[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 17, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1633-S1638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 
2847, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany H.R. 2847, an act making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, and Justice 
     and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with amendments.

  Pending:

       Durbin motion to concur in the amendments of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill.
       Durbin amendment No. 3498 (to the motion to concur in the 
     amendments of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the 
     amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Durbin amendment No. 3499 (to amendment No. 3498), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, all 
postcloture time is considered expired and the motion to concur with an 
amendment is withdrawn.
  There will be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided between the 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and the Senator from New York, 
Mr. Schumer, or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New York.

[[Page S1634]]

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation 
before us and the motion to waive the point of order.
  This is a good day for American workers, for Congress is focusing on 
what they have asked us to focus on. Congress is focusing on what the 
American people want us to focus on, which is jobs, jobs, jobs, and 
Congress will act in a bipartisan way. So this is a break, in several 
ways, from the past. One, we are focusing on jobs and the economy. That 
is what we should be doing. Second, we are doing it in a bipartisan 
way.
  The bill before us focuses on private sector jobs. It has four 
pieces. Each is lean. Each is directed at private sector jobs. Each 
will give the economy a certain lift. Last quarter, we had growth of 
5.9 percent. That sounds great, but that 5.9 percent growth resulted in 
no new jobs being created. In fact, it resulted in a continued loss of 
jobs, admittedly less of a loss than in the past.
  Our job is to take that growth and translate it into jobs for the 
American people, plain and simple, and that is what we are doing with 
this HIRE Act. At the center of it is a bipartisan piece of 
legislation: a payroll tax holiday for 1 year for any new worker hired 
who has been unemployed for 60 days, authored by the Senator from Utah, 
Mr. Hatch, and myself. It is the bipartisan glue which hopefully will 
stick with us as we move forward on our jobs agenda because this is 
just the first--certainly not the last--piece of legislation we will 
put forward in relation to jobs. If we don't create jobs, the economy 
will not move forward. If we don't create jobs, the American people, 
American business, and American labor could lose the optimism that has 
been part of this country since its founding. When you lose that 
optimism, you lose dollars and cents economically because businesses 
don't spend, workers don't prepare for the future, people get 
disconsolate.
  So this legislation is admittedly modest and focused and will go far 
beyond what the specific legislation does because it will show the 
American people, it will show American business, large and small, it 
will show American workers Congress is focused on what they want us to 
focus on and that we will continue to work on our jobs agenda until 
jobs start growing, until people are being paid decent wages, until the 
economy roars back on a long and stable trajectory, which can only be 
done if employment goes up and underemployment goes down.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this isn't so much a jobs bill as it is a 
debt bill. It has debt, debt, and debt.
  I voted against the budget which passed the House of Representatives. 
I voted against it because it had $1 trillion worth of deficit every 
year for as far as the eye can see. It basically put our country on a 
path of unsustainability, where the national debt will double in 5 
years and triple in 10 years; where every one of these young men and 
women sitting before us who are pages, by the time they graduate from 
college, will have $133,000 in Federal debt on their heads they will 
have to pay off as they go to work. I voted against it because it was 
profligate, because it wasn't disciplined, and because it was 
excessive.
  However, it appears it wasn't excessive enough for my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle. This will be the third week in a row the 
leadership of the Democratic Party in this body has brought a bill to 
this floor that violates their own budget and spends more than their 
own budget called for. A budget which this year will run $1.6 trillion 
of deficit isn't running a big enough deficit, according to the other 
side of the aisle. They have to run up the deficit with this bill by 
another $3 billion of authorized money, above their own budget. That is 
on top of last week, when they spent $30 billion this year and $100 
billion over 5 years in excess of their own budget.
  When is it going to stop? When is it going to stop? When are we going 
to stop spending money around here as if there is no tomorrow? Because 
pretty soon there will be no tomorrow for our children as we add this 
debt to their backs and make it impossible for them to have the 
standard of living we have had.
  Yesterday, Moody's said that although today the AAA rating of this 
country is not at risk, it may be down the road if we continue to spend 
money we don't have at the rate we are spending it. That is not a sign 
of optimism for the future; that is a sign our Nation is in trouble, 
and it is in trouble because of us.
  There is a lot of talk around here about what is the systemic risk to 
this economy. The systemic risk is this Congress, which continues to 
spend money it doesn't have, send the bill on to our kids at a rate 
they can't afford to pay off. As a result, their lifestyle will 
actually have to be reduced, their quality of life, their standard of 
living will go down because they will be paying for all this debt we 
are putting on their backs today.
  What is even worse is this Congress isn't even willing to live by the 
PROFLIGATE--and I hope capital letters will be put in the Record on 
that because it should be all spelled out in capital letters--by the 
PROFLIGATE budget which passed the House, which projected trillions of 
dollars of deficits for as far as the eye could see and doubled the 
debt in 5 years and tripled it in 10 years. That wasn't enough. No. We 
have to come to the floor again this week, after last week, after the 
week before, with another bill that breaks their own budget.
  So all I am asking for is that the other side of the aisle be willing 
to at least live by its own budget. Last week I asked that they be 
willing to live by their own pay-go rules. That didn't pass, and $100 
billion was spent that wasn't paid for. So this week I am making a 
point of order that simply says: Live by your own budget. You passed a 
budget; at least live by that. Can't you live within a $1.6 trillion 
deficit? Do you have to add another $3 trillion of authorized dollars 
to this deficit this year? Gosh, I hope not. So I am making a point of 
order and asking that we live by the budget that was passed by the 
Democratic Congress.
  The pending amendment would cause the aggregate levels of the budget 
authority and the outlays for the fiscal year 2010, as set out in the 
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget, S. Con. 
Res. 13, to be exceeded--the Democratic budget, by the way. Therefore, 
I raise a point of order under section 311(a)2 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will support the motion to waive the 
point of order. I believe I have 1 minute left.
  The world is topsy-turvy. My Republican colleagues are opposing a tax 
cut to businesses, large and small, that hire people. This is exactly 
what we should do. We don't want to be saying to workers we can't help 
them find a job. There are shades of Herbert Hoover in what my 
colleague is saying, and I don't think many of my colleagues on either 
side of the aisle would support that.
  Let me say this about the budget point of order. The Joint Tax 
Committee, which we all respect, says these provisions are budget 
neutral.
  We have found a way to hire workers, help businesses with tax cuts to 
hire them, and keep it budget neutral. Yet there is still opposition. 
When will it end? When will the bipartisan kind of feeling in this body 
return? This is a bipartisan measure that lives by many of the tenets 
the party on the other side has stood for, for decades.
  Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable 
budget resolutions, 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry. I have made a motion that says the

