EXTENSION OF
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS REPEATEDLY
BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE WORST SHAPE
OF OUR ECONOMY THAN WE'VE BEEN
IN 75 YEARS, AN LOT OF PEOPLE
ARE -- AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE
REALLY STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS
ME.
I KNOW THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARGUE
AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO CUT OFF
THESE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
I WOULD SAY TO THEM TO CONSIDER
THIS AS WELL, UNEMPLOYMENT
ASSISTANCE IS THE MOST DIRECT
INFUSION OF MONEY INTO THE
ECONOMY.
THOSE WHO ARE ECONOMISTS TELL US
IF WE WILL -- THE FIRST DOLLAR
THAT YOU GIVE IN UNEMPLOYMENT
ASSISTANCE IS GOING TO BE SPENT
IMMEDIATELY.
IT ISN'T GOING TO BE BANKED,
SAVED OR INVESTED.
THESE FOLKS NEED IT AND THEY'LL
SPEND IT THE DAY AFTER THEY GET
IT FOR OBVIOUS NEEDS.
AND THAT CREATES MORE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.
SO YOU'RE NOT ONLY DOING THE
RIGHT THING, BUT A CARING
THAT A CARING NATION DOES WHEN
SO MANY OF US ARE FACING HARD TIMES.
IT REALLY IS AN ECONOMIC STIMULUS.
IT -- NUMBER ONE, INCIDENTALLY
BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN
DO TO GET THIS ECONOMY MOVING
FORWARD.
IT ISN'T JUST A MATTER OF
HELPING THOSE WHO ARE HELPLESS.
IT IS A MATTER OF INJECTING
MONEY IN THE ECONOMY IN THE MOST
EFFICIENT WAY.
I'M AFRAID THAT THIS HAS
HAPPENED BEFORE.
THE LAST TIME THE SENATE
EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE OBJECTED THREE TIMES.
THE LEADERS ON BOTH -- ON THOSE
THREE OCCASIONS.
AND, INCIDENTALLY, THAT
EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS WAS COMPLETELY PAID FOR.
SO IT APPEARS THAT WHETHER IT
WAS PAID FOR OR NOT PAID FOR,
THERE'S OBJECTION ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDOF THE AISLE.
I DON'T GET IT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DOING HIS BEST
TO GET THIS ECONOMY MOVING
FORWARD.
HE INHERITED A WEAK ECONOMY THAT
WAS LOSING 700,000 TO 800,000
JOBS A MONTH.
THINGS HAVE IMPROVED SOMEWHAT
THOUGH THEY'RE NOT WHERE WE WANT
THEM TO BE.
I FEEL WE OUGHT TO BE STANDING
BEHIND THE PEOPLE IN OUR NATION
WH ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND A JOB
AND GET BACK TO WORK.
MANYF THEM ARE TRYING TO KEEP
FAMILIES TOGETHER AND CARE FOR
THEIR CHILDREN.
LAST WEEK NEARLY 5 MILLION
AMERICANS FILED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
FOR THE FIRST -- 500,000
AMERICANS FILED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
FOR THE FIRST TIME.
THE NUMBER SURGED TO JUST BELOW
500,000.
I WISH THAT WEREN'T THE CASE,
BUT IT IS.
YOU SEE THAT THE ECONOMY IS
STILL STRUGGLING.
AND FILE THE FIRST THING THAT WE
OUGHT TO DO IS TO CARE FOR OUR OWN.
IF SOMEONE CAME TO THE FLOOR
WITH AN EMERGENCY REQUEST NOW
BECAUSE OF A DROUGHT, A FLOOD, A
HURRICANE, A TORNADO, WE WOULD HONOR.
IT WE'D DO THAT ALMOST ON A
REGULAR BASIS HERE.
BECAUSE AT SOME POINT YOU SAY,
FIRST, HELP THESE POOR PEOPLE,
THEN DEAL WITH THE BUDGET
CHALLENGE THAT IT BRINGS AT
ANOTHER TIME.
BUT NOW WHEN IT COMES TO HELPING
OUR OWN, THE CITIZENS OF THIS
COUNTRY ARE OUT OF WORK.
THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, IS NOT THE CASE.
RIGHT NOW OVER 4.6 MILLION
AMERICANS CONTINUE TO COLLECT
UNEMPLOYMENT.
THAT'S UP $6,000 FROM THE
PRECEDING WEEKS NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS.
IN ADDITION TO THE FILIBUSTER
INITIATED BY SENATOR BUNNING,
HURTING THOSE WHO ARE
UNEMPLOYED, IT ALSO IS GOING TO
HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE SMALL
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.
MOST EVERYONE AGREES THAT THE
KEY TO BRINGING THIS ECONOMY
FORWARD IS HELPING SMALL
BUSINESS STAY IN BUSINESS AN
CREATE JOBS -- AND CREATE JOBS.
THE SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION LOANS MONEY TO
SMALL BUSINESSES, WHICH DURING
DIFFICULT TIMES NEED A HELPING HAND.
THE SENATOR'S FILIBUSTER AND HIS
OBJECTION HAS CLOSED DOWN S.B.A.
PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE CREDIT TO
SMALL BUSINESSES.
WHAT ARE WE THINKING?
TO STOP ASSISTANCE TO SMALL
BUSINESS AT THIS MOMENT IN OUR
HISTORY?
MOST OF US BELIEVE THIS IS
CENTRAL AND ESSENTIAL IF WE ARE
GOING TO TURN THE CORNER AND MOVE FORWARD.
AND, YET, THE SENATOR FROM
KENTUCKY HAS OBJECTED.
IT ALSO HAS SOME RAMIFICATIONS
IN CUTTING BACK ON MONEY THAT'S
AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE SENATOR IS
EVEN AWARE OF WHAT HE HAS DONE
WHEN IT COMES TO HIS OBJECTION.
BUT IN MY STATE, AND MANY
OTHERS, WE ARE FINDING THAT
PEOPLE ARE -- ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS TODAY.
WE'VE BEEN RUNNING OUR FEDERAL
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM WITH
SHORT-TERM EXTENSIONS SINCE
SEPTEMBER 30th OF LAST YEAR,
ALMOST FIVE MONTHS.
THESE STOP GAP -- STOP GAP
EXTENSIONS WERE UNDERFUNDING OUR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, HURTING
OUR STATES, CITIES, AND
COUNTIES, AND WORKERS.
THE SHORT-TERM EXTENSIONS
CREATED AN UNSTABLE ENVIRONMENT
IN THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.
WE PASSED A YEAR-LONG EXTENSION
INAST WEEK'S JOBS BILL, BUT
THE HOUSE COULD NOT PASS THE
BILL IN TIME TO KEEP THE TRANSPORATAION DEPARTMENT
AUTHORIZED.
SO WE CAME TO THE FLOOR TO PASS
A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF
TRANSPORTATION LAW ALONG WITH
THE COBRA AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
SENATOR BUNNING'S OBJECTION HAS
BASICALLY SHUT DOWN THE HIGHWAY
TRUST FUND.
THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND, THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.
THIS IS UNCHARTERED TERRITORY.
WE DON'T LET SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION
EXPIRE.
IT HASN'T HAPPENED BEFORE.
THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION'S SHUTTING DOWN
HIGHWAYEIMBURSEMENT TO STATES,
THAT MEANS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS THAT SHOULD BE
FLOWING FROM THE FEDERAL
TREASURY TO THESE STATES ARE
BEING SHUT DOWN.
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IS FURLOUGHING NEARLY 2,000
EMPLOYEES WITHOUT PAY AS OF
TODAY BECAUSE OF SENATOR
BUNNING'S OBJECTION.
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IS REMOVING FEDERAL INSPECTORS
FROM CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS, FORCING WORK TO STOP
ON FEDERAL LANDS.
D.O.T. SAFETY AGENCIES, LIKE THE
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION, FURLOUGHING
EMPLOYEES WHO WORK ON SAFETY
PROGRAMS.
PROGRAMS LIKE DRUNK DRIVING,
REDUCING TRAFFIC INJURIES AND
INCREASING CHILD PASSENGER
SAFETY BECAUSE OF THE OBJECTION
OF THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.
IN MY STATE WE'RE GOING TO LOSE
50 FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES
FURLOUGHED TODAY.
THESE WORKERS HAVE BEEN
INSTRUCTED NOT TO REPORT TO WORK
UNTIL WE PASS THIS EXTENSION.
SECOND, THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATIO
RECEIVING FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT
FOR PROJECTS BECAUSE OF THIS
OBJECTION BY THE SENATOR FROM
KENTUCKY.
THEY WERE SCHEDULED TO SUBMIT
THE NEXT FEDERAL BILL FOR
REIMBURSEMENT AS OF TOM
THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION WILL SUBMIT A
BILL OF
WORK ALREADY COMPLETED THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE OBJECTION OF
THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, THAT
BILL CANNOT BE PAID.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT MY
STATE'S ENTITLED TO IT.
I IMAGINE THAT THE STATE OF
KENTUCKY HAS A SIMILAR
SITUATION.
THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER THERE'S
ANYONE TO PROCESS IT?
AND BECAUSE OF HIS OBJECTION,
THERE'S NOT.
DELAYS IN FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENTS
MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO PAY THE
CONTRACTORS AND WORKERS ON THESE
PROJECTS.
SO THE RIPPLE EFFECT IS THAT THE
MONEY DOESN'T GO BACK TO THE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES OR
WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILY LEADING
TO UNEMPLOYMENT.
AND THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY IS
OPPOSED TO EXTENDING
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, INCIDENTALLY, IN THE
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IS 24% NATIONWIDE.
LAYING OFF MORE CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS AT THIS TIME IS EXACTLY
THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE OUGHT TO
BE DOING IN THIS ECONOMY.
FUTURE WORK ON ILLINOIS TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS COULD BE
IN JEOPARDY IF WE DO NOT PASS AN EXTENSION.
THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IS SCHEDULED TO
RELEASE THE LARGEST BID LETTINGS
ON
WAY THIS CONSTRUCTION SEASON,
AND SO THE CONSTRUCTION SEASON
WILL BE DELAYED.
I'M TRYING TO GIVE THE WHOLE PICTURE HERE.
AS WE WAIT FOR THE SENATOR FROM
KENTUCKY TO AGREE TO A
SHORT-TERM EENSION OF THESE
CRITICAL PROGRAMS, WE ARE
JEOPARDIZING JOBS, MORE PEOPLE
WILL BE UNEMPLOYED, AND WE'RE
JEOPARDIZING FUTURE PROJECTS
WHICH WILL BE SHORTCHANGED
BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION
SEASON THAT'S VERY LIMITED.
THIS ONE-MONTH EXTENSION OF
TRANSPORTATION -- AND THAT IS
ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR -- HAS
ALREADY HAD OVERWHELMING
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN THE PAST,
AND THE ONE-MONTH EXTENSION
ITSELF COSTS
LAST WEEK, WE PASSED A ONE-YEAR
TRANSPORTATION FIX AS PART OF
THE JOBS BILL.
THE FOLLOWING GROUPS HAVE
WRITTEN LETTERS TELLING US,
URGING US TO MOVE ON THIS
EXNSION. THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
OFFICIALS, THE AMERICAN ROAD AND
TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION, THE ASSOCIATED
GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF ILLINOIS,
THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
THE LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
AND THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION.
THE HOUSE DID ITS WORK LAST WEEK
AND PASSED THIS 30-DAY
EXTENSION, SENDING IT OVER TO US
WHERE WE LEARNED THURSDAY NIGHT
THAT THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY
WAS GOING TO OBJECT.
WE TOOK TO THE FLOOR THURSDAY
NIGHT, NINE OF US, AND MADE A
REQUEST SEVERAL TIMES FOR HIM TO
WITHDRAW HIS OBJECTION, WHICH HE
REFUSED.
ANOTHER REQUEST WAS MADE ON
FRIDAY MORNING BY ME HERE ON THE
FLOOR AND THE SENATOR CONTINUED
HIS OBJECTION, AND THEN SEVERAL
TODAY.
SO I'M G
REQUEST OF THE SENATOR FROM
KENTUCKY ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE
THAT I REPRESENT IN ILLINOIS,
SOME 15,000 WHO HAVE LOST THEIR
UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS BECAUSE OF
HIS FILIBUSTER.
AND 400,000 ACROSS AMERICA WHO
ARE WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED,
WHAT DID WE DO WRONG HERE?
WHY AREN'T WE RECEIVING THE
CHECK WE NEED FOR THE
NECESSITIES OF LIFE?
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE SENATE PROCEED TO
THE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 4691, THE 30-DAY EXTENSION
OF PROVISIONS WHICH EXPIRED ON
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 28,
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, COBRA,
FLOOD INSURANCE, SATELLITE HOME
VIEWER ACT, HIGHWAY FUNDING,
S.B.A. BUSINESS LOANS AND SMALL
BUSINESS PROVISIONS OF THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY ACT, S.G.R.
AND POVERTY GUIDELIS RECEIVED
FROM THE HOUSE AT THE DESK, THAT
THE BILL BE READ THREE TIMES,
PASSED, AND THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE MADE AND LAID UPON
THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
MR. BUNNING: I OBJECT. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION
IS HEARD.
MR. DURBIN: MR. PRESIDENT, KEEP
IN MIND THAT WE HAVE OFFERED TO
THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY
REPEATEDLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A VOTE.
BRING YOUR APPROACH TO THE FLOOR.
LET THE SENATE DECIDE.
ACCEPT THE DECISION OF THE
SENATE.
WIN OR LOSE.
THAT'S THE MOST ANY SENATOR CAN
ASK FOR, AND YET HE WANTS MORE.
HE WANTS A GUARANTEE THAT HE WINS.
WELL, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT
YOU WILL WIN IN THE SENATE,
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE YOU WIN IN
BASEBALL.
YOU DO THE BEST YOU CAN.
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I
THINK WE HAVE REACHED A POINT
THAT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND
AND EXPLAIN.
I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, ALL OF
THEM, TO COME TO THE FLOOR AND
EXPRESS THEMSELVES ON THIS.
IF THEY BELIEVE WE SHOULD CUT
OFF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS,
HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS, CLOSE
DOWN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION'S WORK IN THE
STATES, CLOSE DOWN THE S.B.A.
PROGRAMS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, I
HOPE THEY WILL COME AND EXPRESS
THAT POINT OF VIEW.
THEY SHOULD IF THEY FEEL THAT WAY.
IF THEY FEEL AS I DO THAT THIS
IS UNFAIR AND UNFORTUNATE, IF
THEY WILL COME FORWARD AND JOIN
US ON THE FLOOR, WE CAN TRY TO
BUILD UP SOME MOMENTUM FOR
MOVING THIS ISSUE FORWARD.
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN EVERY STATE
OF THE UNION WHO ARE SUFFERING
TODAY BECAUSE OF THE OBJECTION
OF ONE SENATOR, BECAUSE OF THE
FILIBUSTER OF ONE SENATOR, AND
THAT, I THINK, IS A SAD
INDICATION OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED
HERE IN THE UNITED STATES
SENATE, THAT WE HAVE REACHED
THIS POINT, THAT EVEN OFFERING
AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE ON AN
AMENDMENT IS NOT ENOUGH.
WHAT THE SENATOR IS LOOKING FOR
IS A GUARANTEED RESULT.
WE CAN'T GIVE HIM
GUARANTEED RESULT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE ??
SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.
MR. BUNNING: MR. PRESIDENT,
IT'S -- IT'S AMAZING TO ME THAT
THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS HAS
WHAT WE CALL A CONVENIENT MEMORY
JUST LAST WEEK, THERE WAS A
BIPARTISAN BILL PROPOSED BY
SENATOR BAUCUS AND SENATOR
GRASSLEY THAT WOULD HAVE COVERED
THESE EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS, COBRA HEALTH CARE
ASSISTANCE, FLOOD INSURANCE,
HIGHWAY BILL ASSISTANCE, THE DOC
FIX, SMALL BUSINESS LOANS AND
THE RURAL SATELLITE TELEVISION
VIEWER ACT, AND HIS CONVENIENT
MEMORY LOSS ALLOWED HIM TO
FORGET THAT HIS LEADER, SENATOR
REID, DID NOT ALLOWHAT BILL TO
COME TO THE FLOOR, AND INSTEAD
INTIEWD HIS JOBS BILL WHICH WAS
ALSO NOT FULLY PAID FOR, BY THE
WAY.
$10 BILLION WASN'T, $5 BILLION WAS.
AND SO $10 BILLION FROM THE JOBS
BILL THAT WAS PASSED WENT TO THE
BOTTOM OF THE DEFICIT.
THERE COMES A TIME WHEN 100
SENATORS ARE FOR SOMETHING THAT
WE ALL SUPPORT.
IF WE CAN'T FIND $10 BILLION TO
PAY FOR IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
PAY FOR ANYTHING.
WE WILL NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING
FULLY ON THE FLOOR OF THE U.S.
SENATE.
NOW, HE SAID I ONLY OFFERED ONE
WAY TO PAY FOR THIS.
THAT UNTRUE.
I OFFERED MORE THAN ONE WAY.
I NEGOTIATED WITH THE LEADER --
THE LEADER'S STAFF, RATHER, AND
WE HAD WORKED OUT TWO-WEEK
EXTENSION TO $5 BILLION WITH A
DIFFERENT PAY-FOR.
THE DEBT THAT WE HAVE ARRIVED AT
, EVEN THE HEAD OF THE FEDERAL
RESERVE BANK, CHAIRMAN BERNANKE,
SAID IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE.
IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, TO THE SAME
PEOPLE THAT ARE STRUGGLING TO
PAY THEIR BILLS, THAT ARE ON
UNEMPLOYMENT, THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN COVERED HAD THE
BAUCUS-GRASSLEY BL BEEN
CONSIDERED, AND COULD HAVE BEEN
COVERED NOT FOR 30 DAYS BUT FOR
THREE MONTHS?
NOW, BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME TAX
EXTENDERS IN THAT BILL, THE
DEMOCRAT MAJORITY STOPPED THE
BILL FROM BEING CONSIDERED.
I'M NOT FILIBUSTERING THE BILL.
A FILIBUSTER IS -- A
FILIBUSTER IS SOMEBODY WHO
TALKS A LONG TIME.
I AM EXERCISING MY RIGHT AS A
SENATOR DULY ELECTED FROM
KENTUCKY TO OBJECT TO A U.C.
THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN
FILIBUSTERING.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT'S A MEMBER
OF THIS BODY THAT ANYBODY, 100
OF US, CAN OBJECT TO ANYTHING
THAT IS BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR OF
THE U.S. SENATE, WHETHER IT BE A
NOMINEE, WHETHER IT BE A JUDGE,
WHETHER IT BE SOMEBODY THAT IS
APPOINTED TO THE TREASURY.
ANYBODY CAN OBJECT.
AND THERE IS A PROCEDURE THAT
TAKES PLACE THAT YOU CAN
OVERCOME THAT OBJECTION.
WHY DOESN'T THE DEMOCRATIC
MAJORITY USE THAT PROCEDURE?
SO I'M GOING TO MAKE ONE MORE
SHOT, AND AS LONG AS WE CONTINUE
TO HAVE THE EXTENDERS BEING
BROUGHT FORTH AND PAID FOR, I'M
GOING TO MAKE IT.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
SENATE PROCEED TO THE IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4691, THAT
THE AMENDMENT AT THE DESK WHICH
OFFERS A FULL OFFSET BE AGREED
TO, THE BILL BE AMENDED -- AS
AMENDED BE READ A THIRD TIME AND
PASSED, AND THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE LAID UPON THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
MR. DURBIN: MR. PRESIDENT,
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO
THE SENATOR AGAIN IS ASKING THAT
HE WIN WITHOUT A VOTE.
