[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 161 (Monday, November 2, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10979-S10985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3548, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3548) to amend the Supplemental Appropriations 
     Act, 2008, to provide for the temporary availability of 
     certain additional emergency unemployment compensation, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Baucus/Reid) amendment No. 2712, in the nature of 
     a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 2713 (to amendment No. 2712), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2714 (to amendment No. 2713), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2715 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2712), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 2716 (to amendment No. 2715), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, 
     with instructions to report back forthwith, with Reid 
     amendment No. 2717, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2718 (to the instructions (amendment No. 
     2717) of the motion to commit), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2719 (to amendment No. 2718), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Illinois such 
time as he desires.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Finance 
Committee. He will be discussing a matter of grave importance in 
Illinois and all across the Nation, the extension of unemployment 
benefits, which we have been trying to bring to the floor for 27 days. 
Our Republican colleagues have opposed it, stopped it, delayed it, and 
demanded every vote they can think of to stop the extension of 
unemployment benefits, even though there are millions of Americans out 
of work and desperately looking for jobs. Many of them have exhausted 
their family savings trying to avoid foreclosure, to feed their 
families, and they need these benefits desperately. But we have been 
held up time and again because several Republican Senators have 
insisted on amendments that have nothing to do with unemployment and 
nothing or little to do with the economy. I hope today we can break 
through that. I hope we can find bipartisan support to extend the 
unemployment benefits.

  I thank the Senator from Montana for yielding a moment to me.
  I wish to respond to my friend--and he is my friend--my colleague, 
Senator Grassley of Iowa, my neighboring State. He and I have worked on 
many things together. Our political views differ, that is for sure, but 
I believe he is a hard-working, good representative of his State. In 
fact, when I said that once on the floor, he ended up quoting it in one 
of his campaign brochures, which got me in trouble with the Iowa 
Democratic Party. But so be it. I like him, and I hope he feels the 
same.
  We have worked together on many issues, but for the Senator from Iowa 
to come to the floor and be critical of a bill saying it is too many 
pages--that is what I have heard over and over again from the 
Republican side. They have argued that health care reform in the Senate 
is going to run over 1,000 pages in length, and they say it over and 
over again.
  I don't know historically what major legislation considered on the 
Senate floor is comprised in the number of pages, but we have had some 
pretty big bills in the past--in the Senate Appropriations Committee 
and other places--because those bills take on big issues and big 
subjects. Nothing is bigger than our health care system in America. To 
talk about 1,000 pages really does not do justice to the enormity of 
the task we are tackling, to try to bring costs under control so people 
and businesses across America have secure and stable health care.
  We ought to make sure as well that the health insurance companies 
stop exploiting those who have health insurance policies. We want to 
eliminate preexisting conditions as an exclusion. We want to make sure 
when you are sick, your health care will be there; that when you change 
jobs, you can take your health care with you. We want to make sure your 
children are covered for longer periods of time than they are now under 
current law. It takes a few pages to put that together. You cannot put 
it in a few sentences if you want to change the law and make it work.
  So to come here and criticize the bill which has not been presented 
in a final form as I stand here I don't think makes a very strong case.
  I asked the other day for the Republicans to tell me how many pages 
their health care reform bill is. The Senator from Tennessee said they 
were working on several different bills but they would be shorter in 
length. The closest we can come to the Republican health care reform 
bill I hold in my hand. It is 2\1/2\ pages long, and it consists of a 
press release from Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader. That 
is as far as the Republicans have gone in writing health care reform 
for the American people. It is a press release. In this press release, 
there are no positive things they stand for, only criticisms of our 
efforts to write a health care reform bill.
  To my right is the Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee. He has spent the better part of a year--at least a 
year--trying to put together a health care bill. He has engaged others 
in trying to bring them into this conversation. Unfortunately, at the 
end of the day, only one Republican Senator, Ms. Snowe of Maine, joined 
Senate Democrats in voting for health care reforms. So far, she is the 
only Republican in the House or the Senate who has voted for health 
care reform even at the committee level. The Republicans have been 
standing on the sidelines while we have been trying our best to put 
together good legislation which will bring the cost of health care 
down, protect those beneficiaries who are denied coverage under their 
health insurance plans, and extend the reach of competition and choice 
so more Americans have places to turn. When the Senator from Iowa 
complains about so-called rationing, I think he overstates the case.
  We know there is too much money spent on the current health care 
system. There is duplication, waste, and fraud, and we want it to come 
to an end. If Medicare is going to be on sound financial footing, if we 
can say to seniors today and for years to come that they can count on 
Medicare being there when they need it, we have to cut out unnecessary 
spending.
  One of the areas in that particular program that is highly 
controversial is called Medicare Advantage.
  Medicare Advantage was proposed by the insurance industry. They said 
years ago: The government has tried to run Medicare for 40 years, but 
they haven't done a very good job. Why don't you let the private 
insurance companies offer a Medicare plan. We will show you what you 
can do when you use the genius of the insurance industry in America to 
offer Medicare.
  We took them up on their challenge and said to them: Present the 
insurance policy to seniors that will provide Medicare benefits.

