[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S973-S1013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TAX EXTENDERS ACT OF 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4213, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Baucus amendment No. 3336, in the nature of a substitute.
       Sessions amendment No. 3337 (to amendment No. 3336) to 
     reduce the deficit by establishing discretionary spending 
     caps.
       Thune amendment No. 3338 (to amendment No. 3336) to create 
     additional tax relief for businesses.
       Landrieu amendment No. 3335 (to amendment No. 3336) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the low-
     income housing credit rules for buildings in the GO Zones.


                Amendment No. 3356 to Amendment No. 3336

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Murray and others. This is No. 3356.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mrs. Murray, for 
     herself, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Burris, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3356 to amendment No. 3336.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To provide funding for summer employment for youth)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES.

       (a) Additional Amount.--There is appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2010, for an additional

[[Page S974]]

     amount for ``Training and Employment Services'' for 
     activities under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 
     (referred to in this section as the ``WIA''), $1,500,000,000. 
     That amount is appropriated out of any money in the Treasury 
     not otherwise appropriated. The amount shall be available for 
     obligation for the period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Activities.--In particular, of the amount made 
     available under subsection (a)--
       (1) $1,500,000,000 shall be available for grants to States 
     for youth activities, including summer employment for youth, 
     which funds shall remain available for obligation through 
     September 30, 2010, except that--
       (A) no portion of such funds shall be reserved to carry out 
     section 127(b)(1)(A) of the WIA;
       (B) for purposes of section 127(b)(1)(C)(iv) of the WIA, 
     funds available for youth activities shall be allotted as if 
     the total amount available for youth activities for fiscal 
     year 2010 does not exceed $1,000,000,000;
       (C) with respect to the youth activities provided with such 
     funds, section 101(13)(A) of the WIA shall be applied by 
     substituting ``age 24'' for ``age 21'';
       (D) the work readiness aspect of the performance indicator 
     described in section 136(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the WIA shall be 
     the only measure of performance used to assess the 
     effectiveness of summer employment for youth provided with 
     such funds; and
       (E) an amount that is not more than 1 percent of the funds 
     appropriated under subsection (a) may be used for the 
     administration, management, and oversight of the programs, 
     activities, and grants, funded under subsection (a), 
     including the evaluation of the use of such funds; and
       (2) funds designated for the purposes of paragraph (1)(E), 
     together with funds described in section 801(b) of Division A 
     of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, shall 
     be available for obligation through September 30, 2012.

  Mr. REID. This amendment I offer on behalf of Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
Harkin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Burris. This, of course, is to 
the amendment proposed by Senator Baucus.


                Amendment No. 3353 to Amendment No. 3336

(Purpose: To provide an emergency benefit of $250 to seniors, veterans, 
  and persons with disabilities in 2010 to compensate for the lack of 
    cost-of-living adjustment for such year, and for other purposes)

  I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3353 be called up now.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. This is on behalf of Senator Sanders, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
Whitehouse, Mr. Leahy, and Mrs. Gillibrand.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Sanders, for 
     himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Leahy, and Mrs. 
     Gillibrand, proposes an amendment numbered 3353 to amendment 
     No. 3336.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of March 2, 2010, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. I 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. McCONNELL. 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.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                              Health Care

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, most Americans breathed a sigh of 
relief in January when it looked like the Democrats' partisan plan for 
health care was done for. Most people saw the outcome of the 
Massachusetts Senate race as an opportunity to start over on what they 
wanted, which is a step-by-step plan that would target costs without 
raising taxes or insurance premiums, without cutting Medicare, and 
without using taxpayer dollars to cover the cost of abortions.
  Unfortunately, the proponents of this plan are still determined to 
force this distorted vision of health care reform on a public who is 
already overwhelmingly opposed to it. So this afternoon the President 
will outline yet another version of the Democratic health care plan we 
have been hearing about all year long. The sales pitch may be new, but 
the bill is not.
  We got a preview of the administration's new sales pitch yesterday in 
a letter from the President, in which he said he is now willing to 
incorporate a few Republican ideas into the Democratic bill. But this 
is not what the American people are asking for.
  Americans do not want us to tack a few good ideas onto a bill that 
reshapes one-sixth of the economy, vastly expands the role of 
government, and which raises taxes and cuts Medicare to pay for all of 
it. They want us to scrap the underlying bill--scrap it altogether--and 
start over with step-by-step reforms that target cost and expand 
access.
  This whole exercise is unfortunate and completely unnecessary. It is 
also a disservice to the American people. The fact is, the longer the 
Democrats cling to their own flawed vision of reform, the longer 
Americans will have to wait for the reforms they want.
  Last week's health care summit could have served as the basis for a 
series of step-by-step reforms that both parties could support and 
which the general public would embrace. Unfortunately, Democrats in 
Washington have decided to press ahead on the same kind of massive bill 
they were pushing before the summit. Even worse, they now seem willing 
to go to any length necessary--any length necessary--to force the bill 
through Congress.
  Well, Americans do not know how else to say it: They do not want the 
massive bill. It is perfectly clear. They want commonsense, bipartisan 
reforms that lower costs, and they want us to refocus our energy on 
creating jobs and the economy. They have had enough of this year-long 
effort to get a win for the Democratic Party at any price to the 
American people. Americans have paid a big enough price already in the 
time we have lost focusing on this bill.
  They do not want it, and they will not tolerate any more backroom 
deals or legislative schemes to force it through Congress on a partisan 
basis. History is clear: Big legislation always requires big 
majorities. This latest scheme to lure Democrats into switching their 
votes in the House by agreeing to use reconciliation in the Senate will 
be met with outrage.
  So we respectfully encourage the administration to consider a new 
approach to reform, one that does not cut Medicare to fund a trillion-
dollar takeover of the health care system or impose job-killing taxes 
in the middle of a recession, and one that will win the support of 
broad majorities in both parties. We encourage the administration to 
join Republicans and Democrats in Congress in listening to what the 
American people have been telling us for more than a year now.
  At the risk of being redundant, here is what they are saying: 
Americans are telling us to scrap the bills they have already rejected 
and start over with commonsense, step-by-step reforms we can all agree 
on. Now is not the time to repeat the same mistakes that brought us 
here. It is time to listen to the people and to start over.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night, I met the mayor of Kankakee, 
IL. She told me about a problem she has. Kankakee has 28,000 residents. 
The economy has hurt them. They have lost sales tax revenues. They do 
not have the income they had just last year. Their annual budget is $20 
million for the city of Kankakee. That is for all the services they 
provide.
  Ten percent of that budget--$2 million--goes for the health insurance 
of the workers in that town; about 200 of them--10 percent, $2 million. 
So they went to their insurance company and said: What will the 
insurance cost us this year? The health insurance company said: Your 
rates are going up 83 percent--83 percent. What had cost them $2 
million last year will cost them almost $4 million this year.
  When I listened to the speech from the minority leader, the 
Republican leader, who says: Start over, go slow, baby steps, we do not 
want to do anything that is big or addresses this problem in any kind 
of comprehensive way, I think to myself: Does he understand the reality 
of what businesses, families, small towns, and large cities are

[[Page S975]]

facing across America? The Kankakee example is not unique. Just a 
couple weeks ago, in California, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield 
announced a 39-percent increase in health insurance premiums next year.
  If you look at what the average family paid for health insurance 10 
years ago, it was about $6,000 a year--$500 a month. It is a lot of 
money. But that was 10 years ago, and it has doubled in the last 10 
years. It is now $12,000, the average premium paid by a family of four 
across America.
  But what will happen in the next 8 to 10 years? It will double again. 
Can you imagine the job you will need 10 years from now that will 
generate $2,000 a month just for health insurance premiums, before you 
take the first penny home to pay your mortgage or feed your family or 
provide for your kids' college education? That is the reality of the 
call by the Republican side of the aisle to go slow, start over.
  No. Their go slow, start over can be translated into two words: 
``Give up.'' We are not going to give up. They call for common sense. 
Our approach to health care reform is grounded in common sense. Let me 
tell you what the basics are.
  The basics are, small businesses across America need to have choice 
and competition. We create insurance exchanges. I went to the 
President's health care summit last week, and I listened to the 
Republicans say: Do you know what is wrong with the health care reform 
bill? No. 1, it is a government-run program. Well, it is not. It is 
private health insurance companies brought together by the government 
to compete for the business of individuals and small businesses. They 
said: Do you know what else is wrong? They put minimum requirements on 
health insurance plans, minimum requirements of what they will cover. 
You ought to let the health insurance companies offer whatever they 
want. If they want to offer something that is virtually worthless, that 
is their business. Let the consumers decide.
  I said at that health care summit meeting: Isn't it amazing that 
Members of Congress, who are part of the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program, including the Republican House and Senate Members who 
sat in that summit, have their families protected by a government-run 
health care plan, which establishes minimum requirements for health 
insurance to protect our families? Yet when we suggest doing that for 
the rest of America, the conservative Republicans say: You have gone 
too far. That violates some basic values and principles.

  If they were honest about it, they would have walked right out of 
that summit and turned in their Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program cards and said: We are out of here. This is socialism. We are 
not going to be part of it. But, no, they want to enjoy the benefits of 
a government-run plan, with minimum benefits outlined and described for 
their families. They do not want other people to have it. That is 
wrong. It is not only wrong, but it is unfair. It is unfair to the 
families across America who deserve the same kind of protection in 
health insurance Members of Congress have.
  So the first commonsense part of our health care reform is insurance 
exchanges, where private companies compete for the health insurance 
business of small businesses and individuals--competition and choice.
  The second commonsense part of health care reform says, it does no 
good to own a health insurance policy which isn't there when you need 
it. You pay a lifetime of premiums, and with one accident, one 
diagnosis, you are stuck with a huge amount of medical bills, and the 
health insurance company says: We took a close look at your application 
for health insurance, and you failed to disclose you had acne as a 
teenager--I am not making this up--so we are going to deny you coverage 
for the cancer therapy you are going to need--I am not making this up--
or they say: You didn't tell us you had an adopted child in your 
family. That is another preexisting condition. Did you know that? It 
is. In the list of preexisting conditions, it includes things such as 
that, and that is what happens--the tricks and traps in health 
insurance that yank coverage from you when you need it the most.
  This bill, the health care reform bill we are working on, starts to 
change that relationship and gives the consumers across America a 
fighting chance to fight back when they are denied coverage for a 
preexisting condition, to fight back when they say there is a cap on 
the total amount they are going to pay in your lifetime, to fight back 
when they say you cannot take your insurance with you when you leave a 
job, to fight back when parents realize when their kids get out of 
college, the family health insurance plan cannot cover them anymore.
  Those are basic health insurance reforms that embody common sense. 
The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, comes here and says: We have 
to junk this big government plan. It is so wildly unpopular. Is it 
unpopular to offer choice and competition to small businesses? Is it 
unpopular to give consumers a fighting chance against health insurance 
companies?
  There is a third aspect too. We asked the Republicans at the health 
care summit: If you accept the obvious--that 50 million uninsured 
Americans get sick, go to hospitals, are treated, and the cost of their 
care is then passed on to everyone else--if you accept that, what are 
you going to do about it? They said: Oh, we have an answer to that. 
Fifty million uninsured Americans? We will deal with that. We will take 
care of 3 million of them--3 million of them. Six percent of them we 
will take care of.
  Well, the bill we are supporting, the health care reform bill we are 
supporting, takes care of 30 million. I wish it were 50 million, but it 
takes care of 60 percent, over half of them. The hospital administrator 
at Memorial Medical Center in Springfield, IL, said to me: Senator, if 
I don't have to give out all this charity care, I can contain my costs 
and build the hospital and even make it greater for this community. But 
I have to absorb charity care for uninsured people because we do that 
in America. Put more of them on insurance and we will have more revenue 
coming in. I would not have to transfer their cost burden to other 
families. I will do better as a hospital. We will do better as a 
community.
  I think he is right. It is common sense. The Senator from Kentucky 
says we need common sense. That is part of it. I think we also need 
common sense when it comes to Medicare. Medicare, of course, was 
created almost 50 years ago. Those who opposed it said: Too much 
government. Those who supported it said: How else can we provide for 
the elderly and retired, giving them basic health care protection, if 
we do not have an insurance plan across America that we contribute to 
as we work and is available for us when we retire?
  What happened when Medicare was passed? Senior citizens started 
living longer, better, more independent lives. The record is there. It 
is clear. It worked. We want it to continue to work. But the problem 
is, as the costs of health care skyrocket because of baby steps and no 
steps recommended by the other side of the aisle, as the costs 
skyrocket, Medicare costs do as well. It only has about 9 years left 
before it goes into the red.
  Well, the bill we are proposing, the health care reform bill, will 
extend the life of Medicare another decade. I wish it were longer. But 
it certainly is a step in the right direction. How do we extend the 
life of Medicare? We look at the waste in Medicare today, and there is 
waste. Let me give you a couple numbers to compare. These numbers 
reflect the average cost for each Medicare recipient annually in each 
community. In my hometown of Springfield, IL--central Illinois, small 
town America I am honored to represent--$7,600 a year, average cost per 
Medicare recipient. Rochester, MN--home of one of the greatest 
hospitals in America, the Mayo Clinic, a place I dearly love and 
respect for the treatment they have given to my family--it is about the 
same, $7,600 a year, average cost for Medicare recipients. Now go to 
Chicago--a big city--$9,600 a year, average cost for Medicare 
recipients.
  Now go to Miami, FL. The average cost for Medicare recipients, 
$17,000 a year. It costs more to live in Miami than it does in 
Springfield or even Rochester, MN, but twice as much? No. Something is 
wrong. Overpayments are obvious in Miami, FL, in McAllen, TX.
  We can pick them out, and we can see we are wasting our tax dollars 
with too many tests, too many procedures, not

[[Page S976]]

focusing on quality but quantity. Can we make this a better system? Can 
we keep seniors healthy and reduce costs? Of course we can. We can 
eliminate a lot of the waste. We can raise questions about self-dealing 
by doctors who make sure they send their patients to their own 
laboratories, using their own machines over and over again. We can do 
that. In doing so, we are not going to compromise the basic care 
Medicare recipients want.
  So the Senator from Kentucky says: Too big. It is a big government 
program. We need to go step by baby step here. No. We need to take a 
look at the obvious. If we do not address Medicare and reform it the 
right way, in 9 years it will be in the red, going broke. We cannot let 
that happen. Baby steps from the other side of the aisle will not take 
us on this important journey to the goal we all share.
  I also wish to say a word about the deficit. President Obama said to 
us when we started this debate: I know what our goals are, but in 
reaching those goals, do not add to America's debt. We came up with 
ways to reduce health care costs, to increase taxes on people making 
over $200,000 a year; not dramatic increases but, in fact, increases in 
taxes for them. The Congressional Budget Office says that as a result, 
in the first 10 years, our bill, the health care reform bill, will 
reduce the deficit by $130 billion, and in the second 10 years it will 
reduce it by $1.3 trillion, the largest deficit reduction in the 
history of the United States. This approach is fiscally sensible, 
fiscally sound.
  A word before I close--I see my colleague from Iowa is on the floor 
and I wish to yield to him--about reconciliation. Senator Grassley is 
on the Finance Committee. He has served on that committee for a number 
of years and he understands how the Senate works. When President Reagan 
wanted to initiate his tax cuts, he used a process called 
reconciliation. Reconciliation basically says no filibuster; you come 
to the floor, you offer your amendments and, ultimately, it is a 
majority vote. That is what reconciliation says.
  So President Reagan used reconciliation for tax cuts. Speaker Newt 
Gingrich used reconciliation for his Contract With America. We have 
used reconciliation to create the COBRA program to provide health 
insurance for unemployed workers across America. Time and again we have 
used reconciliation for major issues involving taxes and revenue. It 
has been done 21 times in the last couple decades. More often, it is 
used by the Republican side of the aisle than the Democratic side of 
the aisle. To brand this process as somehow un-American and unfair is 
to suggest that all of the efforts by the Republicans to use this 
process have been un-American and unfair. I don't think that is true. 
It wasn't true then; it isn't true now.
  What we have is a bill that has passed the Senate, the health care 
reform bill, which is now over in the House. The House of 
Representatives will decide whether they can enact the Senate version 
of health care reform. The follow-on bill is likely to be the 
reconciliation bill which will make some changes in that health care 
bill. It is not the total health care bill, but it will include 
changes. Some of the changes that are being contemplated are ones that 
I think most Members on both sides agree to. Should we close the 
doughnut hole? Well, what is the doughnut hole? It is a gap in coverage 
in Medicare prescription drug coverage for seniors. Should we close 
that gap? I think we should. That is part of it.
  Second, should we try to make health insurance more affordable? Our 
underlying bill puts almost $450 billion in tax cuts on the table for 
small businesses and for individuals who cannot afford their premiums. 
The reconciliation bill will try to make it even more affordable.
  Can we help the States with their Medicaid burdens? We should. In my 
State of Illinois, in Iowa, and in New Mexico, Governors are 
struggling. With folks on unemployment, more and more people need 
Medicaid. We should help to pay for it.
  None of these ideas behind reconciliation--and there are other 
aspects to them; we are working out details on them--is radical. None 
of them is comprehensive in terms of changing health care dramatically 
in America, but they do improve on a bill that has already passed in 
the Senate.
  The Republican leader comes to the floor and tells us this is un-
American and unfair. I couldn't disagree more. Every time we hear the 
Republican side of the aisle say start over, I ask them, how much 
longer should America wait? We have been at this in the Senate now 
almost nonstop for over a year. The Senator from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley, was part of a bipartisan effort, with Senator Baucus, a 
Democrat, that went through 61 separate meetings to try to find 
bipartisan agreement, and it didn't. I salute Senator Grassley and 
others for trying, but it didn't. We had to move forward.
  So should we start over? Should we give up the things I have talked 
about? Should we give up this effort to give small businesses choice 
and competition? Should we give up on the effort to make sure we have a 
fighting chance against insurance companies? Should we give up on the 
effort of trying to make sure that a substantial number of uninsured 
Americans have that protection? Should we give up on the effort of 
extending the life of Medicare for 10 years? Should we give up on the 
effort to reduce our deficit by reducing health care costs, not only 
for our government but for businesses and families? No. We cannot give 
up. We cannot give up on America. We cannot give up on this challenge. 
I urge my colleagues to stay the course.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, are we now on the pending legislation?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, we are.


                Amendment No. 3352 to Amendment No. 3336

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent--and I think this has been 
cleared with the other side--that the pending amendment be set aside 
for the purpose of my offering an amendment and giving short debate on 
my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for himself, Mr. 
     Crapo, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Roberts, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3352 to amendment No. 3336.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a couple of days ago I stated that I had 
worked in early February to put together a bipartisan package with my 
colleague, Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, to address some time-
sensitive matters that needed to be considered. So I find it surprising 
we are taking up a package this week that, as was last week's exercise, 
is still a partisan product belonging to the Senate Democratic 
leadership. We are not taking up the bipartisan package I put together 
with Finance Committee Chairman Baucus.
  The Senate Democratic leadership arbitrarily 2 weeks ago decided to 
replace the Baucus-Grassley bipartisan bill with one that is 
dramatically different. That partisan package is almost three times the 
size and significantly greater in cost than the bipartisan bill Senator 
Baucus and I announced on February 11. It is unfortunate that the 
Democratic leadership failed to ensure that these critically needed 
Medicare provisions were extended at the end of last year, and then 
they failed to extend the provisions that had expired in 2009 for over 
2 months.
  So, today, this present situation I just described brings me to the 
offering of this amendment. This amendment would ensure that Medicare 
provisions are fully offset, and my amendment would also extend the 
physicians update through the end of this year. The words ``physician 
update'' are directly related to the formula used to determine Medicare 
payments to physicians. On February 28, the extension expired and 
physician payments were scheduled to be cut by 22 percent under the 
existing formula, except just recently that was extended so that 
doesn't actually happen. But this on-again, off-again situation that 
doctors are put in

[[Page S977]]

ought to end, and this amendment I offer will make sure that doesn't 
happen through all of 2010.
  I wish to make very clear this isn't just for doctors, even though it 
affects just doctor payment. These provisions are also essential to the 
health and well-being of every Medicare beneficiary. This is the 
fiscally responsible way to extend them. We ought to pay for them.
  These Medicare provisions have been routinely supported by both 
sides, fully offset, and passed repeatedly in recent years. Now, of 
course, it is March 3. Medicare beneficiaries around the country are 
suffering from the Democratic leader's decision to abandon the Baucus-
Grassley bipartisan package my colleagues and I had worked out weeks 
ago.
  First, there is the urgently needed physician payment update, and 
sometimes around this town we refer to this as the doctors fix for 
short, to fix the formula, to bring the formula up to date so those 22-
percent cuts don't go into effect. There was a doctors fix at the end 
of last year through a 2-month extension that expired, as I said, on 
February 28. So as of March 1, physicians and nurses and other health 
care professionals were subject to these severe cuts of 22 percent. 
Then, because we get a lot of calls--and my office got these calls as 
well--from doctors concerned about how they are going to keep their 
offices open, we now have a 30-day extension passed last night so these 
physician payments that would have been a 22-percent cut now, for 3 
days, won't take place until, unless we act, the end of March. That is 
not a very good way to do business if you have to worry about a doctor, 
particularly in rural America, keeping their offices open and paying 
their help, so we ought to do it on a more consistent basis instead of 
running month to month.

  These cuts to physician payments cannot be allowed to occur, and as 
damaging as these would be to beneficiary access to care anywhere, 
these cuts are even more disastrous for access to care in rural America 
such as in Iowa where Medicare reimbursement is already at least 30 
percent lower than in other areas.
  I am appalled that seniors' access to physicians and needed medical 
care has been handled this way because of political games that are 
being played by the majority leadership. Should these cuts remain in 
place, they will have a truly devastating effect on the ability of 
seniors to find doctors who take Medicare patients. Many beneficiaries 
have already been affected by Medicare provisions that the Senate 
Democratic leadership allowed to expire even last December.
  One of the most urgent situations involves limitations that Medicare 
places on the amount of certain kinds of treatments for beneficiaries. 
Medicare places annual limits on the amount of outpatient physical 
therapy, speech language pathology therapy, and occupational therapy 
that a beneficiary can receive. In other words, the government is 
saying, regardless of how much health care you need in these areas of 
therapy, you can only get up to so much dollar amount.
  Well, laws that have lapsed have allowed special cases to be taken 
care of contrary to what the law specifically says on dollar limit. In 
2005, the law was changed to provide an exception process to these 
therapy caps for situations when additional therapy is medically 
needed, and that needed protection for beneficiaries then expired when 
the doctors fix expired on December 31. Medicare beneficiaries who have 
suffered strokes or serious debilitating injuries such as a hip 
fracture have significant rehabilitation needs.
  So we are in this situation of extending this doctor fix from month 
to month. Situations where patients need this rehabilitation have 
already exceeded the caps for 2010.
  Those with the greatest need for therapy will be the hardest hit. 
Here, again, with the 30-day extension bill having passed last night, 
this problem has been only temporarily fixed. This is another case 
where Congress is playing political games with Medicare. These should 
have been taken care of at the end of last year, and they could have 
already been resolved if the Senate had taken up the original Baucus-
Grassley bill instead of replacing it with a cutback, partisan piece of 
legislation that the Senate handled last year or, one might say, being 
handled right now with this legislation now on the floor of the Senate 
to which my amendment is being added.
  Other essential provisions we need to be looking at for extension are 
additional payments for mental health services. This benefits Medicare 
beneficiaries in need of mental health counseling, as well as veterans 
suffering from post-traumatic stress and other disorders since TRICARE 
is based on Medicare rates.
  Another issue concerns additional payments for ambulance services 
that many ambulance providers need to keep their doors open. Those 
provisions also expired at the end of last year, but they were not 
extended in the 30-day bill voted on last night.
  Another important issue affects community pharmacies. Pharmacies that 
have not gone through the accreditation process will soon be forced to 
turn away Medicare beneficiaries. A provision in my amendment would 
ensure that beneficiaries who need vital medical supplies, such as 
diabetic test strips, canes, nebulizers, and wound care products, can 
continue to have access to these products through their community 
pharmacy.
  Many eligible professionals, such as physicians, nurse practitioners, 
physical therapists, and others, have been specifically exempted from 
this accreditation requirement. This provision would also exempt 
community pharmacies under certain conditions.
  A number of other expired provisions are extended in this package. 
They include improved payments for hospitals, especially rural 
hospitals, that rely on these provisions just to keep their doors open. 
Like many others, these problems are not fixed in the simple 30-day 
bill passed last night. These problems remain.
  The impact of a hospital shutting its doors would be especially hard 
on rural and underserved areas where hospitals offer the only access to 
health care.
  We need to pass this critically needed and fiscally responsible 
amendment now. I urge my colleagues to support it. That is what I have 
to say on my amendment.
  I would like to take a couple minutes to respond to a couple issues 
that Senator Durbin brought up. I am not here to refute anything he 
said but to give an addendum to what he said on a couple points.
  One is the use of reconciliation and the opposition that I think is 
pretty unified on this side of the aisle that the name of the game 
should not be changed. He did not say anything inaccurate. But when it 
comes to reconciliation on a massive 2,700-page bill that we call 
health care reform--that is a partisan bill--the same bill that passed 
Christmas Eve in this body, never has reconciliation been used to 
reorganize one-sixth of the entire economy. In other words, about $2.5 
trillion out of a $14 trillion economy is being reorganized by that 
health care reform bill.
  I say to Senator Durbin, that is quite a bit different than using 
reconciliation for a tax bill or for a Medicare reform bill or to save 
money on certain entitlement programs. It is like peanuts compared to a 
massive restructuring of one-sixth of the economy. That is why we say 
reconciliation should not be used.
  A second point for not using reconciliation is the fact that this 
bill has been turned down by the vast majority of the American people. 
There is overwhelming opposition to this 2,700-page bill, albeit not 
overwhelming opposition to the issue: Is the present health care system 
adequate and should it be changed. I think a slight portion of the 
American people would say yes, and I think most of the 100 Senators 
would say yes to that. But for this 2,700-page bill, 70 percent of the 
American people have said it needs to be started over again with a 
clean sheet of paper.
  Then on the issue he brought up of extending Medicare for 10 years, 
that is true if you use the double accounting in the bill. The 
Congressional Budget Office has stated that it is using double 
accounting. That is not the way you can intellectually count money 
twice. The Congressional Budget Office, in a paper I read to the 
President at the summit last week, claims it is double accounting. That 
is not the way to do business.
  You can extend the viability of any program by a lot if you are going 
to count money twice, but you cannot do

[[Page S978]]

that. Some of the problems with the 2,700-page bill, the American 
people understand. That is why they rejected it. That is why we say 
reconciliation should not be used, and that is why we say we should 
start over and do things incrementally.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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.


                           Amendment No. 3353

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the amendment I want to speak on is No. 
3353. This amendment is extremely simple and it is extremely 
straightforward.
  At a time when millions of senior citizens, veterans, and persons 
with disabilities have slipped out of the middle class and into 
poverty; at a time when the cost of prescription drugs, medical care, 
and heating oil have gone through the roof in many parts of our 
country; at a time when millions of seniors have seen the values of 
their pensions, their homes, and their life savings plummet; at a 
time--and here is the important point--for the first time in 36 years, 
seniors will not be receiving a COLA in their Social Security benefits.
  The amendment I am offering today with Senators Dodd, Leahy, Schumer, 
Kerry, Whitehouse, Mikulski, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and Begich will 
provide over 55 million senior citizens, veterans, and persons with 
disabilities $250 in much needed emergency relief. This $250 emergency 
payment is equivalent to a 2-percent increase in benefits for the 
average Social Security retiree, and it is, as you will recall, the 
same amount seniors received last year as part of the Recovery Act. In 
other words, what we are doing now is exactly the same as we did last 
year with the Recovery Act.
  I do not know about New Mexico, but I do know that in Vermont, a lot 
of senior citizens and disabled veterans are wondering this year why 
they are not receiving a COLA. They have written to my office and they 
are saying to me: Hey, I don't know what you are talking about because 
my costs have increased over the last year. That is because, in fact, 
while inflation may not have gone up in general, those areas elderly 
people and people who have health problems utilize--prescription drugs, 
health care, other health-related issues--those costs have gone up very 
substantially. I think there is an awareness all over this country that 
we cannot, in the midst of this recession, turn our backs on disabled 
veterans and seniors.
  This amendment has widespread support from organizations representing 
tens of millions of Americans. Among the organizations that are 
supporting this amendment are the AARP, the largest senior group in 
America; the American Legion, the largest veterans group in America; 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the National Committee to Preserve Social 
Security and Medicare; the Disabled American Veterans; AMVETS and OWL 
and many other organizations.
  Money directed to this population will go almost immediately into the 
economy. So when we talk about stimulus, I don't know of a better way 
to get money out into the economy than passing this amendment.
  I am also very happy and delighted that President Obama is very 
strongly supportive of a $250 emergency payment to seniors. As you 
know, the President has spoken out on this issue, he has also included 
it in his budget, and he has also recommended that it be included in 
the underlying legislation we are debating today.
  Here is what President Obama has said about this issue:

       Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on 
     behalf of those hardest hit by this recession. That is why I 
     am announcing my support for an additional $250 in emergency 
     recovery assistance for seniors, veterans, and people with 
     disabilities to help them make it through these difficult 
     times. These payments will provide aid to more than 50 
     million people in the coming year, relief that will not only 
     make a difference for them, but for our economy as a whole, 
     complementing the tax cuts we've provided working families 
     and small businesses through the Recovery Act. This 
     additional assistance will be especially important in the 
     coming months as countless seniors and others have seen their 
     retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of 
     this economic crisis.