I OBJECT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION
IS H
MR. BUNNING: WELL, WE TRIED AND
WE WILL CONTINUE TRYING.
AS MANY PEOPLE THAT GET UP AND
PROPOSE THAT U.C., I WILL BE
HERE, WHENEVER IT IS.
I WANT THAT PASSED AS BAD AS HE
DOES BECAUSE I HAVE PEOPLE ALSO
IN KENTUCKY THAT HAVE THE SAME
PROBLEMS AS HIS PEOPLE DO IN
ILLINOIS, AND ALL THESE STATES
THAT ARE REPRESENTED BY TWO
SENATORS RIGHT HERE.
BUT LET'S DO IT AND DO IT AND
PAY FOR IT BECAUSE THE MONEY IS
AVAILABLE IN MANY AREAS.
THE MONEY WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE
GRASSLEY-BAUCUS BILL, WHICH
EXTENDED THINGS FOR A YEAR IN
SOME CASES AND EXTENDED THE
PROVISIONS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND THE SENATOR FROM
ILLINOIS IS TKING ABOUT FOR A
FULL THREE MONTHS.
WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS POSITION
UNLESS THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA
HAD PULLED AND NOT ALLOWED THAT
BILL TO COME TO THE FLOOR.
THANK YOU
FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFF
REPUBLICAN
MR. KYL: MR. PRESIDENT, UNTIL MY
VOIC GIVES OUT, I'D LIKE TO
ADDRESS THE BILL THAT'S ON THE FLOOR HERE.
THE BILL THAT HAS BEEN
DENOMINATED BY MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE AS A JOBS
BILL, BUT WHICH WON'T CREATE ANY
NEW JOBS, AND WHEN CONSIDERED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE HEALTH CARE
LEGISLATION, THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS PROPOSED WILL ACTUALLY COST
JOBS, AND I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS
THAT.
THIS LEGISLATION EXTENDS SOME
CURRENT PROVISIONS OF LAW,
INCLUDING TAX PROVISIONS,
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, COBRA
INSURANCE.
IT EXTENDS A PROVISION OF
FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO THE STATES
FOR MEDICAID, AND THERE ARE A
FEW OTHER PROVISIONS.
NONE OF THESE CREATE NEW JOBS.
THE TAX EXTENDERS ARE YOUTHFUL.
THAT'S OUR WASHINGTON, D.C.,
SPEAK FOR PROVISIONS OF THE TAX
CODE THAT LAST ONE YEAR AND HAVE
TO BE RENEWED EACH YEAR.
THEY ARE GENERALLY TO ENABLE
BUSINESSES TO DEDUCT FRO THEIR
TAXES ORDINARY BUSINESS EXPENSES.
AND INCLUDE THINGS LIKE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDITS
WHICH I THINK ARE SUPPORTED BY
ALL 100 SENATORS HERE.
SO WE DO THIS EVERY YEAR.
WE EXTEND THESE TAX PROVISIONS
FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THE
END OF LAST YEAR.
IT WASN'T SO IT HAS TO BE DONE
NOW AND MADE RETROACTIVE TO THE
END OF THE YEAR.
YOU COULD ARGUE THAT SOME OF
THOSE MAY THEORETICALLY CREATE A
FEW JOBS, BUT THEY ARE SOMETHING
WE DO EVERY YEAR AND THEY ARE
NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING JOBS.
THEY ARE SIMPLY GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICES.
SO THIS BILL REALLY TAKES ON THE
USUAL BUSINESS OF THE SENATE.
THERE IS NOTHING NEW, AS I SAID,
TO CREATE JOBS.
WHAT OF THE SUBJECT OF
UNEMPLOYMENT COVERAGE EXTENSION
WHICH WE HAVE JUST BEEN DEBATING
, THAT DOESN'T CREATE
NEW JOBS.
IN FACT, IF ANYTHING, CONTINUING
TO PAY PEOPLE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION IS A DISINCENTIVE
FOR THEM TO SEEK NEW WORK.
I'M SURE MOST OF THEM WOULD LIKE
WORK AND PROBABLY HAVE TRIED TO
SEEK IT, BUT YOU CAN'T ARGUE
THAT IT'S A JOB ENHANCER.
IF ANYTHING, AS I SAID, IT'S A DISINCENTIVE.
AND THE SAME THING WITH THE
COBRA EXTENSION AND THE OTHER
STENGZ -- EXTENSIONS HERE.
SO IT'S NOT A JOBS BILL, AND
IT'S BEYOND ME HOW IT COULD BE
DENOMINATED AS SUCH.
MOREOVER, AND THE REASON FOR MY
COLLEAGUE'S OBJECTION TO THE
TEMPORARY BILL IS THAT THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE SHOWS THAT
THIS BILL ADDS $104 BILLION TO
THE DEFICIT OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS, AND THAT'S IN ADDITION TO
THE $10 BILLION THAT WOULD BE
ADDED THAT MY COLLEAGUE SENATOR
BUNNING HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
THIS NUMBER IS PRIMARILY DUE TO
THE EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE, THE EXPANDED COBRA
EXTENSION, AND THE NEW FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR
MEDICAID PATIENTS.
THESE ARE GIVEN EMERGENCY
DESIGNATIONS, AND AS A RESULT,
WE DON'T HAVE TO SUPPLY AN
OFFSET OF SPENDING REDUCTION TO
PAY FOR THE COST OF THESE
PROVISIONS.
NOW, THIS COMES JUST A WEEK
AFTER OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES
WERE BRAGGING ABOUTHE FAC
THAT THEY PASSED A BILL CALLED
THE PAYGO BILL.
THE PAYGO BILL IS SUPPOSED TO
REQUIRE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO
SPEND MONEY, THAT WE FIND AN
OFFSET IN THE FORM OF A SPENDING
DEDUCTION OR REVENUE ENHANCEMENT
THAT COVERS THE COST OF THAT NEW
SPENDING.
WE PREDICTED THAT AS SOON AS WE
PASSED T PAYGO LEGISLATION, OUR COLLEAGUES WOULD COME TO THE
FLOOR AND SEEK TO HAVE THEIR
NEXT LEGISLATION EXEMPTED FROM
IT, AND, SURE ENOUGH, THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE.
BOTH THE MATTER THAT SENATOR
BUNNING HAS OBJECTED TO AND THE
BILL THAT WE'RE ON RIGHT NOW
HAVE TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THE
PAYGO REQUIREMENTS AND,
THEREFORE, ADD TO THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.
IN THIS CASE, $104 BILLION.
NOW, SOME OF THESE PROVISIONS
ARE USEFUL PROVISIONS, BUT THE
TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, YOU
CAN'T ON THE ONE HAND SAY THAT
EVERYTHING WE DO AROUND HERE HAS
TO BE OFFSET WITH SPENDING CUTS
OR TAX INCREASES AND THEN WAIVE
THE PAYGO LEGISLATION EVERY TIME
YOU WANT TO DO IT, AS IT TURNS
OUT SO FAR, EVERY TIME WE'VE CONSIDERED LEGISLATION.
THE REALITY IS THAT WE COULD PAY
FOR THIS LEGISLATION, AND AS
SENATOR BUNNING NOTED, WE COULD
ALSO PAY FOR THE SO-CALLED
TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE WE
HAVE MONEY THAT WE AUTHORIZED
AND APPROPRIATED EARLIER IN THE
SO-CALLED STIMULUS BILL THAT
WOULD MORE THAN OFFSET THE COST
OF THIS LEGISLATION.
REPUBLICANS, OF COURSE, WOULD
LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO
PAY FOR IT FROM THE STIMULUS
FUNDS.
ACCORDING TO RECOVERY.GOV, THE
OFFICIAL WEB SITEOR THE
STIMULUS BILL, THIS WEB SITE
REPORTS THAT ONLY $186 BILLION
OF THE $499 BILLION IN
APPROPRIATED AND DIRECT
SPENDING -- THAT'S THE MONEY
ACTUALLY AVAILABLE FROM THE
STIMULUS -- HAS BEEN SPENT SO
FAR.
AT MEANS $313 BILLION, OR 63%,
REMAINS UNSPENT.
$160 BILLION OF THE FUNDS
HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN MADE AVAILABLE
TO SPEND YET.
AND THE ORIGINAL C.B.O. ESTIMATE
OF THE STIMULUS SHOWS THAT 21%
OF THE MONEY, $122 BILLION,
WON'T -- OF THE SPENDING, WON'T
OCCUR UNTIL THE YEAR 2012 OR
THEREAFTER.
WE'VE GOT AN IMMEDIATE CRISIS. OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES SAY WE
HAVE TO EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
IN FACT, IT'S SUCH AN IMMEDIATE
CRIS THAT THEY HAVE TO WAIVE
THE PAYGO REQUIREMENTS THAT
WOULD ORDINARILY APPLY BECAUSE
IT'S AN EMERGENCY.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHY NOT
SIMPLY TAKE THIS MONEY THAT
ISN'T GOING TO BE SPENT UNTIL
AFTER THE YEAR 2012 AND PAY FOR
THE LEGISLATION THAT IS BEFORE
US RIGHT NOW?
WHY WOULD W PUT ASIDE STIMULUS
MONEY TO SPEND IN 2012 WHEN
PEOPLE NEED IT TODAY?
IT'S THE VERY ARGUMENT THAT MY
COLLEAGUE FROM ILLINOIS WAS JUST
MAKING TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM KENTUCKY.
WHY PILE O THE DEFICIT IF WE
HAVE THIS STORE OF MONEY
AVAILABLE?
AND I THINK, THEREFORE, MY
COLLEAGUE FROM KENTUCKY MADE A
GOOD POINT WHEN HE SUGGESTED
THAT THIS MONEY SHOULD BE PAID
FOR OUT OF THE STIMULUS FUNDING.
AND I AM SORRY TO SEE MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES OBJECT TO
THAT REQUEST.
THE CONCLUSION IS, THEREFORE,
THAT THE BILL WILL DO NOTHING TO
CREATE NEW JOBS, AND WHAT'S
MORE, WHEN CONSIDERED, AS I
SAID, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION, WILL
ACTUALLY CAUSE A LOSS OF JOBS.
THE PRESIDENT, WHO TALKED ABOUT
HIS PLAN LAST THURSDAY AT THE
SO-CALLED HEALTH CARE SUMMIT,
NOTED THAT THE BILL COSTS A LOT
OF MONEY AND, THEREFORE, THEY
HAD TO RAISE TAXES IN ORDER TO
PAY FOR IT.
AND AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE
PRESIDENT'S PLAN, UNLIKE THE
PLAN THAT PASSED THE HOUSE OR
THE SENATE, WOULD RAISE THE
MEDICARE PAYROLL TAX ON SMALL BUSINESSES.
IT WOULD RAISE THE TAXES BY 31%,
MR. PRESIDENT, AND IT WOULD ALSO
APPLY THE MEDICARE PAYROLL TAX
TO INCOME, INTEREST, DIVIDEND,
RENTS, THAT SORT OF THING.
NOW, WE ALL KNOW IF YOU TAX
SOMETHING, YOU GET LESS OF IT.
TAXING INVESTMENT INCOME WOULD,
THEREFORE, REDUCE INVESTMENT IN THE ECONOMY.
PUTTING A TAX ON THE EMPLOYMENT
OF PEOPLE
GOING TO HIRE FEWEREOPLE OR
THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP FEWER
PEOPLE ON THEIR PAYROLL.
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE MORE
PEOPLE TO UNEMPLOYMENT.
WE NEED TO BEGIN HIRING PEOPLE
BACK.
SO HOW DO WE DO THAT?
WELL, YOU SURE DON'T DO IT BY
MAKING IT MORE COSTLY TO EMPLOY
PEOPLE, BY INCREASING BY ALMOST
ONE-THIRD THE MEDICARE PAYROLL
TAX.
THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
AND TO APPLY IT NOW TO
INVESTMENT INCOME WILL DIRECTLY
DRIVE DOWN PRODUCTIVITY AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH.
LESS INVESTMENT WILL OBVIOUSLY
LEAD TO LOWER PRODUCTIVITY,
SLOWER ECONOMIC GROWTH, WEAKER
WAGES AND SALARIES, LOWER
HOUSEHOLD WEALTH.
EACH NEW DOLLAR OF TAX PAID BY A
SMALL BUSINESS IS ONE LESS
DOLLAR THAT COULD GO TOWARD
HIRING NEW EMPLOYEES.
HERITAGE FOUNDATION JUST DID A
STUDY ON THIS PROPOSAL AND IT
FOUND THAT BETWEEN 2011 AND
20, WITH REGARD TO THIS
INVESTMENT INCOME PROPOSAL ALONE
ALONE, IT WOULD RESULT IN AN
AVERAGE OF 115,000 LOST JOB
OPPORTUNITIES PER YEAR.
115,000.
IT RADIO REDUCE HOUSEHOLD
DISPOSABLE INCOME BY
$17.3 BILLION PER YEAR.
IT WOULD CUT WAGES AND SALARIES
BY $14 BILLION PER YEAR AND
DECREASE HOUSEHOLD WEALTH BY
$267 BILLION PER YEAR.
NOW, LAST WEEK CONGRESS PASSED A
NEW JOB HIRING TAX CREDIT TO
GREAT FANFARE.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DEMOCRATIC
SIDE OF THE AISLE SAID THIS IS
THE WAY TO HELP SMALL BUSINESS
TO HIRE MORE PEOPLE.
THE WHOLE IDEA WAS TO PUT MORE
PEOPLE TO WORK.
IN THE VERY SAME WEEK, THE
PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES HIS HEALTH
CARE PROPOSAL THAT, AS I JUST
SAID, WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR
PEOPLE TO GET BACK TO WORK.
SO IF THE GOAL IS TO GET MORE
PEOPLE TO WORK, THEN I SUBMIT
THAT MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS
SHOULD SHELVE THEIR HEALTH CARE
PLAN, WHICH WILL HAVE EXACTLY
THE OPPOSITE RESULT.
IT'S VERY HARD TO JUSTIFY
LEGISLATION THAT'S GOING TO HURT
JOB CREATION.
AND SO, AS I SAY, WHEN YOU
CONSIDER THE FACT THAT, NUMBER
ONE, THE BILL BEFORE US CREATES
NO NEW JOBS -- AND I CHALLENGE
MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS, SHOW US
HOW DOING WHAT WE WOULD ALWAYS
DO AND SHOULD HAVE DONE LAST
YEAR, EXTENDING THE RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT, THE
OTHER TAX CREDITS, EXTENDING
COBRA INSURANCE, EXTENDING
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, WHAT'S
THE ESTIMATE FOR JOB CREATION BY
C.B.O. ON THIS?
IT CAN'T BE VERY MUCH.
NOW, FINALLY, MR. PRESIDENT, MY
COLLEAGUE FROM ILLINOIS, IN
RESPONDING TO SENATOR BUNNING A
LITTLE BIT AGO, SAIDHAT
REPUBLICANS HAD OBJECTED, THAT
WE ALWAYSBJECT OR WE HAD
OBJECTED ON MANY TIMES PREVIOUS
OCCASIONS TO CONSIDERATION OF
UNEMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION.
WELL, I RECALL BACK OCTOBER --
IN FACT, I'LL QUOTE FROM A STORY
HERE.
THE STORY IS DATED OCTOBER 13,
2009.
STORY BY DAN FREEDMAN.
HE SAYS, "LAST THURSDAY,
DEMOCRATS ANNOUNCED A DEAL THAT
GAVE ALL 50 STATES A 14-WEEK
EXTENSION."
I THINK THIS WAS ABOUT THREE
EXTENSIONS AGO, EXACTLY.
"SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN MAX BAUCUS WITHIN HOURS
OF THAT ANNOUNCEMENT SOUGHT
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PASS THE
BILL, EVEN THOUGH REPUBLICANS
HAD ALREADY INDICATED THAT THEY
WOULD OBJECT SO THAT THEY COULD
TRY TO AMEND THE BILL TO REPLACE
THE EXTENSION OF THE TAX OR,
RATHER, TO PROVIDE A PAY-FOR IN
THE DEMOCRATS PLAN WITH THE USE
OF STIMULUS MONEY" AND NOTICED
T"AND NOTED THEFACT THAT I HAD ALSO ASKED THAT
WE SEE A C.B.O. SCORE ON IT.
IT ALSO NOTED THAT REID AND
BAUCUS AND OTHER DEMOCRATS
QUICKLY BASHED REPUBLICANS.
THE DELAY IS A THREAT TO
MILLIONS OF WORKERS STRUGGLING
TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES AS THEY
RETAIN OR SEARCH FOR A NEW JOB,
MY FRIEND, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, SAID.
EARLIER IN THIS PARTICULAR
COLUMN, BY THE WAY -- THIS
ARTICLE, IN FACT, I'LL JUST READ
HOW IT STARTS OFF.
"SENATE DEMOCRATS IN RECENT
WEEKS HAVE REPEATEDLY USED
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
REQUESTS TO RACK UP TALKING
POINTS AGAINST SENATE
REPUBLICANS, A TACTIC THAT
G.O.P. AIDES SAID THE MAJORITY
IS USING DECEPTIVELY TO BLAME
REPUBLICANS RATHER THAN INTERNAL
DISPUTES FOR STALLED LEGISLATION.
SENATE LEADERS HAVE LONG USED
THE TACTIC OF ASKING FOR
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PASS
LEGISLATION THEY KNOW WILL DRAW
AN OBJECTION FROM THE MINORITY
THEN BLASTING THE OBJECTORS FOR
OBSTRUCTION." MR. PRESIDENT, I FEAR THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.
AS I SAID BEFORE, IMMEDIATELY
AFTER DEMOCRATS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS DEVELOPED LEGISLATION,
THEY IMMEDIATELY COME TO THE
FLOOR AND SAY, LET'S PASS IT.
REPUBLICANS SAY, WHOA, LET'S AT
LEAST SEE HOW MUCH IT COSTS AND
GIVE US A CHANCE TO AMEND IT SO
WE CAN PAY FOR IT.
WE THOUGHT YOU DEMOCRATS LIKED
TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS SINCE
YOU PASSED THE PAYGO LEGISLATION.
OH, NO, CAN'T -- CAN'T HAVE
THAT, NOT WHEN IT APPLIES TO
UNEMPLOYMENT EXTENSION.
AND THAT'S ALL MY COLLEAGUE FROM
KENTUCKY IS TRYING TO DO.
AND AS I SAID, THAT'S
$10 BILLION NOT PAID FOR.
THE BILL BEFORE US IS ANOTHER
$104 BILLION NOT PAID FOR, A
BILL THAT DOESN'T CREATE A
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE RUN WILLING -- WERE
UNWILLING TO USE STIMULUS MONEY
TO PAY FOR IT.
NOW, I'LL BE VERY INTERESTED,
MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN WE DO HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THE BILL
THAT'S BEFORE US -- I ASSUME WE
WILL -- AND I ASSUME THAT ONE OF
THOSE AMENDMENTS WILL BE TO PAY
FOR THE BILL WITH THE STIMULUS
FUNDS, MAYBE WE CAN MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT THESE ARE NOT FUNDS
THAT WOULD BE SPENT UNTIL AFTER
9 YEAR 2012 -- AFTER THE YEAR 2012.
IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TO
SEE IF MY SENATE COLLEAGUES WHO
SUPPORTED PAYGO WOULD BE WILLING
TO SUPPORT THAT KIND OF AN AMENDMENT.
