[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 162 (Tuesday, November 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11015-S11023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2009--Continued

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to speak both about the substance 
of the amendment in front of us that I understand Senator Reid and the 
distinguished chair of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, have put 
forward, the substance of it and supporting it, and also on the time it 
has taken us to get to this point, which is of tremendous concern to 
me. I know it is also to many other people, certainly people in the 
great State of Michigan, which I represent.
  I believe we are on week 5 of trying to extend unemployment benefits 
for people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, 
are looking for work, trying to hold things together, trying to keep a 
roof over their families' heads and keep food on the table, and 
Michigan is getting cold, so the heat is coming on. They are trying to 
do that while looking for a job.
  People want to work. People in Michigan work and they want to work. 
They are skilled and they are ready to work. We know that for every one 
job available, there are six people trying to get that job. So we are 
in an extremely difficult time. That is why we extended unemployment 
benefits in the Recovery Act. I thank our President. We had challenges 
under the previous President in being able to do that. President Obama 
put that forward, and I am grateful for his continual support and all 
of our colleagues who supported that.
  But now we find that even as things very slowly begin to turn in the 
economy, every day we still have 70,000 people who are going off of 
their unemployment insurance benefits and they still cannot find a job. 
These are middle-class Americans who have played by the rules, and what 
is happening is not their fault. They are trying to keep things going 
until they can find a job.
  We have now spent weeks and weeks trying to get to this bill. Since 
we started debating this on the Senate floor, as of today, 186,000 more 
people have lost their benefits and are trying to figure out what in 
the world they are going to do for their families. That is the 
situation we are in.
  We have in front of us a very important amendment that has been 
worked on on a bipartisan basis. I congratulate everyone who worked on 
this together. I hope we will pass this quickly and move on and send 
the right message to people in this country that we get it, that we 
understand what is going on for families.
  Let me speak about the amendment, and then I will speak about the 
process.
  The amendment would allow an extension of 14 weeks for anyone who is 
currently unemployed in their State and qualifies for unemployment 
insurance and an additional 6 weeks, totaling 20 weeks, for people in 
my great State who have been hit too hard for too long. So we need to 
get this passed.
  There are other provisions that have been combined with this. One of 
the other successes--in fact, I am proud, as the original author of 
cash for clunkers, to have Congress talk about that and the first-time 
home buyers tax credit. That has helped the economy. We know there is 
an expiration of the first-time home buyers $8,000 tax credit, so we 
extend that. There are other provisions in there as well.
  There is another provision I am proud to have helped champion in the 
Finance Committee and now in this legislation, which is to allow 
companies that are struggling in this economy to keep themselves going, 
to keep people employed, to keep their lights on, and to be able to get 
immediate help with the net operating loss carryback--it is the way 
they calculate their losses--which will allow capital to immediately 
flow for small, medium, and large companies that are cash-strapped. 
That capital will help businesses be able to hire people, purchase 
equipment, or to turn their businesses around to be able to keep things 
going and keep their businesses going. That is in this provision as 
well. It is an important bipartisan effort.

[[Page S11016]]

  According to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the 
expansion we are talking about would inject $34 billion into businesses 
and our economy immediately.
  This is about jobs. This is about supporting our small businesses 
that are having a very tough time getting capital. The CEO of the Home 
Builders Association claims that tax credits from the tax provisions 
would provide midsize and larger homebuilders enough funding to save 
30,000 jobs that would have been lost without this change. So we have 
an important provision that has been worked on in a bipartisan way.
  These items were something that we as a majority--our leader had come 
to the floor to support now for some time, to say let's get on with it; 
we need to support these provisions for homeowners, businesses, and 
help those who are currently unemployed. Let's get on with it. We are 
now at a point to vote on this amendment. What concerns me is the time 
it has taken us to be able to do that.
  Over and over again, we have seen a pattern this year. In fact, we 
have seen 85 different times that the party of no has objected over and 
over to bringing up legislation--to even bringing up the unemployment 
legislation. It is a very simple thing for the leader to come to the 
floor to ask unanimous consent to go to a bill. But we are seeing 
objections over and over. Every time there is an objection, we are 
required to go through our own process. We find we have to file a 
motion called a cloture motion. You have to wait 2 days, and at the end 
of that 2 days, you vote. If there are 60 people who vote to proceed, 
you do that. We are finding over and over that we are getting 
overwhelming support to proceed.
  At different times, we object to things with which we substantively 
disagree. That is our right as Senators. But we got to this cloture 
vote, and 87 people voted to go to the unemployment benefits 
legislation and to this amendment. So there is not an objection. This 
is about winding out the hours on the clock so we cannot get to health 
care, we cannot get to other jobs measures. And health care is about 
jobs, certainly in my State. When you lose your job, you lose your 
health care. We have seen that over and over.
  Now we are in the process of this 30 hours. We voted to bring the 
debate to closure on this amendment we have, which is bipartisan, 
dealing with housing and support for businesses and the unemployed. Yet 
we have to go another 30 hours, which won't end until about midnight 
tonight, before we can actually vote. Then we will turn around and 
again there will be something else. The next move the leader tries to 
make, there will be an objection and we will have to wait 2 more days. 
We will vote on whether to proceed. Most of the time, everybody votes 
to proceed. Then we start a 30-hour clock, and then we vote on it. It 
goes over and over. Eighty-five different times, we have either had 
this process or an objection.
  Mr. President, I just wanted to raise this for the American people as 
we move forward now. Everyone knows we have big problems. We can have 
honest differences about how to address those. That is our job. But we 
are seeing over and over a party of no, no, no stopping things. Heaven 
forbid that this President be successful or this Congress be 
successful. That is of great concern to me, in a State with the highest 
unemployment in the country, where every day we have people saying: Why 
in the world can't you act? Why can't you get things done?
  The reason we are finding ourselves in this position now is an effort 
to slow-walk the entire year. It is amazing. We have actually gotten 
more done in this year than at any other time since FDR and the Great 
Depression despite all of this. Now we have come to a point where, by 
the end of the year, we want to have something extremely important 
accomplished on health care, and that relates to jobs and the economy. 
We are seeing objection after objection.
  I am hopeful there will be a willingness to step up and debate our 
differences and have a vote. Let's just have a vote and work together 
to be able to solve problems. The American people are very tired of 
this. They want us to get something done. We want to get something 
done. We are committed to it whether it takes 30 hours and days and 
objections or whether we can just do this and come together. Either 
way, we are going to get this done. It is important to understand that 
real people are being impacted every single time there is an objection. 
Right now in this economy, the American people deserve better than what 
has been happening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
     HEALTH CARE REFORM
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I wish to talk this afternoon about health 
care and specifically the impact of some of the proposals we have on 
the cost of health care insurance. Before I do so, I think I must 
respond to some of the comments that were just made by the Senator from 
Michigan accusing the Republican Party of being the party of no. It 
seems we are starting to get to a point here where bipartisanship is 
not being achieved. But it seems the definition of bipartisanship is 
becoming ``either do it our way or you are the party of no.''
  It seems to me what we need to really do is step back and take a 
couple of deep breaths and start working together on legislation. I 
will use the example the Senator from Michigan used, the unemployment 
insurance compensation legislation. As she correctly indicated, there 
were 87 votes to move forward with this legislation. This is not an 
effort to obstruct the legislation. The effort that caused us to slow 
down a couple of days on this legislation was an effort to improve it. 
In fact, had we not slowed down a couple days, the bill would have gone 
through and would have been passed, but it would not have the home 
buyer tax credit in it for the purchase of homes. It wouldn't have the 
net operating loss carryback provisions in it. They are both important 
provisions for creating jobs rather than just providing a safety net 
for those who lost jobs. The bill has been improved, and I think it 
will be further improved by the time we have the final vote.
  It is that process of give-and-take, trying to work on and improve 
the legislation, that occasionally causes the Republican side to say: 
No, we are not going to move forward until we have an opportunity to 
present some amendments and until we have bipartisan work to help 
improve the legislation. That is what happened in this case.
  In reality, the majority party has 60 votes. If they want to proceed 
on anything, they can do so. In this case, on the unemployment 
insurance bill, they did stop and allow us another couple of days to 
work on it and improve it with the home buyer tax credit and the 
operating net loss carryback provisions.
  Mr. President, I will now address the question of health care. It is 
interesting. One of the comments the Senator from Michigan also made 
was that we cannot get to the health care bill because we are spending 
our time on the unemployment compensation bill. The reality is that we 
don't even know what the health care bill is yet. The bill was crafted 
behind closed doors in the Capitol Building, and it is being scored by 
CBO. We don't know when CBO will have the full bill to score or whether 
the full bill has even been drafted. We don't know what it contains.
  That is in stark contrast to the President's commitment on how this 
process would proceed. The President stated in the San Francisco 
Chronicle in January of last year:

