[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18432-18435]
[From the U.S. 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 small business. I thank our Chair, Mary Landrieu, who was on the 
Senate floor over and over from the Small

[[Page 18433]]

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?

[[Page 18434]]


  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 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

[[Page 18435]]

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 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.

                          ____________________