  That is the end of the quote by President Obama. I very much 
appreciate the President speaking out and fighting for senior citizens 
and the disabled with regard to this issue.
  I can tell you that just on Monday I had a meeting with senior 
citizens and senior citizens organizations in the State of Vermont. It 
was a very distressing meeting. When we talked, for example, about 
nutrition programs, the Meals on Wheels program or the congregate meals 
programs by which seniors come to senior citizens centers to get a 
decent lunch, what people are telling me is that for the first time in 
many years, when seniors are asked to put money into an envelope--and 
very carefully, the senior centers don't want to know what people 
contribute. They ask for, say, $2 or $3, but people can contribute 
whatever they want. What they are noticing now is that more and more 
seniors are putting nothing into the envelope or maybe just $1. They 
are seeing the same process when people get out in their cars and they 
deliver Meals on Wheels to very fragile and frail people, often in 
rural areas, and people don't even have the money, now, to even pay $2 
for a lunch.
  All over this country, seniors are hurting. I think they are upset 
and distressed that they are not getting a COLA this year. Essentially, 
what this payment is about is a substitute for a COLA. It is a 1-year 
payment, and it is the equivalent of about a 2-percent COLA.
  Let me mention the response of some of the veterans organizations. 
This amendment, importantly, will be helping our disabled veterans. 
Here is what the VFW said in support of this amendment:

       This year, veterans and seniors will not receive a COLA. 
     This could not come at a worse time. Your legislation would 
     provide a one-time check of $250 to 1.4 million veterans, 
     48.9 million Social Security recipients, and 5.1 million SSI 
     recipients. We believe that this will provide some relief to 
     those veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes who rely 
     on a COLA to keep up with daily living expenses. The VFW 
     commends you for concentrating on changes that can positively 
     impact the lives of others and looks forward to working with 
     you and your staff to ensure passage of this legislation.

  I thank the Veterans of Foreign Wars for the great work they do and 
for supporting this amendment. We appreciate their support.
  Let me quote a letter I recently received from another organization 
that has been very strong for many years in fighting for senior citizen 
rights; that is, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare. This is what the national committee says:

       The National Committee strongly urges you to pass 
     legislation to provide a $250 payment to our Nation's seniors 
     who did not receive a COLA this year. It is vitally important 
     that we provide help for seniors of modest means who have 
     been adversely affected by the economic recession and rapidly 
     rising health care costs. Seniors have been especially hard 
     hit by the 20 percent to 30 percent decline in the value of 
     employer pensions, IRAs and 401(k)s, as well as the steep 
     drop in housing values. And, unlike younger Americans, the 
     elderly are much less likely to recover their savings losses 
     due to their shorter economic horizon.

  That is from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare. We very much appreciate their support for this amendment.
  Here is a quote from the AARP, which represents over 40 million 
Americans, and we very much appreciate their support. This is what the 
AARP says:

       For over three decades, millions of Americans have counted 
     on annual increases to help make ends meet. In this economy, 
     having this protection is even more critical for the 
     financial security of all older Americans. AARP applauds the 
     President for urging Congress to extend for 2010 the $250 
     economic relief provided to older Americans last year. The 
     65-plus population is facing extreme financial hardship. 
     Older Americans are paying more out of pocket for medical 
     care, have experienced a real decline in their retirement 
     accounts and in housing values, face longer periods of 
     unemployment for those who need work, and low returns on 
     interest bearing accounts. Without relief, millions of older 
     Americans will be unable to afford skyrocketing health care 
     and prescription drug costs as well as other basic 
     necessities. AARP will continue to work with Members of 
     Congress from both sides of the

[[Page S979]]

     aisle to provide $250 in economic relief to millions of 
     seniors who count on Social Security to pay their bills.

  Here is the point, the point the VFW has made, the national committee 
has made, the AARP has made. Some people may say $250 is not a lot of 
money, but the truth is, if you are a senior in the State of Vermont or 
in any other State in this country and your health care costs are going 
up and your prescription drug costs are going up and your heating bills 
are going up and you are not getting any COLA this year, you are in 
trouble. You are in real trouble. I do not want to give any illusion 
that this $250 is going to turn people's lives around. It is not. But 
it is going to make a real difference in giving people a little bit of 
support, making their lives just a little bit easier.
  This is extremely important legislation, and it is important 
legislation that I hope can have widespread bipartisan support.
  Once again, I thank all the organizations that are supporting this 
amendment; that is, the AARP, the American Legion, the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and OWL as well.
  The bottom line is, we are in the midst of a very serious recession. 
We are doing our best to try to figure out ways to create the millions 
of good-paying jobs working people need. We are going to pass COBRA to 
make sure when people lose their jobs they do not lose their health 
insurance. We are going to extend unemployment benefits. But in the 
middle of all of that, let's not forget our parents and our 
grandparents. Let's not forget senior citizens and disabled veterans. 
Let's pass this amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. 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. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Reforming the Senate

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes 
this morning to talk about something that not only affects the 
legislation currently on the floor but everything we are currently 
working on in the Senate.
  Before coming to the Senate a little over a year ago, I spent my life 
in the real world--the world of business, of local government, of 
public schools and, most importantly of all, of family. But since 
coming to Washington, I have discovered that many people learn to live 
in an entirely different world, an echo chamber, shut off from the 
reality of life in America that defies common sense at every turn and 
uses anonymous holds to defy the rule of reason.
  I used to tell my little girls that ``Alice in Wonderland'' was just 
a fairy tale. But now I am not so sure. If you come from the real 
world, when you get to Washington, to Wonderland, the logic can seem 
upside down or inside out or just plain wrong. Here, it turns out that 
folks attack you when you do not cut backroom deals at the taxpayers' 
expense. Here, a lot of people seem to think that saying they are for 
doing something, such as extending unemployment benefits or passing a 
jobs bill, is exactly the same thing as actually rolling up their 
sleeves and getting it done. They think that blaming failure on their 
opponent is the same thing as fighting for real change.
  Coloradans and Americans are reading their papers and watching their 
televisions, and what they see drives them nuts. It should because all 
they find are talking heads yelling at each other on cable news and 
cynical, reckless partisanship paralyzing their government. This phony 
political conversation will not do when we need real change.
  But Washington cannot seem to get out of its own way. That is why I 
will introduce legislation to end lobbyist abuses, reform the ways of 
the Senate, stop the outside influences of special interests, and put 
Washington to work for the people of Colorado.
  First, we need to hold Congress accountable. We should freeze the pay 
and office budgets of every Member of Congress until we have four 
quarters of job growth. Our salaries and office budgets should not go 
up when the rest of the country is struggling. Members of Congress 
should lose their taxpayer-funded health insurance until we pass health 
insurance reform. If Congress cannot get its act together on health 
care, then the American people should not subsidize health care for 
Congress. That goes for Democrats and Republicans. It turns out the 
dysfunction in Washington is just another kind of preexisting condition 
that allows the insurance companies to get their way.
  Second, we need real lobbying reform that restores power to the 
voters. We need to ban Members of Congress from becoming lobbyists when 
they leave office. We need to do something about the revolving door 
between Congress and K Street. We need stronger rules and tighter 
standards for lobbyist registration and real penalties for those who 
break the rules. We need to end the corporate subsidy for Members of 
Congress who fly on corporate jets. Every Member of Congress should pay 
their fair share and disclose every person who is on the plane with 
them.
  Third, real reform will not be complete without earmark reform. The 
people of Colorado pay taxes, and they deserve a government that works 
for them. I have no issue with Members of Congress fighting for 
projects they think are valuable for their States or for their 
districts. I am proud, for example, of the funding we secured for 
projects, such as the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which languished in the 
Senate since President Kennedy first promised it to the people of 
Colorado. But this funding should be done in the light of day, 
completely transparent and accountable, not behind closed doors, hidden 
from the American people.
  Under my legislation, Members of Congress will be required to post 
every earmark request they receive and every request they make for 
funding. But we should not wait for the law to change. There is no 
reason to wait for the law to change. We can start doing this now.
  Second, every earmark should be listed in earmarks.gov. The Web site 
should be easily searchable and user friendly.
  Third, Members of Congress should be held accountable for their 
requests. Larger earmark requests should go before the Appropriations 
Committee, and we should end airdrops of earmarks in conference 
committee.
  Finally, earmark recipients should be held accountable. This means 
randomly auditing earmarks every year and publishing the results for 
our constituents to see.
  Next, we need to deal with the challenge of passing real campaign 
finance reform that reduces the outside influence of special interests. 
I intend to support the bill that Senator Schumer and Congressman Van 
Hollen have put together, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Finally, we need to reform the institution of the Senate itself. The 
filibuster has been used in the Senate for quite some time. It has been 
used by the minority to slow down debate, have their voices heard, and, 
in some cases, stall legislation.
  I would remind members of my own party that just the threat of a 
filibuster stopped the privatization of Social Security. However, 
during this session of Congress, the right to filibuster has been 
abused. It has become a normal part of business, a way to stall every 
piece of legislation and simply slow the Senate to a crawl.
  Three months ago, we spent weeks debating the extension of 
unemployment benefits. The bill passed 98 to 0. The Senate has spent 
days, weeks, and sometimes months holding up nominees who passed with 
more than 90 votes. To add insult to injury, one Senator held up the 
entire Senate, preventing us from extending unemployment benefits and 
COBRA. The country deserves much better than that.
  I will introduce legislation that reforms Senate procedure to 
encourage the two parties to work together to get things done. It will 
eliminate anonymous holds. If Senators want to single-handedly stop a 
nominee from being

[[Page S980]]

approved, then they should have the courage to do so publicly.
  It will introduce a new procedure to allow us to reduce the time of 
debate so we can move on legislation that has broad bipartisan support.
  Third, it will eliminate the filibuster on the motion to proceed. It 
is one thing to try to block a piece of legislation; it is another 
thing to prevent it from even being debated in the first place.
  Finally, my legislation would change the rules of the filibuster to 
force the two parties to actually talk to each other and not past each 
other. The President reminded us during the State of the Union that our 
job is not to get elected. I have heard the same thing from thousands 
of Coloradans in hundreds of living rooms and townhalls. It is easy to 
throw our hands up in the air and wait for someone else to make the big 
changes we need. But we all know the American people deserve better. I 
know the people of Colorado expect much more. They know the Senate 
needs a big dose of Colorado common sense.
  I know this is not easy. I know there are 100 different reasons, 
maybe 1,000 different reasons. Some will say: We cannot get this done. 
But I also know our country needs a government that works for them. I 
hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will work with me and 
others to make sure we get it done.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3337

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have been talking about having a 
bipartisan effort to rein in spending and some of the things that we 
can do in that regard. So I am pleased to share a few thoughts today on 
the legislation that my Democratic colleague, Claire McCaskill of 
Missouri, and I have offered that would ensure that we show some fiscal 
discipline in our spending habits.
  It is not a dramatic change in what we should be doing and what I 
think we can do, but I think it is an action that would send a message 
to the financial markets in the world that we are beginning to get the 
message from our constituents that this recklessness and this kind of 
spending cannot continue.
  Our legislation received bipartisan support last time. Fifty-six 
Senators voted for it, which is a pretty good number. But you do need 
to get 60 votes to pass the legislation. I think this time, with our 
new colleague from Massachusetts, we might be at 57 or 58, and at this 
point, I think others may be evaluating whether this is the kind of 
action they would like to support.
  Let me take a minute or two to explain what our legislation attempts 
to do, how it can work, how it has worked in the past, and why this 
step is important. It would set a much firmer cap on spending. It would 
make it more difficult to enact spending levels that violate the 
budget. I wish to explain why it is something Members of both parties 
can support.
  What we are talking about is moving beyond the budget caps that are 
only good for 1 year and take those budget caps, extend them for 4 
years and make them statutory. It is not something that can't be 
changed. If there is an emergency, we can vote to change them. In fact, 
Congress can, with 60 votes, eliminate the whole statute and write a 
new statute, if we believe it is too severe. So Congress clearly would 
have the ability to act, if it chooses, to get around these limits on 
spending.
  Back in the early 1990s, legislation was passed that put a statutory 
cap on spending. I have a chart I will show. It is kind of upside down 
in a way. This shows the deficits in the early 1990s. This is when we 
passed the legislation, the statutory cap on spending. The deficits 
went down until we hit surplus for 4 years in the late 1990s, early 
2000.
  Then this statutory cap expired. That is when deficits started going 
up, and they are continuing to rise. Last year's deficit was three 
times this amount from the year before--three times that amount--one 
thousand four hundred billion in debt last year, and it is expected to 
be one thousand five hundred billion in deficit this year, for 1 year. 
This is an unsustainable path.
  This is a proven technique to gain control of spending. Why it was 
allowed to expire and not extended in 2002, I do not know. I know a 
number of people argued that it should be kept, and it was not.
  Secondly, what is the cap? What would it be? The limit we would place 
on spending would be the amount President Obama asked for in his 
budget. It is 1 to 2 percent in the spending accounts. If you went 
above that, you would have to have a serious bipartisan vote of two-
thirds to break that cap the President has set as the proper goal. 
Parenthetically, since the President submitted that budget, he has 
indicated he wishes to see a freeze on spending, on nondefense 
discretionary accounts, a flat freeze. I would be supportive of that. I 
would support the President in that. First, if we can get a hard limit 
on the 1 to 2-percent increase, we believe we will have done something 
worthwhile.
  How would this work? If somebody came in and proposed spending levels 
that exceeded the specific budgetary limits as set by President Obama's 
budget, it could only be surpassed by waiving the statutory cap. That 
takes a two-thirds vote. This would have some teeth to it. We have gone 
back and checked. For the last 30 years and every time there has been 
an emergency, such an as an earthquake, an ice storm or a hurricane, 
the Congress has waived the budget and enacted emergency legislation 
with 90 votes, 100 votes, high 70 votes every single time. It is 
unlikely that we would see a genuine emergency not being promptly 
funded with emergency spending, if the Nation has to do that. I don't 
think that is a problem.
  What we are saying is, when we have legislation come up that is not 
paid for, that is not accounted for, a person would be able to make a 
budget point of order and say: You should not have expended moneys at 
more than a 1-percent or 2-percent increase in this budget account, and 
I make a budget point of order. It would take a two-thirds vote of the 
Senate to waive it. It gives some real teeth to the President's budget, 
the same kind of teeth President Clinton had during his time in office, 
his or the congressional budget that was actually passed by the Senate 
and the House. That budget was enforceable. When it was enforceable, we 
achieved a surplus.
  Let's be frank. It will be more difficult today to achieve a budget 
surplus than in the 1990s. We have a lot of different factors at work 
here. One of them is that the deficit is so much larger, and we have 
some real problems getting there. But we have to begin.
  You say: Well, you have a budget. Why is this a problem? Why can't 
you use your budget point of order and stop spending and contain it 
through a rate close to inflation and lower rates than we have seen in 
the past?
  It didn't work last year. This chart is the 2010 base increases in 
the year we are in today, the fiscal year 2010. It shows you how 
spending has increased. The chart I have does not include the 
breathtakingly huge $800 billion stimulus bill. Each one of these 
accounts got money out of that bill. I haven't even included those 
amounts. But look what we did the year we are in. The budget had levels 
below this, but eventually this is what we passed: Foreign operations, 
foreign aid, State Department got a 32.8-percent increase. Interior 
Department got a 16.6-percent increase. CJS, Commerce-Justice-State, is 
a 12.3-percent increase. THUD, Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, received a 23-percent increase. Agriculture received a 
14.5-percent increase. Defense, the lowest one, received a 4.1-percent 
increase. All of these are well above the inflation rate.
  What I am saying is, this is unsustainable. Every witness we have had 
at the Budget Committee hearing, Democrats and Republicans, Brookings 
and Heritage Foundation, all of them are saying: This is an 
unsustainable course. It has the potential to threaten our economy and 
our political future. One of the witnesses recently said: When you run 
up debts, such as we are doing today, and you get to the very top of 
the amount of debt this Nation can carry--and we are heading to that

[[Page S981]]

direction--bad things can happen quickly, unanticipated. You have a 
serious collapse in Greece. The New York Times today reports real 
instability with regard to the Brits and their debt. If you think 
Greece has an impact on our economy because of their reckless spending, 
the British economy is far larger and would have an even greater 
impact. We are not far behind. In fact, in some ways we are ahead of 
the Brits in the amount of money we are spending and the amount of debt 
we are accumulating. We are threatening our economy, if we don't watch 
it, in a way that we can't anticipate.
  There were some private prognosticators who predicted the dramatic 
events of 2007 and 2008, when we had the Wall Street collapse and the 
financial collapse. Some people saw the balloon that was rising and 
predicted bad things would happen. But none of our leaders did. Mr. 
Bernanke is supposed to be so great and they brag about him. If he is 
so smart, where was he when all that happened? Our people are suffering 
today because of bad decisions.
  I have a simple view. That is, nothing comes from nothing, and 
nothing ever could. Everything you take today, somebody has paid for 
and bought. If you don't have the money today and you grasp something 
of value, somebody is paying for it. In our case, we are borrowing the 
money.
  We can do better. We did better in the 1990s. We are not going to be 
able to slash spending in record amounts, but in some of our accounts, 
we absolutely could eliminate spending. Some of the government programs 
have been independently evaluated as being not worth the money we are 
spending on them. They should be ended. We should not be spending money 
on a program that doesn't produce a return worthy of the investment we 
are putting into it. Even if we call it a jobs bill, if we are going to 
help people have jobs, if it doesn't produce jobs, how can we spend 
money on it? We need to be more vigorous in analyzing it.
  Please look at this amendment. A few more votes and we could have a 
bipartisan statement that we are going to stick by the budget we 
passed, the budget President Obama submitted. If the President comes in 
and helps us and we battle for it, maybe we can spend less than even 
this legislation would control. We could even reduce spending in 
certain accounts. I hope that is possible.
  This isn't the final word, but it would send a message to the world, 
to Wall Street, and to our constituents that we hear their concerns. We 
are going to take firm steps. We are not going to be waltzing in here 
every week or two with some other bill that is not paid for and 
treating it as an emergency and increasing our debt.
  I see Senator Bunning. A lot of people didn't understand what it was 
he objected to with regard to the bill containing unemployment 
insurance. The legislation that came up essentially declared that this 
was an emergency, that we are going to spend another $10 billion on top 
of the budget amounts, and the budget would not apply to it. Every bit 
of that would have to be financed by borrowing on the world market. 
Senator Bunning said: I am willing to support an unemployment insurance 
extension, but I wish to start paying for it for a change and end this 
cycle of increasing debt and the ease by which we go about it.
  We are in a big battle right now. Let me say a bipartisan word about 
my legislation. Because there is so much intensity this year about our 
spending, Senator McCaskill and I have altered the legislation from the 
one we voted on a few weeks ago that got 56 votes, 17 Democrats voting 
for it. We have altered it so it begins next year. So we will have this 
fight this year and each bill will have its own battle. We will have 
our own votes over it, but it only applies to next year. I think that 
is a good-faith way to reach-out to our colleagues and say: Let's at 
least do that. Let's at least take the caps that we put in place as 
part of our budget, as part of President Obama's budget, and let's put 
them into effect. We will start it next year.
  If we go above that and somebody has an idea of going above it, it 
won't be so easy. It will take a two-thirds vote to do so. So if you 
don't believe we ought to make it tougher to bust the budget, don't 
vote for it. But if you believe, as I think most constituents believe, 
we are showing too little fiscal discipline, then you should vote for 
it. It would give us a proven ability to contain spending and get us 
beginning on the right track.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


          Amendments Nos. 3360 and 3361 to Amendment No. 3336

               (Purpose: To offset the cost of the bill)

                (Purpose: To provide additional offsets)

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside so I can call up my two amendments which are at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendments.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes amendments 
     numbered 3360 and 3361 to amendment No. 3336 en bloc.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendments are printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, anyone who has paid attention to the 
floor of the Senate for the last week knows what my amendments are 
about. I am offering Senators two ways to pay for this spending bill.
  First of all, I would like to submit for the Record the CBO scoring 
of this current bill that is before us--both the scoring and the 
offsets. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S982]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS03MR10.001



[[Page S983]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS03MR10.002



[[Page S984]]

  Mr. BUNNING. The first amendment is to use unspent stimulus funds and 
the second is by shutting down unnecessary or duplicate Federal 
programs. In other words, I am saying we should use money we have 
already set aside that has not been spent or eliminate wasteful 
spending to pay for the benefits that are in this current bill.
  Over the last few days, many Senators on the other side of the aisle 
have come to the floor and said unemployment benefits are the best form 
of stimulus available. They say the families who are getting those 
benefits turn around and spend the money immediately. Well, if that is 
true, I cannot think of a better use of the money from last year's so-
called stimulus bill. Why leave that money sitting around unused in a 
government account somewhere when those funds could get into the hands 
of people who need them the most and will put them into the economy 
right away? What is so sacred about the stimulus bill that we should 
keep that money sitting around until it can be spent later this year or 
next year or even in 2012 and beyond? Why not help the people now?
  But for the Senators who think the stimulus money is so sacred that 
it cannot be touched, I am proposing another way to pay for this bill. 
Senator Coburn, my colleague from Oklahoma, has identified well more 
than $120 billion worth of savings from waste, fraud, and abuse. These 
savings include closing the Federal employee tax gap; that is, making 
sure all Federal employees pay all the taxes they owe, and stopping the 
payment of benefits to people and companies that are not entitled to 
those benefits.
  The amendment would also be paid for by ending Federal programs that 
are no longer needed or duplicates of other government programs and 
making existing programs run more efficiently. I think the President's 
budget itself has hit on many of those programs he would like to see 
eliminated or partially eliminated. I think it is safe to call that 
wasteful spending, and I think the taxpayers who are footing the bill 
for those programs would agree.
  Families all across America have to tighten their budgets when times 
get tough, and government should do the same. That is all I am trying 
to do with these two amendments.
  I am sure some will accuse me of being against the programs in this 
bill. But the record should be clear by now that I support helping 
people in their time of need. In fact, every Member of the Senate who 
was able to make the votes last night supported extension of those 
benefits, either in my pay-for version or in the version that added to 
the debt. My amendments are not about whether we should extend these 
programs. No. My amendments are about whether we should pay for 
extending these programs or whether we should keep piling more debt on 
top of the $14 trillion-plus debt we have already. I think the answer 
is very clear.
  Last night, I thought we had a deal worked out to give me an up-or-
down vote on my amendment to pay for the short-term extender bill. 
Instead, one Senator raised a budget point of order against the 
amendment, and I expect someone will try to do the same thing today 
with my amendments. That was her right as a Senator, but it is 
certainly not within the spirit of the agreement I tried to reach to 
find a way forward on these important programs.
  But I think the larger question raised by that move is, What are the 
53 Senators who voted to block my amendment afraid of? Are they afraid 
the Senate might pay for something we do? Are they afraid we might take 
a step toward balancing the Federal budget? Are they afraid we will 
bring Washington spending, which is out of control, just a little bit 
under control and live under the same rules as ordinary American 
families?
  Is it too much to ask that we pay for what we spend? Last night, 53 
Senators said yes, it is too much to ask for. But I think it is not. 
Today, every Senator will have an opportunity to join me in saying it 
is not too much to ask or they can vote against my amendments and add 
another $100 billion-plus to the national debt. That is the emergency 
spending in this present bill--over $100 billion. So that goes onto the 
bottom line of the Federal debt.
  I urge every Senator to vote for my amendments to pay for this 
spending, to put away the taxpayers' credit card, and to put an end to 
the debt madness. I have examples of those spending rescissions.
  As an example, there is $245 million from congressional office 
budgets, to end some of the perks congressional leadership and 
congressional offices have; to end the Forest Service Economic Action 
Program, $5 million. I think the President put this in his budget. The 
program duplicates an existing USDA program--Urban and Community 
Forestry--that has been poorly managed.
  Another is to end the Public Telecommunications Facilities Grant 
Program, $18 million. I am positive this was in the President's budget. 
This program is intended to help public broadcasting stations construct 
telecom facilities. Since the transition to digital broadcasting has 
been completed, there is no more need for this program.
  On down the line--end HUD's Brownfields Economic Development 
Initiative, $17 million; reduce the historic preservation services 
within the Interior Department by $55 million. This is a grant program 
duplicated by other programs at the Interior Department.
  This is one I am very familiar with because when I was in the House, 
we thought this was a necessary program to put our economic footing on 
foreign soil, the same as other foreign-based companies did when they 
came to America. End the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, $52 
million. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation loans private U.S. 
companies funding for foreign investments and insurance. The U.S. Trade 
and Development Agency does the very same thing.
  Another is to eliminate $28 million in the Department of 
Transportation that has been directed at transportation museums--
museums. I do not think we should be building new museums with 
Department of Transportation funds. I think we should be building 
roads.
  Those are just a few examples of some of the rescissions I would like 
to see in the second amendment I have offered today. I think there will 
be ample time to discuss these later on, but I wanted to make sure we 
offered these amendments early on so we could have a good and thorough 
debate on these programs as this bill proceeds through the Senate.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3356

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this morning because I am offering 
an amendment on youth summer jobs that will build on and extend the 
extremely successful summer jobs program we included in last year's 
Recovery Act. Last summer's program put over 313,000 young people to 
work and provided a much needed shot in the arm to them, their 
families, and businesses and communities around the country. I have 
personally heard stories from young men and women who participated in 
the program who told me how much it changed their lives and gave them 
the skills and the experience they know they need to exceed in school 
and in the workforce. That is why, while we are focusing on legislation 
that will support unemployed Americans and help workers get back on the 
job, we should also continue investing in a successful program that 
helps our young people get to work.
  The amendment I am offering today will provide $1.5 billion through 
the Workforce Investment Act to create 500,000 temporary jobs for young 
people across the country. It will invest in critically needed 
employment and learning programs that will help stimulate our local 
economies while providing meaningful short-term work and learning 
experiences for the young people who really need it the most.
  In addition to the summer jobs program, this amendment also supports 
year-round employment and longer term efforts to help our young people 
obtain a postsecondary degree or credential.
  Growing up, I had every different kind of summer job you can ever 
imagine. I started out working in my father's five-and-ten-cent store 
on Main Street in Bothell, and, along with my brothers and sisters, I 
did everything from stocking the shelves, to working the cash register, 
to sweeping the floor. Later on, I worked at a summer job at Sacajawea 
State Park in Pasco, where

[[Page S985]]

I did weeding, kept the restrooms clean, and helped make the park 
presentable. One summer, I answered phones at a glass company in my 
hometown of Bothell. I also, one summer, worked at a psychiatric ward 
at the VA during a summer in college.
  Looking back, I can tell that each one of those jobs I held as a 
young person helped me in a very unique way. Each one of them taught me 
skills and lessons I have been able to use throughout my life. Those 
jobs taught me everything from the value of hard work to the daily 
challenges of running a small business, how to dress and act in a 
professional work setting, but, most of all, those jobs helped me be 
exposed to new experiences and new people and new challenges. In fact, 
my time working at the Seattle VA that summer gave me an appreciation 
of our veterans and health care workers that has driven me to fight for 
them every single day I am in the Senate now.