       These negotiations will be on C-SPAN . . . and the public 
     will be part of the conversation and we will see the choices 
     that are being made.

  He indicated that everybody should be in the room and it should be 
broadcast on C-SPAN. Instead, there is a very small group of people 
from the White House and the majority leader's office and probably a 
couple of senior Senators he is working with who know what is in the 
bill. The rest of us don't know.
  Frankly, the reason we are not moving to the bill has nothing to do 
with procedural maneuvers on the floor. It has to do with the fact that 
the bill is not drafted yet or prepared and ready to bring forward.
  Let me move to the actual bill itself. In this context, I have great 
concerns

[[Page S11017]]

with the legislation that is being brought forward on many different 
fronts. It expands the Federal Government by about $1.2 trillion, 
depending on how you count it; some say up to $1.8 trillion. It imposes 
massive new taxes and cuts in Medicare of equal amounts to balance it 
off and make it appear it is not increasing the deficit. By cutting 
Medicare, it seriously jeopardizes the quality of health care we 
provide to our seniors in this Nation and, as I indicated, the massive 
new taxes that are involved, which fall squarely on the backs of the 
middle class, violating another one of the promises President Obama 
made. In doing so, it does not achieve the very objectives our citizens 
in the United States ask of us in health care reform.
  What am I talking about? That is what I want to focus the rest of my 
remarks on today.
  When you ask most Americans, Do we need to reform health care in the 
United States, they will say yes. What they mean when they say that is 
they are tired of the double-digit, skyrocketing inflation of the cost 
of their health insurance and the cost of medical care in the United 
States, and they think Congress should do something about it, that 
Congress should ``bend the cost curve down''--that is the phrase that 
has been made popular--and they believe Congress can do something about 
it and help control these skyrocketing costs of health care.
  They also believe we should try to find a way to get access to those 
who are needy and unable to purchase their own insurance. They know we 
are providing for the cost of health care for those who do not have 
insurance and they do get it in a much more expensive way and in a way 
that does not give them the quality of health care they should get. 
That is what Americans think of when they are asking for health care 
reform. But center in the focus of the American people out of what they 
want out of health care reform is control of the costs of health care 
and control of the skyrocketing costs of the insurance they pay.
  On that issue, the bills before us fail dramatically because not only 
do they grow the Federal Government, not only do they increase taxes, 
and not only do they deeply cut Medicare, they will increase the cost 
of health care insurance and increase the cost of medical services in 
our country beyond what growth they would have seen without the 
legislation.
  I will go through a couple of examples, focusing on the bill that 
went through the Senate Finance Committee. It includes, as I have 
indicated, significant amounts of taxes and different kinds of taxes on 
different parts of the economy. Both the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have stated that a 
number of the taxes included in the Senate Finance Committee bill will 
be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.
  During the Finance Committee markup, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf 
stated:

       Our judgment is that that piece of legislation--

  Referring to the provisions increasing taxes in this legislation--

     would raise insurance premiums by roughly the amount of the 
     money collected.

  Meaning in one of the particular cases there is a $6.7 billion tax 
imposed on insurance companies. His point is that $6.7 billion tax is 
going to raise the cost of insurance.
  Another example in the bill, there is a tax on medical devices. Both 
CBO and JCT have said this tax on medical devices will be passed on to 
patients, increasing their health insurance premiums and increasing the 
prices on everything from powered wheelchairs to pacemakers.
  Another example is the tax on insurers. I mentioned the tax on 
insurers is what generated this answer. CBO and Joint Tax have said 
this tax will be passed through, and some estimates on this passthrough 
show this tax on insurers could raise premiums for American families by 
as much as $500 a year.
  The Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to Senator Grassley 
last week in response to his inquiry about this provision and stated:

       While uncertainty exists, we assume that a very large 
     portion of this excise tax on purchased insurance will be 
     borne by consumers in most markets, including in some markets 
     with a high level of concentration among market participants 
     covered by the proposed excise tax.

