[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 32 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1253-S1258]
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.
       Reid (for Murray/Kerry) further modified amendment No. 3356 
     (to amendment No. 3336), to extend the TANF Emergency Fund 
     through fiscal year 2011 and to provide funding for summer 
     employment for youth.
       Coburn amendment No. 3358 (to amendment No. 3336), to 
     require the Senate to be transparent with taxpayers about 
     spending.
       Baucus (for Webb/Boxer) amendment No. 3342 to (amendment 
     No. 3336), 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.
       Feingold/Coburn amendment No. 3368 (to amendment No. 3336), 
     to provide for the rescission of unused transportation 
     earmarks and to establish a general reporting requirement for 
     any unused earmarks.
       Reid amendment No. 3417 (to amendment No. 3336), to 
     temporarily modify the allocation of geothermal receipts.
       McCain/Graham amendment No. 3427 (to amendment No. 3336), 
     to prohibit the use of reconciliation to consider changes in 
     Medicare.
       Lincoln amendment No. 3401 (to amendment No. 3336), to 
     improve a provision relating to emergency disaster 
     assistance.
       Baucus (for Isakson/Cardin) amendment No. 3430 (to 
     amendment No. 3336), to modify the pension funding 
     provisions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are now on our sixth day of 
consideration of this important legislation to create jobs and extend 
vital safety net and tax provisions.
  This legislation would prevent millions of Americans from falling 
through the safety net. It would put cash into the hands of Americans 
who would spend it quickly, boosting the economy. And it would extend 
critical programs and tax incentives that help create jobs.
  Now, we had a productive week on the bill last week. By my count, the 
Senate has considered 29 amendments on this bill. We have conducted 10 
rollcall votes.
  As I count it, there are nine amendments pending. Those amendments 
are:
  The underlying substitute amendment, the Murray-Kerry amendment on 
the TANF emergency fund and summer employment for youth, the Coburn 
amendment on transparency, the Webb amendment on executive bonuses, the 
Feingold-Coburn amendment rescinding unused transportation earmarks, 
the amendment by Senator Reid of Nevada on geothermal receipts, the 
McCain amendment on the use of reconciliation to change Medicare, the 
Lincoln amendment on disaster assistance, and the Isakson amendment on 
pension funding.
  On Friday, we reached a unanimous consent agreement that, after the 
Senate resumes consideration of the bill tomorrow, we will conduct up 
to four rollcall votes in relation to the following amendments: the 
side-by-side amendment to the Coburn amendment on transparency, the 
Coburn amendment, the Murray amendment on youth jobs, and the side-by-
side amendment to the Murray amendment.
  And so Senators should be aware that we will have up to four rollcall 
votes at about 10:15 tomorrow morning.
  We further agreed that at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow, the Senate will vote on 
the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment. And we hope 
that we might conclude action on the bill thereafter.
  Today, we will continue to process cleared amendments throughout the 
day.
  I thank all Senators for their cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for up to 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Virginia Job Fair

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today, and while I am speaking as 
in morning business, it is actually speaking in support of the 
legislation the chairman of the Finance Committee talked about, just 
taking it in a slightly different direction.
  We spend a lot of time talking in this body about the necessity for 
us to focus on jobs and how Americans feel about that search for jobs. 
We read about unemployment numbers at 9.7 percent. While we say, with 
some relief, the numbers did not pop up during February, those numbers 
are still way too high.
  I had a personal experience--I was not planning on speaking on the 
Senate floor, but I wanted to share with my colleagues and others an 
event that happened--actually is still happening--about 45 minutes 
south of this Chamber.
  My office had decided to sponsor a jobs fair, where we would bring 
together more than 30 Federal agencies. We located this jobs fair down 
45 minutes, as I mentioned, south of here at the University of Mary 
Washington at their Stafford campus.
  For those who do not follow all of the ins and outs of Northern 
Virginia, we are blessed in Northern Virginia and Virginia overall with 
actually a rather low unemployment rate. Statewide our unemployment is 
about 7 percent, and in Northern Virginia our numbers are even much 
lower.
  As I mentioned, we put together this jobs fair, not unlike what the 
Chair has done or other Senators have done. We were well represented 
with over 30 Federal agencies--from TSA to the Peace Corps to the Fish 
and Wildlife Service. We put out the word, not knowing exactly what 
kind of response we would get. This is the first jobs fair I have 
hosted as a U.S. Senator.