[[Page S10980]]

  They called it Medicare Advantage, and there are literally millions 
of these policies all across America today.
  We stepped back after a number of years and said: How did they do?
  They challenged the government and said: We can do it better.
  Some did. But we also found Medicare Advantage plans that were 
overcharging the government 14 percent more than the cost of basic 
Medicare the government offered. So instead of bringing the costs down, 
the costs went up 14 percent. We were creating a subsidy to private 
health insurance companies to offer Medicare plans. That is a waste of 
dollars. The health insurance industry, although they used those 
dollars to their own benefit, are not helping Medicare, and they are 
not helping the taxpayers of this country.
  The recent news about profits of the insurance giant Humana explains 
why the major health insurance companies and most of the Republicans 
oppose health care reform and why they have gone to such great lengths 
to defeat our efforts.
  Last quarter, Humana saw their profits rise 65 percent, mostly due to 
the participation in the Medicare Advantage Program, the subsidies the 
taxpayers are sending them. This one company made $301 million in 
profits in the last 3 months alone, and they did it, by their own 
admission, on the backs of Medicare and Medicare Advantage 
beneficiaries.
  The insurance industry is making billions by gaming the Medicare 
Advantage system at the expense of seniors' traditional Medicare 
coverage, and taxpayers are picking up the bill. For some reason, the 
Senate Republicans feel the need to defend them at every turn. When you 
hear the opposition to health care reform, it is inspired not 
exclusively but to a great extent by the opposition to health care 
reform from the private health insurance companies.
  Why are these companies opposed to health care reform? Because it 
means competition. A public option plan that is available around this 
country will create in many parts in our country the first real 
competition for health insurance. It means consumers have a fighting 
chance to get a lower monthly premium because there will be a not-for-
profit company there offering health insurance benefits. It is a 
company that is not focused on the bottom line of showing profits for 
shareholders. It will be a company that is not marketing and spending a 
fortune on advertising. It will be a company that is not spending so 
much on administrative help to say no to those covered by insurance 
policies. This will lower costs, and this is what drives the private 
health insurance companies wild.
  Secondly, they hate to hear two words--McCarran-Ferguson--because 
they refer to a law passed by Congress 64 years ago which exempted the 
insurance industry and health insurance industry from antitrust 
regulations. Currently under the law, health insurance companies can 
legally conspire and collude to establish the premiums they will charge 
all across America. There is no real competition. When they set 
premiums, they have sat down and agreed on what they are going to 
charge. And they can allocate markets. They can make sure they dominate 
markets so there is no real choice there for consumers.
  I think McCarran-Ferguson is outdated. It is a travesty under the law 
to allow it continue, and it should end. You will not hear one single 
Republican Senator say that--at least I haven't yet. I hope they join 
us in calling for real health insurance reform, in ending McCarran-
Ferguson protection and exclusions based on preexisting conditions, for 
example, and giving real choice to consumers across this country. 
Instead, what we hear from them is the language of the health insurance 
companies opposing fundamental health insurance reform.
  The American people have run out of patience with those who tolerate 
and encourage the current system--a system that fails us, as premiums 
go up even as wages do not; a system that, unfortunately, is not 
offering health care protection for millions of Americans working for 
businesses that even last year offered health insurance protection but 
they just cannot afford to do it anymore.
  We are going to keep pressing forward. The Republican plan consists 
of a three-page press release. It will take more than that to bring 
meaningful change to health care in America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are now on the provision to extend 
unemployment insurance, as well as extend the home buyers tax credit, 
as well as expand the net operating loss provision. I wish to speak 
about that provision because I think it is so important that it pass.
  The British mathematical physicist Lord Kelvin once said:

       Until you can measure something and express it in numbers, 
     you have only the beginning of understanding.

