[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Issue]
[Pages 2099-2175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 2099]]
SENATE--Monday, March 1, 2010
The Senate met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Mark R. Warner, a Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
O God, whose approval we seek above humanity's hollow applause, we
pause today to experience the warmth of Your presence as You lift the
light of Your countenance upon us.
Give to the Members of this body pure hearts and a passion to
faithfully serve You and country. Across their toiling hours, keep
their hearts fixed on You, the author and finisher of their faith. In a
world of suspense, suspicion, and turmoil, breathe now in this quiet
moment Your peace on every heart. Lord, prepare solutions for our
Senators' complexities and resolve their conflicts in a way that will
glorify You.
We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Mark R. Warner led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, March 1, 2010.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Mark R. Warner, a Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia,
to perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. WARNER thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, there will be a
period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to
speak for up to 10 minutes each. At 3 p.m., we will turn to
consideration of H.R. 4213, the tax extenders legislation. Senator
Baucus will be recognized to call up a substitute amendment. As
previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes today. The first
vote of the week will occur at 12:15 p.m. tomorrow. That vote will be
on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Barbara Keenan to
be U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--H.R. 4626 AND H.R. 4691
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are two bills at the desk due for a
second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bills by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4626) to restore the application of the
Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to
protect competition and consumers.
A bill (H.R. 4691) to provide a temporary extension of
certain programs, and for other purposes.
Mr. REID. I object to any further proceedings with respect to these
two bills.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The bills will be placed on the calendar.
____________________
COSTLY INACTION
Mr. REID. Mr. President, every night too many out-of-work Nevadans
and Americans, people who want to work, who need to support their
families but can't find a job, go to bed with at least the comfort of
having unemployment insurance and health benefits. Last night, more
than a million people throughout America who went to sleep relying on
those benefits woke up without the confidence they will be there now.
Early this morning, when they would rather be spending their mornings
working, mothers and fathers in every State woke up to line up at the
unemployment office in a long line. News reports today are that these
lines are very long today, all over the country, from Virginia to
Nevada to Kentucky. They are long because these people are worried
about how they are going to put food on the table and pay the bills.
For far too many Americans, those benefits were set to expire last
night. So six times last week, Democrats asked to extend their
unemployment benefits for a short time while we work on a longer
extension. Six times, Republicans said no. They didn't say no to us;
that is, Members of the Senate, they said no to the families in their
own States and all States who count on us to act when we need action,
who count on us to respond in the event of an emergency. This is an
emergency.
Republicans in the Senate are standing between these families and the
help they need while these benefits expire. It might work because under
the Senate rules they can do that, but it certainly doesn't work for
working families whose need to buy groceries does not expire. The need
to heat your homes, put gas in the car, make payments for furniture you
buy, the car you bought, your house payment, the need to take medicine
or support an aging parent or to take care of your kids, they don't
expire.
Those opposed to helping our fellow citizens at their time of
greatest need want to talk about process. My Republican colleagues came
to the floor and talked about process. They had a right to do that.
Under the rules, I guess that is true. But if you can't afford to feed
your kids, process doesn't mean anything to you.
We often talk about the cost of inaction. It is the reason we insist
on creating jobs and making health care more affordable and on
strengthening national security. When we talk about the cost of
inaction, it is more than just rhetoric; it comes with dire
consequences. Americans who woke up this morning without the benefits
they need now know that better than anyone else.
The Associated Press runs all over the country--a newswire. Among
other things, this article says this morning:
Two thousand federal transportation workers will be
furloughed without pay [today].
The reason we are talking about 2,000, this doesn't count the
thousands and thousands, up to 1 million people who are not going to
have jobs as a result of not extending the highway bill. That is what
we want to do--let these people work--because what has happened is that
even the inspectors can't go out and do their jobs, so people are just
walking away from these jobs. Secretary LaHood, the Secretary of
Transportation--a Republican Congressman until he was appointed--said
construction workers will be sent home from jobsites because Federal
inspectors must be furloughed. They named a long list of construction
sites that will be halted: George Washington Parkway in Virginia, the
Humpback Bridge--I
[[Page 2100]]
don't know where that is in Virginia--bridge construction in Coeur
d'Alene, ID. All over the country, this is happening. The safety
inspectors have no pay, so they have to leave. Nothing is happening.
This is going to lead to untold numbers of people--I said up to 1
million people--who will not be able to work.
It is really wrong what has taken place here. It is not too late to
right that wrong. I hope Republicans will reconsider, think about their
constituents standing in the unemployment lines as we speak. I hope
they reconsider.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 4691
Mr. REID. Based on that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to H.R. 4691, which is a 30-day extension of provisions which
expired yesterday--unemployment insurance; COBRA, which is the health
insurance for people out of work; flood insurance; Satellite Home
Viewer Act--1\1/2\ million people today are unable to watch TV who
could last night at midnight--highway funding--I talked about that--SBA
business loans; small business provisions of the American Recovery Act;
the doctors fix, the SGR, and poverty guidelines, received from the
House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed, and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators
permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The Senator from Kentucky.
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, just a brief explanation of why we are
where we are with this extension bill, a brief extension of 30 days.
There was an agreement between the majority leader of the Finance
Committee and the minority leader on the Finance Committee, Senators
Baucus and Grassley, on a 3-month extension of these very same
provisions. There were more provisions in the bill also. It cost a
little more than the $10 billion that is asked for because it was a 3-
month extension. Senator Reid pulled that bill from the floor of the
Senate. He did it. The leader of the Democrats pulled that bill from
the floor.
I support extending unemployment benefits, COBRA benefits, flood
insurance, the highway bill fix, the doc fix, small business loans,
distant network television for satellite viewers. If we can't find $10
billion to pay for something we all support, we will never pay for
anything in the Senate. I have offered several ways to do this,
including trying to negotiate with the majority leader's staff. None
have been successful.
We cannot keep adding to the debt. It is over $14 trillion and going
up fast. If the budget before us passes, it will add another $1.5
trillion to the debt.
Recently, we passed pay-go. For those who don't know what pay-go is,
it means you have to pay for everything you bring before the Senate.
You can't charge it on the debt. You can't charge it. That is what pay-
go says. Understanding that, I hope the American people understand my
serious objection.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 4691
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691; that the amendment
at the desk, which offers a full offset, be agreed to; the bill, as
amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, history is something I think
you have to be involved in to understand what really transpired.
First of all, there was no bill on the floor for me to take off the
floor. There was discussion between Democrats and Republicans. On the
Thursday before we left for the last weeklong break we took, I was in
the back hall with Senators Grassley, Baucus, and McConnell. Senator
McConnell, my friend, said they weren't ready to agree to anything yet.
Well, it is very clear if we are going to extend benefits for a lot
of tax provisions that are very important to business, then we should
at least consider extending benefits for people who are down and out in
the same period of time.
So understand, the bill that came before the Senate included a jobs
package that extends the highway benefits for 1 year, saving a million
jobs, creating jobs by allowing small businesses--or any businesses--to
hire somebody who has been out of work for 60 days. They do not have to
pay their withholding tax and they get a $1,000 tax credit at the end
of the year.
In addition to that, to help small businesses, we had a provision to
allow small businesses to write off and not depreciate up to $250,000
of purchases in a year--very important to create and stimulate
business--and we also had in that bill a provision to stimulate the
economy by extending the Build America Bonds that were so successful in
our Recovery Act and those funds expired.
One can have all the excuses one wants. The fact is, my friends on
the other side of the aisle are opposing extending unemployment
benefits for people who are out of work.
I would also say this: Pay-go is very interesting. I am glad my
friend brought that up. I am glad he brought up the big deficit because
it is very big. But where was my friend from Kentucky when we had two
wars that were unpaid for during the Bush administration, tax cuts that
cost more than $1 trillion unpaid for? Where were my friend and the
Republicans objecting to that?
Pay-go is important, and we passed pay-go here--we, the Democrats,
passed it. My friend did not vote for it. It passed because Democrats
voted for it. Not a single Republican voted for it. We had these in
effect during the Clinton years, and it worked. We paid down the debt
in the last Clinton years.
We also understand how important the debt of this country is. It
started to build up so strong during the 8 years of the Bush
administration. We brought to this floor--no one worked harder than the
Acting President pro tempore to come up with something to address the
debt with the chairman of our Budget Committee and others.
We wanted a debt commission, and we brought to this floor a debt
commission, a good one. It was based upon what we did with military
base closings. We tried for decades to close bases that were
unnecessary in the country anymore, after World War II was over, the
Korean war was over, Vietnam. We did not need all those bases. But
because of what happens when trying to close a base because of local
politics, we could not do it. So we passed a bill that said we are
going to have a base closing commission. They will come back with
recommendations, and the House and the Senate have a choice: either
vote no or yes on their recommendations. And they voted yes, both the
House and the Senate, and we closed numerous bases all over the
country.
The debt commission we established was based upon that--the same
thing--and we voted, we Democrats voted. It would have passed. Why did
it not pass? Because seven Republicans who cosponsored the legislation
voted against it.
So we do not need lectures here on debt. What we need is to recognize
[[Page 2101]]
there are poor people all over America who are desperate today, and
people who are working, making good money on these road projects all
over America today who are being told to go home because we do not have
inspectors to take care of their work.
Therefore, Mr. President, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, unless my friend has more to say, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. Mr. President, will the Acting President
pro tempore please let me know when I have consumed 12 of the 15
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it was my privilege last Thursday,
along with some other Members of the Senate, to attend a health care
summit at the invitation of President Obama. It went on a long time. We
learned one thing we already knew, that our President is smart and
knows a lot about health care. So he stayed the whole time.
But it gave those of us on the Republican side a chance we do not
have the opportunity to have as often, which is, to be on center stage
and let the American people know, A, who we are, and, B, what our ideas
are. So it was a terrific way for us to show, for example, that our
goal is to reduce health care costs, that we wish to move step by step
toward that goal.
We identified a number of areas, such as being able to buy health
insurance across State lines, allowing small business health plans to
pool together, reducing junk lawsuits--all of which will tend to bring
down the cost of premiums, which is what most Americans want.
During the discussion, early on, actually, the President and I had a
little disagreement about whether his plan, which is based upon the
Senate bill, which passed on Christmas Eve, would raise premiums. What
I had said in my opening remarks on behalf of Republicans was that
millions of Americans, under the Democratic plan, would pay higher
insurance premiums in the individual market because of government
mandates and taxes. The President says that is wrong. I cited a
Congressional Budget Office report to show I was right. And rather than
dispute the President of the United States in public--I thought I had
enough time to make my case--I said I would send him a letter, which I
did that same day. So I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have
printed in the Record the letter I gave to President Obama on Thursday.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, February 25, 2010.
Hon. Barack Obama,
President, The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. President: During today's discussion on health
care, you and I disagreed about whether the health care bill
that passed the Senate on a party-line vote on December 24
would cause health insurance premiums to rise even faster
than if Congress did not act. I believe premiums will rise
because of independent analysis of the bill:
On November 30, the non-partisan Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) wrote in a letter to Senator Bayh that ``CBO and
JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered
(including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be
about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the
average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under
current law.''
When you asserted that CBO says premiums will decline by 14
to 20 percent under the Senate bill, you are leaving out an
important part of CBO's calculations. These reductions are
overwhelmed by a 27 to 30 percent increase in premiums due to
the mandated coverage requirements in the legislation. CBO
added those figures together to arrive at a net increase of
10 to 13 percent--as shown in their chart in that same
letter.
In that same letter, CBO wrote, ``The legislation would
impose several new fees on firms in the health sector. New
fees would be imposed on providers of health insurance and on
manufacturers and importers of medical devices. Both of those
fees would be largely passed through to consumers in the form
of higher premiums for private coverage.''
On December 10, the chief actuary for the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services--who works for your
administration--concurred with the CBO. In his analysis, the
actuary said, ``We anticipate such fees would generally be
passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug
and device prices and higher insurance premiums.'' He also
said, ``The additional demand for health services could be
difficult to meet initially with existing health provider
resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting,
and/or changes in providers' willingness to treat patients
with low-reimbursement health coverage.''
For these reasons, the Senate-passed bill will, indeed,
cause Americans' insurance premiums to rise, which is the
opposite of the goal I believe we should pursue.
Sincerely,
Lamar Alexander.
Mr. ALEXANDER. But today what I wish to do in the next few minutes is
explain why I believe I am correct, that under the President's health
insurance plan, which is based upon the Senate plan, for millions of
Americans in the individual market, premiums would go up because of
one-size-fits-all government mandates, because of taxes that are passed
on to consumers; but for other reasons as well--by shifting costs.
When you dump 15 million people or 18 million people into a program
called Medicaid, what happens is, we do not pay the doctors and the
hospitals well enough to take care of those folks. So those providers
shift the costs to people who are paying with private insurance, and
premiums go up.
Costs for young people in the individual market will go up under this
plan because if you put in a rule that says my insurance at my age
cannot go up more than a certain amount compared with my son's
insurance, then his insurance goes up, and because a scheme like the
Democratic plan depends upon requiring everybody to buy insurance.
There is a weak provision for that, and I suspect many young people
will rather pay the $750 fine rather than buy a $2,500 insurance
policy, which they think they cannot afford.
The President made the point in his usual very persuasive way that,
wait a minute, actually you would be getting better insurance. But that
is comparing apples and oranges. As George Will said on ABC's ``This
Week'' yesterday--he asked this question: If the government required
you to buy a better, more expensive car, even if it was better than the
car you have, it would still be more expensive, would it not?
That is the case with the President's health care plan. In fact,
premiums will go up for millions of Americans in the individual market,
up more than they otherwise would over the next several years--and we
all know how rapidly they are rising--and the whole exercise we have
been going through over the last year is to bring premiums down, not
help drive premiums up.
What I said to the President, with respect, was that the
Congressional Budget Office, on November 30, said this about the Senate
bill:
The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on
Taxation estimate that the average premium per person covered
for new nongroup--
That means individual policies--
would be about 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the
average premium for nongroup--
That is individual coverage--
in the same year under current law.
In other words, if you buy an individual policy--that means not a
policy with your employer--by 2016 it will be at an average of 10 to 13
percent higher than it otherwise would.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the relevant
[[Page 2102]]
parts of the Congressional Budget Office letter of November 30 to
Senator Evan Bayh on this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 30, 2009.
Hon. Evan Bayh,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The attachment to this letter responds to
your request--and the interest expressed by many other
Members--for an analysis of how proposals being considered by
the Congress to change the health care and health insurance
systems would affect premiums paid for health insurance in
various markets. Specifically, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation
have analyzed how health insurance premiums might be affected
by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act, as proposed by Senator Reid on November 18, 2009.
I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any
further questions, please contact me or the CBO staff. The
primary staff contact for this analysis is Philip Ellis.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Attachment.
Summary of Findings
The effects of the proposal on premiums would differ across
insurance markets (see Table 1). The largest effects would be
seen in the nongroup market, which would grow in size under
the proposal but would still account for only 17 percent of
the overall insurance market in 2016. The effects on premiums
would be much smaller in the small group and large group
markets, which would make up 13 percent and 70 percent of the
total insurance market, respectively.
Nongroup Policies
CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person
covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies
would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than
the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year
under current law. About half of those enrollees would
receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs
well below the premiums that would be charged for such
policies under current law.
[[Page 2103]]
[[Page 2104]]
Mr. ALEXANDER. Now, the President said: Wait a minute. The premiums
in the individual market will go down 14 to 20 percent. That is also in
the same letter. Of course, he is right about that. They go down
because of administrative efficiencies and new enrollment, but he left
out that there are other factors involved so that the government
mandates will drive them up 27 to 30 percent or, in the end, the
average, as the CBO said, premium per person covered in an individual
policy would be up 10 to 13 percent.
