[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 163 (Wednesday, November 4, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11077-S11103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is expired, the substitute amendment is agreed to, and the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  The amendment (No. 2712) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:15 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, that will be, I suppose, about 12 minutes 
each side; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican side has 15 minutes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise in full support of the extension 
of the unemployment insurance compensation. I rise also to express my 
thanks to a number of people in this body.
  First, as everybody knows, we adopted a substitute to the 
unemployment compensation bill by Senator Reid. Senator Reid, the 
majority leader, has been instrumental in seeing to it this bill not 
only passes but that enhancements are made to this bill to help the 
U.S. economy, and it is totally paid for and a net positive to the 
Federal Treasury. I appreciate more than I can express Senator Reid's 
hard work to help this take place.
  Secondly, I thank Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee. 
Senator Baucus and his staff have been unbelievably cooperative in 
helping us find the pay-fors to match and actually exceed the cost of 
the home buyers tax credit which will be extended in this legislation.
  Senator Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee, 3 weeks ago hosted a 
3-hour hearing in the committee on the housing tax credit and the 
housing market. Without his giving us that time to bring forward the 
issues that are so pressing in our country today, I am not sure we 
would be standing here at all. So I am greatly appreciative of Senator 
Dodd.
  I particularly thank Chris Cook on my staff for the work he has done 
in helping make this take place.
  Lastly, but not least, I thank Mr. Richard Smith, a private citizen, 
a person in the housing industry who dedicated countless hours of his 
life in the past month to educate people on the positive effects of 
what we are about to do.
  Briefly, I want to say the following: We learned about 8 months ago 
that a tax credit for first-time home buyers worked. It worked to bring 
back the entry level marketplace in housing, and it helped to begin to 
stabilize the housing market which led us in late 2007 into the 
difficulties we have experienced over the last 20 months. Extending it 
is important, as long as everybody still understands permanent 
extension would be bad. Extending it to next April, which this bill 
does, with a closing no later than June 30, allows the American housing 
market and first-time home buyers to exercise their right to take tax 
they pay, convert it to equity in the investment and net appreciating 
asset, and help stimulate what is the rock-solid base of the American 
economy.
  We also add, in addition to the $8,000 credit extension for first-
time home buyers, a move-up buyer tax credit of $6,500. This is the 
cornerstone of the substitute before us now. It offers to any previous 
homeowner who has lived in their home for at least the last 5 years the 
opportunity to sell that home, invest in a new home, and take up to a 
$6,500 tax credit. That is going to help us boost what is the problem 
in the U.S. housing economy today, and that is what is called the move-
up market. It is the gentleman who is transferred from Delaware with 
Hercules to Brunswick, GA, who cannot sell his house in Wilmington and 
cannot buy a house in Brunswick because the markets are so frozen and 
the move-up market is dead. Now he has an opportunity to sell that 
house and have an incentive for its purchase in Delaware and an 
incentive to come and reinvest that money in Georgia in a house in 
Brunswick. It will make a measurable difference over the next 7 months 
in our economy.
  We also raised the means test on income from $75,000 to $150,000, 
which is in the current credit, to $150,000 and $225,000 in the new 
bill for both move-up buyers as well as first-time home buyers. Those 
income thresholds will open the incentive to more Americans and I think 
will show a measurable increase in the amount of business that takes 
place.
  In response to the Internal Revenue Service concerns we expressed a 
few months ago on fraud, we put in every single request they made for 
fraud to

[[Page S11078]]

see to it the HUD-1 is attached to tax statements, to see to it there 
is no fraudulent claim of the money, and to see to it the IRS has every 
tool they can to prosecute to the fullest anybody who would abuse this 
credit.
  Lastly, we have one exemption to the payback. As the Presiding 
Officer knows, the credit has to be paid back if somebody sells their 
house within the first 3 years of occupancy and moves. That is because 
they are required to own it at least 3 years. That payback is waived if 
they are a member of the U.S. military who has redeployed in our 
military in the United States or overseas. It is not right for them to 
respond to our country's call and then penalize them on the tax credit 
if they used it before by not knowing they would be called or moved 
again.
  Again, I thank Senator Reid, Senator Baucus, and Senator Dodd for 
their tremendous work. I thank the Members of this body for their 
positive vote of 85 to 2 on cloture on Monday night and hopefully what 
will be a very positive vote tomorrow night to extend and pass the 
first-time home buyers credit and add to it the move-up buyers home 
credit.
  I add to this list everybody who has an interest, everybody who 
thinks it is a great opportunity. It is a great opportunity, but it 
ends on April 30 for contracts and on June 30 for closing. It would not 
be in the best interests of the United States or this Senate to extend 
this credit. Part of the benefit of a tax credit is the scarcity or the 
urgency of its sunsetting. This tax credit will sunset on April 30, 
2010, and it will not be extended. Closing will have to take place by 
June 30 or it will not count.
  I urge all Americans who have always dreamed, if they are a first-
time home buyer, of having a home of their own or Americans who have 
been gridlocked in the failure of our move-up market to actually move 
up and work, you have a 7-month opportunity that is good for you, it is 
good for the United States of America, and it is good for this economy.
  I yield the floor by thanking all the Members of this body and urging 
them to vote in favor of the adoption of the substitute and ultimately 
on the passage of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend several of my colleagues who 
brought us one step closer to passing an extension of unemployment 
insurance which is absolutely critical in the lives of millions of 
Americans. Hundreds of thousands--millions, indeed--have run out of 
their benefits or are about to run out of their benefits. They are 
facing the prospect of a tough economy without jobs and looking 
feverishly and not finding them and not having a basic support for 
their families. This is critical.
  Majority Leader Reid has helped immensely, together with Chairman 
Baucus. I particularly single out Senator Isakson and Senator Bunning. 
They have worked collectively, collaboratively to bring to this bill 
two other measures which are critical. As Senator Isakson explained, 
the housing tax credit. One of the real benefits of this body when it 
works well is we are able to have the expertise and the judgment and 
the knowledge of someone such as Senator Isakson who understands better 
than anyone else the real estate market because he came up through that 
business.
  His vision months ago gave us the option to move forward on this 
homeowners tax credit. It has been a huge success, and it is much to 
the credit of Senator Isakson.
  Senator Bunning recognizes the need for the net operating loss 
favorable treatment to small businesses.
  When we work together, pooling our best ideas, we can contribute to 
the well-being of Americans all through this country. I thank those two 
Senators.
  I hope that after what I anticipate to be another overwhelming 
procedural vote that we could move immediately to consideration of 
final passage of the unemployment compensation bill, together with the 
measures Senator Isakson and Senator Bunning have offered.
  I hesitate, but I will add that it has been 20-plus days since we 
have been considering this unemployment extension. We have been through 
numerous procedural votes. These procedural votes have been 
overwhelming. Monday evening, it was 85 to 2. Typically, when we have 
that kind of underlying support for a measure, we do not need 30 
additional hours, particularly now since we are considering a 
bipartisan bill, incorporating unemployment compensation extensions, 
first-time home buyers, together with net operating loss treatment for 
small businesses.
  So I anticipate a successful procedural vote. I would like to 
anticipate swift and unanimous passage, and I hope that is the case.
  The issue of unemployment compensation is absolutely critical all 
across this country. There is no place today in the United States that 
does not see a serious crisis in unemployment. In my home State, we 
have a 13-percent unemployment rate. My assembly was briefed today with 
the prediction that the rate will peak sometime next year at 14 
percent. That is crippling in terms of its effect on families.
  We have seen some progress in our economy. We saw last week, for the 
first time in a year, a growth in the gross domestic product--3.5 
percent. The economy is expanding. We are growing again. The downward 
collapse has stopped, and we are beginning to grow. But, as I suggested 
previously on the floor, you can't feed your family GDP. You need a 
job. You need to be able to work. You need to have the certainty of 
your work, that it will be there. And you have to be able to have that 
job to provide for your family and to give us the confidence we need to 
continue to grow and expand the economy.
  One of the economic effects we have seen is lagging consumer 
consumption, which was a major driving force in our economy. It is 
obvious that when people are afraid of losing their jobs, when people 
have lost their jobs, their consumption is necessarily limited. So in 
order to sustain our growth, we have to go ahead and rebuild our 
employment situation.
  But what we have to do immediately is to recognize there are people 
without jobs. These are people who have worked all their lives. My 
colleagues have come to the floor repeatedly and they have read--
Senator Durbin and so many others--letters from constituents, husbands 
and wives who are now faced with no employment, are faced with the loss 
of their insurance because their COBRA is running out, their health 
care, and they are worried about losing their homes. For the first 
time, they are at the edge of financial ruin. Many have already 
exhausted their 401(k)s, all their retirement benefits, just to get by, 
just to survive.
  Again, these are people who have worked all their lives. We owe them 
something more than procedural niceties in the Senate. I hope that 
today we will pay that debt to these people.
  We are here on the verge, I hope, of quick passage and not additional 
delay. We have taken it step by step. The leadership of Majority Leader 
Reid and Chairman Baucus has been extraordinary, and with the 
thoughtful and substantive contributions of my colleagues, Senators 
Isakson and Bunning. I hope that with this now bipartisan approach, we 
can, in fact, not only procedurally take it a further step but pick up 
the pace dramatically and cross the finish line--today, I hope. I would 
obviously urge all my colleagues to support this measure and support 
the underlying legislation as quickly as possible.
  At this juncture, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during 
the quorum be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, again I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S11079]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Anniversary of Iran Hostage Crisis

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to note the 30th anniversary of 
a very sad day in American history. On this day 30 years ago, an angry 
mob of so-called students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 
66 U.S. citizens hostage there. The original plan of the terrorists was 
to hold the Embassy for 3 days. In the end, they held 52 American 
hostages for 444 days.
  The images of hostages blindfolded, with their hands tied behind 
their backs, should remain seared in our memories. The ABC News program 
``Nightline'' essentially has its beginning in this crisis. The title 
of the news program at the time was ``The Iran Crisis--America Held 
Hostage.'' Each night, as Americans went to bed, it would add a day to 
its count of how long Americans were held hostage. Walter Cronkite 
would similarly sign off his newscast.
  I am sure many remember the chants of the hostage takers and those 
who supported them--``Death to America,'' they would say. The Iranian 
regime would call us the ``Great Satan.'' The thing is, although the 
hostages have long been released, not much else has changed. The 
government still leads its citizens in chants of ``Death to America.''
  After Ayatollah Khamenei came to power, a Time magazine article in 
1980 described him as the face showing ``the ease with which terrorism 
can be adopted as government policy.'' Terrorism remains the policy of 
the Government of Iran today. Earlier this year, the State Department 
issued its annual report on terrorism, finding that ``Iran remained the 
most active state sponsor of terrorism.''
  The Ayatollah Khamenei blessed this brazen terrorist act of holding 
Americans hostage. Upon his coming to power, Iran went from being an 
American ally in the region to our mortal enemy. The hostage crisis 
was, and remains, the defining symbol of this rupture.
  In his inaugural address, in keeping with his campaign promises, 
President Obama stated to countries such as Iran, ``We will extend a 
hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.'' On the nuclear weapons 
issue, the hand has been extended many times to Iran, but Iran has yet 
to unclench its fist.
  Sadly, its resistance is nothing new. In October 2003, Iran concluded 
an agreement with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom known as the 
EU-3 in which Iran promised to suspend its uranium-enrichment 
activities. It did not live up to that promise. Iran arranged again, in 
November 2004, a suspension agreement with the EU-3, only to repudiate 
it again. This Iranian duplicity continues to this day.
  In June 2006, the EU-3 was joined by Russia, China, and the United 
States to become the P5-plus-1. They called on Iran to suspend its 
uranium-enrichment activities in exchange for a variety of incentives. 
A revised version of this proposal was presented to Iran in the summer 
of 2008.
  The International Atomic Energy Agency issued its most recent report 
on the matter in August 2009. In paragraph 27, it found that:

       Iran has not suspended its uranium enrichment related 
     activities or its work on heavy water related projects as 
     required by the Security Council.

  The most recent Congressional Research Service report on the matter 
says:

       Iranian officials maintain that Iran will not suspend its 
     enrichment program.

  Yet another deal to bribe Iran to comply with its international 
obligations is before Iran today. Under this proposal, Iran would 
transfer stocks of its low-enriched uranium to Russia, Russia would 
enrich the uranium further and transfer that to France for France to 
fabricate into fuel assemblies, and then finally France would transfer 
this enriched uranium back to Iran. This deal came after the G-20 
meeting in Pittsburgh in September, at which it was revealed that Iran 
had a covert enrichment facility in defiance of all of its 
international commitments and requirements.
  French President Sarkozy said:

       If by December there is not an in-depth change by the 
     Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken.

  Prime Minister Brown stated:

       I say on behalf of the United Kingdom today, we will not 
     let this matter rest. And we are prepared to implement 
     further and more stringent sanctions.

  I hope President Obama will join in the Europeans' forceful and clear 
response to continued Iranian intransigence on the nuclear issue.
  This current Iranian regime represents the same terrorists who took 
U.S. citizens hostage 30 years ago today and held them in humiliating 
captivity for 444 days. That seminal event is still celebrated in Iran. 
I do not believe it has ever been repudiated or condemned by the 
Iranian Government.
  In his book ``Guests of the Ayatollah,'' Mark Bowden describes how 
the U.S. Embassy has perversely become an anti-American museum to which 
students are bussed to commemorate the terrorist event. He further 
describes how ``the takeover is remembered as one of the founding 
events of the Islamic `republic.' ''
  Mr. Bowden also writes:

       The Iran hostage crisis was for most Americans their first 
     encounter with Islamo-fascism and, as such, can be seen as 
     the first battle in that ongoing world conflict. [The 
     hostages] were the first victims of the inaptly named `war on 
     terror.' ''

  Now Iran continues its nuclear activities in defiance of Security 
Council resolutions, and it remains the world's leading state sponsor 
of terrorism. This regime is not negotiating in good faith over its 
nuclear program, and during the time we have attempted to bring it into 
compliance with its international obligations, Iran has continued to 
defiantly develop its nuclear capabilities.
  Thirty years ago today, Iran directly threatened and harmed the most 
vital and core U.S. interests. No one in this Chamber should be 
confused that 30 years later this regime still means to do us harm.
  Mr. President, I wish to especially thank Michael Stransky for his 
research on this matter.
  As a sign of remembrance and respect, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the names of all of those taken hostage in Iran 
30 years ago today, as well as the 8 servicemembers who lost their 
lives in an attempt to free them.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    The Hostages and The Casualties

       Sixty-six Americans were taken captive when Iranian 
     militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979, 
     including three who were at the Iranian Foreign Ministry. Six 
     more Americans escaped. Of the 66 who were taken hostage, 13 
     were released on Nov. 19 and 20, 1979; one was released on 
     July 11, 1980, and the remaining 52 were released on Jan. 20, 
     1981. Ages in this list are at the time of release.

       The 52:

       Thomas L. Ahern, Jr., 48, McLean, VA. Narcotics control 
     officer.
       Clair Cortland Barnes, 35, Falls Church, VA. Communications 
     specialist.
       William E. Belk, 44, West Columbia, SC. Communications and 
     records officer.
       Robert O. Blucker, 54, North Little Rock, AR. Economics 
     officer specializing in oil.
       Donald J. Cooke, 26, Memphis, TN. Vice consul.
       William J. Daugherty, 33, Tulsa, OK. Third secretary of 
     U.S. mission.
       Lt. Cmdr. Robert Englemann, 34, Hurst, TX. Naval attache.
       Sgt. William Gallegos, 22, Pueblo, CO. Marine guard.
       Bruce W. German, 44, Rockville, MD. Budget officer.
       Duane L. Gillette, 24, Columbia, PA. Navy communications 
     and intelligence specialist.
       Alan B. Golancinksi, 30, Silver Spring, MD. Security 
     officer.
       John E. Graves, 53, Reston, VA. Public affairs officer.
       Joseph M. Hall, 32, Elyria, OH. Military attache with 
     warrant officer rank.
       Sgt. Kevin J. Hermening, 21, Oak Creek, WI. Marine guard.
       Sgt. 1st Class Donald R. Hohman, 38, Frankfurt, West 
     Germany. Army medic.
       Col. Leland J. Holland, 53, Laurel, MD. Military attache.
       Michael Howland, 34, Alexandria, VA. Security aide, one of 
     three held in Iranian Foreign Ministry.
       Charles A. Jones, Jr., 40, Communications specialist and 
     teletype operator. Only African-American hostage not released 
     in November 1979.
       Malcolm Kalp, 42, Fairfax, VA. Position unknown.
       Moorhead C. Kennedy Jr., 50, Washington, DC. Economic and 
     commercial officer.
       William F. Keough, Jr., 50, Brookline, MA. Superintendent 
     of American School in Islamabad, Pakistan, visiting Tehran at 
     time of embassy seizure.
       Cpl. Steven W. Kirtley, 22, Little Rock, AR. Marine guard.
       Kathryn L. Koob, 42, Fairfax, VA. Embassy cultural officer; 
     one of two women hostages.

[[Page S11080]]

       Frederick Lee Kupke, 34, Francesville, IN. Communications 
     officer and electronics specialist.
       L. Bruce Laingen, 58, Bethesda, MD. Charge d'affaires. One 
     of three held in Iranian Foreign Ministry.
       Steven Lauterbach, 29, North Dayton, OH. Administrative 
     officer.
       Gary E. Lee, 37, Falls Church, VA. Administrative officer.
       Sgt. Paul Edward Lewis, 23, Homer, IL. Marine guard.
       John W. Limbert, Jr., 37, Washington, DC. Political 
     officer.
       Sgt. James M. Lopez, 22, Globe, AZ. Marine guard.
       Sgt. John D. McKeel, Jr., 27, Balch Springs, TX. Marine 
     guard.
       Michael J. Metrinko, 34, Olyphant, PA. Political officer.
       Jerry J. Miele, 42, Mt. Pleasant, PA. Communications 
     officer.
       Staff Sgt. Michael E. Moeller, 31, Quantico, VA. Head of 
     Marine guard unit.
       Bert C. Moore, 45, Mount Vernon, OH. Counselor for 
     administration.
       Richard H. Morefield, 51, San Diego, CA. U.S. Consul 
     General in Tehran.
       Capt. Paul M. Needham, Jr., 30, Bellevue, NE. Air Force 
     logistics staff officer.
       Robert C. Ode, 65, Sun City, AZ. Retired Foreign Service 
     officer on temporary duty in Tehran.
       Sgt. Gregory A. Persinger, 23, Seaford, DE. Marine guard.
       Jerry Plotkin, 45, Sherman Oaks, CA. Private businessman 
     visiting Tehran.
       MSgt. Regis Ragan, 38, Johnstown, PA. Army noncom, assigned 
     to defense attache's officer.
       Lt. Col. David M. Roeder, 41, Alexandria, VA. Deputy Air 
     Force attache.
       Barry M. Rosen, 36, Brooklyn, NY. Press attache.
       William B. Royer, Jr., 49, Houston, TX. Assistant director 
     of Iran-American Society.
       Col. Thomas E. Schaefer, 50, Tacoma, WA. Air Force attache.
       Col. Charles W. Scott, 48, Stone Mountain, GA. Army 
     officer, military attache.
       Cmdr. Donald A. Sharer, 40, Chesapeake, VA. Naval air 
     attache.
       Sgt. Rodney V. (Rocky) Sickmann, 22, Krakow, MO. Marine 
     Guard.
       Staff Sgt. Joseph Subic, Jr., 23, Redford Township, MI. 
     Military policeman (Army) on defense attache's staff.
       Elizabeth Ann Swift, 40, Washington, DC. Chief of embassy's 
     political section; one of two women hostages.
       Victor L. Tomseth, 39, Springfield, OR. Senior political 
     officer; one of three held in Iranian Foreign Ministry.
       Phillip R. Ward, 40, Culpeper, VA. Administrative officer.

       One hostage was freed July 11, 1980, because of an illness 
     later diagnosed as multiple sclerosis:

       Richard I. Queen, 28, New York, NY. Vice consul.

       Six American diplomats avoided capture when the embassy was 
     seized. For three months they were sheltered at the Canadian 
     and Swedish embassies in Tehran. On Jan. 28, 1980, they fled 
     Iran using Canadian passports:

       Robert Anders, 34, Port Charlotte, FL. Consular officer.
       Mark J. Lijek, 29, Falls Church, VA. Consular officer.
       Cora A. Lijek, 25, Falls Church, VA. Consular assistant.
       Henry L. Schatz, 31, Coeur d'Alene, ID. Agriculture 
     attache.
       Joseph D. Stafford, 29, Crossville, TN. Consular officer.
       Kathleen F. Stafford, 28, Crossville, TN. Consular 
     assistant.