  The numbers now measure the beginning of a recovery, and we are 
beginning to understand the depth of the great recession of 2008 and 
2009. It has been the longest recession since World War II. The numbers 
show that the American economy has been shrinking from the middle of 
last year to the middle of this year--shrinking. For January through 
March, it declined at a 6.4-percent annual rate. It has been the 
sharpest decline in 27 years. But last week, the Commerce Department 
reported that from July through September, the numbers show the economy 
grew at a 3.5-percent annual rate.
  When economists talk about the end of a recession, however, they mean 
the time when things stop getting worse, not necessarily getting better 
but stop getting worse. For most Americans, it will still be some time 
before things start getting better. Even though the economists can 
measure some improvement and express it in the numbers, we still have 
only the beginning of a recovery.
  Economists say that the stimulus package we passed last winter is 
part of the reason for the growth. On Friday, the Obama administration 
reported that the stimulus package has created or saved more than 
640,000 jobs so far. Economists also credit consumer spending for the 
latest growth. In particular, economists credit automobile and housing 
sales. From July through September, housing sales rose at a 23.4-
percent annual rate. The home buyer tax credit played a big part in 
that growth. That is one of the provisions we are considering in the 
amendment before us today.
  It will still take some time for the job picture to improve. Job 
growth turns around more slowly than the economy as a whole. Economists 
call this a lagging indicator. Last month, the jobless rate reached 9.8 
percent. That is the highest rate in 26 years. Economists expect this 
week's report will show that unemployment rose again this month. 
Economists will say jobs will still be hard to find well into 2010.
  Last week, the Labor Department reported that 530,000 people filed 
their first jobless claims. That number has been heading down, but at 
more than half a million people, it is still far too high.
  We still need to do more to help the economy recover, and we still 
need to do more to help Americans get and keep good jobs. The extension 
of unemployment benefits and the tax relief in this legislation are 
part of the answer. I hope that today the Senate can act to bring 
relief to millions of Americans waiting for this important legislation. 
Unemployment insurance is a vital lifeline for millions of Americans. 
It is a lifeline many families and communities continue to need just to 
keep afloat.
  Along with the rest of the Nation, my State of Montana has felt the 
effects of this great recession. Our unemployment rate is up to 6.5 
percent, and although it is not as high as the national average, many 
in my State are suffering. This is particularly true in the Montana 
mining, lumber, and construction industries. The national demand for 
lumber is expected to fall below 30 million board feet this year. The 
amount of lumber used to build new homes is expected to drop from 28 
billion board feet to about 5 billion board feet, and that hits Montana 
very hard.
  When we help unemployed Americans, let's remember, we help their 
communities. When we help our unemployed neighbors, we also help keep 
open the neighborhood grocery store and the neighborhood gas station.

[[Page S10981]]

