[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2826-2842]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  TAX EXTENDERS ACT OF 2009--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 3336

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, shortly we will vote on the motion to 
invoke cloture on this urgent legislation to create jobs and extend 
vital safety net and tax provisions. We have had a good debate. The 
Senate considered this bill on 7 separate days over the course of 2 
workweeks. We have considered more than 30 amendments. We conducted a 
dozen rollcall votes. It is now time to bring this debate to a close.
  This is not just some technical bill; this measure helps real people. 
Failure to enact this bill would cause real hardship. Failure to enact 
this bill would cost jobs.
  Within weeks, this bill would help half a million workers who lose 
their jobs nationwide, including nearly 1,600 in my State of Montana, 
to remain eligible for help paying for their health insurance under the 
COBRA health insurance program. Unless we act, within weeks the average 
doctor in America will stand to lose more than $16,600 in payments from 
Medicare. The average doctor in Montana would lose $13,000. This bill 
would help nearly 40 million Medicare beneficiaries and nearly 9 
million TRICARE beneficiaries nationwide to continue to have access to 
their doctors. That includes nearly 144,000 Montanans with Medicare and 
nearly 33,000 Montanans with TRICARE. Within weeks, this bill would 
help 400,000 Americans to be eligible for expanded unemployment 
insurance benefits. Thus, this important legislation would prevent 
millions of Americans from falling through the safety net. It would 
extend vital programs we have only temporarily extended. It would put 
cash into the hands of Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting 
the economy. It would extend critical programs and tax incentives that 
create jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to help Americans hurt by this great 
depression. I urge my colleagues to vote to preserve and create jobs. I 
urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the substitute 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the tax extenders bill. I do so with a heavy heart because there are 
good things in this bill that would be good for my State of Florida. It 
would be good to extend unemployment benefits. It would be good to 
extend COBRA, it would be good to extend and help with Medicaid 
funding, and it is important to make sure we have enough money going to 
doctors in Medicare so that they can provide services. But I can no 
longer stand by, even on a bill such as this, and vote for it when it 
is going to add $100 billion to our deficit.
  If the majority party in this Chamber did the right thing and paid 
for this bill, if we cut wasteful spending, if we cut duplicate 
programs in other areas and paid for this bill, 80 or 90 Senators would 
vote for it. But at some point, even though these programs may be good 
for your State, a Senator has an obligation to stand up and say: No 
more, no more spending our kids' future, no more putting debt on the 
next generation, no more bankrupting the promise of this country.
  No more. We cannot afford it. We have a $12.4 trillion debt. We are 
supposed to have pay-as-you-go rules here. One month ago, we passed a 
pay-as-you-go law. The President signed it. And all of the language was 
laudatory: We are not going to spend our children's money anymore. We 
are going to be fiscally responsible. And then here comes this bill, 
$100 billion in spending, and we declare it an emergency so that we do 
not have to follow the rules. It occurred to me this weekend as I 
played with my 6- and 4-year-old sons that this is not pay-go, it is 
Play Doh--you can make whatever you want of it. But it is not real 
enforcement.
  We in this chamber should pay for the spending so that we do not 
increase the debt on our children. So we should vote against cloture on 
this bill, not because the leadership has not allowed us to have 
amendments--they have, and I appreciate that. But we should vote 
against it because this bill should only pass if we can pay for it.
  No matter how good the program is, it is not good if we saddle our 
children with $100 billion more in debt. The public debt in this 
country is going to double in 5 years and triple in 10. It is has now 
come out that the estimate of the national debt in 2020 will add 
another $10 trillion. The day of reckoning is at hand, and we just 
cannot stand by, even though there are good things in this bill, things 
that would help my State. On this occasion, I have to put country 
first.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 2827]]


  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, we have a vote coming on 
cloture on a matter that has been moving through the Senate, the tax 
extenders bill. I wish to make clear that I will be voting for cloture. 
That does not mean I will support the actual legislation when it comes 
to a vote. That being said, I have serious concerns about the overall 
cost of the bill, but my vote for cloture signals my belief that we 
need to keep the process moving and allow the measure to be considered 
by the full Senate. I promised my constituents I would try to change 
the tone of politics as usual in Washington. There has been a week of 
debate. Allowing this bill to receive an up-or-down vote would be a 
step in the right direction.
  However, I am opposed to the bill at this point because it adds more 
than $100 billion to our national debt and provides no way to actually 
pay for it. Our national debt is at a record high, and we cannot 
continue to burden future generations with a mountain of debt and bills 
they cannot pay.
  I believe in process. I believe we should have an opportunity, after 
full and fair debate, to move bills forward so the House and others can 
get a crack at it and hopefully send back a product with which we can 
all live.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 3401, as Modified, 3417, 3430, as Modified, 3372, as 
Modified, 3442, as Modified, 3365, as Modified, 3371, as Modified, and 
                       3451 to Amendment No. 3336

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for the following amendments to be considered agreed to en bloc; 
and in the instance where the amendment is modified, that the 
amendments, where applicable, be modified with the changes at the desk, 
and as modified the amendments be agreed to and the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; further, that in the 
instance where the amendment is not pending, where appropriate, the 
amendment be recorded by number: Lincoln amendment No. 3401 pending, to 
be modified; Reid amendment No. 3417, pending; Isakson-Cardin amendment 
No. 3430, pending and as modified; Merkley amendment No. 3372, to be 
modified; Warner amendment No. 3442, to be modified; Whitehouse 
amendment No. 3365, to be modified; Rockefeller amendment No. 3371, to 
be modified; and a Baucus technical amendment, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would ask 
that the request be modified to allow Senator Isakson to speak for 2\1/
2\ minutes following the agreement to this unanimous consent request, 
and that I thereafter be recognized to offer a unanimous consent 
request regarding something on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:


                    amendment no. 3401, as modified

       On page 75, line 4, strike ``excessive rainfall or 
     related'' and insert ``drought, excessive rainfall, or a 
     related''.
       On page 76, line 1, insert ``fruits and vegetables or'' 
     before ``crops intended''.
       On page 76, line 13, strike ``90'' and insert ``112.5''.
       Beginning on page 76, strike line 18 and all that follows 
     through ``(4)'' on page 77, line 17, and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 78, strike lines 3 through 7 and insert the 
     following: ``not more than $300,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2011, to carry out a program of grants to 
     States to assist eligible specialty crop producers for losses 
     due to a natural disaster affecting the 2009 crops, of which 
     not more than--
       (A) $150,000,000 shall be used to assist eligible specialty 
     crop producers in counties that have been declared a disaster 
     as the result of drought; and
       (B) $150,000,000 shall be used to assist eligible specialty 
     crop producers in counties that have been declared a disaster 
     as the result of excessive rainfall or a related condition.
       On page 78, lines 18 and 19, strike ``with excessive 
     rainfall and related conditions''.
       On page 78, line 21, strike ``2008'' and insert ``2009''.
       On page 79, lines 4 and 5, strike ``under this subsection'' 
     and insert ``for counties described in paragraph (1)(B)''.
       On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       (5) Prohibition.--An eligible specialty crop producer that 
     receives assistance under this subsection shall be ineligible 
     to receive assistance under subsection (b).
       On page 80, line 4, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 87, line 5, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       On page 89, line 15, insert ``for the purchase, 
     improvement, or operation of the poultry farm'' after 
     ``lender''.
       On page 89, strike line 24 and insert the following:
       (j) State and Local Governments.--Section 1001(f)(6)(A) of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(f)(6)(A)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(other than the conservation reserve 
     program established under subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D of title XII of this Act)'' before the period at 
     the end.
       (k) Administration.--
       On page 90, line 4, insert ``and the amendment made by this 
     section'' after ``section''.
       On page 90, line 7, insert ``and the amendment made by this 
     section'' before ``shall be''.
       On page 91, line 1, strike ``$15,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000,000''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3417

 (Purpose: To temporarily modify the allocation of geothermal receipts)

       At the end of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 6__. ALLOCATION OF GEOTHERMAL RECEIPTS.

       Nothwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal 
     year 2010 only, all funds received from sales, bonuses, 
     royalties, and rentals under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 
     (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall be deposited in the Treasury, 
     of which--
       (1) 50 percent shall be used by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to make payments to States within the boundaries of 
     which the leased land and geothermal resources are located;
       (2) 25 percent shall be used by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to make payments to the counties within the 
     boundaries of which the leased land or geothermal resources 
     are located; and
       (3) 25 percent shall be deposited in miscellaneous 
     receipts.


                    amendment No. 3430, as modified

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Morning 
Business.'')


                    amendment no. 3372, as modified

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant market-
  related contract extensions of certain timber contracts between the 
            Secretary of the Interior and timber purchasers)

       At the end of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 6__. QUALIFYING TIMBER CONTRACT OPTIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Qualifying contract.--The term ``qualifying contract'' 
     means a contract that has not been terminated by the Bureau 
     of Land Management for the sale of timber on lands 
     administered by the Bureau of Land Management that meets all 
     of the following criteria:
       (A) The contract was awarded during the period beginning on 
     January 1, 2005, and ending on December 31, 2008.
       (B) There is unharvested volume remaining for the contract.
       (C) The contract is not a salvage sale.
       (D) The Secretary determined there is not an urgent need to 
     harvest under the contract due to deteriorating timber 
     conditions that developed after the award of the contract.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of Bureau of 
     Land Management.
       (3) Timber purchaser.--The term ``timber purchaser'' means 
     the party to the qualifying contract for the sale of timber 
     from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
       (b) Market-Related Contract Extension Option.--Upon a 
     timber purchaser's written request, the Secretary may make a 
     one-time modification to the qualifying contract to add 3 
     years to the contract expiration date if the written 
     request--
       (1) is received by the Secretary not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) contains a provision releasing the United States from 
     all liability, including further consideration or 
     compensation, resulting from the modification under this 
     subsection of the term of a qualifying contract.
       (c) Reporting.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report detailing a plan and timeline to promulgate 
     new regulations authorizing the Bureau

[[Page 2828]]

     of Land Management to extend timber contracts due to changes 
     in market conditions.
       (d) Regulations.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate new 
     regulations authorizing the Bureau of Land Management to 
     extend timber contracts due to changes in market conditions.
       (e) No Surrender of Claims.--This section shall not have 
     the effect of surrendering any claim by the United States 
     against any timber purchaser that arose under a timber sale 
     contract, including a qualifying contract, before the date on 
     which the Secretary adjusts the contract term under 
     subsection (b).


                    amendment no. 3442, as modified

(Purpose: To ensure adequate planning and reporting relating to the use 
 of funds made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
                              Act of 2009)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ARRA PLANNING AND REPORTING.

       Section 1512 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
     of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 287) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Plans and'' 
     after ``Agency'';
       (B) by striking ``Not later than'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `covered 
     program' means a program for which funds are appropriated 
     under this division--
       ``(A) in an amount that is--
       ``(i) more than $2,000,000,000; and
       ``(ii) more than 150 percent of the funds appropriated for 
     the program for fiscal year 2008; or
       ``(B) that did not exist before the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       ``(2) Plans.--Not later than July 1, 2010, the head of each 
     agency that distributes recovery funds shall submit to 
     Congress and make available on the website of the agency a 
     plan for each covered program, which shall, at a minimum, 
     contain--
       ``(A) a description of the goals for the covered program 
     using recovery funds;
       ``(B) a discussion of how the goals described in 
     subparagraph (A) relate to the goals for ongoing activities 
     of the covered program, if applicable;
       ``(C) a description of the activities that the agency will 
     undertake to achieve the goals described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(D) a description of the total recovery funding for the 
     covered program and the recovery funding for each activity 
     under the covered program, including identifying whether the 
     activity will be carried out using grants, contracts, or 
     other types of funding mechanisms;
       ``(E) a schedule of milestones for major phases of the 
     activities under the covered program, with planned delivery 
     dates;
       ``(F) performance measures the agency will use to track the 
     progress of each of the activities under the covered program 
     in meeting the goals described in subparagraph (A), including 
     performance targets, the frequency of measurement, and a 
     description of the methodology for each measure;
       ``(G) a description of the process of the agency for the 
     periodic review of the progress of the covered program 
     towards meeting the goals described in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(H) a description of how the agency will hold program 
     managers accountable for achieving the goals described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Reports on plans.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     end of the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2010, and 
     every calendar quarter thereafter during which the agency 
     obligates or expends recovery funds, the head of each agency 
     that developed a plan for a covered program under paragraph 
     (2) shall submit to Congress and make available on a website 
     of the agency a report for each covered program that--
       ``(i) discusses the progress of the agency in implementing 
     the plan;
       ``(ii) describes the progress towards achieving the goals 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) for the covered program;
       ``(iii) discusses the status of each activity carried out 
     under the covered program, including whether the activity is 
     completed;
       ``(iv) details the unobligated and unexpired balances and 
     total obligations and outlays under the covered program;
       ``(v) discusses--

       ``(I) whether the covered program has met the milestones 
     for the covered program described in paragraph (2)(E);
       ``(II) if the covered program has failed to meet the 
     milestones, the reasons why; and
       ``(III) any changes in the milestones for the covered 
     program, including the reasons for the change;

       ``(vi) discusses the performance of the covered program, 
     including--

       ``(I) whether the covered program has met the performance 
     measures for the covered program described in paragraph 
     (2)(F);
       ``(II) if the covered program has failed to meet the 
     performance measures, the reasons why; and
       ``(III) any trends in information relating to the 
     performance of the covered program; and

       ``(vii) evaluates the ability of the covered program to 
     meet the goals of the covered program given the performance 
     of the covered program.'';
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``Within 180 days'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Within 180 days''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Penalties.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and 
     (D), the Attorney General may bring a civil action in an 
     appropriate United States District Court against a recipient 
     of recovery funds from an agency that does not provide the 
     information required under subsection (c) or knowingly 
     provides information under subsection (c) that contains a 
     material omission or misstatement. In a civil action under 
     this paragraph, the court may impose a civil penalty on a 
     recipient of recovery funds in an amount not more than 
     $250,000. Any amounts received from a civil penalty under 
     this paragraph shall be deposited in the general fund of the 
     Treasury.
       ``(B) Notification.--
       ``(i) In general.--The head of an agency shall provide a 
     written notification to a recipient of recovery funds from 
     the agency that fails to provide the information required 
     under subsection (c). A notification under this subparagraph 
     shall provide the recipient with information on how to comply 
     with the necessary reporting requirements and notice of the 
     penalties for failing to do so.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--A court may not impose a civil penalty 
     under subparagraph (A) relating to the failure to provide 
     information required under subsection (c) if, not later than 
     31 days after the date of the notification under clause (i), 
     the recipient of the recovery funds provides the information.
       ``(C) Considerations.--In determining the amount of a 
     penalty under this paragraph for a recipient of recovery 
     funds, a court shall consider--
       ``(i) the number of times the recipient has failed to 
     provide the information required under subsection (c);
       ``(ii) the amount of recovery funds provided to the 
     recipient;
       ``(iii) whether the recipient is a government, nonprofit 
     entity, or educational institution; and
       ``(iv) whether the recipient is a small business concern 
     (as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632)), with particular consideration given to 
     businesses with not more than 50 employees.
       ``(D) Applicability.--This paragraph shall apply to any 
     report required to be submitted on or after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph.
       ``(E) Nonexclusivity.--The imposition of a civil penalty 
     under this subsection shall not preclude any other criminal, 
     civil, or administrative remedy available to the United 
     States or any other person under Federal or State law.
       ``(3) Technical assistance.--Each agency distributing 
     recovery funds shall provide technical assistance, as 
     necessary, to assist recipients of recovery funds in 
     complying with the requirements to provide information under 
     subsection (c), which shall include providing recipients with 
     a reminder regarding each reporting requirement.
       ``(4) Public listing.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the end of 
     each calendar quarter, and subject to the notification 
     requirements under paragraph (2)(B), the Board shall make 
     available on the website established under section 1526 a 
     list of all recipients of recovery funds that did not provide 
     the information required under subsection (c) for the 
     calendar quarter.
       ``(B) Contents.--A list made available under subparagraph 
     (A) shall, for each recipient of recovery funds on the list, 
     include the name and address of the recipient, the 
     identification number for the award, the amount of recovery 
     funds awarded to the recipient, a description of the activity 
     for which the recovery funds were provided, and, to the 
     extent known by the Board, the reason for noncompliance.
       ``(5) Regulations and reporting.--
       ``(A) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget and the Chairperson, shall promulgate regulations 
     regarding implementation of this section.
       ``(B) Reporting.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2010, and every 3 
     months thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, in consultation with the Chairperson, shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the extent of noncompliance by 
     recipients of recovery funds with the reporting requirements 
     under this section.
       ``(ii) Contents.--Each report submitted under clause (i) 
     shall include--

       ``(I) information, for the quarter and in total, regarding 
     the number and amount of civil penalties imposed and 
     collected under this subsection, sorted by agency and 
     program;
       ``(II) information on the steps taken by the Federal 
     Government to reduce the level of noncompliance; and

[[Page 2829]]

       ``(III) any other information determined appropriate by the 
     Director.''; and

       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Termination.--The reporting requirements under this 
     section shall terminate on September 30, 2013.''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3365, AS MODIFIED

 (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General to report to Congress on 
 the causes of job losses in New England and the Midwest over the past 
               20 years and to suggest possible remedies)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. GAO STUDY.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General shall report to Congress 
     detailing--
       (1) the pattern of job loss in the New England and Midwest 
     States over the past 20 years;
       (2) the role of the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs in 
     overall job loss in the regions; and
       (3) recommendations to attract industries and bring jobs to 
     the region.


                    amendment no. 3371, as modified

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain 
              expiring provisions, and for other purposes)

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF SECTION 45 CREDIT FOR 
                   REFINED COAL FROM STEEL INDUSTRY FUEL.

       (a) Credit Period.--
       (1) In general.--Subclause (II) of section 45(e)(8)(D)(ii) 
     is amended to read as follows:

       ``(II) Credit period.--In lieu of the 10-year period 
     referred to in clauses (i) and (ii)(II) of subparagraph (A), 
     the credit period shall be the period beginning on the date 
     that the facility first produces steel industry fuel that is 
     sold to an unrelated person after September 30, 2008, and 
     ending 2 years after such date.''.

       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 45(e)(8)(D) is amended 
     by striking clause (iii) and by redesignating clause (iv) as 
     clause (iii).
       (b) Extension of Placed-in-Service Date.--Subparagraph (A) 
     of section 45(d)(8) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(or any modification to a facility)'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``2010'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (c) Clarifications.--
       (1) Steel industry fuel.--Subclause (I) of section 
     45(c)(7)(C)(i) is amended by inserting ``, a blend of coal 
     and petroleum coke, or other coke feedstock'' after ``on 
     coal''.
       (2) Ownership interest.--Section 45(d)(8) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new flush sentence:
     ``With respect to a facility producing steel industry fuel, 
     no person (including a ground lessor, customer, supplier, or 
     technology licensor) shall be treated as having an ownership 
     interest in the facility or as otherwise entitled to the 
     credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to such 
     facility if such person's rent, license fee, or other 
     entitlement to net payments from the owner of such facility 
     is measured by a fixed dollar amount or a fixed amount per 
     ton, or otherwise determined without regard to the profit or 
     loss of such facility.''.
       (3) Production and sale.--Subparagraph (D) of section 
     45(e)(8), as amended by subsection (a)(2), is amended by 
     redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv) and by inserting 
     after clause (ii) the following new clause:
       ``(iii) Production and sale.--The owner of a facility 
     producing steel industry fuel shall be treated as producing 
     and selling steel industry fuel where that owner manufactures 
     such steel industry fuel from coal, a blend of coal and 
     petroleum coke, or other coke feedstock to which it has 
     title. The sale of such steel industry fuel by the owner of 
     the facility to a person who is not the owner of the facility 
     shall not fail to qualify as a sale to an unrelated person 
     solely because such purchaser may also be a ground lessor, 
     supplier, or customer.''.
       (d) Specified Credit for Purposes of Alternative Minimum 
     Tax Exclusion.--Subclause (II) of section 38(c)(4)(B)(iii) is 
     amended by inserting ``(in the case of a refined coal 
     production facility producing steel industry fuel, during the 
     credit period set forth in section 45(e)(8)(D)(ii)(II))'' 
     after ``service''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (d) shall take effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Clarifications.--The amendments made by subsection (c) 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.

     SEC. ___. MODIFICATIONS TO MINE RESCUE TEAM TRAINING CREDIT 
                   AND ELECTION TO EXPENSE ADVANCED MINE SAFETY 
                   EQUIPMENT.

       (a) Mine Rescue Team Training Credit Allowable Against 
     AMT.--Subparagraph (B) of section 38(c)(4) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clauses (vi), (vii), and (viii) as 
     clauses (vii), (viii), and (ix), respectively, and
       (2) by inserting after clause (v) the following new clause:
       ``(vi) the credit determined under section 45N,''.
       (b) Election to Expense Advanced Mine Safety Equipment 
     Allowable Against AMT.--Subparagraph (C) of section 56(g)(4) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vii) Special rule for election to expense advanced mine 
     safety equipment.--Clause (i) shall not apply to amounts 
     deductible under section 179E.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

     SEC. ___. APPLICATION OF CONTINUOUS LEVY TO EMPLOYMENT TAX 
                   LIABILITY OF CERTAIN FEDERAL CONTRACTORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6330(h) is amended by inserting 
     ``or if the person subject to the levy (or any predecessor 
     thereof) is a Federal contractor that was identified as owing 
     such employment taxes through the Federal Payment Levy 
     Program'' before the period at the end of the first sentence.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to levies issued after December 31, 2010.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3451

                  (Purpose: To make technical changes)

       Strike section 201 and insert the following:

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``April 5, 2010'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2010'';
       (B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking 
     ``april 5, 2010'' and inserting ``december 31, 2010''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``September 4, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``May 31, 2011''.
       (2) Section 2002(e) of the Assistance for Unemployed 
     Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public 
     Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438), is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``April 5, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2010'';
       (B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking ``april 
     5, 2010'' and inserting ``december 31, 2010''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``October 5, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2011''.
       (3) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers 
     and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5 
     (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``April 5, 2010'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2011''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``September 4, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``June 1, 2011''.
       (4) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 
     amended by striking ``September 4, 2010'' and inserting ``May 
     31, 2011''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) the amendments made by section 201(a)(1) of the 
     American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010; 
     and''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Temporary Extension Act of 2010.
       Strike section 211 and insert the following:

     SEC. 211. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   COBRA BENEFITS.

       (a) Extension of Eligibility Period.--Subsection (a)(3)(A) 
     of section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), as amended by 
     section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act of 2010, is amended 
     by striking ``March 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2010''.
       (b) Rules Relating to 2010 Extension.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), as amended by 
     subsection (b)(1)(C), is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(18) Rules related to 2010 extension.--
       ``(A) Election to pay premiums retroactively and maintain 
     cobra coverage.--In the case of any premium for a period of 
     coverage during an assistance eligible individual's 2010 
     transition period, such individual shall be treated for 
     purposes of any COBRA continuation provision as having timely 
     paid the amount of such premium if--
       ``(i) such individual's qualifying event was on or after 
     April 1, 2010 and prior to the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, and
       ``(ii) such individual pays, by the latest of 60 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this paragraph, 30 days after 
     the date of provision of the notification required under 
     paragraph (16)(D)(ii) (as applied by subparagraph (D) of this 
     paragraph), or the period described in section 
     4980B(f)(2)(B)(iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the 
     amount of such premium, after the application of paragraph 
     (1)(A).
       ``(B) Refunds and credits for retroactive premium 
     assistance eligibility.--In the case of an assistance 
     eligible individual who pays, with respect to any period of 
     COBRA continuation coverage during such individual's 2010 
     transition period, the premium amount for such coverage 
     without regard to paragraph (1)(A), rules similar to the 
     rules of paragraph (12)(E) shall apply.
       ``(C) 2010 transition period.--

[[Page 2830]]

       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `transition period' means, with respect to any assistance 
     eligible individual, any period of coverage if--

       ``(I) such assistance eligible individual experienced an 
     involuntary termination that was a qualifying event prior to 
     the date of enactment of the American Workers, State, and 
     Business Relief Act of 2010, and
       ``(II) paragraph (1)(A) applies to such period by reason of 
     the amendments made by section 211 of the American Workers, 
     State, and Business Relief Act of 2010.

       ``(ii) Construction.--Any period during the period 
     described in subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (i) for which 
     the applicable premium has been paid pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A) shall be treated as a period of coverage referred to in 
     such paragraph, irrespective of any failure to timely pay the 
     applicable premium (other than pursuant to subparagraph (A)) 
     for such period.
       ``(D) Notification.--Notification provisions similar to the 
     provisions of paragraph (16)(E) shall apply for purposes of 
     this paragraph.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the provisions of section 
     3001 of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act of 2009.
       In section 212, strike ``December 31, 2009'' and insert 
     ``March 31, 2010''.
       In section 231, strike ``this title'' and insert ``this 
     Act''.
       In section 241(1), strike ``March 1, 2010'' and insert 
     ``March 31, 2010''.
       In section 601(1), strike ``February 28, 2010'' and insert 
     ``March 31, 2010''.
       In section 601(2), strike ``March 1, 2010'' and insert 
     ``April 1, 2010''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to thank the leader for his 
courtesy and for his help on this legislation. In particular, I wish to 
thank Chairman Baucus and his staff and Senator Grassley and his staff, 
as well as my staff, Ed Egee in particular, who did a great job of 
addressing the pension problems in this country.
  This amendment gives corporations two alternatives to accept, adopt, 
and smooth their obligation on pensions. It will raise $3.5 billion 
against the debt. It will save the pensions of many Americans.
  I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Baucus from Montana, 
Senator Grassley, and their staffs for helping us accomplish it.
  Also, let me thank my friend and colleague, Senator Cardin from 
Maryland, for his good work and cooperation on this issue. Senator 
Cardin has long been a leader on retirement issues. I recall in the 
House supporting a landmark retirement bill that bore his name: the 
Portman-Cardin Pension Reform Act of 2001.
  Almost 4 years ago, I was proud to support the Pension Protection Act 
of 2006. That piece of legislation adopted a stringent new funding 
regime for single employer defined benefit pension plans. It raised the 
full funding target to 100 percent, based the sponsor's contribution 
requirements on the funded status of the plan, encouraged pre-funding 
of pension funds through the recognition of credit balances, and 
included much-needed smoothing of both assets and liabilities.
  All of these were positive changes. Unfortunately, just as the 
Pension Protection Act's stringent funding requirements began to be 
implemented, the assets of most pension funds were depleted by the 
economic recession.
  The gravity of the situation was reflected in a recent Mercer study 
of over 800 companies. Mercer found that required cash contributions to 
pension plans will be more than 400 percent higher in 2010 than in 
2009.
  Over the last year, dozens of employers who sponsor defined benefit 
plans have come to me and to many Members of this body asking for 
relief from the stringent funding rules of the Pension Protection Act. 
They hope to avoid severe cost-cutting measures. A May 2009 survey 
indicated that the overwhelming majority of DB plan sponsors--68 
percent--will have to cut other expenses, including jobs, in order to 
make required pension contributions.
  Even if the market were to come soaring back tomorrow, this relief 
would still be appropriate. A February 2010 study by Towers Watson 
found that even if equities rise by 20 percent in 2010 and projected 
interest rates increase by a full percentage point, total 2011 funding 
obligations would still be approximately triple the level of 2009 
funding obligations.
  Given the scope of the situation, there is broad agreement that the 
Senate must act. As such, Senators Baucus and Grassley included 
targeted funding relief in this tax package.
  Our amendment makes small but important changes to the underlying 
language, mostly affecting the application of the ``cash flow rule.'' 
Generally speaking, the cash flow rule forces employers to make 
additional contributions to their plan above the amount they would 
normally owe.
  Fe do not oppose the inclusion of the cash flow rule in the relief 
package. We agree that that is an appropriate stick in exchange for the 
carrot of relief.
  However, the stick can last up to 7 years while the relief is only 
available for 2 years. Accordingly, we are urging this Senate to limit 
these restrictive conditions on the funding relief that we are offering 
to employers in this amendment.
  Sponsors would continue to receive 2 years of relief from the onerous 
funding obligations imposed by the Pension Protection Act. However, our 
amendment applies the cash flow rule for 3 years for the 2 plus 7 
option and 5 years for the 15 year option--as opposed to 4 and 7 years, 
respectively.
  Our goal here is to achieve a balance. We want to ensure the 
viability of the pension security system by ensuring that the plans are 
fully funded. At the same time, we want to make the relief usable to 
employers so they will be incentivized to continue their defined 
benefit pension programs.
  I continue to support efforts to protect taxpayers by strongly 
opposing any attempts to break down the wall between the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation and general Treasury funds.
  I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus for accepting our amendment and 
thank the staff for their work on the amendment. Cathy Koch and Tom 
Reeder with Senator Baucus; Chris Condeluci with Senator Grassley; 
Debra Forbes with Senator Harkin; Greg Dean with Senator Enzi; Femeia 
Adamson with Senator Cardin; and Ed Egee with my staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there was debate this morning and a lot of 
talk outside the Chamber regarding the TANF summer jobs program. The 
objection of a number of Senators raised was that it was paid for over 
10 years rather than 5 years. In an effort to compromise this, Senators 
Murray and Kerry agreed that we would drop anything relating to TANF in 
this amendment and over 5 years pay for summer jobs in the amount of 
$743 million. As everyone will remember, it was originally $1.5 
billion. So this would be lowered to $743 million. It is paid for over 
5 years. TANF is not included in any of this, much to the consternation 
of a lot of us.
  I ask unanimous consent that amendment be allowed and that we have 
another vote on it, if necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. I failed to mention this does not violate pay-go.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Baucus 
     substitute amendment No. 3336 to H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders 
     Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Richard J. Durbin, Roland W. 
           Burris, Kent Conrad, Benjamin L. Cardin, Patrick J. 
           Leahy, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Robert Menendez, Daniel 
           K. Inouye, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jon Tester, Bill 
           Nelson, Charles E. Schumer, Kay R. Hagan, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Tom Harkin.


[[Page 2831]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 3336, offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, to 
H.R. 4213, an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

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

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). On this vote, the yeas are 
66, the nays are 34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BURRIS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3381 to Amendment No. 3336

 (Purpose: To reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program, and 
                          for other purposes)

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside and that I be permitted to call up 
amendment No. 3381 and that at the end of my statement, the amendment 
then be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself, 
     Ms. Collins, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. 
     Voinovich, proposes an amendment numbered 3381 to amendment 
     3336.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, 
March 3, 2010, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this amendment that I rise to offer has 
been cosponsored by a bipartisan group, I am pleased to say: Senators 
Collins of Maine, Byrd of West Virginia, Feinstein of California, 
Voinovich of Ohio, and Ensign of Nevada.
  The purpose of this amendment is to reauthorize--literally, to save--
the Opportunity Scholarship Program or OSP. Some know it as the DC 
school voucher program. We are offering our amendment to this 
legislation because without prompt action by Congress, the OSP, I am 
afraid, will end. The current administrator has advised Secretary 
Duncan that it will no longer administer the program absent a 
reauthorization, and no other entity has expressed the willingness to 
take over, given the constraints imposed by Congress under the 
prevailing set of circumstances. Despite the President's stated intent 
in his budget to continue the program, if only for those students 
currently participating, even that will become impossible.
  This amendment, as I will explain in a moment, will reauthorize this 
program for 5 years at essentially its current levels. As I will 
explain in a moment, it is working, and it is immensely popular with 
families of children and failing schools in the District of Columbia. 
It is supported by the chancellor of the school system, Michelle Rhee, 
and by Mayor Fenty. It is warmly endorsed by the families of the 
students who have benefited from this program as it literally changed 
their lives. Yet it has run into opposition in Congress, I fear from 
people who are committed to defending a status quo that is not working.
  Chancellor Michelle Rhee is working so hard to reform the school 
system of our Nation's Capital, the public school system. Why would she 
be supporting this Opportunity Scholarship Program that will allow some 
children--low-income children--in the District of Columbia to get this 
scholarship and go to a private or faith-based school? She said, in 
terms that were very compelling, as she testified before committees of 
Congress, the following: That if a parent of a student in a school that 
literally had been determined to be failing turned to her and said, can 
my child get a good education in the school the public school system 
sends her to, she can't now say yes to parents of students who are in 
these designated failing schools.
  And she said, I think with great strength and conviction and 
honesty--and she is the head of the public school system here--that 
until she can tell these parents that their children will get a good 
education in the public schools of the District of Columbia, she cannot 
in good conscience oppose this plan that will basically enable these 
children a lifeline while she is fixing the DC public schools--a 
lifeline to a better education, a better career, a better life.
  Her own estimate is that it will take her 5 years more to get the DC 
public schools to where she wants them and every parent of a child here 
in the District wants them to be. That is the length of the 
reauthorization of this program that our amendment would provide.
  I understand there will be a point of order raised against our 
amendment, as well as objections to proceeding to a vote on our 
amendment, and that, therefore, I will be obliged to withdraw my 
amendment. It was not possible on this bill to receive the consent 
necessary to bring up this amendment for a vote, although I am pleased 
to understand that no objections would likely be raised on the minority 
side to at least bringing up a vote for an amendment.
  I do want to serve notice that I will continue to push for a vote on 
this matter, because I think it is so critically important. I know 
there are several bills coming before the Senate, including the 
reauthorization of the FAA, which will come soon and that will be 
subject to amendment and, therefore, I will be afforded an 
opportunity--myself and my cosponsors--to amend those bills and to 
offer this opportunity scholarship amendment to those bills.
  I don't know at this moment that we have the 60 votes to pass this 
amendment, but what I am committed to doing is making sure we have 
debate on the amendment and a vote on the amendment so the Senate can 
be heard and, in that sense, is challenged to take a position on this 
amendment and this program which, I repeat, has been a lifeline for 
kids trying to get a decent education and build a better life.

[[Page 2832]]

  In my view, this amendment did belong on the American Workers, State, 
and Business Relief Act--the underlying bill before the Senate--
because, obviously, the opportunity to seek and receive a better 
education enables our children to be better, more productive workers, 
to help our businesses and, of course, to grow our national economy. 
Achievement gaps in our schools have a profound effect on the quality 
of our workforce and on the future of our economy. Most importantly, 
the quality of our schools has a profound effect on the quality of the 
lives of the children who go to better schools and get a better 
education.
  Like so many millions and millions of others in our country today, 
including, I am sure, a lot of other Members of the Senate, my life was 
transformed by the public schools of my hometown of Stamford, CT, which 
gave me an education that enabled me to be the first person in my 
family to go to college, and then I was able to go to law school after 
that.
  There are within the District of Columbia so many gifted and talented 
students who are in schools that are developing their gifts or growing 
their talents by giving them a good education. The OSP takes a limited 
number of those--and they are low income--and gives them a chance for a 
better education and a better life.
  I regret that I am not going to be able to debate this issue and to 
get a vote on this amendment on this bill, but we are going to wait for 
the next opportunity to do so. I do want to make, however, some brief 
remarks on the substance here.
  I have followed the status of the OSP for several years in my 
capacity as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee. It is one of those strange twists of Senate committee 
jurisdiction that the governmental affairs part of the jurisdiction of 
our committee--the traditional historic jurisdiction before homeland 
security was added--included, according to the wisdom of a previous 
generation of Senators, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. So 
I can tell you we need only listen to the students in the program and 
their parents--as our committee has had the privilege to hear--to know 
this program has served as a life changer--not just a game changer but 
a life changer--for many of these children in this program.
  We also have a federally mandated study that documents the success of 
this program. Despite a lot of misleading statements by those who 
oppose the program, the science behind this study--an independent study 
required by a previous act of Congress authorizing this proposal--
proves that the program is working. It is one thing to hear the 
students and their parents talk about how their lives have been changed 
with the opportunity to go to a school that has made them feel they can 
be a success and educated them better, but Dr. Patrick Wolf, the lead 
investigator for the study that was authorized by a previous act of 
Congress, concluded:

       The DC voucher program has proven to be the most effective 
     education policy evaluated by the Federal Government's 
     official educational research arm so far.

  That is an awful lot to be able to say.
  So the path this bill has followed, the opposition to it, has been so 
frustrating. People say this is money that is coming out of the public 
school budget. The whole design of this original program was to add 
money in equal parts to the DC public schools--money it would not 
otherwise have received. It was a kind of compensatory balance: the 
same amount to the charter schools, which are doing very well here in 
Washington, and then the same amount to the opportunity scholarship 
program. So money not from the public schools, but an education 
opportunity for poor kids in Washington now going to schools designated 
as unable to educate them, and instead giving them the opportunity to 
go to better private or faith-based schools.
  I thank the Chair and my colleagues for allowing me the time to bring 
up my amendment. As I say, I look forward to engaging in the very near 
future in a larger discussion of these issues, and at greater length, 
by submitting this as an amendment to the next bill that comes to the 
Senate floor.


                     Amendment No. 3381, withdrawn

  Pursuant, nonetheless, to the agreement I had with the leadership and 
my colleagues in the Senate, understanding there was not consent to 
proceed, I will now withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we earlier had a cloture vote on, what I 
guess is called the jobs bill. It has some things in it that I think 
might be helpful to this economy. Continuing certain tax cuts is 
important. But I have to say, it is very much a disappointment that the 
legislation spends $100 billion more than we have. In other words, it 
will add $100 billion to the debt of the United States.
  It was a few weeks ago that this Senate voted for a pay-go idea that 
asserted we were not going to spend money we didn't have and we were 
going to pay for what we spent. In other words, if we increase 
spending, we are either going to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere 
else to keep us on the right track. But we have not done that. This is 
actually a $140 billion bill.
  This bill has $40 billion in costs assumed by the CBO for continuing 
the tax credits that have been in place, some of them, for 10 years. 
Those are to be continued, and they score that as costing $40-some-odd 
billion. But that is paid for. Our Democratic colleagues are prepared 
to pay for allowing the American people to keep money that is theirs; 
money that the government hasn't assessed against them and extracted 
from them over a 10-year period. That is paid for through other 
increases in taxes and other activities which, so far, offset that. But 
the $104 billion of new spending is not paid for.
  Regardless, the bill is a bill that adds $104 billion to the debt. I 
don't see how that is a responsible action for our Congress. Because 
last year, in February, Congress passed an $800 billion stimulus 
package--the largest spending bill in the history of America, and every 
penny of it was added to the debt of the United States. It was the kind 
of bill the likes of which Congress has never, ever seen before. We did 
that. And that was not long after the $700 billion financial bailout 
package--the TARP bill. The one thing about the TARP bill is that we 
always understood we were to get some of it back. And we would have 
gotten a lot more of it if they had spent it to buy toxic assets, 
instead of giving billions of dollars to one insurance company; giving 
a huge amount of money to General Motors, which is unlikely ever to be 
paid back by that company. Now the government basically owns an 
automobile company and an insurance company. And that is not anything 
like what we were told when that TARP bill came before the Senate. I 
believed at the time, it was so unprincipled and such a dangerous piece 
of legislation that I opposed it vigorously. But Congress said we had 
to pass it and it passed. Then we came back in January after the new 
President was in office. We had to stimulate the economy, and many of 
us warned that the legislation was not stimulative in nature and it was 
not going to create the kind of jobs we needed to create. It just was 
not.
  I remember quoting from a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Gary Becker, a 
Nobel Prize economics winner. He warned the bill was not stimulative 
enough. But we had to pass it. It was supposed to be for crumbling 
bridges and infrastructure.
  Yet less than 4 percent of the money went to crumbling bridges and 
infrastructure. Most of it went to social programs, bail out a State, 
Medicaid--

[[Page 2833]]

not job-creating things. Mr. Becker told us in his op-ed shortly before 
the vote, giving his best judgment about what would happen, he said 
that it was not going to be a job-creating bill; that you should look 
for well above $1 growth out of an investment of $1 in stimulus funds. 
Their impression was, he and his team, it was going to be well below 
$1.
  Now we come back this year, we want another stimulus, another jobs 
bill because the first one did not work. But now we are in a position 
where we are surging the debt of this country to a degree it has never 
been done before. This, in many ways, exceeds World War II, when we 
were in a life-and-death struggle.
  These are just the basic numbers. In 2008, the total American public 
debt was $5.8 trillion. In 2013, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, our own experts, based on the 10-year budget the President has 
submitted that would double to $12.3 trillion. Congress actually ended 
up passing a 5-year budget very similar to his first 5 years, but this 
shows the track the President has proposed the country move on. I am 
not making this up. Then, in 2019, it would go up to $17.5 trillion. 
CBO is stating that next year's deficit will exceed this year's 
deficit. The deficit of the year ending September 30 of last year was 
$1.4 trillion. They are estimating our next year will be about $1.5 
trillion.
  So, blithely, our leadership walks in today and says we have to 
extend unemployment insurance, we have to do a number of other things, 
and we have not figured out a way to raise the money for it or reduce 
spending on programs that do not work so we will just borrow it too. 
That is not calculated in these numbers. That was not legislation that 
was on the agenda or on the books before the Congressional Budget 
Office made this scoring.
  There are other things we know are going to be part of this. I will 
talk about a few of them. One of the things that is in the legislation 
before us is what we have come to refer to as the doctor fix. I feel 
strongly about that. We had passed the Balanced Budget Act in the late 
1990s, and it contained the growth of Medicare spending on payments of 
physicians. As the years went by, we realized pretty quickly that the 
cuts were too large or at least Congress did not have the will to let 
them go into effect, so we wiped it out. We did not let the cuts come 
in.
  We have been doing it now for over a decade, Republicans and 
Democrats--each one had a majority. Instead of facing up to the 
shortfall in the physicians' reimbursement, we have allowed this 
problem to grow. What it amounts to is, if Congress does not act, the 
doctors who are taking care of our parents and grandparents on Medicare 
will have their payments cut 21 percent. A lot of physicians are losing 
money on Medicare today. If this were to happen, there would be a 
massive quitting of taking care of Medicare patients. They would not do 
it anymore. It is not right. You cannot justify, from any logical 
approach to medicine, that we should cut physicians by that kind of 
amount. I think fundamentally we need to restore it and put it on a 
path that is sustainable and a growth rate instead of a 21-percent cut. 
We need to wrestle with how to do it.
  If you fix the doctor fix, and you allow a modest growth instead of a 
21-percent cut over the next 10 years, it will cost the U.S. Treasury 
$250 billion. That is a lot of money, even by Federal Government 
standards. Our annual highway bill has been about $40 billion. The 
annual budget of my State of Alabama is less than $10 billion--$7 or $8 
billion for the whole State, including education. That $250 billion is 
a lot of money. But millions of American seniors are treated every day 
by physicians and they paid into the Medicare Program for 40 years. 
They have been told that when they get to be seniors at retirement age, 
they will get basically free physician services. It is a commitment we 
made. Maybe it was improvident at the time. Maybe we could have been 
smarter about the way it was done, but that is what we told them, and I 
believe we have to honor that in principle today.
  This bill attempts to deal with it by extending it, as we have done 
each time, 1 year. That is what I call a budget gimmick. It is a 
misrepresentation of the true state of our finances because what will 
occur is, we will put the money in for this year. It is going to cost 
$7.3 billion to fix this year's doctors' payments. But you know what 
the CBO scores when they estimate what our debt will be? They assumed 
the law will go back into effect next year, and there will be a 21- or 
maybe then 22-percent or 23-percent cut in physician payments. They 
will assume that is going to be true for 9 years, leaving about $240 
billion extra money that we in Congress can spend--except it is going 
to be paid. We cannot cut the physicians by that much money. We know we 
are going to fix it, 1 year at a time. It appears we do not have the 
courage or the will to fix it permanently like we should, so we will 
just fix it and we will use that and then they can make the deficit 
look better than that.
  This budget, this number CBO has scored, does not assume the doctors' 
payments are going to be increased 21 percent. They assume doctors' 
fees are going to be cut because that is what the law is, unless we act 
to change it. They make an estimate based on what the law is today, so 
we can fix the doctors' payments for 1 year, but for the next 9 years 
they assume we have a lot more money than we have because we are going 
to fix it every year. This kind of gimmickry is what put us in this 
fix.
  Let me say this: An attempt was made earlier this year to do a doctor 
fix outside the health care reform bill. That was a very duplicitous 
act, in my opinion. I have to be frank with my colleagues. Why? What 
was wrong about that? The President has always said that in health care 
reform, in fixing our health care problem, what we need to do was deal 
with physician payments, the SGR. But when they sat in that secret room 
around here, moving the money around to try to figure out how to 
present a bill and plop it out on the floor and ask us all to vote for 
it, they had a problem. They had promised the bill would be deficit 
neutral. But if they fix the doctor fix, it was going to cost $250 
billion. They could not make the numbers work.
  Do you know what the Democratic leadership tried to do? They brought 
it up separately. We are going to pass a bill in the Congress that 
would have funded the fix of the doctors. Every penny of it goes 
straight to the debt. But because they took it out of health care 
reform and sat it over here, they were going to say the health care 
reform did not cost any money. I can dispute that and it is not 
accurate, but that is what they did.
  But do you know what happened? Thirteen Democrats said no. To their 
great credit, under, I am sure, pressure, they decided: I am not going 
to vote for another big debt increase on a bill that is not paid for. 
We ought to make this paid for. They were listening to their 
constituents back home and they are concerned about it. I know 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle are definitely concerned about 
this deficit. But I just wish to say if it had passed and it would have 
been another hiding of the debt by doing it in that fashion.
  Since that failed, we now have it in this bill for 1 year. It is 
going to be unpaid for and it will go straight to the debt. I think 
people who voted against the last doctor fix because it was not paid 
for and added to the debt should vote against this legislation because 
it continues to take us in that direction.
  Finally, I will say the entire debt process we are on is dangerous to 
our economy in the long run. This much money being poured into the 
economy and being unwisely spent--as Mr. Becker warned us a year ago--
has to have some positive impact. For heaven's sake, you borrow $800 
billion from the future and you pump it into this economy today and now 
we are talking about another $100 billion we borrow from the future and 
pump into the economy today--those kinds of actions have to have some 
positive impact, at least in the short run. But nothing comes from 
nothing. There is no free lunch. We know somebody will pay. Can anybody 
dispute that--that anything we take in today and distribute

[[Page 2834]]

among ourselves and enjoy today somebody paid for?
  Who is going to pay for this? Let me tell you. Last year, the 
interest on the debt of the United States was $187 billion. That is a 
lot of money. The Federal highway bill is $40 billion. Interest on the 
debt was $187 billion. Alabama, an average size State of 4 million 
people, has a general fund budget of less than $10 billion. $187 
billion. But because we are tripling the debt in 10 years, in 2019, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, in that year alone people 
still alive and well in the United States and making some money and 
trying to feed their families will pay $800 billion on the debt in 
interest--in that year alone, $800 billion.
  This is a burden that our economy will be carrying for years. By the 
way, there is no plan to pay it down. In fact, in 2019, it is projected 
the deficit will be almost $1 trillion that year. The debt, the 
deficit, and the shortfall in income over expenditures in 2019 will 
still be growing. The debt will still be surging.
  Greece is in such a terrible fix today; their deficit amounts to 
about 12.7 percent of the entire gross domestic product of the nation 
of Greece. They are considered to be very unstable. The economy is 
thoroughly in danger. They are going through some significant reforms 
to try to work their way out of it. Our deficit-to-GDP ratio this year 
is 9.7 percent.
  This is one of the highest ratios in the world, and it is a danger 
that we face. So to get down to the nub of the matter, I am not going 
to vote for this bill. I am sure some of my colleagues will say: That 
is because you do not like the unemployed, and you do not want to help 
them. I do want to help them.
  I am sure it is going to be because some of my colleagues will say: 
You do not want to pay the doctors. You do not like doctors so you are 
mean and cold-hearted. And: Do not worry about the debt, Sessions.
  But at some point we have to bring our house under control. Just like 
a family budget, we cannot continue to spend dramatically more than we 
take in.
  We passed a resolution. This Senate passed a bill that is supposed to 
limit expenditures through a pay-go mechanism. It was predicted then 
that people were not serious when they were passing it. This would be 
the second time we voted in a matter of weeks to break through pay-go, 
and this is $100 billion.
  I would suggest there are a number of things that can be done. One of 
them is, we can go back and look at the unspent stimulus money. There 
is about $170 billion not only unspent but unobligated at this point. 
That money can be utilized to take care of some of these needs we have, 
and there is no doubt we could do that. We could find other mechanisms 
to deal with this, and one of the things we are going to have to face 
up to is that there are a lot of programs in this government that are 
not returning value for the taxpayers. We are extracting money from 
taxpayers. We are sending it out to programs that are not producing any 
legitimate return, and they should be eliminated. When is the last time 
we have ever eliminated any expenditure in this country where we can 
see that it has not been effective?
  Well, a lot of our reports show that a lot of our government programs 
are ineffective. There are a lot of things we can do to enhance our 
productivity as a national government to eliminate this surge in debt 
and get us off the path we are on that I think leads to financial 
problems in the future.
  A witness before the Budget Committee testified that studies show 
that this kind of debt with the high interest payments, will pull down 
our economic growth.
  Most people think economic growth is going to get us out of this fix. 
But if we are burdened with high interest rates, if the U.S. Government 
is going out in the marketplace and competing with private business to 
get people to loan you money, it tends to drive up interest rates. It 
tends to reduce the amount of money available in the marketplace for 
private business. They predict it would at least reduce the growth by 1 
percentage point in the future. When you are talking about 2 percent 
annual growth, and you drop to 1 percent growth, or 3 percent and you 
drop to 2 percent growth, this is serious.
  So it is no doubt this kind of debt will crowd out spending when we 
have $800 billion in the tenth year just to pay interest. It will be 
the biggest expenditure the government has on any account. That is a 
problem.
  So I would say it is time to take this bill back. Let's look at it. 
Let's see if we cannot contain some of the spending that is in it, and 
let's see if we cannot pay for the rest of it and produce a bill that 
we can be proud of that will help people in need without socking it to 
the debt of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             National Debt

  Mr. DURBIN. I do not quarrel with the Senator from Alabama about our 
national debt and the threat that it possesses. I certainly understand 
we are borrowing a lot of money from countries overseas, and we want to 
see that come to an end.
  That kind of indebtedness leads to a dependency which is not healthy 
for our economy or our future or our children. I certainly would agree 
with the Senator from Alabama on that.
  I was not here for his entire presentation, but there are several 
things I think should be made clear for the record. The point is, some 
9 years ago, when President William Clinton left office, he left office 
with a national debt, total accumulated national debt throughout our 
history of about $5.7 trillion. But when he left office, we were in 
surplus. We were actually generating a surplus in the Federal Treasury, 
and the surplus was being used to extend the life of the Social 
Security trust fund. We were adding more and more years of solvency to 
Social Security because we were generating a surplus.
  It is hard to imagine that this was the case only 9 years ago, and 
yet it was. The government was then handed over to President George W. 
Bush, a new administration, an administration that ran on a platform of 
fiscal conservatism and dealing with overspending and the national 
debt.
  What happened at the end of 8 years? At the end of 8 years, the 
national debt had grown from $5.7 trillion, on the last day that 
William Jefferson Clinton was in office, to almost $13 trillion when 
President George W. Bush left office 8 years later. It more than 
doubled in that period of time.
  What happened? First, the situation beyond President Bush's control: 
9/11, devastating to our economy. We know what happened. People stopped 
purchasing, people stopped traveling. There was a general concern about 
the safety of our country and the certainty of our future, and that 
took its toll on our economy. There is no question about that. I am not 
going to go into any suggestion that President Bush was culpable in 
that regard. He was a victim as we were as a nation on 9/11. But 
conscious decisions were then made by this administration after 9/11: 
For instance, the decision to invade Iraq was a decision I did not 
share. I was one of 23 Senators who voted against the invasion of Iraq. 
I happen to think that was the right decision to stay out of that war.
  But, as a nation, we deciding to go forward. Congress voted that way. 
President Bush said: We are going to wage this war, but we will not pay 
for it. We will take the cost of this war and add it to our national 
debt.
  If you look back at history, World War II, for example, most of us 
remember either reading about or seeing some evidence of war bonds--
borrowing from the American people to pay for war. Yet we incurred a 
massive debt at the same time. Wars are costly.
  President Bush initiated this war in Iraq and Afghanistan and paid 
for neither one. That added to our national debt. He also did something 
that had never been done in the history of the United States. In the 
midst of a war,

[[Page 2835]]

President Bush said we are going to cut taxes. It is counterintuitive.
  We know that in a war we need more money, not just for the ordinary 
course of expenses of government but also because of war costs. 
Instead, the President cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, adding to 
our national debt.
  Then came a proposal to modify the Medicare Program for prescription 
drugs. I thought it was a positive thing. We could have saved a lot of 
money if we would have built into it competition for the pharmaceutical 
companies. But the pharmaceutical companies did not want that. They 
prevailed. We ended up passing the Medicare Pharmaceutical Program, and 
it cost us about $400 billion, added to the deficit.
  Start adding those things up and we realize that at the end of 8 
years, a President who had promised to be a fiscal conservative left us 
with twice the national debt that he had inherited and the weakest 
economy America had seen since the Great Depression.
  When President Obama took the oath of office a little over a year 
ago, he inherited this weak economy and two wars. He inherited another 
$1 trillion in debt that came out of this weak economy as soon as he 
walked into the office. So when my Republican colleagues come to the 
floor of the Senate and talk about how insensitive Democrats are to our 
national debt, I have to remind them when they were in control and 
their President was in control we more than doubled the national debt. 
We had two wars, unpaid for; we cut taxes on the wealthiest people in 
America; we added a Medicare Program that was not paid for; we left the 
economy in shambles; and left the debt for the next President. It was 
not a welcome that most Presidents would like at the White House.
  Now come the Republicans and say: Well, the thing we need to do at 
this moment in time, with all of our unemployed, is to cut government 
spending.
  I have to say to them, I want to cut out wasteful spending. But if 
you ask any credible mainline economist, they will tell you that 
cutting government spending in general is exactly the wrong thing to do 
when the economy is in recession.
  What we need to do is to infuse the economy with investments and 
spending that will keep aggregate demand growing for goods and 
services, keeping people in business, hiring people, who then pay their 
taxes and go on to buy products that help others. That is the nature of 
the kind of economic activity that brings us out of recession.
  So when the Republicans argue to cut spending in the midst of a 
recession, they are going to dig the hole deeper. There will be less 
money spent in the economy. There will be less demand for goods and 
services. Fewer people will be working, fewer businesses surviving, and 
the recession will get worse instead of better.
  So the bill before us is a bill that has several provisions in it, 
and one of them deals with providing unemployment insurance for those 
who have no work. Now, I will concede the fact that we never dreamed 
this recession would go on as long as it has. But for many people, some 
have been out of work for over a year, some 2 years. They are 
desperate. There are five unemployed people for every job in America. 
What we provide is about $1,100 or $1,200 a month--hardly a sum that 
one can live on comfortably for any length of time in most places in 
America. But that $1,200 a month keeps families together--barely.
  Now the Republicans come to the floor and say this is a serious 
mistake. Providing unemployment insurance, according to the Senate 
Republican whip, Senator Kyl, creates a disincentive for people to look 
for work.
  Well, I would challenge him. I have talked to the people who are out 
of work and have yet to find any who believe they are basking in the 
glow of unemployment insurance. It is barely enough to get by, and most 
people are exhausting their savings.
  Second, this bill is going to provide for additional help to pay for 
health insurance for the unemployed. If you lose your job, the first 
casualty is your health insurance. So the President said, we need to 
have our government pick up 65 percent of the health insurance premiums 
for the unemployed.
  How much do they run? It is $1,200 or $1,300 a month in my State, the 
average for a family, health insurance plan. So it would eat up 
virtually every penny of unemployment just to keep your health 
insurance plan. So we pick up two-thirds of the cost, and the people 
try to hang on, paying about $400 a month so they can keep their health 
insurance.
  What difference does it make if they lose their health insurance? 
Well, two things are going to happen if they lose their health 
insurance. They may qualify for Medicaid, which is a government health 
insurance plan, which we will ultimately pay for as taxpayers. They 
will certainly lose their continuation of coverage, so that if someone 
in their family has a preexisting condition, they may find it difficult 
to ever qualify for insurance again until they find that job and get 
into a group policy. If they have a child who is asthmatic or who has a 
serious illness, they may find that child uninsurable because they have 
lost their health insurance.
  So when Members of the Senate come before us and say they are going 
to vote against unemployment benefits and health insurance, they are 
literally voting against millions of Americans who are flat out of luck 
and have no place to turn and are merely trying to make it and trying 
to get by.
  Part of this measure is paid for in offsets and sources of revenue. I 
certainly applaud that.
  I thank the Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee. But then come the Republicans and say: Well, let's put more 
money into this for all of the things included and take it out of the 
stimulus package.
  Remember, the stimulus package was the President's way of trying to 
keep this economy moving with tax cuts for working families, a safety 
net for those out of work, money for local units of government that 
have seen a downturn in revenues, and investments in America's future.
  Now, I have seen some of those investments, and I will just say that 
I think those are investments that will pay off in jobs today and in 
assets in America and that will serve us for a long time to come.
  Two weeks ago I was up on the west side of Chicago, in Austin, where 
they opened a new family care health center. It is a primary care 
clinic for those who do not have health insurance or do not have much 
money, where they can see a doctor. It is going to be the nicest 
building on the block. It is beautiful. One-fourth of the money came 
from the President's stimulus package. It put a lot of people to work 
building it and now has created an asset that will serve that 
neighborhood and that city for a long time to come.
  Two days ago, I was down in Caseyville, IL, 300 miles away from 
Chicago. I saw another project with about $1.6 million of stimulus 
money that is going to build a community retirement home in this area. 
I saw the people out working on the jobs now just this week.
  Ultimately, beyond the hundreds who will build this project, some 50 
will be full-time employees. We are investing back in the community, in 
high-speed rail, in highways and bridges, in basic infrastructure, and 
in things that will serve us for a long time to come.
  The Senator from Alabama says: Let's stop doing that. Let's stop 
putting that money into those investments.
  I think that is shortsighted. I think what we need to do is to follow 
the President's lead and to make the investments in our economy today 
to get it chugging and moving forward. That, to me, is the first step 
in reducing our long-term deficit. Until we get out of this recession, 
get people back to work, paying taxes, the deficit will continue to 
grow.
  What is the second thing we can do to deal with our deficit? Health 
care costs. Health care costs are going through the roof. I have said 
before that the mayor of Kankakee, IL, told me last week that she just 
got the health insurance bill for 2,900 city employees for next year, 
and the premiums are going up 83 percent. She is

[[Page 2836]]

going to cut back on coverage, more copays, more deductibles, and hope 
to get it down to a 50-percent increase. It will mean that in a city 
that is hard-pressed to meet basic needs, there will be an additional 
million dollars in health insurance premium costs next year for even 
less coverage. That story is being repeated over and over across the 
United States.
  On Sunday, at a press conference in Chicago with four small 
businesses, each one told the same story, that they had reached a point 
where they couldn't afford health insurance for themselves as owners or 
for their employees. They told of terrible situations where some of 
them had children who were literally dropped from coverage because they 
couldn't continue to pay the high premiums that went through the roof.
  The Republican side of the aisle has told us: Stop this debate on 
health care reform. Let's stop and start over. As the President said 
the other day, the health insurance companies are not starting over. 
The health insurance companies are continuing to do what they know how 
to do, and that is to raise prices.
  Goldman Sachs is a firm with which most people are familiar. They put 
out a report very recently about what they considered the best thing 
for the health insurance industry. Goldman Sachs said, in this article 
that was published in the Huffington Post:

       What the firm sees as the best path forward for the private 
     insurance industry's bottom line is, to be blunt, inaction.
       The study's authors [at Goldman Sachs] advise that if no 
     reform is passed, earnings per share would grow an estimated 
     ten percent from 2010 to 2019, and the value of the stock 
     would rise an estimated 59 percent. The next best thing for 
     the insurance industry would be if the legislation passed by 
     the Senate Finance Committee is watered down significantly.

  This says that the best way to reach higher profitability for health 
insurance is for us to do nothing. The second best way is to do very 
little. That is what we are being asked to do by the Republican side of 
the aisle, either do nothing or do very little, take baby steps, don't 
really deal with the issue. That is not going to solve the problem.
  If we are going to provide competition and choice for small 
businesses and people buying health insurance, we should offer them 
what we have as Members of Congress. If it is good enough for us, 
wouldn't it be good enough for the rest of America? Our plan is pretty 
good. It is called the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Eight 
million Federal employees and their families are in there. It has been 
in existence for 40 years.
  My wife and I each year have an open enrollment period to choose from 
nine different private insurance plans in my State of Illinois. These 
are plans that have to meet the basic requirements of Illinois so that 
they are not plans that are worthless and they are plans that we pick 
based on our state in life. My wife and I are at a point where we buy 
the biggest plan, the high-option plan. The Federal Government pays a 
share of the premium cost; we pay the rest. We would pay less if we had 
less coverage. But if we don't like the plan, next year we have open 
enrollment again. We can pick another one. What a great idea for 
consumers, to be able to pick and choose, go shopping just like one 
would for an automobile, to pick the one that is right for your family, 
the one you can afford, the one that gives you the coverage you need.
  If that is good enough for Republican and Democratic Members of 
Congress, Senate and House, why isn't it good enough for America? Why 
don't we have exchanges just like that available for businesses and 
individuals to choose from, the best private health insurance plan that 
meets their pocketbook needs and their health needs? That is what our 
bill does. Many on the Republican side have condemned it as socialism. 
The government administers it, at least sets up the plans on the 
insurance exchange. Guess what. Every Senator's health insurance plan 
would be socialistic by that definition. I don't see them rushing down 
to the Secretary of the Senate to cancel their coverage. They love it. 
I do too. It is the best health insurance you could ask for. To require 
minimum requirements in terms of what coverage it will have, that is 
what our plans do. When we say, do that in the bill, they say, there it 
is, government-run health insurance. It is not. It is private health 
insurance plans.
  There are 50 million Americans without insurance. We provide coverage 
for 30 million. Those are people who, when they get sick, go to the 
hospital, get taken care of, and the cost of their care is passed on to 
everybody else who has health insurance. That is not fair. It costs us 
a lot of money as individuals. We pay $1,000 a year in extra premiums 
for the uninsured. Our idea is to bring people under coverage so that 
when they go to the hospital, their care is paid for, not by us but, in 
this case, either by private health insurance or by Medicaid, the 
government health insurance plan.
  When we asked the Republicans, if we cover 30 million in our 
approach, how many do you cover of 50 million uninsured, their answer 
is 3 million. That is not much of an effort, when you think about it. I 
can understand why we need to do more.
  There are two last points I wish to make. One is that if we are going 
to deal with health insurance in an honest way, we need to at least 
tell the health insurance companies that the party is over. First, 
their antitrust exemption, which they have had for 65 years, has to 
come to an end. Should they be allowed to collude and conspire on 
prices and divide up the market at the expense of consumers? We ought 
to put an end to it. The House voted to do that. Secondly, we have to 
put an end to the awful practice by many health insurance companies to 
deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions, for 
example, or to say, if you get really sick, they will just cut you off 
in terms of how much they will pay. Those things are gross abuses. They 
need to change. The Republicans have yet to offer a plan that deals 
with those gross insurance abuses. Their baby steps don't even deal 
with the serious issues.
  Finally, when it comes to Medicare, 40 million Americans count on it, 
those who are seniors and disabled. It only has about 9 years of 
solvency left. Our bill doubles the life of Medicare, another 9 or 10 
years of longevity. That is good for seniors and for all of us. We want 
to cut out the waste, and there is waste. We want to provide basic 
quality care. But doing nothing, as many Republicans counsel us to do 
on health care reform, means Medicare will go broke in 9 years. I don't 
want to be around to see that happen. I want to be part of the 
solution.
  My final point is this: We started off talking about the deficit and 
debt. If we don't deal with health care costs and bringing them down, 
we can't raise enough money in taxes to keep up with this skyrocketing 
cost. State governments, local governments, and the Federal Government 
will all be faced with this kind of increased bill and increased debt 
and increased deficit each year. That is the reality of doing nothing 
on health care reform when it comes to deficit and debt.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New York 
Times piece relative to the health care insurance industry, as well as 
this analysis of managed care by Goldman Sachs and several articles 
which outline exactly what is going to happen. The health care 
insurance industry is praying that we do nothing because their profits 
will continue to skyrocket. That is not fair to the families across 
America.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 6, 2010]

           Obama Wields Analysis of Insurers in Health Battle

                       (By David M. Herszenhorn)

       Washington.--To bolster the case for a far-reaching 
     overhaul of the health care system, the Obama administration 
     is seizing on a new analysis by Goldman Sachs, the New York 
     investment bank, recommending that investors buy shares in 
     two big insurance companies, the UnitedHealth Group and 
     Cigna, because insurance rates are up sharply and competition 
     is down.
       White House officials on Saturday said that the Goldman 
     Sachs analysis would be a ``centerpiece'' of their closing 
     argument in

[[Page 2837]]

     the push for major health care legislation. The president and 
     Democratic Congressional leaders are hoping to win passage of 
     the legislation before the Easter recess. Republicans remain 
     fiercely opposed to the bill.
       The Goldman Sachs analysis shows that while insurers can be 
     aggressive in raising prices, they also walk away from 
     clients because competition in the industry is so weak, the 
     White House said. And officials will point to a finding that 
     rate increases ran as high as 50 percent, with most in ``the 
     low- to mid-teens''--far higher than overall inflation.
       The analysis could be a powerful weapon for the White House 
     because it offers evidence that an overhaul of the health 
     care system is needed not only to help cover the millions of 
     uninsured but to prevent soaring health care expenses from 
     undermining the coverage that the majority of Americans 
     already have through employers.
       Republicans, however, could also point to the analysis as 
     bolstering their contention that Democrats should be focused 
     more on controlling costs and less on broadly expanding 
     coverage to the uninsured.
       The research brief is largely based on a recent conference 
     call with Steve Lewis, an industry expert with Willis, a 
     major insurance broker.
       In the call, Mr. Lewis noted that ``price competition is 
     down from a year ago'' and explained that his clients--mostly 
     midsize employers seeking to buy health coverage for their 
     employees--were facing a tough market, in which insurance 
     carriers are increasingly willing to abandon existing 
     customers to improve their profit margins.
       ``We feel this is the most challenging environment for us 
     and our clients in my 20 years in the business,'' Mr. Lewis 
     said, according to a transcript included in the Goldman 
     brief. ``Not only is price competition down from a year 
     ago,'' he added, ``but trend or (health care) inflation is 
     also up and appears to be rising. The incumbent carriers seem 
     more willing than ever to walk away from existing business 
     resulting in some carrier changes.''
       The report also indicated that employers are reducing 
     benefit levels, in some cases by adding deductibles for 
     prescription drug coverage in addition to co-payments, and 
     raising other out-of-pocket costs for employees as a way of 
     lowering the cost of insurance without increasing annual 
     premiums and employee contributions to them.
       Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human 
     services, is expected to discuss the Goldman analysis on two 
     Sunday television talk shows, ``Meet the Press'' on NBC and 
     ``This Week'' on ABC.
       In his call with Goldman, Mr. Lewis said beneficiaries were 
     feeling the brunt of the changes to existing policies. 
     ``Visually to employees, they're fairly significant,'' he 
     said.
       But the report also sounded cautionary notes that the 
     administration will probably not want to highlight.
       Asked by Goldman analysts about the effort to pass major 
     health care legislation, Mr. Lewis said many employers 
     experiencing increases in their insurance costs were 
     nonetheless apprehensive about the president's proposal.
       ``They're very mixed in their reaction, quite candidly 
     consistent with what we're seeing in the polling numbers by 
     party lines,'' Mr. Lewis said. ``I think most people would 
     acknowledge that there's a need for health care reform; 
     employers continue to be very frustrated. So when they look 
     at what the Obama administration and the Democratic majority 
     state as their goals to increase access and lower cost and 
     rail at what may be termed oligopolistic behavior of carriers 
     in certain markets, I think employers really buy in to that 
     message and have much of that frustration and anger at our 
     lack of solutions.''
       And yet, he said, there is little enthusiastic support from 
     employers for the Democrats' proposals.
       ``Many of them still view the legislation and the 
     partisanship coming out of Washington as possibly the 
     medicine worse than the disease,'' he said. ``So many 
     employer groups that we're talking to feel like it would be a 
     shame to lose an opportunity to do something with respect to 
     health care reform. But many are starting to feel like maybe 
     nothing is better than something in this current 
     environment.''
                                  ____


                   [From Goldman Sachs, Mar. 3, 2010]

  Americas: Managed Care--A Front-Line Perspective on 2010 Commercial 
                         Price & Product Trends


         Transcript from our sixth annual call with Steve Lewis

       We hosted our seventh-annual industry expert conference 
     call with Steve Lewis, regional leader for the employee 
     benefits practice of Willis, the third largest insurance 
     broker in the world. The call provided a front-line 
     perspective on 2010 industry pricing and product trends, with 
     a focus on the key middle-market segment of the industry.
       A transcript of the conference call is provided in the body 
     of this report.


           Industry price discipline has strengthened further

       Two years ago, Lewis and his team were one of the few 
     industry sources pointing (correctly) to aggressive pricing 
     by the carriers in a lead up to severe margin deterioration 
     experienced in 1H2008. Then, a year ago, Lewis and his team 
     pointed to stronger pricing discipline by most of the public 
     companies (though with some outliers). Now, Lewis and his 
     team find price discipline has strengthened noticeably 
     further.


          Our view is that the industry downcycle is bottoming

       We note that the improvement in commercial industry pricing 
     discipline has emerged from multiple industry sources over 
     the past 18 months. Our view is that it reflects a recovery 
     from the severity of under-pricing during the recent industry 
     down-cycle that we think is now bottoming.
       With the group, our favorite names are UNH and CI, both CL-
     Buy rated. That said, ours is a sector call as we see a 
     ``rising tide lifting all boats'' as: (1) the cycle turn 
     shows in reserve building this year, with margin expansion 
     next year, (2) health reform uncertainty recedes, and (3) the 
     headwind to earnings from negative operating leverage eases 
     as we anniversary the severe member drop of 2009.


               transcriipt of conference call with Willis

     Matt Borsch, Goldman Sachs:
       Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us today for the 
     Goldman Sachs Managed Care Industry Expert Conference Call 
     with Steve Lewis of employer benefit consulting firm Willis. 
     This will represent our 7th annual conference call with Steve 
     Lewis.
       Steve and his team have agreed to give us frontline 
     perspective on 2010 managed care pricing and product trends. 
     As background, Willis is the third largest insurance broker 
     in the world with approximately 350 million in employee 
     benefits revenues in North America with a focus on the middle 
     market employer segment.
       That focus is particularly valuable given the lack of 
     visibility on the segment from the other health benefit 
     consulting firms. And let me just elaborate on that. The 
     context is that national employer benefit consultants such as 
     Hewitt, Mercer, Towers Perrin, and others really focus their 
     attention on the jumbo employer segment, which is 
     overwhelmingly a fee-based non-risk model.
       However, the biggest earnings driver for the managed care 
     companies are the fully insured risk lives, and those are 
     mostly through the small and mid-size employers that buy 
     through health insurance brokers. And we found that the 
     brokers typically lack the scale and sophistication to have a 
     good perspective on macro industry trends.
       However, as healthcare coverage has become more and more of 
     a significant outlay for employers, they've needed greater 
     expertise but are often under served by the national benefit 
     consultants that focused on jumbo employers, so that's where 
     Willis has built its focus, serving as a high service benefit 
     consultant for the middle-sized employers.
       With that as an intro, let me reintroduce our guest speaker 
     Steve Lewis, executive vice president at Willis and regional 
     practice leader. As background, Steve has 20 years of 
     experience in the employer benefits industry and previously 
     served as a national account executive with Oxford Health 
     Plans, and also worked previously as a consultant with Hewitt 
     Associates.
       With that, I'll turn it over to Steve to kick it off. 
     Following that, I will serve as moderator for a series of 
     topical questions, and then, we will open it up to investor 
     Q&A.
     Steve Lewis, Willis HRH:
       Good morning, Matt. Thank you again, for hosting us on this 
     call. As always, I enjoy the opportunity to do this with you 
     each year. I also want to publicly acknowledge and thank our 
     team here for their support. The insight that I'll provide 
     today and have previously provided is largely the 
     amalgamation of information that's developed from our team 
     working day in and day out with clients throughout the 
     country.
       I would add that my comments on this call will be directly 
     based on my team's experiences and do not necessarily reflect 
     the experience of my Willis colleagues from around the 
     country.
     Borsch:
       Thank you for that, Steve. Let me jump right in here with, 
     perhaps, the most important question from the standpoint of 
     institutional investors looking at the sector, and that is, 
     what are you seeing in terms of competition between the 
     carriers, specifically relative to last year or two years ago 
     or whatever you want to use as the baseline, has price 
     competition increased or decreased?
     Lewis:
       As a specific answer to that, we would say, price 
     competition is down from year ago. An overall theme that we 
     would characterize this year, meaning, when I say this year, 
     the just completed January 1 renewals, and continuing up and 
     through today. We feel this is the most challenging 
     environment for us and our clients in my 20 years in the 
     business.
       Not only is price competition down from year ago (when we 
     had characterized last year's price competition as being down 
     from the prior year), but trend or (healthcare) inflation is 
     also up and appears to be rising.

[[Page 2838]]

     The incumbent carriers seem more willing than ever to walk 
     away from existing business resulting in some carrier 
     changes.
       And that's a significant adjustment from last year where we 
     saw aggressive pricing on the renewal front but not so much 
     on the new business front. And then I'd say the other real 
     theme is we've seen some service levels that have gapped 
     among few of the major players which has further increased 
     switching of carriers.
     Borsch:
       Let me move on to the next question here. If you look at 
     the landscape, what role do you see Third Party 
     Administrators or TPAs playing in the competitive landscape? 
     And I guess this gets down to a related question if you could 
     address between the employer decision to self-fund or go with 
     the fully insured purchase, are employers shifting one way or 
     the other.
     Lewis:
       Yes, I think taking the Third Party Administrator piece 
     first, as in prior years, we've seen little to no new 
     penetration in our client base from the TPAs. There's still 
     an occasional place for them in the marketplace, but fewer 
     and farther between in our opinion.
       The networks have expanded to the extent across the country 
     that there is now very significant overlap, and the TPA 
     discounts no longer really compete with what the major 
     managed care carriers have been able to do from a network 
     standpoint.
       With respect to the second part of your question (related 
     to the self-funding versus fully insured question), our 
     clients primarily seem to want certainty in this economic 
     environment with respect to their healthcare spend.
       So, unless they have either a reasonable track record of 
     consistent and relatively predictable claim patterns, clients 
     that we expect to be fully insured are still largely biased 
     in that direction, and those that are on the fence as to 
     whether they should be fully insured or self-funded seem to, 
     again, be biased more towards the fully insured product.
       I would add that where we have had increased conversations 
     is with our smaller client segment that are increasingly 
     frustrated with what we call blind renewals, meaning, no 
     claims data, and experiencing large increases on top of no 
     claims data.
       As a result, there's absolutely increased interest at the 
     smaller client segment in evaluating potential self-funding 
     with stop loss protection.
     Borsch:
       Getting back into the topic of the competitive dynamics, 
     can you touch on how criteria other than price play a role in 
     carrier competition, whether that's in fully insured or self-
     insured or to the extent you draw a distinction, and to the 
     extent that maybe that's changed or not changed a little bit 
     versus a year or two ago?
     Lewis:
       Yes, I think, as we've talked about in prior calls, price 
     remains king in the middle market, and is probably queen as 
     well. Factors that can be a tie breaker other than price 
     would include network disruption to the specific population; 
     market perception of the competitive carrier's reputation; 
     product flexibility, meaning willingness to allow 
     prescription drug carve-outs; ability to provide detailed 
     reporting in a certain employee population level, and funding 
     arrangements offered. Not just the self-funded versus fully 
     insured argument but some of the hybrids or the more creative 
     solutions within the fully insured marketplace such as 
     minimum premium or participating contracts in the fully 
     insured environment.
       Those things taken together can all factor in as tie 
     breakers with respect to how employers are evaluating 
     carriers. But even still, price certainly remained the most 
     significant driver.
       I would add one thing; you asked how it's changed from 
     prior years. I think last year on this call, we talked 
     specifically about the playing field that was fairly level on 
     the service end of the equation and as I mentioned at my 
     opening comment, we have seen a bit of gapping with respect 
     to the services at some carriers. And that is driving 
     employers to certainly take a look at what's available on the 
     marketplace. Then again, finding that there's not a lot of 
     aggressive price competition, the service disruption would 
     have to be fairly significant for somebody to move knowing 
     that they're not going to be able to trade down pricing very 
     significantly.
     Borsch:
       Is it the case that the service disruptions that you've 
     seen in some instances are severe enough to reach the 
     threshold where they switch?
     Lewis:
       The short answer is yes. We have seen some of that, and I 
     think we've seen it at a lower price threshold than what we 
     would've seen in the past.
     Borsch:
       Let me move to a slightly different topic here, and 
     obviously, the background here is the severe recession that 
     was certainly having an impact when we talked a year ago. 
     But, now we've been through a lot more pain even though the 
     economy is showing signs of recovery. A lot of the impacts of 
     these types of things are lagged.
       So, I guess, it's sort of a general question how 
     significant a role has the recession played in the clients' 
     product managed care strategies. And, what have you seen in 
     terms of the overall group enrollment changes related to 
     that? It's sort of a high level question there, but trying to 
     understand what the impact of the severe recession has been 
     on the way employers look at things, buy things, and on 
     enrollment?
     Lewis:
       Yes, I'd say, it's a great question and an interesting one 
     particularly as we look at this market. You mentioned the lag 
     factor and the timing of the stock market drop of mid-
     September 2008 was fairly late in the game to impact many 
     employers' January 2009 strategies. So, most were not making 
     any significant benefit changes, and/or made the specific 
     decision to hold the line when it came to health benefits at 
     the end of the day due to the freezes or cutbacks in other 
     areas such as pay, 401K matches, and staffing levels.
       So this year, I think, we saw a lot of employers saying, 
     they were not going to make that mistake again or very early 
     on in 2009 looking back and saying, if I had to do it over 
     again, I probably would've made more drastic changes and not 
     held the line with health benefits.
       So, it is a bit ironic that they didn't--a lot of employers 
     chose not to make the change last year when we were in the 
     deepest part of the recession. But this past year the renewal 
     process started much, much earlier for employers even knowing 
     that the sooner they started, the more impact trend 
     uncertainty would have on their renewal.
       Strategic planning just started much earlier, and employers 
     wanted to see just about every option under the sun both in 
     terms of pricing, plan design, extreme options, really 
     hedging themselves trying to get some clarity as to what 
     their options were with respect to health benefits, because 
     they didn't have clarity on either the direction of the 
     market, the economy, or even their own specific prospects.
       So, as I mentioned at the outset, it was without a doubt 
     the most challenging renewal cycle in my 20 years of this 
     business with employers really struggling with how and what 
     was going to drive their decision combined with the lack of 
     aggressive and competitive pricing in the marketplace.
       I think, to your last point about how that may have 
     impacted group enrollment, I'm not sure I have anything 
     significant statistically to share with you today. However, 
     anecdotally, I would say that enrollment is down across our 
     book of business. We looked at 2009 going into the year and 
     planned for the enrollment on our client base to be down 10 
     percent, and I would say that was fairly accurate.
     Borsch:
       You alluded to something I just wanted to clarify--it may 
     be that this isn't measurable, but on the question of adverse 
     selection (and, here, we're talking about the employer 
     market, not the individual market), you alluded to the 
     potential that some employees might be more likely not to 
     take up coverage or, in fact, to discontinue employer 
     subsidized coverage, because even though it is subsidized it 
     can be a very sizable chunk out of their pay for a benefit 
     package that may look less attractive after some of the 
     changes the employers have made.
       So, to the extent you can infer if you're seeing any of 
     that (and, related to that, the COBRA uptake), has that been 
     something that you measure? Has it come up in how the 
     carriers have presented their pricing? Finally, do you have 
     any sort of visibility on whether that trend is increasing or 
     abating?
     Lewis:
       Let me take the first part on something I've alluded to 
     about the potential for adverse selection due to younger, 
     healthier folks dropping and/or not selecting coverage to 
     begin with. You know, I think it depends a bit on the 
     demographics of the population, the type of industry; our 
     clients really span just about every industry out there.
       So is adverse selection on the rise in the group market? I 
     would say it is, but I don't have any data to back that up, 
     but just based on the fact that the population is down 10 
     percent across our book. And we look how the census in those 
     client populations has shifted. I would suggest that there 
     is: I don't want to overstate it because I'm not sure it's 
     significant at this point, but I certainly would see some 
     creep, if you will on adverse selection.
       I think that ties to your second point about COBRA uptake. 
     We did not keep specific statistics on the extent of COBRA 
     uptake. But we certainly saw it across the board, in our 
     client base, and we certainly believe that it is impacting 
     the pricing that our clients are experiencing.
     Borsch:
       Given what you're facing from a more conservative 
     underwriting environment amongst the carriers, how are you 
     leveraging or seeking to leverage current market conditions 
     to your clients' advantage in renewal negotiations?

[[Page 2839]]


     Lewis:
       Well, as stated the outset, and probably ad nauseum at this 
     point and it's been a tough year.
       Carriers were very selective in going after new business, 
     and incumbents were willing to walk away from existing 
     clients. So we had to be incredibly creative in our 
     negotiation tactics as well as in our strategic advice with 
     clients. And again, it was something that fortunately for us, 
     in the process, we did start early and while it consumed a 
     lot of energy from all of the stakeholders it was probably 
     the year of creativity.
       With respect to negotiation tactics, one of the interesting 
     things is that we seemed to have seen a bit of a bifurcation 
     in the marketplace at the plus or minus 300-employee size.
       In the groups under 300 employees, many of them don't have 
     or are unable to get control of their claims data either as a 
     result of the products they've purchased or just underwriting 
     guidelines at the carrier level where they don't have 
     complete control of their claims data. In that under 300-
     market place, there was very little competition and very high 
     renewals right out of the gates.
       However, in the over 300-employee market, if the claims 
     data was available and in a detailed way and you could make a 
     story about that claim's pattern and possibly make 
     adjustments for a spike--a one-time spike. Then, you would 
     see competition pick up. But again, it was very selective and 
     certainly not anything we would characterize as overly 
     aggressive.
     Borsch:
       This lead in to the next question: Can you generalize about 
     what is the average rate increase that you're observing: both 
     the initial carrier request and the final end point, post 
     negotiation and plan changes? And can you tell us about the 
     extent of plan benefit reductions in achieving final results 
     for your clients?
     Lewis:
       Averages are tough, you're right, and probably don't tell a 
     very good story and some clients look at that and say, wow, 
     how did you get that average? I must've been the high person. 
     But the range was all over the place and fairly extreme. I'd 
     say we settled in a range, on our book of business, from a 5% 
     reduction to a 50% increase.
       But generally speaking, we were in low to mid-teens out of 
     the gates, and this is where the real challenges begin. 
     Because negotiations generated no more than one to one and a 
     half points with no plan changes. And so it's almost like you 
     were getting a first and final and you had to dig through the 
     renewals to find a mistake.
       That's less movement than we've had in each of the prior 
     years and certainly, not turned in the right direction from 
     our clients' perspective.
     Borsch:
       But on the benefit plan changes that your clients have 
     implemented, would you say those are more substantial today 
     than what you saw a year ago?
     Lewis:
       I would say that incrementally the changes are more 
     substantial, but visually to employees, they're fairly 
     significant. You know, just about everybody did something 
     this year. And it did vary as you would imagine by the extent 
     of the renewal and the existing plan structure, but things 
     like 100% co-insurance are virtually gone.
     Borsch:
       Yes.
     Lewis:
       What we saw was a lot of tweaking, where we'd see the 
     employers bifurcating the primary and specialist co-payments, 
     adding prescription drug deductibles on top of co-payments, 
     and really focusing on plan changes first and foremost before 
     looking at impacting employee contributions.
     Investor Question:
       You talked about client renewal process starting earlier as 
     the planning process started earlier. Does that mean the 
     contracts are actually being signed earlier and therefore the 
     carriers will have more visibility into the premium yield 
     this year compared to previous years?
     Lewis:
       Great question. The answer is no. The contracts are not 
     renewing any earlier, just the negotiation process. So, in 
     our world, generally speaking, we would look to get a renewal 
     (depending on the size of the group) from 90 to 120 days 
     before the expiration of a renewal.
       This year, clients were looking to us (and to a certain 
     extent from the carriers) to extend that to 6 months out: 
     where we start predicting where the renewal is going to end 
     up. And to the extent that the carriers were willing to 
     provide a preliminary renewal, they have to load in a lot of 
     trend because they have to make guesses on the claims going 
     forward.
       And then as you move closer to the expiration date, they 
     offset trend with the wrong claims experience. So nobody was 
     renewing or signing contracts earlier, they were just 
     dragging the process out much, much longer from both the 
     carrier side and the employer side.
     Borsch:
       Let me ask a question, and hopefully, this is isn't 
     repetitive, but in the market studies that you've reviewed, 
     how wide have the gaps been between the different carriers? 
     Have you noted one carrier or groups of carriers relative to 
     the others that have been especially aggressive or perhaps 
     overly conservative that stand out?
     Lewis:
       The short answer is no. I think in particular situations, 
     we've seen a couple of carriers be more aggressive than 
     others. But I'm putting quotes around more aggressive because 
     we're generally in the three to five percent range between 
     pricing from where an incumbent renewal might be and what 
     might be considered aggressive.
       Now, there were few exceptions on some of our larger middle 
     market clients, as I've mentioned earlier, with very clean 
     data, stable business, perhaps a one-year blip with the 
     incumbent that cause the incumbent to get skittish and want 
     to shut the business and a competitor to come in and price it 
     more aggressively. But as a general rule, Matt, we were in a 
     pretty tight range during the market study process.
     Borsch:
       We've talked in prior years about tracking the gradually 
     growing interest in the consumer-directed health plan 
     products. Where you would say we stand now? Have you seen the 
     uptake increase meaningfully as a result of all the pressure 
     of the last year? And, you know, if you can offer a little 
     bit of a forecast, do you think that may change going into 
     2011?
     Lewis:
       Yes. Surprisingly, we have not seen a significant shift 
     towards the consumer directive plan. Across the board, it's 
     now an option for most employer groups. And the clients that 
     have offered it for the longest period of time (call it 
     three-plus years) are now exceeding double-digits, but that's 
     the low double-digits for enrollment as an option.
       New offerings continue to generate very low enrollments out 
     of the gates with still almost no full replacements at this 
     point. I think the one shift we have seen is a swing towards 
     health reimbursement accounts and away from health savings 
     accounts that more employer-friendly. And employers are doing 
     more to tie their wellness rewards and strategies to their 
     health reimbursements accounts.
       So I'd say if you ask about a crystal ball, really the 
     tying of wellness and to focus on improving the health of a 
     population, then consumer health plans tied to an HRA account 
     is where we see this market moving and really the potential 
     for the biggest surge.
     Borsch:
       Let me just conclude with one last one I want to throw at 
     you here, Steve. This has been tremendous insight that you've 
     brought for us so I want to thank you. On health reform, 
     obviously, this is a huge thing in the background but it's a 
     practical matter, but it doesn't necessarily have that much 
     day-to-day impact on things.
       But to what extent is health reform something that the 
     employers are looking at? Are they talking to you about it? 
     Have you got ``two cents'' on where opinions fall amongst 
     employers about what they would like to see happen relative 
     to what's been presented in Washington?
     Lewis:
       Yes, we are talking to our clients a lot about it. There is 
     a lot of what I would call academic interest at this stage of 
     the game. They're very mixed in their reaction, quite 
     candidly consistent with what we're seeing in the polling 
     numbers by party lines.
       I think most people would acknowledge that there's a need 
     for healthcare reform, employers continue to be very 
     frustrated. So when they look at what the Obama 
     administration and the Democratic Majority state as their 
     goals to increase access and lower cost and rail at what 
     maybe termed oligopolistic behavior of carriers in certain 
     markets, I think employers really buy in to that message and 
     have much of that frustration and anger at our lack of 
     solutions.
       But I would also say that many of them still view the 
     legislation and the partisanship coming out of Washington as 
     possibly the medicine worse than the disease. So, many 
     employer groups that we're talking to feel like it would be a 
     shame to lose an opportunity to do something with respect to 
     healthcare reform. But many are starting to feel like maybe 
     nothing is better than something in this current environment.
     Borsch:
       This is probably a good place to end our call. Steve, thank 
     you very much. This is really a great frontline perspective 
     on industry trends and I want to thank you and your firm 
     Willis, and also thank our investor clients who dialed in.
     Lewis:
       Thank you, Matt. I appreciate it.
                                  ____


                [From the Huffington Post, Mar. 8, 2010]

   Goldman to Private Insurers: No Health Care Reform at All Is Best

                             (By Sam Stein)

       What's Your Reaction?

[[Page 2840]]

       A Goldman Sachs analysis of health care legislation has 
     concluded that, as far as the bottom line for insurance 
     companies is concerned, the best thing to do is nothing. A 
     close second would be passing a watered-down version of the 
     Senate Finance Committee's bill.
       A study put together by Goldman in mid-October looks at the 
     estimated stock performance of the private insurance industry 
     under four variations of reform legislation. The study 
     focused on the five biggest insurers whose shares are traded 
     on Wall Street: Aetna, UnitedHealth, WellPoint, CIGNA and 
     Humana.
       The Senate Finance Committee bill, which Goldman's analysts 
     conclude is the version most likely to survive the 
     legislative process, is described as the ``base'' scenario. 
     Under that legislation (which did not include a public plan) 
     the earnings per share for the top five insurers would grow 
     an estimated five percent from 2010 through 2019. And yet, 
     the ``variance with current valuation''--essentially, what 
     the value of the stock is on the market--is projected to drop 
     four percent.
       Things are much worse, Goldman estimates, for legislation 
     that resembles what was considered and (to a certain extent) 
     passed by the House of Representatives. This is, the firm 
     deems, the ``bear case'' scenario--in which earnings per 
     share for the top five insurers would decline an estimated 
     one percent from 2010 through 2019 and the variance with 
     current valuation is projected to be negative 36 percent.
       What the firm sees as the best path forward for the private 
     insurance industry's bottom line is, to be blunt, inaction.
       The study's authors advise that if no reform is passed, 
     earnings per share would grow an estimated ten percent from 
     2010 through 2019, and the value of the stock would rise an 
     estimated 59 percent during that time period.
       The next best thing for the insurance industry would be if 
     the legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee is 
     watered down significantly. Described as a ``bull case'' 
     scenario--in which there is ``moderation of provisions in the 
     current SFC plan'' or ``changes prior to the major 
     implementation in 2013''--earnings per share for the five 
     biggest insurers would grow an estimated 10 percent and the 
     variance with current valuation would rise an estimated 47 
     percent.
       The report, a Goldman official stressed, was analytic not 
     advocacy-based. Their job was to provide a sober assessment 
     of the market realities facing private insurers under various 
     versions of health care reform.
       ``If no reform at all happens you would see the largest 
     rise in EPS,'' a Goldman official acknowledged. ``But what we 
     are doing is just analyzing what the stocks would do under 
     different scenarios.''
       The study does note on the front page that the firm ``does 
     and seeks to do business with companies covered in its 
     research reports.'' Those companies include Aetna, Wells 
     Point and United Health.
       In the context of the current health care debate, the 
     findings provide a small window into the concerns that have 
     driven the private insurance industry's opposition to reform 
     legislation. Simply put: health care reform is going to hurt 
     their bottom line. No less a prestigious voice than Goldman 
     Sachs is telling them so.
       Some insurers, in the end, will be hit harder than others. 
     CIGNA is the lowest of the big five, for instance, because it 
     does little business providing insurance plans to Medicare 
     patients, individuals and families buying health plans 
     directly, or small employers that offer health plans to their 
     workers.
       In addition, some reforms are going to hurt the industry 
     more than others. Regulatory changes--such as prohibiting the 
     prejudice against consumers with pre-existing conditions--
     will have an impact across the board, as will the funding 
     cuts to Medicare Advantage.
       Overall, Goldman calculates the probability of reform 
     passing Congress at 75 percent. Though the limitations of 
     Goldman's political prognostications were on full display 
     earlier in the document:
       By mid-late October, we expect a cloture vote (60 votes) to 
     bypass a potential filibuster followed by several weeks of 
     debate over proposed amendments on the Senate floor (with a 
     similar process under way in the House). If both the Senate 
     and House are able to pass legislation (perhaps before the 
     Thanksgiving recess), a House-Senate conference negotiation 
     should produce combined legislation for final approval 
     (perhaps by mid-December).
                                  ____


                  [From Goldman Sachs, Oct. 19, 2009]

           America's Managed Care--10 Years of Health Reform


             We have published a new 10-year industry model

       As we near the final weeks for health reform efforts in 
     Congress, we have published a new, interactive 10 year model 
     to forecast potential impact.


     We now forecast 2010-2019 EPS growth of 5% under health reform

       Under our ``base'' case scenario, we forecast core managed 
     care earnings growth would be cut by 50% over the next decade 
     under implementation of the current Senate Finance Committee 
     reform plan. Specifically, we see sector EPS growth at 
     approximately 5% per year under health reform (2010-2019) as 
     compared to 10% EPS growth with no health reform.
       We also consider a ``bear'' case scenario for reform that 
     would drive declining EPS for the sector in aggregate over 
     the next decade. The reform measures that would most 
     negatively impact earnings growth are funding cuts to 
     Medicare Advantage and strict new regulations for the 
     individual and small group business. These would be partly 
     offset by the positive impact of expanded insurance coverage 
     under reform.


         Under reform, 8% EPS growth for CIGNA, -2% for Humana

       Under our ``base'' case scenario for reform, our company-
     level forecasts for 10 year EPS range from a 2% decline per 
     year for Humana (owing to its Medicare Advantage exposure) to 
     growth of 8% per year for CIGNA and Aetna (owing to their 
     concentration of earnings from larger employers).


          Neutral on managed care; CIGNA remains our favorite

       We remain Neutral on core managed care although our bias is 
     increasingly for sector upside given the 20% fall in 
     valuations over the past 5 weeks. CIGNA remains our favorite 
     with by far the least downside risk exposure to health reform 
     even as the stock trades at a valuation discount to the 
     group. We also recommend UnitedHealth and Health Net (both 
     Buy rated).


      Risk-reward has become more favorable with lower valuations

       Health reform outcomes: probability, earnings growth and 
     implied return.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          EPS growth 2010-       Expected         Variance w/
                                         Probability            19E             valuation      current valuation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No reform...........................                25%                10%              12.5x                59%
Reform ``bull'' case................                10%                10%              11.5x                47%
Reform. ``base'' case...............                55%                 5%               7.5x                -4%
Reform: ``bear'' case...............                10%                -1%               5.0x               -36%
Probability-weighted................  .................                 6%               8.9x                13%
Current sector valuation............  .................  .................               7.8x  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FactSet, Goldman Sachs Research estimates.

  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 
such time as I shall consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me respond to a couple of the remarks 
of my good friend from Illinois. I listen to this all the time, people 
talking about during the Bush administration, the costs that have gone 
up, the deficits and all this stuff. I appreciate the fact that the 
Senator from Illinois did state that the situation was a little 
different when President Bush came into office because, of course, 9/11 
happened and we ended up in a couple wars. But that is understating the 
situation.
  Right after the Clinton administration--I remember it so well--I was 
a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee at that time and 
actually was a member of the House Armed Services Committee when 
President Clinton first came in. The euphoric attitude everyone had at 
that time was that the war is over. Remember we talked about the peace 
dividend and all this stuff. The war is over and we no longer need to 
have a strong national defense. That is what they were saying, though 
they used different words. They started cutting our defense system. I 
have a chart that shows what happened to--the demise of our ability to 
defend ourselves during the Clinton administration. We went through the 
same thing back during the Carter administration. People remember the 
hollow force at that time.
  During the Clinton administration, we started degrading our military. 
It

[[Page 2841]]

was reduced by 40 percent from what it was when he took office during 
those 8 years. When I say 40 percent reduction, I am talking about end 
strength, military expenditures. The problem President Bush had when he 
came into office was not just that two wars broke out, but they broke 
out when we had a defense system that had been reduced by 40 percent.
  The second thing that happened during that time--and this is by 
admission--I remember Senator Gore had made the statement prior to that 
that the recession actually started in March of the previous year 
before the second Bush administration started. It is kind of an 
interesting thing. People forget that for every 1 percent drop in 
economic activity, that translates into about $40 billion of lost 
revenue. Turning that around, for every 1 percent increase in economic 
activity, that increases revenues about $40 billion when that happens.
  Of course, we started out with a reduced military, negotiating two 
wars, and with a recession at the same time. Obviously, that had very 
adverse effects.
  Before I get carried away with the remarks of the Senator from 
Illinois, that he voted against going into the Iraq war, let me remind 
my fellow Senators that I happened to have been privileged, right after 
the first gulf war--that was when Saddam Hussein--all the atrocities 
had taken place, and we had what we called the first freedom flight. 
That is when we went back into Kuwait to see what the situation was in 
Kuwait. It was so close to the end of the war that the Iraqis didn't 
realize the war was over. They were still fighting. You remember they 
were burning the oilfields and the wind would shift. All of a sudden, 
it would be daytime, and it would turn into night. I remember going 
back there. I was with nine other people. There were some Democrats. 
Tony Coelho, former whip of the House, was there. Alexander Haig, a man 
we revere, the man I always thought should have been President, was 
there. We were watching and looking to see the remnants of the first 
gulf war.
  I had a young girl with me who had fled Kuwait. She was a royalty. 
She was going back. She wanted to see if a palace on the Persian Gulf 
was still there. When we got there, we found out that it had been used 
by Saddam Hussein as one of his headquarters. She wanted to go up in 
her bedroom. She was 7 years old, and she wanted to see if her animals 
were still there. They had used her bedroom for a torture chamber. 
There were body parts stuck to the walls. A little kid had his ears cut 
off because he was caught carrying an American flag.
  I can remember the mass graves. We looked at the mass graves where 
Saddam Hussein had tortured these people. When he had them sentenced to 
death, some begged to be dropped--eased into the acid vats head first 
so they would die quicker. I mean, this is the type of thing that was 
taking place. Here is a guy who had actually murdered hundreds of 
thousands of his own people up in the Kurd area by the most painful way 
of dying. So to suggest we should not have gone back in to finish him 
off I think is unacceptable.
  Before I finish responding to the comments made by the Senator from 
Illinois, I would only mention, when he talked about how George W. Bush 
came into office and he cut taxes for the rich and all that, I recall 
one time in history--actually, it has happened several times in 
history; it happened right after World War I--they passed tax increases 
to support the war and when the war was over, they said, we can now 
repeal the taxes. They repealed the taxes, and it didn't reduce 
revenue, it increased revenue. That is something that was kind of 
forgotten until one of the great Presidents came along, John Kennedy.
  During the Great Society days he said we are going to have to have 
increased revenue to pay for all of these Great Society programs. He 
said the best way to increase revenue is to decrease marginal rates, so 
he did. Remember, he dropped them down from I think 90 percent to 70 
percent or something like that, and during the next 6 years taxes went 
down and we had the increase in the revenue, which was phenomenal. The 
last time I checked, President John Kennedy was a Democrat, not a 
Republican. So I don't know how they forgot that along the way.
  We saw when Reagan came into office, he actually made those dramatic 
cuts as well. I remember--I am going from memory now--but the amount of 
money that came in from marginal rates in 1980 when President Reagan 
took office was $244 billion. When he left office, it was $488 billion. 
It doubled in that period of time, the largest tax reductions in 
history. Revenues increased when tax reductions went down. Anyway, that 
all ended when the Clinton administration came in. We all remember the 
1993 tax increases, the greatest tax increases in about four decades. 
That is when they increased them on everything.
  The bottom line is, yes, he did cut taxes and that had the effect of 
increasing revenues. I think when we talk about the deficit, as the 
Senator from Illinois mentioned, that was inherited by this President, 
President Obama, we have to remember that the deficits during the Bush 
administration, if you add them all up, were a little bit more than the 
deficit in the first year of the Obama administration.
  As far as his comments about the $787 billion stimulus bill, that 
wouldn't have been that bad of an idea. I opposed it, of course, but it 
didn't stimulate. It had all of this social engineering in there, all 
of the equal distribution of wealth, yet I tried to add an amendment on 
there which was cosponsored by Senator Boxer to increase, quadruple the 
amount of money that went into roads and highways. It didn't work. They 
defeated it. So it could have had the opportunity to do something.
  The last thing I would say about the government-run system is I 
thought it was interesting when the Senator from Illinois talked about 
the wonderful opportunities I have and he has in choosing from the 
private sector good coverages. I think what he is describing is what we 
have today. I agree with what he said in that respect. But when you 
talk about a system that is very similar to the Canadian system, all 
you have to do is go up in the northern part of the United States, go 
to Mayo Clinic and look at the number of people there who have come 
down from Canada because they can't get the health care they want in 
that kind of government-run system. So I would agree with my friend 
from Alabama when he was talking about describing what we are up 
against.
  That is not why I came to the floor this evening. I have come to 
introduce a bill.
  (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 3095 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3430, as Further Modified

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding its adoption, the Isakson amendment be further 
modified, with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is further modified by striking the word ``ending'' on 
pages 58, 63, and 67 and inserting the word ``beginning''.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. 
Wednesday, March 10, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4213 and 
all postcloture time be considered expired, and upon disposition of the 
pending amendments, no further amendments or motions be in order; the 
substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; that the Senate then 
proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on

[[Page 2842]]

H.R. 4213, as amended, with the mandatory quorum waived; that if 
cloture is invoked, then all postcloture time be yielded back, the 
bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to 
vote on passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I voted against waving a budget point of 
order to the Murray/Kerry amendment on the grounds that it is not paid 
for and contained terrible welfare and Medicare policies.
  The Congress cannot keep spending money it does not have. It is 
unconscionable to put forth an amendment that is not being paid for at 
a time of exploding deficits to an underlying bill that already has 
another $104 billion not paid for.
  In addition to adding to the deficit during a fiscal crisis, the 
underlying Murray/Kerry amendment perpetuates flawed welfare policies 
that undermine key principles of welfare reform.
  The Murray/Kerry amendment perpetuates the fund established in the 
stimulus bill that, for the first time since the landmark 1996 welfare 
reform act, rewards States for increasing their welfare caseload and 
does not require these additional eligible adults to participate in 
work, education or training activities.
  This in turn adds to the current deplorable situation where, 
according to the latest data we have from the Department of Health and 
Human Services, the U.S. average for eligible adults receiving welfare 
doing nothing is 56 percent.
  That is right--on average 56 percent of adults receiving welfare are 
engaged in zero hours of work, training or education activity. Some 
States have over 70 percent of eligible adults doing nothing.
  That is zero hours of job search. Zero hours of education. Zero hours 
of substance abuse treatment. Zero hours of job training. Zero hours of 
subsidized work activities.
  I bet if you asked the American people--how many adults on welfare 
should be doing something to qualify for their welfare check--I bet the 
answer would be: all of them!
  I bet if the American people knew that the majority of adults on 
welfare were doing nothing, they would be as stunned and appalled as I 
am.
  We need to do better by these families. Allowing them to languish in 
the soul crushing, deep and persistent poverty of welfare is a 
travesty. The Murray/Kerry amendment does nothing to address the issue 
that the majority of adults on welfare are not doing anything to get 
themselves out of poverty.
  That makes no sense, Mr. President, and I cannot support it.
  Finally, in addition to the misguided welfare policies, I also had 
reservations about the use of ``intelligent assignment'' in Part D to 
pay for this amendment. I fully support efforts to make sure vulnerable 
populations are in the lowest cost plan that meets their personal 
health care needs and look forward to continuing to work on this issue 
in the future. But the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, 
and MedPAC commissioners have raised concerns that ``intelligent 
assignment'' could lead to increased disruption, higher costs and 
little overall improvement for beneficiaries.
  Therefore, I opposed waving the Budget Act that would have allowed 
the Murray/Kerry amendment to undermine welfare policy, advance 
misguided Medicare policy and increase the deficit.

                          ____________________