  Still quoting the letter:

       While consumers or employers may respond by changing their 
     insurance coverage from more expensive coverage to less 
     expensive plans to offset any potential price increase, this 
     behavior, too, is properly characterized as the consumers 
     bearing the burden of the excise tax by accepting lower 
     quality (for example, a more restricted physician network) 
     for the same price rather than paying a higher price for the 
     quality [that they would have had had there been] no tax.

  Again, still quoting from the letter:

       Our estimate is that the premiums for purchased health 
     insurance policies, including the tax liability, would be 
     between 1.0 and 1.5 percent greater than they otherwise would 
     be as a consequence of the industry fee for calendar years 
     2010, 2011, and 2012.

  Joint Tax did not estimate the years beyond that and were not able to 
do a distributional analysis based on income as to where those with 
higher premiums would most likely fall. But we know, again, it is 
almost certain it will hit those in the middle class.
  Premiums are also going to rise because of the new excise tax on so-
called Cadillac health plans. Many believe that companies will respond 
to this new tax by either passing the costs on to consumers or cutting 
benefits so the plan can avoid the tax. Inevitably, like the AMT, the 
alternative minimum tax, the impact of this tax will be passed along to 
more and more people, not just those with Cadillac plans, either in the 
form of higher costs or lower benefits.
  That is how the tax-and-fee provisions portion of the bill impact 
health insurance. And there are many more. But what other provisions in 
the bill impact the cost of insurance? The insurance mandates in the 
bill will have similar impacts on raising the cost of health care 
insurance for Americans.
  The Finance Committee bill also contains a number of market reforms 
that will result in these higher premiums. For example, the new 
federally mandated rating rules will result in a huge premiums increase 
for younger and healthier individuals.
  In my home State of Idaho, studies have shown that a 20-year-old male 
can go out today and buy a policy in the individual market for $67.63 a 
month. A 20-year-old female can buy a policy for $94.35 a month. If the 
insurance rating reforms in the Finance Committee bill are enacted, 
those exact same policies would rise to a level of $166.75 per month. 
That is a 147-percent increase for a 20-year-old male and a 77-percent 
increase for a 20-year-old female.
  These figures, frankly, are optimistic for several reasons. They 
assume that the young and healthy will continue to purchase insurance. 
If they do not continue to buy insurance, the premiums would likely be 
even higher than those which were shown in the studies.
  In addition, these rate estimates assume a 4-to 1 age rating band. 
The House bill introduced last week contains a 2-to-1 age rating band 
mandate, meaning that the rates for the young and healthy, again, would 
be made significantly worse.
  In addition, many of the proposals in Congress contain mandates about 
what an insurance policy must include. Here is an example of what we 
can see in that context: An older gentleman wanting to purchase 
insurance in the new exchange to be created may not be able to save 
money by enrolling in a more basic plan. Instead, it would not be 
possible for him to enroll in a policy that does not include maternity 
care and newborn care, something he may not want or need to purchase.
  The actuary firm of Oliver Wyman, in a study commissioned by Blue 
Cross/Blue Shield, concluded that insurance reforms in the bill and the 
minimum required benefit levels in the Baucus bill could drive up 
family premiums for new coverage by as much as $3,024.

  My point is, both the taxes and fees and the insurance mandates will 
generate higher premiums, not lower premiums, for Americans, exactly 
the opposite of what Americans are asking for in health care reform.
  Similarly, both the House bill and the Baucus bill, and what we 
expect to see in the Senate bill when it finally comes out, will have a 
significant expansion of moving those in lower income categories into 
Medicaid rather than providing a way for them to obtain insurance.
  The Baucus bill contains an enormous expansion of Medicaid, up to 133

[[Page S11018]]

percent of poverty. That means 14 million more people are going to be 
enrolled in the Medicaid Program, the largest expansion since it was 
created in 1965, a program that financially is going to hit the cliff 
soon. We know we are undercompensating for medical services in 
Medicaid, which ultimately results in those undercompensated costs of 
health care being borne by the rest of the insuring population in the 
United States with higher premiums.
  So what are we going to do? We are going to expand a program that 
drives a lot of its costs off onto the private sector so we can avoid 
the need to identify the way to move forward and develop a true reform 
that will enable those who are needy and uninsured to be able to obtain 
insurance. Instead, we are going to push them onto the Medicaid system 
and, again, drive up premiums.
  Those who are pushing this legislation have responded to some of 
these arguments by saying: The subsidies we are providing in the bill 
for those with lower incomes will help to reduce insurance costs. If 
you focus on those who receive the subsidies, of course, their 
insurance costs may go down. But this is true for only a very small 
number of Americans.
  The reforms in the Finance bill will raise health care costs for most 
Americans while lowering them for some through subsidies. But there are 
several important points to make on the subsidy argument.
  First, the credits and subsidies are only available for those who 
receive insurance through the new exchange. In other words, if you get 
your insurance through your employer, which most Americans do, you do 
not qualify for any subsidy support.
  CBO has estimated that only 23 million Americans will receive 
insurance in that fashion. If you do the math, that represents 8 
percent of the 282 million nonelderly Americans. Why do we take the 
nonelderly number? Because elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.
  Let's put up a chart. The subsidies are not available for individuals 
who get insurance through their employer and, instead, those 
individuals will pay higher premiums for those who receive the 
subsidies. Here is the way it works out. You have about 185 million 
Americans who will be paying more taxes and higher health care 
premiums, and about 18 million Americans who will actually see their 
health care premiums go down because they will receive a Federal 
subsidy.
  While it is true that the subsidy will help reduce the health care 
costs of those who receive it, it is not true that the health care 
costs for every other American are going to go up, again I want to 
point out, in two significant ways. The 185 million Americans who are 
not participating in the subsidy will pay more in taxes--and 
significantly more in taxes--and will pay more in their health care 
insurance premiums. That is not the kind of reform, again, that the 
people of the United States are asking for.
  One last point, and that is about this proposal to have the Federal 
Government step in and create a government health care company. A 
government-run health care insurance company is promoted by saying we 
need a competitor for the private sector. I think most Americans see 
through that. But last week, CBO released their score of the House bill 
which creates just such a government-run health care company. Their 
score shows that the new government plan would typically have premiums 
that are higher than the average premiums for private plans.
  What is CBO saying? The CBO letter then states that although the 
government plan would likely have lower administrative costs than the 
private plans--which is one of the key arguments that is often made--
the government plan would--and I am quoting from CBO--``probably engage 
in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less 
healthy pool of enrollees,'' resulting in higher premium costs in the 
government plan.
  So now what do we have? We have a government plan into which we are 
going to push a lot of Americans, unwillingly, which will charge higher 
premiums than the private sector. We have taxes, penalties, fees, and 
mandates being imposed on the private sector that are going to drive up 
their premiums as well. It is all justified by the argument that we 
need to somehow create a government control of health care so we can 
reduce the costs. There are other ways to reduce the costs. I don't 
have time in my remarks today to get into those, but there are a number 
of proposals we do know about for which we have bipartisan support that 
will help us address that cost curve.
  It is my hope we will reject these proposals that take us down the 
wrong path and result in the wrong solutions for Americans in health 
care reform and begin focusing on what I started out with--that cost 
curve about which most Americans are so concerned. We can drive down 
that cost curve without raising taxes, and that is where this Congress 
ought to be spending its attention.