The bill has subsidies in it for some Americans. The same letter says
about half of Americans who buy in the individual market will get a
subsidy. Well, we are paying for that subsidy, but let's concede that
point. Still, that leaves half of the people in the individual market
for whom premiums will go up on an average of 10 to 13 percent.
Why is that? One reason is because the Senate bill says people will
have to buy a richer policy than they have today. That means it has a
higher actuarial value. They call it in the bill ``minimum creditable
coverage.'' It means this is the amount of insurance I think you should
have before you buy a policy. That might be a good decision. It
undoubtedly would be good to have the insurance. It just costs 27 to 30
percent more than today's average.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses wrote a December 12
letter in opposition to the Senate bill saying the benefit mandates
will put small business owners ``at risk of having to drop coverage due
to cost increases that outpace their health budgets.''
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from
NFIB to Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, dated December 8.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Federation of
Independent Business,
December 8, 2009.
Sen. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Sen. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: As the Senate continues
to debate the future of comprehensive healthcare reform, the
National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's
leading small business association, is writing in opposition
to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R.
3590).
When evaluating healthcare reform options, small business
owners ask themselves two specific questions. First, will the
bill lower insurance costs? Second, will the bill increase
the overall cost of doing business? If a bill increases the
cost of doing business or fails to reduce insurance costs,
then the bill fails to achieve their No. 1 goal--lower costs.
In both cases, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (H.R. 3590) fails the small business test and, therefore,
fails small business. The most recent CBO study detailing the
effect that H.R. 3590 will have on insurance premiums
reinforces that, despite claims by its supporters, the bill
will not deliver the widely-promised help to the small
business community. Instead, CBO findings report that the
bill will increase non-group premiums by 10 to 13 percent and
result in, at best, a 2 percent decrease for small group
coverage by 2016. These findings tell small business all it
needs to know--that the current bill does not do enough to
reduce costs for small business owners and their employees.
Despite the inclusion of insurance market reforms in the
small-group and individual marketplaces, the savings that may
materialize are too small for too few and the increase in
premium costs are too great for too many. Those costs, along
with greater government involvement, higher taxes and new
mandates that are disproportionately targeted at small
business and are being used to finance H.R. 3590, create a
reality that is worse than the status quo for small business.
The shortcomings of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act include:
A New Small Business Health Insurance Tax
Unlike large businesses, which self-insure and find
security under the blanket of ERISA, most small businesses
are only able to find and purchase insurance in the fully-
insured marketplace. The Senate bill includes a new $6.7
billion annual tax ($60.7 billion over 10 years) that falls
almost exclusively on small business because the fee is
assessed on the insurance companies. CBO's most recent study
reinforces those costs will ultimately be passed on to their
consumers, leaving the cost to be disproportionately borne by
small business consumers in the individual and small-group
marketplace whose only choice is to purchase those products
or forgo insurance altogether.
A New Mandate that Punishes Employers, Employees and Hinders Job
Creation
Employer mandates fail employers and employees in two ways.
First, mandates do nothing to address the core issue facing
small business--high healthcare costs. Second, mandates
destroy job creation opportunities for employees. The job
loss, whether through lost hiring or greater reliance on
part-time employees, harms low-wage or entry-level workers
the most. The employer mandate in H.R. 3590 sets up
potentially troubling outcomes for this sector of the
workforce. The multiple penalties assessed on full-time
workers will most certainly result in a reduction of full-
time workers to part-time workers and discourage the hiring
of those entrants into the workforce who might qualify for a
government subsidy, hardly an outcome that contributes to a
greater insured population.
A Poorly-Structured Small Business Tax Credit
As structured, the small business tax credit will do
little, if nothing, to propel either more firms to take up
coverage or produce greater overall affordability. Due to its
short-term temporary nature and the limitations based on the
business' average wage, its benefit is, at best, a temporary
solution to the long-term cost and affordability problem. A
tax credit that is poorly structured is not going to provide
sustainable and long-term relief from high healthcare costs,
and the recent CBO finding that the tax credit would benefit
only 12 percent of the small business population illustrates
its lack of effectiveness.
A Benefit Package that is Too High a Hurdle for Small Business
NFIB has voiced concern over establishing a benefit
threshold that is too high a price tag for small businesses
to meet. Small businesses are especially price sensitive.
They need purchasing choices that provide the flexibility in
coverage options that reflect their marketplace and business
needs. If Congress doesn't adjust the actuarial value
standards in the legislation, what may be affordable this
year may be unaffordable next year. As a result, small
business owners will be at risk of having to drop coverage
due to cost increases that outpace their healthcare budgets.
Destructive Rating Reforms and Phase-In Timelines that Threaten
Affordability for All
NFIB supports balanced federal rating reforms that protect
access and affordability, regardless of an individual or
group's health status. However, the excessively tight age
rating (3:1) in H.R. 3590 will increase more costs than it
will decrease, and make coverage unaffordable for the very
populations that are most beneficial to the insurance pool--
the young and the healthy. Independent actuaries have
analyzed the negative impact of such tight bands and have
indicated that there will be devastating effects to the long-
term viability of a pool without action to correct this
rating imbalance.
Additionally, to prevent volatile spikes in insurance
premiums, also known as ``rate shock,'' federal rating
reforms must be appropriately applied to all marketplaces and
phased in over a responsible period of time. If this is not
done, then certain plans, including ``grandfathered plans,''
will utilize different rating practices when underwriting
risk, which can create adverse selection issues. Those
selection problems will have a striking negative impact on
the new exchanges--exchanges that are meant to improve,
rather than decrease, affordability for small business and
individuals.
National Plans that Provide Limited Promise for Success
Leveling the playing field for small business starts with
allowing uniform benefit packages to be purchased across
state lines. If done right, this can provide a greater
security that, as people change jobs and move from state to
state, they can keep the benefit plan that meets their
healthcare needs. National plans would be particularly
helpful for states with smaller populations and where
consumers lack a robust marketplace with choice and
competition for private plans. Specifically, the state ``opt-
out'' language in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act would create more disincentives than incentives for
carriers to embark on these new opportunities. If the
national plan section is not significantly restructured to
make national plans a viable option, then these new
opportunities will never materialize for small business.
Threatens Flexibility and Choice for Employers and Employees
Small employers need more affordable health insurance
options and new alternatives for employers to voluntarily
contribute to individually-owned plans. Provisions also need
to be structured to insure that options are widely available
to both employers and employees. The simple cafeteria plan
language in H.R. 3590 excludes the owners of many ``pass-
through'' business entities from participating in these
arrangements. If owners are unable to participate in the
plan, they will be less likely to provide insurance
[[Page 2105]]
to their workforce. Finally, small business needs the freedom
and flexibility to preserve options that are already proven
to work. Prohibiting the use of HSA, FSA and HRA funds to
purchase over-the-counter medications, along with the $2,500
limit on FSA contributions, diminishes that flexibility and
threatens to further limit the options employers have to
provide meaningful healthcare to their employees.
New Paperwork Costs on Small Businesses
The cost associated with tax paperwork is the most
expensive paperwork burden that the federal government
imposes on small business owners. The Senate bill
dramatically increases that cost with a new reporting
requirement that is levied on business transactions of more
than $600 annually, leaving small business buried in
paperwork and increasing their paperwork compliance expenses.
An Unprecedented New Payroll Tax on Small Employers
Since its creation the payroll taxes that fund the Medicare
programs have not been wage-based and are dedicated
specifically to funding Medicare. The Senate bill changes the
nature of the tax and creates a precedent to use payroll
taxes to pay for non-Medicare programs.
The Absence of Real Medical Liability Reform
NFIB strongly supports medical liability reform as a means
to both inject more fairness into the medical malpractice
legal system, and to reduce unnecessary litigation and legal
costs. Taking serious steps to adopt meaningful medical
liability reform is a significant step toward restoring
common sense to our medical liability litigation system. It
also is especially critical to improving access to healthcare
for those living in rural areas, where it is becoming
increasingly difficult for those in need to locate
specialists such as OB/GYNs and surgeons.
The Creation of a New Government-Run Healthcare Program
A government-run plan will drive the private healthcare
marketplace out of business. Private insurers will be unable
to compete in a climate where the rules and practices are
tilted in favor of a massive government-run plan. This means
millions could lose their current coverage. This will
decrease choice and increase costs. On both accounts, the
government-run plan will leave small business with a single
option the government-run plan, which is the exact opposite
outcome small businesses want from healthcare reform.
There is near universal agreement that, if done right,
small business has much to gain from healthcare reform. But
if it is done wrong, then small business will have the most
to lose. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
which is short on savings and long on costs, is the wrong
reform, at the wrong time and will increase healthcare costs
and the cost of doing business. NFIB remains committed to
healthcare reform, and urges the Senate to develop common
sense solutions to lower healthcare costs while ensuring that
policies empower small business with the ability to make the
investments necessary to move our economy forward.
Sincerely,
Susan Eckerly,
Senior Vice President,
Public Policy.
Mr. ALEXANDER. The one-size-fits-all provision in the Democratic bill
says all individual and small group policies must have an actuarial
value of 60 percent.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who was the insurance commissioner of
Maine, made a speech on the Senate floor on December 18, and pointed
out that 87 percent of the individual policies that are purchased in
Maine today would cost more under the Reid bill.
I commend to my colleagues the Senator's testimony of December 18,
2010.
Senator Collins used the example that the most popular individual
market policy sold in Maine costs a 40-year-old about $185 a month.
Under the Senate bill that 40-year-old would have to pay at least $420
a month, more than twice as much for the policy that meets the new
minimum standard, or face a $750 penalty. It is true Maine citizens, as
is true for all Americans--about half of them--would receive subsidies
to help them buy that policy, but the average premium for the other
half of the 87 percent is going to go up under the Democratic bill.
We believe Americans ought to have more choices than that. That is a
fundamental difference of opinion. Should Washington decide you need to
buy a richer policy, or should you decide that for yourself based upon
the other needs of your family?
The Congressional Budget Office does state, as I have mentioned, that
there are a number of enrollees--about half--who would have the
subsidies, and that is in the letter I have already introduced into the
Record. But someone is paying for those subsidies: the taxpayers are
paying for them, which brings up the second reason I said on Thursday
that premiums for millions of Americans in the individual market will
go up.
The commonsense idea is that if you tax an insurance company or a
medical device company or a manufacturer of drugs, they will pass the
taxes on to whom? To us, who are buying insurance policies or medical
devices or drugs. So we end up paying. In fact, one part of the
President's proposal deliberately does that. It is a 40-percent excise
tax on insurance companies for what we call Cadillac plans, the high-
cost private insurance plans.
A letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation, dated February 24,
says the 40-percent excise tax will raise $32.7 billion, all of which
will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher insurance
premiums. That may be a good thing. In fact, I think it is because it
helps to discourage the purchase of more expensive policies. But it
does raise premiums in the individual market.
The Joint Committee on Taxation Memorandum on High Cost Plans, dated
September 29, says:
The excise tax would be mainly passed along through
increases in premiums.
Because the new tax is indexed to regular inflation plus 1 percent
instead of medical inflation, which goes up very much higher and
quicker, the new tax, like the alternative minimum tax, will pretty
soon start to hit Chevy and Buick insurance policies and not just
Cadillac policies.
But there are other taxes in the President's proposal. There are up
to $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes, which will be passed on to consumers:
$20 billion in excise taxes on lifesaving medical devices, $33 billion
on drugs, and $60 billion on health insurance companies. In the
previously mentioned CBO letter and a JCT letter to Senator Grassley in
October of last year, both said these taxes will be passed on to
patients, increasing health insurance premiums.
The Chief Actuary of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
who is a part of the Obama administration said:
We anticipate such fees would be generally passed through
to health consumers in the form of higher drug and device
prices and higher insurance premiums.
That was on December 10 of last year, about the Senate bill.
The Lewin Group, on October 30, said:
Employer spending would increase steadily under the
[Democratic] act, reflecting the cost of paying the various
excise taxes under the act. Total employer health spending
would increase by 2.1 percent by 2019.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive
summary of the Lewin Group letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Executive Summary
In this study we estimate the impact of The America's
Healthy Future Act as adopted by the Senate Finance
Committee. The Act would require most Americans to have
health insurance. To assure access to affordable coverage,
the Bill expands the Medicaid program to 133 percent of the
Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for all adults. It also provides
a new premium tax credit for people living between 133
percent and 400 percent of the FPL (e.g., $88,000 for a
family of four).
In addition, the Act establishes an ``exchange'' that
presents consumers with a selection of health coverage
alternatives that is available to individuals and firms with
fewer than 100 workers. States would have the option to
extend eligibility to larger employers beginning in 2017.
Only people participating in the exchange who do not have
access to employer coverage would be eligible for the premium
tax credit. The Act also reforms insurance markets by
assuring guaranteed issue of coverage and prohibiting plans
from varying premiums with health status.
Employers with more than 50 workers are required to pay a
penalty for each uninsured worker receiving a premium tax
credit through the exchange. The Act also provides an
employer health insurance tax credit for up to two years for
firms with fewer than 25 workers with an average employee
earnings of less than $40,000. Workers offered coverage by an
employer are not eligible for premium subsidies offered in
the exchange unless the cost of employer coverage exceeds 10
percent of income.
The Act is funded with reductions in spending under
Medicare and Medicaid, a
[[Page 2106]]
new excise tax on high cost health plans (premiums over
$8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families). It also
includes a second excise tax on insurance, new excise taxes
on branded prescription drugs and device manufacturers, and
other changes in revenues.
In this study we provide estimates of the program's impact
on coverage and spending for the federal government, state
and local governments, private employers and consumers. To
demonstrate the long-term impact of the Act, we provide
estimates for a 20-year period from 2010 through 2029.
Mr. ALEXANDER. The National Federation of Independent Business letter
says the same. There are other reasons the premiums will go up.
Mr. President, seeing no one else here, I wonder if I might ask
unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the President.
Here is a third reason, in addition to government mandates and taxes,
that will cause premiums to rise. We call it cost-shift. Premiums will
increase because the bill dumps 15 million to 18 million more Americans
into the government program called Medicaid. This is the analysis of
the Chief Actuary on January 8, 2010.
I ask unanimous consent that the relevant portions be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department Of Health & Human Services, Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Baltimore, MD.
Date: January 8, 2010
From: Richard S. Foster, Chief Actuary
Subject: Estimated Financial Effects of the ``Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' as Passed by the
Senate on December 24, 2009.
The Office of the Actuary has prepared this memorandum in
our longstanding capacity as an independent technical advisor
to both the Administration and the Congress. The costs,
savings, and coverage impacts shown herein represent our best
estimates for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
We offer this analysis in the hope that it will be of
interest and value to policy makers as they develop and
debate national health care reforms. The statements,
estimates, and other information provided in this memorandum
are those of the Office of the Actuary and do not represent
an official position of the Department of Health & Human
Services or the Administration.