  At first we were a little worried. Last week, last Wednesday we only 
had about 75 RSVPs for this jobs fair on a

[[Page S1254]]

college campus south of Washington. But by that Friday night we had 
almost 3,000 folks signed up. By yesterday afternoon, we realized, oh, 
my gosh, our numbers were topping out about 5,000, and we were warning 
people that perhaps all of the accommodations we put in place were not 
ready to handle this many folks. We extended the hours of the jobs fair 
from noon to 12 to actually 4 o'clock today.
  When my staff started showing up this morning about 6:30 or 7, there 
were 500 people waiting in cars, many of whom had been sleeping there 
for hours. By 9 o'clock, when the jobs fair was supposed to start, 
3,000 people were in line. I showed up there about 9:30, and, 
regrettably, before noon, we had topped out over 5,000, probably closer 
to 7,000 folks clogging the roads trying to come to this jobs fair in 
Stafford County, VA.
  Unfortunately, we had to cut it off at that point and put out the 
word that we would try to have another jobs fair with these Federal 
agencies and some private sector partners within the next few weeks. 
The response was overwhelming.
  As I mentioned earlier, I spent an hour simply going up and down the 
line of folks who were waiting. Many of these folks were people who had 
graduate degrees; almost all of them had college degrees. They looked 
like any of the kind of workforce we would see crossing any parts of 
our Nation's Capital today.
  I heard story after story of folks who had never ever expected to 
show up at a Federal jobs fair, folks who had never ever expected to 
see their lives turned topsy-turvy by unemployment, or by folks who 
were still unable to change jobs because of their constraints on health 
care.
  None of these folks were looking for a handout. They were just 
looking for that opportunity to talk with some of the 35-plus 
representatives from Federal agencies about the possibilities of 
getting a job. All they wanted to do was try to do a better job for 
themselves and their families.
  So as we return to the debate on the so-called tax extenders bill, 
and when we work, as I know I have with the Presiding Officer, on 
efforts to kind of free up credit for small business owners or when we 
talk about how we can provide other kinds of incentives with the 
private sector to jumpstart the economy, while it was great to provide 
the possibility of these jobs in the public sector, the vast majority 
of jobs will and should be created in the private sector.
  As we think about this piece of legislation right now, to make sure 
our Tax Code is supportive enough of those private sector efforts, I 
saw the reason for those efforts this morning in the thousands in one 
of the most prosperous parts of our country, in Northern Virginia.
  I came back more charged up than ever that what we do here is 
terribly important and that the folks there in that line didn't 
understand rules about filibusters or holds or all the other procedural 
back and forth that sometimes seems to dominate the floor. What they 
did want us to do was to put that aside, put our partisanship aside and 
get the job done of trying to create more and more jobs all across the 
country. It is my hope in the coming weeks, when we have the next jobs 
fair, we will have the same kind of response. I look forward to the 
day, hopefully in the not too distant future, when we have a jobs fair, 
whether it be in Virginia or in Minnesota, that we get a few folks but 
that we don't get overwhelmed with the kind of literally unprecedented 
number of the 7,000 folks we saw today.
  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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           The Space Program

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, that great philosopher, that 
observer of the national scene, Yogi Berra, once said: ``You better be 
very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you may not 
get there.'' A bit of that policy is now the perception of President 
Obama's manned space program. There is a concern that the 
administration doesn't know where they are going and they may not get 
there.
  I said ``perception'' because in reality the President has laid out a 
visionary manned space program. However, the way the administration 
rolled out the space program--much to the chagrin of a number of us who 
were trying to get through to the White House about the way they should 
roll it out--it was rolled out as a part of the budget and left for 
people to draw their own conclusions.
  Among the aerospace and space community, particularly in areas such 
as Houston at the Johnson Space Center, Huntsville at the Marshall 
Space Flight Center, and Florida at the Kennedy Space Center, I can 
tell my colleagues that the perception is that the President has killed 
the manned space program. In fact, that is the farthest thing from 
President Obama's mind. He is an enthusiastic fan of the space program. 
As a matter of fact, we heard him speak many times about how as a 
little boy his grandfather took him to see the return of some of the 
Apollo astronauts coming back from the Moon. When he tells that story, 
his face lights up and you can see the enthusiasm he has. As he 
interacts by radio with the astronauts on board the space station and 
on board the space shuttle, you can see the enthusiasm he has.