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order on time, so the Senator is 
free to proceed.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I noticed the Senator from Michigan was on the floor earlier, and she 
had a chart which said: ``85 Times No.'' I think she should have turned 
it around and faced it toward the Democratic leader. That means that 85 
times the Democratic leader has said no to Republicans: No, you can't 
offer amendments and we are going to cut off debate. We have had this 
discussion many times. The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, is the 
expert on this. There are two things that make the Senate unique. One 
is virtually unlimited debate and virtually unlimited amendments. So if 
you are from a smaller State, such as Tennessee or Delaware or anywhere 
in this country, your citizens can send you here and, even if you are 
in the minority, you are allowed to speak. Your voice can be heard and 
you are allowed to offer amendments.
  We have procedures for cutting that off, but we only do it on rare 
occasions. So what the Senator from Michigan is basically saying is--
and I don't believe I would bring this up, if I were she--that 85 times 
the majority leader has cut us off and said: We are not going to hear 
from you. So I think that argument is an argument we should have at the 
appropriate time, but I have a different point I would like to make.
  I would like to continue the health care discussion because I think 
we are making some progress. One of the most eloquent and effective 
speakers on the Democratic side of the aisle is the assistant 
Democratic leader, the Senator from Illinois, who is a good friend and 
a person I admire a great deal. Yesterday, he came to the floor and 
asked: Where is the Republican alternative on health care and how many 
pages does it have? He heard me say the other day that the era of the 
1,000-page bill is over because we have a 2,000-page bill from the 
House of Representatives on health care. So he says: Well, where is the 
Republican health care plan? How many pages in it?
  The Senator from Illinois was quite proud of the fact that I couldn't 
say how many pages were in the Senate Democratic plan, but of course I 
haven't seen it. Almost no one has seen it. It is being written behind 
closed doors. This was supposed to be the era of great transparency; 
that we would all know what was going on. President Obama, to his great 
credit, said: We will have all this on C-SPAN so you will know if the 
drug companies or if the insurance companies or if the lobbyists are in 
there writing the bill. So what do we have? We have the majority leader 
and two Democratic Senators and some people from the White House behind 
closed doors writing the health care bill.
  Of course, we don't know exactly how many pages it will have because 
we aren't let in the room. We can't see the bill. We can't count the 
lobbyists, if they are there; we can't count the companies with which 
deals might be made, if they are there. We don't know. But here is what 
we do know. We do know the HELP Committee, on which I serve, passed an 
839-page health care bill. We do know the Senate Finance Committee 
passed a 1,502-page bill, and we know the House of Representatives is 
working on a 1,990-page bill, not counting the physicians reimbursement 
fix, which is bound to push it over 2,000 pages.

[[Page S11019]]

  The pages in these bills are going up faster than the national debt, 
and it is an issue with the American people. So until the various 
writers emerge from behind closed doors, we are going to have to go 
with what we have, which is a 2,000-page congressional Democratic 
health care bill, of which the Wall Street Journal editorial said 
yesterday, when fully implemented, would cost $2 trillion over a 10-
year period of time.
  Here is what else we know about the 2,000-page bill. It will raise 
premiums. The Senator from Idaho just spoke to that. It will cut more 
than $500 billion in Medicare, and it will cut it from Medicare to 
spend it on a new entitlement program, even though the Medicare 
trustees say Medicare is going broke in 2015 to 2017. The Senator from 
Kansas said it is akin to writing a check on an overdrawn bank account 
to buy a big, new car. The banker wouldn't let you do it, and the 
American people shouldn't let us do it.
  There will be higher taxes. Everyone understands that the $1 
trillion, fully implemented over 10 years, will mean higher taxes. Who 
is going to pay those? Not the medical device companies, not the 
insurance companies. They are going to pass them right on to whom? The 
American people--the 250 million of us who have health insurance 
premiums. So our premiums are going to go up.
  There will be more debt. Fortunately, on the first vote we had on 
health care the other day, 13 Democrats, with all 40 Republicans, said: 
No, we are not going to start off this debate by adding $\1/4\ trillion 
to the national debt, even for the worthy purpose of fixing the 
physicians reimbursement problem, which we all want to fix. We are 
going to have to find some way to pay for that within the health care 
bill, within the spending we have.
  We now have a government-run plan. I have always thought that was a 
little like President Obama saying: In order to keep Ford Motor Company 
honest, I am going to put the government into the car business. Well, 
we nearly have, but that usually isn't the way we do things in the 
United States. But we are going to have a government-owned, government-
run health care plan. Of course, we already have two--one is Medicare 
for seniors, and we have a government-run plan that States can ``opt 
out of'' called Medicaid.
  The Presiding Officer, the former Governor of Delaware, and I both 
know from our previous experience it is a big problem. Medicaid and 
Medicare have been going up at the rate of 8 or 9 percent a year for 
many years. State budgets dealing with Medicaid only go up 2 or 3 
percent for schools and roads and universities. So what happens is, 
when the Governor of Delaware or the Governor of Tennessee or the 
Governor of California sit and make up the budget, you get to the end 
of the line and there is no money left for higher education because we 
put it all into Medicaid. That means tuition goes up or services go 
down.
  With a government-run plan--and this is something the American people 
are just now beginning to realize--millions of people who now get their 
insurance from their employers are going to lose it. They are going to 
lose it because their employer is going to look at this big, new bill 
and say: I can't afford this. I am going to pay the penalty. I am out 
of the health care business, and you can go into the government plan. 
So all 177 million people who have employer health care insurance run a 
risk with a government plan--under this framework we are discussing, 
that we haven't been able to see yet--that an increasing number of 
employers will say: I am out of here. We will let the government 
provide the insurance. Suddenly, you will find yourself in the 
government-run plan.
  What happens in the government-run plan? Some things are good about 
Medicare--the government-run plan for seniors--and some things are bad 
about Medicaid, which is the largest government-run plan. One thing bad 
about it is, 50 percent of doctors will not see new patients because 
their physician reimbursement is at about 60 percent of what physicians 
make when they go to a private insurance company. In Medicare, it is 
not as bad as that. It is about 83 or 84 percent of doctors are paid 
what they would get paid if they saw a patient with private insurance. 
So if you lose your insurance and you end up in the government-run 
plan, you may end up in a plan such as the Medicaid plan, a government-
run plan where 50 percent of the doctors will not see new patients.
  The Governors of the States are in a state of apoplexy--would be 
about the only word to describe it--because they are in the worst shape 
they have been in dozens of years. I know in the State of Tennessee 
there are $1 billion in just cuts. Everything has been cut, prices are 
going up, and people are being laid off, even though we have a very 
conservative, well-managed State. Yet one of the ways being proposed to 
pay for this bill is to shift some of the cost--about $34 billion at 
least--to States. Governors--both Democratic and Republican--are 
saying: Please don't do that to us. We can't afford that. We don't have 
the money for it. We have to balance our budget. If Washington wants to 
expand Medicaid, Washington should pay for Medicaid.
  Higher premiums, Medicare cuts, higher taxes, more debt, government-
run plan, millions losing coverage, inevitable rationing, States 
complaining, some going bankrupt, and a $2 trillion cost is not health 
care reform. But the assistant Democratic leader asked a good question. 
He asked: What is the Republican plan? If our plan has 2,000 pages, how 
many pages does your plan have? Well, I would say, with all respect for 
him, that if he is looking for someone with a wheelbarrow to wheel into 
the Senate Chamber a competing 2,000-page Republican bill costing $2 
trillion, he is never going to see it. He will be looking in vain 
because that is not what we propose. We have been saying, over and over 
again on the Senate Floor and in other places, we are going in the 
wrong direction; we need to start over; our goal should be to reduce 
costs--the cost to each of us who pay premiums, the cost to all of us 
who have to pay the Federal Government debt. We should set a clear goal 
of reducing costs and move step by step toward that goal of reducing 
costs to re-earn the trust of the American people.