This memorandum summarizes the Office of the Actuary's
estimates of the financial and coverage effects through
fiscal year 2019 of selected provisions of the ``Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act'' (PPACA) as passed by the
Senate on December 24, 2009 (H.R. 3590, as amended). Included
are the estimated net Federal expenditures in support of
expanded health insurance coverage, the associated numbers of
people by insured status, the changes in Medicare and
Medicaid expenditures and revenues, and the overall impact on
total national health expenditures. Except where noted, we
have not estimated the impact of the various tax and fee
proposals or the impact on income and payroll taxes due to
economic effects of the legislation. Similarly, the impact on
Federal administrative expenses is excluded. A summary of the
data, assumptions, and methodology underlying our estimates
of national health reform proposals is available in the
appendix to our October 21 memorandum on H.R. 3200.
summary
The table shown on page 2 presents financial impacts of the
selected PPACA provisions on the Federal Budget in fiscal
years 2010-2019. We have grouped the provisions of the bill
into six major categories:
(i) Coverage proposals, which include the mandated coverage
for health insurance, the expansion of Medicaid eligibility
to those with incomes at or under 133 percent of the Federal
poverty level (FPL), and the additional funding for the
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP);
(ii) Medicare provisions;
(iii) Medicaid and CHIP provisions other than the coverage
expansion and CHIP funding;
(iv) Proposals aimed in part at changing the trend in
health spending growth;
(v) The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports
(CLASS) proposal; and
(vi) Immediate health insurance reforms.
The estimated costs and savings shown in the table are
based on the effective dates specified in the bill as passed.
Additionally, we assume that employers and individuals would
take roughly 3 to 5 years to fully adapt to the insurance
coverage provisions and that the enrollment of additional
individuals under the Medicaid coverage expansion would be
completed by the third year of implementation. Because of
these transition effects and the fact that most of the
coverage provisions would be in effect for only 6 of the 10
years of the budget period, the cost estimates shown in this
memorandum do not represent a full 10-year cost for the
proposed legislation.
ESTIMATED FEDERAL COSTS (+) OR SAVINGS (-) UNDER SELECTED PROVISIONS OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AS PASSED BY THE SENATE
[In billions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Provisions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, 2010-
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total*....................... $11.6 $0.1 -$14.8 -$32.8 $14.7 $63.0 $71.4 $60.9 $55.8 $49.7 $279.5
Coverage .................... 4.7 6.6 1.7 ......... 86.5 128.0 150.1 156.4 167.9 180.7 882.5
Medicare..................... 2.2 -3.6 -12.1 -23.4 -62.6 -55.1 -70.2 -87.6 -104.6 -123.7 -540.7
Medicaid/CHIP................ -0.4 -0.1 0.2 -3.8 -3.1 -3.8 -3.9 -4.1 -4.0 -3.9 -27.1
Cost trend................... ......... ......... ......... ......... -0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.9 -2.3
CLASS program................ ......... -2.8 -4.5 -5.6 -5.9 -6.0 -4.3 -3.4 -2.8 -2.4 -37.8
Immediate reforms............ 5.0 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Excludes Title IX revenue provisions except for section 9015, certain provisions with limited impacts, and Federal administrative costs.
Includes expansion of Medicaid eligibility and additional funding for CHIP.
Includes estimated non-Medicare Federal savings from provisions for comparative effectiveness research, prevention and wellness, fraud and abuse, and
administrative simplification. Excludes impacts of other provisions that would affect cost growth rates, such as the productivity adjustments to
Medicare payment rates, which are reflected in the Medicare line.
As indicated in the table above, the provisions in support
of expanding health insurance coverage (including the
Medicaid eligibility changes and additional CHIP funding) are
estimated to cost $882 billion through fiscal year 2019. The
net savings from the Medicare, Medicaid, growth-trend, and
CLASS proposals are estimated to total about $603 billion,
leaving a net cost for this period of $279 billion before
consideration of additional Federal administrative expenses
and the increase in Federal revenues that would result from
the excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health
insurance coverage and other revenue provisions. (The
additional Hospital Insurance payroll tax income under
section 9015 of the PPACA is included in the estimated
Medicare savings shown here.) The Congressional Budget Office
and Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated that the total
net amount of Medicare savings and additional tax and other
revenues would somewhat more than offset the cost of the
national coverage provisions, resulting in an overall
reduction in the Federal deficit through 2019.
The chart shown below summarizes the estimated impacts of
the PPACA on insurance coverage. The mandated coverage
provisions, which include new responsibilities for both
individuals and employers, and the creation of the Health
Benefit Exchanges (hereafter referred to as the
``Exchanges''), would lead to shifts across coverage types
and a substantial overall reduction in the number of
uninsured, as many of these individuals become covered
through their employers, Medicaid, or the Exchanges.
By calendar year 2019, the mandates, coupled with the
Medicaid expansion, would reduce the number of uninsured from
57 million, as projected under current law, to an estimated
23 million under the PPACA. The additional 34 million people
who would become insured by 2019 reflect the net effect of
several shifts. First, an estimated 18 million would gain
primary Medicaid coverage as a result of the expansion of
eligibility to all legal resident adults under 133 percent of
the FPL (In addition, roughly 2 million people with employer-
sponsored health insurance would enroll in Medicaid for
supplemental coverage.) Another 21 million persons (most of
whom are currently uninsured) would receive individual
insurance coverage through the newly created Exchanges, with
the majority of these qualifying for Federal premium and
cost-sharing subsidies. Finally, we estimate that the number
of individuals with employer-sponsored health insurance would
decrease overall by about 4 million, reflecting both gains
and losses in such coverage under the PPACA.
As described in more detail in a later section of this
memorandum, we estimate that overall national health
expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated
[[Page 2107]]
total of $222 billion (0.6 percent) during calendar years
2010-2019, principally reflecting the net impact of (i)
greater utilization of health care services by individuals
becoming newly covered (or having more complete coverage),
(ii) lower prices paid to health providers for the subset of
those individuals who become covered by Medicaid, and (iii)
lower payments and payment updates for Medicare services,
together with net Medicaid savings from provisions other than
the coverage expansion. Although several provisions would
help to reduce health care cost growth, their impact would be
more than offset through 2019 by the higher health
expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions.
The actual future impacts of the PPACA on health
expenditures, insured status, individual decisions, and
employer behavior are very uncertain. The legislation would
result in numerous changes in the way that health care
insurance is provided and paid for in the U.S., and the scope
and magnitude of these changes are such that few precedents
exist for use in estimation. Consequently, the estimates
presented here are subject to a substantially greater degree
of uncertainty than is usually the case with more routine
health care proposals.
The balance of this memorandum discusses these financial
and coverage estimates--and their limitations--in greater
detail.
Mr. ALEXANDER. The point is, Medicaid only pays doctors and hospitals
about 60 percent of the cost of serving the 60 million patients who are
now there. The Democratic bill would add 15 million to 18 million more
patients. So what do the doctors and hospitals do? They see these
patients, but then they shift the costs to the patients they see who
have private insurance.
The President himself said that adds about $1,000 to every policy
today, this cost-shifting. I have included that comment from the Chief
Actuary.
The PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on the Senate Finance Committee
bill in October of 2009 indicated that the net effect of the bills
before Congress will make the Medicare and Medicaid cost-shift even
more severe, raising the cost of private insurance premiums for large
employers by $255 a year between 2015 and 2019.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the relevant
portions of the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Potential Impact of Health Reform on the Cost of Private Health
Insurance Coverage
issue C--increased cost shifting
Today, certain costs (e.g., hospital expenses) are shifted
to the private sector (employers and consumers) as some
participants in the system pay less than their share of the
cost of their care. Public programs such as Medicare and
Medicaid reimburse less than the cost of care for hospitals'
services. In addition, the uninsured or underinsured may not
be able to cover the full cost of care, and this cost is then
also transferred to the private market.
The initial hope of health reform was that by improving
coverage of the currently uninsured, a significant percentage
of uncompensated care would be eliminated. This is still
anticipated to happen. However, the cost shift ``gains'' from
decreasing the numbers of uninsured now appear to be more
than offset by the losses from proposed cutbacks in Medicare
and Medicaid spending allocated to the hospital sector.
It should also be noted that the impact of covering the
uninsured may be different in communities constrained by
limited hospital capacity. In those communities, covering the
uninsured could actually increase cost-shifting if the newly
insured increase demand for healthcare services and the
overall mix of hospital patients migrates towards lower
paying government programs.
The net impact is likely to result in an increase in cost
shifting which translates into a 0.8 percent average annual
increase in the private sector spending between 2010 and
2019, or $145 on average per year for family coverage in a
large group plan (and $55 for single coverage). We note that
this cost burden ramps up over the projection period, with an
average annual increase in health costs of 1.2 percent over
the second five-year period. We assume that this increased
cost to the private sector will ultimately impact the cost of
coverage for individuals and businesses in both the insured
and self-insured market. As a result, premium costs for large
group plans will be $37 higher each year between 2010 and
2014 for family coverage ($14 for single coverage), and $255
higher each year between 2015 and 2019 ($96 for single
coverage).
Mr. ALEXANDER. Younger Americans in the individual market will pay
higher premiums under the Democratic plan because, as I mentioned
earlier, it will mandate for individual coverage that I can't pay more
than three times as much as my son can pay for an insurance premium.
That might help keep my premiums down, but it is going to send his up
pretty far because 42 States, including Tennessee, allow more variance
of that. So young people across America, who include about 30 percent
of the uninsured, are in for a big surprise when their individual
policies jump up 30 to 35 percent, which is what the Oliver Wyman
report on September 28 said theirs might do, or when, since they are
uninsured, they are required to buy insurance and they find the
insurance they are required to buy is very expensive.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the conclusion
of the Oliver Wyman report.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Conclusion
As Congress considers approaches to maximize health
insurance coverage in the United States, it is important to
consider the impact of premium rate compression on current
purchasers and the uninsured. Providing affordable premiums
to young people is critical to encourage their participation
and ensure the long-term sustainability of the insurance pool
in the years following health insurance reform.
Requiring a young person to pay multiples of their expected
medical expenses for health insurance is likely to cause
these individuals to decline to purchase coverage.
Maintaining adequate flexibility in rating will minimize the
rate shock that many could see in the marketplace and
encourage higher levels of coverage over time. Moreover, the
elimination of health status as a rating factor will already
provide significant benefit to older individuals, who are
more likely to suffer from chronic health conditions.
In conclusion, our modeling demonstrates that the 5:1 age
band, as originally included in the Senate Finance
Committee's Chairman's Mark, will reduce disruption compared
to tight age bands. Maintaining 5:1 age bands will encourage
more young people to participate in the insurance market,
thereby keeping average rates more affordable. This, in turn,
will result in higher overall levels of participation in the
insurance market and fewer uninsured.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Finally, the young and the healthy can skip out of
this. That will drive up premiums. They may decide they would rather
pay a $750 fine than $2,500 for a health insurance policy they think
they don't need.
The American Academies of Actuaries wrote a letter on the Reid bill
on November 20 that said: ``Any premium variations by age limited to a
3.1 ratio between the highest and lowest premiums,'' and then it goes
on to say, ``would cause higher premiums on average relative to current
premiums.''
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from
the American Academy of Actuaries of November 20, 2009.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
November 20, 2009.
Re: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Hon. Harry Reid
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell:
The American Academy of Actuaries' Health Practice Council
commends members of the Senate as you prepare to debate and
vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We
share with you the goals of reducing the numbers of
uninsured, increasing the availability of affordable
coverage, controlling health spending growth, and improving
the quality of care. On behalf of the council, I appreciate
this opportunity to provide the following comments outlining
the three key criteria that need to be considered when
evaluating whether this legislation will lead to a viable
health insurance system, and how the legislation can be
improved to meet these goals. In particular:
For insurance markets to be viable, they must attract a
broad section of risks. Implementing market reforms to
prohibit insurers from denying coverage and to restrict how
much premiums can vary will result in adverse selection and
upward pressure on premiums unless lower-risk individuals
have incentives to purchase coverage. An individual mandate
can bring lower-risk individuals into the pool. To be
effective, however, the penalties for not complying with the
mandate must be meaningful relative to the premium faced. The
penalties in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
are very
[[Page 2108]]
low, which is especially problematic given the bill's limits
on premium variations by age, which will raise premiums for
younger individuals. Strengthening the bill's individual
mandate through higher financial penalties is needed to
reduce adverse selection that would arise due to the new
issue and rating restrictions.
Market competition requires a level playing field. All
plans, including any new public plans or health insurance
cooperatives must operate under the same rules. As written,
the public plan and cooperatives established under the
legislation would be subject to the same market rules and
benefit requirements that apply to public plans. They would
also be required to negotiate rates with providers. The bill
should retain these provisions and also ensure that start-up
funds provided to these plans are adequate to meet not only
pre-operational expenses but also solvency needs.
For long-term sustainability, health spending growth must
be reduced. Provisions to control health care spending should
include not only one-time improvements that will help address
short-term goals, but also options that permanently reduce
spending growth to address long-term goals. The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act includes provisions that
aim to reduce long-term spending growth by shifting the
health care payment and delivery systems to focus on cost-
effective and high-quality care. Many of these efforts take
the form of studies and demonstration projects. Policymakers
need to focus intently on finding ways to control spending
and ensuring that promising approaches and successful
demonstration projects are adopted on a broad scale in a
timely manner. . .
To this end, the Act also includes provisions that would
help shift the health care payment and delivery systems from
rewarding quantity of care to rewarding quality of care. The
legislation includes many cost containment and quality
improvement strategies focused on the Medicare program,
including provider payment and delivery system reforms that
provide incentives for coordinated and cost-effective care.
Such a comprehensive and coordinated approach to addressing
quality and costs is needed to fundamentally transform the
health system to ensure its long-term sustainability.
However, acknowledging that the impact on health spending and
health outcomes of many potential programs is still unclear,
the legislation directs many of these efforts in the form of
studies and demonstration projects. Analyses from the Centers
on Medicare and Medicaid Services and from the Congressional
Budget Office suggest that at least in their current limited
form, these provisions will have only a minimal impact on
health spending growth. Policymakers need to focus intently
on finding ways to control spending and ensuring that
promising approaches and successful demonstration projects
are adopted on a broad scale and in a timely manner.
Summary
The American Academy of Actuaries' Health Practice Council
strongly supports three key considerations for a sustainable
health insurance system with increased access to affordable
health insurance. In particular, for insurance markets to be
viable they must attract a broad cross section of risks;
market competition requires a level playing field; and for
long-term sustainability, health spending growth must be
reduced.
Outcomes of the reforms before you, because they involve so
many complex interactions including market behavior, may not
be fully known until implementation. Even actuaries must make
certain assumptions in their projections, based on experience
and expertise, as to what the exact effects will be. However,
as the full Senate casts votes, we urge you to first and
foremost examine these criteria as a litmus for determining
the success of this reform effort. In particular, we believe
that strengthening the individual mandate through higher
financial penalties is needed to reduce the adverse selection
that would arise due to the new issue and rating
restrictions.
We welcome the opportunity to serve as an ongoing resource
to you as health care reform legislation is considered in the
Senate and through remainder of the legislative process. If
you have any questions or would like to discuss these
comments further, please contact Heather Jerbi, the Academy's
senior health policy analyst (202.785.7869;
J[email protected]).
Sincerely,
Cori E. Uccello,
Senior Health Fellow.
Mr. ALEXANDER. All in all, these factors suggest why, when Senator
Collins took a look at Maine, she found that 87 percent of people in
Maine are paying less for their individual policies than the policies
would cost under the Reid bill. It is true that half or more of them
would receive some subsidy, which would reduce their costs, but around
half of them will pay more. In Tennessee, Blue Cross Blue Shield, which
covers about one-third of Tennessee's individual market, estimates the
premiums for those individuals will increase by 30 to 45 percent under
the Reid bill.