  Unfortunately, some of his advisers have not given him correct 
information about how to lay out his vision. So, happily, over the 
course of the weekend, the President has said he is going to come to 
Florida on April 15 and he is going to lay out his vision for the space 
program. What is it? Well, we can anticipate that the President will 
say what he already had his Administrator of NASA say in our committee 
hearing last week, which is that the goal is Mars. Mars is the next 
logical goal. We were on the Moon 40 years ago. There could well be 
interim steps on the way to Mars: possibly the Moon; possibly 
rendezvousing and landing on an asteroid; possibly--and very likely--to 
go to one of the moons of Mars such as Fobos, before going actually to 
Mars. Why? Because it would expend a lot less energy to land on a moon 
of Mars and return than it would to go on down to the red planet.
  The President actually laid out in his robust budget proposal to the 
Congress a $6 billion increase for NASA over the course of the next 5 
years. Compared to other agencies of the government, NASA did very 
well. The President is also to be commended for his budget proposal in 
which he said what everybody knew he had to say--which the Bush 
administration had ignored--which was we have this $100 billion asset 
up there in orbit called the International Space Station. We are 
completing it now and we are equipping it now where we can get a crew 
of several astronauts--not just one, two, or three--on board to use it 
as a national laboratory, as it is technically designated. What he said 
was that we are not going to stop it in 2015. We are going to at least 
carry it out to 2020. Again, that was the logical thing that everybody 
knew. But if you can believe it, in the previous administration, it had 
not been budgeted to continue beyond 2015 the International Space 
Station which we haven't even completed yet, and of which the last four 
flights will not only complete the construction, the equipping, but 
will take up major scientific experiments such as the alpha magnetic 
spectrometer which, if it works, is going to open our understanding of 
the universe and what the origins of the universe are.
  So the President laid out a fairly good plan that had some good 
things in it, but he left himself open to misinterpretation so that not 
only is there the perception that the President has killed the manned 
space program, but there is outright hostility toward President Obama 
and his proposals for the Nation's human space program.
  Why did that occur? Well, No. 1, the President didn't make the 
declaration. Why is that important? Because only a President can lead 
the Nation's human space program. Of course, the best example of that 
was that after the Soviets had surprised us in the late 1950s

[[Page S1255]]

with Sputnik and then they surprised us again in 1961 by putting the 
first human in orbit, Yuri Gagarin--and we didn't even have a rocket 
that was strong enough to get us into orbit with our little Mercury 
spacecraft. We had the plan to go into suborbit with Alan Shepard, and 
after Shepard came back, it took that bold stroke of President Kennedy 
to say, In 9 years, we are going to the Moon and will return safely. 
That is leadership. That is a declaratory judgment. That is stepping 
out and being bold.
  If we are going to Mars, it is going to take the President to say 
that; not to tell his NASA Administrator in the Space Subcommittee 
hearing in the Senate last week that the Administrator can say that the 
goal is Mars. It has to take the President to say that and he has to 
set out a specific timeframe. It can be approximate, but it has to be a 
reasonable timeframe. He then has to say to NASA: You figure out the 
architecture; you set the benchmarks. So is it to go back to the Moon 
for a temporary mission? Is it to go to an asteroid? Is it to go on and 
try to go straight to Mars? Then we will unleash the creative spirit, 
the human ingenuity of Americans as we have seen in this extraordinary 
program. The heartbeat of every American is a little faster when they 
see some of the extraordinary, heroic accomplishments we have had in 
the American space program, both manned and unmanned space 
accomplishments.
  The President let himself be misinterpreted. He said in his budgetary 
message that he was cancelling the Constellation program. The 
Constellation program was a program that was announced 5 or 6 years ago 
by President George W. Bush, but the Bush administration never funded 
it. In fact, they starved NASA so that the building of the new rocket 
is not ready when the space shuttle is now being set for retirement. 
Why is that? Well, that decision on the space shuttle came as a result 
of the destruction of Columbia over the skies of Texas on reentry back 
in 2003.
  The investigation commission, headed by a Navy admiral named Gehman, 
called the Gehman Commission, otherwise known as CAIB, the Columbia 
Accident Investigation Board--they refer to it as the acronym CAIB--
they said, after a decade, at the end of the decade: If you are going 
to continue to fly the space shuttle, you are going to have to 
recertify all these orbiters that have been going on since the early 
eighties.