  It is not just me. Summer jobs have been proven to teach skills and 
life lessons for everyone. Studies have shown that people who get early 
work experience as teenagers make more money as adults. In fact, early 
work experience has been shown to raise earnings 10 to 20 percent over 
a lifetime.
  However, as we all know, today teens are finding it especially 
difficult to find a job. Over the past 2 years, the number of employed 
teens in the United States has declined by nearly 25 percent, and their 
overall employment rate fell to a new post-World War II low of 25 
percent by the end of last year, more than 18 percentage points below 
the rate in 2000. In fact, the total proportion of young people who 
were employed last July, the traditional peak time for youth jobs, was 
only 51.4 percent. That is the lowest July rate on record.
  Today, with families who are cutting their spending so they can pay 
their bills and businesses having to freeze hirings so they can pay 
theirs, that means even fewer jobs for young people today.
  I don't think we should forget teen jobs will help stimulate our 
local economies because, as anybody who has had a teenager at home 
knows, young people are a lot more likely to spend their paychecks in 
their communities than pocket them. When a young person does, in fact, 
save their wages, oftentimes they are saving for college or making a 
critical contribution to their families in this very difficult time.
  Sometimes I hear people talk about these big national programs and 
too often forget there are real people being impacted, real families 
being helped, and real young people being offered such an important 
helping hand. I wished to share with everyone a story about what this 
funding meant for a program in King County, WA, last year for a young 
man who had the opportunity to participate because of the funding we 
provided last year.
  Back in 2007, King County was able to provide 200 local youth jobs 
for that year. They were able to provide about the same number--200 or 
so--in 2008. Then, last summer, with the funding we secured for them in 
the Recovery Act and under the leadership of a great CEO, Marlena 
Sessions, they were able to provide 900 young people with summer work 
experience. Nine hundred young people in King County last summer had 
the opportunity to productively engage in their community and avoid 
that high risk in criminal activity we worry about and, importantly, 
learn the 21st century skills employers value, such as critical 
thinking and teamwork and problem solving and communication.
  One of those participants in King County was a young man named Ryan. 
He spent his summer last year working at a maritime supply company in 
Seattle, a company called Washington Chain. Ryan had gotten into a lot 
of trouble in his life in the past. He was actually on work release 
from prison. He didn't have many of the skills employers are looking 
for in employees, so he went out and applied for job after job, fast 
food restaurants and more of the same. He actually put out 200 
applications in total without a single one willing to take a chance on 
him after they found out about his record.
  Well, Ryan heard about the Seattle King County Summer Jobs program, 
and you know what. It changed his life. Ryan was accepted into a 
program that was a partnership between a youth service provider and a 
community college. He spent 3 weeks in class, followed by 3 weeks in a 
paid internship at Washington Chain. The company wasn't planning on 
hiring any new full-time employees, but at the end of last summer, this 
experience changed Ryan so much and they were so impressed with Ryan 
and his work capability that the company found a full-time job for him. 
It was a real job for Ryan, with a decent salary and good benefits and 
a future. For the first time in his life, Ryan was able to take pride 
in his work and finally support himself and his young children.
  After the program was over, Ryan said the program was ``one of the 
best things that ever happened to me.'' His boss at Washington Chain 
said the company was lucky to find Ryan. He said Ryan had been 
``willing to do just about everything we have asked him.''
  The summer jobs program we passed last year gave Ryan and many more 
like him an opportunity they would not otherwise have had. It is a new 
lease on life for him, and doors opened to him that had always been 
closed to him. Ryan is far from alone. There are hundreds of thousands 
of young people around the country whose lives were changed by the 
experiences they had last summer.
  So if this amendment I am offering today passes, there will be 
500,000 more by this time next year. Five hundred thousand young people 
will be providing much needed services in hospitals and daycare 
centers, in senior centers, in parks, in public and in private 
organizations, staying off the streets, helping their communities, 
gaining the skills and the experiences they need to put them on a 
better path to success in school and life. Yes, by the way, they will 
be spending those paychecks and contributing to our economic recovery.
  I urge our colleagues to support this amendment. The underlying bill 
we are considering today is going to help millions of families across 
the country who need some help right now getting back on their feet. 
This amendment will help young people across this country start their 
professional lives by firmly planting them on moving toward a 
successful, productive, and fulfilling career. I hope all our 
colleagues take the time to think back and think about what happened to 
them and people they know in their lives, where they had a summer job 
experience that helped set them on a path they may have never thought 
available to them and that it is our responsibility, in this Chamber, 
to now provide that same opportunity for young people who are following 
in our footsteps.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank Senator Thune. He 
gave me permission to speak before him. I will be brief in my strong 
support for the Murray amendment to provide $1.5 billion for youth jobs 
programs through the Workforce Investment Act for summer and year-round 
employment.
  This amendment will help create up to 500,000 temporary jobs for 
young people.
  We know the youth jobs program works. Funds included in the Recovery 
Act for youth jobs provided over 300,000 young adults with employment 
opportunities last summer, stimulating local economies all across the 
country. Young adults who work not only help supplement family incomes, 
they also spend the money they earn in their communities. According to 
the Northeastern University Center for Labor Market Studies, every 
dollar earned by a young adult returns $3 to the local economy.
  Youth jobs programs also help disadvantaged young adults become 
active members of their communities.
  The many local workforce investment groups in my State of California 
not only provide disadvantaged young adults with short-term employment, 
they also offer job training and mentoring programs, help them advance 
their careers with educational opportunities, and teach critical life 
skills.
  We also know right now there are not enough work opportunities for 
teens and young adults. The unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds 
is above 25 percent. For 16 to 19-year-old African Americans, the 
unemployment rate is

[[Page S986]]

nearly 50 percent. Youth jobs programs help keep our kids off the 
streets, which is important to all our communities.
  I wish to highlight one of the many Recovery Act youth jobs success 
stories in California. The Placer Herald reported that last summer the 
Golden Sierra Investment Board worked with 23 disadvantaged teens in 
Rocklin, CA, to construct a permanent storage facility at a local high 
school. The participants helped design the facility using computer 
design technologies. They built the mainframe, painted and dry-walled 
and installed solar lighting. Without Recovery Act youth job funds, 
this program wouldn't have been possible.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article 
from the Rocklin, CA, Placer Herald. It is a wonderful story about the 
high school students taking on this building project.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Placer Herald, July 30, 2009]

             High School Students Take on Building Project

                           (By Lauren Weber)

       With a little strength, time and sweat, a group of youth 
     from Rocklin have created a permanent structure for Whitney 
     High School.
       It took more than 200 hours of service, but 23 teens built 
     a 24-by-48-foot storage center to house the ground's 
     equipment for the school. The hands-on project had the 
     students framing the structure, installing solar lighting, 
     putting up dry walls and painting the exterior green.
       ``They really did this from the ground up,'' said Sherry 
     Mauser, Whitney High School assistant principal.
       Mauser oversaw the process and was instrumental in getting 
     the $25,000 grant that funded the project. She contacted 
     Golden Sierra, an employment and training service for people 
     in Placer, Alpine and El Dorado counties and a partnership 
     was formed.
       Sharon Williams, a summer youth coordinator for Golden 
     Sierra, said President Barack Obama's stimulus project gave 
     money for summer programs.
       ``They encouraged the agencies to get bids on either in-
     school projects or some of our projects are out-of-school 
     projects,'' Williams said.
       The grant went toward the purchase of materials, safety 
     equipment like hard hats and salaries for the adults on-site, 
     Mauser said. The district also contributed some money from 
     their facilities fund for the construction of a larger 
     building.
       The teens are paid as well and for many it was their first 
     job.
       ``It's been a real learning project for these kids,'' 
     Williams said.
       Williams was on-site to also oversee that child labor laws 
     were upheld, such as no one under 18-years-old on the ladder.
       Many of the students, both from Rocklin and Whitney high 
     schools, had never taken on construction jobs before. But 
     with a little assistance from experts, they became 
     knowledgable in Computer-Aided Design drawings, how to put up 
     dry wall and build the frame.
       Kyle Balance, 19, and a recent Whitney High School grad, 
     said his favorite aspect of the project was the framing and 
     said he was impressed with how quickly it went up.
       Rocklin High School junior Alessio Alba said he enjoyed the 
     more computer-related aspect.
       ``I liked using the CAD system,'' he said.
       The group came up with computer drawings, which paved the 
     way for the beginning of the project in June.
       From start to finish, the students were deeply involved, 
     Mauser said.
       ``Everybody worked as a team on this one,'' she said.
       Last week, the students were in the last stages, finishing 
     up the drywall and getting ready to paint the interior. 
     Whitney High School student Mike Mello said although he'd 
     never been part of a construction project, it is something he 
     has enjoyed.
       ``This is fun,'' he said. ``I like working with my hands, 
     being out in the field.''
       Rocklin High School student John Wong has a four-mile 
     commute on his bike to get to the project site everyday, but 
     has been dedicated, Mauser said.
       His father owns a door company, so he's been around 
     construction before and may pursue a career in the 
     construction field, he said. This hands-on opportunity may 
     have aided his future career.
       Construction of the space was complete Wednesday and the 
     students will be recognized at the Rocklin Unified School 
     District school board meeting Aug. 5.

  Mrs. BOXER. So this amendment is very important. As our economy 
continues to recover, we all know jobs are lagging. We need to do all 
we can to try to replicate what happened in Rocklin, CA.
  When you give a young person opportunity, a job opportunity, I think 
it stays with them the rest of their life. I remember the jobs I held 
when I was a teenager. One gave me a sense of self that I could help 
the company I was working for. I did many different jobs as a youngster 
in the summer. I was very fortunate to have that experience that I 
brought to other jobs later in my career.
  So this amendment will create up to 500,000 summer jobs. It will 
strengthen local economies.
  I do thank Senator Murray and the other cosponsors in the Senate. In 
closing, I wish to acknowledge Congresswoman Barbara Lee and the 
Congressional Black Caucus, who are leading the fight in the House to 
support critical youth job programs for our disadvantaged young people. 
When I talked to Congresswoman Lee, she said: Barbara, can you do 
something in the Senate. I remembered Senator Murray had this bill, and 
I called Senator Murray. We have this amendment here. I think the fact 
that it has been offered early in this bill is good because this is 
something we can do for our young people. They want so much to get job 
experience. They are struggling so much in this recession.
  I wish to congratulate Senator Murray and the other cosponsors. I 
hope we have strong bipartisan support for this amendment.
  Again, I thank Senator Thune for allowing me to speak, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                    Amendment No. 3338, as Modified

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment I introduced yesterday 
at the desk and I have some modifications to it which are also at the 
desk. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:

                TITLE ----ADDITIONAL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. --01. PERMANENT INCREASE IN LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSING OF 
                   CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.

       (a) Permanent Increase.--Subsection (b) of section 179 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000'' and all that follows in 
     paragraph (1) and inserting ``$500,000.'',
       (2) by striking ``$200,000'' and all that follows in 
     paragraph (2) and inserting ``$2,000,000'',
       (3) by striking ``after 2007 and before 2011, the $120,000 
     and $500,000'' in paragraph (5)(A) and inserting ``after 
     2009, the $500,000 and the $2,000,000'',
       (4) by striking ``2006'' in paragraph (5)(A)(ii) and 
     inserting ``2008'', and
       (5) by striking paragraph (7).
       (b) Permanent Expensing of Computer Software.--Section 
     179(d)(1)(A)(ii) is amended by striking ``and before 2011''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (b) 
     and (c) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 
     31, 2008.

     SEC. --02. EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL FIRST-YEAR DEPRECIATION 
                   FOR 50 PERCENT OF THE BASIS OF CERTAIN 
                   QUALIFIED PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 168(k), as 
     amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 
     2009, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subparagraph (A)(iv) 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2012'', and
       (2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for subsection (k) of section 168, as 
     amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 
     2009, is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
       (2) The heading for clause (ii) of section 168(k)(2)(B), as 
     so amended, is amended by striking ``Pre-january 1, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``Pre-january 1, 2011''.
       (3) Subparagraph (D) of section 168(k)(4) is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the 
     period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting a comma, and 
     by adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``(iv) `January 1, 2011' shall be substituted for `January 
     1, 2012' in subparagraph (A)(iv) thereof, and
       ``(v) `January 1, 2010' shall be substituted for `January 
     1, 2011' each place it appears in subparagraph (A) 
     thereof.''.
       (4) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(l)(5), as so amended, 
     is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2011''.
       (5) Subparagraph (C) of section 168(n)(2), as so amended, 
     is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2011''.
       (6) Subparagraph (D) of section 1400L(b)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2011''.
       (7) Subparagraph (B) of section 1400N(d)(3), as so amended, 
     is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2011''.

[[Page S987]]

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. --03. INCREASED EXCLUSION AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS 
                   APPLICABLE TO QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.

       (a) Increased Exclusion.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) Exclusion.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a 
     corporation, gross income shall not include the applicable 
     percentage of any gain from the sale or exchange of qualified 
     small business stock held for more than 5 years.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage is--
       ``(A) 50 percent, in the case of stock issued after August 
     10, 1993, and on or before February 18, 2009,
       ``(B) 75 percent, in the case of stock issued after 
     February 18, 2009, and on or before the date of the enactment 
     of the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 
     2010, and
       ``(C) 100 percent, in the case of stock issued after the 
     date of the enactment of the American Workers, State, and 
     Business Relief Act of 2010.
       ``(3) Empowerment zone businesses.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of qualified small business 
     stock acquired after December 21, 2000, and on or before 
     February 18, 2009, in a corporation which is a qualified 
     business entity (as defined in section 1397C(b)) during 
     substantially all of the taxpayer's holding period for such 
     stock, paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting `60 
     percent' for `50 percent'.
       ``(B) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of paragraphs (5) and (7) of section 1400B(b) shall apply for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(C) Gain after 2014 not qualified.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply to gain attributable to periods after 
     December 31, 2014.
       ``(D) Treatment of dc zone.--The District of Columbia 
     Enterprise Zone shall not be treated as an empowerment zone 
     for purposes of this paragraph.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading for section 1202 is amended by striking 
     ``PARTIAL''.
       (B) The item relating to section 1202 in the table of 
     sections for part I of subchapter P of chapter 1 is amended 
     by striking ``Partial exclusion'' and inserting 
     ``Exclusion''.
       (C) Section 1223(13) is amended by striking 
     ``1202(a)(2),''.
       (b) Repeal of Minimum Tax Preference.--Paragraph (7) of 
     section 57(a) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to stock issued 
     after the date of the enactment of the American Workers, 
     State, and Business Relief Act of 2010.''.
       (c) Increase in Limitation.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1202(b)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$15,000,000''.
       (2) Married individuals.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     1202(b)(3) is amended by striking ``paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     applied by substituting `$5,000,000' for `$10,000,000' '' and 
     inserting ``the amount under paragraph (1)(A) shall be half 
     of the amount otherwise in effect''.
       (d) Modification of Definition of Qualified Small 
     Business.--Section 1202(d)(1) is amended by striking 
     ``$50,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``$75,000,000''.
       (e) Inflation Adjustments.--Section 1202 is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l) and by 
     inserting after subsection (j) the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Inflation Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after 2010, the $15,000,000 amount in subsection 
     (b)(1)(A), the $75,000,000 amount in subsection (d)(1)(A), 
     and the $75,000,000 amount in subsection (d)(1)(B) shall each 
     be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost of living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2009' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph 
     (1) is not a multiple of $1,000,000 such amount shall be 
     rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000,000.''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (d) shall apply to stock acquired after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Limitation; inflation adjustment.--The amendments made 
     by subsections (c) and (e) shall apply to taxable years 
     ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. --04. DEDUCTION FOR ELIGIBLE SMALL BUSINESS INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 199(a) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a deduction an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) 9 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(i) the qualified production activities income of the 
     taxpayer for the taxable year, or
       ``(ii) taxable income (determined without regard to this 
     section) for the taxable year, and
       ``(B) in the case of an eligible small business for any 
     taxable year beginning after 2009, 20 percent of the lesser 
     of--
       ``(i) the eligible small business income of the taxpayer 
     for the taxable year, or
       ``(ii) taxable income (determined without regard to this 
     section) for the taxable year.''.
       (b) Eligible Small Business; Eligible Small Business 
     Income.--Section 199 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Eligible Small Business; Eligible Small Business 
     Income.--
       ``(1) Eligible small business.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `eligible small business' means, with 
     respect to any taxable year--
       ``(A) a corporation the stock of which is not publicly 
     traded, or
       ``(B) a partnership,

     which meets the gross receipts test of section 448(c) 
     (determined by substituting `$50,000,000' for `$5,000,000' 
     each place it appears in such section) for the taxable year 
     (or, in the case of a sole proprietorship, which would meet 
     such test if such proprietorship were a corporation).
       ``(2) Eligible small business income.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `eligible small business income' means the excess of--
       ``(i) the income of the eligible small business which--

       ``(I) is attributable to the actual conduct of a trade or 
     business,
       ``(II) is income from sources within the United States 
     (within the meaning of section 861), and
       ``(III) is not passive income (as defined in section 
     904(d)(2)(B)), over

       ``(ii) the sum of--

       ``(I) the cost of goods sold that are allocable to such 
     income, and
       ``(II) other expenses, losses, or deductions (other than 
     the deduction allowed under this section), which are properly 
     allocable to such income.

       ``(B) Exceptions.--The following shall not be treated as 
     income of an eligible small business for purposes of 
     subparagraph (A):
       ``(i) Any income which is attributable to any property 
     described in section 1400N(p)(3).
       ``(ii) Any income which is attributable to the ownership or 
     management of any professional sports team.
       ``(iii) Any income which is attributable to a trade or 
     business described in subparagraph (B) of section 1202(e)(3).
       ``(iv) Any income which is attributable to any property 
     with respect to which records are required to be maintained 
     under section 2257 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(C) Allocation rules, etc.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4)(D), and (7) of subsection (c) shall 
     apply for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(3) Special rules.--Except as otherwise provided by the 
     Secretary, rules similar to the rules of subsection (d) shall 
     apply for purposes of this subsection.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 199(a)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)(A)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. --05. NONAPPLICATION OF CERTAIN LABOR STANDARDS TO 
                   PROJECTS FINANCED BY THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND 
                   REINVESTMENT ACT.

       (a) Tax-Favored Bonds.--Section 1601 of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is hereby repealed.
       (b) Stimulus Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States 
     Code, shall not apply to any project funded directly by or 
     assisted in whole or in part by and through the Federal 
     Government pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act of 2009.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1606 of division A of 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is hereby 
     repealed.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply to 
     contracts entered into after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

                 Subtitle B--Transfer of Stimulus Funds

     SEC. --11. TRANSFER OF STIMULUS FUNDS.

       Notwithstanding section 5 of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. Law 111-5), from the amounts 
     appropriated or made available and remaining unobligated 
     under such Act, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall transfer from time to time to the general fund 
     of the Treasury an amount equal to the sum of the amount of 
     any net reduction in revenues and the amount of any net 
     increase in spending resulting from the enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Bennett and Roberts be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday, one of my colleagues criticized 
me for trying to redirect unspent stimulus funding to pay for tax 
relief for small businesses by citing all the jobs the stimulus bill 
supposedly created. I, as many people do, have my doubts about some of 
these estimates, but I can guarantee this much: none of these jobs have 
been created or saved by the unspent funds.
  There is a lot of money in the stimulus bill that has yet to be 
spent, according to recovery.org, which is the

[[Page S988]]

administration's Web site. About 38 percent of the stimulus money 
approved last year out of that $1 trillion amount--round numbers--has 
been spent. So there is a lot of unspent and unobligated money.
  Frankly, many of us, at the time it passed last year, suggested it 
would be a much wiser use of those funds if we directed those toward 
small businesses. Small businesses are the creators of jobs in our 
economy. They create two-thirds of the jobs. They are the economic 
engine that drives the economy in this country. Ironically, less than 1 
percent of that $1 trillion that was approved last year in stimulus 
funding was directed at incentives for small businesses to create jobs. 
We put money into all kinds of other things which, to date, have shown 
little evidence that any jobs have been created. It seems to me, at 
least, and the argument that was made at the time by many of us, was 
that allowing or creating more of these incentives, putting more 
policies in place that would incentivize small businesses to create 
jobs would have been a much better use of stimulus money.
  What my amendment very simply says is, of those unspent, unobligated 
funds--and that universe of funds represents about $160 billion that 
has not only not been spent but not obligated--we use some of those 
funds to do what we should have done in the first place; that is, to 
create incentives for small businesses to hire new people, to put 
people back to work, and to make capital investments.
  I take issue with what was said on the floor yesterday, that somehow 
my amendment was going to cut the Economic Recovery Act short. It 
doesn't do that at all. In fact, what this does is simply say those 
funds that have not been spent, not been obligated in the stimulus bill 
that was passed last year, be redirected toward these particular 
provisions that will provide incentives for small businesses to create 
jobs. Very simply, what are those? It extends by 1 year the bonus 
depreciation that allows small businesses to accelerate the way they 
write off equipment purchases; accelerated depreciation schedules so 
they can take more of that cost upfront as a deduction.
  It also makes permanent the section 179 deduction and increases that 
as well so that small businesses are able to expense more of those 
types of investments--again, an incentive for them to invest more, 
hopefully to create jobs.
  It eliminates the capital gains tax on investment in small 
businesses. By the way, that is something the President, in his State 
of the Union speech, came out in support of. So this is something the 
White House has already endorsed.
  Finally, it provides for a 20-percent deduction for small businesses 
against their income. Why is that necessary? Many small businesses, 
and, in fact, half of small business income, we are told, when tax 
rates go up next year would be subject to that higher tax. If a small 
business that passes through their income to their individual tax 
return is currently paying at the 33-percent tax rate, they are going 
to see that tax rate go up to 36 percent of that income. If they are 
currently paying at the 35-percent tax rate, they are going to see 
their tax rate go up to 39.6 percent starting next year, in 2011. This 
allows them to take a 20-percent deduction against their income that 
will help in some ways limit or mitigate the impact of the higher tax 
rates that they will be subject to beginning in 2011.
  Again, I think it is a fairly straightforward amendment, and I simply 
argue, again, to my colleagues that it makes sense for us, in my view, 
to be making investments, be putting policies in place that will 
incentivize job creation in this country, and that job creation, again, 
occurs in the private economy with small businesses.
  Small businesses, we are told, create two-thirds of the jobs in our 
economy and, in fact, about half of the people in this country who 
work, who are employed currently, work for small businesses. They have 
a tremendous impact on our economic well-being, on job creation.
  It is important, in my view, that we take steps here that will add to 
the ability of our small businesses to get out there and do what they 
do best; that is, make investments and create jobs.
  I take issue with what was said yesterday about this amendment: that 
it would cut short the Economic Recovery Act. It does not do that at 
all. These are not funds that have currently been spent or obligated. 
These are funds that are unspent, unobligated out of the $1 trillion 
bill passed last year which, as we all know, to date has not created 
the jobs promised. In fact, since the bill passed last year, we have 
lost 2.7 million jobs in our economy.
  I think, frankly, one of the reasons for that is it was misdirected 
in the first place. We should have been focused on job No. 1, and that 
is helping those job creators in our economy, which are small 
businesses.
  I want to point out that the National Federation of Independent 
Business, which is the largest trade organization representing small 
businesses in this country, at least the largest small business 
advocacy organization, has written a letter in support of my amendment. 
I want to read one paragraph from that letter. It says:

       The Thune amendment is a necessary step in helping to 
     provide more certainty to small businesses about their future 
     tax liability, whether to make long term capital 
     expenditures, and hire more workers. We hope this amendment 
     will provide momentum to clear other obstacles in the path to 
     job creation.

  I guess what I would say by way of closing is that although there is 
a great debate here about how best to create jobs, I think we can all 
agree a lot of the $1 trillion stimulus bill that passed last year has 
not been spent. The argument that it would be timely, targeted, and 
temporary, I think all of those criteria have not been met. More 
important, the ultimate metric by which I think we judge whether it has 
been a success or not has not been met either, and that is job 
creation.
  Look at the economy today. Unemployment stands at 9.7 percent. The 
commitment made when the bill was passed a year ago was that if we pass 
this stimulus bill, we will hold unemployment below 8 percent. We know 
it is well past that.
  If you look again at the job numbers and the number of people in this 
country still looking for work, still struggling, still struggling with 
the loss of income, the best thing we can do is get them back to work, 
and the best way to do that is not to create jobs in Washington, DC, or 
invest in government programs; it is, frankly, to get the small 
businesses in our economy, the creators of jobs, the engine that drives 
this economy forward, liberated in a way, providing certainty with 
regard to tax policy so they know that in 2011, when their tax rates go 
up--at least those who pass their income through their individual tax 
return--they are going to have some relief, allowing some relief with 
regard to capital gains taxes by exempting small business investment, 
allowing for bonus depreciation so they can write off business 
purchases, and increasing section 179 expensing, that deduction that 
currently exists in the Tax Code making that permanent.
  Those are all steps, small steps, but at least important steps, in my 
view, that will move this economy forward and do what I think many of 
us want to see done; that is, create the conditions and the economic 
climate where jobs can be created where we get people back to work.
  We are going to have a vote on this amendment this afternoon. Again, 
my colleagues who were debating an underlying bill that has tax 
extenders, COBRA extension, unemployment benefits extension--all of 
those sorts of things, all of which I understand are important, 
particularly right now when we have a lot of people who are out of 
work. But, again, the best remedy we can offer to the American people 
is to create jobs and get people back to work. That will make it less 
necessary for us to act on the legislation we have to act on today that 
addresses all the economic dislocation and hurt the American people are 
experiencing as a result of this economy.
  A year ago when this stimulus bill passed, less than 1 percent of the 
money was directed toward small businesses. We can fix that today with 
this amendment by directing these tax incentives, using unspent, 
unobligated stimulus money to do it. It is all paid for. It is all 
offset. It does not pass debt to future generations. It does not add to 
the deficit. It is all paid for. It puts the money where it should have 
been

[[Page S989]]

put in the first place and directs it in a way that will be adding to 
job creation in this country.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it will be 
voted on in a couple of hours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I will offer an amendment to the pending 
legislation, amendment No. 3342. It is my intention to call up that 
amendment after the votes on the pending amendments this afternoon, but 
I would like to take a few minutes to explain to my colleagues the 
nature of this amendment and why I believe it is important.
  This amendment basically says if you are an executive at one of the 
companies that received more than $5 billion in the TARP bailout, the 
financial bailout that occurred when we began our economic crisis, and 
if you receive in addition to your compensation a bonus in excess of 
$400,000, then that amount above $400,000--which is the approximate 
compensation of our President--will be taxed at 50 percent, and the 
amount it is taxed will be returned to the American taxpayers for 
deficit reduction.
  It is a very simple amendment. It is a one-time amendment based on a 
unique situation in this country when the American taxpayers had to 
bail out our major companies in order to stabilize our economy.
  This is not class warfare. It is not a continuing windfall profits 
tax. But I believe it is very proper for us to institute this on a one-
time basis. Estimates we have had, when I offered this amendment as 
independent legislation a short while ago, along with Senator Boxer, 
were that you could recoup in the neighborhood of $10 billion back into 
our economy by this very fair tax assessment.
  I want to go back to two opinion pieces that have been written over 
the last couple of years from people with great standing in the 
financial community and great philosophical differences. Then I want to 
remind my colleagues the process we had to enter into when the TARP 
legislation was first voted on.

  On July 14, 2008, Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, 
wrote a piece in the New York Times. I came to the floor at that time 
and quoted from his piece. He was talking about the beginning of what 
became our crisis, and he made the point:

       It's the belief of investors--

  He was talking at this point about the situation with Fannie and 
Freddie, to quote from his article.

       It's the belief of investors if they fail, the federal 
     government will come to their rescue.

  Then he wrote:

       The implicit guarantee means that profits are privatized 
     while losses are socialized.

  What he meant by that and what we actually have seen play out as our 
economy, thankfully, has begun to recover is, with the situation we 
entered into with TARP, risk was socialized. That means the average 
worker in this country--the person out there driving a truck, the nurse 
working in a hospital, the people doing the day-to-day work--had to put 
their tax dollars in to stabilize these banking systems, but the reward 
from the stabilization has become personalized to the executives who 
were running these companies, who then have benefited through these 
large bonus systems once our economy began to stabilize.
  It is my strong belief, as someone who is a supporter of people who 
are willing to take risks and create the right kind of environment for 
growth in our economy, that they should be happy once they have reached 
a point where they have been compensated and they have had a $400,000 
bonus. They should be happy to take the money beyond that $400,000 
bonus and divide it up with the average worker out here who may not 
even own stock who had to put their tax dollars in to stabilize the 
economy.
  The second article I would like to quote from is from the Financial 
Times which, as all of my colleagues will recognize, is one of the most 
conservative newspapers in the world when it comes to capitalist 
enterprise, risk taking, rewarding the people who get out and lead in 
our business sector.
  Martin Wolf wrote an editorial on November 19, 2009, not that long 
ago. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire 
article after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, Martin Wolf said this:

       Windfall taxes are a ghastly idea. . . . No sensible person 
     should support them. So why do I now find the idea of a 
     windfall tax on banks so appealing? Well, this time, it 
     really does look different.