[[Page S1635]]

budget point of order stands under section 311, which point of order 
specifically lies because of the fact that the bill before us spends 
more in authority and outlay than the Budget Act passed by this 
Congress allows. Is that not correct? Is that motion not well taken?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands that the 
point of order would be well taken.
  Mr. GREGG. Which means that, Mr. President, more money is being spent 
than is allowed to be spent under our budget rules; is that not 
correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 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.
  The Republican leader is recognized.


                              Health Care

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate for quite a 
while. I have seen a lot, but I have never seen anything like the plan 
House Democrats hatched this week to jam their health care bill through 
Congress and over the objections of the American people.
  Americans woke up yesterday thinking they had seen everything in this 
debate already. Then they heard the latest. They heard that Democrats 
want to approve the Senate version of the health care bill without 
actually standing up and taking a vote on it. Let me say that again. 
They heard that Democrats over in the House want to approve the Senate 
bill without actually voting on it. These Democrats want to approve a 
bill that rewrites one-sixth of the economy, forces taxpayers to pay 
for abortions, raises taxes in the middle of a recession, and slashes 
Medicare for seniors, without leaving their fingerprints on it. In 
other words, they want to get around the very purpose of a rollcall 
vote. They want to hide what they are doing from the American people 
whom they seem to view as an obstacle. They want to hide what they are 
doing from the American people whom they see as an obstacle to what 
they are trying to do.
  Well, it won't work. They realized that yesterday when they saw the 
public reaction to their plan. Americans are more outraged than ever. 
Americans are shocked at these tactics. They are fed up, and they have 
had enough. The longer Democratic leaders ignore this outrage and 
ignore these questions, the worse it is going to get.
  Democrats have lost their perspective in this debate. They have lost 
their way. They do not even seem to care what the public thinks. 
Speaker Pelosi said yesterday that they will do ``whatever it takes'' 
to ensure this bill becomes law. While she is at it, she is throwing 
other legislation into the bill that does not have anything to do with 
health care--major legislation that would enable the government to take 
over the student loan industry without any debate whatsoever. That has 
been their strategy all along. Anytime one of their proposals meets 
resistance, they look for a way to get around it. But the schemes they 
have used end up making their proposals even more repellant than they 
originally were. And this latest scheme is the most outrageous one yet.
  What has happened is they are trapped in a vicious cycle that someone 
over there needs to bring to a halt. This is now a fight between 
Democrats and their own constituents, and the only way to stop this 
madness is for a few courageous Democrats to step forward and put a 
stop to it.
  Historians will remember this as a new low in this debate: the week 
America was introduced to the scheme-and-deem approach to legislating--
the scheme-and-deem approach to legislating. They will remember this as 
the week Congress tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the public in 
order to get around their will. And they will remember the men and 
women who stand up and put an end to it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

