[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 155 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8314-S8317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3981
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as we come to the end of the year and
the end of the session, I want to talk about what is happening for the
American people, for small businesses, what is happening in terms of
the Senate, and what is at stake as we come to the end of the year for
American families, folks who are struggling every day, people trying to
keep in the middle class, get into the middle class, a small business
trying to keep its head above water, as well as our manufacturers, and
so on.
It is extremely concerning to me that colleagues on the other side of
the aisle--and they have shown it again today in a letter that was
written to the leader--are willing to risk everything in order to get a
bonus round of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They are
literally willing to stop everything, risk everything in the economy,
in order to get an extra tax cut.
The reason I say ``extra'' or ``bonus'' is because we have in front
of us an agreement that 97 percent of the public who earn less than
$250,000 a year for their family should be continuing to receive tax
cuts permanently. Everyone who has income up to $250,000, whether their
real income is $1 billion or not, they get a tax cut up to $250,000 of
their income. So the question we will be answering this month is
whether millionaires and billionaires get a bonus, get an extra tax cut
on top of that.
Here, as shown on this chart, is what the Republicans are willing to
put at risk. I say to the Presiding Officer, who heard it as well as I
did throughout the year, talking about the deficit, how we needed to
stop the exploding deficit, that we need to bring deficits down, in
order to get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, they
are willing to risk the Federal deficit, balloon it another $700
billion--not paid for.
Now they are saying we ought to pay for unemployment benefits for
somebody who lost their job in this economy through no fault of their
own. But $700 billion? The average tax cut is $100,000 for somebody
earning $1 million. Mr. President, $100,000 is more than the average
person in Michigan makes. My guess is, in West Virginia it is the same.
So in order to keep $100,000 a year going in a bonus tax cut for
people earning $1 million, they are willing to risk the Federal deficit
exploding. They are willing to risk jobs because we have seen a policy
in the last 10 years of basically giving tax cuts to folks at the top
and everybody else waiting for them to trickle down. My folks are
tired. I think colleagues on the other side of the aisle just think we
have not waited long enough for this to trickle down to everybody else.
But the reality is that policy they want to continue, that explodes
deficits, gives a bonus tax cut for people at the top, has not created
jobs.
In fact, my question is, after 10 years of tax cuts for the wealthy,
where are the jobs? My State has lost over 800,000 jobs during the
period of this bonus tax cut policy for millionaires and billionaires.
If it had worked, if we had created 800,000 jobs in Michigan rather
than losing 800,000 jobs, I would be on the floor of the Senate
fighting to continue this policy.
This is not partisanship. This is about common sense and what works.
We have had a policy in place that has not worked, so why would we
continue it? They say we have to continue this because we are in a
recession.
This is part of the reason we are in a recession in terms of the fact
that it did not invest in the right way. If we want to take those
dollars and put them back into clean energy manufacturing and focus on
making things in America, if we want to put it into what that we know
is actually going to focus on jobs, good-paying, middle-class jobs, I
am all for it. But $700 billion of a policy that has not worked for 10
years makes no sense.
So that is my question. Where are the jobs? Show me the jobs, and I
will be the first person on the Senate floor voting yes to continue it.
But they are willing to risk the deficit. They are willing to risk
jobs. They are willing now, in the letter they have sent to the leader
today, to risk tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses
by saying: Do you know what. We are not going to do anything else until
we continue the tax cuts for everybody in this country, including
millionaires and billionaires.
They are not willing to work with us to make sure middle-class
families, who are the folks who need to have money back in their
pockets, and small businesses, that need that money back in their
pockets, get permanent help. Then we can work on the rest of it where
people disagree.
We are going to hear a lot about small business. And I find it quite
surprising that colleagues have filibustered in the last 2 years 16
different tax cuts for small business--a small business jobs bill to
make capital available for small business so they can keep their heads
above water, refinance, grow their business. Personally, I am not going
to be lectured by people who voted against 16 different tax cuts in the
last 2 years for small businesses, who are now using small businesses
to hide behind--the folks who are hiding behind small businesses that
they are holding up as the ones for whom they are fighting.
