[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2267-2274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    TEMPORARY EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to Calendar No. 278, H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of 
provisions that expired Sunday, February 28; that the Bunning amendment 
regarding offset, which is at the desk, be the only amendment in order; 
that there be 60 minutes for debate with respect to the amendment, with 
the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Reid and 
Bunning or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, 
the time until 8:30 p.m. be for debate with respect to the bill, with 
the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Baucus and 
Grassley or their designees; that at 8:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to 
vote in relation to the Bunning amendment; that no further amendments 
be in order; that upon disposition of the Bunning amendment, the bill, 
as amended, if amended, be read the third time; that prior to passage, 
it be in order to raise an applicable budget point of order against the 
bill; further, that if the point of order is raised, then a motion to 
waive the applicable point of order be considered made, with no further 
debate in order; provided that if the point of order is waived, the 
Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; 
further, that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 4213, the 
next two Democratic amendments be offered by Senators Murray and 
Sanders and the next two Republican amendments be Bunning amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, briefly, I am pleased Senator Bunning 
will have an opportunity to offer the amendments that he thinks are 
important and that he has been stressing for the last few days. I am 
glad we were able to work this out and move on with the business of the 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4691) to provide a temporary extension of 
     certain programs, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 3355

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3355.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, in a minute I will speak about my 
amendment to pay for this bill. First, I want to talk about how we got 
here.
  Last week, I objected to the majority leader's request for unanimous 
consent to pass a 30-day extension of several expiring programs that 
was not paid for. I offered to pass the exact same bill that was paid 
for, and unfortunately he objected to my request.
  There was nothing stopping him from using the tools at his disposal 
to overcome my objection. The leader could have filed cloture on the 
bill and brought it to the floor last week, instead of the travel bill 
that is a great giveaway to his State. If he had done that, this bill 
would have been signed into law already. He also could have filed 
cloture on the bill and worked through the weekend and it would already 
be law. The leader could have proceeded to the bipartisan Baucus-
Grassley bill that paid for these programs and it would have been 
signed into law by now. He could have accepted my request to pay for 
the bill and we would not be here tonight. Instead, the leader decided 
to press ahead with a bill that adds to the debt and violates the 
principles of pay-go that everyone claims to care about.
  Just over a month ago, the majority in the Senate passed pay-go 
legislation that supposedly says we are going to pay for what we spend. 
I support that idea, but I knew at the time that the legislation would 
be ignored. Unfortunately, I was right.
  Barely 1 week after President Obama signed the pay-go law into 
effect, the majority leader proposed a bill that was not paid for. That 
bill passed and added $10 billion to the deficit. That is $10 billion 
your children and my children and grandchildren will have to pay for. 
That is $10 billion on top of a $14 trillion national debt. After 
passing $10 billion more debt on to future generations, the majority 
leader proposed to pass another bill to add another $10 billion to the 
debt. That is when I said enough is enough; we cannot keep adding to 
the debt and passing the buck to generations of future workers and 
taxpayers--my children and your children and our grandchildren.
  As we all know, the national debt has grown at a record pace in 
recent years. A large part of that has been a result of a downturn in 
the economy a decade ago and then during the last few years. But 
increased government spending has been a major factor too. Over the 
last few days, several Senators on the other side of the aisle have 
blamed Republican spending for the debt and asked why we did not pay 
for things when we were in charge. They have a point. I wish we would 
have spent less and paid for more of it when we were in charge. There 
are some votes I wish I could have back, and I am sure many of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle feel the same way. But it is not 
fair to blame Republican spending for all the drastic increases in our 
national debt. Our side has not controlled the Congress for more than 3 
years, and the

[[Page 2268]]

current Congress is spending more and faster than ever before.
  For example, last year, the majority pushed through a so-called 
stimulus bill, followed quickly by an omnibus spending bill that 
contributed to the government ending the year $1.4 trillion in the red, 
the largest 1-year deficit in the history of the United States of 
America.
  Clearly, we are not headed in the right direction. I do not want to 
turn this into a partisan debate because it is not a partisan issue. I 
only make these points to show that neither side has clean hands, and 
what matters is we get our spending problems under control.
  As every struggling family knows, we cannot solve a debt problem by 
spending more. We must get our debt problems under control, and there 
is no better time than now. That is why I have been down here demanding 
that this bill be paid for. I support the programs in the bill we are 
discussing, and if the extension of those programs were paid for, I 
would gladly support the bill.
  The unemployment rate in my State is well over 10 percent right now. 
Many rural families get their television through satellite providers in 
Kentucky. More than half our State is bordered by rivers, and flood 
insurance is vital to the people who live near those borders and any of 
the major-minor rivers in the State. In fact, I wrote the law that 
enacted the current version of the Flood Insurance Program. I care 
about it deeply.
  I am concerned about all the other programs in this bill as well, as 
is every other Member of this body. That is all the more reason to pay 
for this bill. If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 Senators 
support, how can we tell the American people with a straight face that 
we will ever pay for anything? That is what Senators say they want, and 
that is what the American people want. They want us to get our budgets 
in order, just like they have to get their budgets in order every day. 
But that is not what the majority is doing.
  Tonight, tomorrow, and on every spending bill in the future, we will 
see whether they mean business about controlling our debt or if it is 
just words. We will see if pay-go has any teeth.
  Tonight, I am offering a substitute amendment that pays for these 
important programs with Democratic ideas. Tomorrow, I will offer 
amendments to the offset, the longer term extender bill that was on the 
floor earlier today. I will be back on future spending bills demanding 
that they be paid for so future generations of Americans will not be 
burdened with our overspending.
  As I said, my amendment pays for this bill with Democratic ideas. The 
10-year cost of extending these programs for 1 month is $10.26 billion. 
The offset I am offering will more than pay for this cost, and the 
offset should be familiar to many. It has been proposed by Senator 
Baucus in his substitute amendment to the long-term extension bill. It 
was also proposed in the Obama administration's budget.
  The offset would prevent black liquor, which is a byproduct of the 
pulp and paper process, from being eligible for the cellulosic biofuels 
producer tax credit. This will save the Treasury almost $24 billion 
over 10 years, according to the Joint Tax Committee. As I said, this 
will more than pay for the cost of the bill, and there will be almost 
$14 billion left over.
  Under the pay-go rules, that $14 billion will be available to be used 
to pay for the next bill Congress passes. I think we all expect that 
the next bill will be the long-term extension bill.
  Some might say I am creating a $24 billion hole in the next bill by 
using that offset now. That is not true. First, we are removing over 
$10 billion in costs from that larger bill by enacting the 1-month 
extensions now, and we are also making $14 billion available for that 
bill.
  Members on this side of the aisle, including myself, have offered and 
will offer ways to completely pay for the cost of that more expensive, 
longer term extension bill.
  This pay-for is a proposal made by the majority, and I hope and 
expect every one of them to support my amendment. Anyone who does not 
should be prepared to answer why the Senate does not have to make the 
tough decisions to balance the government's budget while every American 
family does. We must bring an end to the out-of-control spending, and 
there is no better time than now.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in saying enough and restoring some 
discipline to Washington. I urge everyone in this body to support this 
amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bunning 
amendment. The Senator from Kentucky has decided, after 1 week, to 
accept exactly what was offered to him last week.
  Last week, we said to the Senator from Kentucky: If you want to come 
up with a pay-for for unemployment benefits and health care benefits, 
offer an amendment. You will have your chance on the floor.
  The Senator from Kentucky said: No, because I may lose. Therefore, I 
am not going to offer the amendment. I will only object to moving 
forward with temporary benefits for unemployment insurance and health 
care and several other things, and I stand by my objection.
  The Senator from Kentucky just came to the floor and found four 
different ways to blame the Democratic majority leader for his 
objection. He made the objection. I think he was the only Senator out 
of 100 who objected.
  I don't question his motive or his sincerity, but I think, in all 
candor, let's understand where we are at this moment in time.
  During this 1-week period of time while the Senator from Kentucky 
could have offered an amendment, he did not. As a result, on Sunday 
night, unemployment benefits were cut off for thousands of people 
across America, assistance for health care insurance cut off all across 
America, thousands of Federal employees were furloughed, Federal 
contracts for construction were suspended. Why? Because he did not want 
to offer the amendment he is offering tonight.
  I am glad he is offering it, and I will tell you why I am going to 
oppose it. He knows and I know that if we do not pass this bill as it 
passed the House of Representatives, if we make a change in it, we are 
destined to send it over to the House to, at a minimum, wait several 
days or even longer for a conference committee to resolve his 
amendment. What happens to those unemployed people during that period 
of time? They don't receive checks.
  Mr. President, 15,000 people in Illinois had their unemployment 
insurance cut off Sunday night because of Senator Bunning's objection. 
In addition to that, thousands in my State lost the helping hand to pay 
for their health insurance. The Senator from Kentucky tonight is 
suggesting just take this little amendment; it will not hurt a thing; 
it is something you should like. While we mull over his change and move 
it between the House and the Senate, those people will continue to go 
without unemployment insurance and without health care assistance. Mr. 
President, 2,000 more each day are added to those rolls of unemployed 
people who are going to pay the price for this procedural move by the 
Senator.
  I know there is also pain in his own State. I know many people are 
aware of the fact that there is high employment across the United 
States, millions of people who have lost their unemployment insurance. 
I know it has affected his State. I have seen the numbers.
  As a result of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky, 4,300 
unemployment insurance claimants will lose their unemployment insurance 
by March 13 if we do not complete action. What he has done tonight is 
to delay it. What is even worse about this amendment and the reason why 
it should be defeated is not just because it will once again delay 
unemployment benefits to people across America, it will once again 
create problems where people will lose their health insurance that they 
may never be able to obtain again because of preexisting conditions in 
their family.
  What is worse, these Federal workers who cannot go to work are going 
to

[[Page 2269]]

suspend construction projects that create jobs across America, while 
this Senator from Kentucky offers this amendment to change.
  Let's look at the heart of this amendment. Where did the Senator from 
Kentucky come up with the resources to pay for this unemployment 
insurance? He came up with it from the bill that is pending on the 
floor, where these revenues are already being raised to pay for 
unemployment insurance. He is not reducing our deficit. In this 
situation, we have already taken this source of money and put it in the 
next bill related to unemployment insurance to defray the cost of 
unemployment insurance. He does not reduce the deficit. He just adds a 
procedural hurdle that delays the payment of unemployment insurance to 
people across America.
  This could have been done last week. He was offered this chance last 
week. He would not take it last week. As a result, a lot of people have 
suffered and a lot of them have gone through hardship.
  It is his right to do it as a Senator, but I think the reaction on 
the floor of the Senate--I might add from both sides of the aisle--is a 
demonstration that sometimes just because we have the power to do 
things, we ought to think twice before we use that power. I have the 
power to put a hold on every nomination this President or any President 
seeks. I have the power to object to any unanimous consent request that 
comes to the floor of the Senate. But people elect us not just to make 
political judgment but to make good judgment. In this case, the 
political judgment was made that the unemployed people involved were 
expendable, they could wait, wait for days, if not weeks, until we get 
around to a political debate about the deficit.
  I am troubled, too, by the argument that the Senator believes he is 
one of the few stalwarts on the floor of the Senate when it comes to 
deficit reduction. The record suggests he has voted for two wars under 
President Bush that were not paid for, costing the United States almost 
$1 trillion, adding directly to our debt.
  The Senator also has supported eliminating the estate tax on the 
richest people in America. Certainly, that is going to blow a hole in 
any budget and add to the deficit. The same was true with the Medicare 
prescription drug program. The Senator voted for that without paying 
for it, adding at least $40 billion to the deficit.
  You know, those of us who have been here for a while have cast many 
votes--and my critics will find plenty of things to criticize about my 
voting record--but before I would come to the floor and stop 
unemployment insurance for people who are wondering where their next 
meal is coming from, I would think twice about saving that debate so 
that the victims aren't the most helpless people in America who have 
lost their job through no fault of their own.
  I urge my colleagues, when this amendment comes for a vote later this 
evening, to think twice. If you vote with the Senator from Kentucky, 
who takes his revenue source from another bill that we will vote on 
tomorrow, you will delay the unemployment checks again. We will have 
come up with another excuse to say no.
  The Senator from Kentucky has made it clear he doesn't believe 
unemployment compensation is an emergency need in America. I disagree. 
I think we are in an emergency situation in our economy. I have met 
with these unemployed people in my State and other States. These are 
desperate people. Some have been out of work for 2 years. They may lose 
everything before it is all over. I hope they don't. They are training 
for new jobs, they have exhausted their savings and are trying to keep 
their families together. A family I read about today said they put 
everything they own in one of those storage lockers because they lost 
their home. They moved from homeless shelters to live in the back of 
their car. Is that an economic emergency? Maybe not to Members of the 
Senate, because our lives are pretty comfortable, but it is certainly 
an emergency for those families.
  The real question in this debate is who are we are as a Nation? Do we 
care about these people, these breadwinners who are now down on their 
luck; these folks who have worked for years and are now out of work 
through no fault of their own, and doing everything they can legally to 
find a way to survive or is it just another political debate, another 
political issue, another chance to score a political point at the 
expense of some people who really aren't in a very strong position to 
defend themselves?
  I just hope tonight we will defeat the Bunning amendment. Tomorrow, 
we will have a chance to put a substantial downpayment on unemployment 
benefits and COBRA benefits in the bill that Chairman Baucus brings to 
the floor. And I hope we understand that is the right way to do this. 
What an empty victory if we end up voting for the Bunning amendment and 
stop unemployment benefits as a result while we try to work out 
differences between the House and the Senate.
  There is a lot more we can do here to help get this economy moving 
again. One of the things that holds us back is when we get embroiled in 
these procedural parliamentary tangles that eat up day after day and 
week after week, which leave us frustrated on the floor of the Senate 
and people across America angry that we aren't dealing with the real 
issues that count--issues such as creating jobs, issues such as making 
sure that there is affordable health care for everyone in this country. 
We should be dealing with that.
  The Senator from Kentucky said: You know, the majority leader could 
have filed cloture, waited 48 hours, waited another 30 hours. Then we 
could have gone through the weekend. For what purpose? For what 
purpose? We have reached the point that was offered to the Senator from 
Kentucky from the start. He is going to get his vote, but a week has 
passed. A week has been wasted--a week where we should have rolled up 
our sleeves and done the things the people of America send us here to 
do.
  What about the deficit and the debt? It is serious. The majority 
leader has asked me to serve on the deficit commission with Senators 
Baucus and Conrad. It is a tough assignment. I don't think it is going 
to be easy to figure out how to deal with a $14 trillion debt in this 
Nation. But I will tell you this: We will do a lot better with that 
national debt if we have a strong national economy and people back to 
work. We will be a lot better off as a nation if families can keep 
their kids in school and folks can get up and go to work. This notion 
that we are somehow going to balance our national budget on the backs 
of unemployed people--please. Aren't we better than that as a nation? I 
think we are.
  Twice last year the Senator from Kentucky voted to extend 
unemployment benefits without paying for them. Tonight, he insists we 
pay for them. Everybody is entitled to change their mind. When Abraham 
Lincoln--who was born in Kentucky, raised in Illinois--was accused by 
his critics, his President, of changing his mind, he said: Yes, I did 
change my mind. But I would rather be right some of the time than wrong 
all of the time. So we do change our minds on these issues. But let's 
not change our minds at the expense of innocent, helpless Americans who 
are looking for a helping hand.
  If a tornado swept across the State of Kentucky in the weeks ahead, 
God forbid, and the Senator from Kentucky came and said we have an 
emergency on our hands, I would stand up to help him, as I believe he 
would if it happened to my State. We do that because we care for one 
another in this Nation. We may have political differences--and there 
have been plenty of them--but they shouldn't be at the expense of our 
basic need to deal with the problems that we face.
  The Governor of Kentucky sent Senator Bunning a letter and a copy to 
me. In the letter, he says:

       Facing an unemployment rate of 10.7 percent in Kentucky and 
     9.7 percent across the Nation, I urge you to allow passage of 
     H.R. 4691, a vital extension of unemployment benefits to 1.2 
     million Americans, including tens of thousands right here in 
     Kentucky.

  The Governor of Kentucky, who wrote to Senator Bunning, went on to 
say:

       There are 119,230 Kentuckians currently receiving benefits 
     through the Federal extension program. Without a further 
     extension,

[[Page 2270]]

     14,206 claimants will exhaust all extension benefits within 2 
     weeks.

  It would take us 2 weeks, if the Bunning amendment is adopted, to 
finally get this done, if we get it done in that period of time. The 
Governor went on to write:

       By the end of March, a total of 22,797 Kentuckians will 
     exhaust their benefits; by mid-April 31,521 will exhaust 
     their benefits; and by July 31, the remainder of those 
     receiving benefits will exhaust them. Beyond the number of 
     those receiving extension benefits, another 90,000 
     Kentuckians currently on unemployment insurance will not be 
     eligible for the Federal extension program at all.
       These unemployed Kentuckians come from hard-working 
     families that have struggled for months to find new 
     employment in the greatest economic recession in our 
     lifetime. They are mothers and fathers who are trying to put 
     food on the table for their children and seniors who are 
     trying to pay the rent.
       In addition to the extension of unemployment benefits, this 
     bill also includes important extensions of Federal subsidies 
     to pay health premiums for those unemployed people who lost 
     health insurance when they lost their jobs, current Medicare 
     payment rates for doctors, flood insurance, and small 
     business loans.

  The Governor closed his letter to Senator Bunning, saying:

       I urge you to reverse your position on this bill and would 
     welcome any opportunity to provide you with further 
     information on its tremendous necessity.

  It is signed: Sincerely, Steven L. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky.
  That letter could have come from any Governor in our Nation. That is 
the employment picture and the economic picture in my State and so many 
States across the Nation.
  Please, when we get down to these budget debates, we should be 
sensitive to the fact that there are helpless victims to some of the 
procedural moves made on the floor of the Senate. It is time for us to 
stick together--both parties, I hope--in an effort to stand up for the 
unemployed and get this economy back on its feet.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Bunning amendment. It will only 
slow down the unemployment benefits these people have been waiting for 
and are worried that they may not receive. It will mean that more and 
more people will fall out of coverage and health insurance, and it will 
mean that Medicare services won't be available to seniors across the 
Nation when doctors decide they are not being reimbursed enough. Those 
are some of the basics in this bill.
  The revenue source Senator Bunning uses is included in this jobs bill 
that is before us, as soon as this matter is over. If you believe that 
in helping to pay for unemployment benefits we should use this source, 
as the Finance Committee has suggested, and I certainly agree with it, 
you will have ample opportunity to do that immediately after we pass 
this bill. In the meantime, let us waste no time, waste no effort in 
making sure that these needy people across America get the helping hand 
they deserve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 17 minutes 25 
seconds.
  Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Chair.
  As the good Senator from Illinois knows, there is no need for a 
conference, since the House has already passed this bill and has 
already passed the language in this amendment. I am very sure that they 
would be willing to accept their own bill back and paid for.
  He mentioned the fact that I objected four times. I objected more 
than four, but the majority leader objected four times to my request. 
That was nowhere in his statement.
  And talking about Medicare Part D premiums and the cost of Medicare 
Part D, the majority party in this Senate has had 3 years to repeal 
Medicare Part D if it was a bad idea at the time we passed it. 
Certainly, with 60 full votes in the Senate, it could have repealed 
what they considered a bad bill. The fact it was not paid for was not 
to my liking. The fact that we were going to take care of Medicare 
senior citizens who couldn't afford their prescription drugs took 
precedence.
  He spoke about the letter from the Governor of Kentucky. I didn't 
receive it. I had no knowledge of the letter until it was brought up by 
the Senator from Illinois. It is amazing to me the number of 
misstatements, and how the Governor--a Democratic Governor of the 
Commonwealth--could bring all these facts out to the Senator from 
Illinois and not the Senator from Kentucky.
  There are so many things that I can say, but I have, I guess, 11 
constituent communications here--either phone calls or letters, usually 
e-mails--and I am going to read a couple of them because I want to 
reserve some time in case the Senator from Illinois gets up again.
  This is from Randall in Bardstown, KY.

       Just want to thank you for your principled stand against 
     the squandering of our country's wealth. Yes, we need to help 
     those out of work; but no, we do not want to print more money 
     to do it. I have two sons on unemployment at this time, yet 
     we realize we cannot continue to spend money that doesn't 
     exist.
       Thank you very much, Senator Bunning, for having the guts 
     to stand up for your principles and oppose further spending 
     of money we simply do not have. In particular, I am glad you 
     stood up against extending unemployment benefits, which would 
     put us further in debt. Regards.

  That was from Bob in Burlington, KY. And here is another:

       I just want to send you some encouragement to hold your 
     ground in the Senate on renewing unemployment extension 
     benefits. As a Kentucky taxpayer and a Federal taxpayer, I am 
     tired of seeing unfunded and underfunded programs pass by 
     Congress, and I am glad you are taking a stand. As an 
     American and a Kentuckian, I believe the government has 
     failed the American people almost totally, but at least in 
     this instance you are not failing us. Please keep your 
     resolve and don't let pressure and influence sway a good 
     decision.

  That was from William in Flemingsburg, KY.

       I am surprised that you don't have more support when you 
     are 100 percent correct; that if 100 men in agreement can't 
     find a way to pay for a program, they will never pay for 
     anything. Our deficit has got to stop, and now is always the 
     best time to start. Thank you for standing up for us.

  That was Mark from Independence, KY.
  This will be the last one because I still have about three more pages 
of them:

       Thank you for holding firm last night. You are very much 
     appreciated for being willing to say no to extended benefits 
     that no one knows how to pay for or who will foot the bill. 
     It takes a very special individual to stand firm when 
     everyone around you seems to be caving in.

  That is from Debbie from Somerset, KY.
  These are just a few. There are more. But there are a lot of really 
good people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky--4.2 million--who want 
their Senators, their Members of the House, to stand up for themselves. 
I appreciate hearing from each and every one of them. I thank them for 
their support.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I also received some e-mail and letters 
from Kentuckians. It is a great State. It is the ancestral home of many 
Durbins--one hailed from Sunfish, KY, which is a pretty tiny town, I am 
told, and came up north to Illinois. It is a beautiful State, and I 
have enjoyed visiting there many times.
  A lady named Joy from Florence, KY, contacted me and said:

       Hello, I am 50 years old and I got let go a year and a half 
     ago from my job because I was getting older and they could 
     pay less for the younger workers. . . .
       Most places I applied to won't hire by experience--they 
     want a college degree.
       I have an elderly mother and handicapped child. I am behind 
     in all my bills and if there is not another extension I will 
     not be able to pay any bills. I am hoping you will put 
     through another extension--hopefully things will improve come 
     spring.

  A letter from someone named J.R.--didn't give a hometown, said he is 
from Kentucky. I will not read some portions of this letter, but I will 
read this part:

       I would like to say I am unemployed and [unemployment 
     insurance] has allowed me to keep my home etc. There still 
     are no jobs that will allow me to live on. I have . . . cut 
     back to just the basic needs--the Internet

[[Page 2271]]

     next. And then I will start selling my belongings to get by.
       I sit and wonder if everyone on unemployment gets cut off, 
     do the Senate and Congress realize the war here in the United 
     States will be worse than the one we are in overseas? There 
     will be so much stealing and . . . no telling what else just 
     for people to try and survive and feed their families.
       God help us all.

  There is a letter of desperation. It is an unimaginable scene that we 
would reach in any community here in this country in any State. But I 
think it reflects the fact that some people who write and say ``cut 
them off'' and ``so what'' are pretty fortunate people. They probably 
have a job. They probably have a home. They may not be worried about 
where their next meal is coming from. But for millions of Americans, 
that is not the story.
  I understand the Senator from Kentucky sees this differently, but I 
take the issue of health insurance as an example. If you have ever had 
the experience as a parent having a sick child and having no health 
insurance, it is something you will never forget as long as you live. 
It happened to me when I was a law student. My wife and I were newly 
married, and we had no health insurance and a baby with a medical 
problem. I try to imagine what it would be like--ours was a temporary 
experience--what it would be like if that is what you had to face day-
in and day-out, week-in and week-out, month after month, year after 
year. That is what these folks are up against. The only chance they 
have to hang on to health insurance is this COBRA program.
  The COBRA program--let me add parenthetically, that was created 
through reconciliation. This process that has been condemned by some 
created the COBRA program and said we are going to provide health 
insurance for the unemployed people in America, and the President's 
stimulus package said we will help them pay for the premiums, and the 
objection of the Senator from Kentucky cut off those COBRA payments for 
thousands of people across America. I don't know what is going to 
happen now. I don't know, if some of them lost their health insurance 
and try to get it back, whether they are going to be denied coverage 
because of a preexisting condition. I hope that doesn't happen, but it 
will mean this was not just another political debate for them; it will 
mean they have lost the coverage which all of us want to have for all 
of our families.
  COBRA coverage consumes nearly 84 percent of unemployment checks if 
you don't get a helping hand from the government. In Illinois, monthly 
unemployment benefits are just over $1,300. The average monthly COBRA 
family health insurance premium is over $1,100. So you can see it is 
impossible for a family with $1,300 a month to pay a $1,100-a-month 
premium. So 65 percent of that cost is deferred by this program, and 
that program was stopped because of the objection by the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  He said we should have gone through the cloture votes; in other 
words, we should have faced his filibuster head-on and taken all the 
time it took to resolve our way through it. And each hour of each day 
that we did that, more and more people would fall out of coverage of 
health insurance. We don't. As Members of Congress, we have a pretty 
generous health insurance plan. We share it with all the other Federal 
employees, 8 million of us and our families. It gives us the very best 
coverage, with the government picking up about two-thirds or three-
fourths of the cost. We don't have to worry about gaps in coverage. As 
we receive our checks, we are going to be able to protect our families. 
But for the folks who are unemployed, that just is not the case.
  The objection of the Senator from Kentucky also affected, as I 
mentioned, transportation across the United States. Federal 
reimbursement to States for highway and transit projects, on the order 
of hundreds of millions of dollars each day, is stopped because of 
Senator Bunning's objection, forcing halts in construction work and 
layoffs of construction workers in the middle of the worst economic 
downturn since the Great Depression.
  Today, the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, called to tell me 
of the need for an urgent response to get these people back to work so 
they can inspect projects and folks working for contractors and working 
across America can get back to work. They are stopped cold, dead in 
their tracks because of the objection by the Senator from Kentucky.
  Now he wants to let this go on a little further--amend this bill; 
let's send it over to the House; let's see if they accept it; maybe 
they won't; maybe there will be a conference; maybe in a few days or a 
few weeks we can get it done. It is a 30-day extension, and it defeats 
its purpose if we accept this amendment and delay it because of those 
possibilities. He can no more guarantee that it will not happen than I 
can guarantee that it will, but why do we want to create that 
uncertainty for people who have been facing this uncertainty?
  The objection of the Senator from Kentucky also stopped Small 
Business Administration assistance to small businesses in Illinois and 
Kentucky as well. The SBA has an outstanding loan waiting list from 
small businesses totaling $140 million. Because of Senator Bunning's 
objection, 3,000 small businesses this month will be denied access to 
loans they need to run their businesses, to pay their employees, and to 
create new jobs. In the middle of a recession, can we think of a worse 
thing to do than to cut off small businesses?
  It did not have to happen. If Senator Bunning would have taken the 
offer he had last week from the majority leader and offered this 
amendment last week, we could have avoided all of this. A week later, 
he has decided: All right, I will take the offer. But a lot of people 
have paid the price in the meantime.
  We will not stop until we have provided the assistance that 
unemployed Americans need, that families in Illinois and Kentucky and 
across America desperately want us to bring. Eventually, we will 
prevail and we will care for those who are struggling.
  In the meantime, I urge my colleagues, please do not support the 
amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. It is, unfortunately, a way to 
delay this critically needed assistance even further.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  Madam President, before I do, I ask unanimous consent that the last 5 
minutes on the Democratic side be reserved for the chairman of the 
Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. I note 
that the Senator from Illinois has 5 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. BUNNING. I want to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BUNNING. I want to understand what the Senator has proposed in 
plain English.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have asked unanimous consent that the last 5 minutes on 
the Democratic side be reserved for Senator Baucus, the chairman of the 
Senate Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUNNING. Reserving the right to object, what 5 minutes is he 
talking about--his time or the time that is already reserved for the 
chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Finance 
Committee?
  Mr. DURBIN. All the time of debate on your amendment has been equally 
divided between Democrats and Republicans. I am not asking for your 
time. I am asking that, on the Democratic time, the last 5 minutes be 
given to Senator Baucus.
  Mr. BUNNING. So I understand, on the time that is reserved for the 
Senator from Montana and the Senator from Iowa?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. I yield whatever time the Senator from Alabama will 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.

[[Page 2272]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is always an easy way to get 
something done in this body, and that is to spend money and not pay for 
it. And I am sure that gets a lot of Democratic votes and they could 
just pass this bill right through the body. I am sure our House 
Members, the majority in the House, will just pass this legislation and 
we will just add $10 billion more to the debt. That is what we are 
talking about.
  Is this necessary? Senator Bunning has made a number of suggestions 
about how this bill could be paid for. But it is not a question of 
delaying it, in my view; it is just simply a question of not wanting to 
use any of our existing moneys to pay for the extension of unemployment 
insurance. If we don't do that, if we don't pay for it, as we in the 
Senate are wont to say, then where does the money come from? We borrow 
it.
  There is an interesting article in the Washington Times today, a 
front-page article talking about how much of our debt China owns. They 
say they own a good bit more of it than we have understood, that a lot 
of their money goes through other institutions, and then they buy U.S. 
Treasury bills, and really the amount owned by China is larger than we 
expect. Well, so be it. I don't know what that number is. But it is not 
healthy for the United States of America to incur the amount of debt we 
are now incurring. It is not healthy.
  Just a few weeks ago, this very Senate, our Democratic majority, with 
great pride, passed the pay-go legislation saying that if we have 
additional expenditures, we will pay for it unless, of course, we deem 
it an emergency and we get a supermajority and then we don't have to 
pay for it.
  Well, here we are just a few weeks later. We want to spend some more 
money to help out on unemployment insurance. I think that is a worthy 
goal, and I think it is something we need to do. But where do you get 
the money? I would suggest several places. Senator Bunning has a place 
that I think my Democratic colleagues have supported--a tax credit 
account. I would say that has possibilities. I know he has also 
supported out of the unspent stimulus money--that could be a source of 
it.
  But all of these things apparently are just being rejected. Why are 
they being rejected? I assume it is because my colleagues want to spend 
that money on something else, an additional new spending program that 
is not clear to us at this time; otherwise, why would there be an 
objection to it?
  So I think the thing that has come to my mind is we can't keep going 
on like this. We really can't.
  We just had a hearing in the Budget Committee. The witnesses--most of 
them were Democratically called witnesses, but every single one of them 
said we are on an unsustainable financial course. We are spending more 
money than we are taking in at an unprecedented amount each year and we 
cannot sustain it. At some point, we have to decide if we are going to 
stop. At some point, we are going to have to decide, just like our 
families, our cities, our counties, our States; they are having to 
decide they don't have the money, and they either can't borrow more or 
they don't want to borrow more. And they actually, amazingly, may even 
reduce spending for a while. Do you think those counties and cities and 
States are no longer going to exist? Will they fall off the face of the 
planet? Senator Bunning has been around a long time. He knows that is 
not so. Every day, businesses are having to cut back. Families are 
cutting back. We can't cut back at all, but we continue to expend 
greater and greater amounts.
  The basic budget for this year has discretionary spending, 
nonmandatory spending, which goes up about 10 percent. On top of that 
is the $800 billion stimulus package. All that is debt. The $800 
billion, we had none of it in our accounts or our banks. We had to 
borrow it. Every penny of that we pay interest on. This will be $10 
billion more.
  Well, it is just $10 billion. After $800 billion, that is not very 
much, is it? Oh, yes, it is. Ten billion dollars is more than Alabama's 
State budget, and we are an average-sized State, about 4 or 5 million 
people. That is bigger than our State budget.
  So one little whip--and Senator Durbin, who is so eloquent, said: 
Well, we just need to pass it right now. We do not need to be talking 
about paying for it. If you say we want to pay for it, that might take 
an extra day to get the paperwork worked out with the House of 
Representatives. Somehow it is Senator Bunning's fault that he has 
actually been asked to give his consent that this body would increase 
our debt by $10 billion and let this bill pass.
  Senator Bunning says: I am not going to do it. You asked my consent. 
I am a Member of the Senate. I have a right to give that consent. If I 
have a right to give it, I have a right to withhold it, and I am going 
to withhold it unless you pay for this bill. So I do not think that is 
anything that should subject him to criticism.
  Oh, yes, it slowed down the plan. The plan was all greased. We were 
going to zip this right through, pop another $10 billion to the 
Nation's debt, and claim we have solved all our problems, at least for 
the moment.
  But that is not a healthy approach. I think it is a healthy approach 
for someone with the gumption to stand and question what we are doing, 
to say: You have asked for my consent for something, I do not believe 
in it, and I am not going to give it. I think it is time for us to get 
on a more sound financial footing.
  I just wish to say to Senator Bunning, I respect the Senator's view 
on that. A lot of people do. I think it is interesting our colleagues 
like to quote letters from people in Kentucky, talking about that they 
are suffering as a result of unemployment and that is so painful.
  But I am sure you got letters, as I have got letters. In my townhall 
meetings, people are coming up to me and saying: Are you people losing 
your minds? How much money do you think you can continue to spend? Time 
and time again, I hear that. Go through the airports: Keep fighting. 
Hold the line. Do not give in.
  They are not talking about adding another $10 billion to the debt 
because we will not even slow down long enough to figure out how to pay 
for it. That is not what my constituents are telling me. I am sure they 
are not telling Senator Bunning that. So I think this is a big deal.
  So when are we going to end this process? When does it stop? I say 
the time to begin to stop is now. I am going to be supportive of 
Senator Bunning in his plan. I feel this matter is getting out of hand.
  As I explained the other night, I serve on the Budget Committee. The 
budget numbers are not in dispute. The budget proposed by President 
Obama, a 10-year budget, analyzed over 10 years by the Congressional 
Budget Office, would conclude this: Last year we paid, in 1 year, 
interest on our debt of $170 billion. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, because we are tripling the national debt at the rate we 
are going, in 10 years the amount of interest we will pay on the debt 
is $799 billion.
  I think the American people understand this is unacceptable. They do 
not need an accountant or an economist or a bureaucrat to tell them 
this is an unsustainable path. They know it is. They have known it is 
for some time. Some people say: Well, this is just a populist revival. 
They do not understand. We understand better. You have to borrow, 
borrow, borrow to make our economy go back.
  Well, what an individual from Alabama told me today out in the hall 
was the same thing a constituent told me a few weeks ago back in 
Evergreen. It is, you cannot borrow your way out of debt. You cannot 
borrow your way out of debt. This is a fundamental principle of life. 
We seem to have lost sight of it.
  So we are on a path that is unsustainable. We see what has happened 
in Greece. It is destabilizing the entire European Union or it 
threatens it. We have seen other countries get in the same kind of 
trouble. Our country is not very far behind.
  Moody's is already talking about downgrading our debt rating, the 
amount of money you have to pay to get insurance against credit, 
against

[[Page 2273]]

default against the U.S. government has tripled in the last few years. 
These are people who do this stuff for a profit. People are worried. So 
I would say to my friends and colleagues, it is not that complicated. 
We simply have to stop spending so much money. We have to stop spending 
so much money. We cannot do everything we would like to do. We do not 
have the money. Most people understand that in their lives, and most of 
our local governments understand that. But we in the Senate think we 
know better.
  I would just say, with regard to the small business taxes and some of 
the things that probably would be somewhat helpful in creating economic 
growth, I am so disappointed we did not include more of that in the 
bill we passed when this stimulus bill passed. I remember coming to the 
floor quoting--right before the final vote--a major op-ed in the Wall 
Street Journal by a Nobel Prize laureate, Gary Becker, who said: This 
bill you are considering in the Senate does not have sufficient 
stimulative impact. He thought it would be much less than $1 per $1 in, 
and you should get well above $1 in a good stimulus package. He warned 
it was not going to be a job creator.
  Senator McCain had a better bill, at half the cost, $400 billion, 
targeted for jobs, targeted for economic growth, not a welfare bill, a 
stimulative bill, voted down by the Democratic majority.
  Senator Thune offered an amendment similar to the one Paul Ryan and 
others in the House of Representatives had put together, about half the 
cost of the bill we passed that would score, according to Christina 
Romer, President Obama's Chief Economic Adviser--her model of how you 
score these things would have created twice as many jobs for half as 
much money as this monstrosity we passed--others passed. My wife 
reminds me, do not say ``we'' when you voted against it.
  So this is what we are now in. We have thrown out 400 or so billion, 
$400 billion not yet spent. It is not getting the impact we wanted. 
That is so tragic. For everybody who is unemployed today, they need to 
wonder why this Congress insisted on passing legislation we were warned 
would not be effective in creating jobs, which is the key to our 
economic growth and prosperity.
  So I would say: I know good people can disagree. Some people think 
that when we are in a recession, we should keep spending, no matter how 
long, no matter how much, and somehow this will make us come out of it. 
But when you are creating an $800 billion-a-year interest payment, you 
realize it does not work that way.
  If that was the way it worked, why did we not spend $1.6 trillion in 
the stimulus package instead of $800 billion? Why did we not spend 
$1,600 billion in stimulus rather than 800? Because obviously that is a 
philosophy that has its limits.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. I am proud to support the 
Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am relieved that we are preparing to vote 
on this much-needed measure. I am disappointed that we have taken so 
long to get to this point.
  There is very little opposition in this Chamber to the extension of 
unemployment and COBRA benefits. Few question the crisis we would kick 
off in homes across this country if we fail to extend these benefits. 
In the State of Michigan, 135,000 of these workers face the end of 
their unemployment benefits. Each of these homes is already dealing 
with a tragedy--the loss of a job. In most cases, these are mothers and 
fathers who have done what we expect American families to do: work 
hard, do their best, try to put food on the table and a roof over their 
family's heads, and hopefully ensure a better life for their children. 
This quintessentially American quest has been derailed by forces 
totally outside the control of most of those affected.
  This extension means more than help to workers out of a job. It means 
help for our entire economy. Economists tell us that payments such as 
unemployment benefits are the most efficient way we can increase growth 
in our still-struggling economy. An unemployment check is more than 
just help for a family. It means local grocery stores still have 
customers, that unemployed workers can continue paying their bills. The 
consequences of an extension of these benefits--or a decision not to 
extend them--will ripple throughout the economy.
  But above all, we should keep in mind those families who are afraid: 
wondering, worrying, about what is going to happen. In their moment of 
crisis, we can choose to reach out a much-needed helping hand. Or we 
can turn away. To have delayed this extension has been needlessly 
cruel. We owe a duty to these families now, a duty not to compound the 
tragedy they already face.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUNNING. How much time is left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  There is 5 minutes 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BUNNING. I reserve that time until the 10 minutes prior to the 
time expiring. In other words, the last 5 minutes is going to Senator 
Baucus. I reserve the time prior to the Baucus time. I ask unanimous 
consent to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, let me begin by addressing some of the 
arguments made by the other side of the aisle against my amendment. 
First, the Senator from Illinois said that this would cause a needless 
delay in extending these programs, potentially causing a protracted 
negotiation with the House. With all due respect, that is nonsense. We 
all know the House can act very quickly. In fact, they did so when they 
sent this bill, H.R. 4691, to us. The House has already passed my black 
liquor offset. I want everybody to understand that we pay for the 
extension of unemployment benefits, COBRA assistance, health care 
assistance so everybody is covered. The larger bill that we are dealing 
with on the floor, the one we took off the floor to address this 
amendment and this bill, also extends these provisions longer than just 
a month--the highway bill, the doc fix on Medicare, the small business 
loans that we heard about that we are destroying with our objections, 
and the rural satellite TV viewers.
  I sincerely believe if we can't find $10 billion to pay for something 
that all 100 Senators support, we are in deep trouble. I think the 
Senator from Alabama made that very clear. I am on the Budget Committee 
also. I have heard those numbers over and over, not from just the 
Republican people who come before the Budget Committee but from the 
Democrats who testify before the committee. We are on an unsustainable 
path as far as the budget.
  The question before the Senate is not whether Senators support 
unemployment benefits or all the other important things in this bill. 
The question is whether we as a Senate and as a government are going to 
pay for what we spend.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 1 minute 15 
seconds.
  Mr. BUNNING. I think everybody understands why I have been on this 
floor for so long. I have been here for 12 years and 12 years in the 
House. I don't think I have spent this much time on the floor in any 
one-week period in my life. Usually on the floor of the House you only 
get 2 minutes to say whatever you have to say. In the Senate you get as 
much time, usually, as you need. I have never needed this much time. 
But something so important, particularly after pay-go, and even the 
larger bill we have before us, $104 billion of the $108 billion 
expended in that bill is emergency spending. That is emergency spending 
that is not paid for. So when we get to the bigger bill, we will have 
some amendments for that.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BEGICH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.

[[Page 2274]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority 
leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions 
during today's session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 55 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to say, on behalf of many of us on this side of 
the aisle, how glad we are that Senator Bunning has changed his mind 
and taken the option he was presented with on Thursday; that is, to 
offer an amendment and then for us to get this done. Too much pain is 
out there with the unemployed. A lot of workers in my State and in 
States all across this Nation who are unemployed suffered a great deal 
of anxiety over this long weekend.
  Mr. President, 2,000 Department of Transportation inspectors were 
furloughed. That led to stoppage of work on bridge and highway 
construction in 17 States, because Senator Bunning didn't take the deal 
he is taking now. I am glad he is taking it.
  I raise a point of order that the pending Bunning amendment violates 
section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am sorry. I wasn't on the floor. Could 
the Senator make her point of order.
  Mrs. BOXER. I raise a point of order that the pending Bunning 
amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of 
the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Byrd
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lautenberg
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

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

                                NAYS--19

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Johanns
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Hutchison
     Lautenberg
  The bill (H.R. 4691) was passed.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________