  Americans instinctively distrust these comprehensive, change-the-
world, never-mind-the-cost, 2,000-page risky schemes, one of which is 
the health care plan that is coming toward us. We have proven in this 
Chamber we don't do comprehensive well. We had our best Senators on 
both sides of the aisle working hard on immigration--Senator Kennedy, 
Senator McCain, Senator Kyl, Senator Martinez--and what happened? It 
fell of its own weight. We bit off more than we could chew. The 
economy-wide cap and trade is running into the same problem. So is 
health care.
  With taxes, mandates, surprises, debt, and more Washington takeover, 
we are scaring the daylights out of the American people with these 
proposals. Instead of that, we on the Republican side believe we should 
have health care reform, but its goal should be reducing costs, and we 
should go step by step toward that goal. Going step by step in the 
right direction is one good way to get our country where it needs to 
go.
  So instead of a 2,000-page congressional Democrats' health care plan, 
here is the Republican plan, and I have counted the pages. No. 1, small 
business health care plans. This leverages the number of small 
businesses and allows them to pool their resources and offer health 
care to more Americans. That is 88 pages, proposed by Senator Enzi. No. 
2, allow Americans to purchase health care across State lines to 
encourage competition--30 pages, proposed by Senator DeMint. No. 3, 
reduce junk lawsuits. Medical malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of 
health care. There is some question how much it drives it up, but there 
is no question it drives up the cost. That is Senator Gregg's bill on 
that, and it is 19 pages. No. 4, equal tax treatment for health care. 
That is Senator Bennett's bill, which is 21 pages. No. 5, health 
information technology--a subject we should be able to agree on in a 
bipartisan way--is 13 pages, by Senators Coburn, Burr, and Enzi. No. 6, 
health care exchanges, creating more of those for people to look for 
the lowest cost insurance. That takes eight pages in the bill, proposed 
by Senators Coburn and Burr. No. 7, Senator LeMieux, one of our newest 
Senators, proposed a bill on the subject of waste, fraud, and abuse. We 
know that is a scandal, particularly with Medicaid and Medicare.

[[Page S11020]]