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

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Byrd
     Crapo
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the 
nays are 34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity today to take 
another step toward restoring job growth and opportunity for American 
workers. Others have discussed the importance of this bill's provisions 
to help put Americans back to work, and I agree: This bill marks 
important progress in lowering unacceptable levels of unemployment.
  But sending the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act to the 
President's desk would also mark a significant victory for law-abiding 
U.S. taxpayers. Right now, thousands of U.S. tax dodgers conceal 
billions of dollars in assets within secrecy-shrouded foreign banks, 
dodging taxes and penalizing those of us who pay the taxes we owe. The 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has estimated 
that these tax-dodging schemes cost the Federal Treasury $100 billion a 
year.
  But under this legislation, for the first time, foreign banks will be 
required to disclose their U.S. account holders to the U.S. Government 
or face significant penalties. This provision will make it far more 
difficult for tax dodgers to conceal assets and income in foreign 
banks. As more banks set up systems to disclose U.S. account holders, 
bank secrecy will become increasingly difficult to maintain. With 
increased transparency will come less tax evasion, less money 
laundering, and less crime.
  Certainly this legislation will not end tax avoidance or money 
laundering. Its provisions do not take effect for several years, and 
its impact will depend in large part on the willingness of regulators 
at the Treasury Department and elsewhere to write strict regulations 
and enforce them vigorously. It also will not affect banks willing to 
continue to conceal their U.S. account holders despite the penalties 
that carries a significant loophole for tax dodgers and the foreign 
banks that assist them. So this legislation is not a silver bullet. In 
fact, I believe our tax enforcement regime could be strengthened by 
provisions of the Stop Tax

[[Page S1636]]

Haven Abuse Act, S. 506, which I introduced with Senators McCaskill, 
Nelson, Whitehouse, Shaheen, and Sanders. For example, Treasury should 
have authority to prohibit U.S. banks from participating in wire 
transfers with or honoring credit cards from overseas banks that impede 
U.S. tax enforcement.
  I will continue to press for enactment of S. 506 and to build the 
growing momentum against overseas tax abuses. Make no mistake, today 
marks an important milestone. For the first time in years, we are 
poised to approve legislation with a real chance to pull back the 
curtain of bank secrecy, expose offshore accounts, and ensure that 
those who owe taxes pay them. Amid the growing concern over our budget 
deficit and American families' concerns about making ends meet, we can 
no longer afford to allow tax dodgers to hide behind this curtain, 
avoiding their obligations and leaving their rightful tax burden for 
honest taxpayers to carry. I urge my colleagues to approve the HIRE 
Act, in the interest of America's workers and America's honest 
taxpayers.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the jobs legislation, 
known as the HIRE Act, on which the Senate will be voting tomorrow 
morning, and to express my deep concerns with the direction this bill 
has taken over the past few weeks.
  Ever since the collapse of the financial markets in late 2008, 
helping our economy should have been a priority for this deliberative 
body. However, it has taken more than a year for us to seriously 
address legislation that would promote permanent job growth.
  Several of my Finance Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
put a lot of time and effort into the creation of a compromise jobs 
bill that Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were trying to move 
forward. I had high hopes that we might help thaw the partisan freeze 
that has had this Chamber gridlocked for so long. But then, just as it 
looked like we might see some light at the end of this bitter tunnel, 
the rug was pulled out from underneath us by the majority leader's 
inexplicable decision to hijack our work and alter it with a piece of 
legislation that he knew would replace cooperation with acrimony.
  But if that weren't enough, the majority leader added another slap in 
the face of the minority; he once again filled the amendment tree, thus 
shutting off the minority's ability to attempt to improve the bill. To 
those unfamiliar with the Senate process, when the majority leader 
fills the amendment tree, he prevents anyone else from being able to 
offer any amendments to the underlying legislation. Thus, he prevents 
compromise.
  I have served in this body for a long time, and I cannot remember an 
incident that exhibited as much raw political gamesmanship as this one 
did. The fact that the majority leader chose to choke off the first 
genuine attempt at cooperation on a major issue of such importance does 
not bode well for the remainder of this Congress. How are those of us 
in the minority supposed to have faith that we will not be excluded 
from future debates? It is easy to label Republicans as the party of no 
when they are completely excluded from the legislative process. When 
this happens, ``no'' is the only option that remains.
  But what puzzles me the most is what, even if they succeed, will the 
majority gain from this maneuver? The Senate operates on a level of 
trust that agreements will be honored, but now even that has come into 
question.
  Less than 2 months ago, I sat in the House Chamber while the 
President gave his State of the Union Address where he raised the 
importance of bipartisan cooperation, especially in the area of job 
creation. The fact that the President hit a nerve with this plea is 
evident by the effort to build such a bipartisan bill in the Finance 
Committee in the weeks following. However, it is obvious that many on 
the other side cannot stand the thought of working with our side when 
there might be political points to be gained by trying to embarrass us.
  Here are a few of the things the President said about the need for 
bipartisanship in the State of the Union Address:
  ``And what the American people hope--what they deserve--is for all of 
us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences;''
  ``[Americans] are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the 
pettiness.''
  ``These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're 
living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.''
  In the same breath, President Obama went on to address the need to 
promote job growth by saying:
  ``Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be 
America's businesses.''
  ``We should start where most new jobs do--in small businesses, 
companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or 
a worker decides it's time she became her own boss.''
  And finally:
  ``[We should] Provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and 
all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.''
  I certainly believed--as did most Republicans--that the President was 
being sincere. But soon after President Obama addressed the Nation, 
Senate Democratic and Republican members of the Finance Committee went 
to work on a bipartisan solution to creating a jobs growth bill. I 
worked with Senator Schumer to come up with a payroll tax holiday for 
those companies that hired unemployed workers. Under this incentive, 
the sooner a company hired someone, the greater the tax incentives the 
company would receive. This initiative is a perfect example of the kind 
of bipartisan President Obama was talking about during the State of the 
Union.
  Senators Baucus and Grassley joined in this effort by including 
several other provisions aimed at job growth and remedies to address 
the symptoms of a failing economy. This was a compromise that included 
an extension of unemployment insurance, Build America Bonds, and the 
extension of the expired tax provisions.
  Let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of many 
of my colleagues that passing a jobs bill is crucial. We have seen our 
unemployment rate remain stagnant at around 10 percent since last 
September. The American people sent us here to do a job, and it is way 
past time we did it.
  This is why it was so shocking, then, that on Thursday, February 11, 
the Senate majority leader suddenly announced that he was scrapping the 
compromised proposal only hours after it was unveiled, proceeding 
instead with a scaled-down bill. In minutes, the majority leader pulled 
the rug out from not only Republicans but also those Democrats who had 
been working for weeks on a bipartisan solution. Regrettably, because 
of the majority leader's decision, it looks as though President Obama's 
hope for a bipartisan solution to job creation only lasted 2 weeks. 
What a shame.
  To illustrate the abruptness and surprise in Senator Reid's 
unexpected action, just look at the headlines the following day:

       ``Key Dem: Reid scrapped jobs bill because he did not trust 
     Republicans'' the Hill.
       ``Reid kills Baucus-Grassley jobs bill''--the Politico.
       ``Senate leader slashes jobs bill; Despite new support''--
     LA Times.

  But it does not end there. The majority leader sent a pretty strong 
message when he said that he--and I quote--dared Republicans to vote 
against his bill.
  His Democratic colleagues were quick to stand behind this reversal. 
Some Democratic Senators went so far as to say Republicans are not 
interested in a bipartisan deal because we were more inclined to play 
rope-a-dope again. They went on to characterize the tax extenders as 
only going to people who are making money. They even went so far as to 
say that what the Democratic caucus is taking to the floor is something 
that is more focused on job creation than on tax breaks.
  Now I know the Senate recently passed the expiring tax extenders 
package as a part of a broader bill. But what continues to astound me 
is how quickly so many Democratic Senators were to abandon these tax 
extenders. In fact, most of them support--and even voted to extend--
these tax provisions. The Democratic leadership even erroneously 
labeled the tax extenders as a solely Republican-supported initiative. 
And many Democrats, including the majority leader, are cosponsors

[[Page S1637]]

of legislation that would extend many of the expiring tax provisions. 
Look at the bills to extend the research tax credit or the alternative 
fuels vehicle credit or even the new markets tax credit. These are by 
no means solely Republican initiatives. The exclusion of these tax 
extenders caused one Democrat to criticize the majority leader's action 
by saying ``this bill was carefully crafted to achieve significant 
bipartisan support and contains several important measures to spur 
business growth and encourage new hires.'' So to label support for 
extending these expiring tax provisions as part of a solely Republican 
agenda is misleading, unfair, and unwarranted. These statements were 
made only to support a desperate, hasty, and ill-considered decision. 
The icing on the cake was when the Senate ended up passing these very 
tax extenders last week by a vote of 70 to 28. In fact, only one 
Democrat Senator voted against these tax extenders.
  Some have questioned how extending these expired tax provisions 
relate to job creation. It is a fair question but one with easy 
answers.
  The extension of these expired tax provisions only supports proven 
growth of companies that are slowly beginning to see the light at the 
end of the tunnel. Government funding would only provide a false sense 
of job growth because once the government funding is gone so will the 
jobs.
  If we need proof that government spending is not as effective as tax 
relief, we only have to look to what the Congressional Budget Office 
said last year about the effects of the year-old economic stimulus 
package.