  Mr. Wolf goes on to point out:

       Ordinary people can accept that risk takers receive huge 
     rewards. But such rewards for those who have been rescued by 
     the state and bear substantial responsibility for the crisis 
     are surely intolerable. . . . The public finances will be 
     devastated for decades: taxes will be higher and public 
     spending lower. Meanwhile, bankers are about to reap huge 
     rewards. This damages the legitimacy of the market economy.

  Mr. Wolf went on to support the very concept I am putting on the 
table today; that is, a one-time windfall profits tax on moneys that 
were earned in 2009 when this American taxpayer rescue of our financial 
system occurred, when earnings that occurred through work in 2009, 
which are paid in 2010--this is not a retroactive tax; one shot, 
balance the playing field and reward the people who stepped forward to 
help save our economy.
  Sometimes it is hard for us to remember the circumstances that took 
place when we were asked to vote for TARP back in September of 2008 
because so much has happened to our economy and to the debate in this 
country since then. But we should remember that in September of 2008, 
Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke put us all on a conference 
call. They told us if we did not put $700 billion of taxpayer money 
into a program to assist our major Federal financial institutions that 
the world as we knew it economically was going to fall into cataclysm. 
We voted in support of this $700 billion--I voted for it--in order to 
help these financial institutions solve the problems, undo their 
systems of bad assets--which had taken place, quite frankly, through a 
lot of bad judgment in their leadership--free up our economic system 
and get credit going again. And we did it with the explicit 
understanding that it was the American taxpayers who were putting the 
money in and who, when the system righted itself, would get their money 
back. So this one-shot deal is designed to help do that.

  It is fair to all parties. It allows the executives in these 13 
companies that received more than $5 billion each of taxpayer money to 
still reward their executives and at the same time share these profits, 
or these benefits that go beyond a $400,000 bonus, with the people who 
basically pulled their fat out of the fire.
  I hope we can get a vote on this amendment. I trust my colleagues 
will understand the care with which it was designed and the equity we 
are trying to deal with.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Financial Times, Nov. 19, 2009]

                    Tax the Windfall Banking Bonuses

                            (By Martin Wolf)

       Windfall taxes are a ghastly idea. They are a sop to 
     prejudice, a burden on risk-taking and a form of arbitrary 
     confiscation. No sensible person should support them. So why 
     do I now find the idea of a windfall tax on banks so 
     appealing? Well, this time, it really does look different.
       First, all the institutions making exceptional profits do 
     so because they are beneficiaries of unlimited state 
     insurance for themselves and their counterparties. As Andrew 
     Haldane of the Bank of England argues, the state has ``become 
     the last resort financier of the banks''. In the UK, total 
     support amounted to a staggering 74 per cent of gross 
     domestic product. These must be the largest business 
     subsidies ever.
       Second, the profits being made today are in large part the 
     fruit of the free money provided by the central bank, an arm 
     of the state. The state is giving the surviving banks a 
     licence to print money.
       Third, the case for generous subventions is to restore the 
     financial system--and so the economy--to health. It is not to 
     enrich bankers, particularly not those engaged in the sorts 
     of trading activities that destroyed the financial system in 
     the first place.
       Fourth, ordinary people can accept that risk takers receive 
     huge rewards. But such rewards for those who have been 
     rescued by the state and bear substantial responsibility for 
     the crisis are surely intolerable. What makes them yet more 
     so is that the crisis has devastated the prospects of tens, 
     if not hundreds, of millions of innocents all over

[[Page S990]]

     the globe. The public finances will be devastated for 
     decades: taxes will be higher and public spending lower. 
     Meanwhile, bankers are about to reap huge rewards. This 
     damages the legitimacy of the market economy.
       Fifth, it is hard to argue in favour of exceptional 
     interventions to bail out the financial sector at times of 
     crisis, and also against exceptional interventions to recoup 
     costs when the crisis is past. ``Windfall'' support should be 
     matched by windfall taxes.
       Finally, these are genuine windfalls. They are, as George 
     Soros has said, ``hidden gifts'' from the state. What the 
     state gives, the state is entitled to take back, if it is not 
     used for the state's purposes.
       So the question, in my mind, is not whether a windfall tax 
     can be justified but whether it can be designed successfully. 
     All taxes have unintended consequences. One must be 
     particularly careful with this one.
       Since the aim of policy is to recapitalise the banks, the 
     tax should not reduce their ability to do so. It would be far 
     better then to impose a tax on contributions made to the 
     bonus pool. There is no public interest in such payments. 
     Since it would be a one-off event, it should not affect 
     incentives (unless banks plan to create systemic crises every 
     few years). If the tax applied to all banks operating within 
     a given jurisdiction, it would not affect competitiveness 
     among them. The case seems strong--even more so if the tax 
     could be implemented across major jurisdictions, 
     simultaneously.
       Yet windfall taxes cannot contain financial excess, 
     precisely because their goal is not to affect incentives. So 
     what is to be done?
       As Mr. Haldane notes, we have seen ``a progressive rise in 
     banking risk and an accompanying widening and deepening of 
     the state safety net''. As the liabilities of the banks have 
     become ever more socialised and so equity cushions have 
     become increasingly redundant, the incentive for both limited 
     liability shareholders and employees to game the taxpayer has 
     risen greatly. It is rational for banks to choose risky 
     strategies because they take the upside and taxpayers much of 
     the downside.
       Over the past half century, UK bank capital has remained at 
     between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of assets, these assets 
     have risen tenfold, relative to GDP, and returns on equity 
     have averaged 20 per cent. Such high returns, in an 
     established industry, must mean either high barriers to entry 
     or excessive risk-taking. The former are undesirable and the 
     latter terrifying, particularly in view of the huge rise in 
     the state's exposure to the risks.
       We will never have a better opportunity than now to redress 
     the deteriorating terms of trade between the banks and the 
     state. A big part of the solution must be to shift 
     incentives. The more credible are the pre-announced limits on 
     support from government, the more effective will be the 
     changes in incentives inside banks, and vice versa. The less 
     we are able to shift these incentives, the more important it 
     will be to impose heavy regulation. The combination of 
     today's incentives with today's safety nets and yesterday's 
     ``light touch'' regulation was devastating.
       Yet, regardless of the success of reforms of incentives 
     in--and regulation of--the financial sector, it is reasonable 
     to recoup not only the direct fiscal costs of saving banks 
     but even some of the wider fiscal costs of the crisis. The 
     time has come for some carefully judged populism. A one-off 
     windfall tax on bonuses would make the pain ahead for society 
     so very much more bearable. Try it: millions will love it.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Webb for offering 
this amendment, which is the same text as our bill that we introduced 
about a month ago. I think Senator Webb has made an excellent case for 
this very important amendment which will reduce the deficit. It is an 
amendment that I believe reflects fairness and justice and the American 
way.
  In 2008 and 2009, the financial sector, as well as the automobile 
industry, received generous and unprecedented aid from taxpayers. It 
was done in order to stave off another Great Depression. It was a tough 
vote to make, and we did it because we believed we were on the brink of 
another Great Depression and, frankly, a financial collapse. If we 
remember back to those days, credit was frozen, businesses couldn't 
borrow, and we were hearing predictions that this could be the end of 
capitalism. We heard that from Republicans and Democrats alike. So what 
we did has worked. We have avoided a Great Depression. The economy is 
growing, although we are very worried about the slow pace of job 
creation, which is why we are working so hard to continue to create new 
jobs.
  But if we take a look at the financial institutions which received 
this huge bailout, what we see is they showed a resounding economic 
recovery in 2009. Thanks to taxpayer assistance, many of these 
companies are posting record profits. So you have these companies 
posting record profits, that benefited when times were bad with 
taxpayer help, and now they are paying out multimillion dollar bonuses 
to their top executives.
  The United States pays its President--our highest paid Federal 
official--$400,000. These company leaders are earning millions of 
dollars, and then, on top of that, bonuses. So what Senator Webb and I 
are saying is this: If you have received a bonus of $400,000 or more 
from one of the top recipients of the taxpayer bailout, you should pay 
a special one-time fee--50 percent of that bonus, which is on top of 
your salary. Fifty percent of the bonus of $400,000 or more should go 
back to the taxpayers and reduce our deficit.
  It is hard for me to imagine how these financial companies, which 
were bailed out by taxpayers, could have such a deaf ear to the plight 
of America's workers and why they would embark upon these enormous 
bonuses, especially since they are not lending the monies that we think 
they ought to lend to businesses. They are actually cutting back on 
lending to qualified businesses--I think it is an 18-percent reduction 
in loans to businesses--yet they are paying out these enormous bonuses. 
So what Senator Webb and I are saying is we want a one-time, 50-percent 
fee paid on the bonus that exceeds $400,000. This fee would only affect 
those recipients at the largest and most major companies who received 
this bailout.
  I want to reiterate this. The fee is paid on the bonuses that exceed 
$400,000. We don't touch the bonuses $400,000 or less. We are making a 
point. And even though we have been fair, it will return to the 
Treasury about $10 billion, is our estimate, over time.
  It is only fair that these institutions, which were so greatly 
assisted in 2009, should help our Nation with our fiscal problems. We 
inherited those problems from this economic collapse. We know that when 
President Bush handed the keys over to President Obama there already 
was a huge deficit in place, but President Obama had to act. We had to 
pass an economic recovery act. We had to make sure credit was flowing. 
So it added still more to the debt, and it seems to me only fair that 
people who are at those institutions that were bailed out--which only 
exist because of the generosity of taxpayers, because we knew if they 
failed there would be big trouble--if their bonuses are over $400,000 
they ought to pay this special one-time fee back to taxpayers.
  Reducing the deficit is important and fairness is important. I want 
to thank my colleague from Virginia for working with me on this 
legislation, and I urge the Senate, in a bipartisan way, to join us in 
supporting this commonsense measure. We hear a lot of talk around here 
about the deficit, the deficit, the deficit. That is a very important 
priority for us--to reduce this deficit. Here is a way to do it that is 
totally fair and just. People who work at the institutions that got the 
biggest bailouts from Uncle Sam to save them, and those people who are 
now getting these enormous bonuses, ought to make a contribution to 
deficit reduction. We need it, we think it is right, and we hope there 
will be a big bipartisan vote in favor of the Webb-Boxer amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3338

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment submitted by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  This amendment cloaks itself in the guise of fiscal responsibility, 
but nothing could be further from the truth. The amendment would 
rescind funding from the American Recovery Act--the so-called stimulus 
bill--to pay for the cost of program increases for small businesses. We 
can all agree that we should do more to support small business, but it 
is nonsensical to rescind funding from the Recovery Act, which is also 
creating jobs. I understand all too well that some on the other side of 
the aisle have argued that the stimulus bill was a mistake, but the 
facts are proving just the opposite.
  Last week, the Congressional Budget Office--the CBO--released a 
report on the impact of those stimulus funds which have already been 
spent. The Congressional Budget Office report notes the extremely 
beneficial impact from this act. The report states that the stimulus 
funds are responsible for

[[Page S991]]

an increase of somewhere between 1.5 and 3 percent in the gross 
domestic product during the last quarter of 2009, and with an estimated 
increase in this first quarter of up to 3.9 percent. Moreover, the CBO 
states that the stimulus bill accounted for an increase of at least 1 
million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2009, and possibly as many as 2.9 
million jobs. This is something to ponder.
  The one thing the American people all agree upon is that we need to 
be doing more to create jobs. The American Recovery Act is doing just 
that. CBO estimates that the level of jobs created through 2010 from 
stimulus funds could be as high as 3.4 million jobs. That would mean a 
decline in unemployment of 1.8 percent in this country. No other action 
by this Congress has provided this kind of positive impact on the job 
market. So what possible logic is there in rescinding funds from this 
act which is providing so many benefits to the American people? Why 
would we support an amendment to cut funding from the act which is 
clearly helping to reduce devastating job losses?
  No one can argue that the stimulus bill isn't working. The proof is 
at least a million jobs created last quarter. It has had an immensely 
favorable impact on our economy. I know some of those who oppose the 
bill don't want to hear it, but that is reality. The numbers from CBO 
tell the story.
  The Thune amendment fails to offer any guidance to which programs it 
would cut. That is a rather strange amendment. Clearly, it is more 
politically expedient to simply cite a dollar figure to cut rather than 
identifying which specific programs the amendment would impact. The 
Thune amendment offers no direction as to which recovery programs it 
would shut down. The result could be cuts to the highway funding, new 
energy technology or reversing efforts to make government buildings and 
low-income housing more energy efficient.
  Moreover, this amendment doesn't even allow the Congress to determine 
how the funds should be reduced. Instead, it directs the Office of 
Management and Budget--OMB--to determine where to reduce funding. I 
cannot believe the authors of this amendment want the Senate to give up 
the power of the purse to the bureaucrats at OMB to determine where we 
should spend our taxpayers' funds, but this is what this amendment 
would do.
  For many reasons, this is a bad amendment. It is exactly what the 
country does not need at this time. We all know that the No. 1 malady 
facing the country today is unemployment. We now have proof from the 
Congressional Budget Office that the stimulus bill was the exact right 
medicine to treat this illness. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment and allow our stimulus funds to work as planned: making wise 
investments in America and putting our people back to work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we all know, yesterday the President 
issued a letter that said he was agreeing on ``four policy priorities 
identified by Republican Members at the meeting'' that we had. And he 
said, ``I am exploring. I said throughout this process,'' I quote from 
the President's letter, ``that I'd continue to draw on the best ideas 
from both parties, and I'm open to these proposals in that spirit.''
  So he mentioned several of them. In it, he talks about the four areas 
he would be considering: One by Senator Coburn, a proposal; another one 
that a number of people had discussed concerning demonstration projects 
through Health and Human Services for resolving medical malpractice 
disputes; one on Medicaid reimbursements; and then expanded health 
savings accounts.
  He said: ``That's why my proposal does not include the Medicare 
Advantage provision, mentioned by Senator McCain at the meeting, which 
provided transitional extra benefits for Florida and other States. My 
proposal eliminates those payments, gradually reducing Medicare 
Advantage payments across the country relative to fee-for-service 
Medicare,'' et cetera.
  Then he says, ``In addition, my proposal eliminates the Florida FMAP 
provision, replacing it with additional federal financing'' in all 
States.
  Of course, this raises, I think, first of all, the legitimate 
question: How did this stuff get in there to start with? How did it 
take weeks of examining a 2,400-page bill? What about the other 
sweetheart deals that were included behind closed doors in this 2,400-
page legislation? What about the deal for Vermont, a 2.2-percent 
Medicaid bonus for 6 years for their Medicaid Program? What about the 
Massachusetts deal, a .5-percent Medicaid bonus for 3 years? Hawaii? It 
adds money for Hawaii hospitals. Hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut 
have the option to benefit from higher payments; Connecticut, $100 
million for a university hospital. The Senate beneficiary of this 
provision was not originally known. Montana, South Dakota, North 
Dakota, Wyoming had increased Medicare payments for those States.
  What is unique about those States? Libby, MT, Medicare coverage for 
individuals exposed to environmental health hazards, asbestos mining. 
That may be a worthy cause, but shouldn't it be the subject of an 
authorization and debate and appropriations?
  Then, of course, we had the special deals that were cut with the 
special interests, not just PhRMA. The White House negotiators--the 
White House negotiators not congressional negotiators--extracted an $80 
billion deal to gain more offsets from the drug industry, and their $2-
million-a-year lobbyists confirmed the deal in news reports. In 
exchange for PhRMA supporting the Democratic Senate bill, PhRMA spent 
$150 million in advertising support. And to further lock in the deal, 
the White House and Senate Democrats agreed to oppose drug 
reimportation and a shorter pathway for generic biologics.
  To sum all this up, there is no better description of it than what is 
by the majority leader of the Senate, who, on Christmas Eve, when these 
deals became known as we examined the 2,400 pages, Senator Reid, the 
majority leader, said--this, I think, encapsules, summarizes the entire 
process they went through:

       A number of States are treated differently from other 
     States. That's what legislation is all about. That's 
     compromise.

  I want to repeat that. I want to repeat that quote from Senator Reid.

       A number of States are treated differently from other 
     States. That's what legislation is all about. That's 
     compromise.

  That is not compromise. That is not the word. ``Compromise'' is an 
agreement between two parties on both sides of the aisle who reach an 
agreement. This is backroom wheeler dealing, special interest 
influence, and vote buying. That is what this was. Why would a State be 
treated differently from another State? Why would we have disparate 
impact on different States?
  One of the reasons I have focused a lot of my attention on the 
800,000-person carve-out in the State of Florida, as the President has 
said that would be changed, is because there are 330,000 Medicare 
Advantage enrollees in my State. Why should it ever happen that the 
residents of one State who are in the same program, the exact same 
Federal program, have different advantages over another State?
  I am pleased the President's letter concerning the issue of the 
800,000 people in Florida who will receive different coverage, that 
that would be fixed. But I also point out, as I just chronicled, that 
is one of many proposals, many sweetheart deals, many backroom deals. 
It has to be put in the context of the fact that the President of the 
United States promised the American people that we would change the 
climate in Washington. Eight times the President of the United States 
said all of these negotiations on health care reform will take place 
with C-SPAN cameras in the room.
  My understanding of the process now is that there is going to be a 
vote in the House on the Senate bill and then there will be a 
reconciliation of 51 votes, which, of course, is offensive to the 
American people. But I assume, then, the Senate bill as passed will 
have all of these provisions in it that are these secret, backroom, 
unsavory deals that were made.
  So let me just say it is disappointing, the contrast of the 
President's statement, when we have learned that last week's health 
care summit was not really a true effort. In other words, the summit at 
the Blair House did not reflect what the overwhelming majority

[[Page S992]]

of the American people are demanding; that is, we start over and we 
stop what has been done.
  One of the reasons they want it stopped is because they have become 
aware of these special deals for special interests and vote purchasing. 
That is what they have become aware of. So that is one of the major 
reasons they want us to start over.
  At the townhall meetings I have, people are as upset about the 
process we went through as they are the actual legislative outcome, 
although they are very unhappy about that.
  Let me just say I know a bit about working in a bipartisan fashion. I 
know people want us to get things done together. I know the approval 
ratings of Congress are extremely low, and there is a great disconnect 
between the people of this country and what we are doing in Washington, 
and they want us to work together, adhering to principle and addressing 
the enormous challenges that face them. But that means starting over.
  We did identify areas on which we could agree. We did identify the 
fact that there are some areas. But unless we start over, then how in 
the world can we put lipstick on a pig? It is still a pig. It is still 
a bad and unsavory process that we went through in order to reach the 
legislative package we have now.
  What we really need to do is start over and then we can get rid of 
all of these. We can get rid of the ``Louisiana purchase,'' and Vermont 
and Massachusetts and Hawaii and Michigan, Connecticut--Connecticut 
twice, one $100 million for a hospital and then higher payments--
Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming. We can get rid of all of 
these if we start over.
  I point out, finally, because we are going to be talking a lot about 
this--and I know other colleagues of mine are waiting to speak--I just 
point out again this whole issue of reconciliation. A lot of Americans 
had never heard that word before, certainly not in this context before 
this came up. But the word ``reconciliation'' means we would reconcile 
differences on small issues between the two bodies. It was the product 
of Senator Robert Byrd, who has said unequivocally that health care--
that Medicare and health care should not be included in this process. 
It was Senator Robert Byrd who specifically exempted Social Security 
from being a part of reconciliation. He said, and I quote from Senator 
Robert Byrd:

       I was one of the authors of the legislation that created 
     the budget reconciliation process in 1974 and I am certain 
     that putting health care reform and climate change 
     legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage 
     that must be resisted.

  That was the author. Of course, all during the time when the other 
side of the aisle was in the minority they complained bitterly, and I 
think with some justification, that reconciliation was used as a means 
of getting legislation through this body, bypassing the 60-vote 
requirement.
  I would like to point out--and it may be a bit self-serving, but I 
would like to point out that when the so-called nuclear option was up, 
we would move to a process that only 51 votes would be required in 
order to confirm judges in this body, I and 13 others joined in a 
bipartisan fashion, and we said no. We will have circumstances that 
will attend our votes on confirmation and, for the good of the body, we 
preserved the 60-vote majority rule that has been the custom in this 
institution of the Senate in modern times.
  The American people are watching very carefully what we are doing. 
There may be some belief that a lot of Americans are not appreciating 
what apparently is the plan, and that is to move serious legislation 
through the Senate with a 51-vote majority, legislation that would 
affect one-sixth of our gross national product.
  I urge my colleagues, as I did when we were considering the ``nuclear 
option on judges,'' that this nuclear option also be rejected and go 
back to the 60 votes and maintain the 60-vote majority requirement that 
basically governs our proceedings in the Senate.
  Let's start over. Let's listen to Warren Buffett, a strong supporter 
of the President of the United States. He noted that this legislation 
includes nonsense, backroom deals for special interests.
  He said:

       Democrats should cut off all the kinds of things like the 
     800,000 special people in Florida or the Corn Husker 
     kickback, as they called it, or the Louisiana Purchase, and 
     we are going to get rid of the nonsense. We are just going to 
     focus on costs and we are not going to dream up 2,000 pages 
     of other things.

  I hope we will heed the words of Warren Buffet, which basically is 
that he and the American people want us to start over. They certainly 
do not want to have legislation enacted by a bare majority. Again, I 
would remind my colleagues of history. Every major reform that has been 
enacted by this body, whether it be the Civil Rights Act, whether it be 
Medicare, whether it be other major reform, it has always been done 
with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  It is not too late. Let's go back to the beginning. Let's start over. 
We have identified areas we can work together on and certainly reject 
this idea of 51 votes governing the way this body functions. I think it 
poses great danger to the future of this institution that all of us who 
have the privilege of serving here love as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                    Amendment No. 3353, as Modified

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
which is pending, No. 3353, be modified with the changes that are at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN ECONOMIC 
                   RECOVERY PAYMENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 2010''.
       (b) Extension and Modification of Payments.--Section 2201 
     of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A)--
       (A) by inserting ``for each of calendar years 2009 and 
     2010'' after ``shall disburse'',
       (B) by inserting ``(for purposes of payments made for 
     calendar year 2009), or the 3-month period ending with the 
     month which ends prior to the month that includes the date of 
     the enactment of the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 
     2010 (for purposes of payments made for calendar year 2010)'' 
     after ``the date of the enactment of this Act'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In 
     the case of an individual who is eligible for a payment under 
     the preceding sentence by reason of entitlement to a benefit 
     described in subparagraph (B)(i), no such payment shall be 
     made to such individual for calendar year 2010 unless such 
     individual was paid a benefit described in such subparagraph 
     (B)(i) for any month in the 12-month period ending with the 
     month which ends prior to the month that includes the date of 
     the enactment of the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 
     2010.'',
       (2) in subsection (a)(1)(B)(iii), by inserting ``(for 
     purposes of payments made under this paragraph for calendar 
     year 2009), or the 3-month period ending with the month which 
     ends prior to the month that includes the date of the 
     enactment of the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 2010 
     (for purposes of payments made under this paragraph for 
     calendar year 2010)'' before the period at the end,
       (3) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by inserting ``, or who are utilizing a foreign or 
     domestic Army Post Office, Fleet Post Office, or Diplomatic 
     Post Office address'' after ``Northern Mariana Islands'', and
       (B) by striking ``current address of record'' and inserting 
     ``address of record, as of the date of certification under 
     subsection (b) for a payment under this section'',
       (4) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (A) by inserting ``per calendar year (determined with 
     respect to the calendar year for which the payment is made, 
     and without regard to the date such payment is actually paid 
     to such individual)'' after ``only 1 payment under this 
     section'', and
       (B) by inserting ``for the same year'' after ``payments'' 
     in the heading thereof,
       (5) in subsection (a)(4)--
       (A) by inserting ``(or, in the case of subparagraph (D), 
     shall not be due)'' after ``made'' in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A),
       (B) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) in the case of an individual entitled to a benefit 
     specified in paragraph (1)(B)(i) or paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii)(VIII) if--
       ``(i) for the most recent month of such individual's 
     entitlement in the applicable 3-month period described in 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) for any month thereafter which is before the month 
     after the month of the payment;

     such individual's benefit under such paragraph was not 
     payable by reason of subsection (x) or (y) of section 202 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) or section 1129A of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8a);'',

[[Page S993]]

       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``3 month period'' and 
     inserting ``applicable 3-month period'',
       (D) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) in the case of an individual entitled to a benefit 
     specified in paragraph (1)(C) if--
       ``(i) for the most recent month of such individual's 
     eligibility in the applicable 3-month period described in 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) for any month thereafter which is before the month 
     after the month of the payment;

     such individual's benefit under such paragraph was not 
     payable by reason of subsection (e)(1)(A) or (e)(4) of 
     section 1611 (42 U.S.C. 1382) or section 1129A of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8a); or'',
       (E) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(D) in the case of any individual whose date of death 
     occurs--
       ``(i) before the date of the receipt of the payment; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a direct deposit, before the date on 
     which such payment is deposited into such individual's 
     account.'',
       (F) by adding at the end the following flush sentence:

     ``In the case of any individual whose date of death occurs 
     before a payment is negotiated (in the case of a check) or 
     deposited (in the case of a direct deposit), such payment 
     shall not be due and shall not be reissued to the estate of 
     such individual or to any other person.'', and
       (G) by adding at the end, as amended by subparagraph (F), 
     the following new sentence: ``Subparagraphs (A)(ii) and 
     (C)(ii) shall apply only in the case of certifications under 
     subsection (b) which are, or but for this paragraph would be, 
     made after the date of the enactment of Emergency Senior 
     Citizens Relief Act of 2010, and shall apply to such 
     certifications without regard to the calendar year of the 
     payments to which such certifications apply.''.
       (6) in subsection (a)(5)--
       (A) by inserting ``, in the case of payments for calendar 
     year 2009, and no later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 
     2010, in the case of payments for calendar year 2010'' before 
     the period at the end of the first sentence of subparagraph 
     (A), and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Deadline.--No payment for calendar year 2009 shall be 
     disbursed under this section after December 31, 2010, and no 
     payment for calendar year 2010 shall be disbursed under this 
     section after December 31, 2011, regardless of any 
     determinations of entitlement to, or eligibility for, such 
     payment made after whichever of such dates is applicable to 
     such payment.'',
       (7) in subsection (b), by inserting ``(except that such 
     certification shall be affected by a determination that an 
     individual is an individual described in subparagraph (A), 
     (B), (C), or (D) of subsection (a)(4) during a period 
     described in such subparagraphs), and no individual shall be 
     certified to receive a payment under this section for a 
     calendar year if such individual has at any time been denied 
     certification for such a payment for such calendar year by 
     reason of subparagraph (A)(ii) or (C)(ii) of subsection 
     (a)(4) (unless such individual is subsequently determined not 
     to have been an individual described in either such 
     subparagraph at the time of such denial)'' before the period 
     at the end of the last sentence,
       (8) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4) Payments subject to offset and reclamation.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (3), any payment made under this 
     section--
       ``(A) shall, in the case of a payment by direct deposit 
     which is made after the date of the enactment of the 
     Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 2010, be subject to 
     the reclamation provisions under subpart B of part 210 of 
     title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to 
     reclamation of benefit payments); and
       ``(B) shall not, for purposes of section 3716 of title 31, 
     United States Code, be considered a benefit payment or cash 
     benefit made under the applicable program described in 
     subparagraph (B) or (C) of subsection (a)(1), and all amounts 
     paid shall be subject to offset under such section 3716 to 
     collect delinquent debts.'',
       (9) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2012'',
       (B) by inserting ``section ___(c) of the Emergency Senior 
     Citizens Relief Act of 2010,'' after ``section 2202,'' in 
     paragraph (1), and
       (C) by adding at the following new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) For the Secretary of the Treasury, an additional 
     $5,200,000 for purposes described in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) For the Commissioner of Social Security, an 
     additional $5,000,000 for the purposes described in paragraph 
     (2)(B).
       ``(C) For the Railroad Retirement Board, an additional 
     $600,000 for the purposes described in paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(D) For the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, an additional 
     $625,000 for the Information Systems Technology account''.
       (c) Extension of Special Credit for Certain Government 
     Retirees.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of an eligible individual (as 
     defined in section 2202(b) of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009, applied by substituting 
     ``2010'' for ``2009''), with respect to the first taxable 
     year of such individual beginning in 2010, section 2202 of 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 shall 
     be applied by substituting ``2010'' for ``2009'' each place 
     it appears.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 36A of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``, 
     and any credit allowed to the taxpayer under section 
     ___(c)(1) of the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 
     2010'' after ``the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act 
     of 2009''.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Application of rule relating to deceased individuals.--
     The amendment made by subsection (a)(5)(F) shall take effect 
     as if included in section 2201 of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009.
       (e) Emergency Designation.--This section is designated as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-139), and 
     designated as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet 
     emergency needs pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 
     (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2010.