  The decisions were made to shut down the space shuttle program at the 
end of the last decade. We find the shuttle program is, in fact, coming 
to an end without the new rocket being ready and, therefore, we have 
the angst that is in this aerospace community, this close-knit family 
called the NASA family who are going to be seeing so many of the men 
and women who are so dedicated to this program being laid off because 
if you are not launching Americans on American rockets, then the jobs 
are not there.
  Unfortunately, those decisions we tried to avert over and over. In 
the last 5 or 6 years in the Senate, we put additional money into 
NASA's exploration program to try to speed the development of the 
rocket. Over and over, the previous administration cut us off at the 
knees, would not support it, and we could not get the votes in the 
House of Representatives to keep that additional money. As a result, we 
have a rocket that is just in its testing stages, a capsule that has 
not been built, and, as the President's advisers looked at it, they saw 
it was going to be well on into this decade before it would be ready, 
so they up and announced they are going to cancel this program called 
Constellation, which was the development of the Ares rocket and the 
development and construction of a capsule called Orion. But they also 
said: We want the R&D of a heavy-lift vehicle. There came the 
disconnect because people who do not understand the space program were 
making decisions. I lay it at the feet of some of the folks in OMB, the 
Office of Management and Budget. If you are going to build a heavy-lift 
vehicle, the likelihood is you cannot do that entirely with liquid 
rockets; you need solid rockets to propel that massive weight up into 
low Earth orbit.
  The solid rockets are what we are testing now. Thus, the President 
allowed his administration to be perceived that they were killing the 
manned space program when, in fact, there was nothing further from what 
he intended.
  What are we going to do about it? Let's go back to the announcement 
made over the weekend. I commend the President. I am very thankful to 
the President that he has said he is coming to Florida for a major 
discussion and announcement on the human space program. This will occur 
April 15. It will occur in Florida. I assume it will be at the Kennedy 
Space Center or somewhere close by, which is the logical place, from 
whence we have sent Americans into the cosmos.
  I think that is a step in the right direction for the President. But 
he needs to be prepared with specifics because of the perception that 
he has killed the manned space program. Because of the hostility he has 
generated because of that perception, the President needs to be 
prepared with specifics of the goal, the timeframe, the benchmarks, the 
suggested architecture, and how he would take his budget to flesh out 
moving toward that goal.
  May I give some suggestions to the President on how he might achieve 
that. In the first place, there are four additional shuttles manifested 
to fly and, with that, the completion and the equipping of the 
International Space Station.
  But there is a fifth shuttle that can fly because the external tank 
is there. It is referred to as the ``mission on demand'' because, in 
effect, it is a rescue shuttle to go up, if a space shuttle got 
marooned, and rescue them.
  What about a rescue for the last and the fifth shuttle? The risk is 
minimal because the mission would be to the space station. If the worst 
happened on launch, just like Columbia, that a piece of the delicate 
silicon tiles fell off and knocked a hole in the wing, of which they 
then could not come back into Earth without burning up, then they could 
take safe sanctuary in the International Space Station because now it 
is large enough to accommodate additional crew members until a rescue 
spacecraft could come to rescue them to take them back to Earth.
  The risk to safety is minimal on a fifth shuttle flight. The 
President should announce he is asking NASA to do that fifth flight.
  By the way, the money is already there. If the four flights, as 
scheduled, get off between now and the end of the fiscal year, 
September 30, there is the money in the first quarter of fiscal year 
2011 for an additional flight. You don't have to get any additional 
money. It is budgeted. The President should announce that.
  The next thing the President of the United States should do is say we 
are going on a full-scale, aggressive R&D program to develop that 
heavy-lift rocket that is going to get us up into low Earth orbit so we 
can assemble things and go to whatever the next station is--the Moon, 
asteroid, the Moon of Mars. That aggressive R&D effort should be the 
continued testing of a solid rocket booster, not unlike the one that 
has already been successfully tested.