AFTER ALL, IF THIS IS SPOATSED
TO BE THE STIMULUS BL IN TERMS
OF JOB CREATION, ONE WOULD THINK
IT COULD BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
SO I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT MY
COLLEAGUES WOULD CONSIDER THAT
EVERY TIME WE PASS ONE OF THESE
BILLS, WE'RE ADDING TO THE
DEFICIT AND THAT WE'RE NOT
CREATING NEW JOBS.
AND IT'S A LEGITIMATE POINT FOR
REPUBLICANS TO MAKE.
I HOPE WE'LL HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT
SUBJECT WITH AMENDMENTS AS THIS
BILL GOES FORWARD.
MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. BAUCUS BAUCUS BAUCUS: THE SENATOR FROM
ARIZONA ARGUES THA
INSURANCE IS A DISINCENTIVE TO JOBS.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM
THE TRUTH.
I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY WHO'S OUT
OF WORK AND IS RECEIVING SOME
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BELIEVES
THAT THAT PAYMENT IS SUFFICIENT
NOT TO FIND A JOB.
THE PAYMENTS ARE SO MUCH LOWER
THAN ANY SALARY OR WAGE WOULD
BE, IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS.
I MIGHT ADD, THERE ARE FIVE
UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS TODAY FOR
EVERY JOB OPENING IN T ECONOMY.
FIVE.
THERE ARE FIVE PEOPLE --
UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS, FIVE
PEOPLE LOOKING FOR WORK THAT
JUST CAN'T FIND IT.
AND THAT'S THE CASE FOR -- IT'S
BEEN THE CASE FOR A LONG TIME.
PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR WORK.
THEY'RE NOT UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE OF CHOICE.
THEY'RE UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE OF
THE RECESSION THAT STRUCK --
MR. KYL: MR. PRESIDENT, WOULD MY
COLLEAGUE YIELD?
MR. BAUCUS: THE ECONOMY PUT PEOPLE OUT OF WORK.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T
WANT TO WORK.
I MIGHT ALSO ADD AN ADDITIONAL
POINT, THE CONGRESSIONAL -- WHEN
WE ASKED -- MANY OF US ASKED THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE TO
RANK WHAT MEASURES WOULD BE MOST
EFFECTIVE IF THEY WERE PASSED IN
HELPING THE ECONOMY, THE ONE WE
CAME UP WITH FROM THE
NONPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE WAS UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
BECAUSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
GENERATE ABOUT DOLLARS 1.90 --
$1.90 IN GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
GROWTH FOR EVERY $1 THAT WE'VE
PAID OUT IN TERMS OF
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE
POINT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE
SENATOR REALLY MEANT THIS BUT HE
CERTAINLY STRONGLY IMPLIED, IN
FACT, I TOOK HIM TO MEAN THAT
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IS AN
DISINCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK FOR WORK.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A DISINSIN
ACTIVE AT -- DISINCENTIVE AT ALL
BECAUSE THE BENEFITS ARE SO LOW
AND THERE'S SO MANY LOOKING FOR
WORK AND IT'S THE ECONOMY, THE
RECESSION IS THE CAUSE OF LOSS OF JOBS.
MR. KYL: IF THE GENTLEMAN WILL
YIELD? MR. BAUCUS: ABSOLUTELY.
MR. KYL: MY COLLEAGUE QUOTED ME CORRECTLY -- ALMOST CORRECTLY.
I SAID, IN FACT -- I SAID, IT'S
NOT A JOB CREATOR.
IF ANYTHING, IT COULD BE ARGUED
THAT IT IS A DISINCENTIVE FOR
WORK BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BEING
PAID EVEN THOU THEY'RE NOT
WORKING.
I CERTAINLY DID NOT SAY AND
WOULD NEVER IMPLY THAT THE
REASON PEOPLE DON'T HAVE JOBS IS
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR THEM.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT AOT OF
AMERICANS HAVE GOTTEN SO TIRED
OF LOOKING FOR JOBS OR -- OR
BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO FIND THEM THAT THEY HAVE
STOPPED LOOKING.
AND AS A RESULT, THE ACTUAL
UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS ARE
PROBABLY HIGHER THAN THE ROUGHLY
10% THAT'S QUOTED NOW.
SOME PEOPLE SAY IT COULD BE AS
MUCH AS 17%.
AND THIS IS WHY I HAVE SUPPORTED
EVERY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS.
I HAVE VOTED FOR THEM.
BECAUSE, AS MY COLLEAGUE SAYS,
THERE ARE FIVE PEOPLE LOOKING
FOR EVERY JOB THAT EXISTS, AND
IF THEY CAN'T GET JOBS, THEY
NEED THE SUPPORT.
BUT I THINK -- WHAT I SAID IS
TRUE, AND IF MY COLLEAGUE COULD
FIND A SOURCE THAT SAYS IT'S NOT
TRUE, THEN PLEASE SHOW ME.
BUT PROVIDING UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS DOES NOT CREATE JOBS.
AND THE BILL WE HAVE BEFORE US
IS DENOMINATED AROUND HERE AS A
JOBS BILL, AND THIS IS THE
BIGGEST SINGLE EXPENDITURE IN
THE BILL AND YET IT DOESN'T CREATE JOBS.
MAKING.
MR. BAUCUS: I MIGHT ASK, IF MY
COLLEAGUE WILL YIELD TO A
QUESTION, FIRST OF ALL,
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IN MY HOME
STATE OF MONTANA IS ABOUT $300 A MONTH.
THAT'S ALL.
$300 A MONTH IN MY STATE OF
MONTANA.
AND I KNOW DOGGONE WELL THAT
THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO KEEP
ANYBODY VERY LONG.
AND THOSE -- A LOT OF FOLKS IN
MY STATE ARE LOOKING FOR JOBS.
THEY'RE JUST NOT AVAILABLE.
SECOND, FAILURE TO PASS THIS
EXTENDERS BILL I THINK
FAIRLY SAID IS A JOB DESTROYER
BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE
THAT ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
MANY PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL --
FOR EXAMPLE, THE R&D TAX CREDIT,
WHICH YOU MENTIONED EARLIER,
SENATOR, THERE ARE OTHERS -- OTHER PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL,
LIKE THE TEACHERS' EXPENSE, FOR
EXAMPLE, THERE'S DEDUCTION FOR
TUITION.
LET'S TAKE UNEMPLOYMENT.
LET'S SEND UNEMPLOYMENT -- LET'S
SAY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WERE NOT CONTINUED.
THAT WOULD BE A HUGE DRAG ON THE ECONOMY.
AND IF THE PROVISIONS THAT WE
ARE SEEKING MERELY TO EXTEND
WERE NOT PASSED, IT WOULD BE A
JOB DESTROYER.
THE PRESIDENT
HAS OFTEN SAID, COMMENTATORS
HAVE OFTEN SAID, YOU KNOW, OW
GOAL HERE IS TO SAVE OR CREATE
SO MANY JOBS.
YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO
SAY WHAT'S SAVED AND WHAT'S
CREATED SOMETIMES.
BUT THE POINT IS WE CERTAINLY
WANT TO SAVE JOBS, TOO.
WE DON'T WANT THE RECESSION TO
BE WORSE.
FAILURE TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION
IS CERTAINLY GOING TO CAUSE
TREMENDOUS HARDSP ON A LOT OF
AMERICANS AND IT'S GOING TO NOT
-- IT WOULD BE A DISINCENTIVE
FOR THE ECONOMY TO TURN AROUND.
IT WOULD BE A DISINCENTIVE FOR
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO FINALLY
COME DOWN TO LEVELS THAT WE FIND THIS.
SO FAILURE TO PASS
JOBS DESTROYER.
I'
MR. KYL: I WANT TO RESPOND TO
MY COLLEAGUE.
THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS IT IS
HARD TO DESCRIBE THIS AS A JOBS
BILL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CREATE JOBS.
EACH YEAR WE EXTEND THESE TAX
PROVISIONS, THAT'S WHY WE IN
WASHINGTON CALL IT THE TAX
EXTENDERS BILL, THIS ISN'T SOME
NEW JOB CREATOR.
I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE THAT
TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CONTINUE
THIS IN PRACTICE, THOUGH
EVERYBODY WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE OF
IT KNOWS THAT IT WILL BE
EXTENDED, SO THEY HAVEN'T MADE
DECISIONS BASED ON THE PROSPECT
THAT WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT.
THEY KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT
RETROACTIVELY.
SO IT IS NOT CREATING ANY NEW
JOBS. I SUPPORT THE EXTENSION.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD THIFNLG BUT
LET'S DON'T CALL IT A JOBS BILL.
BY CONTRAST, THE HEALTH CARE
LEGISLATION THAT MY COLLEAGUE
SUPPORTS IS A JOB KILLER.
AND I POINTED OUT JUST ONE
PROVISION -- 115,000 JOBS PER
YEAR LOST JUST BECAUSE OF THE
ONE PROVISION -- TAXING THE
SO-CALLED PASSIVE INCOME, THE
DIVIDENDS, AND WE'RE NOT EVEN
SURE WHETHER CAPITAL GAINS ARE
TAXED IN THAT, AND SO THEIR
ESTIMATES MAY EVEN BE LOW.
SO THE RELATE CITY THAT IF WE'RE
RULELY TALKING ABOUT SAVING OR
CREATING JOBS, LET'S FORGET THIS
MASSIVE HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION
THAT NOW ADDS TWO MORE
JOB-KILLING PROVISIONS TO IT --
A 31% INCREASE IN THE PAYROLL
TAX AND TAXING FOR THE FIRST
TIME PASSIVE INCOME AS A PART OF
MEDICARE.
THAT'S A JOB KILLER, AND SO IF
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT JOBS
WITH REGARD TO THE LEGISLATION
WE HAVE BEFORE US, I THINK IT'S
A FAIR POINT TO ALSO TALK ABOUT LEGISLATION THAT OUR COLLEAGUES
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
WANT VERY
PASSED.
MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
DON'T WANT TO PROLONG THIS TOO
LONG BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC
ADVISORS HAS CONCLUDED THAT THIS
LEGISLATION -- THAT THE HEALTH
CARE FORMER LEGISLATION --
THAT'S NOT BEFORE US RIGHT NOW,
BUT THE HEALTH REFORM
LEGISLATION WILL ACTUALLY CREATE
JOBS, NEW JOBS.
THAT'S THE
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS.
MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.
MR. SESSIONS:c MR. PRESIDENT, I
HAVE AT THE DESK AMENDMENT
NUMBER 3337, AND I WOULD
ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM
ALABAMA, MR. SESSIONS, PROPOSES
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 3337 TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER
MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT,
I'D ASK THAT THE READING OF THE
ALLOT BE DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: -- THAT
THE READING OF THE AMENDMENT BE
DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WOWCTS.
MR. SESSIONS: THIS IS THE
SESSIONS-McCASKILL AMENDMENT.
SENATOR McCASKILL, MY
COLLEAGUE FROM MISSOURI.
THIS IS A BIPARTISAN AMENDMENT.
IT IS ONE THAT I THINK IS VERY,
VERY IMPORTANT, AND I HOPE MY
COLLEAGUES WILL GIVE IT SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION.
WE'RE CLOSE TO ENOUGH VOTES TO
MAKE IT LAW, AND I AM ABSOLUTELY
CONVINCED THAT IT IS ONE THING
THAT WILL WORK TO REDUCE THE
SURGING DEFICITS IN OUR COUNTRY.
LAST WEEK I TRAVELED -- I GUESS
WEEK BEFORE LAST NOW.
SIX DAYS OF TRAVEL, AND PEOPLE
CONTINUE RALLY EXPRESSED TO ME
-- AND PEOPLE CONTINUALLY
EXPRESSED TO ME THE CONDITION OF
OUR COUNTRY.
THEY WANT US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I HEARD SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES
EXPRESS THINGS LIKE, WELL, THIS
IS JUST POPULIST ANGER.
IT WILL PASS OFF.
YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO KEEP A COOL
HEAD HERE.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TO CHANGE
HOW WE DO BUSINESS.
THINGS ARE GOING TO WORK OUT
SOMEHOW, SOME WAY, ALTHOUGH
NOTHING IN THE NUMBERS SHOW
THAT, AND MR. BERNANKE, THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE,
SAID LAST WEEK IN HIS TES
BEFORE CONGRESS, OUR PATH IS
UNSUSTAINABLE.
NOT THE FIRST TIME HE'S SAID THAT.
VIRTUALLY EVERY ECONOMIST WHO'S
EVER OPINED IN THE LAST SIX
MONTHS OR MORE ON OUR ECONOMY
SAYS OUR SPENDING LEVELS ARE
UNSUSTAINABLE AND THREATEN THE
VIBRANCY OF OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM
IN THIS COUNTRY.
AND IT'S JUST A VERY TROUBLING
THING, AND WE KNOW THAT.
SO I -- WE DON'T NEED TO GO INTO
A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT
IT.
THE GROWTH DEBT THAT OUR COUNTRY
AL-HASSAN GROWN TO A-- THAT OUR
COUNTRY HAS HAS GROWN TO
APPROXIMATELY $12 TRILLION, THE
HIGH NEST OUR NATION'S HISTORY,
AND THE PUBLIC DEBT, THE AMOUNT
OF DEBT THAT THIS COUNTRY OWES
OUTSIDE ITS 0 OWN GOVERNMENT --
SOME OF THIS IS INTERNAL DEBT.
WE OWE SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE AND OTHER TRUST FUNDS
THAT MAY BE IN SURPLUS, BUT WE
OWE TRILLIONS OUTSIDE, AND
WITHIN FIVE YEARS OUR PUBLIC
DEBT WILL DULL AND IN TEN YEARS
THE PUBLIC -- WILL DOUBLE AND IN
TE YEARS THE PUBLIC DEBT WILL TRIPLE.
I WOULD JUST SHOW THE CHART ON
THAT BEFORE I GO INTO THE
DETAILS OF IT.
AND ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THAT PUBLIC DEBT IS THAT WE PAY
INTEREST, AND WE HAVE TO GET
NATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS TO LOAN
US THEIR MONEY BY BUYING OUR
TREASURY BILLS AND BONDS, NOTES,
AND WHEN THEY GIVE US THEIR
MONEY, WE HAVE TO PAY THEM INTEREST.
THIS ISN'T FREE.
ALL OF OUR DEBT THAT WE RUN UP,
THIS BILL THAT'S ON THE FLOOR
TODAY, IT WILL ADD TO THE DEBT AGAIN.
NONE OF S PAID FOR.
AND SO THIS IS WHAT YOU GET, IN
STUNNING NUMBERS
IN 2009 INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC
DEBT -- THE DEBT WE OWE TO
PEOPLE OUTSIDE OUR GOVERNMENT --
WAS $170 BILLION.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
SCORES IT BASED ON THE BUDGET
PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE TO US, A
TEN-YEAR BUDGET HE SUBMITTED.
IF HIS BUDGET WAS AFFECTED FOR
TEN YEARS, THE DEFICIT WOULD GO
UP EVERY SINGLE YEAR, NOT A --
THE DEBT WILL CONTINUE TO GO UP
EVERY SINGLE YEAR, AND IN THE
OUT YEARS, THE ANNUAL DEFICITS
WILL BE APPROACHING $1 TRILLION
EACH YEAR AGAIN.
AND THE INTEREST 0 ON THE DEBT
IN ONE YEAR WOULD BE $799
BILLION.
NOW, THAT'S WELL ABOVE THE
CURRENT DEFENSE BUDGET.
I THINK AID TO EDUCATION IS $50
BILLION TO $60 BILLION.
FEDERAL AID TO HIGHWAYS LAST
YEAR, YEAR BEFORE LAST WAS $40
BILLION.
00 BILLION IN INTEREST IN ONE
YEAR?
IT IS A STUNNING NUMBER,
BREATHTAKING NUMBER.
IT IS GOING TO CROWD OUT ALL
KINDS OF PLANS SOME OF MY
SPENDING COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE
TO EFFECTUATE IN
YEARS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO
HAVE THE MONEY.
OR ELSE WE'RE GOING TO INFLATE
THE CURRENCY AND
ECONOMY IN THE MOST SYSTEMIC WAY.
SO I WOULD JUST SAY, THIS
DISTURBING TREND OF HIGHER AND
HIGHER DEFICITS AND DEFICIT
SPENDING SHOWS NO SIGN OF STOPPING.
THIS YEAR THE -- AS OF SEPTEMBER
30, OUR FISCAL YEAR, WE ENDED
WITH A $1.4 TRILLION DEFICIT.
THAT'S ABOUT THREE TIMES THE
HIGHEST DEFICIT WE'VE EVER HAD.
IT'S PROJECTED AS OF SEPTEMBER
30 OF THIS YEAR WE'LL HAVE ABOUT
A $1.4 TRILLION, $1.5 TRILLION
DEFICIT -- THIS YEAR, WHICH
WOULD BE THE HIGHEST EVER.
AGAIN, IN CONSECUTIVE YEARS.
SO IT IS A STUNNING THING, AND
WE CAN'TONTINUE TO SPEND LIKE
WE'RE SPENDING.
BETWEEN9900 AND 2002, HOWEVER,
CONGRESS TOOK SOME STEPS THAT
ACTUALLY WORKED TO HELP GET US
OUT OF A SPIRAL OF SPENDING DEFICITS.
IT WAS SUCCESSFUL.
IT RESULTED -- THE RESULT OF
WHAT WE DID IS WE PASSED
STATUTORY CAPS ON SPENDING,
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ONLY, NOT
SECURITY AND MEDICARE AND THOSE
KINDS OF PROGRAMS, AND WE KEPT
% TO 2%
YEAR.
AS THIS CHART WOULD SHOW, THESE
CAPS LED TO A SURPLUS.
THE CHART IS UPSIDE DOWN REALLY.
THIS IS THE SURPLUS YEARS AND
THESE ARE THE DEFICIT YEARS.
SO DURING THESE YEARS, WE BEGIN
TO SHOW A DECLINE IN DEFICITS,
ALL THE WAY THROUGH THESE SURPLUSES.
AND THEN WHEN IT EXPIRES, IT
JUMPED BACK UP AGAIN AND THIS
LOOKS LIKE A HIGH DEFICIT, AND
IT IS A VERY HIGH DEFICIT IN
2004, BUT THAT WAS ABOUT THE
HIGHEST
BILLION.
AND I JUST MADE THE POINT THAT
THIS PAST FISCAL
$
$1,400 BILLION.
AND NEXT YEAR IT WILL BE $1,500
BILLION.
SO WE LOST SOME DISCIPLINE WHEN
WE ALLOWED THOSE STATUTORY CAPS
0 OR SPENDING LEVELS TO BE
BREACHED AND GO AWAY.
SO THIS AMENDMENT THAT SENATOR
McCASKILL AND I ARE OFFERING
BOTH RESTORES AND STRENGTHENS
THE PROCEDURES THAT WERE PROVEN
TO WORK IN THE 1990'S.
IT WOULD CREATE A FOUR-YEAR
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAP OR
LIMIT, AND IT WOULD SET THOSE
LIMITS AT THE LEVEL OF THE
FISCAL YEAR 10 BUDGET RESOLUTION
THAT CONGRESS PASSED LAST YEAR.