  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Menendez of New 
Jersey be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, as senior citizens and disabled 
veterans all over this country know, this is the first year since 
1975--36 years ago--that there will not be a Social Security cost-of-
living adjustment or COLA. In my view, the fact that people in need--
seniors, disabled veterans, people who have disabilities--will not be 
receiving a COLA this year is wrong and it is an issue we have to 
address and I hope we will address it successfully this afternoon, in 
terms of the amendment I will offer.
  The reality is, in recent years, senior citizens, veterans, and 
persons with disabilities have slipped out of the middle class and into 
poverty. That is a reality--out of the middle class and into poverty. 
The reality is, today prescription drug costs are soaring, medical care 
costs for seniors and disabled people are soaring, and heating oil has 
gone through the roof, especially relevant to those of us in cold-
weather States.
  At a time when millions of seniors have seen the value of their 
pensions, their homes, and their life savings plummet, we cannot turn 
our back on some of the most vulnerable people in this country. They 
are hurting and they need our emergency support and that is why I am 
offering, today, along with Senators Dodd, Leahy, Whitehouse, 
Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Begich, Stabenow, and Menendez, an amendment 
which will provide over 55 million seniors, veterans, and persons with 
disabilities $250--a one-time payment--in much needed emergency relief. 
This $250 emergency payment is equivalent to a 2-percent increase in 
benefits for the average Social Security retiree, and it is the same 
amount seniors received last year as part of the Recovery Act.
  Two percent is not a lot of money, but it will, in fact, provide much 
needed help to millions of people who are demanding we not turn our 
back on them. This amendment is supported by a wide array of seniors 
and veterans organizations representing tens of millions of Americans. 
Let me give some of the organizations that are supporting this 
amendment: the AARP, which is the largest senior group in America; the 
American Legion, the largest veterans group in America; the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars; the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare; the American Federation of Teachers Program on Retirement and 
Retirees; the Disabled American Veterans; the Alliance for Retired 
Americans; Easter Seals; the Military Officers Association; the Vietnam 
Veterans of America; the National Council on Aging; AMVETS; and many 
other organizations.

[[Page S994]]

  One of the side benefits of this amendment is that funds directed to 
this population will go almost immediately into the economy. These are 
folks who will spend that money, providing the quickest possible 
stimulus to local economies and thus creating jobs in every community 
in our country. President Obama is strongly supportive of this $250 in 
emergency relief to seniors. The President has included it in his 
budget, and he has also recommended it be included in the underlying 
legislation we are debating today.
  Here is what the President has said about this issue:

       Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on 
     behalf of those hardest hit by this recession. That is why I 
     am announcing my support for an additional $250 in emergency 
     recovery assistance to seniors, veterans, and people with 
     disabilities to help them make it through these difficult 
     times.

  I very much appreciate the President's support for what we are trying 
to do here today.
  In Vermont and all across this country, ordinary people believe the 
Congress is way out of touch with the realities of their lives. They 
believe that we just do not get it, that we do not understand that all 
over this country millions of people are hurting and that sometimes 
they are hurting desperately, that people are frantically trying to 
keep bread on their tables. People are trying to make sure they and 
their families can live with dignity, and they wonder if we in Congress 
get it. They know we are there for Wall Street. They know that. They 
know we are there to take care of big banks and insurance companies and 
drug companies, but they are not quite sure we are there to take care 
of vulnerable people who are elderly and who are disabled veterans.
  Let me read some quotes from organizations and individuals on this 
issue. This is what the VFW has to say in support of this legislation:

       This year veterans and seniors will not receive COLA. This 
     could not come at a worse time. Your legislation would 
     provide a one-time check of $250 to 1.4 million veterans, 
     48.9 million Social Security recipients, and 5.1 million SSI 
     recipients. We believe that this will provide some relief to 
     those veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes. . . .

  We thank the VFW very much for their support.
  Let me quote very briefly from the National Committee to Preserve 
Social Security and Medicare:

       The National Committee strongly urges you to pass 
     legislation to provide a $250 payment to our Nation's seniors 
     who did not receive a COLA this year. It is vitally important 
     that we provide help for seniors of modest means who have 
     been adversely affected by the economic recession and rapidly 
     rising health care costs.

  Here is a quote from AARP, a group that represents over 40 million 
Americans age 55 and older, in support of this amendment. This is what 
they say:

       For over three decades, millions of Americans have counted 
     on annual increases to help make ends meet. In this economy, 
     having this protection is even more critical for the 
     financial security of all older Americans. AARP applauds the 
     President for urging Congress to extend for 2010 the $250 
     economic relief provided to older Americans last year.

  Let me quote again from another statement by AARP which I think makes 
this case very cogently. I think they nail it, and they tell us why it 
is absolutely imperative that we pass this legislation.

       Last year, the Social Security Administration announced 
     that for the first time since it began in 1975, seniors will 
     not receive an automatic cost of living adjustment for 2010. 
     Although the lack of a COLA was triggered by low overall 
     inflation--

  And here is the point--

     the costs of the things seniors depend on most--prescription 
     drugs and health care--have continued to increase above 
     inflation. Seniors spend an average of 30 percent of their 
     income on health care costs, 6 times greater than what those 
     with employer-sponsored health care coverage spend, and these 
     prescription drug costs, premiums, and copays have 
     skyrocketed.

  I think that is the main point to be made today. That is why we 
should support this one-time payment.
  AARP, of course, is a large national organization.
  Let me give some quotes from letters I have received from Vermont and 
from around the country.
  A gentleman from central Vermont writes:

       As you know, Social Security has not given a COLA increase 
     on benefits in 2010, based on the CPI. I did some research 
     and found these increases from January 2009 to January 2010.

  This is what he has calculated.

       Power rates are up by 7 percent; heating oil up by 15 
     percent; propane up by 24 percent; property taxes up 3.7 
     percent; gasoline up 16.6 percent; food up, conservatively 
     speaking, 3 percent.

  Here is where he said:

       The CPI was obviously done by statisticians on vacation in 
     Jamaica while sipping some tropical concoctions that impaired 
     their judgment. These things above add up to nearly $3,000. 
     To cover this, I would require a 12 percent increase in my 
     disability benefits.

  This is from central Vermont. I do not agree with the writer of this 
letter that the statisticians came to their conclusions by sipping 
tropical concoctions in Jamaica. I don't think that is the case. But I 
do believe he is correct in suggesting that the methodology by which 
COLAs for seniors are established is not right. Here is why. COLA 
increases are determined by a look at the purchasing practices of the 
entire population--all of us--and that is not fair to seniors today, 
whose purchasing needs are very different from the average person's. As 
the AARP pointed out, seniors spend a very disproportionate amount of 
their limited incomes on health care, prescription drugs, et cetera. 
Those costs have gone up. In other words, while costs may have gone 
down for younger people who may be purchasing laptop computers, IPODs, 
GPSs, flatscreen TVs, cell phones, and other products, they have not 
gone down for millions of seniors who are dependent and spend a whole 
lot on health care. By the way, that is why, when I was in the House, I 
offered legislation which received very strong bipartisan support to 
create a separate index for seniors in determining their COLAs. I do 
believe that is the direction we have to go.
  I have received many letters. Let me read one more.
  This comes from New Jersey. This is Claire from New Jersey:

       I am 82 years old. Having been widowed and bankrupt at age 
     37 to raise my 3 young children alone, I thought that with my 
     Social Security and my small pension plus by savings, I would 
     never have to depend on my children to care for me in my old 
     age. But now that my savings have been depleted by 30 percent 
     and my health care insurance is costing me $3,200 a year, I 
     am very worried if my savings will last me much longer.

  Elizabeth in Spur, TX, writes:

       Social Security is my main source of income. I have bills 
     that I couldn't pay if it wasn't for this income. I think 
     that it is a disgrace that the Government will bail out the 
     banks and car manufacturers but not sure if the elderly will 
     get a COLA. The elderly are the people that have kept this 
     country together for years and they are considering not 
     giving them a little raise? I wish that some Members of the 
     Congress and the Senate had to live on the income that we 
     have to and see how they can manage, like the saying goes, if 
     the shoe was on the other foot.

  Let me conclude by pointing out that there is bipartisan support for 
the concept we are talking about today, especially in the House of 
Representatives. In that body, in the House, Congressmen Walter Jones, 
Rodney Alexander, Phil Gingrey, and Roscoe Bartlett--all Republicans--
have introduced legislation which, frankly, goes further than the 
amendment I am offering. Instead of a one-time payment, they are 
proposing a 2.9-percent COLA for Social Security, which ends up, 
obviously, costing a lot more than a one-time payment of about 2 
percent.
  Here is what Congressman Alexander, a Republican from Louisiana, said 
about his legislation:

       Although the annual adjustment is a small increase, it is a 
     much-needed benefit for our Nation's seniors to help them 
     compensate for inflation and to sustain the skyrocketing 
     prices of health care and prescription drugs. It is evident 
     that the current Social Security system is not keeping up 
     with our seniors' basic needs. Congress must take action 
     today so that our Social Security beneficiaries are protected 
     tomorrow.

  That is from Congressman Alexander, a Republican from Louisiana. I 
agree with the Congressman, and I hope all of my colleagues, Democrats 
and Republicans, will agree that seniors need emergency relief and they 
need it now.
  Over 90 percent of the individuals who will receive this emergency 
relief make less than $75,000 and over 8 million who will receive help 
under this amendment make less than $14,000 a year.

[[Page S995]]

  That is where we are. Millions of people are wondering whether, in 
their times of need, when their costs are going up, when they are 
struggling to maintain their dignity--they are wondering whether a 
Congress that was there for Wall Street, a Congress which over a period 
of years has been there for the wealthiest people in this country, 
whether that same Congress will be there for disabled veterans and our 
seniors. I hope and believe we will be, and I ask for support for the 
amendment that will be voted on soon.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3352

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand we will have two amendments 
we will be voting on shortly; they will be the Thune amendment and the 
Grassley amendment. Let me say a few words about each--first, the 
Grassley amendment.
  The Grassley amendment essentially extends the formula under which 
doctors are paid, reimbursed for Medicare services, by 3 more months. 
The underlying bill, in the formula known as sustainable growth rate, 
otherwise known as SGR, extends it for 7 months. Frankly, it is my 
preference, strange as it may sound, that the extension be not 7 months 
but 3 months, but when we negotiated out these provisions, it turns out 
the extension was 7 months.
  You might ask why I favor a 3-month extension rather than 7 months. 
There are two reasons. The main reason is that I firmly expect health 
care reform to be passed within 3 months. If the formula, the 
sustainable growth rate, is extended for 3 months, that enables us, as 
soon as health care reform is passed, to then address how we then get a 
much better solution to the SGR, the sustainable growth rate, and my 
preference would be a permanent solution. I am afraid if we extend this 
for, say, 10 months and then health care reform is passed, fixing the 
permanent formula will not have the same urgency as it otherwise would.
  So I do very much believe what we have now in the bill--7 months--is 
better than a 3-month extension. Another way of saying it, as much as I 
admire my good friend from Iowa, it would not be appropriate to adopt 
his amendment. In fact, I do not favor his amendment.
  The second reason is probably more compelling, and that is, although 
he does pay for his amendment by extending the formula for 3 more 
months, he does so by taking the funds out of a fund which is used for 
Medicare. It is called the MIF, the Medicare Improvement Fund.
  The Medicare Improvement Fund is very--it is almost essential so that 
we have funds to pay for the underlying health care bill. It is very 
important that the underlying health care bill be deficit neutral. We 
are working on certain modifications to the health care reform bill, 
the bill that has passed the Senate. As we know, it is over in the 
House.
  As the President announced just a few minutes ago, he wants us--I 
think it is the right thing to do--to pass a modification to that bill 
by a majority vote. If we are going to do that, we have to make sure it 
is deficit neutral. In fact, I would like it even better than deficit 
neutral; that is, that it would reduce the deficit. This Medicare 
Improvement Fund can help very much toward assuring us that the 
underlying bill, the health reform bill, is in fact deficit neutral.
  So for those two reasons: One, I think it is better for us to pass 
health care reform using some of the funds in the Medicare Improvement 
Fund so we can make it deficit neutral, pass it, and then we can work 
on improving and finding a permanent solution to the sustainable growth 
rate formula, a formula that has bedeviled us for many years.
  For those two reasons, I very much urge us to--as much as I 
appreciate the efforts of my good friend from Iowa, discretion is the 
better part of valor here. It would be better for us not to adopt that 
amendment because we do need those dollars to help make sure we can pay 
for the underlying health care reform bill.
  There is another amendment we will be voting on soon. It is No. 3338, 
the Thune amendment. I support many of the small business tax relief 
concepts outlined by Senator Thune. In fact, many of these will be 
discussed as part of the small business jobs bill to be introduced 
quite shortly. By that I mean in the next maybe week or two. I am not 
sure exactly when, but quite soon the Finance Committee will be marking 
up a small business jobs bill.
  I spoke with Senator Landrieu, who is the chairperson of the Small 
Business Committee. We put together a small business jobs package which 
we think will be quite effective in helping small business people be 
more prosperous and have more people able to work for small business 
firms.
  I might say, however, that Senator Thune's amendment is problematic 
for two reasons. First, his amendment makes several provisions 
permanent. This is not the time for that discussion. Making these 
provisions permanent is expensive, and, therefore, permanent provisions 
need to be discussed as part of comprehensive tax reform.
  Second, Senator Thune's amendment would be offset with unspent and 
unallocated mandatory spending of stimulus funds. I might say there is 
growing evidence that the recovery package is working. There has been 
some debate over that proposition, but I think the wave of evidence is 
that the stimulus funds in the recovery package have had a significant 
positive effect. The Congressional Budget Office has said so.
  Over the last 6 months of 2009, for example, the overall economy grew 
at an annual rate of 4 percent. I am quite confident that had we not 
passed the stimulus measure, the growth rate would not be at that rate; 
it would be lower.
  In the fourth quarter of 2009, the gross domestic product grew at an 
annual rate of 5.7 percent. Now, that might be somewhat artificially 
high because of inventory, but, nevertheless, that was the number. One 
year earlier, in the fourth quarter of 2008, it was actually declining 
at an annual rate of more than 5 percent.
  Manufacturing in the United States expanded in August for the first 
time in 19 months. Just think of that. Manufacturing in our country 
expanded in August for the first time in 19 months.
  Housing prices in many parts of the country have stabilized; some are 
even increasing. The Case-Shiller index of home prices has now risen 7 
months in a row.
  Unemployment is improving. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, last year's Recovery Act added between 1 million and 2.1 
million people to our country's payroll. The Recovery Act--that is the 
stimulus bill I am talking about--lowered the unemployment rate by 
between .5 percent and 1.5 percentage points from where it otherwise 
would have been.
  In addition, the Federal Reserve and many independent economists have 
credited the stimulus with playing a role in stabilizing the economy. 
But we still have work to do. The national unemployment rate stands at 
9.7 percent. The CBO estimates that 8 million jobs have been lost over 
the course of the ``Great Recession.'' They also say unemployment may 
not be in its natural state of 5 percent until the year 2016.
  Revoking stimulus funds now would send exactly the wrong signal to 
the American economy and to unemployed people in our country. Just 
think of that. Revoking stimulus funds now. Just think of the signal 
that would send. We know there are more funds in the pipeline. The 
stimulus program is working. We take that away, just think of the 
signal that would send across our country.
  We passed stimulus to give a needed boost to our economy. The bill is 
designed to work over 2 years--2 years. We are in the second year now, 
just beginning the second year now. We have successfully started down 
the road to recovery, and the economy would falter if these funds were 
withdrawn.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.


                Amendment No. 3338, as Further Modified

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 p.m., the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments, in the order 
listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to this 
vote; that prior to each vote there be 4 minutes of debate equally 
divided and controlled in the usual form: Thune amendment No. 3338, as 
modified, and that prior to the vote it be further modified with the

[[Page S996]]

changes at the desk; and the Grassley amendment No. 3352.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:


                Amendment No. 3336, as Further Modified

       At the end, insert the following:

                TITLE ----ADDITIONAL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. --01. PERMANENT INCREASE IN LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSING OF 
                   CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.

       (a) Permanent Increase.--Subsection (b) of section 179 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000'' and all that follows in 
     paragraph (1) and inserting ``$500,000.'',
       (2) by striking ``$200,000'' and all that follows in 
     paragraph (2) and inserting ``$2,000,000'',
       (3) by striking ``after 2007 and before 2011, the $120,000 
     and $500,000'' in paragraph (5)(A) and inserting ``after 
     2009, the $500,000 and the $2,000,000'',
       (4) by striking ``2006'' in paragraph (5)(A)(ii) and 
     inserting ``2008'', and
       (5) by striking paragraph (7).
       (b) Permanent Expensing of Computer Software.--Section 
     179(d)(1)(A)(ii) is amended by striking ``and before 2011''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (b) 
     and (c) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 
     31, 2008.

     SEC. --02. EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL FIRST-YEAR DEPRECIATION 
                   FOR 50 PERCENT OF THE BASIS OF CERTAIN 
                   QUALIFIED PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 168(k), as 
     amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 
     2009, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subparagraph (A)(iv) 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2012'', and
       (2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for subsection (k) of section 168, as 
     amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 
     2009, is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
       (2) The heading for clause (ii) of section 168(k)(2)(B), as 
     so amended, is amended by striking ``Pre-january 1, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``Pre-january 1, 2011''.
       (3) Subparagraph (D) of section 168(k)(4) is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the 
     period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting a comma, and 
     by adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``(iv) `January 1, 2011' shall be substituted for `January 
     1, 2012' in subparagraph (A)(iv) thereof, and
       ``(v) `January 1, 2010' shall be substituted for `January 
     1, 2011' each place it appears in subparagraph (A) 
     thereof.''.
       (4) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(l)(5), as so amended, 
     is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2011''.
       (5) Subparagraph (C) of section 168(n)(2), as so amended, 
     is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2011''.
       (6) Subparagraph (D) of section 1400L(b)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2011''.
       (7) Subparagraph (B) of section 1400N(d)(3), as so amended, 
     is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2011''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. --03. INCREASED EXCLUSION AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS 
                   APPLICABLE TO QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.

       (a) Increased Exclusion.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) Exclusion.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a 
     corporation, gross income shall not include the applicable 
     percentage of any gain from the sale or exchange of qualified 
     small business stock held for more than 5 years.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage is--
       ``(A) 50 percent, in the case of stock issued after August 
     10, 1993, and on or before February 18, 2009,
       ``(B) 75 percent, in the case of stock issued after 
     February 18, 2009, and on or before the date of the enactment 
     of the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 
     2010, and
       ``(C) 100 percent, in the case of stock issued after the 
     date of the enactment of the American Workers, State, and 
     Business Relief Act of 2010.
       ``(3) Empowerment zone businesses.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of qualified small business 
     stock acquired after December 21, 2000, and on or before 
     February 18, 2009, in a corporation which is a qualified 
     business entity (as defined in section 1397C(b)) during 
     substantially all of the taxpayer's holding period for such 
     stock, paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting `60 
     percent' for `50 percent'.
       ``(B) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of paragraphs (5) and (7) of section 1400B(b) shall apply for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(C) Gain after 2014 not qualified.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply to gain attributable to periods after 
     December 31, 2014.
       ``(D) Treatment of dc zone.--The District of Columbia 
     Enterprise Zone shall not be treated as an empowerment zone 
     for purposes of this paragraph.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading for section 1202 is amended by striking 
     ``partial''.
       (B) The item relating to section 1202 in the table of 
     sections for part I of subchapter P of chapter 1 is amended 
     by striking ``Partial exclusion'' and inserting 
     ``Exclusion''.
       (C) Section 1223(13) is amended by striking 
     ``1202(a)(2),''.
       (b) Repeal of Minimum Tax Preference.--Paragraph (7) of 
     section 57(a) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to stock issued 
     after the date of the enactment of the American Workers, 
     State, and Business Relief Act of 2010.''.
       (c) Increase in Limitation.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1202(b)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$15,000,000''.
       (2) Married individuals.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     1202(b)(3) is amended by striking ``paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     applied by substituting `$5,000,000' for `$10,000,000' '' and 
     inserting ``the amount under paragraph (1)(A) shall be half 
     of the amount otherwise in effect''.
       (d) Modification of Definition of Qualified Small 
     Business.--Section 1202(d)(1) is amended by striking 
     ``$50,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``$75,000,000''.
       (e) Inflation Adjustments.--Section 1202 is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l) and by 
     inserting after subsection (j) the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Inflation Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after 2010, the $15,000,000 amount in subsection 
     (b)(1)(A), the $75,000,000 amount in subsection (d)(1)(A), 
     and the $75,000,000 amount in subsection (d)(1)(B) shall each 
     be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost of living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2009' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph 
     (1) is not a multiple of $1,000,000 such amount shall be 
     rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000,000.''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (d) shall apply to stock acquired after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Limitation; inflation adjustment.--The amendments made 
     by subsections (c) and (e) shall apply to taxable years 
     ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. --04. DEDUCTION FOR ELIGIBLE SMALL BUSINESS INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 199(a) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a deduction an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) 9 percent of the lesser of--
       ``(i) the qualified production activities income of the 
     taxpayer for the taxable year, or
       ``(ii) taxable income (determined without regard to this 
     section) for the taxable year, and
       ``(B) in the case of an eligible small business for any 
     taxable year beginning after 2009, 20 percent of the lesser 
     of--
       ``(i) the eligible small business income of the taxpayer 
     for the taxable year, or
       ``(ii) taxable income (determined without regard to this 
     section) for the taxable year.''.
       (b) Eligible Small Business; Eligible Small Business 
     Income.--Section 199 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Eligible Small Business; Eligible Small Business 
     Income.--
       ``(1) Eligible small business.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `eligible small business' means, with 
     respect to any taxable year--
       ``(A) a corporation the stock of which is not publicly 
     traded, or
       ``(B) a partnership,

     which meets the gross receipts test of section 448(c) 
     (determined by substituting `$50,000,000' for `$5,000,000' 
     each place it appears in such section) for the taxable year 
     (or, in the case of a sole proprietorship, which would meet 
     such test if such proprietorship were a corporation).
       ``(2) Eligible small business income.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `eligible small business income' means the excess of--
       ``(i) the income of the eligible small business which--

       ``(I) is attributable to the actual conduct of a trade or 
     business,
       ``(II) is income from sources within the United States 
     (within the meaning of section 861), and
       ``(III) is not passive income (as defined in section 
     904(d)(2)(B)), over

       ``(ii) the sum of--

       ``(I) the cost of goods sold that are allocable to such 
     income, and
       ``(II) other expenses, losses, or deductions (other than 
     the deduction allowed under this section), which are properly 
     allocable to such income.

       ``(B) Exceptions.--The following shall not be treated as 
     income of an eligible small business for purposes of 
     subparagraph (A):
       ``(i) Any income which is attributable to any property 
     described in section 1400N(p)(3).

[[Page S997]]

       ``(ii) Any income which is attributable to the ownership or 
     management of any professional sports team.
       ``(iii) Any income which is attributable to a trade or 
     business described in subparagraph (B) of section 1202(e)(3).
       ``(iv) Any income which is attributable to any property 
     with respect to which records are required to be maintained 
     under section 2257 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(C) Allocation rules, etc.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4)(D), and (7) of subsection (c) shall 
     apply for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(3) Special rules.--Except as otherwise provided by the 
     Secretary, rules similar to the rules of subsection (d) shall 
     apply for purposes of this subsection.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 199(a)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)(A)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. --05. NONAPPLICATION OF CERTAIN LABOR STANDARDS TO 
                   PROJECTS FINANCED BY THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND 
                   REINVESTMENT ACT.

       (a) Tax-Favored Bonds.--Section 1601 of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is hereby repealed.
       (b) Stimulus Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States 
     Code, shall not apply to any project funded directly by or 
     assisted in whole or in part by and through the Federal 
     Government pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act of 2009.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1606 of division A of 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is hereby 
     repealed.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply to 
     contracts entered into after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

                 Subtitle B--Transfer of Stimulus Funds

     SEC. --11. TRANSFER OF STIMULUS FUNDS.

       Notwithstanding section 5 of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. Law 111-5), from the amounts 
     appropriated or made available and remaining unobligated 
     under such Act, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall transfer from time to time to the general fund 
     of the Treasury an amount equal to the sum of the amount of 
     any net reduction in revenues resulting from the enactment of 
     this title.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 3358, that it be pending, and then set it aside.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, will 
the Senator tell me the content of the amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. I am sorry?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, tell me the content.
  Mr. COBURN. This is an amendment that discusses the amount that the 
Secretary of the Senate will put up on our Web site, the amount of new 
programs; that we publish the total amount of spending, discretionary 
and mandatory, passed by the Senate that has not been paid for.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. This is something that I do not like 
doing. I am constrained to object, however, because we have had 
requests from other Senators who wish to bring up their amendments, 
and, frankly, we have asked them to defer temporarily so we can set up 
a reasonable order back and forth of Senators.
  Regrettably, I do not like objecting, but I do feel constrained to 
object to the Senator's request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                Amendment No. 3358 to Amendment No. 3336

  Mr. COBURN. I ask again unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 
3358, and immediately after it is called up it be set aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3358 to amendment No. 3336.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Senate to be transparent with taxpayers about 
                               spending)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. SENATE SPENDING DISCLOSURE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Senate shall post 
     prominently on the front page of the public website of the 
     Senate (http://www.senate.gov/) the following information:
       (1) The total amount of discretionary and direct spending 
     passed by the Senate that has not been paid for, including 
     emergency designated spending or spending otherwise exempted 
     from PAYGO requirements.
       (2) The total amount of net spending authorized in 
     legislation passed by the Senate, as scored by CBO.
       (3) The number of new government programs created in 
     legislation passed by the Senate.
       (4) The totals for paragraphs (1) through (3) as passed by 
     both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President.
       (b) Display.--The information tallies required by 
     subsection (a) shall be itemized by bill and date, updated 
     weekly, and archived by calendar year.
       (c) Effective Date.--The PAYGO tally required by subsection 
     (a)(1) shall begin with the date of enactment of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 and the authorization 
     tally required by subsection (a)(2) shall apply to all 
     legislation passed beginning January 1, 2010.

  Mr. COBURN. I thank my colleague from Montana.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.


                Amendment No. 3342 to Amendment No. 3336

   (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an 
   excise tax on excessive 2009 bonuses received from certain major 
   recipients of Federal emergency economic assistance, to limit the 
     deduction allowable for such bonuses, and for other purposes)

  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up amendment No. 3342 offered by Senators Webb and 
Boxer.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Webb and 
     Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 3342 to amendment 
     No. 3336.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record dated March 1, 2010, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')


                           Amendment No. 3338

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 4 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 3338, as further modified, offered by the 
Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  Who yields time? If no one yields time, time will be charged equally.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the first two votes will be on the Thune 
amendment and the Grassley amendment. The Thune amendment has its heart 
in the right place. It is trying to help small businesses and provide 
jobs. But, frankly, it has two very significant problems. Therefore, I 
urge it not be adopted.
  First, it makes permanent many provisions of the tax law that 
actually should be considered in tax reform. This is not the place to 
be writing tax reform. Our code is riddled with inconsistencies. Many 
of the provisions in the code fit together. Some don't. There are 
loopholes. There is a lot of overhaul needed, if we are going to have 
significant tax reform. We should address those issues at the right 
time and the right place but not here. It does not make sense to make 
certain provisions in the Tax Code permanent.
  The second flaw is, to pay for his provisions, Senator Thune uses 
excess stimulus funds, funds out of the Recovery Act. The CBO says the 
Recovery Act is working well.
  Last month CBO issued its report on the effects of the Recovery Act 
in the fourth quarter. In that report, CBO said:

       CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 
     2009, the [Recovery Act] added between 1 million and 12.1 
     million to the number of workers employed in the United 
     States, and it increased the number of full-time-equivalent 
     jobs by between 1.4 million and 3 million.


[[Page S998]]


  They say the Recovery Act created or saved between 1 and 3 million 
jobs. That is why we need to defeat efforts such as those of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. The Recovery Act is 
working. Most economists say it is working. If it is working, we should 
let it continue working. We should not take away dollars from it.
  I urge the Thune amendment not be adopted.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Who yields time in favor of the amendment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I don't see Senator Thune. It may be a bit presumptuous, 
but I ask unanimous consent that the time be yielded back, although it 
is not my place to make that request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand he is on his way.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I was going to inquire of the chairman if 
he had locked in a speaker after the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. No, it has not been locked in, but I will do so right 
now. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota, 
Senator Dorgan, be recognized to speak immediately after the next 
series of votes and that the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, be 
recognized to speak thereafter.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending 
Thune amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act 
with respect to the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hutchison
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. 
The point of order is sustained and the amendment fails.