We are happy on our side. We take a back seat to no one on fighting
for
[[Page S8315]]
small business. I thank our Chair, Mary Landrieu, who was on the Senate
floor over and over from the Small Business Committee and a wonderful
group of colleagues who fought and fought to make sure we put forward a
bill--it took way too long because of foot dragging, everybody trying
to throw sand in the gears, but we finally got it passed, a tremendous
amount of effort to increase capital and to add eight tax cuts in the
small business jobs bill, on which only two Republican colleagues had
the courage to step across the aisle and join us. We are very grateful
they were willing to do that.
But the Senate Republican caucus is willing to put all of that in
jeopardy, hold hostage tax cuts needed by people--working people,
middle-class families, small businesses--if they cannot get a bonus tax
cut for millionaires and billionaires.
They are also willing, frankly, to jeopardize Social Security and
Medicare. We have a debt commission coming up with proposals that are
very concerning. There are tough decisions about Social Security and
Medicare going forward because we have a deficit. They are saying: Oh
well, wait a minute. First, you have to increase the deficit by $700
billion in order to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut. No,
we don't care. We don't care if that impacts Social Security and
Medicare and tough decisions that have to be made for seniors who live
on Social Security and Medicare.
The most important thing--and we have heard this over and over--is we
don't care if it is paid for, it doesn't matter if it is paid for or if
anything else gets done for national security. We are not going to take
up the START treaty. We don't care about our relationship with Russia.
We don't care about national security issues. We want a tax cut for our
friends, the millionaires and billionaires, adding $700 billion to the
debt. They are willing to risk it all, stop the tax cuts for middle-
class families and small businesses, in order to get that bonus tax
cut.
Finally--and most insulting to me of all--is they can stand and say
we will not support helping people who are out of work in an economy
that is way beyond normal, where there are five people looking for
every one job. In my State, you are talking about folks who have never
been out of work before in their life and they are mortified and they
are doing everything they can to hold it together. They are trying
desperately to keep their heads above water, while their houses are
underwater, and they may not have been able to have their kids continue
in college this year. Folks are trying to make it, and they are saying
we didn't create this economy, create the crisis on Wall Street or
create all the rest of this. They have done nothing but play by the
rules their whole lives, and now they are in a situation where they
can't find a job.
I have talked to a lot of folks, 50, 55, 60 years old, who worked all
their lives. We are coming up to the holidays now. All they want to do
is what we have always done as a country in the case of high
unemployment; that is, allow them to receive unemployment benefits to
get them through a tough time temporarily, while we should be focusing
on jobs because people want to work. People don't want to get $200 or
$300 in unemployment benefits. They want to work. They want the dignity
of work. Americans know how to work and they want to work. They are
looking to us to create a climate of certainty in the marketplace,
working with businesses so they can get a job.
But here we have a situation where the Republicans in the House
turned down unemployment benefits yesterday. Senator Jack Reed came to
the floor to ask unanimous consent--which I will ask again--to be able
to extend unemployment benefits, just the regular system. I also
believe we need to add additionally for people who have run out of
their benefits, the ``ninety-niners.'' We need to help them as well.
This is just to keep the regular system going, so somebody who loses
their job today or is beginning to lose their job is treated as fairly
as the person who lost their job on Monday. Right now, the system is up
in the air.
We hear on the other side: My goodness. We can't possibly extend
unemployment benefits without ``paying for it'' and cutting someplace
else. It is, for a year, about $50 billion. That is a lot of money; I
am not saying it is not. But how about we help pay for it by not giving
a bonus tax cut to millionaires in this country--$700 billion--and
colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe that should be
paid for. Somehow tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires have
different rules than a little bit of help for somebody who lost their
job, through no fault of their own, and is trying to keep their family
together and a roof over their heads in these times.