When we help our unemployed neighbors, we also help our economy and 
ourselves.
  I am gratified that a majority of my colleagues appear to agree that 
it is important to extend unemployment benefits. I am also hopeful that 
we will deliver those benefits very soon.
  The amendment before us today also includes an extension of the 
Federal unemployment tax. This extension covers the cost of the 
extended unemployment benefits. The Federal unemployment tax has been 
extended every year since 1982.
  The amendment before us today would also provide tax relief to help 
our economy recover. The pending amendment would extend the home buyers 
tax credit and provide employers important tax relief.
  The home buyers tax credit has helped millions of Americans to buy 
their first homes. The tax credit has boosted demand and it has helped 
reduce the inventory of unsold homes. This, in turn, has helped to 
bring much needed stability to the housing market.
  But in the housing market, like the labor market, we are not yet in 
the clear. The housing market is still recovering from the implosion of 
the subprime mortgage market. In many parts of the country, housing 
prices remain at record lows and foreclosures continue as Americans 
continue to lose their jobs and the means to pay their mortgages.
  That is why it is important to extend the home buyers tax credit. In 
the amendment before us today, we have raised the income limitations to 
open the tax credit to millions more who are thinking about buying a 
home. Our amendment also extends the credit to include home buyers 
seeking to move up to a new home--not just for first-time home buyers 
but those who want to move up to a new home. For those who have lived 
in their current residence for 5 years or more, they would be eligible 
for a $6,500 tax credit if they want to buy a new home. It is $8,000 
for first-time buyers and a $6,500 tax credit for those who want to 
move up--for those who have stayed in their current residence for 5 
years.
  The home buyers tax credit would be extended to April 30 of next 
year. We also include new binding contract language. This language 
would effectively make the credit available until June 30 of next year, 
as long as the home buyer entered into a binding contract before May 1.
  I think this temporary extension of the home buyers tax credit is the 
right approach. It would provide a much needed stimulus of the housing 
market, and it would remain fiscally responsible.
  Our amendment also would add net operating loss relief for 
businesses. Under current law, small businesses are able to carry back 
their 2008 losses to profitable years for up to 5 years. Senator Snowe 
and I worked together on a bill that would expand this provision to all 
businesses. The amendment before us today includes that legislation. It 
would provide all businesses with the ability to carry back losses from 
2008 and 2009 for 5 years--not just 2 years but 5 years. That is 3 
years longer than under current law. This type of relief will help 
small and large businesses alike.
  This tax relief is paid for also in a fiscally responsible manner. 
Our amendment would delay a tax break for multinational corporations, 
many of which would benefit from the expanded NOL relief. We also 
included increases and penalties for taxpayers who fail to timely file 
partners and S corporation returns. We believe these provisions will 
increase compliance with the tax law and also help us close the tax 
gap.
  This package provides timely and essential relief to American 
families and businesses that have been affected by our economy. Our 
amendment would extend benefits to the unemployed Americans who are 
hurting the most and would help home buyers to buy homes. It would 
provide support for all businesses that are having trouble meeting 
their payroll in these tough economic times.
  This amendment would help to speed the recovery from the great 
recession. It would help to improve our economy, and it would help the 
American people. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and 
vote for cloture on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, a few moments ago, the Senator from 
Illinois was on the Senate floor essentially responding to comments 
that had been made by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, regarding 
the health care debate and the legislation that has been reported out 
of the House and that is going to be voted on this week--legislation 
which is 1,990 pages long.
  The Senator from Illinois asked: Where is the Republican bill, if 
they do not like the Democratic bill? Well, there are a number of 
Republican bills out there, but I would say to the Senator from 
Illinois or anybody on the Democratic side who is waiting for 