The Government Accountability Office has said that $1 out of $10 in 
Medicaid is waste, fraud, and abuse, accounting for $32 billion a year, 
which is $320 billion over 10 years.
  So there are seven steps in the right direction of reducing cost. 
Taking just one of those steps--the small business health care plans, 
S. 2818, leveraging strength in numbers--here is what the Congressional 
Budget Office says about the small business health care plan: 750,000 
more Americans would be covered. These would be people working for 
small businesses. It would lower the premium costs for three out of 
four employees. It would reduce Medicaid spending--and that is the 
program that is causing the States so many problems--by $1.4 billion.
  So why don't we pass that? Why don't we pass it? Why don't we take 
that one step toward reducing costs and then take a second step and a 
third step and a fourth step? Gradually, as we reduce costs, as the 
small business health care plans will do, we can add uninsured people 
to the rolls. That would reearn the trust of the American people. That 
would be something we could actually get done. That would be something 
that would be bipartisan, would create confidence, and help us reach 
the goal we have set for ourselves.
  We have clear choices. We have 2,000-page bills or the bills I just 
added up--those seven steps proposed by Republicans, many of which have 
Democratic support as well--that would be 200. So 2,000 pages or 200 
pages; reduce premiums or increase premiums; reduce debt or increase 
the debt; reduce Medicare or make Medicare solvent; higher taxes or no 
tax increase.
  The American people want real health care reform. They want to reduce 
costs and add coverage, as we can afford it. They are properly 
skeptical of grand and risky schemes that claim we in the Senate and 
the House are wise enough to solve everything at once. They know if we 
try to do that, we are more likely to mess up everything at once. They 
know about the law of unintended consequences.
  To re-earn the trust of the American people, we should set a clear 
goal. That goal should be reducing the cost of health care; the cost of 
health care when you pay your premium and the cost to your government, 
the cost of its debt. We should move step by step in that direction. 
That is the Republican health care plan.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from Rhode 
Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I again rise to urge my colleagues, 
particularly from the other side, to join us in passing the extension 
of unemployment insurance, without delaying action through more 
procedural votes. We are in the midst of a very complicated and 
important debate on health care and we are being urged to move forward 
on that. But something that is pressing, in my view, is the need to 
extend benefits to the people who are running out of the ability to 
support their families. By my count we on this side of the aisle have 
been trying for days to do something that the other body did, with 
bipartisan cooperation, in a vote of 331 to 83 under Suspension of the 
Rules.
  As the President of the Senate knows, this is the way the House moves 
noncontroversial legislation forward without any delay. It is not used 
for major legislation such as this, typically, so that underscores the 
bipartisan solution the House proposed to us more than 25 days ago.
  To compound matters, the other side is now doing more than just 
delaying unemployment benefits for millions; they are also needlessly 
delaying tax cuts for small businesses and first-time home buyers. This 
is a very disturbing precedent. The American people, as my colleague 
was talking about, want to see some results. They want to see us move 
on issues that are critically important to them. What could be more 
critical and more important than extending unemployment benefits to 
those who have lost their jobs and are in a very difficult economy? 
What could be more important to our economy, and to so many people, 
than extending the further benefits of the tax treatment of new home 
buyers, which has produced an increase in sales and investment? This is 
the time to move forward and to also help small businesses. The 
legislation before us includes not only the extension of unemployment 
benefits and the tax break for home buyers, but also the preferential 
tax treatment for small businesses in terms of their ability to access 
losses in the past.
  With the winter and the holidays approaching, this legislation cannot 
come soon enough for millions of Americans who are feeling the effects, 
not of the last 8 months but of the last 8 years, of the Bush economy. 
This legislation will help people literally put food on the table. It 
will give them a sense of support and substance as they go forward. It 
will also help continue the expansion of the economy we have seen. Last 
quarter for the first time in a year we saw growth in the American 
economy--3.5 percent GDP. To sustain that we have to keep incentivizing 
our economy in many different ways. Two of the provisions included--
again with bipartisan support--provide those incentives. Small business 
will get relief in terms of net operating losses. Individual purchasers 
in the real estate market will get the stimulus of the addition and 
extension of the tax treatment of purchase of homes.
  But we could anticipate another cloture vote this week, another 
procedural burden to do something that everybody says we should have 
done weeks ago. My colleagues on this side have suggested amendments 
that are not germane--some that we have repeatedly taken up already, 
indeed have passed. But this should be something more than about 
messaging. This should be about helping the American people. We have 
legislation before us which incorporates, as mentioned, not just 
unemployment extension but two other benefits, for small businesses and 
for new home buyers. This compromise before us should not face these 
delaying tactics. The reality is that 4,000 people in my State need 
this help right away. They need the unemployment benefit extension. 
There are thousands more Rhode Islanders who will exhaust their 
benefits in the next several weeks. Indeed, 3,000 Rhode Islanders are 
receiving extended benefits, which is the final tranche of unemployment 
benefits for most. They will be without any real support if we do not 
move this week, if we do not move promptly, in a timely fashion.
  The latest compromise provides 14 weeks of unemployment insurance for 
jobless Americans in all States, and 20 weeks in those States that have 
the highest unemployment rates, above 8.5 percent. As I mentioned 
before, it also provides help to the home market and help to the small 
business community.
  These are amendments that are important. They are important to all of 
us. We can look back with some sense of progress on our recent GDP 
numbers. But you cannot feed your family on GDP. When you are 
unemployed, looking for work, not finding it, you need unemployment 
compensation benefits. You cannot keep this recovery in the housing 
market going, as robust as it has been, without some further 
assistance. You have to create further benefits for small business so 
they can begin once again to hire Americans. The key to our economic 
crisis is not growing GDP, it is growing employment. These latter 
efforts will be pointed in that direction as we help people who are 
without jobs today.
  This crisis is nationwide. It is not a red State, blue State problem. 
It is our problem. Too many Americans will exhaust their benefits by 
the end of the year. Hundreds of thousands have already exhausted 
benefits. So this delay has real consequences in the lives of all of 
our constituents in every part of this country. It has already been 
over a month since the House passed their legislation. We could have 
passed this promptly. In fact, if you look at the record, the number of 
cloture votes and everything else, we passed yesterday a cloture vote 
on a substitute amendment by 85 to 2. Typically when we have 85 votes 
we do not go through further procedural amendments. We, by unanimous 
consent, take up the measure and pass it routinely. What is lacking 
here is not the 60 votes for cloture, it is unanimous consent; i.e., 
the consent of our Republican colleagues to move forward.
  They are not denying us, they are denying the American people. We 
should take this measure up immediately. With 85-to-2 cloture votes, 85 
people

[[Page S11021]]

will come down, perhaps even all 100, and vote for this bill. But it 
will be a month after we should have accomplished this task.
  While we wait, our economy suffers and thousands of Americans do. So 
I urge passage as quickly as possible. I hope Leader Reid would propose 
that we move to the measure as quickly as possible, that we could avoid 
another cloture vote, another 85-to-2 vote confirming what we all know, 
that eventually when we are allowed to vote on final passage, this 
measure will pass overwhelmingly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Ensign pertaining to the introduction of S. 2724 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions''.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Alaska Native People