SO LAST YEAR WE PASSED A BUDGET
RESOLUTION NOT TEN YEARS, AS
PROPOSED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, BUT
FIVE YEARS THAT IS IN EFFECT.
ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LEARN
AROUND HERE IS THE ONLY PART OF
THE BUDGET THAT REALLY HAS ANY
TEETH IS THE YEAR WE'RE IN. AND DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LAST
YEAR ON ONE OMNIBUS BILL THAT
COVERS ABOUT HALF THE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL WAS AN
INCREASE OF 12%.
SO WE'RE NOT DOING A VERY GOOD
JOB AT THAT.
AND SO IT H NO TEETH IN THESE
OUTER YEARS IN
AND IT PROPOSES, THOUGH, A
FAIRLY RESPONSIBLE SPENDING
INCREASE OF 2% OR SO A YEAR OVER
THESE FOUR YEARS.
NOW, YOU WERE SAYING, SENATOR
SESSIONS, YOUR STATE IS CUTTING
ITS BUDGET.
MY CONSTITUENT STATE IS HAVING
TO REDUCE -- MY STATE IS HAVING
TO REDUCE ITS BUDGET.
MY CITY IS HAVING TO REDUCE ITS
BUDGET.
MY COUNTY IS HAVING TO REDUCE ITS BUDGET.
MY FAMILY IS REDUCING ITS BUDGET.
WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS REDUCE THE
BUDGET?
THE ANSWER IS, WE CAN OF COURSE.
AND SOM
THE PRESIDENT HAS SUGGESTED --
WE SHOULD HAVE A FREEZE ON THE
BUDGET, WHICH I WOULD SUPPORT,
BUT I AM JUST SAYING TO MY
COLLEAGUES, SINCE LAST YEAR OUR
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ACCOUNTS
WERE IN DOUBLE DIGITS, THAT IF
WE PASS THIS SO THAT WE HAVE A
STATUTORY LIMIT OF 1% TO 2% ON
INCREASES FOR THE NEXT FOUR
YEARS, AND IT'S SUBJECT TO A
TWO-THIRDSTWO-THIRDS POINT OF ORDER VOTE
IN THE CONGRESS -- IF THERE IS A
PROPOSAL TO GO ABOVE THAT ON AN
EMERGENCY NEED -- I THINK WE'LL
HAVE A MUCH, MUCH BETTER CHANCE
OF MAKING THE KIND OF TOUGH
DECISIONS IN THE CONGRESS TO
CONTAIN THIS EVER-GROWING
SPENDING LEVEL THAN W WE HAVE BEEN
DOING IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
SO THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS
BILL THAT PASSED LAST YEAR
INCREASED FEDERAL SPENDING 12%
IN ONE
THAT'S A LOT.
AT 7%, YOUR MONEY WILL DOUBLE IN
TEN YEARS.
AT 12%, I GUESS THE SPENDING IN
THOSE ACCOUNTS WOULD DOUBLE IN
SIX OR SEVEN YEARS.
DOUBLE IN SIX OR SEVEN YEARS, NO
DOUBT ABOUT IT, UNLESS SOMETHING
IS DONE ABOUT THOSE STRENDZ Z
TRENDS.
SO THIS LEGISLATION THAT SENATOR
McCASKILL AND I HAVE OFFERED,
I THINK, WOULD GET US THERE.
AND I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THAT 17
MEMBERS OF DEMOCRATIC SENATORS
VOTED FOR THE BILL BECAUSE I
THINK THERE'S A GROWING
BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS THAT WE CAN
DO BETTER.
A 2% CONTAINMENT IN THE GROWTH
IN SPENDING WILL NOT CAUSE THE
UNITED STATES TO SINK INTO THE OCEAN.
WE'RE STILL GOING TO EXIST.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE STILL
GOING TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT IN
WASHINGTON.
THEY ARE THERE IS THERE ARE
STILL GOING TO BE BUREAUCRATS UP
HERE TO TAKE CARE OF US IF WE
JUST HAVE A 2% GROWTH IN THE
DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF
12% OR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER WAS
LAST YEAR.
AS I WOULD NOTE, THE PRESIDENT
SUGGESTED FREEZING SOME OF THE
ACCOUNTS AND ALTHOUGH THERE'S
SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT, I HAVE TO
SAY, GIMMICKS IN THAT THAT MAKE
IT MUCH LESS TIGHT THAN IT WOULD
APPEAR FROM HIS STATE OF THE
UNION ADDRESS, STILL IT
INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT
HIMSELF KNOWS THAT WE'VE GOT TO
REDUCE OUR SPENDING IN, AND IN
SOME OF THESE ACCOUNTS WE COULD
FREEZE THEM WITH NO DAMAGE TO
OUR NATION OUR SURE.
SO I SALUTE HIM FOR THAT, AND
THIS BILL WOULD CREATE SPENDING
LIMITS, NOT BASED ON WHAT JEFF
SESSIONS SAID THE LIMITS SHOULD
BE, BUT THESE ARE THE LIMITS IN
THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET THAT
FIRST FIVE YEARS OF IT THAT H
PROPOSED AND THAT CONGRESS
PASSED LAST YEAR.
WE WOULD BE SIMPLY SAYING THIS
WOULD BE A HARD LIMIT ON HOW
MUCHE CAN SPEND.
AND IF WE SPEND MORE THAN THAT
ON AN EMERGENCY, WE'D HAVE TO
HAVE STRONG SUPPORT IN THE
CONGRESS TO CREATE AN EMERGENCY
TO SPEND ABOVE THAT.
NOW, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT
MANY TIMES IN THE PAST IF A TRUE
EMERGENCY ARISES.
NOW, SOME SAY, JEFF, YOU'RE
FOCUSING TOO MUCH ON THE
ENTITLEMENTS ARE BIGGER.
SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, THOSE
KIND OF THINGS.
THEY ARE A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.
WELL, THERE ARE THREE REASONS I
THINK WE HAVE GOT TO ACT ON
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.
ONE IS THAT WHILE ENTITLEMENTS
LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE ARE LARGE, THEY
ACTUALLY HAVE A NET SURPLUS
RIGHT NOW.
IN FACT, CONGRESS RATED --
RAIDED $137 BILLION FROM SOCIAL
SECURITY IN FISCAL YEAR 2009 TO
PAY FOR OTHER THINGS, SUCH AS
THE $800 BILLION THRUS PACKAGE
THAT -- STIMULUS PACKAGE THAT WE
PASSED- THAT CONGRESS PASSED
LAST YEAR.
OF COURSE, $137 BILLION SOCIAL
SECURITY SURPLUS WON'T PAY FOR
THE CONGRESS'S $800 BILLION
STIMULUS PACKAGE, SO WHERE DID
THE REST OF THE MONEY COME FROM?
WE BORROWED IT ON THE WORLD
MARKET WHICH WE PAY IN INTEREST.
WHAT ABOUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS?
IS THAT FREE MONEY?
NO, IT'S NOT, BECAUSE SOCIAL
SECURITY IS HEADING TO DEFAULT.
AND WHEN WE TAKE THE SOCIAL
SECURITY SURPLUS INTO THE UNITED
STATES TREASURY AND SPEND IT ON
INCREASING DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING BY 12%, WE GIVE THEM
BACK A DEBT INSTRUMENT, AN
I.O.U., REALLY A TREASURY BOND.
I'M TOL THEY'RE IN SOME
LOCATION IN WEST VIRGINIA.
I'M SURE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE KNOWS THAT.
I WANT TO GO OUT AND SEE THEM,
BUT THEY HAVE NOTES OUT THERE,
TREASURY BILLS EVIDENCING THE
DEBT OF THE U.S. TREASURY TO THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
AND AS SOON AS SOCIAL SECURITY
GOES INTO DEFICIT, IT'S GOING TO
CALL THOSE NOTES.
IT WOULD REALLY NOT MAKE MUCH
DIFFERENCE WHETHER YOU BORROWED
IT FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY OR
YOU BORROWED IT FROM THE PUBLIC.
THE INTEREST RATES ARE
SIMILAR TOO.
THEY PAY INTEREST TO SOCIAL
SECURITY AND MEDICARE.
WHEN MEDICARE HAS A SURPLUS.
SO, UNDER THE BUDGET, IT'S
PROJECTED THAT CONGRESS WILL
RAID ANOTHER $90 BILLION IN
2010 -- THIS YEAR WE'RE IN -- TO
PAY FOR THINGS LIKE THIS OMNIBUS
BILL THAT'S ON THE FLOOR FOR
INCREASED TRANSPORTATION AND
H.U.D. FUNDING THAT WENT UP 23%,
CREATE MORE FUNDING FOR THE
STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS ACCOUNTS.
THAT WENT UP 33% THIS YEAR.
A RECORD $1.4 TRILLION DEFICIT
LAST YEAR AND A PROJECTED $1.4
TRILLION-PLUS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010.
AND ALL OF THAT REALLY WAS
DRIVEN NOT BY DEFICITS IN
MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY,
BUT FROM A DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING ACCOUNT.
OUR APPROPRIATORS ARE ALWAYS
SAYING THE PROBLEM IS ALL SOCIAL
SECURITY AND MEDICARE.
BUT
EXCEPTION WE'VE HAD SURPLUSES IN
THOSE ACCOUNTS, AND WE'RE
SPENDING THAT TO SUPPLEMENT OUR
GENERAL FUNDS SPENDING, AND WE
GIVE EVIDENCES
OUR SENIORS FROM MEDICARE AND
SOCIAL SECURITY THAT ACTUARIES
TELL US WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WILL
SOON BE IN DEFICIT, AND WE'RE
GOING TO CALL THOSE NOTES.
AND THE TREASURE'S GOT TO
COME -- AND THE TREASURY'S GOT
TO COME UP WITH IT.
SO THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH.
NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING.
IF YOU SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T
HAVE, YOU BORROW IT SOMEWHERE.
YOU COULD PRINT MONEY, I
SUPPOSE, AND DEVALUE THE CURRENCY.
BUT EVERYBODY HAS THEIR VALUES
IN -- MONEY IN THEIR POCKET DEVALUED.
THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN DO THIS
IN A FREE WAY AND WE'VE BEEN IRRESPONSIBLE.
WHEN I GO TO TOWN HALL MEETINGS,
WHAT CAN I TELL THEM?
WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG, THE
SENATE AND THE HOUSE.
WE'VE BEEN HANDLING YOUR MONEY
JUST FINE FELLOW ALABAMIAN.
DON'T COMPLAIN, DON'T GET MAD.
YOU'LL GET OVER IT.
SO WE'VE GOT A $800 BILLION
INTEREST PAYMENT COMING UP IN
2019, AND OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN ARE GOING TO PAY THAT.
AND WHEN SENATOR
THAT THIS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
BE PAID FOR OUT OF THE UNSPENT
$800 BILLION STIMULUS AND NOT
ADD IT TO THE DEBT, WHICH OUR
GRANDCHILDREN WOULD PAY, HE WAS
ABLE TO SAY WITH SOME PERSONAL
CONVICTION, WITH 42
GRANDCHILDREN, HE WASN'T GOING
TO VOTE FOR IT.
AND HE DIDN'T.
HE DIDN'T SUPPORT IT AND DIDN'T
AGREE TO LET IT PASS WITHOUT OBJECTION.
HE SAID WE SHOULD HAVE PAID FOR
IT, AND WE COULD HAVE OUT OF
THAT.
SO, ANOTHER REASON I THINK WE
NEED TO FOCUS ON DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING IS BECAUSE, UNLIKE THE
ENTITLEMENTS LIKE SOCIAL
SECURITY AND MEDICARE,
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING HAS
OVERHEAD.
THERE'S VERY LITTLE OVERHEAD IN
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.
SOME.
WE CAN DO BETTER.
I KNOW CHAIRMAN BAUCUS HAS
WORKEDN MEDICARE OVERHEAD.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CAN BE
SQUEEZED OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
OVERHEAD.
NOT A LOT.
BECAUSE MOST OF
THAT GOES OUT TO SENIORS WHO
COUNT ON IT EVERY MONTH.
BUT THERE IS OVERHEAD IN
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, ALL THE
THAT I THINK IS WE SPEND OUR
MONEY ON.
TRUST ME.
I'VE BEEN IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I'VE WORKED THERE.
I KNOW CAN BE MADE MORE
EFFICIENT.
IN THIS PAST YEAR WE INCREASE
SPENDING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR AND E.P.A. BY 17%
TOTAL.
I THINK THE E.P.A. ACCOUNT WENT
UP 33%.
ONE YEAR, THEY GET A 33%
INCREASE IN THEIR BUDGET.
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE
$800 BILLION STIMULUS FUNDS THAT
WENT OUT, SOME OF WHICH HAS GONE OU
ABOUT HALF OF IT
DOESN'T INCLUDE THAT.
AND E.P.A. GOT MONEY OUT OF
THAT, INTERIOR GOT MONEY OUT OF
THAT, HIGHWAY THAT.
LARGE AMOUNTS.
WE'RE SEEING UNPRECEDENTED
INCREASES IN SPENDING IN THESE ACCOUNTS.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, I
REMEMBER PEOPLE CRITICIZING
PRESIDENT BUSH FOR SPENDING TOO
MUCH MONEY ON AG.
IF YOU LOOK AT HIS AG BUDGET
OVER THE EIGHT YEARS HE WAS
PRESIDENT, IT AVERAGED LESS THAN
2% INCREASE.
LAST YEAR OUR AG BUDGET -- NOT
COUNTING THE STIMULUS PACKAGE,
WHICH A LARGE AMOUNT OF IT WENT
TO AGRICULTURE -- INCREASED 15%.
I ALWAYS HAVE TRIED TO SUPPORT
THE AG BUDGET.
I COULD NOT SUPPORT THAT.
THAT WOULD DOUBLEHE ENTIRE
AGRICULTUR SPENDING IN, WHAT,
FIVE OR SIX -- FIVE YEARS, I
GUESS, AT COMPOUNDED INTEREST,
COMPOUNDED INCREASES.
IT'S JUST NOT RESPONSIBLE.
WE'VE GOT TO DO BETTER.
AND SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I
THINK, ARE UPSET.
THIS
TOUGH QUESTION OF THE VOTERS IN
AMERICA: "WHICH OF THE
FOLLOWING COMES CLOSER TO YOUR
VIEW OF THE BUDGET DEFICIT --
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RUN A
DEFICIT IF NECESSARY WHEN THE
COUNTRY IS IN A RECESSION AND AT
WAR, OR THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD
BALANCE THE BUDGET EVEN WHEN THE
COUNTRY IS IN RECESSION AND IS
AT WAR?"
67% SAY BALANCE THE BUDGET, YOU
GUYS, BECAUSE THEY'VE HEARD
THESE EXCUSES BEFORE.
THEY'VE HED ALL OF IT BEFORE.
AND WHAT ARE THEY SEEING?
RED INK AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN
SEE, WITH RECORD DEFICITS ABOVE
ANYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN
THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING WHEN I
GO OUT AND TALK TO MY
CONSTITUENTS.
AND MANY I, FRANKLY, AM GLAD I
DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND HAVING
VOTED FOR THIS STIMULUS PACKAGE.
I'M GLAD I DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND
THE $700 BILLION WALL STREET
BAILOUT, $182 BILLION GOING TO A.I.G.
THEY SOLD OFF ONE OF THE MOST
PROFITABLE COMPANIES -- TALKING
ABOU IT, I SAW IN THE PAPER
TODAY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO
BRING IN $35 BILLION.
THEY'RE GOING TO USE A CHUNK OF
THAT TO PAY DOWN SOME OF THAT
$182 BILLION DEBT.
BUT IF THEY KEEP SELLING OFF
WHAT THEY'VE GOT, HOW ARE THEY
GOING TO HAVE ANY MONEY TO PAY
THE REST OF IT?
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY THE
REST OF IT, I DON'T THINK.
AND FINALLY, I WOULD ADD THAT
SPENDING BILLIONS -- ADDING
BILLIONS TO THE BASELINE BUDGET
MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.
I MADE THIS CHART FOR THE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
IT'S AN INTERESTING LITTLE CHART.
I THINK MY COLLEAGUE, I HOPE HE
WOULD PAY A LITTLE ATTENTION TO
THIS WEIRD FINE-PRINT CHARGE.
BUT IT SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
THERE WAS GIMMICKED UP ON THE
BILL AN $18 BILLION ADD-ON ALL
UNPAID FOR, $18 BILLION TO THE DEBT.
IT WAS ADDED TO THE DEFENSE BILL.
NOW IF THIS GETS IN AS BASELINE
SPENDING, WHICH IS WHAT IT TENDS
TO DO, THE NEXT YEAR WHEN YOU
ADVERTISE HOW MUCH YOU INCREASE
DEFENSE SPENDING, YOU'VE GOT
THIS $18 BILLION IN.
IT ADDS UP.
SO THE NEXT YEAR IT'S NOT JUST
$18 BILLION.
IT'S THE $18 BILLION ADDITIONAL
MONEY THAT'S IN THE BASELINE
FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
THEN YOU ADD ANOTHER $18
BILLION, LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY.
YOU JACK IT UP EACH YEAR BY $18 BILLION.
THE NET DEFICIT IS $36 BILLION.
AND THE NEXT YEAR IT'S 36 PLUS
18.
THE NEXT YEAR IT'S 54 PLUS 18.
THE NEXT YEAR IS 72 PLUS 18.
YOU CARRY THAT OUT TO THE TENTH
YEAR AND IT'S 162 PLUS 18 OR
$180 BILLION EXTRA FOR THE
DEFENSE BUDGET IN ONE YEAR,
WHICH IS ABOUT $990 BILLION OVER
TEN YEARS.
SO AN $18 BILLION ADDITION OR
FAILURE TO CONTAIN THE GROWTH IN
THE, A DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT HAS
TREMENDOUS RAMIFICATIONS OVER THE YEARS.
AND IT'S THIS KIND OF PSYCHOLOGY
THAT HAS LED US INTO THIS MESS.
AND SOME OF OUR APPROPRIATORS
AND OTHERS IN THIS CONGRESS, I
THINK,AVE FELT A THRILL IF
THEY CAN BEAT THE LIMIT ON THEIR
ACUNT.
SO IF THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN
ACCOUNT AND THEY GET $80 BILLION
OR $100 BILLION, IF THEY CAN
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GIMMICK IT
UP ABOUT $18 BILLION OR $5
BILLION OR $7 BILLION AND THEY
CAN MANEUVER IT THROUGH AND TELL
YOU WHEN THE BILL HITS THE
TPHRAORBGS WELL, IF YOU --
FLOOR, IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR IT
SESSIONS, YOU'RE AGAINST AGRICULTURE.
AND PEOPLE BACK HOME ARE GOING
TO ATTACK YOU BECAUSE YOU VOTED
AGAINST AGRICULTURE.
I SAY, WELL, MR. SENATOR, YOU
PUT TOO MUCH MONEY IN THAT.
I CAN'T VOTE FOR IT.
IT'S TOO BIG AN INCREASE.
YOU'RE EITHER FOR AGRICULTURE OR
YOU'RE AGAINST AGRICULTURE.
WHAT THEY SAID TO SENATOR
BUNNING DOWN HERE THE OTHER
NIGHT WAS, WHEN HE SAID TPHOEUT
INSURANCE -- WHEN HE SAID
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SHOULD BE
PAID FOR, THEY SAID YOU'RE
AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
YOU WANT PEOPLE NOT TO HAVE ANY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
WHICH WAS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
AND THEY REPEATED IT OVER AND
OVER AGAIN.
