[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1716-1724]
[From the U.S. 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 with respect to 
H.R. 2847, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A 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.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 3310 (to the House amendment to the 
     Senate amendment), in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 3311 (to amendment No. 3310), to change 
     the enactment date.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page 1717]]

time until 9:55 will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the 
remarks from the Senator from New York, I be recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the time will be equally divided, I 
presume?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on a more bipartisan note than the speech 
from the minority leader, we are now moving toward some legislation 
that has two bits of good news for the American people; one, it will 
help create jobs and employ those who have been out of work for too 
long a time; second, it is bipartisan. For the first time in a long 
time, we have a bill that is supported by both Democrats and 
Republicans. I would like to salute the five Republicans from the other 
side who joined us in moving the bill forward. I am very hopeful there 
will be a large number of those from the other side of the aisle who 
will join in this bipartisan measure that will show the American people 
that, at least when it comes to jobs, we can--and must for their good--
work together.
  First, let me discuss the proposal, the part of the proposal authored 
by Senator Hatch and myself. It is very simple. It is a holiday from 
the payroll tax for any employer that hires a worker who has been out 
of work for 60 days.
  Let me discuss why I think it will work. First, it is immediate. Most 
businesses, particularly small businesses, if you tell them they will 
get some kind of tax credit if they hire someone, but they will get 
that credit a year from April, are not very interested. This occurs 
immediately, the minute the worker is hired.
  Second, it is simple. Again, you tell a businessperson, particularly 
a small businessperson, they have to fill out 30 pages, maybe hire an 
accountant to get a tax credit for a new worker, that is not life. They 
are going to tell you to forget it.
  But here all the new employee has to show is that he or she was out 
of work for 60 days. It is very easy to show 60 days of unemployment 
compensation, and it immediately takes effect.
  Third, it goes right to small business. So this is not a large 
government program. The money goes right to small business and is cost 
effective, which is the fourth point. If 3 million people are hired by 
this tax credit, it will cost $15 billion. That is a lot of money. But 
compared to the stimulus of $880 billion, it is much smaller. The money 
is cost effective. It goes right to where it should.
  Finally, my last point is, it is bipartisan. The country is asking us 
to come and work together. Obviously, there are diverse views, both 
within the parties and certainly between the parties. But that does not 
mean, on areas that are getting close to emergencies, we cannot work 
together.
  This proposal, let it be the start. But let this proposal be the 
start of a coming together on issues we can agree on. There are some 
job proposals my colleagues on this side of the aisle would support and 
my colleagues on the other side would not and vice versa. There are 
some they would support and we would not.
  But there are a large number we can all agree on. We ought to 
endeavor to do them because what the American people want is not us 
just talking at one another and accomplishing nothing but us getting 
something done.
  Finally, going back to the merits of this proposal, it should not be 
sold as a panacea. This is not a magic wand that is going to be waved 
and all our joblessness will decline.
  But what it does do is harness the economic growth we have seen in 
the last quarter, 5.7 percent, and translates it into the creation of 
jobs. Let me explain. In the last quarter, there was economic growth, 
5.7 percent, but hardly a job was created. You cannot sustain an 
economy and get an economy moving upward unless jobs are created.
  But the growth gives us an opportunity--not every employer but a 
significant number of employers are getting new orders. They are 
thinking to themselves: Should I hire that new worker or should I just 
extend overtime or cut back somewhere else?
  This job provision, a payroll tax holiday, says to the employer--to 
some, not all but to many--I am going to take that gamble and hire that 
worker and hire them now so it will help jump-start our economy. It 
will work for businesses, not those that see declining sales or flat 
sales but those that are beginning to see sales go up and will 
translate those increased sales into increased jobs, which will then, 
hopefully, create the virtuous cycle of more jobs, more money in the 
economy, more jobs still, more money in the economy still, and we can 
get out of this awful recession.
  In conclusion, I wish to save enough time for my friend from New 
Hampshire. I traveled around my State this last Presidents week break. 
In every corner of my State, I sat with the unemployed. It was 
heartbreaking. Think of those people and those faces, what they had to 
say late at night.
  A woman from Rochester had worked for 20 years for Xerox, lost her 
position in human services up in Rochester. She has been looking for 2 
years, close to 2 years, for a job. She made a very good salary. She 
did not have a family. Her job was her life. She has turned things 
inside out to try and find comparable work. She cannot.
  I met a man who was a blue-collar worker. He had risen to the top of 
his craft, tool and die. He thought he had a great life--worked hard, 
had six children, a good marriage. A year ago he lost his job and is 
still paying the mortgage. His wife cannot work to support him because 
of the six kids, one of whom was 2 years old, as I recall.
  What is he going to do? You meet people like this again and again. 
Young college students get out of college, bright-eyed and bushy-
tailed, and cannot find work. How disillusioning at the beginning of 
their career.
  So we have an imperative to do something. We have an imperative not 
to say: It has to be my way or no way. We have to put those people back 
to work.
  That is what Senator Hatch and I attempted to do with our proposal. 
To our leader, I wish to pay him a tremendous tribute. He was focused 
on getting this done. He took brickbats left and right. But the 
ultimate wisdom of what he did is now being seen as we move this bill 
on the floor today.
  Hopefully, it will go through the House and be on the President's 
desk shortly. I thank Senator Hatch and all my colleagues who, 
hopefully, in a few minutes, will come together in a bipartisan way and 
tell the workers who are unemployed: Yes, there is some hope. Tell the 
voters from Massachusetts: Yes, we have heard you. We are focusing on 
jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe the first obligation of a 
government--or one of the obligations, especially of Congress--is to 
live by its own words and live by its own rules. With great fanfare a 
couple weeks ago, the Democratic leadership and its membership passed a 
pay-go piece of legislation which says that when you bring spending 
legislation to the floor, it should be paid for. There was great 
breast-beating on the other side of the aisle about how this would 
discipline the government and make us fiscally responsible.
  Now we see, as the first piece of legislation to come forward since 
the pay-go resolution passed, a bill which violates that pay-go 
resolution. This bill spends $12 billion that is not paid for under the 
pay-go rules over the next 5 years. It is in violation of the concepts 
and the rules which were put forward by the other side as the way we 
would discipline spending.
  I understand--and I think most of us understand--the issue of the 
economy is critical, getting people back to work is critical, but I 
don't think we get people back to work by loading more and more debt 
onto the next generation. Probably we create an atmosphere where folks 
who are willing to go out