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor thousands of our 
fellow citizens who do not receive adequate recognition for their 
enormous contributions to our nation, Alaska Natives and Native 
Americans.
  President Obama has declared this month Native American Heritage 
Month. He also hosts an important summit Thursday with our Nation's 
tribal leaders.
  I salute the President's initiative, which is designed to strengthen 
the special relationship between the Federal and tribal governments.
  This week, many Alaska Native leaders have traveled long distances to 
participate in this summit because they recognize the great 
significance of the Obama administration's historic initiative.
  These events are especially important to Alaska because we proudly 
claim the highest per person number of Native Americans in the Nation.
  Nearly 20 percent of Alaska's population, about 120,000 Alaskans, are 
Alaska Natives.
  From time immemorial, Alaska's Native people have developed a rich 
cultural heritage and sustained themselves by living close to the land 
in some of the most challenging geography and climate on Earth.
  Today, the diversity in Alaska's Native community is broad.
  In scores of tiny villages in some of the most remote regions of our 
Nation, Alaska Native people feed their families with subsistence 
hunting, fishing and gathering. This is a way of life practiced by 
their ancestors for generations.
  At the same time in downtown Anchorage, prosperous Alaska Native 
corporations help fuel our State's economy and employ thousands of 
Alaskans and other Americans from gleaming modern office buildings.
  This is thanks, at least in part, to actions taken by Congress to 
help lay a foundation for success by America's first people and to 
provide the opportunity for self-determination.
  The story of Alaska's Native people is one of great success against 
enormous odds.
  For me, this story is also personal because I was born in Anchorage 
barely 3 years after Alaska became a State in 1959.
  In that era, the status of Alaska Natives was bleak. Fewer than 20 
percent had a high school diploma; less than 1 percent a college 
degree.
  Half lived below the poverty line. Fifty percent of Alaska Natives 
lived without indoor plumbing, collecting their waste in what we call a 
``honey bucket.''
  And nearly two-thirds lacked what we define today as a job. Most 
hunted, fished and lived off Alaska's land and waters to feed their 
families.
  Today, the lives and achievements of Alaska Native people have 
improved dramatically. The 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was 
a completely different model than the reservation system of the lower 
48.
  It established 13 regional for-profit Native corporations, hundreds 
of village non-profit corporations and empowered Alaska's Native people 
to take their destiny into their own hands.
  Subsequent amendments to the act, such as those permitting Alaska 
Native corporations to participate in the SBA's minority business 8(a) 
program, helped even more.
  I am proud to note that the Settlement Act was among my dad's 
proudest accomplishments during his single term in the House of 
Representatives.
  Now, educational attainment is growing, with about half of Alaska 
Natives earning high school diplomas and nearly one-third with at least 
some college.
  Less than 25 percent now live below the poverty line. Three-quarters 
live in homes with the basic clean water and sewer facilities we all 
take for granted.
  What is most impressive to me is the success of Alaska Native 
corporations and tribes. They were formed to help fulfill the Federal 
Government's obligation to Alaska's indigenous people.
  After struggling in their early years, all 12 of Alaska's in-state 
regional profit corporations are profitable, generating about $4 
billion in revenues for their Native shareholders.
  ANCSA corporations are among our State's top employers, providing 
jobs for more than 30,000 people. And I submit that these companies are 
among the most socially conscious in the world.
  Alaska's Native non-profits and tribal organizations partner to 
enrich our State and their members in many ways.
  They provide the resources that help schools, families and 
individuals preserve 10,000-year-old languages, values and ways of 
life.
  They help address the health needs of Alaska Natives through local 
clinics and hospitals, research centers and by building coalitions with 
local, State and Federal partners.
  They empower self-sufficiency with short-term financial assistance 
when it is needed, helping low-income families afford heating fuel and 
electricity, nutrition services for elders and even burial assistance 
so that family members are treated with dignity and respect.
  Through increased self-governance, Native tribal organizations in 
Alaska can provide even more essential services, from law enforcement 
to tackling crippling social problems.
  One of my most rewarding moments so far as a member of this body was 
making sure that two dozen brave members of the Alaska Territorial 
Guard all distinguished Alaska Native elders, finally got the 
recognition they earned for their courageous service to this Nation 
more than a half century ago.
  Long before Alaska was a State and our country was engaged in World 
War II, men like Wendell Booth of Noatak, Paul Kiunya, Sr. of Kipnuk, 
and Victor George of Nulato answered their Nation's call on America's 
most remote front lines.
  Last month, the Senate approved an amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2010 I sponsored with my colleague, Senator Lisa 
Murkowski.
  With President Obama signing that bill into law last week, these 25 
surviving Territorial Guardsmen finally will receive the retirement pay 
and recognition they earned so many years ago.
  Great progress has been made over the years in helping establish the 
means for rural and Native Alaskans to succeed. Yet much work remains 
to be done.
  At the top of my Senate agenda are three specific areas of focus to 
ensure Alaska's Native people continue to flourish.
  First, we must make energy affordable for rural Alaskans.
  Some residents of my State pay the highest energy prices in the 
Nation. Electricity in some Alaska villages exceeds $1 a kilowatt hour, 
compared to just a dime here in Washington.
  When east coast residents complain about high gas prices, consider 
that a gallon costs $11 in Noatak, one of Alaska's villages.
  This is a bitter irony when you consider that Alaska has long prided 
itself as America's energy storehouse, providing the lower 48 States up 
to a quarter of their domestic oil production.
  We are working to address these problems here in Washington.
  My off-shore oil development legislation is unique by providing that 
local governments and tribes get a share of any revenues from Federal 
Outer Continental Shelf Development. Also try-

[[Page S11022]]

ing to kick-start the Alaska natural gas pipeline with Federal loan 
guarantees and other provisions in the Senate energy bill.

  Fortunately, local Alaska leaders are not waiting around for 
Washington to act.
  Regional leaders like Ralph Anderson of Bristol Bay Native 
Association, Tim Towarak through his position with the Bering Straits 
Native Corporation, and Michelle Anderson of Ahtna Development 
Corporation, already are developing comprehensive, regional tribal 
energy plans.
  A second major issue facing Alaska's Native people is subsistence, 
the time-honored practice of harvesting Alaska's rich fish and wildlife 
resources to put food on the table.
  For the last 10,000-plus years, Alaska's Native people implemented a 
subsistence model that worked to create abundance for subsistence 
users. That system is now in disarray.
  The Obama administration announced plans just last month to revamp 
that system and I welcome their initiative.
  We must preserve the rural subsistence priority in Alaska at all 
costs.
  Finally, a continuing major issue in rural Alaska is the lack of 
basic infrastructure. This includes water and sewer systems, so 
Alaskans don't have to live in Third World conditions.
  It includes expanded broadband technology, so all Alaska children 
have equal access to the educational wonders of the Internet.
  We are working to address these needs in Congress. One model for 
economic development in rural Alaska is the Denali Commission.
  For more than a decade, this innovative agency has been addressing 
vital needs from health facilities and energy to roads and water and 
sewer systems.
  I will be seeking the continued support of my colleagues for the 
Denali Commission.
  Mr. President, the largest annual gathering of Alaska Native people 
convened in Anchorage just last month as the Alaska Federation of 
Natives convention.
  Thousands of Alaska Natives from across our State met in Anchorage's 
new Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center, named in honor of the first 
people of that region.
  Their theme spoke to the historic journey of Alaska's Native peoples. 
A journey of overcoming enormous obstacles; a journey full of 
accomplishment and pride.
  I am honored to join my fellow Alaskans on that journey, and to 
salute the enormous contributions of Alaska's Native people on this, 
the first week of Native American and Alaska Native Heritage Month.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly to the issue of the 
unemployment extension, the benefits that would be provided to those 
who find themselves unemployed today. I note that as we speak, the rate 
now stands at 9.8 percent and climbing toward 10 percent or double 
digits.
  Those are the latest numbers we have in September, and it is pretty 
clear there have been more people laid off since the end of September. 
There were about 15.1 million unemployed persons in September, and that 
number has risen by 7.6 million since the start of the recession.
  In Arizona, my own State, 77,300 jobs have been lost just since the 
so-called stimulus package was passed. Overall about 2.7 million jobs 
have been lost in the United States since the stimulus bill. Yet Dr. 
Christina Romer, the Chair of the President's Council on Economic 
Advisers, predicted with the stimulus bill unemployment would never 
exceed 8.1 percent; and, further, that without the stimulus bill 
unemployment would reach a peak high of 9.1 percent in the first 
quarter of 2010.
  Obviously, unfortunately, both predictions were far too rosy. As 
Robert Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post:

       The rap on stimulus one is that it hasn't yet, as promised, 
     reduced unemployment.