                           Amendment No. 3352

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 4 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3352 
offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I oppose the Grassley amendment for two 
reasons. I oppose it reluctantly. Senator Grassley is a very decent 
man. His heart is almost always in the right place. It is in the right 
place here, but I oppose this amendment.
  First, the amendment seeks to extend a stopgap measure for the 
payments of doctors under Medicare, but we should not prolong stopgap 
measures. We should pass a short-term stopgap, and then we should make 
meaningful payment reform for the payment of doctors under Medicare. 
That is what doctors want. That is what would be very much in the best 
interests of seniors, and that is the responsible way to govern.
  Second, the Grassley amendment takes its offsets away from the 
underlying health care bill; that is, the bill we are trying to pass in 
this next several weeks. Thus, it would undercut health care reform. We 
need the savings we included in the health care bill, especially the 
health reform bill. We should not be robbing the health care bill of 
its offsets. For those reasons, I oppose the Grassley amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to add 
Senators Bond and Bennett as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment extends critically needed 
Medicare provisions for all of 2010, not just part of it. It replaces 
the provisions that are not fully offset with fully offset provisions, 
and it adds an additional 3 months for the physician update through the 
end of 2010. This amendment draws additional funds from the Medicare 
improvement fund to ensure these provisions are fully offset.
  My friend from Montana said that is not the place to take the money 
from, but his substitute amendment takes money from the very same fund. 
I take a little bit more, yes, but I don't think a few billion in 
funding needed here will make much of a difference when it comes to the 
$2.5 trillion cost of health care reform, as was suggested earlier. So 
I don't see that as a valid argument for not paying for these Medicare 
provisions.
  Going back to the situation at hand, the 30-day extension that passed 
last night only prevents payment cuts until the end of March. 
Physicians and Medicare beneficiaries need to have certainty and be 
ensured access to care. This is the fiscally responsible way to pay for 
these important Medicare provisions.
  We need to pass this very essential amendment now, so I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 57 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is very simple: $10 billion is $10 
billion. This amendment takes $10 billion away from health care reform. 
We must pass health care reform this year, and we need the dollars we 
can get. Ten billion dollars is a lot. Right now, as we are trying to 
put this bill together, we are very close to making sure this budget is 
deficit neutral. In fact, we would like it to be better than deficit 
neutral. This $10 billion counts. We should not rob health care reform 
in order to pay for an extension of the doc fix that is not needed at 
this time. We will take care of the doc fix after we take care of 
health care reform.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I have some time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 26 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Good. I am glad I have 26 seconds. His amendment takes 
$8 billion away from the Medicare improvement fund, mine takes $10 
billion away.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for all those reasons, I move to table the 
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S999]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hutchison
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that following my 
presentation, Senator Gregg is going to be recognized, or a Republican 
speaker. I ask unanimous consent that following the Republican speaker, 
Senator Stabenow be recognized on our side. I do that with the consent 
of the chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cobell Lawsuit

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss two amendments, one of 
which I have filed and one of which I will file shortly. Before I do 
that, I have spoken with Senator Inouye, Senator Feinstein, and some 
others about something that is very important. It is the settlement of 
the Cobell lawsuit. The Cobell lawsuit has been in the Federal courts 
for 13 years. After a long period of negotiation between the Secretary 
of the Interior, other parts of our Federal Government, and the 
plaintiffs in lawsuit, there is finally an agreement that has been 
reached. The agreement would provide $3.4 billion to settle outstanding 
claims and address issues going back well over 100 years in which the 
Federal Government was supposed to be taking care of the trust accounts 
of American Indians. Some of those trust accounts were fleeced, stolen, 
and mismanaged.
  This lawsuit has been going on for a long period. The agreement 
settles the claims of American Indians who lost their money, lost their 
assets, and lost their income. Many American Indians have died during 
the process of this lawsuit.
  Now that a settlement has been reached, there is an April 16 
deadline. The parties to the settlement agreement set an end date by 
which the Congress must act, or the parties may return to litigation. 
My hope is that the Congress will be able to meet that deadline. We 
really do need to put this issue behind us. It is a sorry chapter in 
this country's history. For over a century we have mismanaged the 
property, income, and royalties of American Indians. All of this 
resulted in the filing of a lawsuit.
  I commend the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Salazar, who has 
worked so hard to reach this agreement.
  Having said that, let me describe two amendments I wish to offer to 
this legislation. One is an amendment I have offered on a number of 
occasions over the years. It is important to offer it again this year 
and get it done.
  President Obama mentioned during his State of the Union Address that 
he wanted this legislation passed by the Congress. It is painfully 
simple. My amendment says when an American business shuts down its 
manufacturing plant in this country, locks the doors, fires the 
workers, and then moves the jobs overseas someplace for the purpose of 
selling the product they produce overseas back into our country, they 
should not get a tax break. Yet, under today's Tax Code, they, in fact, 
are rewarded with a tax break.
  This amendment would end that ill-advised tax break and say: You are 
not going to be rewarded anymore in our Tax Code by shipping jobs 
overseas and then selling the product back into our marketplace. This 
should have been corrected long ago. It should be corrected now.
  The amendment I filed is amendment No. 3375. My hope is we will be 
able to debate and vote on this amendment.
  I described the other day this issue we have of trying to find new 
jobs and seeing how we can incentivize the creation of new jobs in our 
country. About 17 million people woke up this morning in this country 
without work, without a job, and wanting a job and are going to spend 
today looking for work and not be able to find it. We are trying to 
find ways to incentivize the creation of jobs. That bill is the faucet, 
trying to put more jobs in this economy.
  What about the drain? What about all these jobs leaking out of this 
economy to China and elsewhere? Let me describe some of them, if I 
might. These are well known. I have told other stories on the floor 
many times.
  Levis, the product of America. America invented Levis. People wear 
Levis all around the world, except Levis are made virtually everywhere 
in the world except the United States. They are all gone. We do not 
make one pair of Levis in the United States. Fruit of the Loom 
underwear; gone to Mexico; gone to Asia. Samsonite went to Mexico, then 
to China. Maytag now makes their appliances in Mexico and Korea. 
Hershey's chocolate. You know, Hershey's chocolate advertises York 
Peppermint Patties and they say: The cool, refreshing taste of mint 
dipped in dark chocolate will take you miles away. Well, apparently so 
many miles it ends up in Mexico--Mexico.

  I have mentioned often the cookies made by the Nabisco Company--Fig 
Newtons. If somebody says to you: How about going to have a Mexican 
dinner, just buy a package of Fig Newtons. They left New Jersey and 
went to Mexico. I don't know if it is cheaper to shovel fig paste in 
Mexico than it is in New Jersey, but it is made by a company called 
Nabisco. You know what that stands for? The National Biscuit Company. 
Except the national biscuit, in this case, is made in Mexico.
  Well, the list goes on and on and on. Hallmark Cards. Hallmark Cards 
was here for a century--a privately held Kansas City, MO, company, 
founded by a high school dropout who started the company in 1910 with a 
shoebox full of postcards. He made a living by selling them while 
working out of a YMCA in Kansas City, and it became an unbelievably 
successful greeting card company. All of us know that. Under its 
current management, despite annual revenues, I understand, of over $4 
billion, they started to move jobs from Kansas City to three plants in 
China. You know, the company who cares enough to send you the very 
best? In this case, it sends you the very best from China.
  My point is that I understand there are a whole lot of companies 
going to search for people who work for 50 cents an hour and whom they 
can work 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a day, and that is better for 
their bottom line. It enhances their profit when they can do that. But 
when they leave America, deciding they are going to produce Etch A 
Sketch in Shenzhen, China, and then ship it back to a Walmart here in 
the United States to sell--when that happens, and that town in Ohio 
that was known for producing Etch A Sketch, the little toy that all of 
us have used as a child--we ought not be saying good for you, we will 
give you a tax break.
  When the Radio Flyer little red wagon--the wagon we have all ridden 
in, started by a guy in Chicago, and for 110 years they made Radio 
Flyer little red wagons in the United States--when they moved the 
production of little red

[[Page S1000]]

wagons to China, we shouldn't give a tax break for those that are sold 
back into this country--a company that moves their jobs elsewhere in 
order to produce and then sell back into our country. We ought to say: 
You know what, you are not going to get a tax break for that.
  Let me give an example of two companies, and two companies that make 
bicycles; all right? They are made in factories that are on the same 
street corner but on different sides of the street. One is called Huffy 
Bicycles. Most people have known the Huffy Bicycles and ridden them in 
their youth. The other is ABC Bicycle, hypothetically. Huffy Bicycles 
decides they are paying $11 an hour to their American workers, plus 
benefits, and they think that is way too much to pay an American worker 
so they leave America and go to China. And by the way, that is true. 
They did. The other company stays here and says: No, we are going to 
keep our American workers and keep our American plant open and keep 
these jobs in America. What is the difference between the two? When 
they are competing at Sears or Walmart or Kmart in this country, what 
is the difference between the two bicycles? Well, one was rewarded with 
a tax break because their production was sent overseas, and the other 
has a competitive disadvantage because it was made here by American 
workers. And that ought not stand.
  This President asked during his State of the Union Address for us to 
plug this hole. It raises money, reduces the Federal budget deficit and 
finally says to American workers: We are on your side. We are not going 
to give a tax break to companies that ship their jobs overseas and sell 
their products back in America.
  It is a very simple amendment. I don't know anyone who would wish to 
vote against this amendment. Yet, interestingly enough, I have offered 
it for many years and have not been successful for a number of reasons. 
Occasionally, we have had a vote, but most often it gets thrown off in 
a parliamentary procedure of some type. But this is a bill that is open 
to amendment on revenue issues, and my hope is that at last--at long, 
long last--at a time when so many millions of Americans wish they had a 
job and don't, at a time when we still have so many companies moving 
their jobs away from our country to other countries only to sell back 
into our country that which they made in China or elsewhere, my hope is 
that finally we will say we won't allow this to happen any more with a 
reward in our Tax Code for those that do it.
  I was on an airplane a while back, and I sat next to a guy who was 
wearing casual clothes--sweat pants and so on--and we said hello to 
each other. I said: Where are you headed? He said: Asia. That is why I 
am dressed this way; I have 25 more hours of flying. I said: What are 
you going to do when you reach Asia? He said: Well, I am going to 
Thailand, Singapore, and I am going to China. He said: What we are 
trying to do with my company is we are trying to move our jobs from the 
United States to Asian locations and save some money in the production 
of these products we make. So I am going out now to Thailand and 
Singapore and China to scout out locations for our new manufacturing 
plants in Asia because we are going to move our jobs.
  I was sitting next to this guy thinking: You know, there will be 
hundreds and hundreds of American workers who, that morning, instead of 
getting on an airplane as he and I did, are going to a manufacturing 
plant somewhere to make a product for his company, but they don't know 
yet that he is on an airplane to try to find a way how to move their 
jobs to Singapore or to China or to Thailand. And isn't that a shame?
  Some will listen to this and say: Well, that is just protectionism. 
Listen, closing a tax break that rewards people from moving jobs 
overseas isn't protectionism. Keeping that tax break open is, in my 
judgment, ignorance. Standing up for fair play and standing up for 
American jobs is not protectionism, it is doing everything we ought to 
do to be supportive of the kind of economy we want and the kind of good 
jobs we want in this country's future.
  That is one amendment. The second amendment deals with an issue that 
most people, I am sure, can hardly believe their ears when they hear 
about it. This is an issue I have spoken about previously, and some of 
this issue has been resolved but not all of it. As is usually the case 
when something abusive is happening, it gets shut down in part but not 
in total, because you say: Okay, let's stop it as of this date.
  I am talking about something called SILOs and LILOs especially SILOs, 
or sale-in/lease out transactions. Most people don't know what that 
means--sale in, lease out. It doesn't mean they aren't smart. It is a 
title in the Tax Code that describes an activity that was created by 
some people who wanted to avoid paying U.S. taxes. They want everything 
America has to offer, they just don't want to pay taxes to their 
country.
  Let me describe what has been happening in the last couple of 
decades, and this is almost a perfect description of the perversion in 
our economy and the greed in our economy by some--not all, but by 
some--who steered this place into the ditch. Here it is: A cross-border 
lease of Dortmund, Germany's streetcars--a company called First Union 
Bank, which is now something else because it has been bought two 
additional times. So First Union Bank in America wants to lease 
streetcars in Germany. Why would it want to lease streetcars in 
Germany? Because it wants to run German streetcars? No, because from a 
German city it can lease the city's streetcars and take those assets in 
a lease-in/ leaseback transaction and get tax breaks so it can avoid 
paying U.S. taxes.
  Transactions involving streetcars is one thing, but here is a tunnel 
that one of our American companies bought--a tunnel in Antwerp, 
Belgium. Think of that, an American company deciding to buy a tunnel in 
Antwerp, Belgium. Why? Because they like tunnels, know something about 
tunnels? They don't have the foggiest idea about Belgian tunnels. It is 
a sale leaseback transaction used to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
  But here is one that really struck my interest. Wachovia Bank which, 
by the way, has now been purchased by someone else. They ended up with 
a belly full of bad assets. And we ought to ask the question how did 
that happen? How did it happen that a massive amount of toxic bad 
assets landed in the belly of this bank--Wachovia Bank? But Wachovia 
Bank bought a sewer system in Bochum, Germany. Why would Wachovia Bank 
want to own a sewer in Germany? Because they have people on the board 
of directors who are experts in German sewers? I don't think so. Do we 
think maybe they have hired a new class of MBAs who are specialists in 
sewer valuations in Germany? I don't think so. An American bank wants 
to buy a German sewer system for the fact that it is a sale and 
leaseback. The German sewer system is sold to an American bank. Does 
this bank ever go over and seize possession of a sewer pipe? They never 
even see a sewer pipe. All they want is a paper transaction so they can 
depreciate the property to avoid paying U.S. taxes. And in this case it 
is reported on Frontline that Wachovia Bank saved $175 million by this 
scam of buying a German city's sewer system. Unbelievable.

  By the way, this has been going on for some while before we were able 
to shut most of it down. I would also say that I often speak of the 
fact that there are some companies that are now stepping forward to the 
IRS--I believe about 45 companies have now stepped forward--and said 
they are willing to pay for the benefits they received, even prior to 
the time this was shut down. But there are some transactions that were 
allowed to continue, and we have American companies that continue to 
get the benefit of those transactions. My position is simple: This is 
abusive, it is unmitigated greed, and it should have been shut down--
all of it shut down. The Internal Revenue Service, by the way, is still 
going back even beyond that date which was in the Federal law and 
challenging these in court. In fact, there are a couple of very large 
companies at this point that are still disputing this and saying these 
are perfectly reasonable transactions. Shame on them. This doesn't meet 
a third grade laugh test--an American company picking up a German sewer 
system.
  In fact, one American company bought a city hall from a German town, 
and the auditor in that town said: Well, we don't understand it, but

[[Page S1001]]

if that is what the Americans want to do with their money, God bless 
them. It wasn't their money. What they were doing was sucking money out 
of the coffers of this government, because in many cases they are 
companies that are trying to find every way possible to avoid their 
Federal tax obligations. Yes, they want all the benefits America has to 
offer, except they don't want the obligation of paying their full 
measure of taxes, as most people do.
  Most people who go to work in the mornings work an honest day, they 
come home, and at the end of the year, when it is time, they file their 
tax return. They have had their withholdings and they pay their taxes 
to our country, to our government. But there are a whole lot of 
interests that are much bigger that find ways to send people around the 
world not only to move their jobs to where they can find 50-cent-an-
hour labor, but perhaps while they are there, they might pick up a 
sewer system to boot so they can avoid paying U.S. taxes. That way they 
can move your job overseas and avoid paying taxes at the same time, 
because you get a tax break for shutting your American plant down and 
moving your American jobs overseas, which I hope to shut down with my 
first amendment; and then you get a tax break by buying a German sewer 
system and depreciating it and getting a tax break under the Tax Code.
  Both of these amendments deserve to be passed. Both would raise money 
for the Federal Government, both would reduce the Federal deficit and 
both have substantial merit. Will I get a vote on these? I hope so. One 
is now filed and the other will be filed in a short period of time. I 
hope very much that I will be able to get the opportunity to have a 
vote here in the Senate and close these tax breaks.
  Let me say that there are a whole lot of businesses in this country 
that are working very hard to make it. Many American businesses have 
had to steer through very difficult times. This is the deepest 
recession since the Great Depression, and there are a lot of 
businesses, large, medium, and small, that are struggling every day to 
try to navigate through this deep economic abyss. Boy, I give them 
great credit. Many of these owners have risked their entire life 
savings to run their business. They get up in the morning and put the 
key in the door and open their businesses.
  So, look, what I want to have happen is for us to recognize good 
businesses in this country that do the right thing every day--that hire 
American workers, produce products and strengthen this country's 
economy. My point is those businesses are at a significant disadvantage 
if we continue to say to the business across the street: Move to China 
and produce these products in China and, by the way, we will give you a 
tax break for doing it. And we say to those who stay here: You know 
what, you shouldn't have stayed here, because you would have gotten a 
tax break if you had left. That is exactly the wrong message. What we 
should do for those who stay is to reward them. They are the heroes. 
They make up the economy, the foundation, the strength of what America 
is, instead of rewarding those who do exactly the wrong thing for this 
country.
  These are my two amendments that I would like to offer.
  Let me just, finally, say this. I know I get upset sometimes when I 
talk about the abusive pieces of this tax policy and the abuse, I 
think, of trade policy that has resulted in the loss of more than 5 
million manufacturing jobs. By the way, the loss of 1.5 million 
manufacturing jobs in the last 12 to 15 months--think of that. Think of 
1.5 million households in which someone wakes up and says: I am 
jobless. I don't have a job anymore. I used to make furniture but that 
furniture manufacturer is gone. I used to make tool and die machines--
gone. You name it.
  I told the story the other day on the floor of the Senate about 
Pennsylvania House furniture, which is such a great example of what is 
happening in this country. Governor Wendell did everything he could to 
keep this great furniture company in Pennsylvania. They use 
Pennsylvania wood, so Pennsylvania House furniture was known as an 
upscale furniture manufacturer that used special wood from 
Pennsylvania. Then they were purchased by La-Z-Boy. By the way, La-Z-
Boy is also leaving, but that is a different story.
  They were purchased by La-Z-Boy, and La-Z-Boy decided they were 
moving Pennsylvania House furniture to China and just going to ship the 
Pennsylvania wood to China and put together the furniture and ship the 
furniture back. Governor Wendell did everything he could to prevent 
that from happening, but it happened.
  The last day of work at the factory where they had spent a century, 
the craftsmen who put that furniture together got together, and the 
last piece of Pennsylvania House furniture that came off the 
manufacturing line every employee in that company gathered around, they 
tipped it upside-down, and every one of them signed the bottom. 
Somebody in this country, perhaps, has a piece of furniture they don't 
quite understand. It has the signature of every last craftsman to work 
in that manufacturing plant in this country.
  That pride of production and contribution to this country is by 
workers who just want a job, who want a country that does not move its 
manufacturing jobs elsewhere but values its manufacturing jobs in this 
country.
  In 2008, La-Z-Boy said in the next 2 years it would move 1,050 
employees in Dayton, OH, to the plant in the Mexican State of Coahuila. 
They previously moved other jobs to China, but they did say this:

       We regret the impact the moves will have on the families 
     and lives of those employed affected, and greatly appreciate 
     the contribution each of them made with their dedicated 
     services.

  So 1,050 people discovered their jobs were gone. But the same 
company, then, is the one who moved the Pennsylvania House furniture 
long before that.
  We have a lot to fix in this country, but we will. I am convinced our 
country's better days are ahead if we make the right judgments. If we 
pass both of these amendments I have offered, it will make a 
contribution significantly toward things that matter a lot in American 
families: good jobs that pay well that give them some confidence in the 
future.
  I suspect I can't ask unanimous consent to pass both pieces, both 
amendments at the moment, so I will negotiate with the chairman of the 
committee to see if we can't get votes on both in the days to come.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3382 to Amendment No. 3336

  Ms. STABENOW. I realize Senator Gregg is up to speak. I do not see 
him on the floor. I will be only a few minutes, and then I will ask 
unanimous consent he be recognized after me when he comes to the floor.
  Mr. President, in a few moments I am pleased I am going to be 
offering an amendment that is strongly supported by Members on both 
sides of the aisle to focus on jobs and investments in equipment for 
companies that are currently not making a profit--which, unfortunately, 
is too many across the country right now. We want to make sure they 
have an opportunity to have the capital they need to be able to grow as 
well.
  I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Schumer, Senator Crapo, Senator 
Snowe, and Senator Risch for working with me on an amendment that would 
provide companies with an immediate source of capital to make increased 
investments in our country and spur job creation.
  Since the start of the recession in December of 2007, the Nation has 
lost more than 8 million jobs, as we know. It is an economic tsunami, 
what has happened to families in this country. The national 
unemployment rate skyrocketed from 5 percent to 10 percent as companies 
are forced to cut costs and to lay off workers to remain viable just to 
keep the ship afloat.
  Our State, of course, the great State of Michigan, is much worse 
since we are at about a 14.6-percent unemployment rate right now, and 
we certainly are feeling the brunt of what has been happening. These 
companies also continue to face significant challenges in raising much-
needed capital for new investments to be able to keep people working.

[[Page S1002]]

  This amendment would allow struggling companies of all kinds that do 
not benefit from other similarly designed incentives--such as bonus 
depreciation or expanding the NOL carryback period, and other things--
to utilize their existing AMT credits based on new investments they 
make in 2010. So if they make investments, we would allow them to use 
credits they cannot use right now because those credits can only be 
used against a profit, and they don't have a profit.
  In addition to encouraging companies to increase investments to 
maintain and expand jobs, the amendment also makes available a badly 
needed source of capital. We have all been talking about access to 
capital. This is an important way we can make this available at no real 
cost to the Federal Government. I think that is what is important about 
this amendment. AMT credits are actually prepayments of tax which the 
taxpayer can offset with future tax liability, dollar for dollar. So 
these are prepayments.
  Normally, if they were making a profit they would be able to offset 
their taxes and maintain additional revenue and capital, but they are 
not in a position to do that right now. So at some point we, in fact, 
would be giving them credit, and they would be able to use these 
credits and be able to keep capital. But they cannot right now. So in a 
sense we are just moving up the day by which they can access the 
capital that is available with AMT credits. Since the credits never 
expire, the proposal merely accelerates when the credits are used.
  This amendment would allow companies to be able to cash in their 
built-up tax credit so they can build factories, buy equipment, and 
create jobs. Specifically, it will allow companies to utilize their 
existing AMT credits up to 10 percent of a new investment that they 
make in a manufacturing facility and in equipment purchased this year, 
in 2010. No company would be able to claim more than 50 percent of the 
value of the credit.
  To accelerate the economic impact of allowing companies to be able to 
access this capital and use the credits, the proposal would allow for 
an expedited refund process similar to current law rules for net 
operating losses.
  A company that elects the 5-year, net-operating year-loss carryback 
enacted earlier, which I supported strongly, would not be eligible to 
claim the benefits of this proposal. So it would be only those who 
cannot access other proposals we put forward because of the critical 
nature of helping companies not making a profit, being able to help 
them access capital. The amendment would be offset by improving tax 
compliance from individuals who receive rental income from properties.
  The provision, originally proposed in the President's fiscal year 
2009-2010 budgets, would require people who received rental income on 
real estate to be subject to the same information reporting 
requirements as taxpayers who receive income from a trade or business.
  This proposal would benefit a broad range of companies, including 
airlines, manufacturers, energy companies, high-tech companies--across 
the board, companies large and small that currently find themselves in 
a position where they are not making a profit but have built up these 
prepaid credits.
  We have support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Association of Manufacturing 
Technology, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, and Motor and 
Equipment Manufacturers Association. Some of the many U.S. employers 
who support the proposal are American Airlines, Applied Micro Devices, 
Arch Coal, Associated Builders and Contractors, Bosch, Cliffs Natural 
Resources, CMS Energy, Consul Energy, Delta Airlines, Daimler, General 
Motors, Goodyear, Micron, National Mining Association, Owens Illinois, 
Peabody Energy, Qwest, T-mobile, and Xerox.
  These are all major companies employing thousands, tens or hundreds 
of thousands of people who are needing access to capital. They have 
prepaid these credits. They need access to capital now so they can 
maintain their workforce and, hopefully, expand it and invest in the 
equipment that will allow them to grow.
  This amendment, again, is one that has broad bipartisan support. It 
will allow us to essentially move forward the ability for companies to 
use these AMT credits that they have already paid into, the dollars 
they have already paid. This is something that will allow companies to 
get the equipment, the tools that are necessary; so as they are using 
that jobs credit we passed and hiring people or continuing to be able 
to grow and invest in the business and keep the employees they have, 
that they will be able to get some assistance within the legislation we 
are passing.
  Again, let me just indicate that I very much appreciate colleagues 
who have joined me. Senator Hatch, Senator Schumer, Senator Crapo, 
Senator Snowe, Senator Risch, and we have others, I know, who are very 
interested in joining us as well.
  I believe at this point I have not heard for sure if we are in a 
position to actually call up the amendment at this point.
  At the moment, if we are in a position to call up the amendment? I am 
looking to staff to determine whether we are in a position to do that 
at this point? We are? All right.
  Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be 
set aside, and I will call up amendment No. 3382.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't know that we are in that position 
yet at this point.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3382.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Mr. 
     Hatch, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 3382 
     to Amendment No. 3336.

  Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow companies 
   to utilize existing alternative minimum tax credits to create and 
maintain American jobs through new domestic investments, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the end of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 602. ELECTION TO TEMPORARILY UTILIZE UNUSED AMT CREDITS 
                   DETERMINED BY DOMESTIC INVESTMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 53 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Election for Corporations With Unused Credits.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a corporation elects to have this 
     subsection apply, then notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the limitation imposed by subsection (c) for any such 
     taxable year shall be increased by the AMT credit adjustment 
     amount.
       ``(2) AMT credit adjustment amount.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `AMT credit adjustment amount' means 
     with respect to any taxable year beginning in 2010, the 
     lesser of--
       ``(A) 50 percent of a corporation's minimum tax credit 
     determined under subsection (b), or
       ``(B) 10 percent of new domestic investments made during 
     such taxable year.
       ``(3) New domestic investments.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `new domestic investments' means the 
     cost of qualified property (as defined in section 
     168(k)(2)(A)(i))--
       ``(A) the original use of which commences with the taxpayer 
     during the taxable year, and
       ``(B) which is placed in service in the United States by 
     the taxpayer during such taxable year.
       ``(4) Credit refundable.--For purposes of subsections (b) 
     and (c) of section 6401, the aggregate increase in the 
     credits allowable under part IV of subchapter A for any 
     taxable year resulting from the application of this 
     subsection shall be treated as allowed under subpart C of 
     such part (and not to any other subpart).
       ``(5) Election.--
       ``(A) In general.--An election under this subsection shall 
     be made at such time and in such manner as prescribed by the 
     Secretary, and once effective, may be revoked only with the 
     consent of the Secretary.
       ``(B) Interim elections.--Until such time as the Secretary 
     prescribes a manner for making an election under this 
     subsection, a

[[Page S1003]]

     taxpayer is treated as having made a valid election by 
     providing written notification to the Secretary and the 
     Commissioner of Internal Revenue of such election.
       ``(6) Treatment of certain partnership investments.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, any corporation's allocable 
     share of any new domestic investments by a partnership more 
     than 90 percent of the capital and profits interest in which 
     is owned by such corporation (directly or indirectly) at all 
     times during the taxable year in which an election under this 
     subsection is in effect shall be considered new domestic 
     investments of such corporation for such taxable year.
       ``(7) No double benefit.--Notwithstanding clause (iii)(II) 
     of section 172(b)(1)(H), any taxpayer which has previously 
     made an election under such section shall be deemed to have 
     revoked such election by the making of its first election 
     under this subsection.
       ``(8) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out this subsection, including to 
     prevent fraud and abuse under this subsection.
       ``(9) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     taxable year that begins after December 31, 2010.''.
       (b) Quick Refund of Refundable Credit.--Section 6425 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Allowance of AMT Credit Adjustment Amount.--The 
     amount of an adjustment under this section as determined 
     under subsection (c)(2) for any taxable year may be increased 
     to the extent of the corporation's AMT credit adjustment 
     amount determined under section 53(g) for such taxable 
     year.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. 603. INFORMATION REPORTING FOR RENTAL PROPERTY EXPENSE 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6041 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Treatment of Rental Property Expense Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Solely for purposes of subsection (a) 
     and except as provided in paragraph (2), a person receiving 
     rental income from real estate shall be considered to be 
     engaged in a trade or business of renting property.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) any individual, including any individual who is an 
     active member of the uniformed services, if substantially all 
     rental income is derived from renting the principal residence 
     (within the meaning of section 121) of such individual on a 
     temporary basis,
       ``(B) any individual who receives rental income of not more 
     than the minimal amount, as determined under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, and
       ``(C) any other individual for whom the requirements of 
     this section would cause hardship, as determined under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010.