Republicans to produce a 2,000-page bill, it is not likely to happen. 
We don't believe legislating with 2,000-page bills makes a lot of sense 
when we are talking about one-sixth of the American economy. We believe 
it makes a lot more sense to approach that in a way that fixes and 
addresses the problems that exist with the health care economy in this 
country today in a step-by-step way, not with a huge, massive expansion 
of the Federal Government in Washington, DC.
  The bill that came out of the House last week--at least according to 
the CBO--was a $1 trillion increase in spending. But that is before it 
is fully implemented. When it is fully implemented, it will be $2 
trillion in additional spending--a massive expansion of the Federal 
Government in Washington, DC, with massive tax increases on small 
businesses and working families in this country, massive cuts to 
Medicare Programs upon which seniors across this country rely and 
depend. And that doesn't even include what happens if those cuts in 
Medicare don't happen. And we have reason to believe based on 
historical patterns they would not happen. Then it probably gets 
borrowed, and we add more trillions of dollars to the Federal debt--a 
debt which is already growing at $1 trillion a year every year for the 
next 10 years.
  So we have a massive expansion of government--a $2 trillion expansion 
of government, massive tax increases, massive cuts to Medicare, and 
perhaps massive borrowing and additions to the Federal debt. That is 
what happens with the 2,000-page bill which is being proposed by the 
Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives.
  So if the Senator from Illinois or anybody on the other side is 
waiting for Republicans to produce a 2,000-page bill that expands the 
government by $2 trillion and raises taxes on small businesses--which 
are the economic engine of our economy and that will create the jobs 
and get us back on a path toward recovery--I would suggest they are 
going to be waiting a very long time.
  That isn't to say for 1 minute that there aren't lots of ideas that 
Republicans are putting forward that will help drive the cost of health 
care down--contrary to the big government schemes put forward by the 
other side which, in addition to raising taxes, cutting Medicare, and 
borrowing more--if you can believe this--increases the cost of health 
care by raising premiums for everybody who currently has health 
insurance in this country.
  So the 2,000-page bill isn't coming from us. We have a lot of great 
ideas that we will have an opportunity to debate and amendments we can 
offer, if and when we get on this bill. But the 2,000-page bills--the 
massive expansion of the Federal Government in Washington, DC--is not 
the way we believe we should fix and address the health care economy.
  That brings me to my point because in contrast to a 1,990-page bill 
some are calling reform--which doesn't reform but certainly wrecks one-
sixth of the American economy--I have a simple one-page amendment. It 
is four lines long. I would like to have the opportunity to offer it to 
the underlying legislation that is a matter of debate on the 
unemployment insurance extension, which I think most people on both 
sides of this aisle support. I think both Republicans and Democrats in 
the Senate believe it makes sense for us to extend unemployment 
benefits coverage to people who are losing it, and the underlying bill 
would do that by 14 weeks.
  We also believe when a bill comes before the Senate, under the 
historical practices of the Senate, typically it is

[[Page S10982]]

open to amendment. That is what makes the Senate different from the 
House of Representatives. Our Founders, in their infinite wisdom, 
conceived of two institutions--one, the House of Representatives; two, 
the Senate. The Senate has a more deliberative role. In doing so, it 
allows for open consideration and debate and votes on amendments.
  What has happened today is that the majority leader has decided to 
fill the tree; in other words, not to allow votes on any amendments. So 
my one-page amendment, which is very simple and straightforward, isn't 
going to get voted on.
  Mr. President, all my amendment does is end, on December 31 of this 
year, TARP. If the Congress doesn't take action, the Treasury Secretary 
can extend TARP. What is important to note about that is TARP has over 
$200 billion that hasn't been spent, and with payments that have come 
back into that fund, over $300 billion in funds that are unexpended. If 
we don't spend those--and it doesn't become a political slush fund to 
be spent on other priorities the Federal Government in Washington comes 
up with--that goes to pay down the Federal debt.