I ask unanimous consent to include a chart which demonstrates that.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page 2109]]
[[Page 2110]]
Mr. ALEXANDER. At our summit on Thursday, there were a number of good
ideas about reducing health care costs that the President seemed to
share with Republican Members who were there. There was some obvious
irritation on the part of the majority leader and others when we said
things such as there is $\1/2\ trillion worth of cuts in Medicare,
which there are. Our real objection to it is that the cuts are not used
to save Medicare, which is going broke, but spent on a new program--
$\1/2\ trillion in new taxes. There is $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes.
As I have just said, they tend to increase premiums for millions of
Americans. There are premium increases. There is a deficit increase.
It is true the CBO has said that what was presented to them didn't
increase the deficit, but what was not included in what was presented
was paying doctors to serve patients in the government program we call
Medicare. That is like having a horse race without the horses. How are
you going to have a comprehensive health care bill and not include
within its costs paying doctors to serve patients in the government
program? When you put it in, the deficit goes up.
Then there is a problem of the passing off to States these expanded
Medicaid costs without paying for them. I know as a former Governor--
and I see the former Governor of Virginia in the chair--I struggled
with that every single year. All the Governors are today in both
parties. They don't want us sending them a bill for expanded health
care. They can't pay the bills they have. We shouldn't do that. If we
want to expand it, we should pay for it. That is another part of the
bill.
So I came to the floor today to, No. 1, express my appreciation to
the President for inviting us Thursday. It gave us a chance to show who
we are and what we are for. I thought it was a good discussion. I
believe there are 8 or 10, maybe a dozen different good ideas Senator
Coburn and people on both sides of the aisle suggested. There are some
differences between those ideas but, basically, they represent a way to
move forward to reduce health care costs. That is what we ought to do.
We don't do comprehensive very well in the Senate. Comprehensive
immigration failed of its own weight. Comprehensive economy-wide cap
and trade seems to be failing, again of its own weight. Comprehensive
health care is very difficult to pass. That shouldn't be a surprise to
any of us. This is a very big, difficult, complicated country with
people of many different backgrounds and, in my judgment, we are just
not wise enough for a few of us to rewrite the rules for 17 percent of
our economy.
I think the American people have tuned into that. They want us to fix
health care, but they want us to reduce costs. Again, we on the
Republican side are ready to set that goal and, as we said 173
different times on the Senate floor the last six months of last year,
we have offered 6 steps to move toward that goal. Maybe the President
can think of six more. Maybe we can think of six more. We did that with
the America COMPETES Act. We asked the national academies: What are the
10 steps that can help us become more competitive as a country? They
gave us 20, and we passed most of them. In clean energy, we are coming
together on nuclear power, offshore drilling, and energy development.
Those are steps toward a goal that would be a more sensible way for us
to work.
In the meantime, the unpleasant truth is, the current bill being
considered--will cut Medicare, not spend it on Medicare--will raise
taxes, and it will, as I have tried to demonstrate with respect to the
President, raise individual premiums because of the one-size-fits-all
government mandates and tax increases.
Finally, I commend to my colleagues today's editorial from the Wall
Street Journal detailing how the Massachusetts health care plan has
unexpectedly caused premiums to rise over the last couple years and
what lesson there might be in that for us.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Morning business is now closed.
____________________
TAX EXTENDERS ACT OF 2009
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4213, which the clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other
purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Privileges of the Floor
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
staff be allowed the privilege of the floor during consideration of the
pending bill: Randy Aussenberg, Aislinn Baker, Brittany Durell, Dustin
Stevens, Greg Sullivan, Max Updike, and Ashley Zuelke.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 3336
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I now call up my amendment by number and
urge its consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment
by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment
numbered 3336.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Martin Luther King, Jr., once said:
Life's most urgent question is: What are you doing for
others?
Pretty much all of us came here to the Senate to work on that urgent
question. Pretty much all of us came here to help other Americans.
On a number of levels, the legislation before us today is urgent
legislation. The legislation before us today is urgent because it would
prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net.
The legislation before us is urgent because it would extend vital
safety net programs that expired yesterday.
The legislation before us is urgent because it would put cash in the
hands of Americans who could spend it quickly, boosting economic
demand.
The legislation before us today is urgent because it would extend
critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs.
The legislation before us today is urgent because it is important
that we here can do this for other Americans.
Since the recession began, more than 7 million Americans have lost
their jobs. The unemployment rate remains nearly 10 percent. For
Americans without a job, this great recession is a great depression. If
you do not have a job, it is a depression.
Last week, with a solid bipartisan vote, we passed legislation to
help create jobs. We can and should do more, and by extending this
package of vital provisions we can do just that.
The provisions in this bill are important to American families. They
are important to communities that have suffered a natural disaster.
They are important to businesses competing in the global economy. They
are important to furthering America's commitment to energy
independence.
The need is urgent. Yesterday many of these important provisions
expired. Millions of Americans are being put at risk. The expiration of
these provisions has left gaping holes in the safety net.
Among the provisions that expired yesterday are these: expanded
unemployment insurance benefits; COBRA subsidies to help people keep
their health insurance; a provision that
[[Page 2111]]
keeps folks right at the poverty line from losing their benefits; the
small business loan program; the temporary measure to prevent a 21-
percent cut to doctors under Medicare; the Flood Insurance Program; the
Satellite Home Viewer Act.
Unless we reinstate the programs in this bill, there will be real
world consequences for the people who depend on these programs today.
Take unemployment insurance. This bill would extend the program for
expanded unemployment benefits. These benefits expired on Sunday. The
bill would extend what is called Federal emergency unemployment
compensation. This bill would extend 100 percent Federal extended
benefits. That is a program where State governments normally have to
pay 50 percent. We would also extend the additional $25 a week for each
beneficiary receiving unemployment benefits.
According to the National Employment Law Project, 5.6 million people
are currently benefiting from one of the Federal unemployment benefits.
Mr. President, 5.6 million people today benefit. Between March and
November of last year, we distributed nearly $8.3 billion in additional
benefits through the additional $25-a-week supplement.
For example, my office received word about one unemployed Montana
worker who had been living in a homeless shelter for more than a month.
This Montanan used emergency unemployment compensation benefits to move
closer to an out-of-State relative. The relative helped the Montanan
through this difficult time. With the help of emergency unemployment
compensation benefits and the help of family, this Montanan was able to
find work again.
Unemployment benefits also make good economic sense. The nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office estimates that every dollar spent on
unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in additional gross
domestic product. That is $1 to $1.90. This makes unemployment benefits
one of the most cost-effective policies for stimulating the economy.
By helping our unemployment workers through this long recession, we
help to keep the neighborhood gas station operating. We help to keep a
house from foreclosure. And we help to keep our economy from further
damage.
We must act immediately to help the more than 1 million people who
lost their benefits yesterday. My heart goes out to them and to their
families and hope that they can hold on while we work to clear up this
mess, in order to clear this bill and bring them the help they deserve
and on which they have been depending.
A second vital program in this bill that expired yesterday is a
program that provides a tax benefit for COBRA health benefits. What is
that? That is the program that helps workers who lose their jobs to
keep their health insurance. When workers lose their jobs, they lose
more than just their paychecks. Unfortunately, they often lose their
ability to afford health care coverage as well.
Today, roughly 60 percent of the nonelderly population receives
health insurance through their jobs. In most cases, unemployed workers
have the right to keep their work coverage for up to 18 months through
the COBRA program. But to receive COBRA health benefits, workers must
typically pay all of the premium costs, plus an additional 2 percent
for administrative costs; that is, they pay 102 percent. That is not
right.
For a family of four, the average monthly COBRA premium is $1,100.
For most people out of work, that is simply unaffordable. How can a
family who is out of work pay health benefits at a rate of $1,100 a
month? They cannot do it.
The Recovery Act helped unemployed workers and their families to
cover the costs. This assistance helped millions of unemployed workers
and their families to maintain health insurance while they look for a
new job.
Unfortunately, COBRA assistance expired yesterday, and that is the
provision that gave a 65-percent subsidy. It expired yesterday. This
means workers who lose their jobs today or afterwards will not be
eligible for COBRA assistance. They can still buy health insurance
through the COBRA program if they can find the dollars to pay full
freight. That is 102 percent of their current premium. For many folks,
that is simply unaffordable. Unless we act, the ranks of those living
in fear without health insurance will grow even more.
Third, without this legislation, physicians who treat our seniors and
military families will face an immediate 21-percent pay cut. That is
right, an immediate 21-percent cut in pay. That is more than families
lost in net worth during the worst of the recession in 2008, and that
is nearly twice as much as home prices fell last year.
This cut would force doctors to stop seeing patients. This cut would
mean less access to care for our parents and our grandparents. This cut
would mean our doctors would be forced to cut their own costs,
potentially forcing them to lay off staff.
Thankfully, the administration announced on Friday it will use its
existing authority to delay the effect of this cut for the immediate
future. But that is not going to last very long. We cannot delay action
any longer. Seniors, military families, and physicians deserve better.
In Montana, 2,000 doctors serve 140,000 seniors who depend on
Medicare for lifesaving health care. Montana has 32,000 military
families who should not be turned away from their doctor's door either.
They deserve access to the best health care we can give them. They
deserve a Congress willing to put politics aside and put them first.
This bill before us today will avert the 21-percent cut because of
the so-called sustainable growth rate. We adopt here another short-term
stopgap. Next time, we hope and expect that we will come back to a
long-term solution. We must find one.
By exempting part of the SGR from the new statutory pay-go rules, the
Senate recently recognized that a long-term solution will require a
short-term investment. The House followed suit. I hope this push will
aid us in finding a permanent solution for the sake of our seniors'
continued access to medical care.
A fourth provision in this bill affects the 2009 poverty guidelines.
Why is this important? Let me tell you. Dozens of programs are
available to help lower income Americans. We all know the important
role these programs play in keeping those less fortunate fed, keeping
them healthy and safe. I am talking about programs such as Medicaid,
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--formerly known as food
stamps--the School Lunch Program, and the Low Income Home Emergency
Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP.
Eligibility for these and many other programs is based on the Federal
poverty guidelines. These guidelines are updated every year for
inflation. But the update for this year, 2010, will cause people who
are currently eligible for and benefiting from these programs to lose
their eligibility. You may wonder why at a time of economic crisis
poverty-based program eligibility would decrease. You might think that
sounds counterintuitive.
One of the effects of the current economic crisis is that inflation
went down. That means the average cost of everyday things, such as
clothes, transportation, and rent, is less than it was the year before.
However, because the Federal poverty guidelines are based on the
average cost of everyday goods, the poverty level for 2010 would be
less than it was for 2009. This is the first time in the history of the
guidelines that such a decrease would occur. That, clearly, is not the
right outcome. We should not make fewer people eligible for poverty-
based programs at precisely the time when those safety-net programs are
serving the very purpose for which they were created. Safety-net
programs are there to help people when times are tough. That is their
purpose. But there is a simple solution: we can simply leave the
guidelines developed for 2009 in place. That way, people who were
eligible can remain eligible. Leaving the 2009 guidelines in place
would mean people would not lose their health care by being kicked off
of Medicaid. It would mean families would not
[[Page 2112]]
go hungry because they lost their eligibility for a number of nutrition
programs. It would mean low-income folks could still heat their homes
this cold and snowy winter thanks to LIHEAP. Keeping the 2009
guidelines in place would not increase eligibility. It would mean we
would avoid pulling the safety net out from under the people it is
there to protect.
Fifth, for individuals and families, this bill provides much needed
tax relief in a time of economic uncertainty. For example, many
students don't have the books or supplies they need. Some teachers have
to buy classroom supplies using money from their own pockets, if you
can believe it. This bill extends the expense deduction for teachers
buying school supplies for their classrooms. It extends the qualified
tuition deduction to help with college costs. The bill provides much
needed relief to families who have suffered from natural disasters. It
extends a package of disaster relief provisions developed to address
all federally declared disaster areas with immediate, reliable, and
robust tax relief.
It extends important business provisions to help create jobs and make
our companies competitive in a global economy. America counts for one-
third of the world's investment in scientific research and development.
We rank first among all countries, but relative to the size of our
economy, America is in sixth place. The trends show that maintaining
American leadership in the future depends on an increased commitment to
science and research. Yet our R&D tax credit expired at the end of last
year. This will put American corporations at a competitive
disadvantage. Corporations are unsure if they will be able to obtain
the R&D credit next year, and they need to plan for the future.
American financial services companies successfully compete in world
financial markets. We need to make sure the U.S. tax rules do not
change that. This legislation extends the active financing exception to
subpart F. In so doing, it preserves the international competitiveness
of American-based financial services companies, while including
safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit. This
provision will put the American financial services industry on an equal
footing with foreign-based competitors that are not taxed on active
financial services income.
Several energy tax incentives also expired at the end of last year.
This bill extends those incentives to encourage continued investment in
technologies that promote energy independence. For example, the bill
extends incentives for new hybrid battery technology and the
construction of new energy-efficient homes.
Sixth, in addition to these important provisions that provide direct
assistance and job creation, the bill includes other proposals that
will provide relief for businesses and individuals. One such provision
is pension funding relief. These days, American employers are faced
with the need to make higher pension contributions. Several factors
have combined to require these higher contributions: There is the
funding changes of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, there is the
slide in the stock market in 2008, and then there is the ensuing great
recession. These requirements for higher contributions are coming upon
employers just when they are facing lower asset values and lower cash
flow. Meeting these requirements could divert resources employers could
use to keep workers on the payroll.
We addressed this bind temporarily in the Worker, Retiree and
Employer Recovery Act of 2008, but employers are still facing the
prospect of closing plants and stores. Employers are still faced with
the possibility of terminating workers in order to make up for lost
asset values. The bill contains additional temporary, targeted, and
appropriate relief for these employers. At the same time, the bill
still maintains the pension and security system.
Seventh, this bill would also extend several important health
provisions that expired at the end of 2009. Notable among these is the
exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps. Extending this provision
will help ensure Medicare beneficiaries will continue to receive access
to the therapy services they need. Several rural policies are also
extended.
Eighth, these tough economic times have hit the States hard as well.
So included in this bill is a 6-month extension of the additional
Federal financial assistance for State Medicaid Programs. This will
allow States to plan for their next fiscal year with the certainty of
continued help from the Federal Government. Additional Federal Medicaid
match money--known as FMAP--helps the economy grow. According to
economist Mark Zandi, this funding has return on investment of about
$1.40 for every dollar invested. The Nation's Governors have repeatedly
asked for an extension of this Federal assistance, and this bill
answers their pleas.
With so many Americans out of work, our country needs Congress to
enact this legislation. This bill continues valuable tax incentives to
families and businesses that will help them in these difficult economic
times. The bill sustains vital safety-net programs that will also help
foster economic growth.
As I said at the outset, this is not just ordinary legislation; this
is urgent legislation. It would prevent millions of Americans from
falling through the safety net. It would extend vital programs that
expired yesterday--expired yesterday. It would put cash in the hands of
Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting economic demand. It
would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs. It
is an important bill that we here can do for other Americans. So let's
help America's businesses to create more jobs. Let's join to work
across the aisle on this commonsense legislation, and let's enact these
tax incentives and safety-net provisions into law.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such time as I might consume. Maybe I
better ask, are we under a time agreement?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no time limit.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate starts debate on
expiring tax and health provisions, for people outside Washington.
Around here, those tax provisions are generally referred to with the
word ``extenders.'' But before I discuss the bill before us, I would
like to make a couple points on the process, before I get into the
substance of the substitute before the Senate. What I find surprising
is, we are taking up a package that, similar to last week's exercise,
absolutely belongs to the Senate Democratic leadership; that is to say,
we are not taking up a bipartisan package that I put together with my
friend, Finance Committee Chairman Baucus.