[[Page 1718]]

and invest and create jobs are a little reticent to do so because they 
don't know how all that debt the Federal Government is putting on the 
books will be paid for. I presume that is one of the reasons the pay-go 
legislation was brought forward a couple of weeks ago, to try to give 
some certainty to the markets and to the American people who were upset 
with all the deficit and debt, that we would discipline ourselves.
  Now the first bill that comes forward violates the rules of the 
Senate by adding $12 billion of spending which is not paid for, which 
will be deficit spending, and which will be added to the debt. I am not 
sure how you vote for this bill when it violates that rule which you 
just voted for 2 weeks ago. It seems a bit of inconsistency that is 
hard even for a political institution to justify.
  On top of that, this bill has massive gamesmanship in the outyears. 
It is a bill of $15 to $18 billion in spending, but actually, because 
of the games played in the highway accounts, it adds $140 billion of 
spending that is not paid for which will be added to the debt if this 
bill is passed. That is a hard number. That is a big number. That is a 
real number.
  The simple fact is, this bill, in the classic gamesmanship we see 
from the highway committee, spends money we don't have and then claims 
we have the money. In the end, all that money has to be borrowed 
because there are no revenues to cover it.
  If this bill is passed, there will be $140 billion in new debt put on 
our kids' backs as a result of this alleged small number. I forgot what 
the number is they claim is actually in the bill. How does that happen? 
This bit of gamesmanship ought to be explained because it keeps being 
undertaken by the highway committee in the most egregious way relative 
to proper fiscal management. In fact, if this were done in an 
accounting cycle that was subject to accounting rules, the people who 
claim this sort of sleight of hand would go to jail. It is that simple. 
They would go to jail because this is such a fraud on the American 
taxpayer.
  What they are claiming is that the highway fund, on which they have 
committed to spend much more money than is coming in, and they knew 
they would spend more money than was coming in because they wanted to 
spend more money than was coming in, what they are claiming is that 
highway fund lent the general fund money 10 years ago and that money 
should have had interest paid on it. Of course, at the time, they 
actually waived the interest, assuming interest should have been paid 
on that. That interest has been recouped a couple of times now, 
allegedly, even if it were owed. But what they claim is that because 
the money is coming out of the general fund to fund the highway fund, 
they are calling that an offset so it won't score.
  Unfortunately, under the present rules with which we budget around 
here, it doesn't score because it is built into the baseline. It adds 
up to $140 billion over the next 10 years, approximately, that is going 
to come out of the general fund to fund the highway fund because the 
people who run the highway fund don't have the courage to fund what 
they want to spend. So they are going to take it out of the general 
fund. Where does the general fund get its money? It borrows it from our 
children and grandchildren. It runs up debt. That is why, under any 
scenario, no matter what gamesmanship you play around here on naming 
this event, it turns out to be the same thing: debt added to our 
children's burden.
  Our children already have a fair amount of debt coming at them as a 
result of this Congress's profligacy. Under the President's budget, the 
deficit will double in the next 5 years and triple in the next 10 
years. We will add $11 trillion of new debt to the backs of our 
children over the next 10 years under the President's initiatives, 
every year for the next 10 years. We will average deficits of $1 
trillion.
  The American people intuitively understand that cannot continue; it 
can't keep up. We are on an unsustainable course. We are running this 
Nation into a ditch on the fiscal side of the ledger. We are putting 
this Nation into financial bankruptcy because of the fact that we are 
running up deficits and debt far beyond our capacity to repay. In fact, 
if you look at these deficits and debt just in the context of what 
other industrialized nations do--for example, the European Union--they 
don't allow their states to exceed deficits of 3 percent or a public 
debt to GDP ratio of 60 percent. The way this works out, we are going 
to run deficits of about 5 percent every year for the next 10 years, we 
will have a public debt situation of well over 60 percent next year, 
and we will get to 80 percent before the next 10 years are up. Those 