  Ms. STABENOW. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3335, as Modified

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 3335 for the purposes of 
modification only.
  I have already spoken about the amendment at length. I have already 
submitted a lot of documents to the Record about the importance of this 
amendment. But to recap, the amendment I am offering on behalf of 
myself and Senators Vitter, Cochran, and Wicker is an amendment that 
will help the recovery effort of the gulf coast, particularly as it 
relates to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
  If we do not get this amendment on this bill or the next bill--I 
prefer it on this bill--we will literally shut down 7,000 units that 
are under construction today of low-income and moderate housing along 
the gulf coast, from Mobile to Waveland to Gulfport to New Orleans, all 
the way over to Cameron Parish, the entire gulf coast. Many people 
witnessed the terrible catastrophe that happened in our State just 4\1/
2\ years ago, and we will be marking the fifth anniversary of Katrina. 
The wounds seem a little bit fresh watching the scenes from Haiti and 
Chile. The situation in Haiti is much more disastrous in many ways than 
what happened in the gulf coast, but we most certainly went through our 
own horrors. Five years seems like a long time, but when you are 
digging out of rubble such as we see happening right now and when the 
flood waters don't recede, in some places for 3 months, and people 
can't return to their neighborhoods for 9 months, you can understand 
why it has taken us a little time to rebuild some of this housing. It 
has taken longer than we ever imagined.
  In addition, despite the fact that we have worked as hard and as fast 
as we can, in the middle of rebuilding some of these multifamily 
units--we are trying to build them better, smarter, and more energy 
efficient, in a much better way than they were before for both public 
housing and low-income housing--the market collapsed, which is not the 
fault of the people of Louisiana. We don't work on Wall Street. We 
don't live on Wall Street. We are just busy trying to build our 
communities back. Wall Street collapses.
  As a result, tax credits, which the Congress was so generous to give 
us some years ago to do this work, if we don't get this extension of a 
placed-in-service date, the developers--which includes the Catholic 
Church, nonprofit developers, not just for-profit developers--will lose 
their opportunity to sell these credits in the marketplace for the 
financing necessary to finish construction. That is sort of the long 
and short of it.
  I am not here asking for additional credits. We are grateful, those 
of us from the Gulf Coast States, for what the Congress has already 
given us. But if this amendment, a 2-year extension, is not attached to 
this bill, 7,000 units currently under construction and we estimate 
about 13,000 jobs along the gulf coast will be lost.
  So since this is a jobs bill, I thought it would be a good place to 
put this amendment because it will save 13,000 jobs, building great 
apartments for rent and purchase that our people need in the gulf 
coast. That is what the amendment does.
  I ask unanimous consent for the amendment to be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for 2 
 years the low-income housing credit rules for buildings in GO Zones, 
                        and for other purposes)

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EXTENSION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT RULES FOR 
                   BUILDINGS IN GO ZONES.

       Section 1400N(c)(5) is amended by striking ``January 1, 
     2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 2013''.

     SEC. ___. INCREASE IN INFORMATION RETURN PENALTIES.

       (a) Failure to File Correct Information Returns.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 
     (b)(2)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$50'' and inserting ``$100''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (a)(1), 
     (d)(1)(A), and (e)(3)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by 
     striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$1,500,000''.
       (b) Reduction Where Correction Within 30 Days.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``$15'' and inserting ``$30''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(1)(B) and 
     (d)(1)(B) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''.
       (c) Reduction Where Correction on or Before August 1.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``$30'' and inserting ``$60''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(2)(B) and 
     (d)(1)(C) of section 6721are each amended by striking 
     ``$150,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
       (d) Aggregate Annual Limitations for Persons With Gross 
     Receipts of Not More Than $5,000,000.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 6721(d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$100,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``$500,000'',
       (2) by striking ``$25,000'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``$75,000'', and
       (3) by striking ``$50,000'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``$200,000''.
       (e) Penalty in Case of Intentional Disregard.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 6721(e) is amended by striking ``$100'' and 
     inserting ``$250''.
       (f) Adjustment for Inflation.--Section 6721 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Adjustment for Inflation.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fifth calendar year beginning 
     after 2012, each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a), 
     (b), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(A) thereof), and (e) shall 
     be increased by such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-of-
     living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) determined 
     by substituting `calendar year 2011' for `calendar year 1992' 
     in subparagraph (B) thereof.

[[Page S1004]]

       ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount adjusted under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) is not less than $75,000 and is not a multiple of 
     $500, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest 
     multiple of $500, and
       ``(B) is not described in subparagraph (A) and is not a 
     multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the next 
     lowest multiple of $10.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to information returns required to 
     be filed on or after January 1, 2011.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. At the appropriate time, I will call up the amendment 
for a vote and further debate. I wished to make sure we have the 
modification in. I have now suggested a pay-for for it. I again thank 
Members for being helpful to us. We thought actually these units would 
be finished by now. Of course, the people trying to move into them want 
them to be finished. But between us trying to get ourselves organized 
after the catastrophe and then with the market collapsing, we need 
additional time. That is all this amendment does.
  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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3368 to Amendment No. 3336

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 3368.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3368 to amendment No. 3336.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide for the rescission of unused transportation 
   earmarks and to establish a general reporting requirement for any 
                            unused earmarks)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
  TITLE ___--RESCISSION OF UNUSED TRANSPORTATION EARMARKS AND GENERAL 
                         REPORTING REQUIREMENT

     SEC. _01. DEFINITION.

       In this title, the term ``earmark'' means the following:
       (1) A congressionally directed spending item, as defined in 
     Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
       (2) A congressional earmark, as defined for purposes of 
     Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. _02. RESCISSION.

       Any appropriated earmark provided for the Department of 
     Transportation with more than 90 percent of the appropriated 
     amount remaining available for obligation at the end of the 
     9th fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the 
     earmark was made available is rescinded effective at the end 
     of that 9th fiscal year.

     SEC. _03. AGENCY WIDE IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTS.

       (a) Agency Identification.--Each Federal agency shall 
     identify and report every project that is an earmark with an 
     unobligated balance at the end of each fiscal year to the 
     Director of OMB.
       (b) Annual Report.--The Director of OMB shall submit to 
     Congress and publically post on the website of OMB an annual 
     report that includes--
       (1) a listing and accounting for earmarks with unobligated 
     balances summarized by agency including the amount of the 
     original earmark, amount of the unobligated balance, the year 
     when the funding expires, if applicable, and recommendations 
     and justifications for whether each earmark should be 
     rescinded or retained in the next fiscal year;
       (2) the number of rescissions resulting from this title and 
     the annual savings resulting from this title for the previous 
     fiscal year; and
       (3) a listing and accounting for earmarks provided for the 
     Department of Transportation scheduled to be rescinded at the 
     end of the current fiscal year.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Coburn be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to take a 
small step toward addressing the growing problem of the Federal 
deficits. The underlying bill we are considering would extend many 
vitally important programs, including various tax provisions, 
unemployment benefits, COBRA health benefits, and other provisions to 
help the millions of Americans who have lost jobs or who are struggling 
in this economy to get back on their feet again. While I support these 
provisions, I am disappointed the bill is not fully paid for. My 
amendment will not cover the whole cost of the bill, but it will make a 
small dent as we try to get our financial house in order and make the 
tough choices to avoid hamstringing future generations with this debt.
  There is no single or easy solution to the massive deficits we face, 
but one thing we should be doing is taking a hard look at the Federal 
budget for wasteful or unnecessary spending. Hard-working American 
families have to make these kinds of decisions every week to make ends 
meet, whether it is skipping a trip to the movies or clipping coupons 
or paying attention to the sale ads. But in the end, by cobbling 
together a series of small actions, they try to get their budget back 
in line. I think we in Congress should be doing the same thing.
  My proposal to rescind old, unwanted transportation earmarks would 
bring down our deficit by a modest sum by Washington, DC, standards--
around $600 million and perhaps a few billion dollars over time. But 
this is real money back in Wisconsin and one step on a path that is 
going to have to include many additional cuts.
  I have put together a number of proposals for where we should begin 
tightening our belt, including the one for this amendment in a piece of 
legislation I introduced last fall called the Control Spending Now Act. 
The combined bill would cut the Federal deficit by about $\1/2\ 
trillion over 10 years.
  This amendment that is before us now would build off a proposal put 
forward in President George W. Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal 
to rescind $226 million in highway earmarks that were over a decade old 
and still had less than 10 percent of the funding utilized. 
Transportation Weekly did an analysis of these earmarks at the time. 
They found that over 60 percent of the funding--$389 million--was in 
152 earmarks that had no funding spent or obligated from them. These 
clearly are either unwanted or a low priority for the designated 
recipients. This is nothing against transportation funding either. I 
fully realize the need for investment in our crumbling infrastructure 
and its potential for job creation in hard-hit segments such as 
construction, but having hundreds of millions of dollars sit untouched 
in an account at the Department of Transportation does nothing to 
address our infrastructure needs and it does nothing to put people back 
to work.
  So what I have done is build on President Bush's concept a little. My 
amendment expands this rescission to all transportation earmarks that 
are over 10 years old with unobligated balances of more than 90 
percent. At a hearing recently before the Budget Committee, I asked 
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood about these unwanted and unspent 
earmarks and whether he supported my proposal to rescind them. 
Secretary LaHood responded:

       The answer is, yes, we are supportive of your proposal, and 
     we have identified significant millions of dollars' worth of 
     earmarks.

  It is unclear exactly how many hundreds of millions or even billions 
of dollars could be saved by this proposal being expanded to other 
transportation earmarks in addition to the previous estimate of $626 
million that would be rescinded from unwanted highway earmarks in the 
first year. This proposal would also be permanent so there would likely 
be additional savings as the unwanted earmarks in the most recent 
highway bill reach their 10-year anniversary.
  I think this is a very modest proposal, going after just the lowest 
of the low-hanging fruit, and I would support going even further to 
make it cover all Federal agencies. But with the uncertainty about how 
many of these unwanted and unspent earmarks there might be across the 
whole Federal Government, my amendment simply requires an annual report 
by the OMB to collect information from each agency and include 
recommendations on whether these other unobligated earmarks should also 
be rescinded.
  So as my colleagues can see, there is bipartisan support from the 
last two

[[Page S1005]]

administrations for this proposal, and there is bipartisan support in 
this Senate for this amendment. This shouldn't be a hard decision, and 
I hope to have more strong bipartisan support in the Senate. If we 
can't agree to take old earmarks that no one wants and use the money to 
pay down the deficit, then how are we ever going to get our fiscal 
house in order?
  I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3391 to Amendment No. 3336

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my 
amendment which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Brown] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3391 to amendment No. 3336.

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for a 6-month employee payroll tax rate cut, and 
                          for other purposes)

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 103. EMPLOYEE PAYROLL TAX RATE CUT.

       (a) In General.--For the 6-calendar-month period beginning 
     after the date which is 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     reduce the rate of tax under section 3101(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and 50 percent of the rate of tax under 
     section 1401(a) of such Code by such percentage such that the 
     resulting reduction in revenues to the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is equal to 90 percent of the 
     amounts appropriated or made available and remaining 
     unobligated under division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. Law 111-5) (other than under 
     title X of such division A) as of the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Transfers to Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund.--There are appropriated to the Federal Old-Age 
     and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction 
     in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of 
     subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding 
     sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such 
     times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent 
     possible the transfers which would have occurred to such 
     Trust Fund had such amendment not been enacted.
       (c) Rescission of Certain Stimulus Funds.--Notwithstanding 
     section 5 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 116), from the amounts 
     appropriated or made available under division A of such Act 
     (other than under title X of such division A), there is 
     rescinded 100 percent of the remaining unobligated amounts as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act. The Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall report to each 
     congressional committee the amounts so rescinded within the 
     jurisdiction of such committee.
       (d) Emergency Designation.--This section is designated as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2 
     U.S.C. 933(g)) and section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2010. In the House of Representatives, this section is 
     designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go 
     principles.

    Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I intend to come back 
tomorrow and explain the pending amendment and allow my colleagues an 
opportunity to review the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3389 to Amendment No. 3336

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending 
amendment aside and to call up amendment No. 3389.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3389 to amendment No. 3336.

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To provide Federal reimbursement to State and local 
  governments for a limited sales, use, and retailers' occupation tax 
        holiday, and to offset the cost of such reimbursements)

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. __. STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAX RELIEF FOR CONSUMERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall reimburse each State 
     for 75 percent of the amount of State and local sales tax 
     payable and not collected during the sales tax holiday 
     period.
       (b) Determination and Timing of Reimbursement.--
       (1) Predetermined amount.--Not later than 45 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall pay to 
     each State an amount equal to the sum of--
       (A)(i) 75 percent of the amount of State and local sales 
     tax payable and collected in such State during the same 
     period in 2009 as the sales tax holiday period, times
       (ii) an acceleration factor equal to 1.73, plus
       (B) an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount determined 
     under subparagraph (A) for State administrative costs.
       (2) Reconciliation amount.--Not later than July 1, 2010, 
     the Secretary shall pay to each electing State under 
     subsection (c)(2) an amount equal to the excess (if any) of--
       (A) 75 percent of the amount of State and local sales tax 
     payable and not collected in such State during the sales tax 
     holiday period, over
       (B) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A) and paid 
     to such State.
       (c) Requirement for Reimbursement.--The Secretary may not 
     pay a reimbursement under this section unless--
       (1) the chief executive officer of the State informs the 
     Secretary, not later than the first day of the sales tax 
     holiday period of the intention of the State to qualify for 
     such reimbursement by not collecting sales tax payable during 
     the sales tax holiday period,
       (2) in the case of a State which elects to receive the 
     reimbursement of a reconciliation amount under subsection 
     (b)(2)--
       (A) the chief executive officer of the State informs the 
     Secretary and the Director of Management and Budget and the 
     retail sellers of tangible property in such State, not later 
     than the first day of the sales tax holiday period of the 
     intention of the State to make such an election,
       (B) the chief executive officer of the State informs the 
     retail sellers of tangible property in such State, not later 
     than the first day of the sales tax holiday period of the 
     intention of the State to make such an election and the 
     additional information (if any) that will be required as an 
     addendum to the standard reports required of such retail 
     sellers with respect to the reporting periods including the 
     sales tax holiday period,
       (C) the chief executive officer reports to the Secretary 
     and the Director of Management and Budget, not later than 
     June 1, 2010, the amount determined under subsection (b)(2) 
     in a manner specified by the Secretary,
       (D) if amount determined under subsection (b)(1)(A) and 
     paid to such State exceeds the amount determined under 
     subsection (b)(2)(A), the chief executive officer agrees to 
     remit to the Secretary such excess not later than July 1, 
     2010, and
       (E) the chief executive officer of the State certifies that 
     such State--
       (i) in the case of any retail seller unable to identify and 
     report sales which would otherwise be taxable during the 
     sales tax holiday period, shall treat the reporting by such 
     seller of sales revenue during such period, multiplied by the 
     ratio of taxable sales to total sales for the same period in 
     2010 as the sales tax holiday period, as a good faith effort 
     to comply with the requirements under subparagraph (B), and
       (ii) shall not treat any such retail seller of tangible 
     property who has made such a good faith effort liable for any 
     error made as a result of such effort to comply unless it is 
     shown that the retailer acted recklessly or fraudulently,
       (3) in the case of any home rule State, the chief executive 
     officer of such State certifies that all local governments 
     that impose sales taxes in such State agree to provide a 
     sales tax holiday during the sales tax holiday period,
       (4) the chief executive officer of the State agrees to pay 
     each local government's share of the reimbursement (as 
     determined under subsection (d)) not later than 20 days after 
     receipt of such reimbursement, and
       (5) in the case of not more than 20 percent of the States 
     which elect to receive the reimbursement of a reconciliation 
     amount under

[[Page S1006]]

     subsection (b)(2), the Director of Management and Budget 
     certifies the amount of the reimbursement required under 
     subsection (b)(2) based on the reports by the chief executive 
     officers of such States under paragraph (2)(C).
       (d) Determination of Reimbursement of Local Sales Taxes.--
     For purposes of subsection (c)(4), a local government's share 
     of the reimbursement to a State under this section shall be 
     based on the ratio of the local sales tax to the State sales 
     tax for such State for the same time period taken into 
     account in determining such reimbursement, based on data 
     published by the Bureau of the Census.
       (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) Home rule state.--The term ``home rule State'' means a 
     State that does not control imposition and administration of 
     local taxes.
       (2) Local.--The term ``local'' means a city, county, or 
     other subordinate revenue or taxing authority within a State.
       (3) Sales tax.--The term ``sales tax'' means--
       (A) a tax imposed on or measured by general retail sales of 
     taxable tangible property, or services performed incidental 
     to the sale of taxable tangible property, that is--
       (i) calculated as a percentage of the price, gross 
     receipts, or gross proceeds, and
       (ii) can or is required to be directly collected by retail 
     sellers from purchasers of such property,
       (B) a use tax, or
       (C) the Illinois Retailers' Occupation Tax, as defined 
     under the law of the State of Illinois, but excludes any tax 
     payable with respect to food and beverages sold for immediate 
     consumption on the premises, beverages containing alcohol, 
     and tobacco products.
       (4) Sales tax holiday period.--The term ``sales tax holiday 
     period'' means the period--
       (A) beginning on the first Friday which is 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and
       (B) ending on the date which is 10 days after the date 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Treasury.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means any of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico.
       (7) Use tax.--The term ``use tax'' means a tax imposed on 
     the storage, use, or other consumption of tangible property 
     that is not subject to sales tax.

     SEC. ___. RESCISSION OF DISCRETIONARY AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED BY 
                   THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 
                   2009.

       (a) In General.--All discretionary amounts made available 
     by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (123 
     Stat. 115; Public Law No: 111-5) that are unobligated on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act are hereby rescinded.
       (b) Administration.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall--
       (1) administer the reduction specified in subsection (a); 
     and
       (2) submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives a report specifying the account and the 
     amount of each reduction made pursuant to subsection (a).

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am going to set this amendment aside and 
talk on it later.
  I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3390 to Amendment No. 3336

(Purpose: To provide an emergency benefit of $250 to seniors, veterans, 
  and persons with disabilities in 2010 to compensate for the lack of 
  cost-of-living adjustment for such year, to provide an offset using 
          unobligated stimulus funds, and for other purposes)

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3390.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3390 to amendment No. 3336.

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. BURR. Mr. President, there is an amendment pending by Senator 
Sanders to offer a $250 stipend to seniors, veterans, and those 
disabled to replace the lack of a cost-of-living increase, a COLA 
increase. As we are all aware, the formulas that drive the cost-of-
living increase are predominantly affected by inflation. With the lack 
of inflation, seniors, veterans, and the disabled did not receive a 
cost-of-living increase for this year.
  Senator Sanders' amendment is very clear. He wants to provide a $250 
stipend. That has broad-based support within the Senate body, but I 
think it is responsible to say that to do this, we should pay for it. 
To do this, we should not print more money, borrow that money just to 
provide a $250 check. I think most of our Nation's seniors, veterans, 
and disabled would agree with that statement.
  To ignore the fact that we are not paying for it would be to say that 
we are going to pass this stipend on to our children and our 
grandchildren; that we are going to take the money we are going to 
borrow and the debt and the obligation for that debt and we are going 
to pass it generationally down. As a parent of a 25-year-old and a 24-
year-old, I do not think they deserve it. At some point, I hope they 
are both going to have children, and I do not think their children 
deserve for me to shove this down. And I think most Members of the 
Senate probably agree that it is time we start paying for it.
  How does this get back? Senator Sanders makes this an emergency 
declaration to spend. We have a lot of priorities, and there is 
probably not a priority that does not deserve us to pay for it, to find 
somewhere where we have prioritized and decided, here is how we are 
going to pay for it, versus to continue to go out and borrow.
  Let me remind my colleagues, we have the largest debt we have ever 
had. It continues to climb every day. Of every dollar we spend, we 
borrow 43 cents. Over the next 10 years, right now our country is 
obligated at $5 trillion in interest payments. That is trillion with a 
``t.'' I am reminded that the most popular bumper sticker in Washington 
today is ``Don't tell Congress what comes after a trillion.'' I am not 
sure we know yet. At the rate we are going, we are going to find out. 
Do you know who is going to be saddled with that debt? It is going to 
be our children and our grandchildren. Nobody wants to leave our 
seniors, our veterans, and the disabled without the means they need to 
live. But I think even the people who are the recipients of these 
checks would look at us and say: Pay for it; don't put it on my 
grandchildren or my great grandchildren.
  My amendment No. 3390 is very simple. It says this: Pay for the $250 
stipend and use the unobligated stimulus money, the money we have 
already appropriated. We cannot borrow it twice; we can only borrow it 
once. Use the unobligated stimulus money, a little over $14 billion--I 
think it is about $14.4 billion--to pay for the stipend. Let's do the 
COLA, but let's, in fact, make sure that COLA is paid for. The 
amendment is almost identical to Senator Sanders' amendment which 
provides the emergency benefit; it just pays for it. I don't think 
there is anything unreasonable on that. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates the cost of the Sanders amendment to be at 12.7 billion. I 
understand the Sanders amendment was modified, so that might be 
slightly higher. Millions of seniors and veterans are struggling on 
fixed incomes in this troubled economy. This amendment also provides 
them the ability to get through those tough times but it also gives 
them the comfort of looking at their grandchildren and their great-
grandchildren and saying: I am not a burden on you because this was 
paid for. We accounted for it.

  Senator Bunning came to the floor yesterday--I think we were talking 
about $10 billion yesterday--and he said: How can a country this great 
not find a way to pay for $10 billion? Well, we didn't. And as that 
makes its way through, we are going to borrow that $10 billion, and 
that $10 billion is going to equate to $10 billion of interest payments 
over the next 10 years. Let me say that again. What we did yesterday is 
going to compute to $10 billion worth of interest payments over the 
next 10 years. No payment down of principal, just an obligation of 
interest on the debt.
  Maybe some are smart enough here to tell me exactly what the interest 
rates are going to be in the open marketplace as we finance our debt 3 
years, 5 years, 10 years down the road. I don't think it is going to be 
where it is today. There is every indication it is going higher. So 
when I state the number $5 trillion over the next 10 years, you have to 
understand that is a static interest rate that we have applied to it. 
It is 3.45, is the projection of the Congressional Budget Office. And 
they

[[Page S1007]]

have said if it averages at this point, then we are going to, as a 
nation, owe $5 trillion, if we didn't borrow another dime. Well, not 
only do we continue to borrow money, but the likelihood is, with the 
economic conditions and with the fragile nature of the international 
economy, anybody who buys our debt, anybody who loans us their money is 
probably going to want to require more than 3.45 percent to take the 
risk. When countries such as Greece are on the precipice of default, it 
drives the international market up. It drives the cost of risk up. It 
will drive the cost of our risk up. What is $5 trillion today--we might 
not borrow another dime--may end up being next week, next month, next 
year $10 trillion over 5 years, just with the change in interest rate; 
just with what it costs us to go out and attract somebody to loan us 
this money.
  I think I have given us a best-case scenario of saying we owe $5 
trillion in the next 10 years. Excuse me, $5 trillion plus 10 more 
billion that we spent last night. The question is: Today, are we going 
to add another $14 billion to it? That is the decision in front of the 
Congress. My amendment, No. 3390, provides a $250 stipend. What it does 
that the Sanders amendment doesn't do, is it pays for it. It assures 
every recipient--senior, veteran, disabled person--that they are not 
putting the obligation of their check on their grandchildren and their 
great grandchildren; that we are taking the responsibility now to fund 
that.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, the Baucus substitute amendment gives 
preferential treatment to the extension of three programs: unemployment 
insurance, COBRA, and what is known as FMAP, which is the Federal 
Government's aid that it provides to States in the payment of Medicaid. 
These are laudable things to do, especially in this difficult economic 
environment. In my home State of Florida, we have nearly 12 percent 
unemployment. It is the highest anyone can remember, and people are 
struggling. So these are laudable things to do. The challenge is we are 
not going to pay for these spending programs. We are going to put them 
on the backs of our children and grandchildren, as my colleague Senator 
Burr remarked in his comments.
  A couple of weeks ago, we passed a bill here in the Senate called 
pay-go, and the President just signed this bill into law. I struggled 
with my vote on pay-go, being a new Member to the Senate and being very 
concerned about spending, and I thought about voting for it. I thought 
about voting for it because anything that cuts spending around here, on 
its face, seems like a good idea to me. But the challenge for me came 
in learning from some of my colleagues that we don't enforce pay-go. 
They came to me and said: Look, they are not going to use this as a 
real measure to control spending. So the bill passed along party lines. 
And although I didn't support it, I hoped for the best.
  But here we are, a couple of weeks after the President signed the 
pay-go law, and I want to remind the Senate of the comments of Majority 
Leader Reid upon arguing for the passage of the bill. He said: This 
pay-go--pay-as-you-go rule--we are proposing for the government is the 
same one Americans use every day in their individual lives; the same 
ones we teach our children. In order to spend a dollar, we have to have 
that dollar in our wallet. This law will enforce that commonsense 
approach.
  Sounds reasonable. Sounds like the right thing to do. The President, 
when he signed the law, said: You have to make hard choices about where 
to spend and where to save.
  Well, here we are, a few weeks later, and unfortunately the 
prediction of my colleagues that this was not a true enforcement 
mechanism on spending has come true. Because we are going to designate 
the extension of these three programs as emergencies. They are 
emergencies. And if they are emergencies, then we don't have to make 
them play by the rules. We don't have to cut spending in order to pay 
for these programs.
  Unfortunately, we seem to designate whatever we choose as an 
emergency and, therefore, we don't have to do the things Leader Reid 
said. We don't have to do the things President Obama said. But families 
sitting around their tables who have bills to pay can't say: This is an 
emergency; therefore, I can go and spend money I don't have. Families 
can't do that. Businesses can't do that. Even State governments, that 
have to balance their budgets, can't do that.
  So what is an emergency? What does the law tell us is proper to 
designate? Certainly we could think of circumstances that could be an 
emergency: a situation of war, the financial meltdown we had a couple 
of years ago. Certainly things such as that would justify being an 
emergency. Well, the Budget Act of 1974 lays out five different 
criteria that must be met. First, necessary, essential, or vital; 
second, sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up over 
time; three, an urgent pressing and compelling need, requiring 
immediate attention; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated; 
five, not permanent, temporary in nature.
  None of these three extensions is that. We saw these coming. To say 
this is an emergency is like putting $5 of gasoline in your car and 
then running out of gasoline and saying: I have an emergency. I 
couldn't foresee that the $5 wasn't going to get me very far.
  Again, these are laudable programs, and the point of order I am about 
to make is not going to stop this going forward. All it is going to say 
is that you can't declare something an emergency that is not an 
emergency, and that we should pay for this by the end of the year. What 
a commonsense idea to bring to Washington and perhaps to the Congress, 
that we pay for the programs we decide need funding, that we don't 
balance it on the backs of our kids and grandkids. As Senator Burr 
said, we shouldn't borrow $10 billion to spend $10 billion. The 
spending in Washington is unsustainable.
  Let's do these good programs, but let's take a novel approach and 
let's pay for them.
  Mr. President, at this time I wish to make a point of order. Pursuant 
to section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I raise 
a point of order against the emergency designation provision contained 
in the pending substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of 
those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the 
substitute amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a killer motion the Senator from 
Florida is making. This amendment kills jobs. This amendment tells 
people who are currently unemployed: You are not going to get an 
unemployment check. This amendment tells people who are trying to get 
health insurance under COBRA: Sorry, no more. This amendment tells 
doctors who are trying to take care of patients, Medicare patients, 
that they are not going to get paid what they should be paid.
  Let me give a few numbers. Our legislation will help half a million 
workers who lose their jobs get help under COBRA. That is the health 
insurance substitute provision for those who have lost their jobs. But 
the amendment of the Senator from Florida says to those half a million 
workers who lose their jobs today that they will not get insurance 
benefits under COBRA.
  This amendment also will have the effect, if adopted, of preventing 
nearly 40 million Medicare beneficiaries and nearly 9 million TRICARE 
beneficiaries from getting access to their doctors--40 million seniors 
and about 9 million military personnel under TRICARE.
  This amendment will also prevent 400,000 Americans from getting 
unemployment insurance benefits.
  That is just for starters. This motion, if adopted, is not a poison 
amendment, it is a killer amendment. It kills the bill we are trying to 
pass in a short period of time. The bill is basically to extend 
unemployment benefits, to extend the COBRA benefits, and to make sure 
that people who should get relief under current law are able to 
maintain that.