That is a heck of a choice in terms of values. I am amazed. But what
we have, as we come to the end of the year, is a situation where
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have indicated they are going
to continue to block everything. Well, the filibuster is not new. It
has been done every day on this floor for the last 2 years. Now they
are saying that in addition to extending--obviously, getting the budget
done, and we all agree with that. But if we don't extend the tax cuts
for everybody--meaning millionaires and billionaires--then they are
going to filibuster everything else, including unemployment benefits.
Let me say, in closing, that we are in a situation where right now,
today, we could give 97 percent of the public certainty going forward
about tax cuts, small businesses, middle-class families, by simply
joining on a proposal to protect and extend permanently middle-class
tax cuts and those for the vast majority of small businesses. We
certainly can come together in a way that does more for small business.
This is the side that voted 16 times for tax cuts for small businesses.
But we believe it is economically and morally wrong to allow an average
$100,000 in additional tax relief for a millionaire next year, while
somebody who worked all their life and lost their job, through no fault
of their own cannot keep a roof over their head this year. It is
absolutely not right.
By the way, let me just reiterate--because we are going to hear a lot
about small businesses--this is not about small businesses. We are
willing to come together, as we always have, for small businesses. This
is about a few people, and not even everyone in that category is asking
for a tax cut, by the way. A lot of these folks understand we have the
biggest deficit in the history of the country. They are blessed through
their circumstances to be very well off, and many are saying: I want to
do my part and I am willing to do my part. Ask me to do my part and I
will. They are not asking to hurt people who are out of work in order
for them to get another tax cut.
Unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, our colleagues are
willing to risk everything--the deficit, jobs, Social Security,
Medicare, tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, and help
for people who are out of work in order to give a bonus tax cut for a
privileged few people. That is not what we are about. That is not what
we are about or what we are going to fight for.
At this point, because it is absolutely critical that we understand
what families are going through now in this holiday season and that
someone who is losing a job today should be treated as fairly as
somebody who lost their job 2 days ago, I ask unanimous consent that
the Finance Committee be discharged of S. 3981, a bill to provide for
temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions; that the
Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be
read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
will object, I understand Senator Brown of Massachusetts objected to
this request yesterday and offered a fully offset alternative.
Therefore, on his behalf, I do object and ask unanimous consent that
his proposal be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the unanimous-consent
request offered by Senator Stabenow.
Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Wyoming?
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
will not object, I simply want to say it is a sad day for millions of
families in this country. This is a message we should
[[Page S8316]]
all be embarrassed to have sent; that millionaires and billionaires
should be the ones who are being fought for on the floor of the Senate
and that millions of people who are out of work don't count. I regret
that.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for a substitute)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Unemployment
Benefits Extension Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``November 30, 2010'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 3, 2012'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``november 30, 2010'' and inserting ``january 3, 2012''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``April 30, 2011''
and inserting ``June 9, 2012''.
(2) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
(A) by striking ``December 1, 2010'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 4, 2012''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``May 1, 2011'' and
inserting ``June 11, 2012''.
(3) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``April 30, 2011'' and inserting ``June
10, 2012''.
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
``(G) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the
Emergency Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of 2010; and''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law
111-205).
SEC. 3. TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF INDICATORS UNDER THE
EXTENDED BENEFIT PROGRAM.
(a) Indicator.--Section 203(d) of the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C.
3304 note) is amended, in the flush matter following
paragraph (2), by inserting after the first sentence the
following sentence: ``Effective with respect to compensation
for weeks of unemployment beginning after the date of
enactment of the Emergency Unemployment Benefits Extension
Act of 2010 (or, if later, the date established pursuant to
State law), and ending on or before December 31, 2011, the
State may by law provide that the determination of whether
there has been a state `on' or `off' indicator beginning or
ending any extended benefit period shall be made under this
subsection as if the word `two' were `three' in subparagraph
(1)(A).''.