  Concurrent with that, there should be the development of a crew 
exploration vehicle, otherwise known as a capsule, that would carry 
astronauts up into low Earth orbit on this heavy-lift vehicle that 
would allow us to do the assembly and all the other things we want to 
do. This does not have to take away from the President's proposal that 
commercial companies are encouraged to compete against each other to 
have a cargo and human ferry service to and from the International 
Space Station, for that can go on concurrently. Although I must say, in 
a couple weeks, we are having a hearing in our Space Subcommittee. We 
are going to look at the commercial rocket competitors and whether they 
need the $6 billion the President has recommended over the next 5 years 
in order for them to get humans to and from the International Space 
Station. The President should then clearly say we are going to do an 
aggressive R&D effort to build a heavy-lift vehicle.
  Because of the angst among space workers in the middle of a 
recession, some of whom have already been laid off, others of whom are 
getting pink slips and others of whom fear for their jobs, let us 
remember a recession is not a recession if you have been laid off from 
your job. It is a depression. The angst of this economic recession with

[[Page S1256]]

losing their job and not knowing where to turn elsewhere is among them. 
Therefore, my next recommendation to the President would be that he 
address those fears.
  He has already said he wants to spend $2 billion to help the center 
that is going to be the most impacted. I have had estimates that with 
the layoff of the shuttle program, it is about 5,000 jobs. The 
President should address that point. He should point out in his budget 
the $2 billion he offered to modernize the Kennedy Space Center, how 
that will affect jobs, and what part of that 5,000 could be 
ameliorated.
  Then the President should say--and it is my humble, respectful 
suggestion--there are plenty other jobs in the aerospace community, and 
he is going to try to bring them into places such as the Kennedy Space 
Center, that is going to feel the effects of these layoffs, to help 
people on a temporary basis until we can get back into the business of 
launching humans.
  I humbly, respectfully request that the President say: The commercial 
boys who are bidding in a competition to be the service to and from the 
International Space Station have to hire, if they are the successful 
bidders, those people who are so skilled and who have not missed a beat 
in all these, lo, many years of which the American space program has 
been so tremendously successful. That is the next thing I would 
respectfully ask the President to do.
  Then, I think the President has to directly confront his critics, 
those who, in political parlance, are taking cheap shots at the 
President--and he has left himself open to those cheap shots--that he 
would directly confront them head on and say: The American space 
program is not a partisan program, it is not an ideological program; it 
is an American program, and it has always been run that way. That is 
the way he should say he is going to continue to run that program and 
that he should get those people to quiet down, get in the harness, and 
let's all pull together what we all want to do, which is go out there 
and explore the heavens.
  By the way, on that fifth shuttle flight, some people have asked me: 
What can it do? What is its function, other than just flying an 
additional shuttle? There is a lot of equipment, a lot of experiments 
that can be put in it, and it can take up an additional component, 
attach it to the space station and add volume to an already expansive 
space station that will allow us to do experimentation in the zero 
gravity of orbit for years and years to come.
  For all these reasons, I am so grateful to the President that he has 
stepped forth and said he is going to come and address this issue. I 
respectfully request that he consider some of the suggestions I have 
made.
  At the end of the day, it is what he wants, it is what the Nation 
wants because every American heart beats a little bit quicker when they 
happen to witness the extraordinary feats of Americans in space and the 
peeling back of the frontiers and the new knowledge and scientific 
results that we have of the spinoffs as we develop these incredible 
flying machines.
  Mr. President, it is an urgent plea that I make to the White House. 
Listen to some advice. Stop listening just to the budget boys and OMB. 
Listen to the cries of an American people who once again want to be 
challenged and inspired, as President John F. Kennedy inspired the 
Nation and the Nation came together and did what was considered to be 
almost the impossible. It wasn't impossible. It was extraordinary, and 
it was an American achievement.
  Mr. President, 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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Iraqi Parliamentary Elections

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, these are days when we Senators take to 
the floor to express our anger and criticism of actions or events we 
disagree with. But then there are days we rise happily to pay tribute 
to great and noble achievements. Today is such a day.
  The people of Iraq went to the polls yesterday and struck a blow for 
freedom and democracy that has resounded across the world. As opposed 
to Iraq's last national elections in 2005 which saw the country rigidly 
divided along sectarian lines, with most Sunnis refusing to participate 
altogether, the election yesterday was broadly inclusive, with a host 
of cross-sectarian lists competing for the vote.
  Early reports indicate turnout was high among Iraq's nearly 19 
million registered voters. Over 50,000 polling stations were up and 
running across the country with more than 200,000 Iraqis observing the 
election.