BUT HE STOOD LIKE A SOLID ROCK,
AND HE DIDN'T GIVE IN.
HE SAID, I'M NOT AGREEING TO IT
BECAUSE YOU COULD PAYOR IT.
IT'S INCREASING THE DEBT OF MY
42
HE DIDN'T AGREE TO IT.
U KNOW, THAT'S JUST EVERY NOW
AND THEN SOMEBODY STANDS
NEWSPAPER THIS SENATE AND SAYS
I'VE -- STANDS UP IN THIS SENATE
AND SAYS I'VE HAD ENOUGH.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY YES THIS
TIME.
AND I RESPECT HIM FOR THE
COURAGE HE S
WELL, THE COMMITTEE FOR COMMON
SENSE -- FOR A RESPONSIBLE
FEDERAL BUDGET, WHICH IS A
BIPARTISAN GROUP IN D.C., ISSUED
A REPORT NOT LONG AGO THAT SAID
THAT FREEZING ALL NONWAR-RELATE
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING NEXT YEAR
COULD SAVE US $60 BILLION IN ONE
YEAR AND WILL SET UP A NEW
BASELINE THAT WOULD SAVE
SORT OF AS THIS CHART I
SHOWED, CREATES A NEW BASELINE
MENTALITY THAT WOULD SAVE $60
BILLION OVER -- $600 BILLION
OVER TEN YEARS.
THAT'S A L.
EVEN IN WASHINGTON, $600 BILLION
IS REAL MONEY.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COMMITTEE
STATED THAT IF WE ALLOW
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING TO GROW
AT THE PROJECTED RATE OF G.D.P.
PWROEGT INSTEAD OF INFLATION --
GROWTH INSTEAD OF INFLATION IT
WOULD COST US MORE OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
THIS IS A NONBIASED GROUP.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD
FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT.
SO IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE HOW
MUCH MONEY WE SPEND ON EVERY
SINGLE ACCOUNT, EVERY SINGLE
FUNDING AND APPROPRIATIONS BILL
THAT COMES THROUGH THIS SENATE.
WELL, CAN WE GET BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT FOR HAVING A TOUGHER
LINE IN CONTAING SPENDING?
I THINK THE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY
WE CAN.
WHY IS THAT CONFIDENT?
WELL, THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE
FIVE-YEAR BINDING COMPANIES THAT
WERE PASSED IN 10 HAD BROAD
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
IN FACT, TEN OF OUR CURRENTLY
SERVING DEMOCRATIC SENATORS
VOTED FOR THEM, AND A NUMBER OF
THE REPUBLICANS DID, INCLUDING
SENATOR REID, OUR DEMOCRATIC
LEADER, AND SENATOR INOUYE, THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE.
HE VOTED FOR THEM IN THE 1990'S.
I HAVE WE HAVE EVERY REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT IF WE THINK THIS
THROUGH WE CAN GET THERE.
THE FIVE-YEAR SPENDING GAPS THAT
PASSED IN THE 1990 DEAL HAD EVEN
STRONGER BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
IT PASSED IN 1997.
I KNOW SENATOR BAUCUS WAS HERE
AND IT PASSED 85-15, WITH 44
CURRENTLY SERVING SENATORS
SUPPORTING IT.
26 OF THEM WERE DEMOCRATS.
SENATORS REID, DURBIN, CONRAD,
INOUYE, ALL VOTED FOR THEM.
SO IF WE COULD DO IT IN 1990 AND
ANOTHER ONE IN 1997, THERE'S NO
REASON WHY WE CAN'T DO IT NOW.
IN FACT, I -- MY STAFF HAVE MET
WITH NUMEROUS GROUPS ACROSS THE
POLITICAL SPECTRUM, BROOKINGS
INSTITUTE, THE URBAN ITITUTE,
THE PROGRESSIVE POLICY
INSTITUTE, THE CONCORDE
COALITION AND THE U.S. CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, EVERYBODY WE MET
WITH HAS SAID GETTING A HANDLE
ON DISCRETIONARY S
SOMETHING -- SPENDING IS
ESSENTIAL.
THE A.A.R.P., THE ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED PERSONS, INITIALLY
EXPRESSED OPPOSITION TO THE
AMENDMENT.
I BELIEVE WE'VE ADDRESSED THEIR CONCERNS.
THEIR CHIEF CONCERN WAS THAT WE
WOULD NOT SEPARATE DEFENSE AND
NON-DEFENSE SPENDING WHICH WOULD
LET THE NON-DEFENSE SPENDING
RAID NON-DEFENSE ACCOUNTS.
HOWEVER WE HAVE SEPARATED THEM,
SO THAT'S NOT A DANGER.
OF COURSE, ONE CRITICISM SOME
MIGHT GIVE TO THE BILL IS THAT
IT RAISES THE THRESHOLD FOR
VIOLATING BREAKING THE SPENDING
LIMITS FROM 60 SENATE VOTES TO
67 SENATE VOTES.
THEY SAY THAT'S JUST TOO
RESTRICTIVE.
BUT WE'VE GOT TO RAISE THE THRESHOLD.
BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A 60-VOTE
SITUATION NOW.
AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MUSTER 60
VOTES TO PASS EVERY KIND OF
POSSIBLE EMERGENCY BILL AND SOME
THAT CLEARLY WEREN'T
EMERGENCIES.
IT TAKES 67 VOTES IN THIS
CHAMBER TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE
SENATE JOURNAL.
BUT WE CAN MAX OUT THE NATION'S
CREDIT CARD WITH 60 VOTES.
SOMETHING DOESN'T SEEM TO BE
RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
SO I THINK WITH THE SERIOUSNESS
OF OUR SITUATION, THIS WOULD BE
A GOOD STEPH.
FURTHERMORE THE FY 2010 BUDGET
RETION LIEWTION ACCOUNT
FOR $10 BILLION PER YEAR IN
MILITARY SPENDING WHICH WE
ALLOWED TO REMAIN BY THIS AMENDMENT.
ANY EMERGENCIES THAT IS
INADEQUATE -- THAT THAT IS
INADEQUATE FOR SHOULD BE ABLE TO
RECEIVE THE SUPPORT OF 67
SENATORS IF WE HAVE AN
EMERGENCY.
IN FACT, ALL OF THE DISASTER
RELIEF EMERGENCIES, THOSE KIND
OF EMERGENCIES, SINCE THE
EMERGENCY DESIGNATION WAS
CREATED IN 1990 TO TRY TO
CONTAIN SPENDING HAS RECEIVED
SUPPORT OF MORE THAN 67 SENATORS.
ISN'T THAT INTERESTING?
ALL OF OUR EMERGENCY
DESIGNATIONS FOR HURRICANES AND
EARTHQUAKES AND FIRES AND STORMS
AND THE LE HAVE RECEIVED MORE
THAN 67 VOTES.
SO IT'S JUST NOT A GOOD
ARGUMENT, I THINK, TO SAY THAT
WE CAN'T RESPOND TO A LEGITIMATE
EMERGENCY.
WELL, THE PROSPECT OF MASSIVE
FEDERAL SPENDING IS HURTING JOBS
AN GROWTH.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY ECONOMIC
SAID -- QUOTE -- "IN "THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL," "THE EXPLOSION
OF SPENTING, DEFICITS AND DEBT
FORESHADOWS HIGHER TAXES ON WORK
SAVING INVESTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT.
THAT NOT ONLY WILL DAMAGE OUR
ECONOMIC FUTURE, BUT IS HARMING
JOBS AND GROWTH NOW."
CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES MAY
T BE ABLE TO KEEP FINANCING
OUR DEBT IN THE FUTURE, EVEN IF
THEY'D LE TO.
PROFESSOR ALLEN MELTZER, A
WELL-KNOWN SCHOLAR ON THE
FEDERAL RESERVE AND MONETARY
POLICY NOTED IN A COLUMN IN "THE
JOURNAL" THAT OUR CURRENT AND
PROJECTED DEFICITS ARE TOO LARGE
RELATIVE TO CURRENT AND
PERSPECTIVE WORLD SAVING TO RELY
ON OTHER COUNTRIES BEING ABLE TO
FINANCE THEM FOR THE NEXT 10
YEARS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE MAY NOT BE
ENOUGH SURPLUS MONEY IN THE
WORLD TO BUY THESE -- THESEEBT
INSTRUMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO
BE HAVING TO ISSUE.
IN FACT, A RECENT "WASHINGTON
TIMES" EDITORIAL ENTITLED
"SPENDING TO A DEPRESSION" NOTES
THAT SINCE CHINA AND OTHER
COUNTRIES ARE TRYING TO REDUCE
THEIR HOLDINGS OF DOLLARS, WE
WILL HAVE TO RELY MORE AND MORE
ON U.S. BANKS TO BUY OUR BONDS,
WHICH WILL DECREASE CAPITAL
AVAILABLE FOR LENDING TO
BUSINESSES."
ON THE AIRPLANE TODAY COMING
BACK FROM ALABAMA, THERE WAS AN
ARTICLE MADE REFERENCE TO THE
FACT THAT WHEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PUTS OUT THIS MUCH
MONEY AND THE INTERESTATES --
ARE -- BECOME LOWER -- HIGHER
THAN THEY HAVE BEEN,
EXTRAORDINARILY LOW, THAT BANKS
ARE NOW BUYING TREASURY BILLS AT
3.67% INTEREST FOR 10-YEAR
TREASURY NOTES INSTEAD OF
LOANING TO LOCAL BUSINESSES.
THEY CAN GET THE MONEY FROM THE
FE
THEY CAN BUY A FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DEBT INSTRUMENT FOR
3.5%, 4%, AND NOT HAVE TO LOAN
IT TO SOME BUSINESS PERSON WHO
MIGHT BE A HIGHER RISK.
WE'RE CROWDING OUT RESOURCES
NECESSARY FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH.
THIS IS A REALITY.
AND A -- IN A BUDGET COMMITTEE
HEARING ON BUDGET ATTEMPT,
FORMER COMPTROLLER OF OUR
CURRENCY, DAVID WALKER,
TESTIFIED THAT BY 2040, 30 YEARS
FROM NOW, WE WILL HAVE TO DOUBLE
TAXES JUST T KEEP UP WITH
CURRENT COMMITMENTS.
CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT?
THE WAY WE'RE SPENDING WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO DOUBLE TAXES IN
30 YEARS.
HE STATED THAT IN 12 YEARS
INTEREST WILL BE THE SINGLE
BIGGEST LINE ITEM IN THE ENTIRE
BUDGET EVEN ASSUMING
RATES DON'T CHANGE FROM TODAY'S
LOW RATES.
BUT THEY ARE GOING TO GO UP.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
SOME ARE PREDICTING THE KIND OF
INTEREST RATES WE HAD IN THE
LATE 1970'S.
I TRULY HOPE THAT DOES NOT OCCUR.
BUT
WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA HOW HIGH
INTEREST RATES COULD SURGE AT --
WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD, INCLUDING
EUROPE AND OTHER PLACES, ARE
SPENDING MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE
AND ATTEMPTING TO BORROW THE
MARKETACE TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN.
SO HE ALSO SAID THAT DEFICITS
ARE THE PUBLIC'S LARGEST CONCERN
BY 20 POINTS IN OPINION POLLS.
THAT'S MR. WALKER.
IN A FINANCIAL TIMES EDITORIAL
IN MAY, MR. WALKER WARNED THAT
THE U.S. IS IN DANGER OF LOSING
ITS TRIPLE A CREDIT RATING.
MOODY'S MADE THAT CLEAR.
IN A REPORT JUST LAST WEEK
MOODY'S STATED THAT THE UNITED
STATES IS IN DANGER OF LOSING
ITS TRIPLE A CREDIT RATING.
THE CHIEF ECONOMIST AT MOODY'S
STATED THAT UNLIKE SEVERAL YEARS
AGO -- QUOTE -- "NOW THE
QUESTION OF A
DOWNGRADE OF THE U.S. IS NOT
INCONCEIVABLE."
UNDER THE MOST PESSIMISTIC
SCENARIO PUT FORTH BY MOODY'S,
THE U.S. COULD LOSE ITS TOP
RATING IN 2013.
TWO OR THREE YEARS FROM NOW.
SO I WAS REALLY PLEASED THAT WE
HAD STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
FOR THIS AMENDMENT PREVIOUY BY
ALLOWING US NOT TO APPLY THESE
BUDGET LIMITS THAT WE PASSED
LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR.
THAT GIVES SOME RELIEF TO OUR --
OUR MEMBERS OF THE SENATE WHO
COMPLAIN THAT, WELL, NEXT YEAR
WE'LL
BUT NOT THIS YEAR.
SO WE WILL -- WE WILL GIVE A
LITTLE BIT THERE.
AND IT WILL MEAN THAT WE WON'T
SAVE AS MUCH MONEY FOR SURE.
BUT I REALLY BELIEVE WE NEED TO
PASS THIS LEGISLATION.
I TRULY HOPE THAT WE CAN.
WE ONLY NEED THREE OR FOUR MORE
VOTES TO MAKE IT A REALITY.
I COUNT NOW WITH THE ONES WHO
VOTED FOR IT BEFORE AND -- AND A
NEW SENATOR IN THE BODY, WE'LL
HAVE WITHIN 57 VOTES.
WE NEED 60.
SO THE SITUATION HAS NOT GOTTEN
ANY BETTER.
AND I'M HOPING THAT MY
COLLEAGUES WILL LOOK AT IT
AFRESH AND THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE
TO REACH THAT NUMBER.
IT WILL HAVE A DIFFERENCE.
IT MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THE 1990'S.
IT LED TO AN ACTUAL SURPLUS.
I BELIEVE IT COULD HELP US THIS TIME.
WE HAVE A MUCH MORE SERIOUS
PROBLEM THIS TIME.
WE HAVE MORE CHALLENGES THIS
TIME.
BUT IT COULD -- COULD MAKE A
VERY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN
OUR SPENDING LEVEL.
AND IT WOULD REALLY BE A
STATEMENT TO THE ENTIRE
FINANCIAL WORLD THAT WE'RE
BEGINNING TO TAKE SOME STEPS.
THAT WE'RE NOT NEXT YEAR GOING
TO HAVE 12% INCREASES IN -- IN
SPENDING FOR DISCRETIONARY
ACCOUNTS.
BUT WE'RE GOING TO HOLD IT TO
THE 1% OR 2% INCREASE LEVEL.
AND I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME
PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROVAL.
I THANK THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR TAKING
THIS LONG.
I'M SO HOPEFUL THAT WE'RE
GETTING CLOSE AND WE
VOTES TO TAKE THIS POSITIVE
STEP.
I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. BAUCUS: I APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS FROM THE SENATOR FROM
ALABAMA.
HE IS CONCERNED, AS WE ALL ARE,
WITH THE CURRENT FISCAL
SITUATION, OUR DEBTS AND OUR DEFICITS.
I MIGHT ADD THIS IS
IT IS CLEAR THAT WE AMERICANS
HAVE A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
OTHER COUNTRIES ARE IN THE SAME
FIX.
AGAIN, THAT'S NO EXCUSE.
OUR DEFICITS ARE HIGH PRIMARILY
BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND
JUST WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH ALL
OF THAT.
THE REAL TEST IS WHETHER WE, AS
A COUNTRY, WHEN TIMES GET
BETTER, WHEN INCOMES INCREASE,
WHETHER WE LIVE MUCH MORE WITHIN
OUR MEANS.
I CERTAINLY HOPE SO.
I KNOW EVERY SENATOR IN THIS
BODY HOPES SO.
MORE PRECISELY, THE SENATOR FROM
ALABAMA SEEKS TO PLACE CAPS ON
THE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNTS.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE AMENDMENT.
THE SENATOR OBJECTED ABOUT A
MONTH AGO, I THINK IT WAS JANUARY 28.
I BELIEVE THE PENDING SESSION'S
AMENDMENT ADDRESSES THE MATTER
IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND
VIOLATES 306 OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.
I BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT DOES
VIOLATE THE BUDGET ACT.
FURTHERMORE THIS SUBJECT IS
REALLY WORTH THE PURVIEW OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
AND I DEFER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO
ADDRESS THIS AMENDMENT IN DUE
COURSE.
I ALSO NOTE, MR. PRESIDENT, TT
THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA HAS
BEEN WAITING VERY PATIENTLY TO
SPEAK AND WE'RE ALL ANXIOUS TO
HEAR FROM THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
MR. SESSIONS: I WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE A BUDGET POINT
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
MR. FRANKEN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
WISH TO SPEAK AS IF IN MORNING
BUSINESS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. FRANKEN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
50 YEARS AGO THIS MONTH A GROUP
OF ATHLETES GATHERED IN SQUAW
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE
WINTER OLYMPICS.
PART OF THE U.S. CONTINGENT, THE
1960 MEN'S ICE HOCKEY TEAM
SURPRISED THE WORLD AND BROUGHT
HOME THE OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL BY
BEATING THE SOVIET UNION, CZECH
AND CANADA.
THREE WERE FROM MY GREAT STATE
OF MINNESOTA.
AS ANYONE CAN SEE FROM WATCHING
THIS YEAR'S GAMES, THIS OUTSIZED
CONTRIBUTION FROM MINNESOTANS
CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.
28 YEARS AFTER THIS FORGOTTEN
MIRACLE, TEAM U.S.A. DEFEATED
FINLAND AND THE SOVIET UNION TO
GENUINE THE GOLD MEDAL.
13 MINNESOTANS PLAYED FOR THE
1980 MIRACLE ON ICE TEAM AND THE
14th WAS THEIR COACH.
THIS YEAR'S OLYMPIC MEN'S ICE
HOCKEY TEAM WAS CONSIDERED BY
MANY NOT TO HAVE A CHAE FOR A MEDAL.
THEY WERE TOO YOUNG, TOO
INEXPERIENCED, THEY HADN'T
PLAYED TOGETHER BEFORE.
AND THE U.S. MEN HADN'T DEFEATED
CANADA IN THE OLYMPICS IN 50 YEARS.
YET, A WEEK AGO, DESPITE BEING
THE UNDERDOG, TEAM U.S.A.
DEFEATED THE CANADIANS IN THEIR
OWN ARENA.
AFTER SOUNDLY BEATING FINLAND IN
THE FINALS, TEAM U.S.A. PLAYED
CANADA A SECOND TIME LAST NIGHT
FOR THE GOLD MEDAL.
ALTHOUGH WE FOUND BEHIND EARLY,
ZACK PERSE TIED THE GAME WITH
UNDER A MINUTE TO PLAY.
SADLY, FOR US, CANADA WOULD END
UP SCORING IN OVERTIME TO WIN
THE GOLD MEDAL.
BUT THAT CANNOT TAKE AWAY FROM
WHAT WAS TRULY A GOLDEN
PERFORMANCE BY THE AMERICANS,
JAMIE LANGENBRUNER FROM
MINNESOTA, DID AN OUTSTANDING
JOB, INCLUDING ERIC FROM
BLOOMINGTON AND ERIC BAUCUS FROM BLAINE.
THE AMERICAN WOMEN'S ICE HOCKEY
TEAM WAS EXPECTED TO BE GREAT
AND THEY WERE.
BEFORE FALLING TO CANADA THEY
OUTSCORED THEIR OPPONENTS 40-2,
WITH NATALIE DARWITS AS CAPTAIN
AND JENNY POTTER AND DEEDEE
BROUGHT HOME A WELL-DESERVED
SILVER MEDAL.
OF THE 12 MEMBERS OF THE CURLING
TEAM, EIGHT WERE FROM MINNESOTA,
NATALIE AND ALLISON WERE ON THE
WOMEN'S TEAM.