(b) Alternative Trigger.--Section 203(f) of the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26
U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Effective with respect to compensation for weeks of
unemployment beginning after the date of enactment of the
Emergency Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of 2010 (or, if
later, the date established pursuant to State law), and
ending on or before December 31, 2011, the State may by law
provide that the determination of whether there has been a
state `on' or `off' indicator beginning or ending any
extended benefit period shall be made under this subsection
as if the word `either' were `any', the word ``both'' were
`all', and the figure `2' were `3' in clause (1)(A)(ii).''.
SEC. 4. RESCISSION OF UNSPENT FEDERAL FUNDS TO OFFSET LOSS IN
REVENUES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of all available unobligated funds, $95,000,000,000 in
appropriated discretionary funds are hereby rescinded.
(b) Implementation.--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall determine and identify from which
appropriation accounts the rescission under subsection (a)
shall apply and the amount of such rescission that shall
apply to each such account. Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget shall submit a report to the
Secretary of the Treasury and Congress of the accounts and
amounts determined and identified for rescission under the
preceding sentence.
(c) Exception.--This section shall not apply to the
unobligated funds of the Department of Defense or the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
SEC. 5. BUDGETARY PROVISIONS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
`Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation' for this Act,
jointly submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by
the Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage in the House acting first on this conference
report or amendment between the Houses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, welcome to the Senate. It is a pleasure
to have the Senator from West Virginia joining this body. I will tell
the Senator that ever since the health care law has been passed, I come
to the floor every week as a physician, as someone who has practiced
medicine for a quarter of a century, taking care of families across the
State of Wyoming, to give a doctor's second opinion about the health
care law. I bring that each week, bringing a different story of someone
who has not been helped by the health care law, someone who has been
hurt by it, an identifiable victim of the health care law.
I heard it at home over Thanksgiving from doctors, nurses, as well as
patients. I believe this law is going to be bad for patients, for
providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of them, as well as for
taxpayers. It has been no surprise to me that Americans want and expect
repeal of this health care law.
The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that Americans support repeal
of ObamaCare by a margin of 21 percent; 58 percent are for repeal and
37 percent are not. Independent voters support repeal by 24 percentage
points, 59 to 35 percent.
So I continue to come to the floor to bring out to our colleagues the
concerns I have about the health care law and the concerns I hear at
home from patients and from providers and from taxpayers.
I wish to mention that recently the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Kathleen Sebelius, sent a letter to members of the medical
school class of 2014. These would be the incoming medical students,
first year medical students in your State and mine. In the letter that
goes to about 15,000 or 16,000 first-year medical students, she talks
about this health care law and about how she believes it will be good
for them as medical students and good for their patients.
One of the things she talks about in the letter, interestingly
enough, is she said that many of you and your siblings are undoubtedly
under the age of 26, as many first-year medical students are. She then
raises the issue that says you will now be able to stay on your
family's insurance policies until you are 26.
As you know, this was one of the selling points behind this health
care law, that young people would be able to stay on their insurance
policies until the age of 26. The Secretary points that out to all
incoming medical students. I think it came as quite a surprise--it did
to me, and I think it should have to these medical students and
others--to read a story on November 20 in the Wall Street Journal that
talks about--the headline is: ``Union Drops Health Coverage for
Workers' Children.''
The idea was that children were supposed to be covered under this
health care law. I will start by reading this:
One of the largest union-administered health insurance
funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of
more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials
say.
This is the Service Employees International Union. They are dropping
coverage for about 6,000 children. The President has said no children
will be dropped. The Secretary said no children will be dropped. Yet a
union, which has encouraged, through its lobbying efforts, support of
the health care law is now dropping 6,000 children. Why are they doing
it? It says the health care reform legislation requires plans with
dependent coverage to expand the coverage up to age 26. What they say
is:
Our limited resources are already stretched as far as
possible, and meeting this new requirement would be
financially impossible.