  I found it interesting that President Clinton's Labor Secretary, 
Robert Reich, recently wrote:

       Obama's focus on health care, when the economy is still so 
     fragile and unemployment is moving toward double digits, 
     could make it appear that the administration has its 
     priorities confused.

  That is precisely what public opinion surveys show, as the majority 
of Americans wish that we would address the problem of joblessness and 
the economy first and worry about doing something about health care 
after that is fixed.
  It is interesting that one of the President's economic advisers, 
Jared Bernstein, was asked recently on ``The Early Show'' on CBS by 
Harry Smith:

       When does this country start to create jobs on its own?

  Here is what he replied:

       As far as the overall economy is concerned, private sector 
     forecasters tell us that by the second half of next year, net 
     job growth should be positive. Unemployment should be coming 
     down.

  I hope this is ``expectations management'' because the beginning of 
the second half of next year is still 8 months away. So this is one of 
the reasons I support the extension of unemployment benefits. We are 
going to continue to see unemployment increase, as I said, undoubtedly 
to get above the single digits up into the double-digit atmosphere.
  There is a problem that makes this worse, and it is one of the 
reasons Republicans have been seeking to have the authority, the 
ability to offer an amendment to this legislation. So far, even though 
this is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, a body 
in which members of both parties get to offer amendments to 
legislation, not one Republican amendment has been allowed on this 
legislation.
  The majority leader makes the call. He says no, I guess; I do not 
want to hear any Republican ideas on how to deal with the problem. The 
reason this bothers me is because I think at least one of those 
amendments is a very good Republican idea on how to deal with the 
problem.
  The problem is doing something about unemployment. How could we best 
deal with the problem of unemployment? Obviously, put people back to 
work. What are some of the reasons it is hard for businesses to put 
people back to work? One of them is that we have a tax on an employer 
putting people back to work. It is the unemployment tax itself. How do 
we pay for the extension of benefits in this legislation? We extend 
that tax. So what we are doing is, in order to pay for the extension of 
unemployment benefits, we tax the very employers when they hire someone 
and tax them for keeping on their rolls the workers they currently 
have. We continue that tax in existence in order to pay for the 
extension of benefits.
  Republicans had a better idea. Let's find another mechanism to pay 
for an extension of benefits. But no, the majority leader says, you 
cannot offer that amendment.
  This hurts workers in a variety of ways. Let me explain briefly how 
the FUTA surtax actually works. This is a $2.6 billion extension that 
is used to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits. It is a tax 
amounting to 0.8 percent of payroll that applies to the first $7,000 of 
a worker's wages. It is a direct payroll tax. The revenues are then 
deposited into the Federal unemployment trust fund. It is composed of 
two parts: a 0.6-percent permanent tax rate and a 0.2-percent temporary 
tax rate. FUTA only hurts unemployment and job creation since it taxes 
employers for each employee they hire.
  According to Mark Wilson of the Heritage Foundation:

       Legally mandated benefits like unemployment insurance are 
     not ``free'' to workers.

  He goes on:

       Studies indicate that, on average, over 80 percent of the 
     cost of all employer-paid payroll taxes is shifted to workers 
     in the form of lower real paychecks.

  So who is going to pay for the cost of extending the unemployment 
benefits? The workers themselves.
  Republicans had a better idea, but we have been prevented from 
offering that idea in the form of an amendment.
  When we take into account the other mandated requirements on 
employers, the other private sector mandates such as increasing the 
minimum wage, the resulting higher labor costs will affect an 
employer's decision about whether and when to hire workers, which 
worker to hire, how much cash to pay the worker, and how long to keep 
that worker on the payroll. This rise in mandated labor costs paid by 
employers is one of the most important forces leading companies to lay 
off workers or use part-time or temporary workers or

[[Page S11023]]

contract labor instead of full-time employees.
  As I said, while I support extending the benefits, I believe it is 
essential that we address the underlying problems of job creation and 
unemployment. The FUTA tax only makes those problems worse, especially 
for small businesses. This is why Republicans wanted to offer an 
amendment that paid for the benefits extension without the FUTA tax on 
job creation. Why would the majority leader be frightened of this? Why 
would he not want to even debate this obviously legitimate question? 
That is one of the reasons action on this bill has been delayed. This 
bill could have been completed 2 weeks ago.
  I have heard some of my colleagues from the other side come down and 
say: Why are Republicans holding up the extension of unemployment 
benefits? I voted for cloture to proceed. I voted for cloture to 
proceed to the substitute. I am not holding up anything. But the 
majority leader is not holding up his part of the bargain, which is to 
at least allow some amendments--three or four--that Republicans have 
offered. We can't even offer this amendment to offer an alternative way 
to pay for what almost all of us want to do and will end up voting to 
do.
  I find it disappointing that a very good Republican idea, an 
obviously legitimate debate to have, whether workers themselves should 
have to pay for the extension of these benefits and whether that puts 
more people on the unemployment rolls, to have to pay for the extension 
of benefits as time goes on here--I am very disappointed that not only 
have we not had the opportunity to offer that amendment but colleagues 
from the other side have actually come to the floor and complained that 
Republicans are somehow to blame for the extension of unemployment 
benefits not being permitted. When Republicans are not allowed to offer 
these kinds of amendments, then, yes, we will insist upon a debate 
which points out a better idea for solving a problem that every one of 
us wants to solve, the fact that we are not even being allowed to offer 
the amendment in order to have that debate and challenge our colleagues 
from the other side to see whether they want to continue to support 
this program with a tax on workers or they would like to find a better 
way, the way the Republican Party has proposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________