THE MEN'S TEAM WAS AN
ALL-MINNESOTAN AFFAIR.
WITH JOHN SHUSTER AND JAYSON
SMITH AND JEFF ISAKSON OF DULUTH
AND BEN, AND THEIR COACH IS FROM
EVELITH, MINNESOTA
TONY IS AN OLYMPIC LUGER, DANA
WAS IN HER SECOND OLYMPICS, WYNN
ROBERTS WAS A COMPETITOR IN THE
BIATHLON, REBECCA
VALLEY, A SPEED SKATER, AND
KATELYN COMPTON AND GARY LEZUZI
EACH FROM MINNEAPOLIS COMPETED
IN CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING.
AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER, LIKE
LI VAUGHN,WHO HAVE TIES TO
MINNESOTA BUT WHO RESIDE NOW IN OTHER MOUNTAIN STATES.
YESTERDAY MARKED THE END OF THE
2010 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES IN VANCOUVER.
I'M SO PROUD SO SEE THAT THERE
WERE MORE ATHLETES IN THIS
YEAR'S OLYMPICS FROM MINNESOTA
THAN FROM ANY OTHER STATE.
21 MINNESOTANS TOOK PART IN THIGHS GAMES.
MOST WERE IN THEIR FIRST OLYMPICS.
A FEW OTHERS IN THEIR SECOND
GAMES.
NATALIE DARWITZ HAS BEEN TO
THREE.
JENNY POTTER HAS NOW BEEN TO
FOUR, WINNING A MEDAL EACH TIME.
ISN'T THAT SOMETHING?
FOUR-TIME MED WINNING OLYMPIAN
AND MOTHER OF TWO.
21 ATHLETES FROM ALL OVER
MINNESOTA WHO NOW WILL BE GOING
BACK TO TENDING A BAR OR BEING A
TEACHER OR BEING AN ENGINEER OR
A MOM.
NATALIE NICHOLSON WILL RETURN TO
THE RED LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION
AS A NSE PRACTITIONER.
THE MEN'S ICE HOCKEY PLAYERS
WILL BE GOING BACK TO FINISH
THEIR NHL SEASON.
JOHN SHUSTER WILL BE GETTING MARRIED.
ALL WILL CONTINUE TO INSPIRE US.
I WANT TO CONGRATULATE EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF THESE COMPETITORS.
EACH HAS SHOWN TREMENDOUS GRIT
AND DETERMINATION TO EARN A
PLACE REPRESENTING OUR NATION IN
THE WINTER OLYMPICS.
WHETHER YOU WON A MEDAL OR YOU
SIMPLY GAVE IT YOUR ALL AND
COMPETED, EACH OF YOU IS A
CHAMPION.
OLYMPIANS MAKE THE CHILDREN OF
OUR STATE AND OF OUR NATION
DREAM OF WHAT THEY MIGHT DO AND
GROWNUPS LIKE ME OF WHAT WE WISH
WE COULD DO.
ALL WHILE FULFILLING THEIR
DREAMS ON THE WORLD STAGE AND
REPRESENTING OUR NATION SO ADMIRABLY.
WE OWE THEM THANKS FOR THEIR
HARD WORK, THEIR PERSEVERANCE,
AND, MOST OF ALL, FORHEIR HEART.
AND I HOPE TO HAVE THE CHANCE IN
TH COMING WEEKS TO MEET WITH
EACH OF THESE MINNESOTA ATHLETES
SO I CAN CONGRATULATE THEM IN
PERSON.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ALSO WOULD LIKE
TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO SPEAK
ON ANOTHER TOPIC, THE EXTENSION
OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND
COBRA SUBSIDIES.
YOU KNOW, I ADMIRE THOSE IN THIS
BODY WHO TAKE PRINCIPLED STANDS.
THE SENATE WOULD GET MORE DONE
IF ALL MEMBERS WERE GUIDED BY
THEIR BASIC CORE PRINCIPLES AND
PUT PRINCIPLES AHEAD OF
POLITICAL POSTURING, AHEAD OF
PARTY, AHEAD OF POLLING.
TO BLOCK A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE
BECAUSE IT'S NOT FULLY OFFSET,
SURE, THAT COULD -- THAT COULD
BE BASED ON PRINCIPLE, AND,
BELIEVE ME, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT
OUR BUDGET DEFICIT.
BUT PRINCIPLES AREOMETHING
THAT YOU CONSISTENTLY STAND
BEHIND.
WHAT MAKES I A PRINCIPLE?
SOMETHING YOU CARE ABOUT,
SOMETHING THAT GUIDES YOU
THROUGHOUT YOUR CAREER.
THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A PRINCIPLE.
AND PRINCIPLES CAN'T BE IGNORED.
EVEN WHEN IT'S EXPEDIENT OR
ADVANTAGEOUS TO DO SO.
AND YET THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S
HAPPENING NOW.
A PRINCIPLE IS BEING INVOKED
ONLY NOW THAT IT'S CONVENIENT.
YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT WHEN
GEORGE W. BUSH ENTERED OFFICE,
IT WAS WITH A $200 BILLION
BUDGET SURPLUS.
HE ALSO ENTERED OFFICE WITH
PROJECTIONS OF NEARLY A BILLION
IN FUTURE SURPLUSES OVER THE
NEXT DECADE AND A GLIDE PATH TO
PAYING OFF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL
DEBT.
BUT INSTEAD OF DOING THE
SENSIBLE THING AND PAYING DOWN
OUR DEBT WHEN WE HAD THE MEANS,
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION RACKED
UP MASSIVE DEFICITS AT A RECORD PACE.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY EVEN SAID
THAT DEFICITS DON'T MATTER.
AND FED CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN
TESTIFIED THAT WE MIGHT PAY OFF
OUR DEBT JUST TOO QUICKLY.
WE WERE TOLD THAT WE MIGHT HAVE
TOO MUCH MONEY.
REALLY, HE DID THIS, HE
TESTIFIED TO CONGRESS SAYING
THAT WAS A REAL WORRY.
THEN WE PAID FOR AN UNNECESSARY
WAR IN IRAQ WITHOUT OFFSETS, WE
PASSED MEDICARE PART-D WITHOUT
OFFSETS, WE PASSED THREE
DIFFERENT SETS OF TAX CUTS
TOTALING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
MOST BENEFITING THE WEALTHIEST
PEOPLE IN THE NATION.
WITHOUT OFFSETS.
YET LAST THURSDAY NIGHT, THE
SENATOR REPEATEDLY -- SENATE
REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTED TO EXTEND
BENEFITS FOR AMERICA'S
UNEMPLOYED WORKERS AND THESE
EFFORTS WERE BLOCKED SUPPOSEDLY
BECAUSE IT WASN'T FULLY OFFSET.
NOW, FOR SOME REASON, BENEFITS
TO THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS,
THEY DIDN'T NEED TO BE OFFSET,
BUT KEEPING UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS FLOWING TO THOSE
FAMILIES WHO HAVE BEEN HARDEST
HIT BY THIS RECESSION, NOW
SUDDENLY THEY, THEY NEED AN
OFFSET.
IF THIS IS A MATTER
PRINCIPLE, IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE
A VERY, VERY BIZARRE PRINCIPLE.
ONE PRINCIPLE WE SHOULD ALL
STAND BEHIND IS SUPPORTING
AMERICAN FAMILIES WHEN ECONOMIC
TIMES ARE TOUGH.
LAST WEEK, HALF A MILLION
AMERICANS APPLIED FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR THE
FIRST TIME.
DESPITE WHAT SOME MIGHT SUGGEST,
OUR NATION'S UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS
IS NOT OVER.
WE KNOW THAT UNEMPLOYMENT CAN
PERSIST LONG AFTER A RECOVERY
BEGINS.
THIS DOWNTURN WILL CONTINUE
AFFECTING AMERICAN FAMILIES FOR
MONTHS AND YEARS TO COME.
THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO EXTEND
FEDERAL
NOW.
WITHOUT AN EXTENSION, OVER
1 MILLION AMERICANS, INCLUDING
THOUSANDS OF MINNESOTANS, WILL
LOSE THEIR BENEFITS THIS MONTH.
WITHOUT THOSE UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS, MANY FAMILIES WILL
HAVE NO
THEIR MTGAGE AND BUYING
GROCERIES.
EVEN WITH SOME ECONOMIC
PROGRESS, THERE ARE STILL SIX
APPLICANTS FOR EVERY JOB
OPENING.
IN SOME INDUSTRIES, THERE ARE
SIMPLY NO JOBS TO BE FOUND.
OUR OBLIGATION TO AMERICA'S
WORKG FAMILIES IS A SERIOUS ONE.
WHEN THERE ARE JOBS TO BE HAD,
WORKING AND MIDDLE-CLASS
FAMILIES KEEP OUR ECONOMY RUNNING.
AFTER WALL STREET'S
INSCRETIONZ -- INDISCRETIONS
WERE THE CAUSE OF AN ECONOMIC
COLLAPSE AND OUR GOVERNMENT
BAILED THEM OUT, WE'RE IN NO
PLACEO TELL AMERICA'S FAMILIES
THAT THERE ISN'T EUGH OF HELP
TO GO AROUND. THEIR INTERESTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
PLACED AHEAD OF THE BIG BANKS
FROM THE START.
FURTHER, THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY BEG BLOCKED WILL
ALSO PROVIDE FOR THE VITAL COBRA SUBSIDY.
RIGHT NOW THE COBRA SUBSIDY IS
HELPING AMERICAN FAMILIES RETAIN
THEIR HEALTH CARE COVERAGE WHILE
THEY CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR WORK.
FACING A MEDICAL CRISIS WHILE
BEING UNEMPLOYED AND UNINSURED
IS A BURDEN MOST FAMILIES SIMPLY
CANNOT WITHSTAND.
WE SHOULD NOT BE PUTTING
AMERICANS IN THAT POSITION WHEN
IT'S DUE TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.
WE SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING THEM TO
A PLACE WHERE THEY SIMPLY HAVE
RUN OUT OF OPTIONS.
THIS PROCEDURAL STALLING IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
I'VE HEARD FROM MINNESOTA'S
EMPLOYMENT COMMISSIONER THAT THE
EXPIRATION AND SUBSEQUENT
AGREEMENT ON AN EXTENSION WILL
BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON
OUR STATE, NOT TO MENTION AN
INEFFICIENT USE OF STATE
RESOURCES.
THE DELAYS ARE ALSO STRESSFUL
AND DISRUPTIVE FOR MINNESOTA'S FAMILIES.
THIS IS A CASE IN ALL 50 OF OUR
STATES.
SO I CALL ON ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO COME TOGETHER
TODAY AND STAND BEHIND THE
PRINCIPLE -- THE PRINCIPLE -- OF
SUPPORTING AMERICAN FAMILIES
WHEN TIMES ARE TOUGH.
THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH
WE SHOULD ALL BE FOCUSED AND ALL
BE JUDGED.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. THUNE: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OF
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA. MR
WOULD LIKE TO CALL UP AMENDMENT
NUMBER 3338 AND ASK FOR ITS
IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
IS THERE OBJECTION?
MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT, IS
THE SENATOR ASKING UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO SET ASIDE THE PENDING AMENDMENT?
MR. THUNE: I'D LIKE TO ASK TO
HAVE THIS AMENDMENT BE MADE
PENDING, YES.
MR. BAUCUS: YOU WISH TO SET
ASIDE THE PENDING AMENDMENT?
MR. THUNE: CORRECT.
MR. BAUCUS: NO OBJECTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA, MR. THIEWRNTION
PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED
3338 TO AMENDMENT NUMBERED 3336.
MR. THUNE:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
READING OF THE AMENDMENT BE
DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. THUNE: MR. PRESIDENT, AS WE
ALL KNOW, OUR ECONOMY IS
SUFFICING.
WE HAVE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE THAT
IS CURRENTLY AT 9.7%.
FURTHERMORE, WE'VE GOT LARGE
PORTIONS OF THE POPULATION THAT
ARE EITHER UNDEREMPLOYED OR HAVE
DROPPED OUT OF THE WORK FORCE
BECAUSE OF LIMITED JOB
PROSPECTS.
NOW, WHERE THERE ARE A VARIETY
OF FACTORS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED
TO THIS RECESSION, THE
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE SO FAR HAS
BEEN LARGELY INEFFECTIVE,
PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT.
AND I WOULD ARGUE,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT THE BEST
THING THAT WE CAN DO TO ADDRESS
THE ISSUE OF UNEMPLOYMENTND
HAVINGO EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS AND COBRA AND OTHER
TYPES OF BENEFITS, ALL OF WHICH
ARE CONSIDERED IN THIS
UNDERLYING BILL, IS TO GET
PEOPLE BACK TO WORK.
THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY THE VERY
BEST THING THAT WE CAN BE DOING
IS FOCUSING HOW -- ON HOW DO WE
CREATE JOBS, HOW DO WE GROW THIS
ECONOMY, HOW DO WE PROVIDE
FIEWNTS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE --
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE WHO HAVE
LOST THEIR JOBS, WHO ARE
UNDEREMPLOYED, TO GET BACK INTO THE WORK FORCE?
THAT TO ME, MR. PRESIDENT, OUGHT
TO BE THE FOCUS OF OUR EFFORTS
HERE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
NOW, THE BILL THAT WAS PASSED
ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THE STIMULUS
LEGISLATION, WHICH WE NOW KNOW
IS GOING TO COST SOMEWHERE IN
THE NEIGHBOR
$862 BILLION, WITHOUT
WITH INTEREST, WELL OVER A
TRILLION DOLLARS, WAS ALL
BORROWED MONEY.
IT IS GOING TO ADD A TRILLION
DOLLARS TO THE NATIONAL DEBT.
NOW, DESPITE THAT AMOUNT OF
SPENDING, ONLY $6.2 BILLION WAS
SPENT ON TAX INCENTIVES FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES AND ANOTHER
$730 MILLION WAS SPENT IN
FUNDING FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION. SO I WANT JUST TO THINK ABOUT
FOR A MOMENT WHAT THAT MEANS IN
TERMS OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE
BILL THAT WAS PASSED LAST YEAR.
WE HAD A TRILLION-DOLLAR BILL.
TOGETHER, THE INCENTIVES FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES IN THAT BILL
REPRESENTED LESS THAN 1% OF THE
TOTAL COST OF THE BILL.
NOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT SMALL
BUSINESSES HAVE A MUCH GREATER
IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AND ON
EMPLOYMENT THAN THAT NUMBER
REPRESENTS.
SMALL BUSINESSES EMPLOY MORE
THAN HALF OF ALL THE NATION'S
PRIVATE-SECTOR EMPLOYEES.
THEY CREATE NEARLY TWO-THIRDS OF
ALL THE NEW JOBS AND CREATE A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF THE
PATENTS THAT ARE ISSUED IN OUR
NATION.
I BELIEVE THAT THE TIME -- AT
THE TIME THAT WE VOTED LAST YEAR
ON THE STIMULUS BILL,
MR. PRESIDENT, AND I BELIEVE NOW
THAT THIS WAS JUST ONE EXAMPLE
OF THE PRIORITS IN THAT
LEGISLATION THAT WERE MISPLACED
IF WE ARE INTENT ON AND FOCUSED
LIKE A LAZER ON --
LIKE A LASER ON CREATING JOBS
AND GETTING THIS ECONOMY DROGUE AGAIN.
AS DID MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES --
AND WE OFFERED AMENDMENTS IN
SUPPORT OF THAT BELIEF -- THAT
THE BEST WAY TO GET THE ECONOMY
GROWING AGAIN ISN'T TO FOCUS ON
A LOT OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON
NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS BUT, IN
FACT, TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES, THE ENGINES OF
OUR ECONOMY, TO GET OUT THERE
AND TO START INVESTING AND TO
START CREATING JOBS.
AND SO I OFFERED AN AMENDMENT
THAT WAS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE
STIMULUS BILL A YEAR AGO WHICH,
ACCORDING TO THE ECONOMIC MODEL
DEVELOPED BY THE PRESIDENT'S
ECONOMIC ADVISOR, WOULD HAVE
CREATED T
IT WOULD HAVE COST HALF OF WHAT THIS STIMULUS LEGISLATION IS
GOING TO END UP COSTING THE
TAXPAYERS OF THIS COUNTRY.
AGAIN, ALL OF WHICH IS BORROWED
FROM FUTURE GENERATIONS.
NOW, WHILE THE SENATE PASSED A
SMALLER JOBS BILL LAST
SENATORS -- SENATORS HERE IN THE
CHAMBER WERE BLOCKED FROM
OFFERING AMENDMENTS.
I WANTED TO OFFER THIS AMENDMENT
A WEEK AGO WHEN WE CONSIDERED
THE OTHER JOBS BILL THAT PASSED
THROUGH HERE.
IT WAS A $15 BILLION JOBS BILL,
WHICH IS NOW PENDING I THINK
ACTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BUT I'M
OFFERING THIS AMENDMENT NOW
BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS UNDERLYING
TAX EXTENDERS BILL AND I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DISCUSS
AND DEBATE HOW BEST WE CAN
STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, HOW BEST
WE CAN GROW THE ECONOMY, GET IT
EXPANDING AGAIN, AND HOW BEST WE
CAN CREATE JOBS TO GET PEOPLE
BACK TO WORK.
IT SEEMS TO ME, AGAIN,
MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT THAT OUGHT
TO BE THE FIRST PRIORITY THAT WE
AS A UNITED STATES SENATE GET
FOCUSED ON.
NOW, WHAT MY AMENDMENT
WOULD TOO DOE IS FOR THE YEAR
2010 IT WOULD EXTEND BONUS DEPRECIATION.
IT WOULD PERMANENTLY INCREASE --
OR IT WOULD PERMANENTLY INCREASE
THE SECTION 179 DEDUCTIONS THAT
ALLOW SMALL BUSINESSES TO
EXPENSE MORE OF THE INVESTMENTS
THEY MAKE AS OPPOSING TO HAVING
TO DEPRECIATE THOSE.
AND BY LOWERING THE COST OF NEW
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, THESE
PROVISIONS WOULD ENCOURAGE
COMPANIES TO INVEST IN THESE NEW
-- NEW EQUIPMENT, MAKE CAPITAL
PURCHASES, CAPITAL INVESTMENTS,
THAT WOULD INCREASE BOTH GROWTH
AND EMPLOYMENT T WOULD ALSO
REDUCE CAPITAL GAINS TAXES.
THIS WAS SUPPORTED BY THE
PRESIDENT IN HIS STATE OF THE
UNION SPEECH AND WOULD INCREASE
INVESTMENT IN SMALL BUSINESSES.
THIS AMENDMENT ALSO WOULD ALLOW
A 20% DEDUCTION FOR SMALL
BUSINESS INCOME.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE A LOT OF SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS IN THIS COUNTRY
WHO PAY THEIR TAXES AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL.
IT IS CALLED FLOW-THREW INCOME.
THEY HAVE THEIRMALL BUSINESSES.
THE INCOME FLOWS THROUGH TO THE
INDIVIDUAL TAX RETURN.
THEY PAY AN INDIVIDUAL INCOME
TAX RATE.
THOSE TAX RATES ARE SET TO RISE
ON SMALL BUSINESSES BEGINNING IN 2011.
IN FACT, A LOT OF OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES IN THIS COUNTRY -- I
THINK ABOUT HALF OF OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES -- ARE GOING TO BE
IMPACTED BY THOSE INCREASED IN
MARGINAL INCOME TAX RATES THAT
WILL OCCUR IN 2011.