       Thirteen women and African-Americans among the Americans 
     who were seized at the embassy were released on Nov. 19 and 
     20, 1979:

       Kathy Gross, 22, Cambridge Springs, PA. Secretary.
       Sgt. James Hughes, 30, Langley Air Force Base, VA. Air 
     Force administrative manager.
       Lillian Johnson, 32, Elmont, NY. Secretary.
       Sgt. Ladell Maples, 23, Earle, AR. Marine guard.
       Elizabeth Montagne, 42, Calumet City, IL. Secretary.
       Sgt. William Quarles, 23, Washington, DC. Marine guard.
       Lloyd Rollins, 40, Alexandria, VA. Administrative officer.
       Capt. Neal (Terry) Robinson, 30, Houston, TX. 
     Administrative officer.
       Terri Tedford, 24, South San Francisco, CA. Secretary.
       Sgt. Joseph Vincent, 42, New Orleans, LA. Air Force 
     administrative manager.
       Sgt. David Walker, 25, Prairie View, TX. Marine guard.
       Joan Walsh, 33, Ogden, UT. Secretary.
       Cpl. Wesley Williams, 24, Albany, NY. Marine guard.

       Eight U.S. servicemen from the all-volunteer Joint Special 
     Operations Group were killed in the Great Salt Desert near 
     Tabas, Iran, on April 25, 1980, in the aborted attempt to 
     rescue the American hostages:

       Capt. Richard L. Bakke, 34, Long Beach, CA. Air Force.
       Sgt. John D. Harvey, 21, Roanoke, VA. Marine Corps.
       Cpl. George N. Holmes, Jr., 22, Pine Bluff, AR. Marine 
     Corps.
       Staff Sgt. Dewey L. Johnson, 32, Jacksonville, NC. Marine 
     Corps.
       Capt. Harold L. Lewis, 35, Mansfield, CT. Air Force.
       Tech. Sgt. Joel C. Mayo, 34, Bonifay, FL. Air Force.
       Capt. Lynn D. McIntosh, 33, Valdosta, GA. Air Force.
       Capt. Charles T. McMillan II, 28, Corrytown, TN. Air Force.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time remains on your side. There is 32 
seconds remaining on the other side.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, without objection, I will proceed for the 
remaining seconds and simply remind everyone that we are taking another 
step to expand unemployment coverage for an additional 14 weeks for 
every State and 6 more weeks for those States that have unemployment 
rates above 8.5 percent. We are incorporating a home buyer tax credit 
that has worked remarkably well, and we are also incorporating net 
operating loss treatment for small businesses so they can have 
additional resources to hire more Americans.
  This legislation is important, it is critical, it is vital, and I 
hope it is unanimously accepted.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             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 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 has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 333 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

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

                                NAYS--1

       
     DeMint
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     McCaskill
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 1. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I note that my colleague from New 
Hampshire is also on the floor. Did she want to go first?

[[Page S11081]]

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Go ahead.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Debt and Deficit

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, last night's elections have been 
interpreted in a variety of different ways. I listened to one channel 
and got one certain interpretation, I listened to another channel and I 
got the exact opposite interpretation. So I will throw in my 
interpretation.
  I think the American people, most Americans today, are going through 
some tough times. They are finding it very difficult to make ends meet. 
Many Americans have lost their jobs, unfortunately. Those Americans who 
have jobs are worried about their jobs. They are going home at night, 
they are sitting down with their husbands or with their wives and they 
are trying to work through the family finances.
  They are concerned about making ends meet. They are worried about 
their credit card debt, they are worried about their mortgage, they are 
worried about how they are going to pay for their children's schooling, 
if their kids are in school. If they are graduate students, they are 
not kids, they are worried about how they are going to pay all those 
debts they are running up to get through school.
  I think Americans understand the debt is a problem personally and now 
they look at the Federal Government and they see we are running up this 
massive debt on them. We are going to be asked, fairly soon, to raise 
the level of the national debt by maybe $1 trillion.
  This year the deficit will exceed $1.4 trillion--or last year--and we 
are seeing deficits projected for the next 10 years of over $1 trillion 
a year. They are seeing our Federal debt being bought up by foreign 
countries. Yet our Federal debt keeps going up dramatically. They are 
asking themselves: How can this be? How can a country as strong and 
vibrant as the United States continue to run up all this debt and 
continue to be successful? We cannot do it as family members. We cannot 
do it in our household. How can the Federal Government do this?
  I think the answer is fairly intuitive: It cannot do this. Yet we 
continue to do it as a government. So I think some of the vote last 
night was a statement that, hey, Federal Government, take a pause. 
Think about what you are doing in the area of running up deficits and 
running up debt and passing on to the children, to our children and to 
our grandchildren, a situation which is not fiscally sustainable.
  Think about what is going to occur if we continue to run these 
massive deficits and this massive debt. It will be a situation where we 
have a new saying in this country, ``No child left a dime'' as a result 
of all this debt being run up. Our kids will be put in a position where 
their quality of life will be fundamentally undermined. They will not 
be able to buy their home. They will not be able to send their children 
to college. They will not be able to do the things we have been able to 
do in our generation because they will have to be paying for the debt 
which we put on their backs, $1 trillion of deficit every year for the 
next 10 years, the public debt going to 80 percent of GDP.
  Yet the proposals we are seeing come across this floor aggravate the 
situation almost on a daily basis. Two weeks ago, there was a proposal 
by the White House to add $13 billion of new deficit spending because 
they wanted to give $250 to every Social Security recipient.
  Well, I think most Social Security recipients are sophisticated 
enough to know that putting $13 billion of debt on their children's 
backs, in a system that already has severe fiscal problems, is not 
worth it for $250. It is not worth doing that to their kids and their 
grandkids.
  Then, 1 week ago, it was proposed we spend almost $\1/4\ trillion--
$250 billion--to fund the doctors fix. The doctors need this 
adjustment. But it was going to be funded by passing debt, putting debt 
on our children's backs. We could not afford to do that to them.
  It is not right to fix the doctors' problem by passing the bill on to 
the next generation. Yet that was what was proposed. It passed in the 
House. Fortunately, over on the other side of the aisle, a number of 
folks stood and joined all the Republicans and said: No, that is not 
the way to do it. We should pay for that.
  We are going to see a highway bill coming through here pretty soon. 
That bill is going to add potentially $150 billion of new debt to the 
deficit.
  The most egregious example of this problem of expanding the deficit 
and the debt on our children and leaving our children in a situation 
where no child has a dime is the situation that is coming down the pike 
on the health care bill. The House of Representatives leadership on the 
Democratic side has proposed a bill that, when fully implemented--in 
the first 10 years, it is not fully implemented so the costs are 
underestimated--is going to cost $2.4 trillion of new spending. It will 
take health care spending up to 22 percent of the gross national 
product. We will be spending more than a fifth of this country's wealth 
on health care as a result of the House bill.
  The practical implications of that are staggering, not only to our 
economy but to this government. To grow this government by $2.4 
trillion is going to put us in a situation where we will basically have 
a government that is piling more debt on top of debt we already can 
afford.
  It is alleged that this is paid for. It is paid for in the first 10 
years, if you use the most rosy assumptions, because they start the 
pay-for years on year 1, and they don't start the expenditures until 
year 4. So in a 10-year period they have 6 years of expenditures 
matched against 10 years of income. But when you get it fully 
implemented, it is not paid for. There is a huge gap. The pay-for 
assumes that you are going to take $4- to $500 billion out of Medicare 
and move it over to a new entitlement. You will take $4- to $500 
billion of new tax increases and pay for this new entitlement. We can't 
afford that. If we are going to adjust Medicare spending by $\1/2\ 
trillion, which is what the House is proposing, that money should go to 
making Medicare solvent. It should not go to creating a brand new 
entitlement which is going to weight down even further the ability of 
the Federal Government to pay its bills. Yet that is the proposal. If 
you are going to dramatically increase taxes, as the bill suggests, by 
$\1/2\ trillion, that money should also go to address the deficit and 
the debt. It should not go to expanding the size of government.
  The fundamental problem with this health care bill, as it left the 
House and the Senate Finance and HELP Committees, is that it grows the 
government at a dramatic rate and uses resources which should be used 
to get the deficit under control or to make Medicare more solvent. It 
uses those resources to expand a brand new entitlement. We know, 
because we have seen it in all sorts of initiatives, that when you put 
a new program on the books, you inevitably, especially an entitlement 
program, underestimate the cost, and you equally overestimate revenues. 
Inevitably, the majority of that cost is financed through deficit 
spending and is added to the debt. You just have to look at our history 
to know that is true.
  As we go forward from this point, I hope we will think a little bit 
about addressing what most Americans who voted last night were thinking 
about, at least when they went home to do their own budgets, and that 
is the deficit and debt, and that we won't put on the books a brandnew 
entitlement that will cost us $2.4 trillion when fully implemented and 
which will dramatically aggravate our ability to pay for debt we 
already know is coming down the road to make Medicare more solvent, 
which we know is a big issue and will increase the size of the 
government. When this bill is fully implemented, if it were passed in 
its present form, the Federal Government would grow from 20 percent of 
GDP to 23\1/2\ percent of GDP. That would be the largest percentage of 
the economy the Federal Government has taken out of it since World War 
II. Then it continues to go up. It ends up, after 10 years, at about 26 
percent of GDP, if we factor in all the different expenditures which 
are proposed in other parts of the budget.
  It is not sustainable. It is not fair. It is not right. One 
generation should not do this to another generation. We should not 
promise new programs we cannot pay for and which will pass on to our 
kids costs which they will have

[[Page S11082]]

to bear in a way which will dramatically affect their quality of life. 
I hope we will take a little time out and say: Let's see if there isn't 
a better way to do this. Let's see if we can't do this in a more 
fiscally responsible way, in a way that doesn't grow the government by 
trillions of dollars, and which doesn't pass massive new debt on to our 
children.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I agree with my colleague from New 
Hampshire. We have too many people who are struggling right now in this 
recession. We have too many people who are unemployed, who need help 
until they can get back on their feet, find a new job, until the 
economy starts creating jobs again. That is why I am having so much 
trouble understanding why it has taken this body so long--4 weeks now--
to extend unemployment benefits for those people who are losing their 
benefits before the end of this year, almost 2 million Americans, and 
we have been trying to pass an extension of unemployment for the last 
month.
  I rise to speak in support of the Worker Home Ownership and Business 
Assistance Act, a bill that will extend unemployment benefits 14 weeks 
for unemployed workers in every State and for an additional 6 weeks in 
those States with over 8.5 percent unemployment. I am pleased that 
today the Senate has voted by an overwhelming majority, 97-to-1, to 
proceed to final passage of this legislation.
  This broad, bipartisan vote acknowledges that unemployment affects 
every community in every State in every part of the country. In fact, 
this is the third vote we have had now to proceed to this bill. Every 
vote has passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan vote. Despite those 
strong votes in support of an extension, opponents have put up 
obstacles at every turn to delay passage of the bill. As a result of 
these delay tactics, approximately 200,000 workers have lost their 
benefits in the last month.
  Hopefully after 4 long weeks, the end is in sight. Soon people like 
Richard, one of my constitutents from Winchester, NH, who called my 
office yesterday, will get the help he desperately needs. Richard is a 
single father of three boys. He lost his job as a machinist at 
Greenfield Tap and Dye plant, a small manufacturing plant in the 
southwestern part of the State, more than a year ago. Since then he has 
been using his savings, his unemployment benefits to pay his mortgage, 
to buy food, to buy gas, and to pay for other necessities. Richard has 
been out looking for other manufacturing jobs, but no one is willing to 
hire him until this economy improves.
  That is what the Senate has been working on. I disagree respectfully 
with my colleague from New Hampshire. Much of the effort we have 
expended in the Senate has been to support the economy so it does 
improve, so we can create jobs again.
  We are on the cusp of finally passing this legislation to help 
Richard and his family and millions of other jobless Americans whose 
benefits will run out, to help them get through the holidays. As I have 
said many times, when we extend unemployment, we are not only helping 
those workers whose benefits have been exhausted, we are helping small 
businesses that provide the goods and services the unemployed are going 
to need. They are going to go out and spend those unemployment checks 
on those goods and services so that for every $1 we spend on 
unemployment, it turns over $1.61 in the economy. People collecting 
unemployment spend their benefits immediately on necessities to keep 
their families going, which means these dollars get into communities 
almost as soon as the checks arrive. Economists say that dollar for 
dollar, extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-
effective actions we can take to stimulate the economy.
  Passing this extension is the right choice for unemployed workers and 
for communities. I look forward to passing this extension for Richard 
and for the millions of Americans who are counting on us to act.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BURRIS. Thank you, Madam President.
  Two months ago, I stood on the floor of this Chamber and made a 
solemn commitment. It is a commitment I have restated almost every day 
that the Senate has been in session, and I will say it once again 
today: I will not vote for any health care reform bill that fails to 
include a strong public option.
  Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of misinformation about 
what the public option is really about and what it would mean to 
ordinary Americans. So let's cut through the distractions and scare 
tactics and talk seriously. Let's define exactly what a strong public 
option means.
  I hear people talk about public options and triggers and opt-outs and 
opt-ins and all kinds of other proposals. Some people throw words 
around interchangeably. But words are important, and this is not some 
abstract idea, this is a real set of proposals that will affect real 
people in real ways. So let's define exactly what we are talking about.
  The strong public option is about three things: competition, lower 
costs, and accountability. That is why a strong public option is 
essential to achieve real, meaningful reform.
  We can all agree that we need to fix our health care system now, but 
let's also agree to fix it the right way.
  First and foremost, a strong public option must create true 
competition in the health care insurance market. A key problem with 
health coverage is that consumers do not have any options. In America 
today, only two industries are not bound by antitrust laws that apply 
to every other business in this country: health care insurance and 
Major League Baseball. When every other private enterprise has to 
compete in the open market for their business, why does big insurance 
deserve special treatment? In my opinion, they don't. In such a highly 
concentrated environment, there is no incentive to compete. There is no 
reason to improve service, expand access, or work with patients and 
doctors to achieve better health outcomes. In fact, there is every 
incentive to do just the opposite.
  We have seen unprecedented consolidation in the insurance market, and 
that has led to a lack of competition and choice for American 
consumers. Over the past 13 years, there have been more than 400 
corporate mergers involving health insurers. As a result, 94 percent of 
our Nation's health markets are now considered ``highly concentrated,'' 
meaning they are virtual monopolies.
  In my home State of Illinois, just two companies control 69 percent 
of our market. Sadly, Illinois is far from alone. In Alabama, a single 
company controls almost 90 percent of the market, and in Iowa, Rhode 
Island, Arkansas, Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming, Maine, and Montana, 
the two largest insurance companies control at least 80 percent of the 
market. In fact, there are only three States in the entire country 
where the largest three companies control less than 50 percent of the 
insurance market.
  This must end. We must restore competition and choice to the health 
insurance industry. It is time to create a strong public option that 
will make insurers compete for people's business, just like any other 
company in America.
  A strong public option will give people a choice for the first time 
in decades. No one would be forced to change their coverage, but if 
their current provider isn't treating them right, they deserve the 
opportunity to choose something better and more affordable.
  That brings me to my next point. In order to achieve real reform, a 
public option must be strong enough to significantly lower costs. Every 
Member of this Senate knows what America pays for insurance. One dollar 
out of every $6 we spend in this country goes to pay for health care. 
Health outcomes are down, but somehow insurance company profits are 
through the

[[Page S11083]]

roof. This does not make sense. Premiums are rising four times faster 
than wages. In fact, between 2000 and 2007, 10 of the country's top 
insurance companies increased their profits by an average of 428 
percent. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. I think all 
businesses should make a profit. But there is nothing fair about 
creating a monopoly and then wringing money out of sick Americans who 
are counting on them in their hour of need.
  Not only are there almost 50 million Americans without health 
insurance, there is also a massive segment of the population who can't 
afford what little coverage they have.
  The American people deserve the chance to shop around, to compare 
options and pick plans that are right for themselves and their families 
or small businesses. If private companies have to compete with a strong 
public plan, people's premiums will come down, companies will bring 
costs under control, and this will help save money. But it is not just 
costs that will improve. Providers will also improve quality of 
coverage. They will start to focus on patient outcomes rather than 
profits. As a result, better care will become available to more people.
  A strong public option would require some capital to get off the 
ground, just like any other business, but after that, it would rely on 
the premiums it collects to remain self-sufficient. It would operate 
like a not-for-profit insurance company, setting affordable rates based 
on the actual cost of care, not a desire to give giant bonuses to their 
executives and pay dividends to their stockholders.
  The current system is a drain on the American taxpayer, but a strong 
public option would not be. It would not be a handout, it would not 
force anyone to change their current coverage, but it would drive down 
costs and give people a real choice for the first time in decades. A 
strong public option would provide a cheaper alternative to private 
companies and would force those companies to improve their product or 
risk losing customers.
  That brings me to the third goal we must achieve with real health 
care reform. A public option must be strong enough to bring real 
accountability to the health insurance industry. For far too long, 
private insurance providers have been running roughshod over the 
American public. More often than not, those most in need are the ones 
who suffer the worst abuse. There is a lot of money to be made off of 
the poor. I will repeat that statement. There is a lot of money to be 
made off of the poor. Insurance companies don't seem to mind raking in 
the cash at their expense. Private insurance companies will drop your 
coverage for almost any reason. They routinely exploit minor 
technicalities to avoid paying claims for those who need assistance the 
most. These companies continue to look at new and innovative ways to 
deny coverage to sick Americans because they know these people have 
nowhere else to turn. A strong public option, coupled with the rest of 
our insurance reform, will change all of that.
  Our reforms would make it illegal to deny coverage because of a 
preexisting condition. A strong public option would allow people to 
shop around if they don't like the coverage they have or if they are 
paying too much. As the system exists today, the health insurance 
corporations are accountable to their shareholders first and their 
customers second. A strong public option would reverse that; it would 
prioritize patients over profit. It would give the American people the 
chance to hold their companies accountable for the first time in many 
years.
  So that is why I support a strong public option. That is what it 
would mean for America: competition, cost savings, and accountability. 
Unless we are able to meet these three conditions in the bill, I will 
not vote for it. I believe a strong public option is the best way to 
achieve these goals. In fact, my preference is to have a robust plan 
that would be tied to Medicare. Whatever form the legislation takes, I 
will ultimately judge it based on its ability to bring about real 
competition, lower costs, and restore accountability.
  So it is time to make good on the promise first articulated by Teddy 
Roosevelt almost 100 years ago. It is time to make comprehensive health 
care reform a reality. After a century of debate, we are faced with the 
opportunity to accomplish something truly historic. If we do this now 
and if we do this right, we can make a real difference in the lives of 
millions of Americans. That is why I will not stop fighting until this 
fight has been won.
  I ask my colleagues to join me to make sure America has access to 
quality, affordable health care through a system that is competitive, 
cost-effective, and accountable.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Job Creation

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the need for 
additional policies to create jobs in our country and about how energy 
legislation can help to accomplish that goal.
  First, let me make a point I made last week on the Senate floor; that 
is, despite the recent positive economic news, Congress needs to take 
additional steps if we are going to create the jobs we need in this 
country. The economy has lost 7.2 million jobs during this recession--1 
out of every 20 jobs in the country. In percentage terms, this is the 
biggest job loss since the recession in 1948 and 1949.
  This chart vividly describes the jobs deficit we are seeing. The 
heading is: ``Not enough job creation to maintain employment at level 
in January 2001.'' Let me explain that a little bit. These job losses 
we have experienced in this recession add to the jobs deficit that has 
been accumulating over the last 9 years. The country needs--our economy 
needs--12 million new jobs in order to bring employment back to where 
it was at the end of the Clinton administration. Economists expect the 
jobs report--which comes up in 2 days, this Friday--to show even more 
jobs were lost in October of this year.
  We should not, in my view, overlook the positive news about our 
economy reported last week. The gross domestic product jumped to 3.5 
percent in the third quarter, a complete turnaround from the 6.4-
percent decline in the first quarter of this year. It is reported that 
the Recovery Act has created or saved 1 million jobs--640,000 through 
direct spending alone. The Recovery Act is working, but Congress still 
needs to take additional action. We need additional policies to create 
jobs if we are going to prevent this recovery from being a jobless 
recovery, much like the previous two recoveries we had from recessions.
  Let me go to another chart. This chart is entitled ``Job losses 
continued for months after the recessions in 1990-91 and 2001.'' What 
the chart shows is the change in the number of jobs during the 
recessions--the two recessions I have referred to, 1990-91 as one 
recession and 2001 as another recession. During the months after those 
recessions ended, the job losses continued. As you can see, the economy 
continued to shed jobs for 2 months after the 1990-91 recession ended, 
which is the green line, as you can see. After the 2001 recession, job 
losses continued for a staggering 18 months--not 2 months but 18 
months--at that time.
  This is the paradox of the recoveries from the past two recessions. 
The GDP began to grow, as it now has in our own period, with the 
results of this last quarter, but the country continued to lose jobs. 
When jobs finally did return, they returned very slowly.
  Let me go to another chart. This chart is entitled ``Unemployment 
rate continued to rise after the recessions in 1990-91 and 2001.'' This 
chart shows what happened to the unemployment rate. The unemployment 
rate rose for 16 months after the 1990-91 recession ended. The 
unemployment rate rose for 20 months after the 2001 recession ended.
  Even 5 years after the 2001 recession ended, more people were out of 
work than before that recession began. So Congress needs to take steps 
to ensure that the recovery this time is different.
  The tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration were meant to 
stimulate job growth, but it is apparent now they failed to do so. 
Those tax cuts