  Loud speakers in mosques that once implored Iraqis to take up arms 
and kill Americans appealed to them yesterday with a different purpose: 
to express their desire for a better Iraq--not with bullets but with 
ballots, not with bombs but with ink-stained fingers.
  Tragically, as most of us feared, yesterday's events did not proceed 
without incident. Al-Qaida and other terrorists lashed out with acts of 
barbaric violence against innocent Iraqis--women and men, fellow Muslim 
and fellow Arabs, even young children. Although these criminals did 
take the lives of at least 37 people, Iraqis were not deterred. They 
voted by the millions anyway, and in so doing they defied the enemies 
of their great nation. The Iraqi people deserve the lion's share of the 
credit for making yesterday's election such a resounding triumph for 
democracy.
  Iraq's Government, its High Electoral Commission, and its security 
forces all conducted themselves with distinction. I congratulate them 
all. It has been Iraqi courage, Iraqi sacrifice, and Iraqi endurance 
over many years of hardship that are now bringing about the country's 
emergence as an increasingly free society.
  Yet Iraqis have been fortunate to have committed allies in their 
struggle for justice. I thank America's civilians and diplomats, as 
well as those of our coalition partners and the United Nations for 
supporting our Iraqi friends in this election and throughout the 
countless challenges that preceded it.
  Most of all, I want to express my deepest gratitude to America's men 
and women in uniform who have given more to our mission in Iraq than 
could ever be asked of them. As our troops return home in the months 
ahead, as they must, it will be with the knowledge that their mission 
has been worth fighting for, with the thanks of a grateful nation, and 
with an honor won for themselves that time will not diminish.
  Our fellow citizens who have served in Iraq these past several years 
have done what many once believed to be impossible. It was once assumed 
that Iraq was unfit for democracy, that Iraq's people could not 
practice it, and Iraq's culture would not allow it.
  It was once assumed that America was trying to ``impose'' democracy 
on Iraq, or perhaps ``export'' it to Iraq. It was once assumed that no 
manner of additional U.S. troops could succeed in helping Iraqis to 
secure their country. These were all popular assumptions, especially in 
this town--popular but wrong. Thankfully, the United States followed a 
different course. Because we did, Iraqis are showing that freedom and 
democracy are Iraqi dreams and, increasingly, Iraqi realities. Iraqis 
are choosing to resolve their differences through cooperation and 
dialogue not violence and repression. They are demonstrating that 
Iraqis share the same basic aspirations as you and me: safe 
neighborhoods, opportunity for themselves and their children, equal 
access to justice, a chance to elect those who would govern them, and 
to live under laws of their own making.
  Yesterday the citizens of Iraq once again reaffirmed that a nation's 
past need not determine its future when citizens of courage are devoted 
to a just cause that is greater than themselves.
  I will be the first to admit that Iraq still faces many difficulties: 
a limited but lethal terrorist threat, the unhelpful meddling of some 
of its neighbors, weak political institutions, a still developing 
economy, and a culture of distrust that will take a long time to heal.
  There is much hard work still to be done in Iraq, and the United 
States

[[Page S1257]]

must remain fully seized with it. In the weeks ahead, we must support 
our Iraqi friends in the arduous task of forming their new government. 
In the months ahead, as U.S. troops return home, we must deepen and 
expand America's diplomatic and economic engagement with Iraq. In the 
years ahead, the United States, especially our Congress, has a 
responsibility to continue providing the critical support, including 
the necessary resources to strengthen Iraq's young democracy.
  We have given much to this effort already, but now is not the time to 
scale back. Although our military mission is ending, our commitment to 
Iraq will endure, and must endure, for a long time to come. The fruits 
of this commitment are already becoming evident for the United States. 
We have not seen eye to eye with the current Iraqi Government at all 
times. I am fairly certain that we will have our share of disagreements 
with future Iraqi Governments. But this does not change the fact that 
Iraq has transformed in just 8 years from a principal enemy of the 
United States to a rising partner in the fight against violence, 
extremism; from a generator of insecurity to an emerging source of 
stability in the midst of a volatile region; and from one of history's 
most reprehensible tyrannies to a growing inspiration for people across 
the Middle East who still yearn for freedom and justice in their own 
countries.
  When Iranians look at a democratic Iraq today amid violent and bloody 
military crackdowns in their own country, they must be thinking: Why 
not us? When Syrians look at a democratic Iraq today among the stifling 
climate of oppression in their own country, they must be thinking: Why 
not us? And when our friends in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other nations 
in the region, where liberty is not assured, watch a peaceful 
transition of power in Iraq from one freely elected government to 
another, they must also be thinking: Why not us?