[[Page S1008]]

  This is very similar to the situation we faced because of efforts of 
the Senator from Kentucky not long ago. We finally resolved that. That 
was a 30-day extension, and the Senate voted 78 to 19 to continue those 
benefits under that 30-day provision. The Senator from Kentucky tried 
to stop it. Finally, the Senator relented and the Senate agreed by a 
vote of 78 to 19 that we should proceed, and it passed that 30-day 
continuation.
  This is an emergency. We are now in an economic emergency. 
Unemployment is close to 10 percent. This economy is still in a 
recession. It is slowly getting better, but if this amendment were to 
pass--if the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida were to 
become law--then, frankly, think of the signal that would send to 
Americans who are now relying upon COBRA benefits and unemployment 
benefits.
  This point of order is a killer, and that is why we need to waive the 
budget point of order so we can vote for a bill that would come before 
us later on this evening. I urge Senators, when the vote comes on this 
waiver, that we waive the budget point of order, because otherwise the 
provision of the Senator from Florida will send a terrible signal to 
millions of Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. With all due respect to my colleague, the chairman of 
the Finance Committee, my point of order will not stop these programs 
from being extended. What it will do is it will make sure we have to 
pay for them by the end of the year--a novel idea, that we actually pay 
for a program. So we will have to look at programs we have now, 
perhaps, and we cut other programs. Do we not think there is some 
inefficiency in the administration of the Federal Government? We had a 
proposal we tried to pass last year to require all the agencies of the 
Federal Government to cut 5 percent--just 5 percent--when they have had 
5, 10, 15 and 20-percent increases year after year after year. Surely 
governing and leadership is about making decisions.
  I voted for the 30-day extension. I want to vote for this bill, but I 
want to pay for it. I want to make sure we are not borrowing money from 
the children and grandchildren of Floridians and other Americans to pay 
for this bill. I want to make sure we are not going to be paying 
interest to the Chinese to pay for this bill. I think it makes 
perfectly good sense that we are required, by the end of the year, to 
find the money to pay for this.
  Every dollar we spend is a choice. It is a choice on what we should 
spend it on. In this body and in this Congress it is a choice, 
unfortunately, to put a burden upon our children and grandchildren 
because we spend much more than we have.
  I am supportive of extending unemployment compensation. I am 
supportive of extending COBRA, which is health care. I am supportive of 
helping out the States with Medicaid payments. All I am asking is let's 
pay for it. Surely, there is some other program, duplicative in 
government, inefficiencies we can find to offset this payment.
  This is not a killer, this is just responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I hope we can vote on this fairly soon. Basically, let's 
remind ourselves this is an emergency. We have lost over 7 million jobs 
in this recession. We are not out of the recession. Unemployment is 
close to 10 percent. We hope it comes down. This is an emergency and in 
emergency situations you take emergency action and that is why this 
legislation is necessary now.
  I hope when the economy does recover we have the fortitude to start 
to live within our means, as we should. Nobody debates that. But we are 
in a situation now where we have to make sure we extend those benefits 
and that Medicaid dollars go to the States right now because we are 
still in an emergency.
  I urge, frankly, the motion to waive the point of order. I hope it is 
successful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak about 5 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burris pertaining to the introduction of S. 3065 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                           Amendment No. 3390

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in October of 2008, the Social Security 
Administration, SSA, announced that beneficiaries would receive a 5.8-
percent COLA in 2009, the biggest increase since 1982.
  This increase was primarily due to record high energy prices. Energy 
prices have since declined resulting in a 2.1-percent year-over-year 
decline in the consumer price index, CPI, as determined by the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics.
  Because current law precludes a negative COLA, the SSA announced this 
past October that there will be no COLA in 2010.
  It was also announced that there will be no increase in Medicare Part 
B premiums for current beneficiaries, except for those with incomes 
greater than $85,000--single--and $170,000--married.
  I understand the concerns about Medicare Part D and Medigap premiums. 
Unlike Part B premiums--which cannot go up when there is no COLA--these 
other premiums are not subject to such a restriction.
  However, beneficiaries have other options to reduce these premiums. 
For example, there may be a competing drug plan with lower premiums. I 
always encourage people to reevaluate their coverage on an annual basis 
to see if there is another plan that offers the benefits they need at a 
lower price. Or, there may be a Medicare Advantage plan that covers 
both prescription drugs and provides coverage similar to a Medigap plan 
for a lower premium.
  As an aside, senior citizens at my town hall meetings frequently ask 
about congressional COLAs. I remind them that Congress did not receive 
a COLA this year either. I have consistently voted against automatic 
COLAs for Congress.
  However, I recognize the financial need of many seniors who rely on 
Social Security. A $250 check would be roughly equal to a 2 percent 
COLA for the average beneficiary.
  Congress enacted the automatic COLA in 1972 in order to provide an 
objective, nonpartisan way to determine benefit adjustments. The annual 
COLA has been based on the CPI calculations of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics ever since.
  Any decision to change, or override, the current process needs to be 
carefully vetted. History shows Congress has often played partisan 
politics with Social Security without regard to the solvency of the 
program or the burden placed on future taxpayers.
  I understand the desire to send $250 checks to current Social 
Security beneficiaries to compensate for the lack of a COLA. But, we 
are also facing an annual budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion for 
the second year in a row.
  We cannot continue to add to our deficit without any regard to the 
consequences.
  The Sanders amendment fails to include an acceptable way of 
offsetting the $13 billion cost of this proposal.
  The amendment offered by Senator Burr would offset the cost by 
reducing unspent stimulus funds.
  Last year, CBO scored the stimulus bill at $787 billion. But earlier 
this year CBO revised its estimate to $862 billion.
  CBO estimates that we have already spent $200 billion in 2009 and we 
will spend $400 billion in 2010. That leaves more than $250 billion for 
future years.
  This amendment would simply reduce the unspent balance by $13 
billion.
  It has been suggested by some on the other side of the aisle that we 
should not use stimulus money to pay for other things.
  They insist the stimulus money is needed to create jobs. Given the 
fact we have lost nearly 4 million private sector jobs since last year, 
I doubt the stimulus money has created any net new jobs. But for those 
who choose to believe government spending can create more jobs than it 
destroys, CBO says payments that can be made quickly are more effective 
than those that take a long time.
  By that standard, using less effective stimulus dollars to pay for 
more effective stimulus dollars is the best alternative.

[[Page S1009]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which is fully paid 
for, and reject the amendment of my colleague from Vermont that 
needlessly increases the deficit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think we will soon be entering an order 
to vote on several amendments. I would like to point out the theme of 
these amendments, most of which are offered by the other side, are to 
cut back Recovery Act dollars, cut back stimulus dollars, take away 
stimulus dollars.
  We know the stimulus program has created millions of jobs. At least 
that is what CBO says. Certainly, it has created a great number of 
jobs. When these amendments come up, I would like all Members to know 
the basic theme of these amendments is to pay for them by cutting 
stimulus dollars, which I think is a bad idea. We should not be cutting 
stimulus dollars. We should be maintaining the Recovery Act and 
stimulus program. We will soon get an order so we can start voting on 
amendments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:55 p.m. this evening 
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments and 
the Baucus motion to waive in the order listed, that prior to each vote 
in the sequence, there be 2 minutes of debate divided and controlled in 
the usual form, and after each vote in the sequence the remaining votes 
be 10 minutes' duration.
  I might say the 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled, 
be amended to 4 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled, with 
respect to the two Bunning amendments. Those two Bunning amendments are 
Nos. 3360 and 3361.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, just to make it clear what the amendments 
are, it is Burr amendment No. 3390; Sanders amendment No. 3353, as 
modified; Bunning amendment No. 3360; Bunning amendment No. 3361, and 
Baucus motion to waive the Budget Act.
  I thank the Chair.
  For the information of all Senators, the first vote will be on the 
Burr amendment, which is similar to the Sanders amendment. One big 
difference, that Burr amendment takes stimulus dollars to pay for the 
Sanders amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There are 2 minutes, equally divided, prior to a vote on the Burr 
amendment.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I will take my minute to simply say my 
amendment does exactly what the Sanders amendment does. It provides a 
$250 stipend to seniors, veterans, the disabled who did not receive a 
cost-of-living increase because the inflation formula did not provide 
one this year. The difference between mine and Sanders is novel--I 
actually pay for the $14 billion we are paying out to seniors, 
veterans, and the disabled. I am saying to every recipient of a check, 
we are not going to bill this to your children and grandchildren, we 
are going to pay for it now with money that is unobligated but already 
appropriated by the Congress. I think this is a reasonable approach. I 
think every Member should support it. We should be pleased we are doing 
a stipend to seniors, but we should sleep well tonight because we paid 
for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate voted yesterday, 53 to 43, 
against the Bunning amendment to cut back Recovery Act funds for the 
30-day extension bill. Earlier today, the Senate voted 61 to 38 against 
the Thune amendment to cut back Recovery Act funds to pay for tax cuts, 
and now we have the pending Burr amendment to cut back Recovery Act 
funds. In all three cases, we turned away those efforts to cut back 
Recovery Act/stimulus funds. I think we should do the same here, so 
people can get their benefits--excuse me, so the Sanders amendment gets 
passed.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the emergency 
provisions in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. I move to waive the appropriate provisions in the Budget 
Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     LeMieux
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Webb

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Hutchison
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are 
59. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion rejected.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending 
Burr amendment violates the pay-as-you-go provisions, of S. Con. Res. 
21, 110th Congress, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 2009.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.
  The amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 3353

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes evenly divided with respect 
to the Sanders amendment No. 3353, as modified.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, for the first time in 36 years, seniors 
and disabled veterans and persons with disabilities will not be 
receiving a cost-of-living adjustment, a COLA on their benefits. The 
argument for that is that they are not seeing inflationary costs. Go 
back home and talk to seniors, talk to disabled veterans. They will 
tell you they are paying sky-high costs for prescription drugs and 
health care. This amendment is supported by AARP, the American Legion, 
the VFW, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security, and a wide 
number of veterans organizations and senior citizens organizations that 
know it is wrong to turn our backs on seniors in this moment of 
economic difficulty.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Social Security represents a strong 
commitment to our nation's seniors. Ever since Ida May Fuller of 
Vermont received the first Social Security check issued, vulnerable 
seniors have had a safety-net to fall back on in retirement and to 
supplement individual retirement savings or pensions. Nearly 70

[[Page S1010]]

percent of beneficiaries depend on Social Security for at least half of 
their income, and Social Security is the sole source of income for 15 
percent of recipients.
  Social Security is an immensely important program, one that has 
helped millions of Americans stay out of poverty once entering 
retirement. While facing the rising costs of health care, food and 
fuel, Social Security has been a successful safety net for more than 70 
years. However, for the first time in its history, this year Social 
Security recipients will not receive a cost-of living adjustment, COLA, 
due to the economic deflation, rather than inflation, our economy 
experienced this past year. Since the COLA will not go into effect this 
year, Congress needs to act to ensure those who need it most will 
receive this essential benefit.
  That is why I was proud to join Senator Sanders in cosponsoring the 
Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, which would provide all Social 
Security recipients, railroad retirees, SSI beneficiaries and adults 
receiving veterans' benefits with a one-time additional check for $250 
in 2010, similar to the payment beneficiaries received as a part of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed last year. Today, we have 
the opportunity to include this important emergency relief in 
legislation aimed at helping all struggling Americans. This amendment 
represents our continued commitment to providing a safety net to our 
nation's seniors and those with disabilities in this uncertain economy.
  I urge my fellow Senators to support the Sanders amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment would add billions of 
dollars to the deficit which would have to be paid for by our children. 
Of course, the reason the COLA is not being given this year is because 
the law says it should not be. Therefore, I raise a point of order that 
the Sanders amendment violates section 403(a) of the budget resolution.
  Mr. SANDERS. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1964 and section 4(g)(3) of the statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 
I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable 
budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Hutchison
     Isakson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained. The emergency designation is 
stricken.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment 
violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 of the 110th Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 3360

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes equally divided 
before a vote in relation to the Bunning amendment No. 3360.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are 4 
minutes equally divided on these two amendments; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Amendment No. 3360 is simple. It contains all of the extensions in 
the Baucus substitute, but rather than adding over $100 billion in cost 
to the deficit and debt, which the Baucus substitute does, my amendment 
pays for the spending in this bill by rescinding unspent stimulus 
funding.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated repeatedly 
that CBO considers money spent on extending unemployment benefits to be 
one of the best kinds of stimulus because the people who receive it are 
likely to immediately spend it. So let's redirect money from an 
ineffective stimulus bill in which some of the funding won't be spent 
until fiscal year 2013 or beyond. Let's stimulate the economy now and 
prevent a massive increase in the debt at the same time.
  I am having a hard time understanding why some Senators believe 
stimulus funding is so sacred. Was the stimulus brought down from the 
mountaintop by Moses? If that is the case, why did the majority raid 
stimulus money to pay for an extension of cash for clunkers?
  I will be the first to admit that neither side of the aisle has clean 
hands when it comes to out-of-control spending. We can't control what 
was done in the past, but we can control what happens today. It is time 
to take a stand--a stand for our children and grandchildren so they 
won't have to pay back trillions more in debt.
  I am tired of China holding the mortgage on our country. I am tired 
of the massive national debt that will be doubled in 5 years and 
tripled in 10. It is hard for me to look my grandchildren in the eye 
when I know this generation is handing them a country where they won't 
have the same opportunities to succeed and prosper as I did. It has to 
stop.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, our spending has to stop.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this Bunning amendment is the fourth 
attempt in 2 days to pay for emergency safety net programs by cutting 
back stimulus spending, by cutting back from the Recovery Act. This is 
the same amendment. We have voted on this basic topic four times.
  Yesterday the Senate voted 53 to 43 against the Bunning amendment to 
cut back Recovery Act funds for the 30-day extension bill. Earlier 
today the Senate voted 61 to 38 against the Thune amendment to cut back 
Recovery Act funds, and just a few minutes ago the Senate voted down 
the Burr amendment. Now we have the Bunning amendment to cut back 
Recovery Act funds again to pay for the pending bill.
  CBO does say the Recovery Act has added jobs. Between 1 million and 
2.1 million jobs have been added to our economy because of the Recovery 
Act. Just to repeat, the CBO says the Recovery Act added between 1 
million and 2 million to the number of Americans employed in the fourth 
quarter of last year. CBO also says the Recovery Act increased the 
number of full-time equivalent jobs by between 1.4 and 3 million jobs. 
The Recovery Act is creating jobs, so I think the last thing we should 
do is scale back something that

[[Page S1011]]

is working. If it is working, don't change it. If it is working, let's 
continue with it.
  I move to table the Bunning amendment, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Hutchison
     Isakson
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3361

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes equally divided 
prior to a vote in relation to Bunning amendment No. 3361.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, let me briefly describe my amendment No. 
3361. Like other amendments, this amendment contains all the extensions 
in the Baucus substitute, and it also completely pays for that 
spending. But it provides a different alternative for paying for it: 
eliminating wasteful and duplicative government programs.
  Many of these programs are the ones President Obama has recommended 
terminating, and others have been highlighted by the CBO and the 
Congressional Research Service as wasteful.
  I thank Senator Coburn publicly for the good work he has done 
compiling this list of programs.
  We voted on a similar spending reduction when the Senate passed a 
record $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit to $14.3 trillion. I 
hope we have a different outcome today. I hope my colleagues will not 
choose bloated bureaucracy over our children and grandchildren. They 
will face over $100 billion more in debt and compounding interest on 
the debt if we do not pay for this bill. Enough is enough.
  If we cannot find the money to pay for programs, we ought to make the 
hard choices to reduce the deficit and debt.
  I hope my colleagues will make the right choice today and support my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, we find ourselves debating an amendment 
that we voted down just last month. Proponents make the rescissions 
sound like good policy when you listen to them. But Members need to 
understand this amendment causes harm to our national and international 
security and to our economy.
  First, this amendment proposes rescissions throughout the agencies 
that are completely random and based on subjective assumptions.
  Second, rescinding discretionary funds that have been available for 
more than 2 years will jeopardize our national defense, our homeland 
security, and the well-being of our citizens.
  This is simply irresponsible governing. For example, a ship is not 
built in a year or 2 years. A hospital is not built in a year. And if 
they are not built in a year, these funds are rescinded.
  This amendment proposes to cut billions in funding the Congress voted 
on and agreed to provide just months ago. This amendment is not based 
on careful review and, if adopted, would have serious consequences on 
our procurement process and many critical programs for fiscal year 
2010.
  The majority of the Members acted responsibly in January and rejected 
the same approach. I urge my colleagues to do the same today.
  Accordingly, Mr. President, I move to table the Bunning amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Hutchison
     Isakson
  The motion was agreed to.


                       Baucus Amendment No. 3336

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on the motion to waive a budget point of order on amendment 
No. 3336.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I made this point of order not because I 
am not in favor of the extension of the unemployment insurance or the 
COBRA or the money for Medicaid but only that it be paid for.
  Just a few weeks ago, this Chamber voted to pass a pay-go bill, which 
the President signed, and it said we will pay as we go. But we have 
designated each of these three extensions as emergencies. They are not 
emergencies under the 1974 Budget Act requiring that it be sudden, 
quickly coming, unforeseen, or unpredictable. It is not an emergency.
  All my point of order does is to say that by the end of the year, we 
will have to pay for these. It will not stop them from going forward, 
but it will make sure we have to pay for them, just as the pay-go law 
requires. These are nonemergencies.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to waive the point of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a killer point of order. This 
point of order would kill the underlying substitute amendment. It would 
prevent people from getting COBRA benefits. It would prevent people 
from getting their unemployment checks. It would cause doctors to have 
their payments

[[Page S1012]]

for Medicare patients cut 21 percent. It endangers access for 40 
million Medicare beneficiaries. It will kill unemployment insurance 
benefits for 400,000 Americans. This is a point of order that will, in 
effect, kill the bill. That is why it is vitally important that 
Senators vote to waive the point of order so we can pass the bill.
  Mr. LeMIEUX addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Hutchison
     Isakson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 
37. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to reconsider that vote.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 3400

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President I have sought recognition to speak on an 
amendment I am offering to H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act. This 
amendment would create a loan guarantee program to maintain the 
domestic manufacturing capacity for shipbuilding.
  With the U.S. economy still struggling to recover, manufacturing 
investments can have an immediate impact. Manufacturers have lost more 
than 2 million jobs since the recession began in December of 2007, so 
there is an opportunity to create a large number of jobs in the 
industry and to simultaneously revitalize our economy and overall 
global competitiveness. One area where benefits can immediately be seen 
is the shipbuilding industry. U.S. shipyards play an important role in 
supporting our Nation's maritime presence by building and repairing our 
domestic fleet; and the industry has a significant impact on our 
national economy by adding billions of dollars to U.S. economic output 
annually.
  These shipbuilding investments are vital to the United States, 
creating thousands of good-paying jobs across the country. The 
commercial shipbuilding and ship repair industry is a pillar of the 
American skilled labor workforce employing nearly 40,000 skilled 
workers; and the ships produced domestically are an integral part of 
commerce, international trade, the Navy, Coast Guard, and other 
military and emergency support. With more than 80 percent of the 
world's trade carried in whole or part by seaborne transportation, the 
shipbuilding industry has always had and will continue to have a large 
industrial base that can support significant job creation and economic 
growth.
  Since the mid 1990s, the industry has been experiencing a period of 
expansion and renewal. The last expansion was largely marketdriven, 
backed by long-term customer commitments. Those new assets created much 
more productive and advanced ships than those they replaced. For 
example, articulated double-hull tank barge units replaced single-hull 
product tankers in U.S. coastal trades, and new duel propulsion double-
hull crude carriers replaced 30 plus-year-old, steam propulsion single-
hull crude carriers. The new crude carriers are larger, faster, more 
fuel efficient and have a fourfold increase in efficiency over the 
vessels they replaced.
  During the last expansion, the Department of Transportation's 
Maritime Administration touted the success of Aker Philadelphia 
Shipyard as a great achievement for the American shipbuilding industry. 
In 2000, Aker Philadelphia Shipyard was rebuilt on the site of a closed 
U.S. Navy shipyard. In a few short years, the shipyard became the 
country's most modern shipbuilding facility employing 1,200 highly 
skilled professional workers. Since 2003, it has built more than 50 
percent of the large commercial vessels produced in the United States. 
Additionally, the shipyard contributes over $230 million annually to 
the Philadelphia region, $5 to 7 million per month in local purchases, 
$8.6 million in annual tax revenues to the city of Philadelphia, and 
supports over 8,000 jobs throughout the region. Today, Aker 
Philadelphia Shipyard is one of only two companies producing large 
commercial vessels in the United States and is a critical asset to the 
economic viability of the mid-Atlantic region and the domestic 
shipbuilding industry.
  Despite these successes, the economic collapse has stalled the 
shipbuilding industry by delaying planned ship acquisitions, 
constraining the credit markets, and making large vessel acquisitions 
impossible to finance. The long-term customer-driven commitments that 
drove the last expansion are not a possibility in this economic 
climate. As a result, this industry, which is a part of the national 
security industrial base, supports thousands of highly skilled jobs, 
and is critical to the industrial fabric of our Nation, is struggling 
to survive.

  Since the economic downturn, shipyards such as the Aker Philadelphia 
Shipyard do not qualify for loan guarantees under existing programs at 
the Department of Transportation. Without assistance, shipyards will be 
forced to begin reducing their highly skilled workforce, apprentice 
programs, and vendor and supplier contracts, at a time when we can 
least afford additional job losses. If this situation persists and 
companies like Aker were to cease operations, our Nation's ability to 
construct commercial vessels would be severely limited and the 
investments we made to build this state-of-the-art facility would be 
lost.
  At the same time, there is a strong and direct correlation between 
the performance of shipbuilding and the global economy and trade. 
Shipbuilding activities rise when global trade and economy grow. 
Likewise, shipbuilding will be among the first activities to suffer 
when trade slumps and the economy stutters. This puts shipbuilding at 
the forefront of one of the world's key and most important economic 
activities, and a reliable barometer of economic performance.
  As the economy recovers, so will the need for ships and our domestic 
shipbuilding capacity. The Maritime Administration has recognized that 
construction of vessels for the Nation's marine highway system could 
result in significant new opportunities for U.S. shipyards. The 
shipbuilding industry is also developing vessel portfolios that can be 
leveraged by the government including military vessels to meet the 
Nation's needs in time of national emergency. For example, the Navy's 
Littoral Combat Ship and Joint High Speed Vessel programs are based on 
commercially designed and available vessels. There will also be a need 
for additional ships as almost $5 billion worth of double-hull 
construction and conversion work will need to take

[[Page S1013]]

place by 2015 to meet the double-hull requirement under the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990.
  To address the dire situation facing the domestic shipbuilding 
industry, I am seeking the establishment of a loan guarantee program, 
where the Secretary of Transportation can issue a loan guarantee for 
$165 million to qualifying shipyards. Because of loan guarantees 
leverage funding, the program would require only $15 million to 
leverage $165 million. This $15 million is offset by reprogramming 
previously appropriated funds, so there is no additional spending 
associated with this program.
  The Federal assistance would be a short-term financing bridge to 
enable shipyards to remain in operation and meet the future anticipated 
demand for domestically produced ships. I encourage my colleagues to 
help maintain the commercial shipbuilding capacity of the United States 
through the inclusion of a loan guarantee program.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to have filed an amendment 
that would give Alaska Native corporations, ANCs, parity for an 
important tax incentive encouraging the permanent protection of land 
through the charitable donation of a conservation easement.
  America's wildlife, waters, and land are an invaluable part of our 
Nation's heritage. It is imperative to preserve these natural treasures 
for future generations. Congress long ago concluded that it was good 
public policy to encourage the charitable contribution of conservation 
easements to organizations dedicated to maintaining natural habitats or 
open spaces help protect the Nation's heritage. A conservation easement 
creates a legally enforceable land preservation agreement between a 
willing landowner and another organization. The purpose of a 
conservation easement is to protect permanently land from certain forms 
of development or use. The property that is the subject to the easement 
remains the private property of the landowner. The organization holding 
the easement must monitor future uses of the land to ensure compliance 
with the terms of the easement and to enforce the terms if a violation 
occurs.
  In 2006, Congress enhanced the charitable tax deduction for 
conservation easements in order to encourage such gifts. With the 2006 
legislation, Congress temporarily increased the maximum deduction limit 
for individuals donating qualified conservation easements from 30 
percent to 50 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. Congress 
also created an exception for qualified farmers or ranchers, which are 
nonpublicly traded corporations or individuals whose gross income from 
the trade or business of farming is greater than 50 percent of the 
taxpayer's gross income. In the case of a qualified farmer or rancher, 
the limitation increased from 30 percent to 100 percent. The 2008 farm 
bill extended the temporary rules for 2 additional years to charitable 
contributions made before December 31, 2009.
  Unfortunately, the way the law was crafted has disadvantaged a number 
of important landowners in my home State. Alaska Native corporations, 
ANCs, own nearly 90 percent of the private land in Alaska, including 
some of the most scenic and resource rich. However, although they are 
very similar to the small communal family farms that are eligible, 
subsistence-based Alaskan Native communities are ineligible for these 
important new tax incentives. For thousands of years, Alaska has been 
home to Native communities, whose rich heritages, languages, and 
traditions have thrived in the region's unique landscape. Members of 
Alaska Native communities continue to have a deeply symbiotic 
relationship with the land even today. Much like their ancestors, many 
Native Alaskan communities engage in traditional subsistence 
activities, with nearly 70 percent of their food coming from the land 
or adjacent waters. For many communities, subsistence is an economic 
necessity considering both the lack of economic development and the 
cost and difficulty involved in purchasing food. For example, in 
Kotzebue a community in northwestern Alaska, milk costs nearly $10 per 
gallon. In Buckland, a village home to approximately 400 people, a 
pound of hamburger--when it is actually available--costs $14.
  In Alaska, the Native corporations have an important role to be 
stewards of the land. Their shareholders see themselves as the 
caretakers of the land and water as their ancestors have for thousands 
of years. Nonetheless, in Alaska today this means they have to balance 
the need for resource development and the need to cultivate the land 
for subsistence activities. The traditional lifestyles of Native 
Alaskans are under increasing stress from outside influences. 
Population growth and the pressure to pursue cash-generating activities 
have increased the desire for substantial development, significantly 
adding to the ecological stress on already fragile ecosystems. Without 
permanent protection, their lands could be developed in a manner that 
would destroy its ability to support the traditional ways and 
subsistence lifestyles crucial to Alaskan Native communities. Making 
use of tax incentives available to other Americans will make it easier 
for Native communities to make the right decisions for their 
shareholders.
  Today, Alaska Native communities are not eligible for the 50 percent 
deduction available to individuals because they are federally chartered 
as C corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 
1971, ANCSA. This leaves Alaska Natives without the ability to convert 
to an eligible entity as other landowners can. In addition, most Alaska 
Native corporations do not have sufficient gross income from the trade 
or business of what is considered traditional farming to be eligible 
for the 100 percent deduction available to qualified farmers or 
ranchers. This is in spite of the fact that as a group the Alaska 
Native shareholders of Alaska Native corporations receive far more in 
subsistence benefits than they receive in income from the Alaska Native 
Corporation. As a result, Alaska Native corporations do not have the 
same ability to offset the cost to permanently protect their 
properties, which contain important wildlife, fish, and other habitats, 
through donations of qualified conservation easements.
  This amendment will allow Alaska Native corporations to protect these 
important wildlife habitats, many used for subsistence, by providing an 
enhanced deduction for qualified conservation easements. The amendment 
modifies section 170(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code by creating a 
new subsection that provides Alaska Native corporations with a 
deduction for donations of certain qualified conservation easements. In 
order to be eligible, a qualified charitable conservation contribution 
must: (1) otherwise qualify under section 170(h)(1); (2) be made by a 
Native corporation; and (3) be land that was conveyed by ANCSA. The 
corporations would be limited to 10 percent of their land allotment 
under ANCSA. Under section 170(b)(2)(iii)(I), ``Native Corporation'' is 
defined by ANCSA, section 3(m). Under section 170(b)(2)(i), the maximum 
deduction limit would be set at 100 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted 
gross income. If the taxpayer has deductions in excess of the 
applicable percentage-of-income limitation, section 170(b)(2)(ii) would 
allow the taxpayer to carry-forward the deduction for up to 15 years.
  Congress must act to assist Alaska Native communities in permanently 
protecting their culturally, historically, and ecologically significant 
land, preserving the communities and their rich traditions in the 
process. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

                          ____________________