are numbers which lead to one conclusion--that we are in deep trouble. 
We are in deep, deep trouble. Yet we come here today with a bill which 
aggravates that situation relative to the pay-go rules by $12 billion 
and relative to the highway fund by $140 billion.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire has 
the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. I will yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the 
remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire, I be recognized for up to 3 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. What we have before us today is a bill which, first, 
violates the pay-go rules which we just passed a couple of weeks ago to 
the tune of $12 billion and, second, puts in place a glidepath, which 
should be called a nosedive, toward $140 billion of new debt being put 
on the backs of our children, with the alleged justification that it is 
offset when, in fact, the offset is superficial, Pyrrhic, and 
nonexistent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. GREGG. We can not keep doing this. We cannot keep doing this to 
our children. We cannot keep coming out here and claiming we are being 
fiscally disciplined when we are doing just the opposite: spending 
money we don't have and passing the bill on to our kids.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when the Senator from New Hampshire talks 
about what we can and can't do to our children, I remind my fellow 
Senators, I happen to be blessed with 20 kids and grandkids. I am 
probably more concerned than anyone else here about future generations. 
Let me say, to redeem myself in advance, I am a conservative. I have 
been ranked No. 1 by the ACU, Man of the Year by Human Events. Yet I 
think we are supposed to be doing something when we come here to 
Washington. I have always said, when I run for office, that the two 
main things we are supposed to do are defend America and 
infrastructure. Yes, I am the ranking member on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. I was the sponsor of the bill in 2005, and I am 
proud of it because we had to do something about infrastructure. I 
don't know, maybe there aren't any roads in New Hampshire, but I can 
tell you, don't buy into the argument that this is all debt. We are 
talking about $12 billion.
  This bill actually does two things. It has some very good reductions 
in taxes. I remember so well that John Kennedy, when he was President, 
said we have to raise more revenue. The best way is to reduce marginal 
rates. From 1961 to 1968, it went from $94 billion to $153 billion. 
That is in this thing. But the main thing here I am concerned about is 
we keep doing nothing about roads and highways and infrastructure. That 
is what we are supposed to do.
  I know the Senator is sincere when he comes up with this, but where 
was his concern back when he voted to give an unelected bureaucrat $700 
billion? That wasn't offset. We can say that was a loan, but we all 
know better.
  There are some things we are supposed to be doing in America, and the 
second most important thing, in my view--I know others don't share this

[[Page 1719]]

view--is to do something about infrastructure. This bill does it. This 
carries it on to the end of the fiscal year, about 11 more months. If 
we don't do it, it is costing about $1 billion a month by inaction. If 
we try to do this by extending it month by month, each one of us in 
this body is going to lose a lot of money that goes to roads and 
highways and infrastructure.
  Last week had a crumbling bridge in Oklahoma where no one was killed, 
but it came very close to that. We saw what happened up in Minnesota. 
We have to do something, instead of spending all of our money, as this 
administration is doing, on social engineering. We need to start 
building bridges and roads and repairing them.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint 
Committee on Taxation document entitled ``Estimated Revenue Effects of 
the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, The `Hiring 
Incentives to Restore Employment Act,' under consideration by the 
Senate'' be printed in the Record.
  In addition, the Record should reflect that the document entitled 
``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate 
Amendment 3310, The `Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act,' 
under consideration by the Senate'' can be found on the Joint Committee 
on Taxation website at http://jct.gov/
publications.html?func=startdown&id= 3648. This document is a 
contemporary explanation of the legislation that reflects the 
intentions of the Senate and its understanding of the legislative text.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 1720]]