  I can't think of anything more important now than trying to pay down 
the Federal debt. If we are worrying about trying to help the economy 
recover and helping taxpayers, let's take the unobligated balance in 
the TARP fund, end that program at the end of the year, and use those 
proceeds to apply to the Federal debt so we can start making a dent in 
these massive deficits and this massive debt building in Washington, 
DC.
  So that is all my amendment does. It just ends TARP at the end of the 
year. I think it is significant that since Congress created TARP, 
Congress ought to have a say in whether it gets extended. If we are 
going to have that say, it has to happen between now and the end of the 
year.
  I couldn't find many opportunities between now and the end of the 
year to get this amendment offered, and as we had this piece of 
legislation moving through the Senate, the sort of natural inclination 
of this institution is to allow for amendments to be considered. So I 
offered that amendment so that Congress can be on the record as to 
whether we think TARP ought to be extended or whether it ought to be 
ended and those unobligated balances be used to pay down the Federal 
debt, which, as I said, is growing at $1 trillion a year for the next 
10 years.
  So I think it is a very straightforward, simple amendment, and simple 
enough that it can be put on one page. It doesn't take 1,990 pages to 
explain this. That is all it does. I think it is important to the 
taxpayers that we have this vote and that the Senate be on the record, 
that we be heard with respect to whether we think TARP ought to be 
extended or not, since Congress created TARP a year ago to bring 
stabilization to the financial services industry of this country.
  That having been accomplished, it seems to me the next step ought to 
be to focus on getting the Federal debt under control and paying down 
the debt. We can do that by taking those unexpended balances and the 
unobligated balances in TARP and put those toward the Federal debt.
  What is being done today is filling the tree and preventing us from 
having votes in the Senate. It has been done before; it is not like 
this is entirely new. But it is important to bear in mind what my 
colleagues on the other side have said in the past when it was done 
back when the Republicans were in charge of the Senate. I want to quote 
what some of the Democrats who are in leadership positions in the 
Senate today said back then.
  This is in February of 2006.

       This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic 
     nature of the Senate.

  That was Senator Harry Reid. 

       This is a bad way, in my opinion, to run the Senate.

  Harry Reid in March of 2006.

       I have a right, under the procedures of the Senate, to 
     offer this amendment. I should have the right to offer it at 
     the moment, but I am not because there is--I guess the word 
     ``obstruction'' is to be used--obstruction at the moment is 
     the tree is filled so that no one can offer an amendment.

  That was Senator Byron Dorgan back in February 2006.

       If you don't want to cast controversial votes, don't run 
     for the Senate. That is what this is all about. You have to 
     face the music and face the voters.

  That was the Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, back in May of 2006.
  Those are just a few examples of what my colleagues on the other side 
have said about the very practice that is being employed by the leader 
today to prevent Republicans from offering amendments. Those are 
statements, as I said, made by Members of the now majority back when 
they were in the minority.
  So we are going to have a cloture vote at 5 o'clock--in a few 
minutes--on whether to proceed to this substitute that is pending 
before us and whether we are going to allow this practice of filling 
the amendment tree to be used to prevent not only Members on the 
Republican side but Members on the Democratic side from offering 
amendments.
  Filling the tree is, as I said, not without precedent. It has been 
done. But it has been used rarely, historically, up until now. This 
will mark the 22nd time the Democratic leader has filled the amendment 
tree in an attempt to prevent an open and fair debate and a vote on 
amendments that are offered by the Senate.
  I served as a Member of the House of Representatives for three terms. 
There, the Rules Committee regulates what legislation comes to the 
floor, what amendments are made in order, how much time is allocated to 
each amendment, and it is an orderly process. That is the way the House 
was designed by our Founders.
  The Senate is a very different institution. The Senate is supposed to 
be the place where we have open debate, where we have a fair process 
that allows amendments to be heard and allows amendments to be voted 
on. I think we have been very reasonable in seeking to offer amendments 
to the underlying unemployment insurance bill. But as I said, Mr. 
President, the majority leader has chosen to ``fill the amendment 
tree'' and thereby prevent those amendments from being offered, those 
amendments from being debated, and those amendments from being voted 
on.
  Mr. President, I know the Senator from Nebraska is here as well. He 
also has an amendment he would like to offer that would offset in a 
different way the extension of the unemployment coverage to the people 
who are losing their coverage and should have their benefits extended 
by the additional 14 weeks. His is an amendment I also think should be 
voted on in the Senate.
  But I would like an opportunity to have this amendment voted on. It 
is one page. But we will not have that opportunity because the majority 
leader has opted to fill the amendment tree and prevent votes on those 
amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of points, not get 
into a knockdown, drag-out argument with my good friend from South 
Dakota.
  First, he is saying the Democratic side is limiting his opportunity 
to offer amendments. I want to remind my friend that actually there has 
been a lot of to and fro here. The majority leader has offered many 
other opportunities for your side to offer amendments, back and forth, 
but it has gotten to the point where the leader had to draw the line 
and say we have to get moving here, we have to get moving on extending 
unemployment insurance. The point is, there were many opportunities to 
offer amendments, both ways. We have to get moving here and get 
unemployment insurance extended.
  The other main point I think is important, just to raise it, 
basically suggesting this bill is not paid for. The Congressional 
Budget Office is the gold standard here. The Congressional Budget 
Office says at least the Finance Committee bill--we don't have another 
bill before us yet in the Senate, but the Finance Committee bill, the 
committee I chair--the CBO said the Finance Committee bill was deficit 
neutral for 10 years. That is their assessment. The CBO is the gold 
standard. They make these determinations. That is what they said.
  They also concluded that the Finance Committee bill would reduce the 
deficit in future years--reduce the deficit