[[Page S11084]]

were too blunt an instrument to do the job. They were not focused 
enough on creating jobs. The $4 trillion hole they dug in the Federal 
budget has made it harder for us to recover from the current recession. 
So the country needs policies that are more targeted on job creation.
  Last week, I outlined four ideas Congress should consider: a jobs 
creation tax credit; second, a manufacturing tax credit; third, 
emergency bridge loans to homeowners to keep them in their homes; and 
fourth, additional aid to States.
  It should be noted the aid to States that has already been provided 
has been effective at saving hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs--
325,000 of the 640,000 jobs created or saved by the Recovery Act were 
jobs in education. Congress should consider providing additional aid to 
States to help close those budget shortfalls which are projected. The 
cumulative budget shortfalls are projected to total $175 billion for 
the States over the next 2 years.
  Let me turn now to another action we should take to create jobs. To 
create jobs, in my view, Congress should go ahead, at the earliest 
possible time, to enact the American Clean Energy Leadership Act. This 
is legislation that was reported out of our Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee in June of this year, where it received bipartisan 
support. The vote there was 15 in favor of reporting that legislation 
and 8 members voted against it.
  This Energy bill I am referring to is a jobs bill. The Energy bill 
could create 350,000 to 500,000 jobs over the next decade. It would 
create jobs by increasing the amount of research and development that 
is supported by the Department of Energy. It would create jobs by 
increasing the demand for renewable energy by establishing a renewable 
electricity standard. It would create jobs by financing the 
construction of nuclear powerplants through the establishment of a 
clean energy deployment administration. It would create jobs by 
promoting energy efficiency retrofits for homes and for commercial 
buildings. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced. It would create 
jobs by building new clean energy and improving energy efficiency 
throughout the manufacturing sector.
  Reducing energy usage means reducing the cost of doing business, 
which will make American businesses more competitive in the global 
market and allow them to expand and to create jobs in the United 
States. This is part of what this Energy bill is all about, creating 
jobs and making the United States more competitive in the global 
economy.
  The Energy bill would position our country to lead in the development 
of clean energy technologies, which is a rapidly growing industrial 
segment that I believe will be one of the most important sectors of 
industry in the 21st century. It will also make our economy stronger by 
enabling businesses to flourish in other areas of the economy.
  Before elaborating on some of the provisions in that bill, let me 
give a concrete example of how forward-thinking energy legislation has 
the effect of creating jobs for middle-class Americans. In September of 
this year, the Department of Energy awarded Fisker Automotive a $529 
million loan through a program that was created by the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007. This last week, Fisker announced 
it will be reopen a previously owned General Motors plant in Delaware 
that has been shut down, and it will use that plant to produce a plug-
in hybrid car. The new Fisker plant will employ 2,000 people and 
indirectly create another 3,000 jobs in the surrounding area. So not 
only will consumers benefit from the increased choices they will have 
in energy-efficient automobiles, but American workers will benefit from 
increased clean energy jobs. Similar good news stories can be told 
about new or retooled factories in Michigan, Indiana, and Tennessee as 
well.
  The American Clean Energy Leadership Act I have been referring to 
would provide more loans of this kind by creating this clean energy 
deployment administration--or CEDA. CEDA will be an independent agency 
within the Department of Energy with a mission to support the financing 
of low-carbon energy projects. For example, CEDA could provide loans 
and loan guarantees or other credit enhancements to enable the 
construction of powerplants that produce renewable energy or factories 
that make wind turbines or other components. CEDA will also create 
financial mechanisms to allow affordable financing for energy 
efficiency retrofits and distributed generation in entire communities. 
This new agency will give special focus to high-risk, high-reward 
technologies that are otherwise difficult to finance.
  Additional financing is critical at this time, when credit markets 
are still very tight and private investors are reluctant to take on 
even low-risk commercial projects. In the first quarter of 2009, 
investments in renewable energy totaled only $500 million, just one-
tenth of the $5 billion invested in the same period the year before. 
Even when financial markets recover, banks are leery of the risk 
associated with new technologies. Without CEDA--which we are creating 
in this legislation--to fill the gap, we run the risk of these 
investments continuing to be made overseas, where market conditions are 
better for innovative clean energy technologies.
  CEDA initially will be capitalized under the legislation at $10 
billion in appropriated funds that can conservatively support Federal 
lending of approximately $100 billion.
  Combined with funds from private partners, a reasonable estimate 
would lead to $20 billion worth of clean energy projects.
  CEDA could potentially be scaled up in the future, enabling it to 
create even more jobs.
  The energy bill would also establish a Renewable Electricity 
Standard, or RES, for the entire country. This policy would require 
electricity companies to get 15 percent of their power from renewable 
resources by 2021, with an exemption for small-scale utility companies. 
By increasing the demand for clean energy, the Renewable Electricity 
Standard will promote the construction of new wind farms, solar power 
plants, and geothermal plants. A variety of other clean technologies 
will also qualify, technologies such as hydro, biomass, and ocean 
power. Constructing these plants and manufacturing the components 
needed could create 100,000 to 125,000 jobs by 2025.
  In addition to the Renewable Electricity Standard, the energy bill 
includes policies to strengthen the Nation's electricity transmission 
grid and increase the production of renewable energy on public lands. 
These policies would complement the Renewable Electricity Standard.
  Improving energy efficiency is a cost-effective way to reduce the 
energy costs of homeowners and improve the competitiveness of American 
businesses. The energy bill has programs targeted both at the 
manufacturing sector and at residential and commercial buildings.
  For residential and commercial buildings, the bill creates a grant 
program that states could use to fund retrofit programs for residential 
and commercial buildings. A home energy retrofit finance program would 
also be created. States could use this program to set up revolving 
finance funds to help homeowners pay for energy efficiency 
improvements. This support would be in addition to the support 
available through CEDA.
  The residential and commercial energy efficiency programs in the 
energy bill could create tens of thousands of jobs. Overall, energy 
retrofits is potentially a large job creator. Rebuilding America 
estimates that retrofitting 50 million homes over the next 10 years 
would create 625,000 jobs that could be sustained during that period. 
The programs in the energy bill would accomplish part of that goal.
  The bill also includes programs to increase the energy efficiency of 
American manufacturers. Energy Department financing will help small and 
large manufacturers upgrade to energy efficient production equipment 
and processes. Public/private partnerships will map out and develop the 
technologies needed by specific industries to reduce their energy 
intensity. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 
estimates these energy efficiency programs would at a minimum create 
15,000 to 20,000 jobs by 2020.
  But more important than this estimate is the competitive edge 
American manufacturers would gain by increasing their energy 
efficiency. This is a

[[Page S11085]]

key step to revitalizing the manufacturing sector and ensuring it 
remains strong in the future.
  Nearly everyone agrees that research and development is vital to 
creating jobs and to the competitiveness of the United States. The 
energy bill would nearly double the authorization for the Office of 
Science in the Energy Department, to over $8 billion in 2013. At that 
funding level, the Office of Science could support over 27,000 Ph.D.-
level researchers across the United States. The authorization would 
also double for applied energy research to $6.5 billion, research 
focused nuclear energy, fossil fuels, and energy efficiency. Other 
countries in Asia are well ahead of the United States creating 
research, development, and deployment roadmaps for clean energy 
technologies. With additional resources, this research will make 
American industries competitive in a carbon constrained economy.
  All told, using both the specific estimates that have been made for 
policies in the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, and a midpoint 
estimate for jobs resulting from the retrofit provisions of the bill, 
the act could create up to 500,000 jobs over the next decade if it is 
enacted and funded.

  This is just a part of the job creation potential in the energy 
sector. The National Commission on Energy Policy estimates that the 
country will need 400,000 new jobs in the electricity sector alone. If 
indirect jobs are included, the number of new jobs created could total 
1 to 1.5 million. Similarly, the Center for American Progress has 
estimated the job-growth potential if both the public and private 
sectors combined were to invest $150 billion per year in clean energy. 
That is the level of investment that the center estimates would be 
mobilized by a comprehensive set of policies that include both what 
Congress has already enacted as part of the American Reinvestment and 
Recovery Act and a full suite of policies surrounding a cap-and-trade 
system for regulating greenhouse gases. In that larger context, the 
Center for American Progress has concluded that there is the potential 
to increase the number of permanent jobs in the economy related to 
clean energy by a net amount of 1.7 million.
  The energy bill is a downpayment on reaching that target, and has 
significant potential to create jobs in the near term. It would 
strengthen the competitiveness of American businesses through energy 
efficiency improvements and investments in research and development. 
And it would position the United States to be the global leader in the 
development of clean energy technologies. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation when it does come to the floor for 
consideration.
  The jobs we can create as we transition to a clean energy economy are 
not the total answer to our job needs in the coming years. But they are 
an important part of the answer.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation not only for what it 
will do to meet our energy needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 
but for what it will do to create jobs and put our economy on a growth 
track in future years.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know there has been a lot of discussion 
throughout our country and probably some here on the Senate floor 
regarding the elections that took place last night and what that means. 
I think most of it has been centered around politics.
  I wish to suggest something. I think that much of what the country is 
in some degree of upheaval about is the policies we are discussing here 
on the Senate floor and the things that are moving through committees. 
Obviously the major issue of the day is health care, health care 
reform.
  We have a bill over in the House, we have one that can essentially be 
on the Senate floor in the very near future. I would like to sort of 
create a picture, if I could, for my friends on the other side of the 
aisle.
  As I look at the bill, the health care bill that seems to be coming 
together, that I think again will be put together soon, I know, No. 1, 
there is a lot of hesitation. I know our majority leader is having 
difficulty finding 60 votes to actually move the bill ahead. What I 
wish to mention to my friends on the other side of the aisle is this: 
If Republicans had put forth a health care bill that took $400 to $500 
billion out of Medicare to leverage another program that was not used 
to make Medicare, which is insolvent, more solvent; if Republicans had 
put forth a bill that created an unfunded mandate for States by making 
States raise their Medicaid levels--in other words, we are mandating 
that in my State alone it is going to cost $735 million; and if 
Republicans had put forth a bill that we knew was going to raise 
premiums--in our State it is going to raise premiums by 60 percent over 
the next 5 years based on an independent study; if Republicans had put 
forth a bill that had the exact same building blocks as the bill that 
has been put together through our Finance Committee, that is now being 
merged with the HELP Committee bill, I do not believe there would be a 
single Democratic vote for that bill. I absolutely do not believe that 
if Republicans put forth exactly the bill we have been discussing here 
in the Senate, I do not think there would be one Democratic vote for 
that bill.
  What I am suggesting is that I know there is a lot of unease on the 
other side of the aisle regarding this bill. There is tremendous unease 
on our side.
  I do not think we have a single Republican today who feels in any way 
good about the legislation that has been discussed. A lot of times we 
as parties make a lot of mistakes by ``doing one for the Gipper,'' 
through supporting our President. Republicans have done that in the 
past where sometimes we get behind a policy that maybe we were uneasy 
with, but our President, our leader, wanted a particular policy to be 
brought forth.
  My sense is that is exactly what is happening right now with my 
friends on the other side of the aisle and our sitting President; that 
is, for political victory people are seeking this health care reform. 
But I believe, again, if Republicans offered exactly this same bill 
with the same fundamental funding mechanisms, there would not be a 
single Democratic vote.
  For that reason, there has been a message sent to this body by the 
recent elections that have taken place. People across the country are 
concerned about the policies this health care bill we have been 
discussing puts forth. I say to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle: Let's stop what we are doing right now. I know there is a lot of 
unease. Let's get this right. I am one of those Republicans who would 
like to see health insurance reform. I campaigned on that when I ran 
for the Senate in Tennessee. I was commissioner of finance for our 
State in the middle 1990s and dealt with many of the issues of people 
in our State not having health insurance. I would like to see us do the 
right thing. I would like to see us have a policy that will stand the 
test of time.
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's throw this 
bill aside. You wouldn't vote for this bill if we offered it. You 
should not vote for it just because your leadership and your President 
want to see it happen. Let's step back and do something that will stand 
the test of time.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side, who I know are incredibly 
uneasy about this legislation that has very poor building blocks, I 
hope they will listen. I hope together we can step back, and I hope we 
will put in place some policies that, again, will benefit Americans and 
stand the test of time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this afternoon I wish to share my insights 
about health care reform efforts in the

[[Page S11086]]

U.S. Congress and how beneficiaries who currently participate in the 
Medicare Advantage Program, Medicare Part C, would be impacted.
  When I think of health care reform, I envision legislation that 
reduces health costs and improves affordable access to coverage. 
Unfortunately, the bills reported by the Senate HELP and Finance 
Committees do not achieve either of those goals. As a Senator from 
Utah, I have cast many tough votes throughout my service. Regarding 
health care reform, I have pushed for a strong bipartisan vote. 
Unfortunately, it is obvious that Senate and House floor debates on 
this issue will be another largely partisan exercise.
  This summer I participated in more than a month of debate and 
partisan votes in the HELP Committee and 2 weeks of the same in the 
Finance Committee. Unfortunately, however, it appears those many hours 
of debate were all for naught.
  It is important to note that the bills the members of the Senate HELP 
and Finance Committees spent hours considering will not be the 
legislation debated on the Senate floor. In fact, we have yet to see a 
bill that will be considered on the Senate floor.

  I certainly hope Members of the Senate will have the opportunity--at 
least 72 hours--to review not only the entire bill but also the final 
Congressional Budget Office cost estimate before considering any such 
bill on the floor. This bill affects every American and every American 
business. Therefore, I believe there should be a comprehensive public 
review before it is even considered.
  Let me take a few minutes to talk about the specifics of how Medicare 
will be impacted by the health care reform proposals before Congress.
  The President has consistently pledged not to ``mess'' with Medicare. 
Again, this is another pledge that is not honored through the Senate 
health reform bills I have reviewed. The Senate Finance Committee bill 
reduces Medicare by over $400 billion--according to CBO, $117 billion 
comes out of the Medicare Advantage Program. I offered an amendment 
during the Finance Committee markup to protect extra benefits currently 
enjoyed by Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Unfortunately, that 
amendment was defeated.
  Bottom line, the President's pledge assuring Americans they would not 
lose benefits was not met by the Finance Committee bill. Here is how 
supporters of the Finance bill justified it: The extra benefits that 
would be cut--such as vision care, dental care, reduced hospital 
deductibles, lower copayments, and premiums--were not statutory 
benefits offered in the Medicare fee-for-service program; therefore, 
those extra benefits do not count. I believe there is no logic to that 
position.
  Let me quote what our President said last Thursday about this 
important promise:

       The first thing I want to make clear is that if you are 
     happy with the insurance plan that you have right now, if the 
     costs you're paying and the benefits you're getting are what 
     you want them to be, then you can keep offering that same 
     plan. Nobody will make you change it.

  Quite frankly, when a promise such as that is made assuring Americans 
they will not lose their benefits, that promise should be extended to 
Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Congress is either going to protect 
existing benefits or not. It is that simple. However, under the bill 
reported by the Senate Finance Committee, if you are a beneficiary 
participating in Medicare Advantage, that promise simply does not apply 
to you.
  I am a staunch supporter of the Medicare Advantage Program. I served 
on the Medicare Modernization Act House-Senate conference committee in 
2003, which created the program. Medicare Advantage works. 
Medicare+Choice and its predecessors did not.
  I know it works. I represent a State where Medicare managed care 
plans could not exist due to low reimbursement rates. To address that 
concern, Congress included language, which was signed into law, 
establishing a payment floor for rural areas. But it was not enough. In 
fact, in Utah, all the Medicare+Choice plans eventually left because 
they were operating in the red. This happened after promises were made 
that Medicare+Choice plans would be reimbursed fairly and that all 
Medicare beneficiaries would have access to these plans.
  So during the Medicare Modernization Act conference, we fixed the 
problem. First, we renamed the program to Medicare Advantage. Second, 
we increased reimbursement rates so all Medicare beneficiaries, 
regardless of where they lived--be it in Fillmore, UT, or New York 
City--had choice in coverage. We did not want beneficiaries stuck with 
a one-size-fits-all government plan.
  Today, Medicare Advantage works. Every Medicare beneficiary has 
access to a Medicare Advantage plan. Close to 90 percent of Medicare 
beneficiaries participating in the program are satisfied with their 
health coverage. But that would all change should the health care 
reform legislation currently being considered becomes law.
  Choice in coverage has made a difference in the lives of over 10 
million individuals nationwide. The extra benefits I mentioned earlier 
are being portrayed as gym memberships as opposed to lower premiums, 
copayments, and deductibles. To be clear, the SilverSneakers Program is 
one that has made a difference in the lives of many seniors because it 
encourages them to get out of their homes and remain active. It has 
been helpful to those with serious weight issues and has been 
invaluable to women suffering from osteoporosis and joint problems.
  Additionally, these beneficiaries receive other services, such as 
coordinated chronic care management, dental coverage, vision care, and 
hearing aids. Medicare Advantage is better for seniors than traditional 
Medicare because beneficiaries have a choice in coverage instead of a 
one-size-fits-all health plan.
  Another important point is, the House bill will affect Medicare 
Advantage enrollees differently than the bill reported by the Senate 
Finance Committee. The Senate bill includes competitive bidding in the 
Medicare Advantage Program. My analysis of competitive bidding is that 
some States will be hit harder than others, especially if there is not 
a competitive market. I worry about what happens if only one plan 
submits a bid. While CBO believes Medicare beneficiaries will continue 
to enroll in the Medicare Advantage Program should competitive bidding 
be implemented, fewer beneficiaries will enroll in the future.
  In the House health reform bill, Medicare Advantage plans will be 
paid at 100 percent of the Medicare fee-for-service rate, which is fine 
for Miami beneficiaries but will kill Medicare Advantage plans in rural 
parts of the country. Those beneficiaries living in States such as 
Utah, Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota could be in serious 
jeopardy because it is possible Medicare Advantage plans serving that 
part of the country could pull out due to low reimbursement rates.
  CMS actuaries have estimated that more than 6 million Medicare 
Advantage enrollees would be forced out of the program under the House 
bill, leaving only 4.7 million in Medicare Advantage by 2014. This does 
not fulfill the President's goal that you can keep what you have. I 
believe it is unwise for Congress to take such a risk because, in the 
end, the Medicare beneficiaries will suffer the consequences.
  I also wish to touch on the recent CMS guidance on how Medicare 
Advantage plans may communicate with their beneficiaries. It is 
gratifying to know HHS will now allow plans to communicate with 
beneficiaries once prior authorization is received from the plan 
enrollee.
  To be frank, I was outraged by the actions taken by CMS in September. 
To me, there is a fine line between freedom of speech and government 
interference. I feel CMS may have crossed the line when it sent 
Medicare Advantage companies correspondence on this issue. While the 
new guidance is an improvement, I am still concerned about the 
beneficiary opt-in requirement.
  Another issue that needs to be discussed is the removal of the open 
enrollment period for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Prior to 2006, 
beneficiaries could enroll and disenroll from Medicare Advantage plans 
at any time. This open marketplace allowed beneficiaries to find the 
plan best suited for them. The Medicare Modernization Act included a 
transition to enrollment periods for Medicare Advantage plans to help 
beneficiaries become comfortable with the program and to ensure that 
the selected plan was the right plan for them.

[[Page S11087]]

  Today, there are two enrollment periods for most beneficiaries. 
First, the annual election period takes place between November 15 and 
December 31 each year. Changes take effect on January 1 of the 
following year. During this time, beneficiaries may change prescription 
drug plans, change Medicare Advantage plans, return to traditional 
Medicare or enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan for the first time.
  Second, there is an open enrollment period from January 1 to March 31 
each year. One Medicare Advantage-related selection may be made during 
this timeframe, such as enrolling in a new plan, changing plans or 
disenrolling from a plan. Coverage is then locked in until the 
following December 31 for most beneficiaries.
  The House health reform bill essentially eliminates the Open 
Enrollment Period for Medicare beneficiaries starting in 2011. In 
addition, the House bill proposes moving the annual election period up 
2 weeks, from November 1 to December 15, thus creating a 2-week 
processing period for enrollment--right around the holidays--before the 
January 1 effective date. The Senate bill also moves up the annual 
election period. It would take place from October 15 through December 
7.
  The Senate bill does not eliminate the open enrollment period. 
However, it is important to note that while beneficiaries may disenroll 
from Medicare Advantage plans during the open enrollment period, they 
are not allowed to reenroll in another Medicare Advantage plan. 
Therefore, the only choice available to these beneficiaries under the 
Senate bill appears to be traditional Medicare.
  I feel like little has been said about the dramatic impact these 
changes will have on Medicare beneficiaries. The primary focus has been 
the reductions to the program. When we wrote the Medicare Advantage 
provisions in 2003, we viewed the open enrollment period as an 
important consumer protection for those who need flexibility when 
choosing health coverage.
  I am worried about the impact these little known changes will have on 
Medicare beneficiaries. I fear it could lead to a lot of confusion 
among seniors, especially when they are choosing their health care 
plans.
  Another issue that troubles me is the fee on health insurance plans 
included in the Senate Finance Committee bill. The Joint Committee on 
Taxation, JCT, estimates that this provision will save $60 billion over 
the next 10 years--$60 billion that comes from the health insurance 
industry. It is no secret that these fees will be passed on to 
consumers, including Medicare Advantage enrollees through premium 
increases and the reduction of health care choices. Most seniors are on 
a fixed income and are least capable of absorbing the added cost of 
this burden. I strongly oppose this fee and will continue to fight 
against it when the Senate debates health care reform.
  Finally, let me speak for a moment about the Nelson grandfathering 
amendment that was included in the Senate Finance Committee bill. While 
many Florida Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will not lose their 
benefits due to this amendment, that provision does little to help 
Medicare Advantage beneficiaries living in rural parts of our country.
  In fact, the grandfathering amendment approved during the Finance 
Committee markup only helps Utah beneficiaries living in two--just 
two--counties. What happens to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who 
live in rural areas? I must conclude they will not be as lucky as the 
Floridian seniors. In my opinion, it does not make sense to only 
grandfather the Medicare Advantage plans of certain seniors living in 
certain States.
  Before I conclude, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss 
issues associated with abortion coverage and conscience clause 
protections for medical providers.
  I am concerned about the bills before both the House and the Senate. 
I believe it is a real possibility Federal dollars will be used to 
finance elective abortions through both the Federal subsidies to 
purchase health coverage and the new public plan created through the 
legislation; that is, Federal taxpayers' dollars.
  During both the HELP Committee and Finance Committee markups, we were 
told over and over again the health reform bill would not cover 
elective abortions. We were assured Federal dollars would not finance 
abortions and that the Hyde-like language would apply. More 
specifically, the Finance health bill attempts to segregate Federal 
dollars given to individuals to purchase health plans through the State 
exchanges. The reason these Federal funds would be segregated, we were 
told, is so Federal taxpayers' dollars would supposedly not pay for 
abortion coverage.
  Let me be clear. The provision included in both the Finance and HELP 
bills is not the way the Hyde language works today. For example, the 
Medicaid Program does not segregate dollars it receives either from the 
State or the Federal Government. Any Federal or State money received by 
the Medicaid Program simply does not pay for elective abortions. There 
is no separation of funds. Should a person want abortion coverage, that 
coverage is paid for separately, either by private dollars or State-
only money outside the Medicaid Program.
  I think the way this needs to be resolved is simple: Hyde language, 
which, I wish to remind my colleagues, has been included in every 
appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human 
Services since 1976, needs to be included in the legislation. The Hyde 
provision is a specific prohibition on the use of any public funds for 
elective abortions and is enforced through strict accountability.

  In addition, I am very worried about the government plan option that 
is included in both the House and the Senate health reform bills. The 
government option is, of course, a Federal program, and therefore all 
of the money it spends is Federal funds. If the public or government 
option pays for abortions, then that is, without a doubt, Federal 
funding using taxpayer dollars for abortion. Again, today Federal 
dollars may not be used to fund elective abortions. I believe the 
language in the House and the Senate bills as currently written would 
include the coverage of elective abortions through this government 
public plan. This must be addressed immediately. It is not fair to 
force people who are totally opposed to elective abortions, either for 
religious reasons, moral reasons, or whatever, to have their taxpayer 
dollars used to pay for these types of abortions.
  I also do not understand why it is necessary to require all State 
exchanges to offer at least one plan with abortion coverage. I view 
that as a mandate to cover elective abortions, and I wish to point out 
that today there is not one Federal health plan that has such a 
requirement.
  In addition, I strongly support including protections in this 
legislation to ensure health care providers are not required to perform 
abortions if they are opposed to abortions. It is unfair that these 
providers who strongly oppose abortion should be forced to perform this 
type of procedure. Why would we force Catholic hospitals, Catholic 
doctors and nurses, and other people of similar religious beliefs on 
abortion to participate in something they believe is inherently evil 
and sinful and wrong? It does not make sense. We have always protected 
the right of conscience. These bills do not.
  It is also extremely important that State laws regulating abortion, 
such as those requiring parental consent or involvement or prohibiting 
late-term abortions, for example, are protected and not preempted 
through this legislation. To me, it is unclear whether the current 
health care bills before Congress offer these protections.
  Before I conclude, I wish to read a letter from the esteemed former 
Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, dated November 2, 2009.
  Mr. President, Dr. C. Everett Koop is one of the alltime great 
Surgeons General of the United States. Liberals and conservatives, 
moderates and Independents, Democrats and Republicans would acknowledge 
that. Here is what he says:

       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Madam Speaker:
       As the former Surgeon General of the United States, two 
     terms, from 1981 to 1989, I am writing to express my deep 
     personal concerns about the direction of the health care 
     reform bills currently being considered by the United States 
     Congress. More specifically, I am troubled about the 
     possibility of Federal dollars being used to pay for elective 
     abortions and Americans being forced to subsidize them. In 
     addition, I firmly believe

[[Page S11088]]

     that strong protections must be included in this legislation 
     so that health care providers are not forced to participate 
     in abortions against their will. Polls have recently shown an 
     increasing number of participants opposed to abortion.
       It is essential that a Hyde-like abortion funding 
     restriction provision (like the amendment included in the 
     annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and 
     Human Services since 1976) be included in any health care 
     bill that is signed into law.

  He goes on to say:

       I believe that including this legislative language is 
     necessary to ensure that elective abortions are not financed 
     either directly through a public plan or indirectly through 
     Federal subsidies provided to purchase health insurance 
     through State exchanges. I also find it troubling that the 
     legislation requires all State exchanges to offer at least 
     one health plan that includes abortion coverage--no other 
     Federal health plan has that specific requirement today.
       As a physician, I also want to ensure that laws and 
     regulations remain intact, allowing health care providers to 
     exercise their consciences and not be forced to provide 
     services to which they have religious or moral objections. 
     Congress has a long history of protecting the conscience of 
     health care providers, first passing the Church Amendment in 
     1973.
       Finally, I believe that it must be made clear through this 
     legislation that State laws are protected and not preempted 
     through this legislation, especially those that prohibit 
     abortion coverage. Since 2004, additional conscience 
     protections were included in the annual appropriations 
     legislation for the Department of Health and Human Services 
     to include health care entities such as hospitals, provider-
     sponsored organizations, health maintenance organizations 
     (HMOs), health insurance plans, or any other kind of health 
     care facility, organization or plan. Today, virtually all 
     States have conscience law protections for medical providers.
       From my first days as Surgeon General until today, I have 
     always been honest and straightforward with the American 
     people. Therefore, before this legislation becomes law, I 
     believe that the important issues outlined above must be 
     addressed so that it is consistent with current laws 
     regarding abortion coverage conscience protection. I would 
     appreciate your serious consideration of these matters before 
     this legislation is debated and approved by the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives.
       Sincerely yours,
       C. Everett Koop, M.D., ScD,
       U.S. Surgeon General (1981-1989)

  I believe Dr. Koop's letter says it all.
  Again, both the Medicare Advantage Program and pro-life related 
issues are matters that I believe must be carefully addressed in this 
health care legislation. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries should be 
able to continue to be covered by the plan of their choice without 
losing benefits, and the legislation needs to have specific and clear 
provisions stating that no taxpayer dollars should be used to finance 
elective abortions. In addition, individual State pro-life laws must be 
protected. Mandates that require abortion coverage should not be 
included in this bill. Finally, health care providers should not be 
forced to perform abortions against their will.
  I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with my colleagues 
on these two very important issues.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, do I need to ask for unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. CARPER. I so request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I go home almost every night. It is a lot 
easier to go home to Delaware than it is to Oregon every night, as the 
Presiding Officer knows. I love it because I get to really live among 
the people I represent. I get up in the morning, go to the Y, work out, 
jump on the 7:18 train, and come on down here and go to work with all 
of my colleagues and the staff. Almost everybody at home wants to talk 
about, among other things, health care, and they want to find out what 
we are doing and what we are not doing.
  During the August recess, I did something I had never done before in 
terms of meeting with constituents. We did a couple of telephone 
townhall meetings. I don't know if the Presiding Officer has done 
those, but I had never done them before. I have done a lot of 
traditional townhall meetings, but I went ahead and did one. Senator 
Corker from Tennessee told me he did a telephone townhall meeting in 
Tennessee, and he said it went well and he thought I might want to 
consider it as well.

  I said: How many people were on the call?
  He said: Fourteen hundred.
  That is a lot of people.
  Sure enough, we scheduled not one but two of them, one in August and 
the other in early September before Labor Day.
  When we had the first telephone town meeting, it was over after an 
hour or an hour and a half. I asked my staff: Any idea how many people 
were on the call? They had 1,400 in Tennessee, a big State. In little 
Delaware, I thought maybe we might have 200, I don't know. They told me 
I had 4,000 people. Four thousand people. It really shocked me a lot.
  About a week later, we had our second telephone townhall meeting, and 
this was done in conjunction with AARP. It was not for the whole State, 
just AARP members in Delaware. So I knew we wouldn't have as many 
people, but I thought we could have quite a few. When the second 
telephone townhall meeting was over, done in conjunction with AARP, I 
said: How many people were on the call? They said 6,000--6,000 people. 
Little Delaware, to have 4,000 one time and a week later have 6,000 
people in a telephone townhall meeting--I was blown away.
  People were very polite, they asked good questions, and I tried to 
give them good responses. We had hundreds of people who stayed on the 
line at the end of the conference call, if you will, to ask more 
questions. We will do some more of those in the future, and we will do 
traditional townhall meetings as well. But what I drew from that is 
there are a whole lot of people who just had questions they wanted to 
have answered. They were just confused and in some cases misinformed, 
and they wanted to have some straight talk--what we used to call it in 
the Navy--just the straight skinny, the straight truth, just tell us 
the story. We have tried to do that in the time since then.
  About two or three weekends ago, I was getting gas for my minivan not 
far from my house in Delaware, and I was standing there pumping the gas 
into my Chrysler Town and Country minivan--listen to this: 236,000 
miles, and they say they don't build cars like they used to. We make 
them better now.
  Anyway, this lady pulled up on the other side and said: Senator 
Carper--just the person I have been looking for.
  Sometimes when people say that, you think, maybe I should get back in 
the minivan and drive away while I can still escape.
  I said: What would you like to talk about?
  She said: Let's talk about health care.
  Pretty much it was: Why can't I have the kind of health care that you 
have, the same health insurance for my family through my small business 
that I run.
  She said: We are paying about $24,000, $25,000 a year. What are you 
paying?
  She wasn't belligerent or rude or anything.
  I said: Well, as it turns out, we are paying about half that.
  In my family, it is standard BlueCross BlueShield, and we have--the 
secret to what we do, as the Presiding Officer knows, is we created 
here, long before we came along, a very large purchasing pool that 
includes all Federal employees, all Federal retirees and dependents. In 
all, it makes a huge purchasing pool of 8 million people in all. We 
have the Federal Office of Personnel Management that gets a whole bunch 
of private health insurance companies to come in and offer their 
products to us, and we can choose from among those private plans. 
Because there are so many of us, a lot of interest comes from wanting 
to offer the product to us. It helps drive down the cost because of the 
competition. With 8 million people in a purchasing pool, you can 
actually get pretty low administrative costs. It turns out our 
administrative costs are 3 percent of premiums, which is very low.

[[Page S11089]]

  My guess is, the lady I was talking to that day at the service 
station--I know she wasn't getting insurance through her small 
business. She was a realtor. I know she wasn't getting it for 3 cents' 
administrative costs on the dollar per premiums--probably not 23 cents, 
maybe 33 cents.
  She said: Why can't we have the kind of health insurance you have?
  Actually, I like that. I would be happy to open it up and allow you 
and others in our State--small businesspeople, families, or individuals 
who don't have coverage or who do--to buy your health insurance as part 
of a large purchasing pool. We will make it even bigger, and as a 
result, maybe we will get better prices.
  As it turned out, some of my colleagues on the left here in the 
Senate and some of my colleagues on the right aren't crazy about that 
idea. Folks on the left here say: If we do that, it will sort of take 
the place of the public option; that will be the public option. Folks 
on the right say: Well, that is too much like the public option. So 
both sides are kind of against doing that. I still think it is a good 
idea.
  What we are going to do is we are going to take the idea of a large 
purchasing pool and we are going to allow every State to create its own 
purchasing pool. We call them an exchange. We exchange. Each State can 
have its own exchange.
  Every State can enter into interstate compacts with other States and 
create compacts with other States. For example, I don't know if 
Delaware would create an interstate compact with the State of the 
Presiding Officer because it is on the other side of America. We may 
want to do it with New Jersey or Pennsylvania or Maryland. We might 
want to do it with Idaho or other States out West. What is interesting 
about the interstate compacts is that States can create, under what has 
been reported out of the Finance Committee on which I serve, interstate 
compacts between two or more States, and insurance can be sold in 
another State, which would introduce competition, and that doesn't 
exist in a bunch of States.
  In some States, just one or two insurance companies rule the roost 
and pretty much offer all the insurance. It is not very good for 
competition or affordability.
  So what I want to do is make sure States have options to introduce 
competition. They can create interstate compacts across State lines, 
create regional exchanges and a larger purchasing pool, which would 
drive down costs. Some of my colleagues want States to start health 
care cooperatives, such as in Washington State, where there is an 
outfit called Group Health. The Presiding Officer is probably familiar 
with that. Some States might want to do that. They seem to like that 
idea in Washington. Maybe that will work.
  Some States have their own public plans. I think Minnesota is one. 
States could set up their own public plan. That would be listed on the 
exchange as an option. States might want to open the State employees 
health benefit plan for State employees and pensioners and their 
dependents. That can be an option on the exchange.
  The Senate will probably be prepared to offer a tax credit to lower 
income folks. They can start with a low income and phase it out as the 
income goes higher. That is an effort to help folks who need help in 
affording health insurance. They can let States choose from that menu 
when there are problems with lack of competition.
  What do we do then? Are we going to have a national public plan in 
which everybody has to participate? Are we going to have a level 
playing field? Senator Schumer has put a fair amount of time and 
interest into exploring that. Are we going to have a national public 
plan with a level playing field, where the national plan doesn't have 
an advantage over those in the private sector? Should the States be 
able to opt out of this national plan? That is the proposal I think 
Senator Reid submitted to CBO to try to score and see what it would 
cost.
  Should States have a right to opt into the national plan? There are a 
variety of ideas. I think a number of centrists I have talked to are 
interested, at the end of the day--if we have States where there is an 
affordability standard, and it is clear that affordability standard in 
1, 10, 20, or 30 States is not being met, there is lack of 
affordability and competition--should there be some other option? I 
think parties are open to that.
  There is probably a fair amount of concern over a couple of aspects 
of a public plan. One, who is going to run it? The government or the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Department of Health and 
Human Services? Should it be funded by the Federal Government beyond 
the startup? I think if we will work around the idea that States need 
to meet some affordability standard, and for those that don't, there 
might be the opportunity to create another option for those States, 
maybe an option involving a national nonprofit board, and without 
government funding--at least not beyond the beginning of the startup, I 
think there is a center of gravity there that might provide a path 
forward for some of my colleagues, particularly the moderates.
  In terms of government-run, government-funded, I think that can be 
addressed by having a national nonprofit board appointed by the 
President and confirmed by the Senate. They would have to retain 
funding after the startup and create their own reserve fund so that if 
the plan runs afoul or gets into financial difficulty, they would have 
a reserve fund to be able to meet that. I just wanted to lay that out. 
That is a place where we might find common ground.
  There has been discussion in the last hour about cutting Medicare. I 
am not interested in that. I don't know any Democrat or Republican who 
is interested in doing that. The legislation I am most familiar with, 
reported out of the Finance Committee, doesn't cut Medicare benefits. 
In fact, we add some benefits. One is, under Medicare, people only get 
one lifetime only physical--just one--when they sign up for Medicare. 
If they don't take advantage of it then, they don't get it. Most people 
try to get an annual physical.
  One of the changes that we make in our legislation that I hope will 
be in whatever we finally pass is that every year, a Medicare patient 
would be eligible for a physical. That is good preventive medicine. You 
can catch problems early rather than wait until it is too late.
  Some people are familiar with the Medicare prescription drug program. 
They know when people exceed $2,500, up to about $5,500, for the most 
part, if their drug costs are in that range, almost all of the costs 
are borne by the senior citizens unless they are very low income. Then 
Medicare picks it up.
  One of the principles in our legislation that I hope will be 
available is that the pharmaceutical industry said they are going to 
put up about $80 billion, a lot of which will be used for filling the 
doughnut hole to cut in half people's out-of-pocket expenses, when they 
would otherwise be called upon to pay for prescription drugs. We want 
to make sure people, No. 1--if there are pharmaceutical companies out 
there that will help--can find out about it, use it, and they can 
afford it. In the legislation reported out of our committee, I think we 
dramatically increase the likelihood that people will be helped by the 
pharmaceutical industry.
  In terms of reducing spending out of Medicare, we can go out and 
identify--not just identify waste, fraud, and abuse, but identify it 
and quantify it, and we can go out and get the money back. We call that 
postaudit cost recovery. Last year, about $700 million was recovered in 
1 year in these postaudit cost recoveries in just three States. What we 
need to do this year, and what we are going to do, is go to all 50 
States and do postaudit cost recovery for Medicare. The money will go 
back to the trust fund. If we can gather $700 million in just three 
States, we can do a lot more than that in all 50 States. Those are the 
kinds of things we are going to do.
  If folks were going to simply cut Medicare services and benefits, I 
am not aware of that in the legislation. I don't think that is the 
case.
  I have one or two other points, and I will close. I had the 
opportunity to visit a place called the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, 
OH, a month or two ago. I went to find out how are they able to provide 
better health care and better outcomes for less money and to see if 
there is a lesson we can take from

[[Page S11090]]

them and from the Mayo Clinic and from Geisinger up in Pennsylvania--
what lessons can we take from those places--all nonprofits--where all 
the doctors are on salary, where they focus on primary care and 
prevention and wellness, and where they focus on coordinating care 
among physicians and other providers within their units, and where the 
medical malpractice coverage is paid for by the Mayo Clinic and the 
Cleveland Clinic, not the individual physicians, and where all the 
patients have electronic health records.
  If you look at all those nonprofits I have mentioned, including the 
Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, and Kaiser in California, 
they are all pretty much the same. I think one of the things we sought 
to do in our legislation is infuse that delivery system, change that 
and infuse that into our system for health care and, frankly, learn 
from what works--look to see what works and act on that.
  Lastly, we will have the opportunity, after the legislation is merged 
together and the products from several committees, including the HELP 
Committee--but after the products of the two principal committees in 
the Senate have been merged and that has been submitted by our majority 
leader to the CBO, they will come back and say whether the legislation 
increases the budget deficit and whether the legislation can be 
expected to rein in the growth of health care costs. We will find out 
the answers to the questions, hopefully, in a week or two.

  The President said, and I have heard others say:

       I am not going to sign legislation that increase the 
     deficit by a dime, now or later.

  I have said that I am not going to vote for legislation that 
increases the budget deficit now or later. The version of the health 
bill that we reported out of the Finance Committee over the next 10 
years will reduce the deficit by $80 billion and the second 10 years by 
$400 billion to $800 billion. That is what we need to do.
  At the end of the day, I think it is paramount for us to extend 
coverage to people who don't have it--40 million plus. About 14,000 
people who woke up today with health insurance will not wake up 
tomorrow and have it. We pay way more for health insurance than anybody 
else, without better results. Some are going out of business. GM and 
Chrysler, who had a presence in my State, are bankrupt, and a lot of 
their trouble was because of enormous growth in health care costs.
  One of the most important things we can do in health care reform this 
year is rein in the growth in health care costs. The idea that health 
care costs continue to go up two or three times the rate of inflation 
is not acceptable. The idea that we pay 1\1/2\ times more for health 
coverage than any other nation in the world is not sustainable. The 
idea that we don't get better results--actually, we get worse results--
is unacceptable also.
  Lastly, a lot of times we say: What responsibility do people have for 
their own health? Is there some way we can get people to take better 
care of themselves? As a population, we are overweight and, in many 
cases, obese. We have high blood pressure, and we have high levels of 
cholesterol. People suffer from hypertension. We smoke too much, and we 
eat the wrong foods, and too much of the wrong foods. We don't 
exercise. There are a couple of companies around the country where they 
have employee-provided health insurance to sort of self-insure. Some 
are encouraging us to allow them to do more in terms of reducing the 
premiums of people who basically do the right things. We have all heard 
about the company called Safeway, a grocery store chain headquartered 
in California. There are other companies, such as Pitney-Bowes and 
Delta, that have figured that out, and they have started to invite 
their employees to voluntarily enter into programs to stop smoking. If 
they do that, they can earn premium reductions. If they lose weight, 
they can reduce their premiums.
  One of our colleagues, Senator Ensign, and I offered legislation, 
adopted in the HELP and Finance Committees, that says that individuals 
can reduce premiums by as much as 30 percent if they are doing things 
that will help reduce their exposure and costs to their company through 
the health plan. For example, at Safeway, if people stop smoking, they 
reduce their premiums by $400. If people lose 10 percent of their body 
mass, if they are overweight, there will be roughly another $400 
reduction in their premium.
  The idea is not just for people to say: I know I am overweight, and I 
need to exercise. So they get a gym membership, but then they stop 
going. Or they will walk every other day and maybe on weekends, or they 
will go on a diet and stay on it for a while, or they will stop smoking 
and then they start smoking again. That is kind of human nature, with 
all these temptations. Unfortunately, a lot of them lead to worse 
health outcomes for individuals. We want people to take better care of 
themselves. That should be in this legislation.
  Lastly, at the Cleveland Clinic, they talked to us about defensive 
medicine, the fee-for-service delivery system where we incentivize 
doctors to do more of everything--more visits, procedures, tests, more 
of this and that because when they do those they--they--No. 1, may 
provide a better health outcome; No. 2, they make more money; and, No. 
3, they reduce the likelihood that they will be successfully sued.
  We don't have jurisdiction in the Finance Committee over medical 
malpractice. That is under the jurisdiction of the States. What we do 
want to do when we come to the Senate floor, my colleagues, both 
Democrats and Republicans, is to robustly test what is being done in 
States to, No. 1, reduce the incidence of illness with defensive 
medicine, reduce the incidence of medical malpractice lawsuits, and do 
so in a way that will encourage better outcomes; to take good ideas 
like what works in a company in Michigan or the idea of health courts, 
the idea of safe harbors where doctors who provide medicine basically 
under best medical practices and best practiced guidelines, maybe give 
them a safe harbor from lawsuits.
  We can test a couple of these caps--a $250,000 cap or maybe a sliding 
scale cap on noneconomic. Ohio goes from $250,000 to $1 million. We can 
test those and see do they work? The certification programs, such as in 
Delaware, if my doctor performs a procedure on me, and I am not happy 
with the outcome, I have to go through a panel of knowledgeable people. 
If they say I don't have a case, basically I don't do it.
  Those are the kinds of things we want to have the opportunity to 
explore, find out what is working in the States and other States to 
learn from it. Those are the kinds of things we will have a chance to 
debate on this floor in the next couple of weeks and in the end 
hopefully provide better insurance, a better outcome for less money, 
and use the savings to extend coverage to people who do not have it. 
That is what we are trying to do.
  I thank my colleague from Arizona for his patience and for allowing 
me to finish my statement.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I always enjoy hearing the words of wisdom 
of my friend and colleague from Delaware.


             30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HOSTAGE CRISIS IN IRAN

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we mark a painful anniversary for 
our country--the day, 30 years ago, when America's Embassy in Iran was 
violently seized and an institution of diplomacy became a prison for 
dozens of peaceful servants of this Nation. For 444 days, the United 
States and the world watched and feared for the safety of our citizens. 
Eight brave Americans lost their lives trying to rescue our diplomats. 
And after so many days of dread, anguish, and heartbreak, we all felt a 
great weight lifted when our fellow citizens were returned home safely 
to their friends and families.
  Today we express our deepest gratitude to those Americans taken 
hostage in Iran 30 years ago and to those who died to save them. They 
all gave more for our country than should be asked of any public 
servant, and we thank them for it.
  Today, however, we are also mindful that the pain and suffering that 
began on November 4, 1979, did not end after only 444 days. For the 
people of Iran, that hardship continued for 30 more years, and it 
continues to this day.
  Iran is a great nation, and the Iranian people are the stewards of a 
proud and accomplished civilization.

[[Page S11091]]

Throughout their nation's history, Iranians have made spectacular 
contributions to the arts and sciences, to literature and learning. 
These achievements have not only benefited Iran, they have added to the 
development and enrichment of all mankind. So it is with profound 
sadness that we think today of all the potential of the Iranian people 
that has been suppressed and squandered over the past 30 years by the 
rulers in Tehran.
  I know that the Iranian Government is singing the praises of their 
revolution today. But Iranians are not fools. They know what the real 
legacy of the past 30 years is. Iranians know that the government in 
Tehran has ruined their nation's economy and kept them isolated from 
the promise of trading and engaging with the world.
  Iranians are right to ask how much better off they would be if all of 
the money--the billions and billions of dollars--that Iran's rulers 
have spent sponsoring terrorist groups, tyrannizing their people, and 
building weapons to threaten the world were instead devoted to creating 
jobs, educating young people, and caring for the sick.
  Iranians are right to wonder why a country so blessed with natural 
resources cannot meet the basic needs of so many of its own citizens. 
And yet corrupt members of the ruling elite are stuffing the wealth of 
their nation into their own pockets.
  The rulers in Iran seized power 30 years ago, promising justice and 
better lives for all. But now they throw innocent Iranians in prison 
without proper trials. They mistreat and torture Iranians in jail. They 
beat and murder Iranians in the streets for trying to speak freely and 
exercise their basic human rights.
  The world watched in horror as Iran's rulers inflicted all of this 
abuse and more upon peaceful Iranian protesters after the flawed 
elections last June. But the world also watched in awe as courageous 
Iranians risked everything for freedom and justice.
  We Americans reflect with sympathy on Iran's continuing struggle for 
human dignity and human rights. Our country seeks a relationship of 
peace and prosperity with Iran, and it is incredibly unfortunate that 
the Iranian Government seems determined to keep the relationship 
between our two countries mired in the past by funding and arming 
violent groups that threaten our citizens and our allies, by building a 
nuclear weapons program in violation of Iran's own agreements and 
multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions, and by spurning repeated 
American efforts to reach out respectfully to resolve our differences 
in peace. The United States of America has no eternal enemies. We can 
overcome even the most painful parts of our own history, as we are 
doing now with countries such as Vietnam.
  So today, on this solemn anniversary of the hostage crisis in Iran, 
we honor our fellow Americans whose lives were forever altered by that 
tragic day. But we also look forward to a new day, a better day when 
the long nightmare of the Iranian people is over and when our two 
nations share a relationship of mutual security, mutual respect, and 
mutual advantage.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes, if I can, to 
express my thanks first to Majority Leader Reid and the leadership team 
for all they have done to bring us to a final vote later this evening 
on the effort to extend unemployment insurance to jobless Americans as 
well as to provide tax credits for homebuyers and allow more businesses 
to utilize the net operating loss carry back. I thank the leadership 
for it.
  I want to also thank Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, who was responsible for putting this all together, and his 
staff who worked very hard. I presume they did so in conjunction with 
Senator Grassley, the ranking member of that committee. I know it took 
some time. I regret it took as long as it did to get the extension of 
unemployment insurance.
  As I am sure Members have heard over the last few weeks, every day we 
delayed in providing some relief to people who have lost their jobs 
through no fault of their own, 7,000 people were losing their 
unemployment insurance. Again, all of us know people within our 
communities, our neighborhoods, and our States who have lost their jobs 
as a result of the tremendous downturn in our economy. These people are 
trying to pay mortgages, literally put food on the table and provide 
for their families. Unemployment insurance has been absolutely critical 
over the years. This is not the first time, obviously, we have had an 
extension. It has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. Republican 
and Democratic administrations have agreed to provide these extensions. 
This one, unfortunately, took too long, in my view, to put in place, 
given the depth of this recession, given the fact that so many people 
have now fallen outside of the employment picture.
  I know the numbers people talked about are anywhere from 8 to 15 
percent unemployment rates, depending upon where you live. I don't 
think those numbers are anywhere near close to reflecting what is going 
on. If you asked me candidly what the unemployment rate is in this 
country, I think it hovers closer to 20 percent since an awful lot of 
people are so discouraged they have stopped looking because the economy 
has been that bad. So this extension of benefits is absolutely 
essential.
  But extending unemployment benefits means in effect there is simply 
not enough job creation in the economy. That gets me to the second part 
of this bill and that is the homebuyer's tax credit.
  I see my friend from Georgia who has arrived on the floor. It is 
perfect timing, because I was about to talk about him. He was the 
principal author a number of months ago of the first-time home buyer 
tax credit that was included as part of the Recovery Act. That 
provision authored by Johnny Isakson of Georgia which I was pleased to 
support has been used by almost 2 million people.
  That provision is about to run out by the end of this month. As a 
result of his efforts these past few weeks--and I am pleased once more 
to be his partner in this effort--we have been able to extend that 
benefit to the first-time home buyer. But we have done something beyond 
that, which Johnny Isakson has talked about over the many weeks he and 
I have talked and that is to expand it to the move-up buyer. That is 
that person who literally moves up from the house they are in to that 
new house. That family may have grown--a couple of additional 
children--and they are able to move up into that next category. This 
bill now provides not only the benefit to the first-time home buyer but 
to that move-up home buyer as well. 70 percent of existing homeowners 
today can potentially qualify for this move-up buyer credit. That is 
going to be a tremendous benefit, in my view.
  The credit is still $8,000 for the first-time home buyer, but now 
move-up buyers can claim a credit up to $6,500. You have to have an 
income, if you are a single person, of $125,000 or less; if you are 
joint filers, $225,000 or less. There is a cap on the home price of 
$800,000 or less. Move-up buyers have to have lived in their current 
home for at least 5 years. And all home buyers, first-time or move-up, 
have to be prepared to stay in their new home for 3 years. This credit 
cannot be used by investors. We also included a lot of anti-fraud 
provisions.
  Again, I am confident my friend from Georgia has made this point: The 
first-time buyer traditionally is someone who has saved just enough to 
get into that first home. As I think Senator Isakson said, they are 
probably sleeping on futons and eating a lot of Lean Cuisine or other 
things just to survive in that new house. They are so excited to be in 
there, and sacrificed tremendously to get into that first home they 
dreamed about having.
  The move-up buyer is more inclined and capable of buying that 
furniture, maybe building a porch, putting a garage on, a new roof on 
the house and generally making improvements. So the ripple effect 
economically from that move-up buyer is going to be a real benefit. The 
first-time home buyer obviously helps, but being able to actually make 
those kinds of investments I

[[Page S11092]]

think is going to be help create jobs in this country. It is not going 
to solve all our problems, but it is going to help get people working 
again: the home builders, employees at home improvement and hardware 
stores, landscapers, contractors, people in the real estate business, 
those kinds of jobs that can make a difference. So I am pleased we are 
extending unemployment insurance, but I am also very pleased we are 
doing this on the homebuyer tax credit because it does provide some 
economic lift in the country at a time when we desperately need to 
restore confidence and optimism.
  We have a way to go, obviously, before we start feeling that level of 
confidence and optimism that was present before the current downturn. 
But in most recessions our country has been in, real estate has been at 
the heart of it, and the recoveries from our recessions have been led 
by the real estate sector of our economy. If this recession is typical 
of other recessions, real estate will help our economy to come out of 
this downturn. It is not the only factor but it is a major factor in 
recovery. This extension will run to next spring, at a critical time of 
real estate sales in our Nation.
  I can't begin to thank my colleague from Georgia enough for his 
tireless efforts in this arena. This is how it ought to be, by the way. 
This is the way we are supposed to do business around here, where we 
come together, listen to each other's ideas, and then try to work it so 
our colleagues will appreciate the effort that has been made and try to 
make a difference in our country.
  I thank my friend from Georgia for his leadership once again on this 
issue. But for him, I don't think this would have happened. You can't 
always say that about every bill. A lot of people were involved in this 
issue. But I would say to my colleagues, had it not been for Senator 
Johnny Isakson of Georgia, I don't think we would be where we are 
today. On behalf of my constituents in the State of Connecticut, your 
first-time home buyer provision, which I was pleased to join in, will 
likely help 10,000 home owners in my State. I don't know what the 
number will be as a result of this provision, but it is going to make a 
difference to families in Connecticut, so we thank the Senator from 
Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I yield.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from 
Connecticut for his many kind words. But as I said earlier today in a 
speech--and this is important for everybody to know--had it not been 
for his willingness to call the hearing 3 weeks ago in the Senate and 
bring in the professionals from around the country, including the head 
of HUD, Shaun Donovan, to talk about the application of this credit and 
its extension, I don't think the information necessary to bring us to 
this point would have happened. So the Congress and the people who take 
advantage of this are in no small measure indebted to Senator Dodd for 
that leadership and, I might add, to Senator Baucus who helped us 
define the pay-for. This bill, including the UI, the loss carryback, 
and housing tax credit, has a net plus against the deficit, not a cost 
to the country. That is extremely important. We couldn't have done that 
without Senator Baucus.
  Quite frankly, Majority Leader Harry Reid helped us to make this 
happen as only he could do as majority leader of the Senate. While I 
appreciate very much the kind words of the Senator, it is true this has 
been a team effort and the captain of the team has been the chairman of 
the Banking Committee who brought about the hearing and helped it 
happen. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for that and tell the 
Senate we are about to do something meaningful for the U.S. economy, 
meaningful for the U.S. homeowners. This bill in the end is a jobs 
bill.
  My last point to the Senator from Connecticut that people also need 
to know is this is the last extension. The benefit of tax credits is 
when they have a finality, when they have a sunset, when there is a 
sense of urgency to take advantage. Now is the time. With that type of 
momentum, the U.S. economy will come back because housing, which led us 
into it, will help lead us out of it.
  I am grateful to the Senator for his kind remarks.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague and, as I said earlier, I thank 
Senator Reid and Senator Baucus and their staffs as well for allowing 
us to come to this moment. It is a good day for our country.
  I thank my colleague again, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past few days, this Senator and 
several other Senators have been coming to the floor, talking about 
various aspects of the health care reform bills the majority has 
brought forward so far. Today I want to review the impact of these 
bills on Medicare beneficiaries.
  First, this is the Senate Finance Committee bill. It would cut 
Medicare by about $470 billion over 10 years. The House version takes 
an even bigger bite out of Medicare. In that bill, Medicare is cut by 
about $540 billion. That is more, obviously, than $\1/2\ trillion. Cuts 
of this magnitude are sure to hurt Medicare providers and threaten 
beneficiaries' access to care.
  Take a look at the cuts in these reform bills. It shows why there is 
genuine concern that health care for Medicare beneficiaries will suffer 
greatly because of health care reform. The proposed legislation 
permanently cuts all annual Medicare provider updates. Permanently, or 
another way to say it, cuts them forever.
  In addition, some providers, such as hospitals, home health agencies, 
and hospices, would face additional cuts over the next 10 years. These 
permanent cuts are supposed to reduce Medicare payments to account for 
increases in productivity by health care providers.
  Supporters of those productivity adjustments believe Medicare 
generally overpays providers. I wish they would ask providers in my 
State of Iowa. And they say this would happen because today's Medicare 
payments do not take into account productivity increases that might 
reduce the cost of providing care to beneficiaries.
  However, this proposal for productivity adjustments is an extremely 
blunt instrument that will threaten beneficiary access to care. It is 
flawed in at least two ways. First, the productivity measure used to 
cut provider payments in the bill does not represent productivity for 
specific types of providers, such as nursing homes. I mean, you would 
think that if Medicare is going to reduce your payments to account for 
increases in productivity, it would at least measure your specific 
productivity, but that is not the case. Instead, these reform bills 
would make the payment cuts based on measures of productivity for the 
entire economy. So if productivity in the economy grows because let's 
say computer chips or any other products are made more efficiently, 
then health care providers see their payments go down. Where is the 
connection?
  But there is a second major problem. This other problem is that the 
productivity adjustment actually punishes providers for increases in 
productivity. This policy says that when a provider is more productive, 
Medicare is going to take it all--100 percent of the productivity 
increase. The provider does not even get to keep half of the financial 
benefit for that increase in productivity. Where is the reward? 
Confiscating the entire productivity increase removes all of the 
incentives for providers to improve their productivity in the first 
place. This is a typical government policy. If you do better, the 
government wants its share. But here, the government not only takes its 
share, it takes all of it.
  These cuts are sure to impact health care for seniors. But I don't 
want you to take my word for it, so I am going to go to one of those 
nonpartisan people in government. There are a lot of nonpartisan, very 
professional people in government. But now I refer to the Chief Actuary 
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He recently 
identified this threat to beneficiary access to care. He confirmed

[[Page S11093]]

this in an October 21 memorandum analyzing the House bill. The House 
bill and the Senate Finance bill both propose the same types of 
permanent Medicare productivity cuts.
  Here we have a chart referring to the Chief Actuary. Here is what 
Medicare's own Chief Actuary had to say about these productivity cuts. 
In reference to those cuts, he wrote that:

       The estimated savings . . . may be unrealistic.

  In their own analysis of the House bill, Medicare's own Chief Actuary 
says:

       It is doubtful that many could improve their own 
     productivity to the degree achieved by the economy at large.

  They go on to say:

       We are not aware of any empirical evidence demonstrating 
     the medical community's ability to achieve productivity 
     improvements equal to those of the overall economy.

  In fact, the Chief Actuary's conclusion is that it would be difficult 
for providers to even remain profitable over time as Medicare payments 
fail to keep up with the costs of caring for beneficiaries.
  So let's go back to this chart again. Ultimately, here is their 
conclusion: Providers that rely on Medicare might end their 
participation in Medicare, ``possibly jeopardizing access to care for 
beneficiaries.''
  Medicare's Chief Actuary confirms what I have been hearing from 
providers back in my State of Iowa about these permanent productivity 
payment cuts.
  Those providers are doing everything they can to be efficient and to 
be innovative. They are doing everything they can to get the biggest 
bang out of every Medicare dollar they can. But assuming the level of 
productivity assumed in these bills would be like getting blood out of 
a stone.
  These health reform bills will make it even harder for them to keep 
their doors open. Look at providers such as nursing homes and hospices. 
They provide labor-intensive services. There are few gadgets or 
processes in these settings that will increase productivity. Nothing in 
these settings replaces staff being at their bedside and providing 
care.
  So it is very incorrect to assume these providers will achieve levels 
of productivity like the rest of the economy, justifying those cuts 
that these bills anticipate.
  Let's look at other providers affected by these productivity 
adjustments, like ambulances. The Finance Committee bill would 
permanently cut payments for ambulance services beginning in 2011. It 
would do this in spite of the fact that Congress enacts payment 
increases to ambulances year after year. In fact, the Senate Finance 
bill extends the existing add-on payments for ambulance services for 
another 2 years, until 2012, and then you know what, it turns right 
around and cuts them.
  I have no quarrel with providing additional payments for ambulance 
services because without them many ambulance providers would not 
survive. Well, what about this slight of hand? What is the impact? The 
bill proposes that we cut ambulance payments while we vote to increase 
them. It is kind of like, I voted to cut before I voted to increase.
  There is another proposal in the Senate bill that cuts Medicare, and 
now I am talking about the Medicare Commission.
  The pending insolvency of Medicare is a very serious problem, and 
Congress needs to stop kicking the can down the road when it comes to 
shoring up Medicare. We are nearing the end of that road.
  This Medicare Commission is fatally flawed, and the risk of 
unintended consequences that will hurt seniors outweighs any benefits 
it might have. Not only will it be harder to find a doctor or hospital 
that will see Medicare patients, you can also forget President Obama's 
promise about keeping what you have.
  After all the promises about not cutting Medicare benefits, 
Congressional Democrats and the White House are using the Medicare 
Commission to take aim at the popular Medicare prescription drug 
benefits and the Medicare Advantage Program. Under the Finance 
Committee bill, this new Medicare Commission would be given explicit 
authority to cut Federal subsidies for Medicare prescription drug 
premiums. Think about that. Today, that Federal subsidy pays for about 
75 percent of the premium for Medicare prescription drug coverage for 
seniors, but the Finance bill says: Cut that subsidy. It says: Raise 
Part D premiums for our seniors. That is right.
  But again, do not take my word for it. On October 13, during the 
Finance Committee health reform markup, the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, was asked whether reducing the Part D 
subsidy would raise premiums. So chart 2 here is what Dr. Elmendorf, 
the Director of CBO, said: ``Yes . . . [reduced subsidies] would raise 
the costs to beneficiaries.'' So this was clear confirmation that if 
the Medicare Commission cuts payments to Medicare drug benefits, it 
will cause Part D premiums for seniors and the disabled to go up.
  At a time when the country is facing record unemployment and 
Americans are struggling to keep up with increasing prescription drug 
costs, these provisions will make these lifesaving prescription drugs 
more expensive for beneficiaries. These are the kinds of things that 
get buried in a 2,000-page bill. When the other side does not 
understand why the American people are concerned about these huge 
bills, those are some of the reasons.
  These health reform bills also propose to cut up to $170 billion from 
Medicare Advantage. In my home State of Iowa, these cuts will cause 
about a 25-percent cut in the amount of money going to extra benefits 
for 63,000 seniors who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage. That means 
fewer low-income Iowans will be getting the eyeglasses, hearing aids, 
and chronic care management they have come to rely upon.
  Some health care providers, such as hospitals, got a special deal. 
They are exempted from the Medicare Commission's payment cuts. That 
means other providers and programs, such as drug benefits for seniors 
and Medicare Advantage, will be bearing the brunt of payment cuts.
  The Medicare Commission would also become a permanent program that 
Congress would, for practical purposes, be unable to undo. By making 
the Commission a permanent program, it becomes part of the baseline in 
the budget over the next decade, so it just goes on forever, sort of 
like the Energizer bunny--it will just keep cutting and cutting and 
cutting. If Congress ever wants to shut off those cuts, then it will 
have to offset the cost when of terminating this commission. That will 
make it effectively impossible, and the damage will have been done.
  These Medicare cuts will also only make things worse for 
beneficiaries in rural areas. Seniors in rural areas already face 
health care access problems. Medicare generally pays rural providers 
less than those in urban areas. Cuts of this magnitude will make it 
much harder for rural Medicare providers to care for beneficiaries.
  But believe it or not, it only gets worse. My colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle intend to create a government-run health plan. If 
this government plan pays providers based on already low Medicare 
rates, it is only going to make this whole situation with access and 
keeping hospitals open much worse.
  These Medicare cuts are achieved at the expense of health care access 
and quality. These Medicare cuts turn a blind eye to threats to health 
care quality and access. There are no fail-safes in these bills that 
kick in automatically if these drastic cuts cause limited provider 
access or worse quality of care. Instead, Congress will have to step 
in.
  The Congressional Budget Office has already projected that these 
Medicare cuts keep increasing by--can you believe it?--the cuts will 
keep increasing 10 to 15 percent each year over the next decade, so 15 
percent even beyond the year 2019. And provisions such as these 
productivity adjustments and the Medicare Commission would drive the 
increased cuts to the program.
  So this will give you an idea of the damage these bills will do to 
health care, particularly for seniors. This is an example of the 
challenge Congress will face in the next decade if these bills become 
law. And this is just what we know about these bills we see. Who knows 
what is being cooked up behind closed doors right now.
  Once again, it is time to back up this process. It is headed in the 
wrong direction. A bill of this magnitude should

[[Page S11094]]

be done on a bipartisan basis with broad support. We can get it done 
right, if we work together. These bills have massive Medicare cuts. 
They will do permanent damage to our health care system--higher 
prescription drug premiums for seniors, increased costs, jeopardized 
access for beneficiaries. These bills are taking us in the wrong 
direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                              The Economy

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a couple weeks ago, I was on an airplane. 
The passenger sitting next to me had on a pair of sweatpants and looked 
pretty relaxed. I asked him where he was going. He said: I am dressed 
this way because I am going to Thailand, then going to Singapore, and 
then going to China. He said: I have a 24-hour flight ahead of me so I 
dressed pretty casually. I said: What are you going to do in Thailand, 
Singapore, and China? He said: I work for a company, and we have a lot 
of smaller companies that provide parts to us. We want those smaller 
companies to move those parts jobs to Thailand and Singapore and China 
so it costs us less to purchase parts. I am going to these three 
countries in order to see if we can offshore these jobs from companies 
we purchase from.
  I was thinking about that as I sat there talking to him. I was 
thinking, there are likely hundreds of employees someplace going to 
work today not knowing he is on an airplane going over to Asia to see 
if he can get rid of their jobs and move them to Asia so they can pay 
just a fraction of the price.
  So it goes, day after day after day. It happened to be someone I sat 
next to on an airplane. This is about jobs then. It is about American 
jobs. I am thinking, as we are talking, we have lost 7.6 million jobs 
since the recession began; 7.6 million people had to come home and tell 
their family: I have lost my job, not because I am a bad worker, I lost 
my job because they are cutting back. Most of that is because of the 
recession. But going into the recession and even now coming out of the 
recession, when we still have most of those folks looking for work, we 
still have people getting on airplanes, finding ways to move American 
jobs overseas.
  When you think about where we are and what our agenda needs to be in 
the Congress and in the country, jobs have to be right at the top. How 
do you put people back to work? How do you get the economic engine 
started? How do you stop the hemorrhaging of jobs to China, where you 
can find somebody to work for 50 cents an hour, working 12 or 14 hours 
a day, 7 days a week. The agenda has to have jobs and economic recovery 
right at the top, putting people back to work, getting the economic 
engine started.
  Our agenda, of course, includes health care and climate change. I am 
the first to attest to the importance of both. Health care is a very 
important subject. The relentless climb of increasing costs year after 
year after year means families take a look at their bill and wonder: 
How on Earth can I pay the bill--it is 10, 12, 14 percent higher than 
last year--in order to provide insurance for my family? I can't drop 
the insurance. Yet I can't afford to pay for it either. Businesses--
small, medium, and large--are trying to figure out how to pay the 
increased cost. That is certainly important.
  Climate change and global warming are both important, no question 
about that. We are going to have a lower carbon future, and we need to 
find ways to address it.
  But the most important agenda, while standing in a very deep economic 
hole, the deepest hole since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the 
most important part of that agenda is trying to put people back to 
work, restarting the economic engine and putting people back to work 
with good jobs that pay well. That is what makes everything else 
possible. It is the menu and the success that has lifted so many people 
out of poverty, expanded the middle class in a manner that almost no 
one else was able to do. It is the way we succeed in this country, 
economic expansion and opportunity for the American worker.
  While I think health care and climate change are important, my agenda 
is to put jobs right at the top, to try to understand we are in the 
deepest recession--or have been--since the Great Depression. The third 
quarter numbers of this year suggest there has been economic growth. 
But economic growth of GDP does not relate to people going back onto 
payrolls. For example, 263,000 people lost their jobs last month. That 
relates to the 7.6 million people total who have lost their jobs since 
the recession began.
  The first priority is to start the economic engine, do the things 
that put together the policies that begin to start this big American 
economic engine again, get the economy back on track and create those 
jobs again.
  I have indicated often that I taught a bit of economics in college. 
When I would teach the supply-and-demand curve and all the other things 
one teaches in economics, I used to say, by far, much more important 
than anything else in this book is to understand the American economy 
expands as a result of confidence. When people are confident about the 
future and they feel that confidence, they do the things that manifest 
confidence. They buy a suit, a car, a house. They take a trip. In other 
words, they are confident about their future. They are feeling good. 
They do the things that expand the economy. That is all about 
confidence. When they are confident and do the things that expand the 
economy, people work. The economy begins to hum along and the country 
does very well.
  When they are not confident about the future, exactly the opposite 
happens. We have economic contraction. People don't buy the suit, the 
car, the home. They don't take a trip. We contract the economy. 
Confidence is at the root of progress. The question is, Standing in 
this deep economic hole, how do we restore confidence? How do we do 
that?
  This President has only been in office 10 months. He inherited the 
biggest economic mess anybody has inherited since the Great Depression. 
That is a fact. We have a lot of people who want to blame the new 
administration for all the economic ills of the country. This President 
inherited the biggest economic mess any President has ever inherited 
since the 1930s. What do we do to restore confidence and what do we do 
to address this issue of the economy?
  In my judgment, we do three things. One is financial reform. It seems 
to me the financial system went completely awry, and we had a carnival 
of greed, an atmosphere of anything goes, unbelievable gambling going 
on--they could have put a casino table in the lobby of some of the 
biggest banks in the country--the development of new financial 
engineering, things such as credit default swaps and CDOs, you name it. 
These folks steered this country's economy right into the ditch. If 
that is the case--and I believe it is--the first step to restore 
confidence is to reform the financial system to say this cannot happen 
again. We will not allow it. We have to fix it.
  Fifteen years ago, I wrote the cover story for the Washington monthly 
magazine called Very Risky Business, in which I described even then 
that FDIC-insured financial institutions--financial institutions 
guaranteed by the Federal Government and the taxpayer, therefore--were 
trading on their own proprietary accounts and derivatives. I said then 
they might as well put a keno pit in the lobby of the bank. Fifteen 
years later, of course, the whole thing collapsed. The center poll 
broke, and the tent collapsed over all of it. Financial reform has to 
be the first step in developing some confidence in the American people 
that this will not happen again.
  We need regulations. I know regulation is a four-letter word to some. 
It is not to me. If ever there was a demonstration that we need 
regulations, it is this carnival of greed that happened in the last 
decade or so, where we had regulators come to town who said: I intend 
to be woefully blind. I know I will get paid by the Federal Government. 
I know I am supposed to be a regulator, but I want to boast about not 
being able to watch. I want the market system to be whatever it is.
  The fact is, this should demonstrate to us we need regulators who 
will keep a watchful eye on the market system so they can call the 
fouls. We need referees. That is what regulators are for. When someone 
commits a foul that injures the free market system, they

[[Page S11095]]

need to blow the whistle. We need effective regulatory authority. That 
is No. 1.
  No. 2, deal with the issues we know are inappropriate. Never should 
an FDIC-insured institution be trading on unbelievably risky 
instruments on their own proprietary accounts. It is still going on 
today. We have to fix that.
  No. 3, the issue of too big to fail. Have we not learned we can't 
have institutions that grow too big to fail without it being no-fault 
capitalism? I hear folks come and crow about the issue of the market 
system and free market capitalism. The fact is, when we have 
institutions that grow too big to fail, it means, when they steer the 
country into the ditch and they are about to go belly up, the American 
taxpayer is told: It is time for you to take some action. We intend to 
have you be a backstop for the biggest financial institutions in the 
country. We know they pay big bonuses. We know there are tens and tens 
of billions of dollars of bonuses being paid for failure, but we don't 
want you to pay attention to that, the fact that they lost a lot of 
money and paid big bonuses. We still want you to bail them out because 
they are too big to be allowed to fail.

  This country should no longer allow that. At the very least, we have 
to address this question of too big to fail. That is no-fault 
capitalism, and it should not be allowed to continue to exist. 
Financial reform is essential to restore confidence by the American 
people. That has to lead the list.
  Second, the issue of fiscal policy and deficits. It is not irrelevant 
to understand we are running very large budget deficits that are 
unsustainable. It is relevant for this administration to point out that 
when you have a steep economic downturn, the deep recession we have 
experienced, you have a dramatic loss of revenue coming into the 
Federal Government, hundreds of billions in lost revenue. You have a 
very substantial amount of increased expenditures because there are 
economic stabilizers, such as unemployment compensation and other 
things, that when times are tough, they kick in and it costs more. So 
you have less revenue and higher cost. The fact is, this administration 
inherited this unbelievable fiscal policy of deciding let's cut taxes 
for the highest income Americans and then we will go to war and not ask 
anybody to pay for one penny of it. We will charge it all. We will 
charge all of it for 8 years.
  This country is in a big hole. The fact is, we can't allow that to be 
a sustainable policy. We have to change it. The President knows it, so 
does the Congress.
  If we are going to restore confidence by the American people in what 
we are doing, there needs to be a plan to address these very large 
budget deficits. We cannot continue to provide a level of government 
the American people are either unwilling or unable to pay for. That is 
a fact. In my judgment, with respect to this agenda of No. 1, financial 
reform; No. 2, addressing fiscal policy and deficits, we must develop 
together a plan to tame these Federal budget deficits and get this 
fiscal policy back on track. That is a fact.
  While I am talking about it, let me also say budget deficits are 
unsustainable, especially in the outyears. I understand you run big 
deficits in the middle of the deepest recession. Your revenue is down, 
expenditures are up. I am talking about in the outyears. This is 
unsustainable, and we must come together on a plan to address it.
  The other side of the deficit issue is the trade deficit. Trade 
deficits are unbelievable. We also have to respond to the trade 
deficits. That relates to what I had described about the fellow on the 
airplane going to move American jobs overseas. I have talked about this 
on the floor, but this chart shows the trade deficits we face. You can 
make a case on budget deficits that that is something we want to repay 
to ourselves. You can't make that case with trade deficits. These are 
moneys we will have to repay to other countries. Last year we had an 
$800 billion merchandise trade deficit. This is an avalanche of red ink 
that will have to be repaid. It weakens the country. This gets worse 
every single year.
  The most important part of that is the trade deficit with China. 
Nearly one-third of this trade deficit is with China. This deficit 
increases year after year after year after year.
  I have told forever on the floor--and I will again, ever so briefly--
the story of Huffy bicycles. The first book I wrote, I wrote 
extensively about these products: Huffy bicycles; the little red 
wagons, the Radio Flyer; the Etch A Sketch--gone to China. They are all 
made in China. Huffy bicycles were made in Ohio.
  All those folks who made Huffy bicycles and were proud of their jobs 
then lost their jobs. They all got fired. This bicycle still exists. 
You can still buy it. It is made in China. The brand is owned by the 
Chinese, and from $11 an hour in Ohio that was paid to workers making 
the bicycle--$11 an hour--this job went to China, where they have paid 
them 30 cents an hour, and have worked them 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 
days a week. The question is this: Should Americans be asked to compete 
with that? Can they compete with that? The answer is: No, of course 
not.
  If I might show a couple other points about what causes these trade 
deficits. As shown on this chart, 98 percent of the cars driven in 
South Korea are made in South Korea. Everybody understands why that is. 
South Korea wants it that way. They do not want American cars in South 
Korea, so virtually all the cars in South Korea are made in South 
Korea.
  As shown on this chart, here is our bilateral automobile trade with 
South Korea. Last year, they sent us 730,000 cars to be sold in the 
United States. We were able to sell them 4,000 cars. Think of that: 
730,000 Korean cars put on ships to be sold in the United States, and 
we were able to get 4,200 American cars into South Korea. It is going 
to be much worse with China, by the way.
  My point is very simply, we have these giant trade deficits growing 
and growing and growing, combined with a fiscal policy deficit that is 
record high, and this is unsustainable. It is unsustainable. So we have 
to deal with financial reform, and we have to deal with deficits--
fiscal policy deficits and trade deficits.
  Then, finally, the issue is jobs. When I talk about restoring the 
economic strength of this country, it means talking about: How do you 
put people back to work? It is interesting to me that the Wall Street 
firms are reporting record profits, they are going to pay record 
bonuses, and so they have healed. They are all fine. It is just those 
7.6 million people who lost their jobs. They are still out there 
looking for work, and they ought to be plenty angry about what is going 
on. So the question is, How do we create jobs and keep jobs here? I 
want to talk about that for a moment.
  It seems to me the issue of job creation--my colleagues Senators 
Warner and Corker have an idea that I have embraced that makes a lot of 
sense, and that is, job creation in most cases is a result of small and 
medium-sized businesses that have an idea and are running a business 
and putting people to work on Main Streets, and yet they are the very 
ones that cannot get lending. You need lending when you are in 
business. You need loan funds to finance your inventory and to expand, 
and so on. The very people who cannot get business loans are the very 
ones who would be creating the jobs.
  So this Congress, without my vote, voted for $700 billion in TARP 
funds to provide a pillow and some aspirin and some soft landing for 
some big financial firms in the country that ran the country's economy 
into the ditch. My colleagues suggest--and I agree--that we probably 
ought to convert just a portion of that--just a portion of that--to 
create a mechanism by which we would have a bank of small business 
loans that would be available to small and medium-sized businesses.
  There is no excuse not to use some of those funds for the right 
purpose. If you believe they were appropriated for the wrong purpose--
that is to help out the biggest firms that steered us into the ditch--
how about helping out Main Street businesses that would create some 
jobs?
  Second, I think we ought to finally consider--and we have talked 
about it for a long while--creating an infrastructure investment bank, 
and over a period of 30 years float the bonds that allow you to rebuild 
the infrastructure in this country that will put massive numbers of 
people back to work. We can do that. If you create it the right way 
with an infrastructure investment

[[Page S11096]]

bank, you are not going to blow a hole in the Federal budget deficit, 
but you are going to put a lot of people back to work.
  The issue that has been used previously during chronic eras of 
unemployment, which I think we should consider, is the issue of the new 
jobs tax credit. We did that in 1977 and 1978. The new jobs tax credit, 
it was reported, provided up to 2.1 million new jobs in this country. I 
think we ought to consider that.
  Finally, we ought to end the disincentive for creating jobs by 
getting rid of these pernicious tax breaks that say: If you fire your 
workers and lock your plant and ship the whole thing overseas, we will 
give you a big fat tax break. Yes, that exists in tax law today. We 
cannot get it changed. It is outrageous, in my judgment. So let's 
provide some incentives for people to hire employees in this country 
and end the disincentives by getting rid of tax breaks for those 
companies that ship their jobs out of the country.
  There is a lot to do. I have described some big issues that, for me, 
would represent the top of the agenda. I know that is not the agenda we 
are on at the moment, and I understand that the play gets called, and 
we all run toward the same goalposts. But the facts is, this country, 
in my judgment, will not have the kind of economic recovery we need 
unless we put at the top of the agenda, as we move forward, the issue 
of financial reform, which my colleagues are working on in the Banking 
Committee. It is urgent we get that done. In my judgment, that should 
have been at the front of the agenda: the issue of fiscal policy, 
deficits and trade policy deficits and, finally, the issue of jobs.
  I want to mention that there is one additional issue that has been 
kicked around, and that is climate change. As I said when I started 
this presentation, I do not think climate change is irrelevant at all. 
I think it is important. For me, it would not lead the set of issues 
that would require us first to put the economy back on track.
  But with respect to the issue of climate change and energy, part of 
having confidence in the future is also having some energy security. 
Energy security and national security, in my judgment, go together in 
many ways. Because if tomorrow, God forbid, we had an interruption in 
the pipeline of oil that comes to this country, our economy would be 
flat on its back. About one-fourth of the 85 million barrels of oil 
that are taken out of this planet every day, has to come into this 
country. We have a prodigious appetite for energy. But the problem is, 
70 percent of our nation's oil comes from other countries. Seventy 
percent of the oil we use comes from other countries.
  We have a real energy security issue and we need to work hard to be 
less dependent on other countries--some of who do not like us very 
much--for the oil we need to run this American economy.
  We wrote a bill about 4 months ago in the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, a bill that deals with all of the energy policies 
that would make America more energy secure and provide greater national 
security as a result. The Senate Energy Committee's bill, in my 
judgment, should be on the floor of the Senate before the climate 
change bill. It does all the things in the matter of policy, that you 
would do to address climate change.
  The Senate Energy Committee's legislation maximizes the use of 
renewable energy, so you can produce electricity where the wind blows, 
and the Sun shines, and move it through a modern transmission system to 
the load centers where the energy is needed. The Senate Energy 
Committee's bill does the building retrofits and efficiencies, which 
are the lowest hanging fruit in energy. For the first time in history, 
it establishes a renewable electricity standard of 15 percent. It opens 
up the Eastern Gulf for offshore oil and natural gas production.
  The Senate Energy Committee's legislation does all of the things you 
would do to take significant steps toward addressing climate change. 
The bill maximizes the production of renewable energy--it moves in 
exactly the right direction. Retrofitting buildings--it does exactly 
the right thing. The increase in the renewable electricity standard is 
exactly the right policy.
  So I would say to those who are pushing very hard that we need to 
have climate change on the floor of the Senate. The fact is, it is much 
more important, in terms of public policy to move this country in the 
right direction, to bring the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee's bill on the floor. The Senate Energy Committee's bill 
includes a whole series of investments to make coal development, which 
is the most abundant resource in this country, more compatible with our 
need to address a lower carbon future.
  Carbon capture and sequestration from coal development is very 
important. Carbon capture, beneficial use all of these investments 
require money, and we put some of that money in the Senate Energy 
Committee's bill so we can continue to use that resource as well.

  The Senate Energy Committee's bill makes sense and, in my judgment, 
it ought to have a priority to come to the floor of the Senate after 
financial reform and deficits and jobs. Because all of that, I think, 
is necessary to address the very serious economic questions that face 
Americans.
  Let me conclude by saying, I mentioned a few moments ago that we have 
these very large Federal budget deficits, and I think it would be 
useful to say that while there are expenditure cuts we should make--and 
there are plenty I have suggested; I think we should tighten our 
belts--there are other ways to begin to reduce the Federal budget 
deficit; and that is, to ask those who are not paying their fair share 
to pay some.
  I want to describe that by showing a chart. This is a chart from a 
company that is part of their financial report. But I am doing this 
only to say this is a just a representation of many companies. But this 
one says: The United States Government is this company's largest single 
customer. The government operates in segments and supplies nuclear 
power systems, and so on. We are active in government-sponsored 
operations and research.
  All right. So who is this company? This is a company that decided, in 
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, to say:

       [The company] is a Panamanian corporation that has earned 
     all of its income outside of Panama.

  It is not really a Panamanian corporation. Well, it is legally now. 
But it used to be an American corporation that decided to do what is 
called an inversion; that means disavowing your U.S. citizenship and 
saying, as a corporation: I don't want to be an American citizen 
anymore. I want to be a citizen of Panama. So that is what this company 
did.
  All right. We decided some while ago, if you want to decide not to be 
an American citizen, as a company, then do not tell us you want to keep 
doing business with the American Government. The only reason you want 
to invert and get rid of your American citizenship is to avoid paying 
U.S. taxes. So we say, if you do not want to pay U.S. taxes--do you 
know what?--you ought not get business from the Federal Government.
  Well, this company did not like that so much. This company has 2007 
revenues that were sheltered now because they inverted to Panama--2007 
revenues--of $2.6 billion.
  It has taken the government a little longer than it should have to 
shut off these companies that inverted from doing business with the 
Federal Government. But now we have an understanding that one of the 
Federal agencies quietly approached the Appropriations Committee and 
asked to insert a clause in an appropriations bill which says that the 
contracting ban, which I have described, can only be administered 
consistent with U.S. international trade agreements. That was done 
because there is discussion of a trade agreement with Panama, and so 
with respect to the trade agreement with Panama, the contracting ban 
would be limited to not affect this company that inverted to Panama.
  Isn't that interesting. Actually, we have people in government trying 
to help the company get Federal business once again, despite the fact 
that this company moved away to Panama as a legal address in order to 
avoid paying U.S. taxes. And it is not just this company.
  Some long while ago, probably 2 years ago, I brought to the floor of 
the

[[Page S11097]]

Senate--and many of my colleagues have since used this--this picture. 
When you talk about everybody paying their fair share, this is a 
picture of a little four-story building on Church Street in the Cayman 
Islands. It is called the Ugland House. This is actually the original 
chart I used about 2 years ago. There was some enterprising reporting 
by a reporter named Evans from Bloomberg. Mr. Evans from Bloomberg 
actually did the reporting on this.
  This little white building on Church Street in the Cayman Islands was 
home to 12,748 corporations. They are not there. That is just a legal 
address, a figment created by lawyers, to say, if you run your mail 
through a mailbox in this building, you can avoid paying U.S. taxes.
  Isn't that wonderful? I think it is unpatriotic. It is going on all 
the time. By the way, since I first used this chart, my understanding 
is, there are now not 12,000 corporations using this address; there are 
18,000 corporations. Isn't that unbelievable?
  My point is, when you talk about the need for fiscal policy reform--
yes, let's cut some spending; let's tighten our belts--let's also ask 
some interests who decided they want all the benefits that America has 
to offer but they do not want to pay taxes, let's ask them to become 
tax-paying citizens, corporate tax-paying citizens once again. There is 
a lot to do, and I am convinced we can do it if we have the priorities 
straight.
  Yesterday, it was interesting to me to hear that Warren Buffett 
purchased the Burlington Northern Railroad.
  Berkshire Hathaway, the company owned by Warren Buffett, purchased 
Burlington Northern Railroad. He said he is betting on America. I know 
Warren Buffett. I have known him for years. I like him. He is a good 
guy. In fact, he is one of the smartest investors perhaps in the 
history of our country. He is betting on America. That is probably a 
pretty good bet. I don't know the details of his purchase of this 
railroad company, but it is probably a pretty good bet to bet on this 
country.
  I mentioned previously that we had Warren Buffett to speak to our 
caucus some while ago and somebody asked him the question: What do you 
think the economy will be like in 6 months?
  Warren Buffett said: I don't have the foggiest idea. That is not the 
way I think. I don't know what is going to happen 6 months from now or 
16 months from now, but I will tell you this: I know what the economy 
is going to be like 6 years from now. It is going to be great.
  He said: America always pulls itself up. Look at the couple hundred 
years of history, at the creativeness, the inventiveness, the ambition 
of the American people. It is just innate in the soul of the American 
people and its culture to just keep moving forward.
  He said: This country is going to do fine. I don't know whether it is 
going to be 7 or 10 or 15 months or 5 years, but, he said, I believe 
this country is going to do well.
  So I kind of smiled yesterday when I saw that he had purchased a 
railroad and said: I am betting on America.
  I think this Congress should bet on America too, but America needs 
some help from this Congress. America needs a lot of help to deal with 
the issues I have just described. I believe we can do that, but it is 
not going to happen unless we have some cooperation. We have gotten 
cooperation on nothing. By the way, just for interest's sake, we are 
now in this lengthy period, and we have had to burn 30 hours 
postcloture in 2 days, ripening cloture on everything, even on 
noncontroversial things, because there are people who don't want this 
institution to work. It doesn't make any sense to me. There ought not 
be two teams here; we all ought to be pulling for the same team.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to state my support for 
the extension of unemployment benefits that was included in H.R. 3548. 
Recent reports on gross domestic product by the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis indicate that we are out of the recession. However, 
unemployment is a lagging indicator, and we will need to see more GDP 
growth before employers start hiring again. In the meantime, families 
in Missouri and across the country are hurting. The unemployment rate 
in Missouri is 9.5 percent. American Airlines announced just last week 
that it would close its maintenance facility in Kansas City, and 490 
workers are losing their jobs.
  I believe we have a responsibility and an obligation to help good, 
hard working Americans who are struggling in these difficult times. To 
that end, the extension of unemployment benefits will provide a vital 
lifeline to people struggling to find work through one of the most 
severe recessions in our lifetime, and I fully support it.
  I also strongly support inclusion in this bill of the provisions from 
the Service Members Homeownership Tax Act, which I introduced. These 
provisions will ensure that our troops deployed overseas this year and 
next will not be penalized for their service when they seek to buy 
their first homes. You cannot shop for a house while you are hunting 
al-Qaida in Afghanistan or supporting a diplomatic mission to NATO 
Allies, so it is only fair that service members have additional time to 
take advantage of the first-time homebuyer tax credit. This bill will 
give members of the armed, intelligence, and foreign services who were 
stationed abroad in 2009 or 2010 an additional year to qualify. It will 
also eliminate the ``recapture'' requirement for servicemembers. Unlike 
other recipients, they will not have to pay the credit back if they 
move within 3 years, as long as the relocation is service-related. 
Finally, Housing Assistance Program benefits that were expanded in the 
Recovery Act will be exempt from taxation. These temporary benefits are 
helping cushion the financial blow to military families who are forced 
to sell their homes in the current, depressed market. Families who are 
reassigned or are relocating to seek treatment for service-related 
injuries are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the program. I would 
note that the cost of extending the first-time homebuyer tax credit for 
servicemembers will be less than one percent of a full extension of the 
credit, and that the cost was fully offset in the bill I introduced.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 3548 went further than only taking care of our 
men and women in uniform. It also contains a fiscally irresponsible 
extension and expansion of the first-time homebuyer tax credit for many 
other Americans. I do not support this extension.
  Congress created the first-time homebuyer credit last year as a 
timely, targeted, and temporary response to the housing crisis, 
designed to reduce excess housing inventories by encouraging home 
purchases. Judging from home sales over the past few months, the credit 
has helped stabilize the housing market. However, the Treasury 
Inspector General for Tax Administration has found serious instances of 
fraud within the program, and economists have suggested that extending 
the credit is not the most effective way of addressing the remaining 
problems in the housing market. Now that we are out of crisis, it is 
time to let the first-time homebuyer credit expire. We simply cannot 
continue to expand one-time programs from the stimulus and ever expect 
to return to a state of fiscal responsibility. If we say it is a one-
time program, it should be a one-time program.
  In conclusion, I applaud the important, commonsense steps we have 
taken for Americans looking for work and for military families. I am 
disappointed that a broad extension of the first-time homebuyer credit 
was included in this legislation. I would not have supported an 
extension of the credit independently. However, the positive elements 
of this bill outweigh the negative, and I support the overall 
bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to express 
my concern about a provision included in the unemployment compensation 
bill before the Senate.
  The provision I am concerned about deals with a reversal of a sound 
international tax policy reform. Back in 2004, Congress passed and 
President Bush signed a major bipartisan business tax reform bill. The 
centerpiece proposal in the international tax reform area was a 
restoration of the Finance Committee position from the 1986 Tax Reform 
Act on the treatment of interest for the purposes of the foreign tax 
credit.

[[Page S11098]]

  This reform, known as World Wide Interest Apportionment, was due to 
take effect at the beginning of 2009, but its implementation was 
delayed for 2 years in order to pay for housing legislation enacted in 
July of 2008. I expressed my concerns at the time about delaying sound 
international tax policy in order to fund new spending priorities. 
However, my view lost out and the delay of this provision was used as 
an offset.
  Now, here we are again, in need of revenue offset in order to fund 
other priorities. The proposal in the bill before us delays this 
important reform an additional 7 years, until December 31, 2017. I 
support the main provisions of the bill intended to provide relief to 
those struggling to find work by extending unemployment benefits and to 
provide a lift to the economy by extending the homebuyer tax credit and 
the expanded net operating loss carryback period for small businesses.
  My opposition to this revenue offset rests in the bad tax policy this 
proposal represents. The interest allocation reform would, if allowed 
to take effect, lower the chance of double tax that arises under 
current law from the artificial overallocation of interest expense to 
foreign income, even when the debt is incurred to fund domestic 
investment. The current rules actually penalize domestic manufacturers 
that compete in global markets by making it more likely they will be 
double-taxed on their foreign income.
  Several companies have spoken to my staff about the negative 
ramifications this delay will have on them. Some of these companies are 
just starting to grow their businesses beyond the U.S. borders. The 
delay of this important international reform will make it more costly 
for these companies to expand into these markets. If these companies 
cannot grow beyond the domestic economy, they will be unable to compete 
in the global marketplace.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from 
John Deere explaining their concern about delaying the implementation 
of this provision be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Deere & Company,

                                     Moline, IL, October 22, 2009.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Senate Finance Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: Deere and Company would like to 
     reemphasize to you the importance of worldwide interest 
     allocation and our strong desire that implementation of this 
     provision not be further delayed by using the provision as a 
     ``pay for'' for other issues. Further continued delays in 
     implementing this provision will make U.S. companies less 
     competitive with our foreign competitors.
       We ask that you find a different offset to fund H.R. 3548, 
     the Supplemental Appropriations, and oppose using the Reid-
     Baucus proposed delay of the interest allocation rules to 
     offset other tax policy. U.S. based employers like Deere 
     believe implementing World Wide Interest Allocation is 
     critically important international tax law.
                                                Thomas K. Jarrett,
                                              Vice President, Tax.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to speak in support of extending 
the unemployment insurance program, to provide up to 20 weeks of 
additional unemployment insurance benefits for out-of-work Americans 
and their families.
  American workers are facing tough times. During the last recession, 
our country lost millions of good jobs--jobs that have never been 
replaced. And the downturn of the past 2 years, brought on by the 
subprime mortgage disaster and skyrocketing oil costs, has created a 
perfect storm leading to severe unemployment, with official 
unemployment approaching 10 percent. Today, 15.1 million Americans are 
out of work, and more than a third of them have been out of a job for 6 
months or more. Unfortunately, the jobless rates jumps closer to 20 
percent when you take into account the millions more who have given up 
looking for work, or can only find part-time work when they need full-
time incomes.
  In recent weeks we have seen signs that our economy is starting to 
turn the corner, with growth in consumer spending, improved home sales 
and expansion in some manufacturing industries. Thanks to the Recovery 
Act, we have also been able to keep teachers in the classroom, and get 
construction workers started on new jobs because this administration 
and this Congress made significant investments that saved or created 
these and hundreds of thousands of other jobs. But we know that 
achieving a full economic recovery won't happen overnight. As our 
economy gradually improves, American families will still need help to 
get by.
  The recession has meant hardship for many thousands of families in my 
home state. Des Moines' nine food banks have seen a significant 
increase in demand. And organizations like the Salvation Army are also 
seeing a surge of requests for assistance with utilities, food, and 
clothing.
  When a family member is out of work, times are particularly tough. 
One survey found that 70 percent of families with a person out of work 
reported having cut back spending on food and groceries. That is why it 
is important that we act now to extend unemployment insurance benefits.
  The unemployment insurance program provides a vital safety net during 
times of economic hardship. Workers have paid into the system through 
their hard work, so when they are out of a job they deserve support to 
see them through tough times. These benefits are fundamental to helping 
families meet basic necessities--to provide a roof over their heads, to 
put food on the table, or to keep the heat on. A recent survey found 
that 90 percent of people receiving unemployment benefits used them for 
just such necessities.
  With over one-third of unemployed Americans out of a job for more 
than half a year, unemployment benefits have been a lifeline for these 
families. The critical nature of these benefits has enabled us to pass 
previous extensions with bipartisan support. Earlier this year we 
provided additional weeks of unemployment assistance and a small 
increase in workers' weekly benefits. Yet 400,000 workers ran out of 
benefits last month and another 200,000 exhausted their unemployment by 
the end of October. Over 30,000 Iowans have run out of State benefits 
since June.
  Running out of unemployment support means even tougher times for 
Americans who are already strapped--and so I hope my colleagues will 
join me in supporting and quickly passing this extension of 
unemployment benefits.
  The amendment before us will provide critical help to working 
families as our economy gets going again. Nationwide, it provides 14 
additional weeks of benefits for workers who have run out of safety net 
support. In States where unemployment is at or above 8.5 percent, 
workers are eligible for 20 additional weeks of benefits. This 
amendment will provide much needed help to 1.9 million people across 
the country, including 31,000 in Iowa.
  This help can't come too soon for hardworking men and women who are 
trying to hang on for better times ahead; people like Kimberly Anders, 
from West Des Moines, IA. She writes:

       As an older person, I feel lost in the face of not being 
     able to find a job, especially after I've worked hard my 
     whole life and never once relied on any state or federal aid 
     . . . now my unemployment is about to run out, and my hope 
     with it . . .

  Unemployment benefits help Michelle Paulson from Huxley, IA, who is 
trying to train for a new career while caring for her family. A mother 
of two, Michelle went back to community college after she was laid off 
by a window manufacturer last August. As the lagging economy continues 
to take its toll on Iowans, Michelle is pursuing a degree in advanced 
manufacturing. Unemployment benefits provide Michelle the safety net to 
meet basic needs for her family while building her own workforce 
skills.
  The American people are counting on us to help them. It is time to 
act now.
  Passing this amendment now will give people like Kimberly Anders and 
Michelle Paulson the immediate help they need. What's more, it will 
benefit them and all American workers in the long run by helping to get 
our economy back on track. That is because unemployment benefits 
provide a major, immediate boost to the economy. Economists calculate 
that every $1 invested in the unemployment insurance safety net 
generates $1.63 in economic activity. Unemployed households spend these 
dollars on immediate needs--to pay the rent or a medical bill, buy 
groceries and school supplies, or repair the family car--all economic 
activities that quickly inject dollars into our communities.

[[Page S11099]]

  An extension of unemployment benefits gives workers and their 
families the support they need while people continue to look for work. 
And it provides a needed stimulus to the rest of our economy. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and pass it without delay.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the measure we have before us is vital to 
the three-quarters of a million people in Michigan who are unemployed. 
It is vital to the 15.1 million Americans who are unemployed. It will 
keep them in their homes. It will keep their children fed and clothed.
  It is also vital to the millions of American workers who remain 
employed, but are plagued by fear that they too will lose their job. 
Previous extensions of unemployment insurance benefits have played an 
underappreciated role in helping us avoid even greater economic 
collapse. There are businesses still open, neighborhoods still filled 
with families instead of foreclosed homes, wheels of commerce still 
turning because of the economic fuel these extensions have provided. 
This extension, too, means help not just for those facing a loss of 
benefits but for entire communities.
  I am also pleased that this legislation extends the homebuyer tax 
credit which had been set to expire on November 30, 2009. This credit, 
which has helped pull the real-estate market from the depths of 
decline, will now be available until April 30, 2010. This legislation 
expands eligible recipients to tax payers who have owned their homes 
for more than 5 years. The credit will also provide additional relief 
to members of the military by eliminating the recapture requirement of 
the credit if they are forced to sell their home as a result of an 
official extension of duty.
  So I am glad that we are ready to approve this legislation. I wish it 
had come sooner. During the debate and delay here in Washington, 7,000 
unemployed Americans each day saw their unemployment benefits expire. 
By mid-October, 44,000 Michigan workers had exhausted their benefits, 
and that number will more than double by the end of the year if we do 
not act. The anxiety caused by our delays has been a tremendous 
hardship for families facing the loss of their benefits hardship made 
painfully clear by the calls and letters to my office from Michiganders 
desperate for any word on when Congress would act.
  For a family battered by the loss of a job, fearing the loss of a 
home, wondering if life will ever be the same, facing such uncertainty 
requires genuine courage to hold onto hope. This extension of 
unemployment benefits is one important way we can help alleviate fear 
and help preserve that hope that is essential to persevere until times 
get better.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
after the adoption of this unanimous consent request, all postcloture 
time be yielded back, and the bill, as amended, be read a third time, 
that no points of order be in order, and the Senate then proceed to 
vote on passage of H.R. 3548; that upon passage, the Senate then 
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 331, the 
nomination of Tara Jeanne O'Toole; and that once the nomination is 
reported, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination, 
with any statements relating to the nomination appearing at the 
appropriate place in the Record, as if read; that upon confirmation, 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; 
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and 
the Senate then resume legislative session; that on Thursday, November 
5, after a period of morning business, the Senate consider the motion 
to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was 
not invoked on the committee-reported substitute amendment to H.R. 
2847, the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Act; that the motion 
to proceed be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be agreed to; and 
that prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the 
substitute amendment, there be 40 minutes of debate, equally divided 
and controlled as follows: 20 minutes under the control of Senator 
Vitter and 20 minutes total for Senators Mikulski and Shelby; that upon 
the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on 
the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment; further, that 
upon disposition of H.R. 2847, the Senate then proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 106, H.R. 3082, the Military 
Construction/Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act; that immediately 
after the bill is reported, Senator Johnson or his designee be 
recognized to call up the substitute amendment, which is the text of S. 
1407, the Senate committee-reported bill.
  Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues that the unanimous 
consent request I just made has been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was ordered to be 
engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 334 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     McCaskill
       
  The bill (H.R. 3548), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                               H.R. 3548

       Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 3548) entitled ``An Act to amend the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 to provide for the temporary 
     availability of certain additional emergency unemployment 
     compensation, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Worker, Homeownership, and 
     Business Assistance Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. REVISIONS TO SECOND-TIER BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4002(c) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``If'' and all that follows through ``paragraph (2))'' and 
     inserting ``At the time that the amount established in an 
     individual's account under subsection (b)(1) is exhausted'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``50 percent'' and 
     inserting ``54 percent''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``13'' and inserting 
     ``14'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply as if included in the enactment of the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, except that no amount 
     shall be payable by virtue of such amendments with respect to 
     any week of unemployment commencing before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. THIRD-TIER EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 4002 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Third-tier Emergency Unemployment Compensation.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, at the time that the amount added to 
     an individual's account under

[[Page S11100]]

     subsection (c)(1) (hereinafter `second-tier emergency 
     unemployment compensation') is exhausted or at any time 
     thereafter, such individual's State is in an extended benefit 
     period (as determined under paragraph (2)), such account 
     shall be further augmented by an amount (hereinafter `third-
     tier emergency unemployment compensation') equal to the 
     lesser of--
       ``(A) 50 percent of the total amount of regular 
     compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable to 
     the individual during the individual's benefit year under the 
     State law; or
       ``(B) 13 times the individual's average weekly benefit 
     amount (as determined under subsection (b)(2)) for the 
     benefit year.
       ``(2) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), a State shall be considered to be in an extended benefit 
     period, as of any given time, if--
       ``(A) such a period would then be in effect for such State 
     under such Act if section 203(d) of such Act--
       ``(i) were applied by substituting `4' for `5' each place 
     it appears; and
       ``(ii) did not include the requirement under paragraph 
     (1)(A) thereof; or
       ``(B) such a period would then be in effect for such State 
     under such Act if--
       ``(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State 
     (regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such 
     application); and
       ``(ii) such section 203(f)--

       ``(I) were applied by substituting `6.0' for `6.5' in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof; and
       ``(II) did not include the requirement under paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii) thereof.

       ``(3) Limitation.--The account of an individual may be 
     augmented not more than once under this subsection.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to Non-augmentation Rule.--Section 
     4007(b)(2) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 
     (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``then section 4002(c)'' and inserting 
     ``then subsections (c) and (d) of section 4002''; and
       (2) by striking ``paragraph (2) of such section)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2) of such subsection (c) or (d) (as 
     the case may be))''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply as if included in the enactment of the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, except that no amount 
     shall be payable by virtue of such amendments with respect to 
     any week of unemployment commencing before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. FOURTH-TIER EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 4002 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note), as amended by section 3(a), is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Fourth-tier Emergency Unemployment Compensation.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, at the time that the amount added to 
     an individual's account under subsection (d)(1) (third-tier 
     emergency unemployment compensation) is exhausted or at any 
     time thereafter, such individual's State is in an extended 
     benefit period (as determined under paragraph (2)), such 
     account shall be further augmented by an amount (hereinafter 
     `fourth-tier emergency unemployment compensation') equal to 
     the lesser of--
       ``(A) 24 percent of the total amount of regular 
     compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable to 
     the individual during the individual's benefit year under the 
     State law; or
       ``(B) 6 times the individual's average weekly benefit 
     amount (as determined under subsection (b)(2)) for the 
     benefit year.
       ``(2) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), a State shall be considered to be in an extended benefit 
     period, as of any given time, if--
       ``(A) such a period would then be in effect for such State 
     under such Act if section 203(d) of such Act--
       ``(i) were applied by substituting `6' for `5' each place 
     it appears; and
       ``(ii) did not include the requirement under paragraph 
     (1)(A) thereof; or
       ``(B) such a period would then be in effect for such State 
     under such Act if--
       ``(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State 
     (regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such 
     application); and
       ``(ii) such section 203(f)--

       ``(I) were applied by substituting `8.5' for `6.5' in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof; and
       ``(II) did not include the requirement under paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii) thereof.

       ``(3) Limitation.--The account of an individual may be 
     augmented not more than once under this subsection.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to Non-augmentation Rule.--Section 
     4007(b)(2) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 
     (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), as amended by 
     section 3(b), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (d)'' and inserting ``, (d), and (e) 
     of section 4002''; and
       (2) by striking ``or (d)'' and inserting ``, (d), or (e) 
     (as the case may be))''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply as if included in the enactment of the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, except that no amount 
     shall be payable by virtue of such amendments with respect to 
     any week of unemployment commencing before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. COORDINATION.

       Section 4002 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 
     (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), as amended by 
     section 4, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Coordination Rules.--
       ``(1) Coordination with extended compensation.--
     Notwithstanding an election under section 4001(e) by a State 
     to provide for the payment of emergency unemployment 
     compensation prior to extended compensation, such State may 
     pay extended compensation to an otherwise eligible individual 
     prior to any emergency unemployment compensation under 
     subsection (c), (d), or (e) (by reason of the amendments made 
     by sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Worker, Homeownership, and 
     Business Assistance Act of 2009), if such individual claimed 
     extended compensation for at least 1 week of unemployment 
     after the exhaustion of emergency unemployment compensation 
     under subsection (b) (as such subsection was in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this subsection).
       ``(2) Coordination with tiers ii, iii, and iv.--If a State 
     determines that implementation of the increased entitlement 
     to second-tier emergency unemployment compensation by reason 
     of the amendments made by section 2 of the Worker, 
     Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 would 
     unduly delay the prompt payment of emergency unemployment 
     compensation under this title by reason of the amendments 
     made by such Act, such State may elect to pay third-tier 
     emergency unemployment compensation prior to the payment of 
     such increased second-tier emergency unemployment 
     compensation until such time as such State determines that 
     such increased second-tier emergency unemployment 
     compensation may be paid without such undue delay. If a State 
     makes the election under the preceding sentence, then, for 
     purposes of determining whether an account may be augmented 
     for fourth-tier emergency unemployment compensation under 
     subsection (e), such State shall treat the date of exhaustion 
     of such increased second-tier emergency unemployment 
     compensation as the date of exhaustion of third-tier 
     emergency unemployment compensation, if such date is later 
     than the date of exhaustion of the third-tier emergency 
     unemployment compensation.''.

     SEC. 6. TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

       Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended by 
     striking ``Act;'' and inserting ``Act and sections 2, 3, and 
     4 of the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act 
     of 2009;''.

     SEC. 7. EXPANSION OF MODERNIZATION GRANTS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT 
                   RESULTING FROM COMPELLING FAMILY REASON.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 903(f)(3)(B) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1103(f)(3)(B)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(i) One or both of the following offenses as selected by 
     the State, but in making such selection, the resulting change 
     in the State law shall not supercede any other provision of 
     law relating to unemployment insurance to the extent that 
     such other provision provides broader access to unemployment 
     benefits for victims of such selected offense or offenses:

       ``(I) Domestic violence, verified by such reasonable and 
     confidential documentation as the State law may require, 
     which causes the individual reasonably to believe that such 
     individual's continued employment would jeopardize the safety 
     of the individual or of any member of the individual's 
     immediate family (as defined by the Secretary of Labor); and
       ``(II) Sexual assault, verified by such reasonable and 
     confidential documentation as the State law may require, 
     which causes the individual reasonably to believe that such 
     individual's continued employment would jeopardize the safety 
     of the individual or of any member of the individual's 
     immediate family (as defined by the Secretary of Labor).''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to State applications submitted on 
     and after January 1, 2010.

     SEC. 8. TREATMENT OF ADDITIONAL REGULAR COMPENSATION.

       The monthly equivalent of any additional compensation paid 
     by reason of section 2002 of the Assistance for Unemployed 
     Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public 
     Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438) shall be 
     disregarded after the date of the enactment of this Act in 
     considering the amount of income and assets of an individual 
     for purposes of determining such individual's eligibility 
     for, or amount of, benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program (SNAP).

     SEC. 9. ADDITIONAL EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE 
                   RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.

       (a) Benefits.--Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Railroad 
     Unemployment Insurance Act, as added by section 2006 of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5), is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii)--
       (A) by striking ``June 30, 2009'' and inserting ``June 30, 
     2010''; and
       (B) by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2010''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of clause (iv) the following: ``In 
     addition to the amount appropriated by the preceding 
     sentence, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, there are appropriated $175,000,000 to cover 
     the cost of additional extended unemployment benefits 
     provided under this subparagraph, to remain available until 
     expended.''.
       (b) Administrative Expenses.--Section 2006 of division B of 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 445) is amended by adding at the end of 
     subsection (b) the following: ``In addition to funds 
     appropriated by the preceding sentence, out of any funds in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated to the Railroad Retirement Board $807,000 to 
     cover the administrative expenses associated with the payment 
     of additional extended unemployment benefits under section 
     2(c)(2)(D) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, to 
     remain available until expended.''.

[[Page S11101]]

     SEC. 10. 0.2 PERCENT FUTA SURTAX.

       (a) In General.--Section 3301 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to rate of tax) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``through 2009'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``through 2010 and the first 6 months of calendar 
     year 2011'',
       (2) by striking ``calendar year 2010'' in paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``the remainder of calendar year 2011'', and
       (3) by inserting ``(or portion of the calendar year)'' 
     after ``during the calendar year''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to wages paid after December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 11. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER 
                   TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Extension of Application Period.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (h) of section 36 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``December 1, 2009'' and inserting ``May 1, 
     2010'',
       (B) by striking ``Section.--This section'' and inserting 
     ``Section.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Exception in case of binding contract.--In the case 
     of any taxpayer who enters into a written binding contract 
     before May 1, 2010, to close on the purchase of a principal 
     residence before July 1, 2010, paragraph (1) shall be applied 
     by substituting `July 1, 2010' for `May 1, 2010'.''.
       (2) Waiver of recapture.--
       (A) In general.--Subparagraph (D) of section 36(f)(4) of 
     such Code is amended by striking ``, and before December 1, 
     2009''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--The heading of such subparagraph 
     (D) is amended by inserting ``and 2010'' after ``2009''.
       (3) Election to treat purchase in prior year.--Subsection 
     (g) of section 36 of such Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Election To Treat Purchase in Prior Year.--In the 
     case of a purchase of a principal residence after December 
     31, 2008, a taxpayer may elect to treat such purchase as made 
     on December 31 of the calendar year preceding such purchase 
     for purposes of this section (other than subsections (c), 
     (f)(4)(D), and (h)).''.
       (b) Special Rule for Long-time Residents of Same Principal 
     Residence.--Subsection (c) of section 36 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Exception for long-time residents of same principal 
     residence.--In the case of an individual (and, if married, 
     such individual's spouse) who has owned and used the same 
     residence as such individual's principal residence for any 5-
     consecutive-year period during the 8-year period ending on 
     the date of the purchase of a subsequent principal residence, 
     such individual shall be treated as a first-time homebuyer 
     for purposes of this section with respect to the purchase of 
     such subsequent residence.''.
       (c) Modification of Dollar and Income Limitations.--
       (1) Dollar limitation.--Subsection (b)(1) of section 36 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Special rule for long-time residents of same 
     principal residence.--In the case of a taxpayer to whom a 
     credit under subsection (a) is allowed by reason of 
     subsection (c)(6), subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall be 
     applied by substituting `$6,500' for `$8,000' and `$3,250' 
     for `$4,000'.''.
       (2) Income limitation.--Subsection (b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of 
     section 36 of such Code is amended by striking ``$75,000 
     ($150,000'' and inserting ``$125,000 ($225,000''.
       (d) Limitation on Purchase Price of Residence.--Subsection 
     (b) of section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Limitation based on purchase price.--No credit shall 
     be allowed under subsection (a) for the purchase of any 
     residence if the purchase price of such residence exceeds 
     $800,000.''.
       (e) Waiver of Recapture of First-time Homebuyer Credit for 
     Individuals on Qualified Official Extended Duty.--Paragraph 
     (4) of section 36(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Special rule for members of the armed forces, etc.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of the disposition of a 
     principal residence by an individual (or a cessation referred 
     to in paragraph (2)) after December 31, 2008, in connection 
     with Government orders received by such individual, or such 
     individual's spouse, for qualified official extended duty 
     service--

       ``(I) paragraph (2) and subsection (d)(2) shall not apply 
     to such disposition (or cessation), and
       ``(II) if such residence was acquired before January 1, 
     2009, paragraph (1) shall not apply to the taxable year in 
     which such disposition (or cessation) occurs or any 
     subsequent taxable year.

       ``(ii) Qualified official extended duty service.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `qualified official 
     extended duty service' means service on qualified official 
     extended duty as--

       ``(I) a member of the uniformed services,
       ``(II) a member of the Foreign Service of the United 
     States, or
       ``(III) an employee of the intelligence community.

       ``(iii) Definitions.--Any term used in this subparagraph 
     which is also used in paragraph (9) of section 121(d) shall 
     have the same meaning as when used in such paragraph.''.
       (f) Extension of First-time Homebuyer Credit for 
     Individuals on Qualified Official Extended Duty Outside the 
     United States.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (h) of section 36 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by subsection (a), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Special rule for individuals on qualified official 
     extended duty outside the united states.--In the case of any 
     individual who serves on qualified official extended duty 
     service (as defined in section 121(d)(9)(C)(i)) outside the 
     United States for at least 90 days during the period 
     beginning after December 31, 2008, and ending before May 1, 
     2010, and, if married, such individual's spouse--
       ``(A) paragraphs (1) and (2) shall each be applied by 
     substituting `May 1, 2011' for `May 1, 2010', and
       ``(B) paragraph (2) shall be applied by substituting `July 
     1, 2011' for `July 1, 2010'.''.
       (g) Dependents Ineligible for Credit.--Subsection (d) of 
     section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the 
     period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``, or'', 
     and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) a deduction under section 151 with respect to such 
     taxpayer is allowable to another taxpayer for such taxable 
     year.''.
       (h) IRS Mathematical Error Authority.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 6213(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (M),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (N) 
     and inserting ``, and'', and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (N) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(O) an omission of any increase required under section 
     36(f) with respect to the recapture of a credit allowed under 
     section 36.''.
       (i) Coordination With First-time Homebuyer Credit for 
     District of Columbia.--Paragraph (4) of section 1400C(e) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``and before December 1, 2009,''.
       (j) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (b), 
     (c), (d), and (g) shall apply to residences purchased after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Extensions.--The amendments made by subsections (a), 
     (f), and (i) shall apply to residences purchased after 
     November 30, 2009.
       (3) Waiver of recapture.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (e) shall apply to dispositions and cessations after December 
     31, 2008.
       (4) Mathematical error authority.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (h) shall apply to returns for taxable years 
     ending on or after April 9, 2008.

     SEC. 12. PROVISIONS TO ENHANCE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE 
                   FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Age Limitation.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 36 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Age limitation.--No credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a) with respect to the purchase of any residence 
     unless the taxpayer has attained age 18 as of the date of 
     such purchase. In the case of any taxpayer who is married 
     (within the meaning of section 7703), the taxpayer shall be 
     treated as meeting the age requirement of the preceding 
     sentence if the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse meets such 
     age requirement.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (g) of section 36 of 
     such Code, as amended by this Act, is amended by inserting 
     ``(b)(4),'' before ``(c)''.
       (b) Documentation Requirement.--Subsection (d) of section 
     36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this 
     Act, is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph 
     (2), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) the taxpayer fails to attach to the return of tax for 
     such taxable year a properly executed copy of the settlement 
     statement used to complete such purchase.''.
       (c) Restriction on Married Individual Acquiring Residence 
     From Family of Spouse.--Clause (i) of section 36(c)(3)(A) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 
     ``(or, if married, such individual's spouse)'' after ``person 
     acquiring such property''.
       (d) Certain Errors With Respect to the First-time Homebuyer 
     Tax Credit Treated as Mathematical or Clerical Errors.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 6213(g) the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by striking ``and'' 
     at the end of subparagraph (N), by striking the period at the 
     end of subparagraph (O) and inserting ``, and'', and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (O) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(P) an entry on a return claiming the credit under 
     section 36 if--
       ``(i) the Secretary obtains information from the person 
     issuing the TIN of the taxpayer that indicates that the 
     taxpayer does not meet the age requirement of section 
     36(b)(4),
       ``(ii) information provided to the Secretary by the 
     taxpayer on an income tax return for at least one of the 2 
     preceding taxable years is inconsistent with eligibility for 
     such credit, or
       ``(iii) the taxpayer fails to attach to the return the form 
     described in section 36(d)(4).''.
       (e) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to purchases after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Documentation requirement.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (b) shall apply to returns for taxable years 
     ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page S11102]]

       (3) Treatment as mathematical and clerical errors.--The 
     amendments made by subsection (d) shall apply to returns for 
     taxable years ending on or after April 9, 2008.

     SEC. 13. 5-YEAR CARRYBACK OF OPERATING LOSSES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (H) of section 172(b)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(H) Carryback for 2008 or 2009 net operating losses.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of an applicable net 
     operating loss with respect to which the taxpayer has elected 
     the application of this subparagraph--

       ``(I) subparagraph (A)(i) shall be applied by substituting 
     any whole number elected by the taxpayer which is more than 2 
     and less than 6 for `2',
       ``(II) subparagraph (E)(ii) shall be applied by 
     substituting the whole number which is one less than the 
     whole number substituted under subclause (I) for `2', and
       ``(III) subparagraph (F) shall not apply.

       ``(ii) Applicable net operating loss.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `applicable net operating loss' means 
     the taxpayer's net operating loss for a taxable year ending 
     after December 31, 2007, and beginning before January 1, 
     2010.
       ``(iii) Election.--

       ``(I) In general.--Any election under this subparagraph may 
     be made only with respect to 1 taxable year.
       ``(II) Procedure.--Any election under this subparagraph 
     shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by the 
     Secretary, and shall be made by the due date (including 
     extension of time) for filing the return for the taxpayer's 
     last taxable year beginning in 2009. Any such election, once 
     made, shall be irrevocable.

       ``(iv) Limitation on amount of loss carryback to 5th 
     preceding taxable year.--

       ``(I) In general.--The amount of any net operating loss 
     which may be carried back to the 5th taxable year preceding 
     the taxable year of such loss under clause (i) shall not 
     exceed 50 percent of the taxpayer's taxable income (computed 
     without regard to the net operating loss for the loss year or 
     any taxable year thereafter) for such preceding taxable year.
       ``(II) Carrybacks and carryovers to other taxable years.--
     Appropriate adjustments in the application of the second 
     sentence of paragraph (2) shall be made to take into account 
     the limitation of subclause (I).
       ``(III) Exception for 2008 elections by small businesses.--
     Subclause (I) shall not apply to any loss of an eligible 
     small business with respect to any election made under this 
     subparagraph as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Worker, Homeownership, and Business 
     Assistance Act of 2009.

       ``(v) Special rules for small business.--

       ``(I) In general.--In the case of an eligible small 
     business which made or makes an election under this 
     subparagraph as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Worker, Homeownership, and Business 
     Assistance Act of 2009, clause (iii)(I) shall be applied by 
     substituting `2 taxable years' for `1 taxable year'.
       ``(II) Eligible small business.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `eligible small business' has the 
     meaning given such term by subparagraph (F)(iii), except that 
     in applying such subparagraph, section 448(c) shall be 
     applied by substituting `$15,000,000' for `$5,000,000' each 
     place it appears.''.

       (b) Alternative Tax Net Operating Loss Deduction.--
     Subclause (I) of section 56(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

       ``(I) the amount of such deduction attributable to an 
     applicable net operating loss with respect to which an 
     election is made under section 172(b)(1)(H), or''.

       (c) Loss From Operations of Life Insurance Companies.--
     Subsection (b) of section 810 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Carryback for 2008 or 2009 losses.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an applicable loss from 
     operations with respect to which the taxpayer has elected the 
     application of this paragraph, paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     applied by substituting any whole number elected by the 
     taxpayer which is more than 3 and less than 6 for `3'.
       ``(B) Applicable loss from operations.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `applicable loss from operations' 
     means the taxpayer's loss from operations for a taxable year 
     ending after December 31, 2007, and beginning before January 
     1, 2010.
       ``(C) Election.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any election under this paragraph may be 
     made only with respect to 1 taxable year.
       ``(ii) Procedure.--Any election under this paragraph shall 
     be made in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary, 
     and shall be made by the due date (including extension of 
     time) for filing the return for the taxpayer's last taxable 
     year beginning in 2009. Any such election, once made, shall 
     be irrevocable.
       ``(D) Limitation on amount of loss carryback to 5th 
     preceding taxable year.--
       ``(i) In general.--The amount of any loss from operations 
     which may be carried back to the 5th taxable year preceding 
     the taxable year of such loss under subparagraph (A) shall 
     not exceed 50 percent of the taxpayer's taxable income 
     (computed without regard to the loss from operations for the 
     loss year or any taxable year thereafter) for such preceding 
     taxable year.
       ``(ii) Carrybacks and carryovers to other taxable years.--
     Appropriate adjustments in the application of the second 
     sentence of paragraph (2) shall be made to take into account 
     the limitation of clause (i).''.
       (d) Anti-abuse Rules.--The Secretary of the Treasury or the 
     Secretary's designee shall prescribe such rules as are 
     necessary to prevent the abuse of the purposes of the 
     amendments made by this section, including anti-stuffing 
     rules, anti-churning rules (including rules relating to sale-
     leasebacks), and rules similar to the rules under section 
     1091 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 relating to losses 
     from wash sales.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to net operating losses arising in taxable years ending after 
     December 31, 2007.
       (2) Alternative tax net operating loss deduction.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years 
     ending after December 31, 2002.
       (3) Loss from operations of life insurance companies.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (d) shall apply to losses from 
     operations arising in taxable years ending after December 31, 
     2007.
       (4) Transitional rule.--In the case of any net operating 
     loss (or, in the case of a life insurance company, any loss 
     from operations) for a taxable year ending before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act--
       (A) any election made under section 172(b)(3) or 810(b)(3) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to such 
     loss may (notwithstanding such section) be revoked before the 
     due date (including extension of time) for filing the return 
     for the taxpayer's last taxable year beginning in 2009, and
       (B) any application under section 6411(a) of such Code with 
     respect to such loss shall be treated as timely filed if 
     filed before such due date.
       (f) Exception for TARP Recipients.--The amendments made by 
     this section shall not apply to--
       (1) any taxpayer if--
       (A) the Federal Government acquired before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act an equity interest in the taxpayer 
     pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,
       (B) the Federal Government acquired before such date of 
     enactment any warrant (or other right) to acquire any equity 
     interest with respect to the taxpayer pursuant to the 
     Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or
       (C) such taxpayer receives after such date of enactment 
     funds from the Federal Government in exchange for an interest 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B) pursuant to a program 
     established under title I of division A of the Emergency 
     Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (unless such taxpayer is a 
     financial institution (as defined in section 3 of such Act) 
     and the funds are received pursuant to a program established 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury for the stated purpose of 
     increasing the availability of credit to small businesses 
     using funding made available under such Act), or
       (2) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the 
     Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and
       (3) any taxpayer which at any time in 2008 or 2009 was or 
     is a member of the same affiliated group (as defined in 
     section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, determined 
     without regard to subsection (b) thereof) as a taxpayer 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2).

     SEC. 14. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF QUALIFIED MILITARY 
                   BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE FRINGE.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (n) of section 132 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (1) by striking ``this subsection) to 
     offset the adverse effects on housing values as a result of a 
     military base realignment or closure'' and inserting ``the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009)'', and
       (2) in subparagraph (2) by striking ``clause (1) of''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this act shall 
     apply to payments made after February 17, 2009.

     SEC. 15. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF WORLDWIDE ALLOCATION OF 
                   INTEREST.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (5)(D) and (6) of section 
     864(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2017''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 864(f) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (7).
       (c) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010.

     SEC. 16. INCREASE IN PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE A 
                   PARTNERSHIP OR S CORPORATION RETURN.

       (a) In General.--Sections 6698(b)(1) and 6699(b)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking 
     ``$89'' and inserting ``$195''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to returns for taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 17. CERTAIN TAX RETURN PREPARERS REQUIRED TO FILE 
                   RETURNS ELECTRONICALLY.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 6011 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule for tax return preparers.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall require than any 
     individual income tax return prepared by a tax return 
     preparer be filed on magnetic media if--
       ``(i) such return is filed by such tax return preparer, and
       ``(ii) such tax return preparer is a specified tax return 
     preparer for the calendar year during which such return is 
     filed.
       ``(B) Specified tax return preparer.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `specified tax return preparer' means, 
     with respect to any

[[Page S11103]]

     calendar year, any tax return preparer unless such preparer 
     reasonably expects to file 10 or fewer individual income tax 
     returns during such calendar year.
       ``(C) Individual income tax return.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `individual income tax return' means any 
     return of the tax imposed by subtitle A on individuals, 
     estates, or trusts.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 6011(e) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``The Secretary may not'' and inserting ``Except as provided 
     in paragraph (3), the Secretary may not''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to returns filed after December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 18. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

       The percentage under paragraph (1) of section 202(b) of the 
     Corporate Estimated Tax Shift Act of 2009 in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act is increased by 33.0 
     percentage points.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is a moral responsibility for a 
great nation to help provide for its citizens when they are in dire 
economic circumstances. There are more than 30,000 workers in West 
Virginia who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits, and 
thousands of them have already received their final payment of 
emergency unemployment benefits. These workers and their families are 
relying on this unemployment extension bill to survive. Later this 
year, many more unemployed workers will be counting on the Congress to 
take action to extend provisions contained in the stimulus bill, in 
order to be able to purchase health insurance. Congress must not fail 
them.
  I am very pleased that the Senate has passed this unemployment 
extension measure, which provides a lifeline for families who are 
barely hanging on.

                          ____________________