To be sure, some of the structure reflects the agreement I have with
Senator Baucus, but this package is almost three times the size of the
package we agreed upon. Virtually all the additional cost is due to
proposals I would not have agreed to in representing the people of Iowa
or the Republican conference.
I was under the impression the Senate Democratic leadership was
genuine in its desire to work on a bipartisan basis, but clearly I was
mistaken. Although the Senate Democratic leadership was highly involved
in the development of that original bipartisan bill, they arbitrarily
decided to replace it with a bill that skews toward their liberal wing.
So my first comment to my colleagues, also to the media and to the
entire Nation, is: Don't let this package be mislabeled as the Baucus-
Grassley package. It is not the package my friend, Chairman Baucus, and
I negotiated. Again, the package before the Senate dramatically differs
in cost, balance, and dramatically is different in intent from the
Baucus-Grassley compromise announced on February 12.
[[Page 2113]]
My second preliminary comment goes to the way in which these expiring
tax provisions have been described by many on the other side, including
those in the Democratic leadership. If you roll the videotape back a
week or so, you would hear a lot of disparaging comments about these
routine, bipartisan extenders. From my perspective, those comments were
made in an effort to sully the bipartisan agreement reached by Chairman
Baucus and this Senator. If you take a look at newspaper accounts of a
week or so ago, you come away with the impression that the tax
extenders are partisan work of Republicans and only for Republican
interests. A representative sample comes from one report which
describes the bipartisan bill as:
. . . an extension of soon-to-expire tax breaks that are
highly beneficial to major corporations, known as tax
extenders, as well as other corporate giveaways that had been
designed to win GOP support.
The Washington Post included this attribution to the Senate
Democratic leadership in an article last week:
"We're pretty close,'' [the majority leader] said Friday
during a television appearance in Nevada, adding that he
thought, `fat cats' would have benefited too much from the
larger Baucus-Grassley bill.''
That quote happens to be from the majority leader.
The portrait that was painted by certain members of the majority and
was echoed without critical examination--and in some press reports was
outright inaccurate. For one thing, the tax extenders included
provisions such as deductions for qualified tuition and related
expenses and also the deduction for certain expenses for elementary and
secondary schoolteachers. If you are going to college or if you are a
grade school teacher, the Senate Democratic leadership apparently views
you as a fat cat. If your house was destroyed in a recent natural
disaster and you still need any of the temporary disaster relief
provisions contained in the extenders package, too bad because helping
you would amount to a corporate giveaway in the eyes of some. Such
distortion of the extenders--some of them have been on the books for a
long period of time; some of them passing this body by consensus--
belittles helping some people who have needs.
Again, I wish to say the tax extenders have been routinely passed
repeatedly because they are bipartisan and, frankly, very popular.
Democrats have consistently voted in favor of extending these tax
provisions. Let me tell you what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released
recently, a very strong statement when the House passed these very same
tax extenders at the end of last year saying this was ``good for
business, good for homeowners, and good for our community.''
That was December of 2009, not very long ago.
In 2006, the then Democratic leader released a blistering statement
``after Bush Republicans in the Senate blocked passage of critical tax
extenders American families and businesses are paying the price because
this Do Nothing Republican Congress refuses to extend important tax
breaks.''
Recent bipartisan votes in the Senate extending bipartisan tax
provisions had come in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
and the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. By the way, that passed
the Senate by unanimous consent. Then we had the Working Family Tax
Relief Act of 2004, which originally passed the Senate by voice vote,
although the conference report only received 92 votes in favor and a
whopping 3 against it.
Let me give what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has
to say about the history of these extenders which are now before us,
which should have been passed in December. They have been consistently
widely supported because they mention the Tax Relief Extension Act of
1999, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and one vote against
it on the conference report. One Member on the other side said:
Our side isn't sure that the Republicans are real
interested in developing good policy and to move forward
together. Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope
again. My own view is, let's test them.
So we are testing each other when we are talking about merely
reimposing some policy that has been on the books for a long period of
time and just happens to sunset, to force some review by Congress.
We had another Member of this large 59-vote majority exclaim:
It looks more like a tax bill than a jobs bill to me. What
the Democratic caucus is going to put on the floor is
something that's more focused on job creation than tax
breaks.
Reading these comments, I found myself obviously scratching my head.
The only explanation for this behavior is, certain Senators decided
last week it serves a deeply partisan goal to slander what had been for
several years bipartisan and popular tax provisions benefiting many
different people.
The Washington Post article I quoted from earlier includes a
statement from a Democratic Senate leadership aide saying that ``no
decisions have been made, but anyone expecting us immediately to go
back to a bill that includes tax extenders will be sorely
disappointed.''
You can imagine that, today, a little over a week after these
comments, I scratch my head, once again. We have before us the expiring
tax and health provisions that were disparaged just a short time ago.
Have they morphed from corporate tax pork? Have they suddenly
reacquired their bipartisan character? Are these time-sensitive items,
now expired for more than 2 months, suddenly jobs related?
We are beginning another debate, a jobs bill debate. So I wanted to
focus on the economy, small business, and jobs after giving you that
partisanship that should not have existed a week ago, to explain that
it existed and not much has changed since then, but all of a sudden
there is some idea of being bipartisan.
So we are going to talk about the substance of this bill. We all
agree our Nation is currently facing challenging economic times. While
there have been some signs of improvement such as the recent growth in
our gross domestic product, job losses continue to mount and many hard-
working Americans are struggling to make ends meet.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 8 million jobs have
been lost since our economy officially slipped into recession in
December 2007. The unemployment rate is currently 9.7 percent, which is
simply an unacceptable level. The lack of job creation continues
despite aggressive action taken at the Federal level in order to
stabilize the economy.
This includes the enactment of TARP and the $800 billion stimulus
bill. However, these bills were all missing a critical ingredient for
spurring job creation, and that was substantial tax relief targeted to
small business.
Everybody knows small business is where the jobs are created in
America; 70 percent of the net new jobs. In October 2008, Congress
enacted the Troubled Asset Relief Program that we all call TARP around
here, T-A-R-P. That was a $700 billion financial bailout bill that we
were told had to be enacted immediately in order to deal with the so-
called toxic assets to keep credit from drying up, which would have
choked off the lifeblood of the American economy.
What we actually got--because we sure did not take out these toxic
assets. So what we actually got was direct infusion of cash into the
largest Wall Street banks, which was 180 degrees different than what we
were told by Treasury before that bill was voted on, and the purpose of
that bill as well. Later came the bailout of General Motors and
Chrysler using TARP money after the Senate had just voted not to bail
out GM and Chrysler.
This inconsistent policy by Treasury created uncertainty in the
financial markets and the business community. Moreover, exorbitant
bonuses were paid to executives and the management of firms that would
have been out of a job if not for Congress and Treasury and the Federal
Reserve intervening.
How effective was the bailout in improving the credit markets? In
October 2009, the Government Accountability Office released a report
reviewing TARP's first-year performance. The GAO report found credit
had improved based on certain market indicators. However, they were not
able to determine how much, if any, was attributed
[[Page 2114]]
to TARP as compared to general market forces or other Federal action.
While it is unclear the extent credit has been freed up as a result
of TARP, it is clear who has reaped the benefits of those programs.
This past year, many financial firms, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan
Chase, and others who received TARP funds, posted record or near-record
profits.
While Wall Street executives have clearly benefitted form TARP, small
businesses and their employers have not been that fortunate. Small
businesses continue to struggle to obtain credit in order to expand
their operations, purchase inventories, and even make payroll. The so-
called stimulus bill, enacted almost solely by an overwhelming
Democratic majority in Congress last February, has not spurred job
creation either.
This massive $800 billion spending bill was hastily rushed to the
floor of the Senate with little time to deliberate its merit. Lawrence
Summers, the Director of President Obama's National Economic Council,
said:
The test for the stimulus is whether it is timely,
targeted, and temporary.
This stimulus bill hit the trifecta. It has failed in all three.
Through a report issued in January 2009 by the current Chair of
President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, Christine Roemer, the
administration predicted that the stimulus would save or create 3
million jobs. We were told by the Obama administration that if the bill
was not passed quickly we would experience unemployment of 9 percent.
At this point we have a chart. The middle line, where it says 9
percent, the White House projected unemployment at 9 percent with no
stimulus. However, we were also told by the Obama administration that
if the stimulus bill passed, unemployment would not go over 8 percent,
and that would be the bottom line.
Well, the bill was passed. But what did we get for $800 billion of
debt before interest that was laid at the feet of our children and our
grandchildren? The unemployment rate jumped from 7.7 percent in January
right before the stimulus was enacted, to a high of 10.1 percent in
October.
While unemployment recently dipped slightly to 9.7 percent--you can
see that is the red line at the top--this was not due to job creation
but because millions of individuals have literally given up looking for
work and obviously do not show up in the unemployment statistics.
The Obama administration also stated that ``more than 90 percent of
the jobs created are likely to be in the private sector.''
In all, 3.3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus bill was
enacted. That is 3.3 million compared to the 3.7 million the President
said. Of course, 3.2 million of those jobs were in the private sector.
In summary, the Obama administration was terribly inaccurate
regarding its stimulus jobs projection. At the time the stimulus bill
was passed, I raised concerns that the bill was not targeted enough at
small businesses and job creation. However, my point of view lost out
and less than one-half of 1 percent of the bill included tax relief for
small business.
The money in the stimulus bill gave tax credits to people who buy
electric plug-in golf carts or to pay for rattle-snake husbandry in
Oregon, among other ill-advised provisions, which would have been
better allocated to small business tax relief, the place where
employment starts. Since the stimulus, small businesses have been
bearing the brunt of job losses in our economy. However, the words of
those on the other side regarding the importance of small business job
creation do not match their action when looking at the paltry amount of
small business tax relief being provided.
Again, in the jobs bill, or stimulus bill, or whatever you want to
call it that passed the Senate last week, there was only one provision
directed solely to small business tax relief. That was a provision I
supported which increased expensing of equipment purchased by small
businesses. But it is a very small provision. It only gave small
businesses what they have already been getting for the last couple of
years, just extending it; in other words, just extending that figure.
That provision was only $35 million out of $62 billion, the $15 billion
that everyone talks about, plus the $47 billion for the highway trust
fund that is typically not mentioned.
Last year, I introduced S. 1381, the Small Business Tax Relief Act.
My bill would double the amount of equipment that small businesses
could expense and would make those higher levels permanent instead of
just for 1 year, as the Reid bill did.
In my negotiations on the jobs bill, I sought to include provisions
for my small business tax relief bill. But there was no agreement to
put small business tax relief provisions for my bill in the bipartisan
compromise that we reached. Instead, we were asked to defer those
provisions to a future tax bill.
According to ADP, national employment data from January 2009 through
January 2010, small businesses with fewer than 500 employees saw
employment decline by 2.67 million jobs, while large businesses with
500 or more employees saw employment decline by 694,000.
While I am sure many of us disagree about the effectiveness of the
financial bailout and stimulus spending in getting our economy back on
track, I know for sure that we all agree there has been a lack of job
creation and too many people continue to be unemployed. Because the
stimulus bill has so clearly failed in what it was supposed to do,
which was to create jobs, and the administration and the congressional
Democratic leadership are running away from the word ``stimulus''
faster than the Triple Crown winning horse Secretariat. Everything
proposed now is called a ``jobs bill'' even if it includes proposals
that were always labeled ``stimulus'' in the past.
Only 6 percent of Americans believe the stimulus bill created jobs.
That is less than the 7 percent of Americans who believe that Elvis is
still alive. Last week, the Senate passed a bill that included
provisions designed to increase hiring. This includes a payroll tax
holiday for businesses that hire unemployed workers and a tax credit
for the retention of newly hired individuals throughout all of 2010.
The payroll tax holiday part of this proposal is likely to spark some
modest hiring at businesses at the margins among those who have seen
some improvement in their business but are on the fence about whether
to hire somebody now or wait a while. However, many businesses continue
to struggle and will not hire new employees just because it is the
stated policy goal of Congress.
Before a business can hire a new employee, they need to know that new
employee will generate additional revenue that exceeds the cost of the
employee. The latest survey of the Small Business Economic Trends--and
that is produced by the National Federation of Independent Businesses,
or NFIB, as we know it--shows that many small businesses may not be in
a place that they can afford to hire new employees even with the
provisions of that bill passing the Senate last week called the Payroll
Tax Holiday.
I have a chart from the National Federation of Independent Businesses
to which I now want to refer. That chart has selected components from
the Small Business Optimism Index. While many components of this index
improved slightly from December, it is clear that small businesses
continue to struggle. You will see from the chart a net negative 1
percent of owners who plan to create new jobs in the next 3 months. You
will see on the chart a net positive of only 1 percent of business
owners expect the economy to improve. Only 4 percent of business owners
said it was a good time to expand, and a net negative 42 percent of
owners reported higher earnings.
This last component is especially important for businesses when it
comes to hiring new employees. If earnings are declining, there is
little a payroll holiday will do to spark hiring since businesses need
to know that the revenue generated by the additional employees will
exceed the cost, not just today but in the future.
Before I go on to this NFIB survey, at the grassroots of my State, I
had the
[[Page 2115]]
opportunity the previous weekend to spend part of a Friday and part of
a Sunday afternoon in what is called the Des Moines Home and Garden
Show which has probably been around for 30 years or so, that one
weekend a year. On the Saturday in between, I had an opportunity to
attend a like show called the Home Improvement Show in Waterloo. You
walk around and talk to vendors, small business people. You kind of
look at what do they expect Congress to do about creating jobs. I never
got anything positive about something we might do, but I got a lot of
ideas that they want us to do that said: You have to give us some
certainty.
Do you know what they quoted. They quoted the big tax increase coming
up at the end of this year as some of that uncertainty. They quoted the
cap-and-trade tax that possibly could pass the Senate. Then they quoted
the potential cost to small business because of the health care reform
bill. They said: Take all of those potential things out of the picture,
and we will start hiring. But it is the uncertainty that is out there
of what Congress is going to do to us that is keeping us from hiring
people.
I want to go back to the NFIB survey. When businesses are asked what
the single most important problem facing their business is, the answer
is lack of sales. That is in addition to the uncertainty I related. But
this is closely followed by what I did say, taxes, and then government
regulation, and redtape. I am glad my colleagues on the other side have
recognized that true job creation comes through the private sector and
have thus sought hiring incentives through payroll tax relief.
However, this minor tax relief is a drop in the bucket considering
the challenges small businesses face due to the economy and proposed
increased taxes and redtape included in the President's budget. Whether
we are speaking about cap and trade that will drastically increase
energy costs, health care reform that would mandate small businesses
offer health benefits that will increase the cost of labor, or the call
for tax increases on so-called wealthy taxpayers earning over $200,000
that will largely fall on the backs of small businesses, if our
intention is to increase long-term employment, the last thing we should
be doing at this time of economic uncertainty is to increase taxes and
place additional burdens on those who are responsible for creating 70
percent of the jobs in our economy; namely, small business.
Providing small businesses a payroll tax holiday while intending to
impose increased taxes, regulations, and mandates amounts to throwing
them a few peanuts while taking away their supper. In recent months, I
have spoken at length about the impact of tax increases set to kick in
10 months from today. I have examined the impact of these tax increases
on small businesses. I think Members ought to take a closer look at it
before we actually enact big tax hikes.
The President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
proposed increasing the two marginal tax rates from 33 and 35 percent
to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively; increasing the tax rates on
capital gains and dividends to 20 percent, fully reinstating the
personal exemption phaseout for those making over $200,000, and fully
reinstating the limitation on itemized deductions for those making more
than $200,000.