  The citizens of Iraq are now writing a new and hopeful chapter for 
their country, but also for the region as a whole, whose people are 
increasingly looking to emulate Iraq, its freedoms, its rule of law, 
its security of human dignity, its equal rights, and equal justice. 
This is the start of something new and wondrous in the Middle East, a 
renaissance of sorts, and Iraq is at the very forefront.
  The war in Iraq is ending, but America's partnership with the new 
Iraq is only just beginning. No matter where any of us stood in the old 
debates of the past, Americans should all be able to agree now that the 
emergence of a free and democratic Iraq is one of the greatest 
strategic opportunities in all of U.S. foreign policy.
  America and our allies have created this opportunity. Iraqis have 
expanded it and seized it. Now let's all come together to usher in a 
new era of liberty not just for Iraq but for the entire Middle East.
  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. MERKLEY. 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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about a 
simple amendment that would go a long way to save a lot of jobs in our 
timber industry and our forested communities.
  To give a little bit of background, the collapse of the housing 
market has devastated the timber industry and the many rural 
communities that depend on it, resulting in major job losses. Because 
of a fate tied to the housing industry, the timber industry is one of 
the hardest hit by the current recession, with timber prices at a 
record low. That precipitous drop in timber prices has created a unique 
and very threatening problem for companies that harvest timber on 
federally owned lands. Specifically, a lot of companies bid for 
contracts to harvest timber and they did so right before the housing 
market and then the timber market collapsed. So those companies bid. 
Some won contracts, and those that won those contracts won them at a 
very high price for the timber. They could make a profit selling that 
timber when they harvested it, but by the time the process was 
completed, the timber prices had fallen through the floor. At the 
current record-low timber prices, harvesting under contract would cost 
more than the timber is worth. So the companies would lose money by 
going forward, resulting in major losses and leading to layoffs and 
lost jobs.
  This takes us to an interesting point where there are two 
possibilities: one is a contract with the Forest Service, and one is a 
contract with the BLM, Bureau of Land Management. If a company is 
fortunate enough to have a contract with the Forest Service, they can 
apply for and receive an extension, giving them more time to act on the 
contract and harvest the timber. Given the unique circumstances we find 
ourselves in, that is of great value. It makes sense. It is a simple 
way to save jobs. But, unfortunately, if your contract is with the 
Bureau of Land Management--and that Bureau manages 69 million acres of 
forested land across our Western States, much of it prime timberland--
the same rules are not set up for companies that happen to do business 
with the BLM rather than the Forest Service. Their only alternative is 
harvesting timber at a loss and to lose the contract and lose the 
business altogether. This makes no sense as a policy. In Western States 
such as Oregon where Forest Service and BLM lands are side by side, you 
can find yourselves on the Forest Service land one moment and BLM land 
the next. It is practically arbitrary whether a company is working with 
an agency that can give them a commonsense extension, as the Forest 
Service can, or an agency that cannot give them that commonsense 
extension, which is the BLM.
  My amendment is simple. It allows companies to apply for a contract 
extension and authorizes the BLM to review and grant those applications 
so we can save those jobs. It applies the same rules to the BLM that 
the Forest Service already has in place. Indeed, the language of the 
amendment is identical to a companion bill that has already passed the 
House. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office has determined 
there is no significant financial impact for this bill.
  I have spoken to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
and I haven't found anyone who has an objection to this amendment. This 
is one of those commonsense opportunities to cut a little bit of 
redtape; a commonsense opportunity to assist companies that were caught 
in an unexpected trap; a commonsense opportunity to strengthen our 
rural resource-based companies and the jobs that go with them.
  So I put forward this amendment, and, as I noted, everyone I have 
spoken to on both sides of the aisle says it makes a lot of sense, but 
some objection has been placed anonymously. So I simply wish to ask 
that any colleague who has an objection to this effort to help the 
timber companies, to help our rural resource-based communities, to 
please come and talk with me because I am sure that whatever concern 
you have, I should be able to get a good answer for your concern.
  We have in this Chamber the opportunity to help some of the hardest 
hit communities with a simple amendment such as this. I hope we can 
seize that opportunity. That is the type of bipartisan problem-solving 
Americans are hoping to see in the Senate.
  Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues who have been so helpful in 
reviewing this amendment on both sides of the aisle. Thank you to my 
colleagues who will be helpful as we try to put this commonsense 
amendment in place.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                            PBGC Governance

  Mr. KOHL, Mr. President, I rise to talk about the importance of 
retirement security and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the 
Federal agency responsible for insuring the pension plans of nearly 44 
million Americans. Unfortunately, this vital agency in November of 2009 
reported a total deficit of nearly $22 billion. Furthermore, the PBGC 
said its potential exposure from financially weak companies that may 
not be able to honor their pension payments is currently about $168 
billion, an increase of $121 billion from the prior year.
  The American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act includes 
provisions

[[Page S1258]]

to offer limited pension funding relief to companies that provide 
defined benefit plans. While this relief is much needed, I am concerned 
about any such action that could increase the liability of the PBGC in 
its current state. As we found at an Aging Committee hearing last year, 
the agency sorely lacks the oversight and policy direction it requires.
  There is little doubt that an improved PBGC governance structure is 
necessary. The PBGC's boards consist of only three members: the 
Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Secretary of 
Commerce. These three members obviously have their own agencies to run, 
and are doing so during an economic crisis.
  The Government Accountability Office has indicated for years that the 
PBGC board members do not have enough time or resources to provide the 
policy direction and oversight required by the agency. In 28 years, the 
full board has met only 20 times. These findings have been echoed in 
reports by the McKinsey & Company consulting group and by the Brookings 
Institution.
  The role of PBGC is too crucial to allow its governance to slip 
through the cracks. And we have seen devastating results when it has. 
The former PBGC Director was able to adopt a risky investment strategy 
just months before the market downturn and inappropriately involve 
himself in the bidding process, with little more than a rubberstamped 
approval from the board.
  We must ensure that these problems do not impact the ability of the 
agency to function going forward. I have crafted an amendment based on 
the PBGC Governance Improvement Act, a bill I introduced with Senators 
Bennet, McCaskill and Feingold, which would significantly improve the 
PBGC board's governance oversight structure. First and foremost, the 
amendment would expand the Board's membership, requiring it to meet at 
least four times a year, and ensuring that the board retains continuity 
during a change in administration. The amendment would also ensure the 
PBGC Advisory Council, inspector general, and general counsel have full 
and direct independent access to the entire board. Finally, the 
amendment would require the PBGC director to recuse him or herself from 
potential conflicts of interest, to include any involvement with the 
agency's technical evaluation panels. These small commonsense changes 
are a bare minimum needed to make sure the PBGC is secure and 
taxpayer's are protected.
  The role of the PBGC is a vital one, now more than ever. For 44 
million Americans with defined benefit pension plans, PBGC is the only 
thing that stands between the secure retirement they have worked so 
hard for, and the prospect of living without the retirement income they 
have earned. We must get the PBGC back on track, or face the 
possibility of absorbing its obligations as taxpayers.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the concerns raised by 
Senator Kohl, and agree that these are serious issues that need to be 
addressed. While I believe that short-term, targeted pension funding 
relief is critically important and should move as quickly as possible, 
I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to pursue 
longer term solutions addressing the many challenges facing our defined 
benefit pension system, including PBGC governance.
  I plan to hold hearings in the HELP Committee this year addressing 
the state of the defined benefit system and the PBGC. I look forward to 
discussing with Senator Kohl the ideals and goals reflected in the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Governance Improvement Act of 
2009, and I thank him for bringing this important legislation to my 
attention. I hope that we can work collaboratively on legislation to 
improve the security of defined benefit pensions and the agency that 
insures these plans, as well as on broader initiatives to build greater 
retirement security for all working families.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I applaud the chairman of the Select Committee on Aging 
for raising this important issue. I look forward to working with him 
and the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee 
on addressing the shortcomings he has highlighted.
  Mr. KOHL. With those assurances, I will not offer my amendment and 
look forward to working with Chairman Harkin and Chairman Baucus on 
improving the PBGC.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, 
March 9, after any leader time, the time until 11 a.m. be for a period 
for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to 
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided 
and controlled between the two leaders, with the Republicans 
controlling the first portion; that at 11 a.m., the Senate resume 
consideration of H.R. 4213 and proceed as under the order of March 5, 
with all provisions of that order remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________