       The legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 
     2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to 
     3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to 
     1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining 
     numbers in later years.

  The reason why employment created from the stimulus bill would 
decline in later years is because government spending does not create 
permanent lasting jobs. The private sector, however, can create 
permanent, self-sustaining jobs. The tax incentives give the private 
sector a much needed boost. If we had included more tax incentives for 
businesses in last year's economic stimulus bill we would have created 
jobs that would have lasted well beyond the 2 or 3 years government 
spending would have created.
  Originally projected to provide $787 billion in stimulus, the 
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, now puts the 10-year costs of the 
stimulus bill at $862 billion. This does not include interest owed, 
which would put the total cost at over $1 trillion.
  Of the $862 billion stimulus package, only a third has been spent. 
Another third is expected to be spent in 2010, and the remaining third 
will be spent after 2010. What ever happened to spending money on 
projects deemed to be shovel ready?
  The administration has claimed the stimulus bill is responsible for 
creating or saving 1 million jobs. If we take a closer look, we see 
this claim is very misleading. For example, it was reported that a 
construction company in Nevada reported creating 20 jobs on a project 
that has yet to receive money. A school district reported saving 665 
jobs, even though it only employs about 600 people. A town in Oregon 
reported creating eight jobs on a contract for rattlesnake stewardship. 
In January of 2009, President Obama's economic advisers predicted in a 
report that with an $800 billion stimulus, the unemployment rate would 
never go above 8 percent. Without the stimulus, they said, the rate 
would be at 9 percent. The unemployment rate has been near 10 percent 
since last September.
  The stimulus package was sold to the American people as an immediate 
fix. I think the exact words were that it would be a ``jolt'' to the 
economy. Some of the quotes by the administration were ``you'll see the 
effects immediately,'' from Larry Summers. ``We'll start adding jobs 
rather than losing them,'' from Christina Romer, the President's Chair 
of Economic Advisers. ``This will begin creating jobs immediately,'' 
from House majority leader Steny Hoyer.
  Back when he was pitching the stimulus bill, then-President-elect 
Obama said ``90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private 
sector--the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs.'' 
However, in an article dated February 17, the Wall Street Journal 
reported that government data indicate that most of the jobs supported 
by stimulus spending belonged to public employees at the State and 
local level.
  In fact, only 2 percent of the entire stimulus bill was dedicated 
toward tax relief for businesses. The public sector does not create 
permanent jobs; the private sector does. We need to provide a 
foundation to allow the private sector to nourish and create better 
paying jobs.
  That is why many supported including these tax extenders in the HIRE 
Act. For instance, it is estimated that approximately 70 percent or 
more of the research tax credit benefits are attributable to salaries 
of performing U.S.-based research. How can some Senators disregard the 
effectiveness of some of these tax extenders on job growth? And keep in 
mind that the research credit has traditionally received more 
Democratic support in this body than it has Republican support. In 
fact, there is a bill to extend the expiring research tax credit. Of 
the 18 cosponsors of this bill, 11 are Democrats. Furthermore, this 
bill was introduced by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee.
  The President set the tone at the beginning of the year by calling on 
Congress to put forth a bipartisan solution to creating jobs in this 
country. In response, both Democrats and Republicans brought innovative 
ideas to the table. Then, in a sudden change of events, many Republican 
ideas have been excluded from the jobs bill the majority leader has 
brought to the floor.
  Again, the majority leader has maneuvered this legislation to prevent 
any amendments from being offered by our side. In fact, the majority 
leader continues to exclude Republicans from debate. Just look at this 
chart that shows how many times the majority leader has filled the 
amendment tree in relation to past majority leaders--25 times. If this 
is not an arrogance of power, then I do not know what is. I only hope 
the majority leader heeds to President Obama's plea for a bipartisan 
solution.
  I think one Democrat, learning of the majority leader's action, said 
it best:

       Most Americans don't honestly believe that a single 
     political party has all the good ideas. I hope the Majority 
     Leader will reconsider.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

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

                                NAYS--29

     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl

[[Page S1638]]


     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Byrd
     Crapo
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.

                          ____________________