With these two provisions fully reinstated, the individuals in the
top two rates could see their marginal tax rates increase over 15
percent or more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle respond
that these proposals will only hit ``wealthy individuals'' and only a
small percentage of small businesses fall into this category. I have
been trying to tell them for 3 or 4 years that what they want to talk
about, the small percentage of small businesses falling into that
category--I will not convince them, because I don't know what they are
reading--is wrong. Because small business is going to be hit very
definitely by these increases. What my colleagues fail to understand is
that the small businesses that fit into this group are not static but
consist of different businesses over time that go in and out of the top
two tax brackets depending on the market.
Data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a nonpartisan
official congressional scorekeeper on tax issues, shows that 44 percent
of the flowthrough business income will be hit with the increase in the
top two tax rates proposed by the President. This hits small businesses
particularly hard since most small businesses are organized as
flowthrough entities. It will increase taxes on single small business
owners who make more than $200,000 per year, even if they plow all of
their income back into their small business to keep paying their
workers and hire additional workers. Increasing taxes on this group
punishes their success and limits their ability to reinvest in their
company. It prevents them from putting away funds for tough economic
times to keep their business afloat.
Government is currently creating a climate of uncertainty where the
private sector does not know what we will do next, what taxes will be
raised, and what regulatory barriers will be put in their way. We can
start to put some certainty back into the business world by declaring
we will not increase taxes on businesses 1 dime, by making the 2001 and
2003 bipartisan tax measures permanent.
Let me be clear: Businesses do not want to be certain that the
government is going to raise their taxes and make them go up through
more redtape. They want to be certain that it is not going to happen.
Until then, many will simply sit on the sidelines and not hire more
workers, as I reported from my weekend before last at a couple affairs
in the State of Iowa.
Moreover, we can directly provide targeted relief to small
businesses. Last June, I proposed legislation to do that. I introduced
the Small Business Tax Relief Act to lower taxes on job-creating small
businesses. Since the Democratic leadership barred any amendments last
week, I am hopeful we will debate and vote on an amendment offered by
Senator Thune. Many provisions in my bill are contained in the Thune
bill. My bill contains a number of provisions that will leave more
money in the hands of small businesses so they can hire more, continue
to pay the salaries of their current employees, and make additional
investments. This includes allowing flowthrough small businesses,
partnerships, S corporations, LLCs, and sole partnerships to deduct 20
percent of their income, effectively reducing their taxes by 20
percent. My bill also includes tax relief for small business owners
from the unfair alternative minimum tax. It takes general business
credits, such as the employer-provided childcare credit, out of the
alternative minimum tax. This would allow a mom-and-pop retail store
that provides childcare for its employees to get the same tax relief a
Fortune 500 company gets when it provides childcare for its employees.
My bill would also allow more than nearly 2 million small C
corporations to benefit from the lower tax rates for the smallest C
corporations. There are so many small C corporations because they were
formed as C corporations before other entities such as LLCs became more
widely used.
Among other provisions, my bill would also lower the potential tax
burden on small C corporations that convert to S corporations.
The NFIB has written a letter supporting my small business tax relief
bill, stating:
To get the small business economy moving again, small
businesses need the tools and incentives to expand and grow
their businesses. S. 1381 provides the kind of tools and
incentives that small business needs.
I want to talk about an opportunity for true bipartisanship that was
killed by the Democratic leadership. The same day Chairman Baucus and I
released a bipartisan bill that contained significant compromises,
behind closed doors the Democratic leadership cherry-picked four
provisions out of the larger bill Chairman Baucus and I agreed to.
Those provisions had been agreed to in a meeting of senior Members of
the other side only while Chairman Baucus and I were negotiating. I was
extremely disappointed to see the Democratic leadership blow up the
bipartisan deal Chairman Baucus and I
[[Page 2116]]
reached. To pour a little salt into the wound, the Democratic
leadership then prohibited any Senator on either side of the aisle from
even offering an amendment to improve a bill that he hijacked. One of
the four provisions the Democratic leaders cherry-picked is Build
America Bonds. If it had been just me drafting the bill, I wouldn't
have included this provision. However, for the sake of bipartisanship
and compromise in the context of a much larger bill, I reluctantly
agreed that putting this provision in the bill would not cause the
overall bill to lose my support. Build America Bonds is a very rich
spending program disguised as tax cuts. Bloomberg reported that large
Wall Street investment banks have been charging 37 percent higher
underwriting fees on Build America Bonds deals than on other deals.
Therefore, American taxpayers appear to be funding huge underwriting
fees for large Wall Street investment banks as part of the Build
America Bonds program.
Democratic leadership has said the Build America Bonds program is
about creating jobs. I wanted to know whether it is about lining the
pockets of Wall Street executives. So last week I asked the Goldman
Sachs CEO a number of questions about these much larger underwriting
fees subsidized by American taxpayers. I expect to have that discussion
shortly.
Turning back to the bill being debated this week, the Thune
amendment, which incorporates many of the provisions from my small
business tax relief bill, provides substantial small business tax
relief and should be adopted.
In this bill, I hope we can all work toward improving our economy,
not through more government but by letting the engine of job creation,
meaning small business, keep more of its own money in the form of
substantial small business tax relief.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. First, let me serve notice on the Republican side that I
will be making a unanimous consent request about the extension of
unemployment benefits so that Senator Bunning or someone else on his
behalf will be on the floor if they care to object.
Let me say, before my friend from Iowa leaves the floor, one of the
reasons we can't get to the issues you want is because we are in the
midst of a filibuster by the Senator from Kentucky who has stopped us
from extending unemployment benefits, COBRA benefits for 30 days. As I
understand it, that filibuster now applies to a noncontroversial
judicial nominee. So we have multiple filibusters holding us back from
considering some of the measures you mentioned. I might say, some of
them I find appealing and hope we can make them part of the package.
The reason why your initial agreement with Senator Baucus met some
resistance on our side of the aisle is that we thought there was a lack
of balance. Although I support the tax extenders being extended for the
remainder of the year in your initial agreement with Senator Baucus,
the extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA was only for a few
months. We felt that both should be extended until the end of the year.
I hope we can reach that agreement when we come back to the amendment
that is pending before us, as soon as the filibusters that have been
initiated by the Senator from Kentucky are completed.
Let me say a word about those filibusters. We tried last week to
extend for 30 days unemployment benefits that would run out across
America, starting literally at midnight last night. There was one
objection from Senator Bunning from Kentucky; he objected to extending
unemployment benefits and COBRA benefits. The net result of this one
Senator's objection is to put us into a procedural process that could
literally take days.
What happens to the people who were on unemployment during that
period of time? They are cut off. Fifteen thousand people on
unemployment in Illinois last night were cut off because of the Senator
from Kentucky, and roughly 400,000 nationwide have seen their
unemployment benefits cut off.
I met two of those people in Chicago yesterday. They have been
unemployed for extended periods of time, and they have been spending
literally every day trying to find a job. One of them has a little 3-
year-old daughter. I asked him: What is going to happen now that you do
not have your unemployment check?
He said: I don't know. The first thing I will do is default on my
student loan. I will have to do that. I can't make my payment if I want
to put food on the table.
So there are real-life consequences to your objection, and the real-
life consequences are being visited on innocent people who, through no
fault of their own, lost their job and cannot find one in an economy
where we have five unemployed people for every job available.
In your State of Kentucky, my State of Illinois, and virtually every
other State, these people are struggling. Some of them have reached the
end of the rope. They are making decisions you and I would never want
to face about whether they are going to have to give up a home--
literally give up a home. And it could happen.
It is great to have a political debate in the Senate. We should. That
is what the Senate is supposed to be about. But when the victims in the
middle of the debate are unemployed people, I do not think that is
fair. I do not think it is fundamentally fair. These people are
trying--this one young man, David Seanior, showed me a list of 300
applications he had made to try to find a job during the last year. He
said: I go online every day. This is a man who had worked for years,
had a strong work record, until he was laid off. He said: I just can't
find anything. I am desperate. I am trying everything I can think of,
and now you are going to cut off my unemployment benefits.
Frankly, we came to the Senate floor last Thursday night to urge the
Senator from Kentucky to reconsider his objection. The net result of
this is going to create hardship all across America, and it gets worse
by the day. We estimate that roughly 2,000 more people tonight will
lose their unemployment benefits in Illinois. So by next Sunday,
instead of 15,000 losing their checks, it will be up to nearly 30,000.
By the end of March, the total is estimated to be 65,000 people who
will lose their unemployment checks because of the objection of Senator
Bunning of Kentucky and this initiation of a filibuster.
I do not think that is what we should do. This is an economic
emergency facing this Nation. It is not the first time Senator Bunning
has been asked to extend unemployment benefits that were not paid for.
See, that is his issue: You are not paying for the unemployment
benefits. You should not extend it.
Senator Bunning voted for the fiscal year 2008 war supplemental bill
which extended unemployment insurance benefits for 13 weeks. He also
supported ending debate and did not object to the voice vote of a
measure to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 7 weeks for
workers who exhausted their current compensation by March 31, 2009.
That bill also extended benefits for an additional 13 weeks--half the
duration of regular unemployment compensation--for workers in States
with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher. Neither of the
extensions he voted for--one in a record vote and one by voice vote--
had any budget offsets. So to argue that now we are taking a stand on
principle, the fact is, twice, at least--I do not know if there were
more times--the Senator has reached an opposite conclusion and agreed
with the majority, the bipartisan majority, that we were truly in an
economic emergency.
There is one other aspect of this which is troubling, and that is the
first casualty of most people who are unemployed is health insurance.
The employer is not paying it any longer. If you want to continue
health insurance, COBRA lets you pay for it all, and it is too
expensive--roughly $1,300 a month for health insurance for a family in
my State of Illinois, and the unemployment compensation is about $1,100
a month. So do the math and understand that most people cannot do it.
So President Obama said, as part of our effort to turn this economy
around,
[[Page 2117]]
we will help people pay for their health insurance through COBRA. We
will pay I believe the figure is 65 percent of the premiums so people
will be paying one-third of their health insurance premiums when they
have lost a job--still a substantial sum of money: $300 or $400 they
would have to pay each month. But imagine if you had a sick child at
home, and imagine that child needed at least the possibility of
coverage should they be hospitalized for diabetes or cancer or whatever
the cause may be. If you get a gap in coverage and you lose your health
insurance because you cannot afford to make the payment, you could find
yourself in a predicament where you not only do not have health
insurance but the prospect of buying additional health insurance is
next to zero.
Senator Bunning's objection cut off this benefit, this 65-percent
benefit on health insurance. We have tried to extend it for 30 days. So
that means these people will not only lose their unemployment check,
they will lose this help with their COBRA benefit.
I have been, once in my life, in a predicament being a father with a
sick child and no health insurance. Mr. President, I want to tell you,
if there is something that tears you apart as a dad, it is going into a
hospital with no health insurance with a sick baby. I have been there.
I have done that. Thank God it happened years ago and my little girl
made it through that episode.
But we are forcing literally hundreds of thousands of Americans into
this situation because of the objection and the filibuster of one
Senator from Kentucky. That is unfair--not only unfortunate but unfair.
If we are going to fight a battle over our budget deficit and get
involved in lengthy debates, as we can, there are plenty of chances to
do it. We will have a budget resolution in just a few months. We will
have a score--at least a dozen--of appropriations bills to fight this
battle over, and I think the battle can be joined.
We said to the Senator from Kentucky: If you want to offer an
amendment to pay for the unemployment benefits and the COBRA benefits,
you are entitled to offer that amendment. You are entitled to come to
the Senate floor, express your point of view on how this should be paid
for, and to accept the will of the Senate. Let them vote on your
amendment. If they agree with you, fine. If they disagree, it will be a
matter of public record. You will have your day on the floor of the
Senate, which is about the best most of us could hope for in this job.
But the Senator from Kentucky said: No, I am not going to do it
because I might lose. Well, yes, you might win and you might lose, and
that is what we all face when we come forward with an idea on how to
deal with the budget deficit. I do not think it is fair to insist that
it is my way or the highway when it comes to something as basic as
unemployment benefits and health care for the people who are unemployed
across America.
As I visit these unemployment offices and meet with these people, I
find a lot of determined folks whom you would think would have given up
a heck of a long time ago still trying. They consider it a victory if
at the end of the day one of the posted jobs on the Internet leads to
an interview. They are that desperate. Yet we are saying to them: We
are going to cut off the money you need to feed your family in an
effort to make a point about deficit reduction. That, I think, is
unfortunate.
We have asked for an extension of unemployments benefits repeatedly
because we are in the worst shape in our economy in 75 years, and a lot
of people are struggling to make ends meet. I know there are those who
argue that at some point we have to cut off these unemployment
benefits. But I would ask them to consider this as well: Unemployment
assistance is the most direct infusion of money into the economy. Those
who are economists tell us the first dollar you give in unemployment
assistance is going to be spent immediately. It is not going to be
banked, saved, or invested. These folks need it, and they will spend it
the day after they get it, for obvious needs, and that creates more
economic activity.
So you are not only doing the right thing that a caring nation does
when so many of us are facing hard times, it is an economic stimulus--
No. 1, incidentally, by the Congressional Budget Office--in terms of
what we can do to get this economy moving forward. It is not just a
matter of helping those who are helpless; it is a matter of injecting
money into the economy in the most efficient way.
I am afraid this has happened before. The last time the Senate
extended unemployment, the other side of the aisle objected three
times--the leaders on those three occasions. Incidentally, that
extension of unemployment benefits was completely paid for. So it
appears whether it was paid for or not paid for, there is objection on
the Republican side of the aisle.
I do not get it. I do not understand it. President Obama is doing his
best to get this economy moving forward. He inherited a weak economy
that was losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month. Things have improved
somewhat, though they are not where we want them to be, and I believe
we ought to be standing behind the people in our Nation who are
struggling to find a job and get back to work. Many of them are trying
to keep families together and care for their children.
Last week, nearly 500,000 Americans filed for unemployment for the
first time. The number surged to just below 500,000 last week. It
climbed more than 12 percent over the past 2 weeks. I wish that were
not the case but it is. So you see, the economy is still struggling. I
believe the first thing we ought to do is to care for our own. If
someone came to the floor with an emergency request now because of a
drought, a flood, a hurricane, a tornado, we would honor it. We do that
almost on a regular basis because at some point you say: First, help
these poor people. Then deal with the budget challenge it brings at
another time.
But now, when it comes to helping our own, the citizens of this
country who are out of work, that, unfortunately, is not the case.
Right now over 4.6 million Americans continue to collect unemployment.
That is up 6,000 from the preceding weeks--the number of claimants.
In addition to the filibuster initiated by Senator Bunning hurting
those who are unemployed, it is also going to have an impact on the
Small Business Administration. Most everyone agrees the key to bringing
this economy forward is helping small businesses stay in business and
create jobs. The Small Business Administration loans money to small
businesses, which during difficult times need a helping hand.
The Senator's filibuster and his objection has closed down SBA
programs that provide credit to small businesses. What are we thinking
to stop assistance to small businesses at this moment in our history?
Most of us believe this is central and essential if we are going to
turn the corner and move forward. Yet the Senator from Kentucky has
objected.
It also has some ramifications in cutting back on money that is
available for transportation. I do not know if the Senator is even
aware of what he has done when it comes to his objection, but in my
State and many others, we are finding that people are losing their jobs
today. We have been running our Federal transportation program with
short-term extensions since September 30 of last year--almost 5 months.