[[Page 1721]]



[[Page 1722]]


  Several of my Finance Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
put a lot of time and effort into creating a compromise jobs bill that 
Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were trying to move forward. 
Indeed, I had high hopes that we might help thaw the partisan freeze 
that has gridlocked this chamber for far too long. Unfortunately, our 
efforts and hopes have been dashed by the majority leader's 
inexplicable decision to gut our bill and replace it with a piece of 
legislation that replaces cooperation with contention.
  Further exacerbating matters, the Democratic leadership has filled 
the amendment tree, thus preventing anyone from being able to offer 
amendments that would improve the underlying bill. So much for 
compromise.
  As a longtime public servant of this great deliberative body, I can't 
recall a decision that exhibited as much raw political gamesmanship as 
this one does. The Democratic leadership is stifling the first genuine 
attempt at cooperation on a major issue--a move that bodes ill for 
bipartisanship for the remainder of this Congress.
  Given what is happening with this jobs bill, how can we in the 
minority have faith that we won't be excluded from debate on future 
legislation such as health care and energy legislation? It is easy to 
label the Republicans as the ``Party of No'' when you completely 
exclude them from the legislative process. Unfortunately, the majority 
leaves us with little other option than to say ``no.''
  But what puzzles me the most is what the majority has to gain from 
this partisan maneuver. In my experience, the Senate operates best when 
there is trust that agreements will be honored, but regrettably now 
even that is in question.
  Just a few weeks ago, I sat in the House Chamber while the President 
gave his State of the Union Address in which 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 that followed. 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 scored by trying to embarrass us.
  Here are a few of the things the President said about the need for 
bipartisanship in his 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.

  The President 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.

  While these challenges and standards were set by the President, the 
leader of the Democratic Party, I believe most Republicans would agree 
with him. The American people are suffering. Our unemployment rate is 
near double digits. We owe it to the unemployed and underemployed to 
put aside partisan politics so that we can create jobs and make our 
economy stronger.
  Soon after President Obama addressed the Nation, Senate Democratic 
and Republican leaders went to work on a bipartisan solution to create 
a jobs-growth bill. I worked with Senator Schumer to come up with a 
payroll tax holiday for companies that hired more employees. Under this 
incentive, the sooner a company hired an unemployed worker the more tax 
incentive the company would receive. I believe that this initiative is 
a perfect example of the kind of bipartisanship the President talked 
about during his State of the Union Address.
  In addition, Senators Baucus and Grassley joined in this effort by 
including several other provisions aimed at job growth and to address 
the symptoms of a failing economy. This was a compromise that included 
an extension of unemployment insurance, Build America Bonds, and 
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 at about 10 percent since 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 disheartening on February 11, when the Senate 
majority leader announced that he would scrap the compromise proposal 
only hours after its unveiling and proceed instead with a stripped-down 
bill that would not extend any of the expiring tax proposals that are 
so vitally important to job growth. This decision not only pulled the 
rug out from Republicans, but it floored those Democrats who had been 
working for weeks on a bipartisan solution.
  Regrettably, because of this 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 of and surprise caused by the majority 
leader's unexpected action, just look at the next-day's headlines:

       ``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 doesn't 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.''
  Many Democratic Senators were quick to stand behind the majority 
leader's reversal, just seconds after supporting the bipartisan jobs 
bill. Some even stated that we Republicans were 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, and they generally keep it.'' 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.
  What most surprised me is just how quickly many Democratic Senators 
were to abandon these tax extenders, even though most of them support 
extending these very expiring tax provisions. In fact, the Democratic 
leadership has erroneously labeled the tax extenders as solely a 
Republican-supported initiative. This is hardly the case, considering 
the Democratic-led House has already passed nearly all of these tax 
extenders and the President called for them to be passed in his speech 
before Congress.
  There is an array of expiring tax provisions contained in the tax 
extenders package. Here are a few that are included:
  Also, many Democrats, including the majority leader, are cosponsors 
of legislation that would extend many of the expiring tax provisions. 
Look at the bill 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.
  In fact, there are many business tax incentives included in the tax 
extenders package that are primarily supported by some of the Senators 
who have been the most vocal against including the expired provisions 
in the jobs bill. These Democratic-supported business incentives 
include a mine rescue team training credit and special expensing rules 
for certain film and television productions.
  Therefore, to label the support of extending these expiring tax 
provisions

[[Page 1723]]

as part of a solely Republican agenda is misleading, unfair, and 
unwarranted. I believe that these statements were made only to support 
the majority leader, who appeared to have made a hasty and ill-
considered decision.
  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 would support 
proven growth of companies that are slowly beginning to see the light 
at the end of the tunnel. Conversely, 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 isn't 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 for this drop in employment is because government spending 
does not create permanent jobs; only the private sector can. In 
contrast to government spending, tax incentives would give the private 
sector a much-needed boost. If we had included more tax incentives for 
businesses in last year's stimulus bill, we would have created jobs 
that will last far longer than the ones government spending has 
created.
  Originally projected to cost $787 billion, the stimulus bill is now 
expected to total $862 billion over 10 years, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office. This does not include interest owed, which 
would put the total cost in the trillions of dollars.
  Thus far, only a third of the $862 billion stimulus package has been 
spent. Another third is expected to be spent in 2010, and the remaining 
third after this year. Whatever 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--a very misleading claim.
  For example, it was reported that a construction company in Nevada 
created 20 jobs on a project that has yet to receive money. A school 
district reported saving 665 jobs, even though it only employs roughly 
600 people. A town in Oregon reported creating eight jobs on a contract 
for ``rattlesnake stewardship.''
  In January 2009, President Obama's economic advisors predicted in a 
report that with an $800 billion stimulus, the unemployment rate would 
never go above 8 percent. As I stated previously, unemployment has been 
near 10 percent since last September.
  Moreover, the stimulus package was sold to the American people as an 
immediate fix--a ``jolt'' to the economy. The President's chief 
economic advisor, Larry Summers, said: ``You'll see effects 
immediately.'' Christina Romer, the President's chair of Economic 
Advisers, said: ``We'll start adding jobs rather than losing them.'' 
And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``This will begin creating 
jobs immediately.''
  When 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, the Wall 
Street Journal reported in a February 17 article that government data 
indicate most jobs supported by stimulus dollars belonged to government 
employees at the State and local level. In fact, only 2 percent of the 
entire stimulus bill was dedicated toward tax relief for businesses.
  We need to provide a foundation to allow the private sector to 
nourish and create better paying jobs. That is why many support 
including these tax extenders in a jobs bill.
  For instance, it is estimated that 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 than Republican support in this body. 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.
  As I stated earlier, the President set the tone at the beginning of 
the year by calling on Congress to put forth a bipartisan solution to 
create jobs. In response, both Democrats and Republicans brought 
innovative ideas to the table. Then, in a sudden change of events, many 
Republican ideas were excluded from the jobs bill the majority leader 
has brought to the floor. Finally, the majority leader is not allowing 
our side to offer any amendments.
  If this is not an arrogance of power, then I do not know what is. I 
only hope the majority leader heeds 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 Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma for 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have to object because the vote was set 
for 9:55.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we have had so much partisan gridlock. 
Today we have a real opportunity to show that this new legislative year 
can break through that with something meaningful to the American 
people, a jobs bill. I am hopeful that many colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will join us. There has been great input from Senator 
Inhofe and Senator Hatch. These are people who are conservative, have 
different voting records than I, but they say we have to do something. 
I thank the new Senator from Massachusetts for leading the way and 
breaking through the miasma. This is a good, focused bill. It is a 
modest bill, but it will do some good for the hundreds of thousands and 
perhaps millions who are looking desperately for work. When they find 
jobs, our economy begins to move forward. That is long overdue.
  Both sides of the aisle can show the American people we have heard 
them by overwhelmingly passing this well-crafted, well-honed, modest 
piece of legislation aimed at issue No. 1: jobs and the economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion offered by the Senator from 
Maryland, Mr. Cardin, to waive the Budget Act and budget resolutions 
with respect to the motion offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. 
Reid, to concur with an amendment in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 2847.
  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 New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper

[[Page 1724]]


     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     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
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hutchison
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     McCain
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote the yeas are 62, the 
nays are 34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, amendment No. 3311 is withdrawn.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur with an amendment 
to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     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
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hutchison
     Lautenberg
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. 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.
  The bill, H.R. 2847, as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

                          ____________________