[[Page S10983]]

in future years--and significantly reduce the deficit in subsequent 10-
year intervals.
  I must say, they also made another very interesting conclusion that 
rebuts the charge that this health care legislation is more government. 
The fact is, the Congressional Budget Office concluded, in a letter to 
our committee, the bill would ``reduce the Government's overall 
commitment to health care.''
  Reduce the Federal Government's overall commitment to health care--
not the same, not increase, but reduce. That is the Congressional 
Budget Office, in a letter: Reduce it. They gave a percentage. I think 
reduce it by a quarter or half percent GDP over time.
  We do not have legislation before us now because the leader is 
melding two bills together, the HELP Committee and Finance Committee 
bills. Then we have to go to conference and so on and so forth, but it 
would be my hope, be my expectation, be my interest, to see that 
continues, namely that the bill we pass out of this body is deficit 
neutral, when it comes back from conference it is deficit neutral over 
10 years, actually does reduce the budget deficit over time, and 
actually reduces the Federal Government's commitment to health care. 
That is, the Federal Government would be paying less in health care 
over time. I hope that will be the case and that will be my 
expectation. That is something I will strive for.
  I want to make it clear: not more government, less government--
according to CBO anyway. Also the proposal out of the Finance Committee 
was deficit neutral.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 4 minutes 12 seconds.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the amendment 
process with this unemployment bill. It is a very important point that 
we are making this afternoon.
  A few hours ago the very distinguished Member from Illinois, the 
senior Senator, got up and talked about how the unemployment insurance 
bill had been stalled by Republicans. He claimed that Republicans had 
been stalling it for 4 weeks. I rise today to respectfully disagree 
with that. We have come forward with a series of amendments. That is 
what the Senate is about. The other side has resisted votes on the 
amendments. So we started this process of trying to scale this back. We 
started out with eight amendments. The majority leader said, no, it 
could only be six. So Republicans got together and said we will come 
back with only three Republican amendments. Then, lo and behold, there 
was an objection to that.
  Let me repeat: We said eight, they said six, we said three, and they 
said no.
  It turns out there is one significant vote and it is the Senator from 
South Dakota who I think very appropriately and, I think, wisely put an 
amendment forward that would put TARP to an end at the end of the year.
  I am new to this process. But I have to tell you, in the first weeks 
I was here when we were voting on amendments I said to myself: This is 
the most remarkable institution. Somebody from the minority could 
literally come with an idea from a citizen back home, put that idea out 
here, and get a vote on that. There cannot be anything like this 
anywhere in the world.
  What is happening today, if I might point out, is that this is being 
thwarted by filling the tree. For those who are listening to this and 
saying what does this filling the tree mean, all it means is that the 
majority leader, who is in control of the process, simply puts all the 
amendments out there and there is no opportunity for anybody else to 
offer an amendment. It is called filling the tree.
  Look at what is happening. This is what does concern me as a Member 
of this great institution. If you go back through the history of 
majority leaders, you can see what has happened. Tom Daschle, when he 
was majority leader, I think used this once. Bill Frist, when he was 
majority leader, used this I think it was 12 times, if I remember 
correctly.
  Today, this will be 22 times that the majority leader has done this. 
What this graph means is if you have an amendment, as I do, that 
basically says I like what you are doing here. I don't have any problem 
with extending unemployment. I voted for the tax credit for homes. I 
voted, or I would vote, for the loss carryback. I talked about it on 
the campaign trail. But I have an amendment that says we should pay for 
this the way we did originally, with stimulus funding. That is simple. 
This is not complicated. All I am asking is for a vote on that. I think 
that makes a tremendous amount of sense.
  What I am saying is if we are going to act like a Senate, if we are 
going to give each Member the ability to make their case, then what we 
have to do is stop this and bring these issues to a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of the H.R. 3548, 
the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act.
  When the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released jobless figures 
for September, they showed an estimated 287,300 people unemployed in my 
home State of Arizona. The State's unemployment rate now stands at 9.1 
percent--the highest since 1983.
  And as if that weren't bad enough, the Bureau reports that Arizona's 
unemployment rate approaches 17.2 percent when the number of people who 
are underemployed are taken into account, along with those who are so 
discouraged that they have given up on their job search.
  The construction industry in Arizona has been particularly hard hit. 
A report in the East Valley Tribune earlier this week noted that while 
there were nearly 248,000 people employed in construction in June of 
2006, that number had declined to just 137,700 by September. That is a 
decline of 44 percent. The State's trade and transportation sector is 
off 15 percent from its peak, and manufacturing is down nearly as much.
  The unemployed need the support that this benefit extension will 
provide. It is a shame, though, that we couldn't have passed this 
legislation sooner to speed the delivery of these benefits to those who 
need them.
  The House of Representatives passed its version of the unemployment 
benefits extension bill on September 22, but it was not until 2\1/2\ 
weeks later, on October 8, that the majority leader finally brought a 
different version before the Senate for consideration. Senators were 
then given just an hour and a half to review the bill and vote, with no 
opportunity to consider amendments.
  In other words, the majority leader proposed that Senators either 
pass his bill or no bill at all.
  And that is a problem because there are changes that should be made 
to the bill, yet there is no opportunity for Senators of either party 
to offer amendments. Acting in my capacity as minority whip, I objected 
on behalf of other Senators to the leader's short-circuited procedure, 
fully expecting that we could promptly come to an agreement to allow 
votes on a limited number of amendments and then vote on final passage. 
Had the leader agreed, we could have disposed of the bill nearly 3 
weeks ago, and it would probably be law by now.
  Instead, the majority leader continued to insist that Senators vote 
on his bill and only his bill, without amendment.
  Only within the last few days has there been some willingness to work 
with us on the important amendments Senators wanted to address. For 
example, both Republican and Democratic Senators want to include an 
extension of the homebuyer tax credit, which some credit with reviving 
the homebuilding industry.
  Another colleague would like to offer an amendment to better use E-
Verify to prevent fraudulent claims of unemployment benefits. This 
amendment would help ensure that people who claim benefits are who they 
say they are.
  In addition, colleagues want to offer amendments on net operating 
loss as a stimulus to struggling companies. Others would sunset the 
TARP program, provide nongovernment management of the TARP, and prevent 
TARP recipients from providing funds to ACORN.
  Another amendment proposes an alternative offset for the $2.4 billion 
cost of extending unemployment benefits. The majority's version offsets 
the cost by extending the Federal unemployment surtax, but imposing a 
direct tax