These stopgap extensions were underfunding our transportation system
and hurting our States, cities, counties, and workers. The short-term
extensions created an unstable environment in the Federal
transportation program.
We passed a yearlong extension in last week's jobs bill, but the
House could not pass it on time to keep the Transportation Department
authorized. So we came to the floor to pass a 30-day extension of
transportation law along with the COBRA and unemployment benefits.
Senator Bunning's objection has basically shut down the highway trust
fund, the Federal highway trust fund.
This is uncharted territory. We do not let surface transportation
legislation expire. It has not happened before. The Department of
Transportation is
[[Page 2118]]
shutting down highway reimbursements to States. That means hundreds of
millions of dollars that should be flowing from the Federal Treasury to
these States are not.
The Department of Transportation is furloughing nearly 2,000
employees without pay as of today because of Senator Bunning's
objection. The Department of Transportation is removing Federal
inspectors from critical construction projects, forcing work to stop on
Federal lands.
DOT's safety agencies, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, are furloughing employees who work on safety programs--
programs that stop drunk driving, reduce traffic injuries, and increase
child passenger safety--because of the objection of the Senator from
Kentucky.
In my State, we are going to lose 50 Federal Highway Administration
employees--furloughed today. These workers have been instructed not to
report to work until we pass this extension.
Second, the Illinois Department of Transportation will not be
receiving Federal reimbursement for projects because of this objection
by the Senator from Kentucky. They were scheduled to submit the next
Federal bill for reimbursement as of tomorrow. The Illinois Department
of Transportation will submit a bill of about $25 million for work
already completed to which they are entitled. But because of the
objection of the Senator from Kentucky, that bill cannot be paid. There
is no question that my State is entitled to it. I imagine the State of
Kentucky has a similar situation. The question is whether there is
anyone there to process it, and because of his objection, there is not.
Delays in Federal reimbursements will make it difficult for the
Illinois Department of Transportation to pay the contractors and
workers on these projects. So the ripple effect of this is the money
doesn't go back to the construction companies or to the workers and
their families, leading to unemployment.
The Senator from Kentucky is opposed to extending unemployment
compensation. The unemployment rate, incidentally, in the construction
industry is 24 percent nationwide. Laying off more construction workers
at this time is exactly the opposite of what we ought to be doing in
this economy. Future work on Illinois transportation projects could be
in jeopardy if we do not pass an extension. The Illinois Department of
Transportation is scheduled to release the largest bid lettings on
April 23 for projects underway this construction season, and so the
construction season will be delayed.
I am trying to give the whole picture. As we wait for the Senator
from Kentucky to agree to a short-term extension of these critical
programs, we are jeopardizing jobs, more people will be unemployed, and
we are jeopardizing future projects which will be shortchanged because
construction seasons are limited.
This 1-month extension of transportation law--and that is all we are
asking for--has already had overwhelming bipartisan support in the
past, and the 1-month extension itself costs nothing. Last week, we
passed a 1-year transportation fix as part of the jobs bill.
The following groups have written letters urging us to move on this
extension: the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association,
the Associated General Contractors of America, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the Laborers International Union, and the American Automobile
Association.
The House did its work last week and passed this 30-day extension,
sending it over to us, where we learned Thursday night that the Senator
from Kentucky was going to object. Nine of us took to the floor
Thursday night and made a request several times for him to withdraw his
objection, which he refused to do. I made another request on Friday
morning on the floor and the Senator continued his objection and then
several today.
So I am going to make the 11th request of the Senator from Kentucky,
on behalf of the people I represent in Illinois, some 15,000 who have
lost their unemployment checks because of his filibuster, and 400,000
across America who are wondering: What happened? What did we do wrong
here? Why aren't we receiving the check we need for the necessities of
life?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, the 30-day extension of
provisions which expired on Sunday, February 28, including unemployment
insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, the Satellite Home Viewer Act,
highway funding, SBA business loans and small business provisions of
the American Recovery Act, SGR and poverty guidelines, received from
the House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed,
and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, keep in mind we have repeatedly offered to
the Senator from Kentucky an opportunity for a vote: Bring your
approach to the floor. Let the Senate decide. Accept the decision of
the Senate, win or lose. That is the most any Senator can ask for. Yet
he wants more. He wants a guarantee that he wins. Well, there is no
guarantee you win in the Senate. There is no guarantee you win in
baseball. You do the best you can. Under these circumstances, I think
what we have reached is a point that is difficult to understand and
explain.
I would like to invite my Republican colleagues--all of them--to come
to the floor and express themselves on this. If they believe we should
cut off unemployment benefits, health insurance benefits, close down
the U.S. Department of Transportation's work in the States, close down
the SBA programs for small businesses, I hope they will come and
express that point of view. They should, if they feel that way. If they
feel, as I do, that this is unfair and unfortunate, if they will come
forward and join us on the floor, we can try to build up some momentum
for moving this issue forward.
There are people in every State of the Union who are suffering today
because of the objection of one Senator, because of the filibuster of
one Senator, and that is a sad indication of what has happened in the
Senate; that we have reached this point and that even offering an up-
or-down vote on an amendment is not enough.
What the Senator is looking for is a guaranteed result. We can't give
him that guaranteed result.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it is amazing to me the Senator from
Illinois has what we call a convenient memory. Just last week there was
a bipartisan bill proposed by Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley that
would have covered the extension of unemployment benefits, COBRA health
care assistance, flood insurance, highway bill assistance, the doc fix,
small business loans, and the Rural Satellite Television Viewer Act.
The convenient memory loss of the Senator from Illinois has allowed him
to forget that his leader, Senator Reid, did not allow that bill to
come to the floor and instead substituted his jobs bill. The majority
leader's jobs bill was also not fully paid for, by the way. Ten billion
dollars wasn't; five billion dollars was. So $10 billion from the jobs
bill that was passed went to the bottom of the deficit.
There comes a time when 100 Senators are for something we all
support, if we can't find $10 billion to pay for it, we are not going
to pay for anything. We will not pay for anything fully on the floor of
the Senate.
He said I only offered one way to pay for this. That is untrue. I
offered more than one way. I negotiated with the leader--the leader's
staff, rather--and we had worked out a 2-week extension for $5 billion
with a different pay-for. The debt we have arrived at, even the head of
the Federal Reserve Bank, Chairman Bernanke, said is not sustainable.
It is unsustainable. What does
[[Page 2119]]
that mean to the American people, to the same people who are struggling
to pay for bills, who are on unemployment, who could have been covered
had the Baucus-Grassley bill been considered and could have been
covered not for 30 days but for 3 months? Because there were some tax
extenders in that bill, the Democratic majority stopped the bill from
being considered.
I am not filibustering the bill. A filibuster is somebody who talks a
long time. I am exercising my right as a Senator, duly elected from
Kentucky, to object to a UC. That is completely different than
filibustering. Everybody knows a Member of this body, any 100 of us can
object to anything that is brought to the floor of the Senate, whether
it be a nominee, whether it be a judge, whether it be somebody who is
appointed to the Treasury. Anybody can object. There is a procedure
that takes place that can overcome that objection. Why doesn't the
Democratic majority use that procedure?
So I am going to take one more shot. As long as we continue to have
the extenders being brought forth unpaid for, I am going to object.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of H.R. 4691; that the amendment at the desk,
which offers a full offset, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read
a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the
Senator, again, is asking that he win without a vote. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we tried and we will continue trying. As
many people who get up and propose that UC, I will be there, whenever
it is. I want it passed as badly as the Senator from Illinois does
because I also have people in Kentucky who have the same problems as
his people do in Illinois. All the States that are represented by two
Senators do as well, but let's do it and pay for it because the money
is available in many areas. The money was available for the Grassley-
Baucus bill, which extended things for a year, in some cases, and
extended these provisions I am talking about and the Senator from
Illinois is talking about for a full 3 months. We would not be in this
position if the Senator from Nevada had allowed that bill to come to
the floor.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, until my voice gives out, I wish to address
the bill that is on the floor. The bill has been denominated by my
colleagues on the Democratic side as a jobs bill, but it will not
create any new jobs and when considered in conjunction with the health
care legislation the President has proposed will actually cost jobs and
I wish to address that.
This legislation extends some current provisions of law, including
tax provisions, unemployment compensation, COBRA insurance. It extends
a provision of Federal subsidies to the States for Medicaid, and there
are a few other provisions. None of these create new jobs. The tax
extenders are useful. That is our Washington, DC, speak for provisions
of the Tax Code that last 1 year and have to be renewed each year. They
are generally used to enable businesses to deduct from their taxes
ordinary business expenses and include things such as research and
development tax credits which I think are supported by all 100
Senators. So we do this every year. We extend these tax provisions for
another year. It should have been done at the end of last year; it
wasn't. So it has to be done now and made retroactive to the beginning
of the year. One could argue that some of those may theoretically
create a few jobs, but they are something we do every year, and they
are not for the purpose of creating jobs; they are simply good business
practices. So this bill takes on the usual business of the Senate.
There is nothing new, as I said, to create jobs.
What of the subject of unemployment coverage extension which we have
just been debating? That doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything,
continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive
for them to seek new work. I am sure most of them would like work and
probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue it is a job
enhancer. If anything, as I said, it is a disincentive and the same
thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here. So it is
not a jobs bill, and it is beyond me how it could be denominated as
such.
Moreover--and the reason for my colleague's objection to the
temporary bill--the Congressional Budget Office preliminary estimate
shows this bill adds $104 billion to the deficit over the next 10
years, and that is in addition to the $10 billion that would be added
that my colleague, Senator Bunning, has been talking about. This number
is primarily due to the extension of unemployment insurance, the
expanded COBRA extension, and the new Federal assistance to States for
Medicaid patients. These are given emergency designations. As a result,
we don't have to supply an offset, a spending reduction, to pay for the
cost of these provisions.
This comes just a week after our Democratic colleagues were bragging
about the fact that they passed a bill called the pay-go bill.
The pay-go bill is supposed to require that if we are going to spend
money, we find an offset in the form of a spending deduction or revenue
enhancement that covers the cost of that new spending. We predicted
that as soon as we passed the pay-go legislation, our Democratic
colleagues would come to the floor and seek to have their next
legislation exempted from it. Sure enough, that is exactly what was
done.
Both the matter Senator Bunning has objected to and the bill we are
on now have to be exempted from the pay-go requirements and, therefore,
add to the Federal deficit--in this case, $104 billion. Some of these
provisions are useful provisions. But the truth is you can't, on the
one hand, say everything we do has to be offset with spending cuts or
tax increases and then waive the pay-go legislation every time you want
to do it--as it turns out so far, every time we have considered
legislation.
The reality is, we could pay for this legislation and, as Senator
Bunning said, we could pay for the so-called temporary extension of
unemployment benefits because we have money we authorized and
appropriated earlier in the so-called stimulus bill which would more
than offset the cost of this legislation. Republicans, of course, would
like to offer an amendment to pay for it from the stimulus funds.
According to recovery.gov, the Web site for the stimulus bill, only
$186 billion of the $499 billion in appropriated and direct spending
from the stimulus has been spent so far.
That means $313 billion or 63 percent remains unspent. So $160
billion of these funds hasn't even been made available to be spent yet.
The original CBO estimate of the stimulus shows 21 percent of the
money, $122 billion of the appropriated and direct spending, will not
occur until 2012 or thereafter. We have an immediate crisis. Our
Democratic colleagues say we have to extend unemployment insurance. In
fact, it is such an immediate crisis, they have to waive the pay-go
requirements that would ordinarily apply because it is an emergency.
If that is the case, then why not simply take this money that isn't
going to be spent until after 2012 and pay for the legislation that is
before us right now? Why would we put aside stimulus money to spend in
2012 when people need it today? That is the very argument my colleague
from Illinois was making to my colleague from Kentucky. Why pile on the
deficit if we have this money available? Therefore, my colleague from
Kentucky made a good point when he suggested this money should be paid
for out of the stimulus funding. I am sorry to see my Democratic
colleagues object to that request.
The conclusion is, therefore, the bill will do nothing to create new
jobs.
[[Page 2120]]
What is more, when considered in conjunction with the health care
legislation, it will actually cause a loss of jobs.
The President, who talked about his plan last Thursday at the so-
called health care summit, noted that the bill costs a lot of money
and, therefore, they had to raise taxes in order to pay for it. Among
other things, the President's plan, unlike the plan that passed the
House or the Senate, would raise the Medicare payroll tax on small
businesses. It would raise taxes by 31 percent. It would also apply the
Medicare payroll tax to investment income, such as interest, dividends,
rent, and royalties.
We all know if you tax something, you get less of it. Taxing
investment income would, therefore, reduce investment in the economy.
Putting a tax on the employment of people means businesses are going to
hire fewer people or there are going to be fewer people on their
payroll. We cannot afford to lose more people to unemployment. We need
to begin hiring people. How do we do that? You surely don't do it by
making it more costly to employ people or by increasing by almost one-
third the Medicare payroll tax. That makes no sense. To apply it now to
investment income will directly drive down productivity and economic
growth. Less investment will, obviously, lead to lower productivity,
slower economic growth, weaker wages and salaries, and lower household
wealth.
For example, each new dollar of tax paid by a small business is one
less dollar that could go toward hiring new employees.
The Heritage Foundation just did a study on this proposal. It found
that between 2011 and 2020, regarding this investment income proposal
alone, it would result in an average of 115,000 lost job opportunities
per year; it would reduce household disposable income by $17.3 billion
per year; it would cut wages and salaries by $14 billion per year; and
it would decrease household wealth by $267 billion per year.
Last week, Congress passed a new job-hiring tax credit. With great
fanfare, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said this is the
way to help small businesses hire more people. The whole idea was to
put more people to work. The very same week, the President announces
his health care proposal that will make it harder for people to go back
to work. If the goal is to get more people to work, I submit that my
Democratic friends should shelve their health care plan, which will
have the opposite result. It is very hard to justify legislation that
is going to hurt job creation.
As I say, when you consider the fact that, No. 1, the bill before us
creates no new jobs--and I challenge my Democratic friends to show us
how doing what we always do and what was done last year--extending the
R&D tax credit, extending COBRA insurance, extending unemployment
benefits--creates jobs. What is the estimate for job creation by the
CBO on this? It can't be very much.
Finally, my colleague from Illinois, in responding to Senator Bunning
a little bit ago, said Republicans always object--and we have many
times on previous occasions--to the consideration of unemployment
legislation. I recall back in October--in fact, I will quote from a
story, dated October 13, 2009, by Dan Friedman. He says:
Last Thursday, Democrats announced a deal that gave all 50
States a 14-week extension.
I think that was about three extensions ago. I have forgotten
exactly.
The Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Max Baucus, within
hours of that sought unanimous consent to pass the bill. Even
though Republicans had already indicated that they would
object so that they could try to amend the bill to replace
the extension of the tax or to provide a pay-for in the
Democrats' plan with the use of stimulus money.
It noted the fact that I had also asked that we see the CBO score on
that. It noted that Senators Reid, Baucus, and other Democrats quickly
bashed Republicans: ``The delay is a threat to millions of workers
struggling to feed their families as they retain or search for new
jobs,'' my friend, the chairman of the committee, said.
Earlier in this particular article--I will read how it starts off:
Senate Democrats in recent weeks have repeatedly used
unanimous consent agreement requests to rack up talking
points against Senate Republicans--a tactic that GOP aides
said the majority is using deceptively to blame Republicans
rather than internal disputes for stalled legislation. Senate
leaders have long used the tactic of asking for unanimous
consent to pass legislation they know will draw an objection
from the minority and then blasting the objectors for
obstruction.