SO THIS WOULD HELP MITIGATE AND
LIMIT THE IMPACT OF THOSE
INCREASES ON THE 20 MILLION
PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING AT SMALL BUSINESSES, THOSE SMALL
BUSINESSES WHICH WOULD BE TAXED
RAT A HIGHER RATE UNDER THE
PRESIDENT'S TAX PROPOSALS.
FINALLY, MADAM PRESIDENT, THIS
BILL WOULD PREVENT DAVIS-BACON
PREVAILING WAGE RUIREMENTS
FROM RAISING THE COST OF
PROJECTS UNDER THE STIMULUS
BILL. WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORTANCE OF GOOD WAGES,
FLOODGES COMPLY WITH DAVIS-BACON
RESTRICTIONS SEE LABOR COSTS
THAT ARE ON AVERAGE 22% HIGHER
THAN MARKET RARITY RATES.
WAIVING THESE PROVISIONS WILL
HELP IN ELIMINATING THE
CONFUSION AND STRETCH TAXPAYER
DOLLARS SO WE GET MORE BANG FOR
OUR BUCK IN THE AMOUNT OF
DOLLARS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OUT
THERE, HOPEFULLY TRYING TO
CREATE JOBS.
NOW, MY AMENDMENT WOULD BE PAID
FOR, MADAM PRESIDENT, BY
REDIRECTING UNSPENT OR
UNOBLIGATED STIMULUS FUNDS FROM
THE BILL THAT WAS PASSED PAST
YEAR.
OUT OF THAT $862 BILLION IN
SPENDING,--
--ACCORDING TO WHAT WE HEAR FROM
THE
RECOVERY.ORG, I THINK -- ABOUT
30% OF THAT MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT
AS OF THE END OF THIS LAST YEAR.
BEAR IN MIND, A LOT OF THAT
MONEY IS OBLIGATEDMENT BUT WE
NEED THAT THE UNOBLIGATED
AMOUNTS, UNSPENT, UNOBLIGATED
AMOUNTS ON THE SPENDING PORTION
-- NOT ON THE TAX PORTION --
THERE IS STILL MONEY THAT HAS
NOT BEEN OBLIGATED.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT OUR
EFFORTS ARE TO CREATE JOBS, WE
OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT WHO CREATES
JOBS.
TWO-THIRDS OF THE JOBS IN OUR
COUNTRY ARE CREATED BY SMALL
BUSINESSES.
WHY SHOULDN'T WE BE FOCUSING OUR
EFFORTS ON CREATING INCENTIVES
FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO INVEST?
FRANKLY, AS I SAID EARLIER, THAT
WAS THE -- WOULD HAVE BEEN THE
WAY THAT I WOULD HAVE GONE ABOUT
THE STIMULUS BILL THAT WAS
PASSED LAST YEAR AND MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES HERE OFFERED
AMENDMENTS AND MANY OF THEM
SPORTED MY AMENDMENT.
I THINK I HAD 37 VOTES HERE FOR
MY AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE
FOCUSED THE STIMULUS BILL OF A
YEAR AGO MORE ON SMALL
BUSINESSES WHEREAS THE BILL THAT
ULTIMATELY PASSED, AS I SAID
EARLIER, ONLY SPENT ABOUT 1% --
UNDER 1% OF THAT TOTAL AMOT,
ALMOST $1 TRILLION, ON SMALL
BUSINESSES, WHICH ARE THE
ECONOMIC ENGINE, THE JOB
CREATORS IN OUR ECONOMY.
SO IF WEEK FIGURE OUT WAY, MADAM
PRESIDENT, TO GET -- SO IF WE
CAN FIGURE OUT WAYS, MADAM
PRESIDENT TO GET SMALL
BUSINESSES SOME RELIEF SO THEY
CAN START HIRING AGAIN, WE
ADDRESS ALL OF THESE OTHER
ISSUES, 9.7% UNEMPLOYMENT, WHICH
INCIDENTALLY THE PROMISES THAT
WERE MADE WHEN THE BIG STIMULUS
PASSED LAST YEAR WAS IF WE
DIDN'T PASS THIS STIMULUS BILL,
UNEMPLOYMENT W GOING TO GO UP
TO 8%.
WELL, WE'VE BLOWN WAY BY THAT.
IT'S AT 9.%.
WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WOULD
CREATE MILLIONS OF JOBS.
WE KNOW NOW THAT SINCE ITS
PASSAGE LAST YEAR WE'VE ACTUALLY
LOST 2.7 MILLION JOBS IN OUR COMU.
THE SPRIPTION THAT WASUT IN
PLACE IS NOT -- THE PRESCRIPTION
THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE IS NOT WORKED.
IT WAS MISDIRECTED TOWARDS
CREATING NEW BUREAUCRACIES IN
WASHINGTON, D.C., PERHAPS SOME
GOVERNMENT JOBS.
BUT THE GOOD-PAYING GOVERNMEN
JOBS IN OUR ECONOMY ARE CREATED
IN OUR PRIVATE ECONOMY.
THE BIGGEST CREATOR OF THOSE
JOBS ARE OUR SMALL BUSINESSES.
SO FRANKLY, MADAM PRESIDENT, WE
OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT WHAT
TYPES OF POLICIES CAN WE PUT IN
PLACE THAT WILL CREATE AN
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH SMALL
BUSINESSES CAN GO BACK OUT
THERE, MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS,
PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK, AND
THEN WE CAN START HOPEFULLY
BRINGING THIS UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
DOWN, GIVE PEOPLE BACK -- GET
PEOPLE BACK EMPLOYED AGAIN AND A
LOT OF THESE MEASURES THAT WE'RE
NOW HAVING TO TAKE WITH REGARD
TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
HOPEFULLY WOULD COST THE
TAXPAYERS A LOT LESS BECAUSE THE
BEST THING WE CAN DO FOR PEOPLE
WHO ARE WITHOUT A JOB IN THIS
ECONOMY IS TO GET THEM BACK TO
WORK.
AND THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS
TO GET SMALL BUSINESSES IN THIS
COUNTRY HIRING AGAIN.
I WANT TO MAKE ONE FINAL POINT,
MADAM PRESIDENT, BECAUSE I THINK
THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I
HEAR REPEATEDLY FROM SMALL
BUSINESSES IN SOUTH DAKOTA AND
ACROSS THE COUNTRY IS THAT THE
-- THERE IS A SORT OF A -- JUST
A PARALYSIS, IF YOU WANT TO CALL
IT THAT, ABOUT INVESTORS LOOKING
AT INVESTING 0 MONEY IN
DIFFERENT AREAS AND DIFFERENT
PROJECTS, BUT LOOKING AT
WASHINGTON, D.C., AND SEEING ALL
OF THIS POLICY UNCERTAINTY.
THEY SEE THIS CLOUD OVER OUR
ECONOMY.
IT'S CREATING A LOT OF ECONOMIC
UNCERTAINTY, A LOST ECONOMIC
ANXIETY, AND FRANKLY WHAT I HEAR
FROM A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES
AND PEOPLE WHO CREATE JOBS IS
THE REASON NOR THAT IS THEY'RE
WORD ABOUT THE POLICY
UNCERTAINTY IN WAWSHTD.
-- THE POLICY
UNCERTAINTY IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
IS WASHIN GOING TO PASS THIS
MASSIVE NEWAX BILL?
IS WASHINGTON, D.C., GOING TO
PASS A CLIMATE CHANGE BILL THAT
IS HAS PUNISHING ENERGY TAXES
PARTICULARLY ON AREAS IN THE
MIDWEST?
I'VE GOT COUPLE OF POWER PLANTS
IN MYTATE THAT ARE ON ICE
RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF YOUR HONOR
CERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN WITH REGARD TO COAL-FIRED
POWER IN OUR FUTURE.
THERE IS A LOT OF
OUT HERE SWIRLING AROUND
WASHINGTON ABOUT WHAT CONGRESS
MIGHT DO OR WHAT -- WORSE YET,
WHEN THE E.P.A. MIGHT DO ON
THEIR OWN.
AND THERE'S UNCERTAINTY ABOUT
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH
TASSMENTS ARE WE GOING TO --
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH TAXES.
ARE WE GOING TO SEE TAXES GO UP
IN THE YEAR 2011?
FOR SMALL BUSINESSES -- ABOUT
HALF OF OUR SMALL BUSINESSES WHO DO ALLOW THAT YOU ARE INCOME
FROM THEIR SMALL BUSINESS TO
FLOW THROUGH TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL
INCOME TAX RETURN ARE GOING TO
SEE THOSE TAX INCREASES, THOSE
MARGINAL RATE INCREASES WHEN
THEY GO FROM 33% TO 36% AND 35%
SIGNIFICANT TAX
INCREAS. WHICH IS WHY I'VE GOT THIS
DEDUCTION FOR SMALL BUSINESS
INCOME AS PART OF THIS AMENDMENT
OF BUT WE NEED TO BRING SOME CERTAINTY TO SMALL BUSINESSES IN
THIS COUNTRY, IN THE AREA OF
TAXES, SOME CERTAINTY WITH
REGARD TO REGULATION, SOME
CERTAINTY WITH REGARD TO THE
LITIGATION ENVIRONMENT.
WE'VE GOT SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY
SWIRLING AROUND WASHINGTON, IT
IS CREATING THIS HUGE CLOUD AND
NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE
SMALL BUSINESSES IN THIS CRUN
MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON POLL
FACTORS RATHER THAN ECONOMIC FACTORS.
WE WANT THEM MAKING DECISIONS
BASED UPON ECONOMIC FACTORS, NOT
WORRYING ABOUT WHAT HAS BECOME
THE NEW CENTER OF GRAVITY IN
THIS COUNTRY AND THAT'S
WASHINGTON, D.C. BECAUSE WASHINGTON, D.C., CANNOT
CREATE PERMANENT, GOOD-PAYING
JOBS IN OUR ECONOMY.
THOSE CAN ONLY BE CREATED IN THE
ECONOMY IN THIS COUNTRY AS WE
UNLEASH SMALL BUSINESSES AND
ENTREPRENEURS AND PROVIDE
INCENTIVES FOR THEM TO DO WHAT
THEY DO BEST, AND THAT IS TO
GROW THEIR BUSINESSES AND TO
MAKE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS AND TO
CREATE JOBS.
SO, MADAM PRESIDENT, I HOPE THAT
MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT.
AS I SAID, IT IS PAID FOR.
IT IS OFFSET.
THIS DOESN'T ADD ANYTHING TO THE DEBT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO BORROW MONEY TO DO THI
WE REDIRECT UNSPENT, UNUNLETTED
STIMULUS MONEYS,
LEFT OVER FROM LAST YR'S
STIMULUS BILL, TOWARD SMALL
BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES WHICH
FRANKLY I THINK MANY OF US ARGUE
-- AND I WOULD ARGUE -- AND I I ARGUED AT THE TIME.
H. -- SHOULD HAVE BEEN A GREATER
STIMULUS BILL AT THE TIME.
THE ECONOMIC ENGINE IN THIS SCUN
OUR SMALL BUSINESSES AND SO WHAT
MY AMENDMENT DOES IS CREATES TAX
INCENTIVES FOR THEM TO GO OUT
AND CREATE JOBS AND DISCO IT IN
A WAY THAT DOESN'T -- AND DOES
IT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T ADD TO
THE DEFICIT, ALLOWS THE SMALL
BUSINESSES IN THIS COUNTRY TO DO
WHAT THEY DO BEST.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND
WITH THAT, I WOULD YIELD THE
FLOOR.
MR. MERKLEY: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OREGON.
MR.ERKLEY: SKILLED TO SPEAK
IN MORNING BUSINESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
AMERICAMARK I RISE TO ADDRESS
THE REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER,
ATTACKING THE AMERICAN WORKER.
MR. MERKLEY: I RISE TO ADDRESS
THE REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER
ATTACKING THE AMERICAN WORKER
AND THE REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER
ATTACKING AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESSES.
I HAD THE CHANCE TO GO HOME THIS
WEEKEND TO START MY TRIP HOME IN
CENTRAL OREGON.
14% UNEMPLOYMENT.
NEXT DOOR TO THAT COUNTY, COOK
COUNTY, 16.8% UMPLOYMENT.
THAT'S ONLY COUNTING THE WORKERS
THAT ARE OFFICIALLY UNEMPLOYED
AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO HAVE
GIVEN UP ON FINDING JOBS.
WENT DOWN TO PLAMOUTH COUNTY,
12.6% UNEMPLOYMENT.
I WENT TO HOOD RIVER AND THE
COLUMBIA GORGE, I WENT TO
WASHINGTON COUNTY IN THE
METROPOLITAN AREA AND EVERYWHERE
I WENT IN OREGON, WHETHER IT BE
EASTERN OR WESTERN OR NORTH OR
SOUTH, I WAS IN EVERY QUARTER
THIS WEEKEND, CITIZENS WANTED TO
KNOW WHY ARE THE REPUBLICANS
ATTACKING THE AMERICAN WORKER
AND THE AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS?
BECAUSE, YOU SEE, ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY OUR WORKING FAMILIES ARE
IN TROUBLE.
AND THEY'RE LOOK FOG THIS BODY
RIGHT HERE FOR HELP.
THEY WANT TO KNOW WHEN ARE WE
GOING TO GET IT DONE.
AND BY "IT," THEY MEAN EXTENSION
OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
THEY WANT TO KNOW, WHEN ARE WE
GOING TO GET EXTENDED THE COBRA
HEALTH BENEFITS?
THEY WANT TO KNOW WHEN WE'RE
GOING TO FIX THE MEDICARE RATES
THAT CHANGED TODAY?
AND DROPPED MORE THAN 20%.
SO IT'S THAT MUCH HARDER TO GET
INTO THE DOOR OF A DOCTOR IF
YOU'RE A SENIOR.
THEY WANT TO KNOW WHY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ARE
GRINDED TO HALT ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY EVEN THOUGH WE NEED THOSE JOBS.
THE ANSWER LIES IN THIS CHAMBER.
SO THIS ATTACK ON THE AMERICAN
WORKER BY THE REPUBLICAN
FILIBUSTER, IT'S UNACCEPTABLE.
THIS ATTACK ON THE AMERICAN
SENIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE.
THIS ATTACK 0 ON THE AMERICAN
SMALL BUSINESS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
NOT ONLY DOES THIS DIRECTLY
IMPACT WORKING AMERICANS AND
RETIRED AMERICANS, BUT IT ALSO
AFFECTS THE ECONOMY.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, COBRA
EXTENSI GOOD FOR THE
ECONOMY.
THEY HELP PUT FOOD ON TABLE.
THEY HELP PAY THE RENT CHEFNTLE
ALL OF THAT MONEY STAYS IN OUR
ECONOMY.
ALL OF IT GOES FROM THOSE
FAMILIES BECAUSE THEY HAVE BILLS
TO PAY TO OUR BUSINESSES IN THE
COMMUNITIES, AND THOSE
BUSINESSES CAN THEN PAY THEIR
WORKERS AND PAY THEIR
CONTRACTORS.
SO ONE OF THE BEST BANGS FOR THE
BUCK IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
IS RIGHT BEFORE US IN
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND COBRA
EXTENSION.
NOW, I'M PUZZLED -- I'VE PUZZLED
OVER THIS CHALLENGE.
BECAUSE BEHAVE A OBSERVED IS
THIS -- BECAUSE WHAT I'VE
OBSERVED IS THIS:
WHEN IT COMES TO GIVING AWAY
MONEY OUT OF THE TREASURY TO THE
WEALTHIEST AMERICANS, MY
COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE ARE
DELIVERING IT ON A SILVER
PLATTER.
A SILVER PLATTER T THE
WEALTHIEST AND BEST OFF.
BUT BH IT COMES TO A PLAN TO
ASSIST WORKING AMERICANS AND
SENIORS AND SMALL BUSINESSES, MY
COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE
THROUGH THIS REPUBLICAN
FILIBUSTER ARE TAKING THE
HATCHET TO IT.
THEY'RE SAYING, WORKING
AMERICANS DON'T COUNT.
WE ONLY WANT TO HAVE BENEFITS ON
THE SILVER PLATTER FOR THE
WEALTHIEST.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU, IT'S WORKING
AMERICANS THAT MADE THIS NATION
GREAT.
IT'S AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS TT
CREATED THE STRONGEST ECONOMY IN
THE WORLD.
IT'S AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM AND OUR WORKING FAMILIES
THAT HAVE COME UP WITH THE
INDUSTRIOUSNESS TO TAKE THIS
NATION FORWARD.
NOW, WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SILVER PLATTER THAT THE
REPUBLANS HAVE FOR THE
WETTIEST IN AMERICA, LET'S
EXAMINE THE DETAILS.
-- UNFUNDED REPUBLICAN PROGRAM
2001 TAX CUTS, $1.35 TRILLION
GIVEAWAY, BORROWED FROM THE NEXT
GENERATION, FROM OUR COMIRN. -- FROM OUR
CHILDREN.
THAT'S QUITE A GIFT.
THAT'S QUITE A SILVER PLATTER.
2003 TAX CUTS -- $350 BILLION
DELIVERED ON THE SILVER PLATTER
FOR THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS.
MEDICARE PART-D, UNFUNDED
PROGRAM:
$400 BILLION ON A SILVER
PLATTER.
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WARS:
ALMOST $1 TRILLION.
$944 BILLION THROUGH JUNE OF 2009.
THE TOTAL THIS YEAR WILL EXCEED
$1 TRILLION UNPAID FOR,
UNFUNDED, BORROWED FROM OUR CHILDREN.
NOW THERE'S BEEN SOME COLLEAGUES
RING TO SAY HOW THIS IS A
MATTER OF BEING CONSISTENT ON
PAYING FOR AMERICAN PROGRAMS.
BUT WHEN YOU CHECK THE RECORD,
THEY VOTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN
FOR UNFUNDED GIVEAWAYS TO THE
WEALTHIEST AMERICANS, THE 2001
TAX CUTS, THE 2003 TAX CUTS.
AND THEY VOTED FOR OTHER
PROGRAMS THAT I LIKE, BUT THEY
WEREN'T FUNDED.
AND I'D INCLUDE IN THAT MEDICARE
PART-B.
YOU KNOW, IT MADE ME THINK, WHEN
I HEARD A COLLEAGUE TALKING
ABOUT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY,
IT'S A LITTLE LIKE LISTENING TO
BERNIE MADOFF TALKING ABOUT
TOUGH ACCOUNTING RULES.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE TALKING
OR HEARING FROM BRETT FAVRE
ABOUT PROMISING HE'LL RETIRE.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE LISTENING
TO SAOEUPL CO-- SIMON COWELL
DELIVERING A LECTU THAT PEOPLE
SHOULDN'T UTILIZE SARCASM
BECAUSE AFTER THESE UNFUNDED
GIVEAWAYS MY COLLEAGUES PUT
TOGETHER A REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER
TO ATTACK THE AMERICAN WORKER IN
A COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT MANNER.
SO, I WOULD SAY I HAVE A
DIFFERENT OUTLOOK.
I THINK MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES
HERE HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTLOOK
THAT WE SHOULD BE HERE TO MAKE
AMERICA WORK FOR WORKING AMERICANS.
AND THAT MEANS THAT WHEN THEY'RE
HURTING, WE'RE GOING TO ASSIST
THEM WITH UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
WE'RE GOING TO HELP WITH THE
KPWA EXTENSION.