[[Page S10984]]

on job creation is perhaps one of the worst things we could do when the 
economy continues to lose jobs. The alternative that some Senators 
would like to offer would offset the cost of the bill with unspent 
funds from the so-called stimulus package instead.
  How these amendments will be addressed is not yet clear; we do not 
have the right to offer any of them under the majority leader's closed 
process.
  We should also recognize that we are engaged in this exercise of 
extending unemployment benefits for one simple reason: Our economy 
continues to lose more jobs than it is producing. That is because the 
President's stimulus program is simply not working as intended.
  According to an October 29 Associated Press report, the Obama 
administration is overstating the impact of the stimulus and the number 
of jobs the program has created. According to the AP report, ``the 
review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual 
number of jobs; some jobs were credited to stimulus spending when, in 
fact, none were produced.''
  AP went on to note that ``there's no evidence the White House sought 
to inflate job numbers in the report, but the administration embraced 
the flawed figures the moment they were released.''
  An October 21 report in the Phoenix Business Journal recalled that 
while President Obama projected that the stimulus bill would create 
70,000 new jobs in Arizona, the State has actually lost 77,300 jobs 
since the stimulus was signed into law.
  If the stimulus isn't working, we ought to consider alternatives or 
at least try to put some of the remaining unspent funds to better use.
  After all, we can and should extend unemployment benefits, but unless 
new jobs are being created, the unemployed will be no better off once 
the additional benefits we are providing run out.
  Mr. President, I wish the majority leader had allowed this bill to 
move forward sooner under an open process. We could have passed it 
weeks ago. But I intend to vote for it today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining is 7 minutes 8 seconds on 
the Democratic side, and 4 seconds on the Republican side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Four seconds. That is interesting.
  I want to set the record straight for my good friend from Nebraska. I 
don't know how wise it would be to pay for this unemployment extension 
by stopping stimulus payments. Our economy is still coming out, still 
in recovery. We are by no means out of the woods yet. I think it would 
not make sense to pay for the extension of unemployment insurance 
benefits by going back to stimulus money and stopping the payment of 
stimulus dollars. I do not know exactly how many stimulus dollars are 
not yet spent, but I think it is significant and I think it would be 
unwise for us to stop them at this point.
  Beyond that, I think we should get on, vote, and pass this 
legislation. People are out of jobs. There is a record number of people 
seeking unemployment. There are, I think, about 15 million Americans 
chasing 3 million jobs. They can't find jobs, can't get them; they are 
unavailable. It seems to me it only makes sense for us to extend the 
underlying unemployment insurance for another 14 weeks for all States 
and 6 weeks for those high unemployment States.
  I mentioned earlier how important it is for us to keep spending 
stimulus dollars. I chuckled when I heard my good friend talk about 
filling the tree. Frankly, in my State we need not to fill up trees, we 
need to fell more trees so we can get more jobs in our State, and that 
is one reason for the extension of the home buyer's tax credit.
  The people in our home States, as we know, are more worried about 
jobs than anything else. That is what it comes down to is jobs, good-
paying jobs. With this legislation, hopefully, if we get enough cloture 
votes so we can invoke cloture and get to the passage of the 
legislation, it is about jobs--extending the homeowners tax credit, it 
is expanding the net operating loss provision, which is so important to 
so many companies. Add to that, it is extending unemployment insurance 
to those people who need benefits because they are out of work, looking 
for jobs.
  Let me repeat two figures I mentioned earlier: There are about 15 
million people in our country unemployed who are looking for about 3 
million jobs. That is about one out of five. That is unconscionable in 
a country such as ours.
  Let's get on with this, let's pass this legislation so people can get 
some help.
  I yield the remainder of my time. I guess there is only 4 seconds 
left on this side. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask all remaining time be yielded back 
and I ask consent we proceed to the vote on the underlying measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Baucus-Reid 
     amendment No. 2712 to H.R. 3548, the Unemployment 
     Compensation Extension Act of 2009.
         Max Baucus, Byron L. Dorgan, Edward E. Kaufman, Mark L. 
           Pryor, Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall, Roland W. Burris, Tim 
           Johnson, Mary L. Landrieu, Patty Murray, Al Franken, 
           Michael F. Bennet, Benjamin L. Cardin, Richard Durbin, 
           Herb Kohl, Mark Begich.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that 
debate on amendment No. 2712, the Baucus-Reid substitute to H.R. 3548, 
the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the 
Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 85, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 332 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter

[[Page S10985]]


     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Bond
     DeMint
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bennett
     Bunning
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Leahy
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 85, the nays are 2. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked on amendment No. 2712, the motion to 
commit falls.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the Senate has just voted on a motion to 
advance the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. This is the second 
time--that is right, the second time--we voted on this critical 
legislation. But, unfortunately, opponents of the extension are still 
holding it up.
  The bill under consideration today incorporates important ideas from 
both sides of the aisle. When the House bill included additional weeks 
only for workers in States with unemployment rates above 8.5 percent, 
the chairman and the majority leader allowed us to work out a 
compromise that would support jobless workers in all 50 States.
  An amendment by Senator Isakson to extend the home buyers tax credit 
has now been incorporated into the Senate bill, as well as an important 
amendment from Senator Bunning to extend the carryback of net operating 
losses for up to 5 years. Both of these are good ideas that will help 
homeowners, help our housing market, and provide relief to businesses 
that are trying to weather this economic recession. Both have now been 
included in the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act.
  Now it is time for all of us to stop playing politics and to focus on 
the critical issue we started to address a month ago: the devastating 
rates of unemployment and the nearly 2 million Americans who are 
exhausting their benefits at the rate of 7,000 a day.
  This is good legislation. It is legislation that provides at least 14 
additional weeks of unemployment insurance for those Americans who have 
been hardest hit by this recession and those whose benefits are 
starting to be exhausted. I was pleased that once again the motion to 
advance this bill received broad bipartisan support. The vote was 85 to 
2. The first vote was 87 to 13. It should receive this kind of support 
because unemployment isn't a New England problem or a Montana problem 
or a southern problem; it isn't a Republican or an Independent or a 
Democratic problem; it is a hardship that hits every community in every 
State in every part of our country.

  Last week, I spoke about my constituent Jane McDermott from Stoddard, 
NH. Jane wrote me last week that without this extension, she doesn't 
know how she is going to pay for the gas she needs to get out and look 
for a job, she doesn't know how she is going to pay for groceries for 
her family or any of the other family necessities. I was hoping that 
today Jane would get the news she has been waiting for--that this 
extension will be put into effect and that she, along with millions of 
other Americans who need it, will get the help to be able to continue 
to look for a job and continue to get the family necessities while she 
does that.
  I think it is time--again, way past time--for us to put politics 
aside. We shouldn't make Jane or any of the other hundreds of thousands 
of Americans who have been waiting for this extension wait one more 
day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor with the hopes that we will get an 
agreement today, tomorrow, as soon as possible, to help the people who 
need help. Thank you.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________