During the entire debate on the health care law, people said that
many of these rules and regulations and requirements are going to be
financially demanding. Yet this body, before the occupant of the chair
arrived, crammed
[[Page S8317]]
this law down the throats of the American people--the American people
who don't want it or like it and have asked that it be repealed and
replaced. Now even one of the unions that lobbied for it is saying: We
are actually going to drop 6,000 children who had previously been
covered because of the legislation, and they say it would be
financially impossible to comply with.
So, Mr. President, I looked at the Secretary's letter, I looked at
this response, and Tom Coburn, another physician in the Senate, and I
had a lot of concerns about the letter the Secretary sent to the
medical students of this country. So we also sent a letter, an open
letter, to America's medical students in the first year of their
medical school.
What we wanted to do was to first congratulate these young men and
women on dedicating their time, their talent, and their skill in the
service to others. We talked about the importance as physicians and as
medical students of truly listening to their patients because one of
the basic tenets of medicine is nothing should come between a doctor
and his or her patients. It is important for them to be able to have
the time to listen, to focus, and to spend time and not allow anyone or
anything to come between the doctor and the patient. Yet here in the
Senate we passed a health care law that puts Washington and faceless
bureaucrats between the doctor and the patient. We talked about the
significant change in the doctor-patient relationship in this letter
Senator Coburn and I sent to medical students and our concerns that
Washington is now going to have more power to determine the care these
medical students and future doctors are going to be able to deliver to
their patients. We talked about the 150 new government regulating
bodies coming out as a result of this 2,700-page bill and that they are
going to intrude upon the doctor-patient relationship. We talked about
our concerns about what is called cookbook medicine--follow these
rules--because of the new authorities that have been provided by these
150 new bodies that have been created by the law and that decisions
will be made based on cost rather than on what may be best for the
individual patients.
The President continues to talk about providing coverage for more
people. Well, there is a lot of difference between coverage and care,
and that is why, when a leader in Saudi Arabia had a recent health
problem within the last 2 weeks, he chose to come to the United
States--because it is the best care in the world. The World Health
Organization may have someone else listed at No. 1, but the ruler from
Saudi Arabia decided to come to the United States. He didn't go to Cuba
or England or Canada; he came here for our care. We want the young men
and women who are in medicine, who are going into medicine and training
in medicine to be able to provide that kind of care. And we want the
American people to be able to continue to receive that kind of care.
Unfortunately, in this body, political passion overtook good policy,
and a law was passed that I think is not going to be good for patients
or for providers or for those people paying the bill.
So that is what I hear every weekend at home in Wyoming. It may be
what you hear as well. I know you have heard that in your home State.
Yet the President of the United States sat for a wide-ranging interview
with Barbara Walters on television the other evening, and when he
described this health care law, he said he was extraordinarily proud of
health care reform. What I consider a health spending bill he calls a
lasting legacy which he said, ``I am extraordinarily proud of.''
That is one reason I was surprised to see the headline in the
Washington Post, which actually, I believe, was the same day as the
President's interview with Barbara Walters. In the Washington Post
edition of Friday, November 26, the front-page headline reads ``Doctors
Say Medicare Cuts Forcing Them to Shift Away From Elderly.'' Medicare
cuts are forcing them to shift away from the elderly. This is what we
talked about during the debate on the floor of the Senate when that
health care law was being debated, that they have taken $500 billion
away from Medicare--not to save Medicare, not to help our seniors, not
to extend the life of Medicare, no, but to start a whole new government
program.
That is why every week I come to the floor to offer a doctor's second
opinion and share with all those in this Chamber and the American
people why I believe, as a doctor who has practiced medicine for a long
time, that this is a health care law that we need to repeal and
replace--replace it with something that is good for patients, good for
providers, and good for the taxpayers of this country.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
____________________