WE'RE GOING -- WITH THE COBRA
EXTENSION.
WE'RE GOING TO HELP WITH LOANS
TO SMALL BUSINESS AND WE'RE
GOING TO HELP SENIORS BY FIXING
THAT MEDICARE PROVISION.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THE
HAMMER TO THOSE PROGRAMS.
WE'RE GOING TO ASSIST OUR
WORKING FAMILIES.
BECAUSE OF THIS REPUBLICAN
FILIBUSTER, NEARLY 1.2 MILLION
AMERICANS WILL LOSEHEIR BENEFITS.
AND BY JUNE, THIS NUMBER WILL
GROW TO 5 MILLION UNEMPLOYED
WORKERS WILLE LEFT WITHOUT
VITAL BENEFITS IF CONGRESS
DOESN'T ACT.
NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT SMALL
BUSINESS PROVISION.
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE BEEN
HURT BECAUSE OF CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION'S GENERAL
BUSINESS LOAN EXPIRED YESTERDAY.
MY COLLEAGUE FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
WAS JUST UP SPEAKING ON THE
FLOOR ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
HELPING SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND I SAY TO HIM, AND YOUR --
END YOUR REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER
ATTACKING SMALL BUSINESS IN
AMERICA.
COME TO THIS FLOOR AND SAY
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I'M GOING TO
STAND WITH OUR WORKERS AND OUR
SENIORS AND OUR SMALL BUSINESS.
SO IT IS TIME TO END THE
POLITICAL POSTURING, TAKE OUR
EYES OFF NOVEMBER AND PUT OUR
EYES ON THE CHALLENGE OF
AMERICAN FAMILIES AND PASS THIS
LEGISLATION RIGHT AWAY.
TH
SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MS. STABENOW: THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
I WANT TO THANK, FIRST OF ALL,
THE SENATOR FROM OREGON FOR
THOSE VERY PASSIONATE COMMENTS.
WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
JOIN TOGETHER IN A NUMBER OF
FORUMS TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT THE
IMPOANCE OF CREATING JOBS IN
AMERICA AND OF HELPING THOSE
THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN
WHO HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ELOQUENCE AND PASSION AGAIN THIS EVENING.
I COME TO THE FLOOR TO ALSO ADD
MY VOICE TO WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE
AN OUTRAGEOUS SITUATION.
I SAY THIS WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
TO MY FRIEND FROM KENTUCKY.
WE WORK TOGETHER ON A NUMBER OF
ISSUES.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
TO DO THAT.
BUT ON THIS, I BELIEVE THAT WHAT
IS BEING DONE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
IT IS OUTRAGEOUS, AND WE ARE IN
A SITUATION RIGHT NOW WHERE
NEARLY 135,000 MICHIGAN
RESINTS WILLOSE THE
UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE THAT
THEY NEED BY THE END OF THIS
MONTH IF WE DON'T TAKE ACTION
IMMEDIATELY.
THAT'S JUST IN ONE MONTH,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HIT BY
NOTHING LESS THAN AN ECONOMIC TSUNAMI.
WE HAVE A SENSE OF URGENCY WHEN
AN EARTHQUAKE HAPPENS, WHEN
STORMS COME AND THE FLOODS COME.
WELL, TO FAMILIES ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY, THE STORMS HAVE COME.
THEY HAVE BEEN HERE, IN OUR CASE FOR YEARS.
AND WE ND TO HAVE THE SAME
SENSE OF URGENCY AS ANY OTHER
DISASTER WOULD CALL US TO IN
FOCUSING NOT ONLY ON HELPING
PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR JOB
BUT IN CREATING JOBS.
AND I'M PROUD TO BE A PART OF A
CAUCUS THAT HAS PLACED JOBS AT
THE FOREFRONT AND A PRESIDENT
WHO HAS LAST YEAR, STARTING
RIGHT OUT AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE YEAR WITH A JOBS BILL, A
RECOVERY ACT AND MOVING ON, AND
THIS YEAR AN ENTIRE JOBS AGENDA.
BUT THE REALITY IS THAT UNTIL
JOBS ARE CREATED, WE HAVE
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN THIS
COUNTRY WHO PLAYED BY THE RULES
ALL THEIR LIVES, PAID THEIR
TAXES, CARE ABOUT THEIR
FAMILIES, GIVE BACK TO THEIR COMMUNITIES.
AND THEIR ONLY SIN IS THE FACT
THAT THEY LOST THEIR JOB THROUGH
NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.
THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP A ROOF
OVER THEIR HEAD, KEEP FOOD ON
THE TABLE, KEEP THE HEAT ON,
TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR
KIDS HAVE WHAT THEY NEED.
MOST OF THEM ARE RECEIVING $200
OR $300 A WEEK JUST TO TRY TO
HOLD IT TOCK WHILE THEY GO BACK
AND GO TO JOB TRAING,HILE
THEY LOOK EVERY DAY FOR WORK.
PEOPLE WANT TO WORK.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
DON'T WANT TO WORK.
PEOPLE WANT TO WORK.
WE HAVE SIX PEOPLE APPLYING FOR
EVERY ONE JOB IN AMERICA.
SO WHILE WE FOCUS ON JOB
CREATION AND PARTNERING WITH THE
PRIVATE SECTOR TO MAKE THAT
HAPPEN, WE HAVE MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE IN AMERICA WHO DO NOT
UNDERSTAND HOW SOMETHING LIKE
MERELY EXTENDI UNEMPLOYMENT
NEFITS COULD BE HELD UP.
LAST NIGHT THE UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS STOPPED THAT PROCESS
NOW, THIS MONTH; PEOPLE GETTING
NOTICES, AFRAID ABOUT WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEMSELVES
AND THEIR FAMILIES.
AND WHAT WE HAVE IS A MISUSE OF
THE RULES, IN MY JUDGMENT.
WHAT WE HAVE IS AN OBJECTION,
AND IT'S ONE -- WE'VE BEEN DOWN
HERE MANY TIMES.
WE'VE GOT THE CHARTS NOW.
WE'RE AT OVER 116 TIMES THIS
SESSION WHERE WE'VE SEEN
OBJECTIONS BRINGING TO A HALT
THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY,
BLOCKI THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
OF VOTING, OF SIMPLY VOTING AND
BEING ABLE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS AND
MOVE THINGS FORWARD.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I RECEIVED AN
E-MAIL FROM A WOMAN IN LAVONIA,
MICHIGAN, WHO LOST HER JOB LAST YEAR.
SHE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO
BACK TO SCHOOL, TO GET NEW JOBS
SKILLS TO BECOME A REGISTERED
DIETITIAN.
BUT NOW SHE'S DOING THAT,
BECAUSE OF THIS OBSTRUCTION,
THIS WOMAN IS GOING TO LOSE THE
HELP THAT SHE NEEDS TO ALLOW HER
TO MAKE IT AND KEEP A ROOF OVER
HER HEAD WHILE SHE'S TURNING THE
CORNER AND GAINING NEW SKILLS TO
GET A NEW JOB.
THE RUG IS, FRANKLY, BEING
PULLEDUT FROM UNDER HER, AND I
THINK THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS.
SHE'S NOT ALONE.
AS I INDICATED BEFORE, WE HAVE
NEARLY 135,000 PEOPLE IN
MICHIGAN WHO WILL LOSE THE HELP
THAT THEY NEED UNDER
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BY THE END
OF THIS MONTH IF WE DON'T ACT,
AND ACT IMMEDIATELY.
I RECEIVED ANOTHER E-MAIL FROM A
WOMAN IN GREEN BUSH, MICHIGAN.
SHE AND HER HUSBAND BOT WORKED
AT THE SAME MANUFACTURING PLANT.
IT'S A COMMON STORY IN MICHIGAN.
THEY BOTH LOST THEIR JOBS.
SHE WRITES "WE'RE BOTH SEEKING
WORK AND SCHOOLING FOR NEW CAREERS.
WE'VE BOTH RECEIVED A LETTER
FROM THE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE
THAT OUR BENEFITS WILL END.
WE HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE OF
INCOME, AND WE FEAR WE WILL LOSE
OUR HOME."
THIS IS REAL FOR MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
MILLIONS OF MIDDLE-CLASS
FAMILIES WHO TSUNAMI THAT IN A
DISASTER, AN ECONOMIC DISASTER,
THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT, THAT THE
PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY WILL STE
UP TO HELP.
AND THAT'S WHAT UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS ARE ALL ABOUT.
SO IT'S TIME TO ACT.
IT'S TIME TO STOP BLOCKING
DEMOCRACY.
IF MY FRIEND FROM KENTUCKY HAS
AN AMENDMENT TO OFFER, OFFER IT,
DEBATE I VOTE IT.
VOTE.
BUT JUST BLOCKING US FROM
EXERCISING OUR RIGHT TO VOTE IS
NOT THE AMERICAN WAY.
THE AMERICAN WAY IS TO VOTE, TO
ACT, TO MAKE DECISIONS.
NOT TO BLOCK.
AND WE'VE SEEN WAY TOO MUCH OF
BLOCKING DEMOCRACY FROM OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN THIS
LAST MONTHS AND MONTHS.
NOW I ALSO WANT TO SPEAK TO
OTHER THINGS IN THIS BILL
BECAUSE, MADAM PRESIDENT, I FIND
IT INTERESTING THAT WITHIN HOURS
OF THE HEALTH CARE SUMMIT LAST
THURSDAY, THE BLOCKING OF THIS
BILL SHOWED US WHAT THE HEALTH
CARE PLAN IS BY REPUBLICANS.
CUT PEOPLE OFF OF HELP WITH
COBRA.
CUT DOCTORS' BENEFITS.
THAT CAME WITHIN HOURS OF THE
HEALTH CARE SUMMIT.
WE'RE NOW GETTING CALLS FROM
PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THEIR DOCTOR IS
GOING TO BE AVAILABLE.
SENIOR CITIZENS UNDER MEDICARE,
ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE
THEIR SAME DOCTOR BECAUSE OF THE
CUTS THAT WILL HAPPEN IF WE DO
NOT ACT IMMEDIATELY?
PEOPLE WHO ONE DAY LOST THEIR
JOB, NEXT DAY LOST THEIR HEALTH CARE.
WE'VE BE ABLE TO HELP THEM
THROUGH THE JOBS BILL THAT WE
PASSED LAST FEBRUARY, BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE
THROUGH WORK.
IT'S EXPENSIVE TO DO UNDER
SOMETHING CALLED COBRA, BUT
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO HELP THEM DO
THAT BY HELPING TO PAY IN A
SHORT-TERM BASIS FOR PART OF
THAT COST.
SO THE HEALTH CARE SUMMIT
HAPPENS ON THURSDAY.
HOURS LATER THERE'S AN OBJECTION
THAT WILL STOP HEALTH CARE FOR
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, AND STOP
THE ABILITY FOR DOCTORS TO BE
REIMBURSED AT A FAIR
REIMRSEMENT TO BE ABLE TO CARE
FOR THEIR PATNTS.
THIS IS, IN MY JUDGMENT, AN
ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS SITUATION,
AND IT HAS TO STOP.
I WANT TO THANK OUR CHAIRMAN OF
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR HIS
WORK AND ADVOCACY IN BEING HERE
ON THE FLOOR CALLING FOR US TO
VOTE.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT PEOPLE AROUND
THE COUNTRY WILL SPEAK OUT
LOUDLY BETWEEN TONIGHT AND
TOMORROW AND THAT WE WILL BE
ABLE TO COME TO THE FLOOR AND
STOP WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY
BLOCKING THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
AND BLOCKING OUR ABILITY TO
VOTE, TO MAKE DECISIONS, AND TO
MOVE FORWARD
WE HAVE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS
THAT ARE COUNTING ON US TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN
REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES, NOT
POLITICAL GAMES, NOT ALL THE
PARTISANSHIP.
BUT REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES EVERY
DAY THAT ARE GOING TO GET UP
TOMORROW MORNING AND SAY, OKAY,
WHAT DO I DO NOW?
HOW AM I GOING TO KP MY ROOF
OVER MY HEAD, AND HOW AM I GOING
TO CONTINUE TO GO TO SCHOOL TO
GET THAT NEW SKILL THAT I NEED?
HOW AM I GOING TO PUT FOOD ON
THE TABLE FOR MY FAMILY?
THAT'S WHAT'S AFFECTING PEOPLE
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
AND THE FINAL THING I WOULD SAY
IS THAT WE HAVE, IN ADDITION TO
PEOPLE, MILLIONS WHO HAVE LOST
EIR JOBS AND ARE ON
UNEMPLOYMENT, WE HAVE MILLIONS
OF OTHERS WHO ARE ONE PAYCHECK
AWAY FROM BEING IN THE VERY SAME SITUATION.
PEOPLE THAT COULD BE SPENDING IN
THE ECONOMY NOW TO BE ABLE TO
HELP MOVE THINGS FORWARD, WHO
ARE AFRAID OF WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
AND PART OF THAT FEAR IS NOT
ONLY WILL THEY HAVE A JOB, BUT
WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON'T?
AND WHAT IS THE MESSAGE THAT IS
SENT IF WE DON'T MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT WE WILL BE THERE FOR THEM
IF THAT HAPPENS, AND THEY WILL
BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE
TO HAVE THE BASICS TO KEEP THEIR
FAMILY GOING?
I WOULD STRONGLY URGE THAT WE DO
EVERYTHING POSSIBLE.
I KNOW THAT WE WILL -- TO STOP
THIS OBSTRUCTION, TO ALLOW THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS TO GO
FORWARD, TO ALLOW US TO VOTE, TO
SOLVE PROBLEMS, TO MOVE THIS
BILL FORWARD AND SEND A VERY
STRONG MESSAGE THAT WE
UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING TO
MILLIONS OF FAMILIES IN THIS
COUNTRWHO HAVE FACED A
DISASTER OF ECONOMIC -- OF EPIC
PROPORTIONS.
THAT IS TRULY AS MUCH A DISASTER
AS ANYTHING ELSE ANY COMNITY
HAS EVER FELT IN TERMS OF LOSING
THEIR JOB AND FIGHTING AND
WORKING TO GET ANOTHER ONE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. BAUCUS: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. BAUCUS: MADAM PRESIDENT,
WE ARE HERE TO DO THE PEOPLE'S
BUSINESS.
FOLKS IN OUR HOME STATES ELECTED
US TOO WHAT'S RIGHT.
MOST FOLKS DON'T CARE TOO MUCH
ABOUT THE PROCESS AS LONG AS WE
GET OUR JOB DONE AND SO LONG AS
IT'S REASONABLE, SO THAT
BOUNDARIES OF REASONABLENESS AND
AS LONG AS THEY THINK THAT WE
GIVE THE SUBJECT CONSIDERABLE
THOUGHT.
I THINK IF WE AGREE IT'S TRUE,
AND I THINK IT'S LARGELY TRUE, I
THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD THINK
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND PASS
THAT STIMULUS THING YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT BACK THERE.
IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
PEOPLE NEED TO COLLECT
UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS.
THEY NEED HEALTH INSURANCE.
SOME OF THESE TAX PROVISIONS
NEED TO BE CONTINUED.
OTHERWISE,
MADAM PRESIDENT, THIS A JOB
KILLER, ACTUALLY, THAT THE OTHER
SIDE'S TAKEN.
AS IT JOB DESTROYER NOT TO
CONTINUE THESE PROVISIONS
ACTUALLY DESTROYS JOBS.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE THINK WE
WANT TO.
MADAM PRESIDENT, ON ANOTHER
MATTER, THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH
DAKOTA, PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO
MAKE A SERIES OF TAX CUTS FOR
SMALL BUSINESS.
I MIGHT SAY THAT SOME OF THESE
TAX CUTS, THE ONES THAT HE
PROPOSES, ACTUALLY HAS MERIT.
WE IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
HOPES TO ADDRESS TAX CUTS IN THE WRITEUP.
THIS IS PART OF THE JOBS AGENDA.
IT IS ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIONO
HELP CREATE JOBS, PRESERVE JOBS,
AND HELP THE RECOVERY COME ALONG
A LITTLE MORE QUICKLY.
THE -- WHAT THE SENATOR FROM
SOUTH DAKOTA PROPOSES IS ANOTHER MATTER.
THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
SEEKS TO PAY FOR HIS AMENDMENT
BY CUTTING FUNDING FROM THE
RECOVERY ACT.
AND THAT IDEA DOES NOT HAVE MUCH
MERIT IN THIS SENATOR'S
JUDGMENT.
THE LAST THING WE SHOULD DO IS
TO CUT THE RECOVERY ACT.
THE NONPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE, THE INDEPENDENT
ORGANIZATION THAT WE RELY UPON
AROUND HERE, BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE IN BOTH BODIES, SAY THAT'S
THE RECOVERY ACT IS WORKING.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
SAYS THAT IN THE THIRD QUARTER
OF LAST YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
RECOVERY ACT COST BETWEE
BETWEEN $600,000 AND $1.00 --
1.6 MILLION PEOPLE WHO HAVE JOBS.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S WORKING TO
HE ME.
THE C.B.O. ALSO SAID THAT THESE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE JOBS WHO WOULD
NOT OTHERWISE HAVE HAD JOBS.
I, THEREFORE, THINK THAT WE
SHOULD NOT CUT BACK ON THE
RECOVERY ACT, RATHER, WE SHOULD
LET IT WORK ITS ALSO.
THE INVESTMENT THAT'S THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA SEEKS
TO CUT ARE LARGELY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND
THUS I WILL REFER TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, WHO I THINK AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME WILL HAVE QUITE
A BIT TO SAY ABOUT THIS THUNE
AMENDMENT.
AN HE'LL SPEAK TO IT AT GREATER
LENGTD AND I SUGGEST -- LENGTD
AND I -- LEBTSD AND I SUGGEST
THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR
A
THIS MATTER.
MADAM PRESIDENT, ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATO
MR.
QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. BAUCUS: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT WHEN THE SENATE
COMPLETES ITS BUSINESS TODAY
THAT ITDJOURN UNTIL 10:00 A.M.
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, FOLLOW THE
PRAYER AND PLEDGE, THE JOURNAL
OF PROCEEDINGS BE APPROVED TO
DATE, THE MORNING HOUR BE DEEMED
EXPIRED, THE TIME FOR THE TWO
LEADERS BE RESERVED FOR THEIR
USE LATER IN THE DAY AND THE
SENATE PROCEED TO A PERIOD OF
MORNING BUSINESS FOR ONE HOUR
WITH THE TIME EQUALLY DIVIDE AND
CONTROLLED BETWEEN THE TWO
LEADERS OR THEIR DESIGNEES WITH
THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLING THE
FIRST HALF AND THE MAJORITY
CONTROLLING THE FINAL HALF.
THAT FOLLOWING MORNING BUSINESS,
THE SENATE PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE
SESSION TO CONSIDER THE
NOMINATION OF BARBARA KEENAN AS
PROVIDED UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER.
UNDER A PREVIOUS ORDER THE TIME
FOLLOWING MORNING BUSINESS AND
UNTIL 12:15 P.M. BE EQUALLY
DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BETWEEN
SENATORS LEAHY AND SESSIONS OR
THEIR DESIGNEES.
AT 12:15 P.M. THE SENATE WILL
PROCEED TO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON
THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON
THE NOMINATION OF BARBARA KEENAN
TO BE THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS
TO COME BEFORE THIS SENATE, I
ASK THAT IT ADJOURN UNDER A
PREVIOUS ORDER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE