Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 28 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S926-S933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TEMPORARY EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to Calendar No. 278, H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of
provisions that expired Sunday, February 28; that the Bunning amendment
regarding offset, which is at the desk, be the only amendment in order;
that there be 60 minutes for debate with respect to the amendment, with
the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Reid and
Bunning or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time,
the time until 8:30 p.m. be for debate with respect to the bill, with
the

[[Page S927]]

time equally divided and controlled between Senators Baucus and
Grassley or their designees; that at 8:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to
vote in relation to the Bunning amendment; that no further amendments
be in order; that upon disposition of the Bunning amendment, the bill,
as amended, if amended, be read the third time; that prior to passage,
it be in order to raise an applicable budget point of order against the
bill; further, that if the point of order is raised, then a motion to
waive the applicable point of order be considered made, with no further
debate in order; provided that if the point of order is waived, the
Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended;
further, that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 4213, the
next two Democratic amendments be offered by Senators Murray and
Sanders and the next two Republican amendments be Bunning amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, briefly, I am pleased Senator Bunning
will have an opportunity to offer the amendments that he thinks are
important and that he has been stressing for the last few days. I am
glad we were able to work this out and move on with the business of the
Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 4691) to provide a temporary extension of
certain programs, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 3355

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes an
amendment numbered 3355.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, in a minute I will speak about my
amendment to pay for this bill. First, I want to talk about how we got
here.
Last week, I objected to the majority leader's request for unanimous
consent to pass a 30-day extension of several expiring programs that
was not paid for. I offered to pass the exact same bill that was paid
for, and unfortunately he objected to my request.
There was nothing stopping him from using the tools at his disposal
to overcome my objection. The leader could have filed cloture on the
bill and brought it to the floor last week, instead of the travel bill
that is a great giveaway to his State. If he had done that, this bill
would have been signed into law already. He also could have filed
cloture on the bill and worked through the weekend and it would already
be law. The leader could have proceeded to the bipartisan Baucus-
Grassley bill that paid for these programs and it would have been
signed into law by now. He could have accepted my request to pay for
the bill and we would not be here tonight. Instead, the leader decided
to press ahead with a bill that adds to the debt and violates the
principles of pay-go that everyone claims to care about.
Just over a month ago, the majority in the Senate passed pay-go
legislation that supposedly says we are going to pay for what we spend.
I support that idea, but I knew at the time that the legislation would
be ignored. Unfortunately, I was right.
Barely 1 week after President Obama signed the pay-go law into
effect, the majority leader proposed a bill that was not paid for. That
bill passed and added $10 billion to the deficit. That is $10 billion
your children and my children and grandchildren will have to pay for.
That is $10 billion on top of a $14 trillion national debt. After
passing $10 billion more debt on to future generations, the majority
leader proposed to pass another bill to add another $10 billion to the
debt. That is when I said enough is enough; we cannot keep adding to
the debt and passing the buck to generations of future workers and
taxpayers--my children and your children and our grandchildren.
As we all know, the national debt has grown at a record pace in
recent years. A large part of that has been a result of a downturn in
the economy a decade ago and then during the last few years. But
increased government spending has been a major factor too. Over the
last few days, several Senators on the other side of the aisle have
blamed Republican spending for the debt and asked why we did not pay
for things when we were in charge. They have a point. I wish we would
have spent less and paid for more of it when we were in charge. There
are some votes I wish I could have back, and I am sure many of my
colleagues on this side of the aisle feel the same way. But it is not
fair to blame Republican spending for all the drastic increases in our
national debt. Our side has not controlled the Congress for more than 3
years, and the current Congress is spending more and faster than ever
before.

For example, last year, the majority pushed through a so-called
stimulus bill, followed quickly by an omnibus spending bill that
contributed to the government ending the year $1.4 trillion in the red,
the largest 1-year deficit in the history of the United States of
America.
Clearly, we are not headed in the right direction. I do not want to
turn this into a partisan debate because it is not a partisan issue. I
only make these points to show that neither side has clean hands, and
what matters is we get our spending problems under control.
As every struggling family knows, we cannot solve a debt problem by
spending more. We must get our debt problems under control, and there
is no better time than now. That is why I have been down here demanding
that this bill be paid for. I support the programs in the bill we are
discussing, and if the extension of those programs were paid for, I
would gladly support the bill.
The unemployment rate in my State is well over 10 percent right now.
Many rural families get their television through satellite providers in
Kentucky. More than half our State is bordered by rivers, and flood
insurance is vital to the people who live near those borders and any of
the major-minor rivers in the State. In fact, I wrote the law that
enacted the current version of the Flood Insurance Program. I care
about it deeply.
I am concerned about all the other programs in this bill as well, as
is every other Member of this body. That is all the more reason to pay
for this bill. If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 Senators
support, how can we tell the American people with a straight face that
we will ever pay for anything? That is what Senators say they want, and
that is what the American people want. They want us to get our budgets
in order, just like they have to get their budgets in order every day.
But that is not what the majority is doing.
Tonight, tomorrow, and on every spending bill in the future, we will
see whether they mean business about controlling our debt or if it is
just words. We will see if pay-go has any teeth.
Tonight, I am offering a substitute amendment that pays for these
important programs with Democratic ideas. Tomorrow, I will offer
amendments to the offset, the longer term extender bill that was on the
floor earlier today. I will be back on future spending bills demanding
that they be paid for so future generations of Americans will not be
burdened with our overspending.
As I said, my amendment pays for this bill with Democratic ideas. The
10-year cost of extending these programs for 1 month is $10.26 billion.
The offset I am offering will more than pay for this cost, and the
offset should be familiar to many. It has been proposed by Senator
Baucus in his substitute amendment to the long-term extension bill. It
was also proposed in the Obama administration's budget.
The offset would prevent black liquor, which is a byproduct of the
pulp and paper process, from being eligible for the cellulosic biofuels
producer tax credit. This will save the Treasury almost $24 billion
over 10 years, according to the Joint Tax Committee. As I said, this
will more than pay for the cost of the bill, and there will be almost
$14 billion left over.

[[Page S928]]

Under the pay-go rules, that $14 billion will be available to be used
to pay for the next bill Congress passes. I think we all expect that
the next bill will be the long-term extension bill.
Some might say I am creating a $24 billion hole in the next bill by
using that offset now. That is not true. First, we are removing over
$10 billion in costs from that larger bill by enacting the 1-month
extensions now, and we are also making $14 billion available for that
bill.
Members on this side of the aisle, including myself, have offered and
will offer ways to completely pay for the cost of that more expensive,
longer term extension bill.
This pay-for is a proposal made by the majority, and I hope and
expect every one of them to support my amendment. Anyone who does not
should be prepared to answer why the Senate does not have to make the
tough decisions to balance the government's budget while every American
family does. We must bring an end to the out-of-control spending, and
there is no better time than now.
I urge my colleagues to join me in saying enough and restoring some
discipline to Washington. I urge everyone in this body to support this
amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bunning
amendment. The Senator from Kentucky has decided, after 1 week, to
accept exactly what was offered to him last week.
Last week, we said to the Senator from Kentucky: If you want to come
up with a pay-for for unemployment benefits and health care benefits,
offer an amendment. You will have your chance on the floor.
The Senator from Kentucky said: No, because I may lose. Therefore, I
am not going to offer the amendment. I will only object to moving
forward with temporary benefits for unemployment insurance and health
care and several other things, and I stand by my objection.
The Senator from Kentucky just came to the floor and found four
different ways to blame the Democratic majority leader for his
objection. He made the objection. I think he was the only Senator out
of 100 who objected.
I don't question his motive or his sincerity, but I think, in all
candor, let's understand where we are at this moment in time.
During this 1-week period of time while the Senator from Kentucky
could have offered an amendment, he did not. As a result, on Sunday
night, unemployment benefits were cut off for thousands of people
across America, assistance for health care insurance cut off all across
America, thousands of Federal employees were furloughed, Federal
contracts for construction were suspended. Why? Because he did not want
to offer the amendment he is offering tonight.
I am glad he is offering it, and I will tell you why I am going to
oppose it. He knows and I know that if we do not pass this bill as it
passed the House of Representatives, if we make a change in it, we are
destined to send it over to the House to, at a minimum, wait several
days or even longer for a conference committee to resolve his
amendment. What happens to those unemployed people during that period
of time? They don't receive checks.
Mr. President, 15,000 people in Illinois had their unemployment
insurance cut off Sunday night because of Senator Bunning's objection.
In addition to that, thousands in my State lost the helping hand to pay
for their health insurance. The Senator from Kentucky tonight is
suggesting just take this little amendment; it will not hurt a thing;
it is something you should like. While we mull over his change and move
it between the House and the Senate, those people will continue to go
without unemployment insurance and without health care assistance. Mr.
President, 2,000 more each day are added to those rolls of unemployed
people who are going to pay the price for this procedural move by the
Senator.
I know there is also pain in his own State. I know many people are
aware of the fact that there is high employment across the United
States, millions of people who have lost their unemployment insurance.
I know it has affected his State. I have seen the numbers.
As a result of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky, 4,300
unemployment insurance claimants will lose their unemployment insurance
by March 13 if we do not complete action. What he has done tonight is
to delay it. What is even worse about this amendment and the reason why
it should be defeated is not just because it will once again delay
unemployment benefits to people across America, it will once again
create problems where people will lose their health insurance that they
may never be able to obtain again because of preexisting conditions in
their family.
What is worse, these Federal workers who cannot go to work are going
to suspend construction projects that create jobs across America, while
this Senator from Kentucky offers this amendment to change.
Let's look at the heart of this amendment. Where did the Senator from
Kentucky come up with the resources to pay for this unemployment
insurance? He came up with it from the bill that is pending on the
floor, where these revenues are already being raised to pay for
unemployment insurance. He is not reducing our deficit. In this
situation, we have already taken this source of money and put it in the
next bill related to unemployment insurance to defray the cost of
unemployment insurance. He does not reduce the deficit. He just adds a
procedural hurdle that delays the payment of unemployment insurance to
people across America.
This could have been done last week. He was offered this chance last
week. He would not take it last week. As a result, a lot of people have
suffered and a lot of them have gone through hardship.
It is his right to do it as a Senator, but I think the reaction on
the floor of the Senate--I might add from both sides of the aisle--is a
demonstration that sometimes just because we have the power to do
things, we ought to think twice before we use that power. I have the
power to put a hold on every nomination this President or any President
seeks. I have the power to object to any unanimous consent request that
comes to the floor of the Senate. But people elect us not just to make
political judgment but to make good judgment. In this case, the
political judgment was made that the unemployed people involved were
expendable, they could wait, wait for days, if not weeks, until we get
around to a political debate about the deficit.
I am troubled, too, by the argument that the Senator believes he is
one of the few stalwarts on the floor of the Senate when it comes to
deficit reduction. The record suggests he has voted for two wars under
President Bush that were not paid for, costing the United States almost
$1 trillion, adding directly to our debt.
The Senator also has supported eliminating the estate tax on the
richest people in America. Certainly, that is going to blow a hole in
any budget and add to the deficit. The same was true with the Medicare
prescription drug program. The Senator voted for that without paying
for it, adding at least $40 billion to the deficit.

You know, those of us who have been here for a while have cast many
votes--and my critics will find plenty of things to criticize about my
voting record--but before I would come to the floor and stop
unemployment insurance for people who are wondering where their next
meal is coming from, I would think twice about saving that debate so
that the victims aren't the most helpless people in America who have
lost their job through no fault of their own.
I urge my colleagues, when this amendment comes for a vote later this
evening, to think twice. If you vote with the Senator from Kentucky,
who takes his revenue source from another bill that we will vote on
tomorrow, you will delay the unemployment checks again. We will have
come up with another excuse to say no.
The Senator from Kentucky has made it clear he doesn't believe
unemployment compensation is an emergency need in America. I disagree.
I think we are in an emergency situation in our economy. I have met
with these unemployed people in my State and other States. These are
desperate people. Some have been out of work for 2 years. They may lose
everything before it is all over. I hope they don't. They are training
for new jobs, they have exhausted their savings and are trying to keep
their families together. A family

[[Page S929]]

I read about today said they put everything they own in one of those
storage lockers because they lost their home. They moved from homeless
shelters to live in the back of their car. Is that an economic
emergency? Maybe not to Members of the Senate, because our lives are
pretty comfortable, but it is certainly an emergency for those
families.
The real question in this debate is who are we are as a Nation? Do we
care about these people, these breadwinners who are now down on their
luck; these folks who have worked for years and are now out of work
through no fault of their own, and doing everything they can legally to
find a way to survive or is it just another political debate, another
political issue, another chance to score a political point at the
expense of some people who really aren't in a very strong position to
defend themselves?
I just hope tonight we will defeat the Bunning amendment. Tomorrow,
we will have a chance to put a substantial downpayment on unemployment
benefits and COBRA benefits in the bill that Chairman Baucus brings to
the floor. And I hope we understand that is the right way to do this.
What an empty victory if we end up voting for the Bunning amendment and
stop unemployment benefits as a result while we try to work out
differences between the House and the Senate.
There is a lot more we can do here to help get this economy moving
again. One of the things that holds us back is when we get embroiled in
these procedural parliamentary tangles that eat up day after day and
week after week, which leave us frustrated on the floor of the Senate
and people across America angry that we aren't dealing with the real
issues that count--issues such as creating jobs, issues such as making
sure that there is affordable health care for everyone in this country.
We should be dealing with that.
The Senator from Kentucky said: You know, the majority leader could
have filed cloture, waited 48 hours, waited another 30 hours. Then we
could have gone through the weekend. For what purpose? For what
purpose? We have reached the point that was offered to the Senator from
Kentucky from the start. He is going to get his vote, but a week has
passed. A week has been wasted--a week where we should have rolled up
our sleeves and done the things the people of America send us here to
do.
What about the deficit and the debt? It is serious. The majority
leader has asked me to serve on the deficit commission with Senators
Baucus and Conrad. It is a tough assignment. I don't think it is going
to be easy to figure out how to deal with a $14 trillion debt in this
Nation. But I will tell you this: We will do a lot better with that
national debt if we have a strong national economy and people back to
work. We will be a lot better off as a nation if families can keep
their kids in school and folks can get up and go to work. This notion
that we are somehow going to balance our national budget on the backs
of unemployed people--please. Aren't we better than that as a nation? I
think we are.
Twice last year the Senator from Kentucky voted to extend
unemployment benefits without paying for them. Tonight, he insists we
pay for them. Everybody is entitled to change their mind. When Abraham
Lincoln--who was born in Kentucky, raised in Illinois--was accused by
his critics, his President, of changing his mind, he said: Yes, I did
change my mind. But I would rather be right some of the time than wrong
all of the time. So we do change our minds on these issues. But let's
not change our minds at the expense of innocent, helpless Americans who
are looking for a helping hand.
If a tornado swept across the State of Kentucky in the weeks ahead,
God forbid, and the Senator from Kentucky came and said we have an
emergency on our hands, I would stand up to help him, as I believe he
would if it happened to my State. We do that because we care for one
another in this Nation. We may have political differences--and there
have been plenty of them--but they shouldn't be at the expense of our
basic need to deal with the problems that we face.
The Governor of Kentucky sent Senator Bunning a letter and a copy to
me. In the letter, he says:

Facing an unemployment rate of 10.7 percent in Kentucky and
9.7 percent across the Nation, I urge you to allow passage of
H.R. 4691, a vital extension of unemployment benefits to 1.2
million Americans, including tens of thousands right here in
Kentucky.

The Governor of Kentucky, who wrote to Senator Bunning, went on to
say:

There are 119,230 Kentuckians currently receiving benefits
through the Federal extension program. Without a further
extension, 14,206 claimants will exhaust all extension
benefits within 2 weeks.

It would take us 2 weeks, if the Bunning amendment is adopted, to
finally get this done, if we get it done in that period of time. The
Governor went on to write:

By the end of March, a total of 22,797 Kentuckians will
exhaust their benefits; by mid-April 31,521 will exhaust
their benefits; and by July 31, the remainder of those
receiving benefits will exhaust them. Beyond the number of
those receiving extension benefits, another 90,000
Kentuckians currently on unemployment insurance will not be
eligible for the Federal extension program at all.
These unemployed Kentuckians come from hard-working
families that have struggled for months to find new
employment in the greatest economic recession in our
lifetime. They are mothers and fathers who are trying to put
food on the table for their children and seniors who are
trying to pay the rent.
In addition to the extension of unemployment benefits, this
bill also includes important extensions of Federal subsidies
to pay health premiums for those unemployed people who lost
health insurance when they lost their jobs, current Medicare
payment rates for doctors, flood insurance, and small
business loans.

The Governor closed his letter to Senator Bunning, saying:

I urge you to reverse your position on this bill and would
welcome any opportunity to provide you with further
information on its tremendous necessity.

It is signed: Sincerely, Steven L. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky.
That letter could have come from any Governor in our Nation. That is
the employment picture and the economic picture in my State and so many
States across the Nation.
Please, when we get down to these budget debates, we should be
sensitive to the fact that there are helpless victims to some of the
procedural moves made on the floor of the Senate. It is time for us to
stick together--both parties, I hope--in an effort to stand up for the
unemployed and get this economy back on its feet.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the Bunning amendment. It will only
slow down the unemployment benefits these people have been waiting for
and are worried that they may not receive. It will mean that more and
more people will fall out of coverage and health insurance, and it will
mean that Medicare services won't be available to seniors across the
Nation when doctors decide they are not being reimbursed enough. Those
are some of the basics in this bill.
The revenue source Senator Bunning uses is included in this jobs bill
that is before us, as soon as this matter is over. If you believe that
in helping to pay for unemployment benefits we should use this source,
as the Finance Committee has suggested, and I certainly agree with it,
you will have ample opportunity to do that immediately after we pass
this bill. In the meantime, let us waste no time, waste no effort in
making sure that these needy people across America get the helping hand
they deserve.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 17 minutes 25
seconds.
Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Chair.
As the good Senator from Illinois knows, there is no need for a
conference, since the House has already passed this bill and has
already passed the language in this amendment. I am very sure that they
would be willing to accept their own bill back and paid for.
He mentioned the fact that I objected four times. I objected more
than four, but the majority leader objected four times to my request.
That was nowhere in his statement.
And talking about Medicare Part D premiums and the cost of Medicare
Part D, the majority party in this Senate has had 3 years to repeal
Medicare Part D if it was a bad idea at the time we passed it.
Certainly, with 60 full votes in the Senate, it could have repealed
what they considered a bad bill. The fact it was not paid for was not
to my liking. The fact that we were going

[[Page S930]]

to take care of Medicare senior citizens who couldn't afford their
prescription drugs took precedence.
He spoke about the letter from the Governor of Kentucky. I didn't
receive it. I had no knowledge of the letter until it was brought up by
the Senator from Illinois. It is amazing to me the number of
misstatements, and how the Governor--a Democratic Governor of the
Commonwealth--could bring all these facts out to the Senator from
Illinois and not the Senator from Kentucky.
There are so many things that I can say, but I have, I guess, 11
constituent communications here--either phone calls or letters, usually
e-mails--and I am going to read a couple of them because I want to
reserve some time in case the Senator from Illinois gets up again.
This is from Randall in Bardstown, KY.

Just want to thank you for your principled stand against
the squandering of our country's wealth. Yes, we need to help
those out of work; but no, we do not want to print more money
to do it. I have two sons on unemployment at this time, yet
we realize we cannot continue to spend money that doesn't
exist.
Thank you very much, Senator Bunning, for having the guts
to stand up for your principles and oppose further spending
of money we simply do not have. In particular, I am glad you
stood up against extending unemployment benefits, which would
put us further in debt. Regards.

That was from Bob in Burlington, KY. And here is another:

I just want to send you some encouragement to hold your
ground in the Senate on renewing unemployment extension
benefits. As a Kentucky taxpayer and a Federal taxpayer, I am
tired of seeing unfunded and underfunded programs pass by
Congress, and I am glad you are taking a stand. As an
American and a Kentuckian, I believe the government has
failed the American people almost totally, but at least in
this instance you are not failing us. Please keep your
resolve and don't let pressure and influence sway a good
decision.

That was from William in Flemingsburg, KY.

I am surprised that you don't have more support when you
are 100 percent correct; that if 100 men in agreement can't
find a way to pay for a program, they will never pay for
anything. Our deficit has got to stop, and now is always the
best time to start. Thank you for standing up for us.

That was Mark from Independence, KY.
This will be the last one because I still have about three more pages
of them:

Thank you for holding firm last night. You are very much
appreciated for being willing to say no to extended benefits
that no one knows how to pay for or who will foot the bill.
It takes a very special individual to stand firm when
everyone around you seems to be caving in.

That is from Debbie from Somerset, KY.
These are just a few. There are more. But there are a lot of really
good people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky--4.2 million--who want
their Senators, their Members of the House, to stand up for themselves.
I appreciate hearing from each and every one of them. I thank them for
their support.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I also received some e-mail and letters
from Kentuckians. It is a great State. It is the ancestral home of many
Durbins--one hailed from Sunfish, KY, which is a pretty tiny town, I am
told, and came up north to Illinois. It is a beautiful State, and I
have enjoyed visiting there many times.
A lady named Joy from Florence, KY, contacted me and said:

Hello, I am 50 years old and I got let go a year and a half
ago from my job because I was getting older and they could
pay less for the younger workers. . . .
Most places I applied to won't hire by experience--they
want a college degree.
I have an elderly mother and handicapped child. I am behind
in all my bills and if there is not another extension I will
not be able to pay any bills. I am hoping you will put
through another extension--hopefully things will improve come
spring.

A letter from someone named J.R.--didn't give a hometown, said he is
from Kentucky. I will not read some portions of this letter, but I will
read this part:

I would like to say I am unemployed and [unemployment
insurance] has allowed me to keep my home etc. There still
are no jobs that will allow me to live on. I have . . . cut
back to just the basic needs--the Internet next. And then I
will start selling my belongings to get by.
I sit and wonder if everyone on unemployment gets cut off,
do the Senate and Congress realize the war here in the United
States will be worse than the one we are in overseas? There
will be so much stealing and . . . no telling what else just
for people to try and survive and feed their families.
God help us all.

There is a letter of desperation. It is an unimaginable scene that we
would reach in any community here in this country in any State. But I
think it reflects the fact that some people who write and say ``cut
them off'' and ``so what'' are pretty fortunate people. They probably
have a job. They probably have a home. They may not be worried about
where their next meal is coming from. But for millions of Americans,
that is not the story.
I understand the Senator from Kentucky sees this differently, but I
take the issue of health insurance as an example. If you have ever had
the experience as a parent having a sick child and having no health
insurance, it is something you will never forget as long as you live.
It happened to me when I was a law student. My wife and I were newly
married, and we had no health insurance and a baby with a medical
problem. I try to imagine what it would be like--ours was a temporary
experience--what it would be like if that is what you had to face day-
in and day-out, week-in and week-out, month after month, year after
year. That is what these folks are up against. The only chance they
have to hang on to health insurance is this COBRA program.
The COBRA program--let me add parenthetically, that was created
through reconciliation. This process that has been condemned by some
created the COBRA program and said we are going to provide health
insurance for the unemployed people in America, and the President's
stimulus package said we will help them pay for the premiums, and the
objection of the Senator from Kentucky cut off those COBRA payments for
thousands of people across America. I don't know what is going to
happen now. I don't know, if some of them lost their health insurance
and try to get it back, whether they are going to be denied coverage
because of a preexisting condition. I hope that doesn't happen, but it
will mean this was not just another political debate for them; it will
mean they have lost the coverage which all of us want to have for all
of our families.
COBRA coverage consumes nearly 84 percent of unemployment checks if
you don't get a helping hand from the government. In Illinois, monthly
unemployment benefits are just over $1,300. The average monthly COBRA
family health insurance premium is over $1,100. So you can see it is
impossible for a family with $1,300 a month to pay a $1,100-a-month
premium. So 65 percent of that cost is deferred by this program, and
that program was stopped because of the objection by the Senator from
Kentucky.
He said we should have gone through the cloture votes; in other
words, we should have faced his filibuster head-on and taken all the
time it took to resolve our way through it. And each hour of each day
that we did that, more and more people would fall out of coverage of
health insurance. We don't. As Members of Congress, we have a pretty
generous health insurance plan. We share it with all the other Federal
employees, 8 million of us and our families. It gives us the very best
coverage, with the government picking up about two-thirds or three-
fourths of the cost. We don't have to worry about gaps in coverage. As
we receive our checks, we are going to be able to protect our families.
But for the folks who are unemployed, that just is not the case.
The objection of the Senator from Kentucky also affected, as I
mentioned, transportation across the United States. Federal
reimbursement to States for highway and transit projects, on the order
of hundreds of millions of dollars each day, is stopped because of
Senator Bunning's objection, forcing halts in construction work and
layoffs of construction workers in the middle of the worst economic
downturn since the Great Depression.
Today, the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, called to tell me
of the need for an urgent response to get these people back to work so
they can inspect projects and folks working for contractors and working
across

[[Page S931]]

America can get back to work. They are stopped cold, dead in their
tracks because of the objection by the Senator from Kentucky.
Now he wants to let this go on a little further--amend this bill;
let's send it over to the House; let's see if they accept it; maybe
they won't; maybe there will be a conference; maybe in a few days or a
few weeks we can get it done. It is a 30-day extension, and it defeats
its purpose if we accept this amendment and delay it because of those
possibilities. He can no more guarantee that it will not happen than I
can guarantee that it will, but why do we want to create that
uncertainty for people who have been facing this uncertainty?
The objection of the Senator from Kentucky also stopped Small
Business Administration assistance to small businesses in Illinois and
Kentucky as well. The SBA has an outstanding loan waiting list from
small businesses totaling $140 million. Because of Senator Bunning's
objection, 3,000 small businesses this month will be denied access to
loans they need to run their businesses, to pay their employees, and to
create new jobs. In the middle of a recession, can we think of a worse
thing to do than to cut off small businesses?
It did not have to happen. If Senator Bunning would have taken the
offer he had last week from the majority leader and offered this
amendment last week, we could have avoided all of this. A week later,
he has decided: All right, I will take the offer. But a lot of people
have paid the price in the meantime.
We will not stop until we have provided the assistance that
unemployed Americans need, that families in Illinois and Kentucky and
across America desperately want us to bring. Eventually, we will
prevail and we will care for those who are struggling.
In the meantime, I urge my colleagues, please do not support the
amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. It is, unfortunately, a way to
delay this critically needed assistance even further.
I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
Madam President, before I do, I ask unanimous consent that the last 5
minutes on the Democratic side be reserved for the chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. I note
that the Senator from Illinois has 5 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. BUNNING. I want to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BUNNING. I want to understand what the Senator has proposed in
plain English.
Mr. DURBIN. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. I have asked unanimous consent that the last 5 minutes on
the Democratic side be reserved for Senator Baucus, the chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. Reserving the right to object, what 5 minutes is he
talking about--his time or the time that is already reserved for the
chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Finance
Committee?
Mr. DURBIN. All the time of debate on your amendment has been equally
divided between Democrats and Republicans. I am not asking for your
time. I am asking that, on the Democratic time, the last 5 minutes be
given to Senator Baucus.
Mr. BUNNING. So I understand, on the time that is reserved for the
Senator from Montana and the Senator from Iowa?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUNNING. I yield whatever time the Senator from Alabama will
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is always an easy way to get
something done in this body, and that is to spend money and not pay for
it. And I am sure that gets a lot of Democratic votes and they could
just pass this bill right through the body. I am sure our House
Members, the majority in the House, will just pass this legislation and
we will just add $10 billion more to the debt. That is what we are
talking about.
Is this necessary? Senator Bunning has made a number of suggestions
about how this bill could be paid for. But it is not a question of
delaying it, in my view; it is just simply a question of not wanting to
use any of our existing moneys to pay for the extension of unemployment
insurance. If we don't do that, if we don't pay for it, as we in the
Senate are wont to say, then where does the money come from? We borrow
it.
There is an interesting article in the Washington Times today, a
front-page article talking about how much of our debt China owns. They
say they own a good bit more of it than we have understood, that a lot
of their money goes through other institutions, and then they buy U.S.
Treasury bills, and really the amount owned by China is larger than we
expect. Well, so be it. I don't know what that number is. But it is not
healthy for the United States of America to incur the amount of debt we
are now incurring. It is not healthy.
Just a few weeks ago, this very Senate, our Democratic majority, with
great pride, passed the pay-go legislation saying that if we have
additional expenditures, we will pay for it unless, of course, we deem
it an emergency and we get a supermajority and then we don't have to
pay for it.
Well, here we are just a few weeks later. We want to spend some more
money to help out on unemployment insurance. I think that is a worthy
goal, and I think it is something we need to do. But where do you get
the money? I would suggest several places. Senator Bunning has a place
that I think my Democratic colleagues have supported--a tax credit
account. I would say that has possibilities. I know he has also
supported out of the unspent stimulus money--that could be a source of
it.
But all of these things apparently are just being rejected. Why are
they being rejected? I assume it is because my colleagues want to spend
that money on something else, an additional new spending program that
is not clear to us at this time; otherwise, why would there be an
objection to it?
So I think the thing that has come to my mind is we can't keep going
on like this. We really can't.
We just had a hearing in the Budget Committee. The witnesses--most of
them were Democratically called witnesses, but every single one of them
said we are on an unsustainable financial course. We are spending more
money than we are taking in at an unprecedented amount each year and we
cannot sustain it. At some point, we have to decide if we are going to
stop. At some point, we are going to have to decide, just like our
families, our cities, our counties, our States; they are having to
decide they don't have the money, and they either can't borrow more or
they don't want to borrow more. And they actually, amazingly, may even
reduce spending for a while. Do you think those counties and cities and
States are no longer going to exist? Will they fall off the face of the
planet? Senator Bunning has been around a long time. He knows that is
not so. Every day, businesses are having to cut back. Families are
cutting back. We can't cut back at all, but we continue to expend
greater and greater amounts.
The basic budget for this year has discretionary spending,
nonmandatory spending, which goes up about 10 percent. On top of that
is the $800 billion stimulus package. All that is debt. The $800
billion, we had none of it in our accounts or our banks. We had to
borrow it. Every penny of that we pay interest on. This will be $10
billion more.
Well, it is just $10 billion. After $800 billion, that is not very
much, is it? Oh, yes, it is. Ten billion dollars is more than Alabama's
State budget, and we are an average-sized State, about 4 or 5 million
people. That is bigger than our State budget.
So one little whip--and Senator Durbin, who is so eloquent, said:
Well, we just need to pass it right now. We do not need to be talking
about paying for it. If you say we want to pay for it, that might take
an extra day to get the paperwork worked out with the House of
Representatives. Somehow it is Senator Bunning's fault that he has
actually been asked to give his consent that this body would increase
our debt by $10 billion and let this bill pass.

[[Page S932]]

Senator Bunning says: I am not going to do it. You asked my consent.
I am a Member of the Senate. I have a right to give that consent. If I
have a right to give it, I have a right to withhold it, and I am going
to withhold it unless you pay for this bill. So I do not think that is
anything that should subject him to criticism.
Oh, yes, it slowed down the plan. The plan was all greased. We were
going to zip this right through, pop another $10 billion to the
Nation's debt, and claim we have solved all our problems, at least for
the moment.
But that is not a healthy approach. I think it is a healthy approach
for someone with the gumption to stand and question what we are doing,
to say: You have asked for my consent for something, I do not believe
in it, and I am not going to give it. I think it is time for us to get
on a more sound financial footing.
I just wish to say to Senator Bunning, I respect the Senator's view
on that. A lot of people do. I think it is interesting our colleagues
like to quote letters from people in Kentucky, talking about that they
are suffering as a result of unemployment and that is so painful.
But I am sure you got letters, as I have got letters. In my townhall
meetings, people are coming up to me and saying: Are you people losing
your minds? How much money do you think you can continue to spend? Time
and time again, I hear that. Go through the airports: Keep fighting.
Hold the line. Do not give in.
They are not talking about adding another $10 billion to the debt
because we will not even slow down long enough to figure out how to pay
for it. That is not what my constituents are telling me. I am sure they
are not telling Senator Bunning that. So I think this is a big deal.
So when are we going to end this process? When does it stop? I say
the time to begin to stop is now. I am going to be supportive of
Senator Bunning in his plan. I feel this matter is getting out of hand.
As I explained the other night, I serve on the Budget Committee. The
budget numbers are not in dispute. The budget proposed by President
Obama, a 10-year budget, analyzed over 10 years by the Congressional
Budget Office, would conclude this: Last year we paid, in 1 year,
interest on our debt of $170 billion. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, because we are tripling the national debt at the rate we
are going, in 10 years the amount of interest we will pay on the debt
is $799 billion.
I think the American people understand this is unacceptable. They do
not need an accountant or an economist or a bureaucrat to tell them
this is an unsustainable path. They know it is. They have known it is
for some time. Some people say: Well, this is just a populist revival.
They do not understand. We understand better. You have to borrow,
borrow, borrow to make our economy go back.
Well, what an individual from Alabama told me today out in the hall
was the same thing a constituent told me a few weeks ago back in
Evergreen. It is, you cannot borrow your way out of debt. You cannot
borrow your way out of debt. This is a fundamental principle of life.
We seem to have lost sight of it.
So we are on a path that is unsustainable. We see what has happened
in Greece. It is destabilizing the entire European Union or it
threatens it. We have seen other countries get in the same kind of
trouble. Our country is not very far behind.
Moody's is already talking about downgrading our debt rating, the
amount of money you have to pay to get insurance against credit,
against default against the U.S. government has tripled in the last few
years. These are people who do this stuff for a profit. People are
worried. So I would say to my friends and colleagues, it is not that
complicated. We simply have to stop spending so much money. We have to
stop spending so much money. We cannot do everything we would like to
do. We do not have the money. Most people understand that in their
lives, and most of our local governments understand that. But we in the
Senate think we know better.
I would just say, with regard to the small business taxes and some of
the things that probably would be somewhat helpful in creating economic
growth, I am so disappointed we did not include more of that in the
bill we passed when this stimulus bill passed. I remember coming to the
floor quoting--right before the final vote--a major op-ed in the Wall
Street Journal by a Nobel Prize laureate, Gary Becker, who said: This
bill you are considering in the Senate does not have sufficient
stimulative impact. He thought it would be much less than $1 per $1 in,
and you should get well above $1 in a good stimulus package. He warned
it was not going to be a job creator.
Senator McCain had a better bill, at half the cost, $400 billion,
targeted for jobs, targeted for economic growth, not a welfare bill, a
stimulative bill, voted down by the Democratic majority.
Senator Thune offered an amendment similar to the one Paul Ryan and
others in the House of Representatives had put together, about half the
cost of the bill we passed that would score, according to Christina
Romer, President Obama's Chief Economic Adviser--her model of how you
score these things would have created twice as many jobs for half as
much money as this monstrosity we passed--others passed. My wife
reminds me, do not say ``we'' when you voted against it.
So this is what we are now in. We have thrown out 400 or so billion,
$400 billion not yet spent. It is not getting the impact we wanted.
That is so tragic. For everybody who is unemployed today, they need to
wonder why this Congress insisted on passing legislation we were warned
would not be effective in creating jobs, which is the key to our
economic growth and prosperity.
So I would say: I know good people can disagree. Some people think
that when we are in a recession, we should keep spending, no matter how
long, no matter how much, and somehow this will make us come out of it.
But when you are creating an $800 billion-a-year interest payment, you
realize it does not work that way.
If that was the way it worked, why did we not spend $1.6 trillion in
the stimulus package instead of $800 billion? Why did we not spend
$1,600 billion in stimulus rather than 800? Because obviously that is a
philosophy that has its limits.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. I am proud to support the
Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am relieved that we are preparing to vote
on this much-needed measure. I am disappointed that we have taken so
long to get to this point.
There is very little opposition in this Chamber to the extension of
unemployment and COBRA benefits. Few question the crisis we would kick
off in homes across this country if we fail to extend these benefits.
In the State of Michigan, 135,000 of these workers face the end of
their unemployment benefits. Each of these homes is already dealing
with a tragedy--the loss of a job. In most cases, these are mothers and
fathers who have done what we expect American families to do: work
hard, do their best, try to put food on the table and a roof over their
family's heads, and hopefully ensure a better life for their children.
This quintessentially American quest has been derailed by forces
totally outside the control of most of those affected.
This extension means more than help to workers out of a job. It means
help for our entire economy. Economists tell us that payments such as
unemployment benefits are the most efficient way we can increase growth
in our still-struggling economy. An unemployment check is more than
just help for a family. It means local grocery stores still have
customers, that unemployed workers can continue paying their bills. The
consequences of an extension of these benefits--or a decision not to
extend them--will ripple throughout the economy.
But above all, we should keep in mind those families who are afraid:
wondering, worrying, about what is going to happen. In their moment of
crisis, we can choose to reach out a much-needed helping hand. Or we
can turn away. To have delayed this extension has been needlessly
cruel. We owe a duty to these families now, a duty not to compound the
tragedy they already face.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BUNNING. How much time is left on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.

[[Page S933]]

There is 5 minutes 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. BUNNING. I reserve that time until the 10 minutes prior to the
time expiring. In other words, the last 5 minutes is going to Senator
Baucus. I reserve the time prior to the Baucus time. I ask unanimous
consent to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, let me begin by addressing some of the
arguments made by the other side of the aisle against my amendment.
First, the Senator from Illinois said that this would cause a needless
delay in extending these programs, potentially causing a protracted
negotiation with the House. With all due respect, that is nonsense. We
all know the House can act very quickly. In fact, they did so when they
sent this bill, H.R. 4691, to us. The House has already passed my black
liquor offset. I want everybody to understand that we pay for the
extension of unemployment benefits, COBRA assistance, health care
assistance so everybody is covered. The larger bill that we are dealing
with on the floor, the one we took off the floor to address this
amendment and this bill, also extends these provisions longer than just
a month--the highway bill, the doc fix on Medicare, the small business
loans that we heard about that we are destroying with our objections,
and the rural satellite TV viewers.
I sincerely believe if we can't find $10 billion to pay for something
that all 100 Senators support, we are in deep trouble. I think the
Senator from Alabama made that very clear. I am on the Budget Committee
also. I have heard those numbers over and over, not from just the
Republican people who come before the Budget Committee but from the
Democrats who testify before the committee. We are on an unsustainable
path as far as the budget.
The question before the Senate is not whether Senators support
unemployment benefits or all the other important things in this bill.
The question is whether we as a Senate and as a government are going to
pay for what we spend.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 1 minute 15
seconds.
Mr. BUNNING. I think everybody understands why I have been on this
floor for so long. I have been here for 12 years and 12 years in the
House. I don't think I have spent this much time on the floor in any
one-week period in my life. Usually on the floor of the House you only
get 2 minutes to say whatever you have to say. In the Senate you get as
much time, usually, as you need. I have never needed this much time.
But something so important, particularly after pay-go, and even the
larger bill we have before us, $104 billion of the $108 billion
expended in that bill is emergency spending. That is emergency spending
that is not paid for. So when we get to the bigger bill, we will have
some amendments for that.
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. BEGICH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________