I fear that is what we are seeing here. Immediately after Democrats,
behind closed doors, develop legislation, they immediately come to the
floor and say: Let's pass it, and Republicans say: Let's at least see
how much it costs and give us a chance to amend it. We thought the
Democrats liked to do that. Oh, no, we cannot have that, not when it
applies to unemployment extension.
That is all my colleague from Kentucky is trying to do. As I said,
that is $10 billion not paid for. The bill before us is another $104
billion not paid for, and it doesn't create a single new job. Yet my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are unwilling to use stimulus
money to pay for it.
I will be very interested, when we do have an opportunity to amend
the bill before us--I assume we will, and I assume one of those will be
to pay for the bill with the stimulus funds--maybe we can make it clear
these are not funds that would be spent until after the year 2012. It
will be interesting to see if my Senate colleagues who support pay-go
would support that kind of amendment. After all, if this is supposed to
be a stimulus bill for job creation, you would think it could be used
for that purpose.
I hope my colleagues will consider that every time we pass one of
these bills, we are adding to the deficit and we are not creating new
jobs. It is a legitimate point for Republicans to make. I hope we will
have the opportunity to address that subject with amendments as this
bill goes forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona argues that
unemployment insurance is a disincentive to jobs. Nothing could be
further from the truth. I don't think anybody who is out of work and
receiving unemployment insurance believes that payment is sufficient
not to find a job. The payments are so much lower than a salary or wage
would be, it is ridiculous. There are five unemployed Americans today
for every job opening in the economy--five unemployed Americans who are
looking for work but cannot find it. That is the case and has been the
case for a long time. People are looking for work. They are not
unemployed because they have a choice. It is because of the recession
that struck and the economy. It is not because people don't want to
work.
An additional point. Many of us asked the CBO to rank what measures
would be most effective in helping the economy. The one they came up
with was unemployment benefits because unemployment benefits generate
about $1.90 in GDP growth for every $1 we paid out in terms of
unemployment benefits.
I wished to make the point--and I don't know if the Senator meant
this, but he strongly implied it, and I took him to mean that
unemployment insurance is a disincentive for people to look for work. I
don't think it is because the benefits are so low and so many are
looking for work--it is the economy or recession that cost us jobs.
Mr. KYL. If my colleague will yield, I said it is not a job creator.
If anything, it could be argued it is a disincentive for work because
people are being paid even though they are not working. I certainly did
not say, and would never imply, that the reason people don't have jobs
is because they are not looking for them. It is true that a lot of
Americans have gotten so tired of looking for jobs or believe they are
not going to find them that they have stopped looking and, as a result,
the unemployment numbers are probably higher than the roughly 10
percent that is quoted now. Some people believe it could be as much as
17 percent. This is why I have supported every extension of
unemployment benefits. I
[[Page 2121]]
have voted for them. As my colleague says, there are five people
looking for every job that exists. If they cannot get the jobs, they
needed support.
But what I said is true, and if my colleague can find a source that
says it is not true, show me. But providing unemployment benefits
doesn't create jobs. The bill we have before us is denominated around
here as a jobs bill. That is the biggest single expenditure in the
bill, and it doesn't create jobs.
Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. I have a question. First of all,
unemployment benefits in Montana are about $300 a month. That is all.
It is $300 a month in Montana. I know doggone well that is not enough
to keep anybody going very long. Lots of folks are looking for jobs,
and they are not available. Failure to pass the extenders bill could be
fairly stated as a job destroyer because there are so many people who
have taken advantage of many provisions of the bill--for example, the
R&D tax credit, which the Senator mentioned, and there are other
provisions in the bill, such as the teachers expense, for example, and
there is a deduction for tuition. Take unemployment. Say unemployment
insurance was not continued. That would be a huge drag on the economy.
If the provisions we are seeking merely to extend were not passed, it
would be a job destroyer.
The President's office said, and many commentators have often said,
our goal is to save or create so many jobs. It is hard to know what is
saved or created sometimes. But we certainly want to save jobs too. We
don't want the recession to be worse. Failure to pass this legislation
is certainly going to cause tremendous hardship on a lot of Americans,
and it would be a disincentive for the economy to turn around. It would
be a disincentive for unemployment rates to come down to a lower level
that we all find acceptable. Failure to pass this bill is a jobs
destroyer.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I respond to my colleague, the point I was
making is that it is hard to describe this as a jobs bill because it
does not create jobs. Each year, we extend these tax provisions. That
is why we in Washington call it the tax extenders bill. This is not
some new job creator. I agree with my colleague that to the extent we
continue this in practice--though everybody who takes advantage of it
knows it will be extended. So they have not made decisions based upon
the prospect that we are not going to do it. They know we are going to
do it retroactively, so it is not creating any new jobs. I support the
extension. I think it is a good thing. But let's don't call it a jobs
bill.
By contrast, as I said, the health care legislation my colleague
supports is a job killer. I pointed out just one provision: 115,000
jobs per year lost just because of the one provision taxing the so-
called passive income, the dividends. And we are not even sure whether
capital gains are taxed in that. Their estimate may even be low.
The reality is, if we are really talking about saving or creating
jobs, let's forget this massive health care legislation that now adds
two more job-killing provisions to it: a 31-percent increase in the
payroll tax and taxing for the first time passive income as a part of
Medicare. That is a job killer.
If we are going to talk about jobs with regard to the legislation we
have before us, I think it is a fair point to also talk about
legislation our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want very
much to try to get passed.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't want to prolong this too long, but
the fact is, the President's Council of Economic Advisers has concluded
this legislation; that is, the health care reform legislation which is
not before us right now, actually would create jobs, new jobs. That is
the conclusion of the economic advisers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Amendment No. 3337 to Amendment No. 3336
(Purpose: To reduce the deficit by establishing discretionary spending
caps)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have at the desk amendment No. 3337. I
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself and
Mrs. McCaskill, proposes an amendment numbered 3337 to
amendment No. 3336.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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 amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is the Sessions-McCaskill
amendment, offered with Senator McCaskill, my colleague from Missouri.
It is a bipartisan amendment, and it is one that I think is very
important. I hope my colleagues will give it serious consideration. We
have close to enough votes to make it law. I am absolutely convinced it
is one thing that will work to reduce the surging deficits in our
country.
The week before last, I traveled my State of Alabama--25 stops, 6
days of travel. People continually expressed to me their concern about
the financial future of our country. They want us to do something about
it.
I heard some of my colleagues express things like: This is just
populist anger. It will pass off. We need to keep a cool head here. We
don't really have to change how we do business. Things are going to
work out somehow, someway, although nothing in the numbers show that.
Mr. Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said last week in
his testimony before Congress that our path is unsustainable. That is
not the first time he said that. Virtually every economist who has
opined in the last 6 months or more on our economy has said our
spending levels are unsustainable and threaten the viability of our
country's economic system. It is very troubling. We all know that, and
we do not need to go into a whole lot of discussion about it.
The gross debt of our country has grown to approximately $12
trillion--the highest in our Nation's history. Some of this is internal
debt. We owe Social Security and Medicare and other trust funds that
may be in surplus. But we also owe trillions on the public debt--the
amount of debt this country owes outside the government. Within 5 years
our public debt will double, and in 10 years the public debt will
triple. I will show a chart on that point before I go into the details
of it. One of the consequences of the public debt is that we pay
interest and we have to get nations or individuals to loan us their
money by buying our Treasury bills, bonds and notes. When they give us
their money, this is not free. We have to pay them interest on all of
the debt we run up. This bill that is on the floor today will add to
the debt again because it is not paid for.
This chart is what we get in stunning numbers. It shows that in 2009,
interest on the public debt--the debt we owe to people outside our
government--was $187 billion. The Congressional Budget Office scores it
based on the 10-year budget President Obama submitted to us. If his
budget is in effect for 10 years, the deficit would go up every single
year. The debt will continue to go up every single year, and in the
outyears the annual deficits will approach $1 trillion each year. The
interest on the debt in 1 year would be $799 billion. That is well
above the current defense budget. Aid to education is $50 billion or
$60 billion. State and Federal aid to highways last year and the year
before last was $40 billion. Mr. President, $800 billion in interest in
1 year? It is a stunning number, a breathtaking number. It is going to
crowd out all kinds of plans some of my spending colleagues would like
to effectuate in future years because we are not going to have the
money or else we are going to inflate the currency and damage this
economy in a most systemic way.
This disturbing trend of higher and higher deficits and deficit
spending shows no sign of stopping. As of September 30, the end of our
fiscal year, we finished with a record $1.4 trillion deficit. That is
more than three times the highest deficit we have ever had. It is
projected that as of September 30 of this year we will have a $1.4
trillion or $1.5 trillion deficit this year, which
[[Page 2122]]
would be the highest ever again in consecutive years. It is stunning.
We cannot continue to spend the way we are spending.
Between 1990 and 2002, however, Congress took some steps that
actually worked to help get us out of a spiral of spending deficits. It
was successful. What we did was we passed statutory caps on
discretionary spending only, not Social Security, Medicare and those
kinds of programs. We kept it to 1 to 2 percent growth each year. As
this chart shows, these caps led to a surplus. The chart is upside down
really. These are the surplus years. These are the deficit years.
During these years, we begin to show a decline in deficits, all the way
to the surpluses. When it expired, it jumped up again. This looks like
a high deficit, and it was a very high deficit in 2004. That was about
the highest, at that point $400 billion.
I just made the point that this past fiscal year, it was $1,400
billion and next year it is going to be $1,500 billion. We lost some
discipline when we allowed those statutory caps or spending levels to
be breached and go away.
This amendment Senator McCaskill and I have offered both restores and
strengthens the procedures that were proven to work in the 1990s. It
would create 4-year discretionary spending caps or limits, and it would
set those limits at the level of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution
Congress passed last year.
Last year, we passed a budget resolution, not 10 years as proposed by
President Obama but 5 years. It is currently in effect. One of the
things you learn around here is the only part of the budget that has
any teeth is the year you are in. The discretionary spending on the
omnibus bill that covered half the appropriations bills contained an
increase of 12 percent. We are not doing a very good job at that. The
budget has no teeth in these outer years. The amendment proposes,
though, a fairly responsible spending increase of 2 percent or so a
year over these 4 years.
One could say: Senator Sessions, your State is cutting its budget. My
State is having to reduce its budget. My city is reducing its budget.
My county is reducing its budget. My family is reducing our budget. Why
can't you guys reduce the budget? And the answer is, we can, of course.
Some have suggested and the President has suggested that we should
have a freeze on the budget, which I would support. But I am just
saying to my colleagues, last year our discretionary spending accounts
had double digit increases; if we pass this amendment so that we have a
statutory limit of 1 to 2 percent increases for the next 4 years and it
is subject to a two-thirds vote point of order in the Congress if there
is a proposal to go above that on the basis of some emergency need, I
think we will have a much better chance of making the kinds of tough
decisions to contain this ever-growing spending level than we have been
doing in the last several years.
The Omnibus appropriations bill that passed last year increased
Federal spending 12 percent in 1 year. That is a lot. At 7 percent,
your money will double in 10 years. At 12 percent, the spending in
those accounts would double in 6 or 7 years, no doubt about it, unless
something is done about those trends.
I think this legislation Senator McCaskill and I have offered will
get us there. I was pleased to see that 17 Democratic Senators voted
for the bill because I think there is a growing bipartisan consensus
that we can do better.
A 2-percent containment in the growth of spending will not cause the
United States to sink into the ocean. We are still going to exist. The
American people are still going to have a government in Washington.
There are still going to be bureaucrats here to take care of us if we
just have a 2-percent growth in the discretionary account instead of 12
or whatever that number was last year.
I note that the President suggested freezing some of the accounts.
Though there are some very significant gimmicks in it that make it much
less tight than it would appear from his State of the Union Address, it
still indicates that the President himself knows we have to reduce our
spending, and in some of these accounts we could easily freeze them
with no damage to our Nation. I salute him for that.
This bill would create spending limits, not based on what Jeff
Sessions says the limit should be, but these are the limits in the
President's budget, that first 5 years of it that he proposed and that
Congress passed last year. We would be simply saying this would be a
hard limit on how much we can spend. Now if we need to spend more than
that on an emergency, we would have to have strong support in the
Congress to create an emergency designation to spend above that. We
have been able to do that many times in the past when a true emergency
arrived.
Some say: Jeff, you are focusing too much on the discretionary
spending. Entitlements are bigger--Social Security, Medicare, those
kind of things--and they are a bigger problem than discretionary
spending. Well, there are three reasons we have to act on discretionary
spending. One is that while entitlements, such as Social Security and
Medicare, are large, they actually have a net surplus right now. In
fact, Congress raided $137 billion from Social Security in fiscal year
2009 to pay for other things, such as the $800 billion stimulus package
that we passed--that Congress passed--last year.
Of course, a $137 billion Social Security surplus won't pay for the
Congress's $800 billion stimulus package, so where did the rest of the
money come from? We borrowed it on the world market, on which we are
paying interest. And what about the Social Security surplus; is that
free money? No, it is not, because Social Security is heading to
default. When we take the Social Security surplus into the U.S.
Treasury and spend it on increasing discretionary spending by 12
percent, we give them back a debt instrument, an IOU--a Treasury bond.
I am told they are in some location in West Virginia. I am sure the
chairman of the committee knows that but I want to go out and see them.
They have notes out there, Treasury bills, evidencing the debt of the
U.S. Treasury to the Social Security Administration. As soon as Social
Security goes into deficit, it is going to call those notes. So it does
not make much difference whether you borrowed it from Social Security
or you borrowed it from the public. The interest rates are very
similar, too. The government pays interest to Social Security and
Medicare, when Medicare has a surplus.
It is projected that Congress will raid another $90 billion in 2010--
this year we are in--to pay for things such as this omnibus bill that
is on the floor: for increased transportation and HUD funding, which
went up 23 percent; create more funding for the State and foreign
operations accounts, which went up 33 percent this year, for a record
$1.4 trillion deficit last year, and a projected $1.4-plus trillion for
fiscal year 2010. All of that was driven not by deficits in Medicare
and Social Security but from a discretionary spending account.
Our appropriators are always saying the problem is all Social
Security and Medicare. But the truth is, almost without exception, we
have had surpluses in those accounts and we are spending that to
supplement our general fund spending. We give evidence of debt back to
our seniors from Medicare and Social Security, which the actuaries tell
us, without any doubt, will soon be in deficit. We are going to call
those notes, and the Treasury will have to come up with it.
So there is no free lunch. Nothing comes from nothing. If you spend
money you don't have, you borrow it from somewhere. You can print
money, I suppose, and devalue the currency. But everybody has the
value, and the money in their pocket is devalued. It is the same as a
tax. There is no way to do this in a free way. We have been
irresponsible, and I think the American people are correct.
When I go to townhall meetings, what can I tell them? Oh, we didn't
do anything wrong. The Senate and the House, we have been handling your
money fine, my fellow Alabamian. We have done great. Don't complain.
Don't get mad. You will get over it.
[[Page 2123]]
We have an $800 billion interest payment coming up in 2019 and our
children and grandchildren are going to pay that. Yet when Senator
Bunning asks that unemployment insurance be paid for out of this
unspent $800 billion stimulus and not add it to the debt, which our
grandchildren will pay, he was able to say with some personal
conviction--with 42 grandchildren--that he wasn't going to vote for it,
and he didn't. He didn't support it and he didn't agree to let it pass
without an objection. He said we should have paid for it, and we could
have paid for it out of the stimulus.
Another reason I think we need to focus on discretionary spending is
because, unlike the entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare,
discretionary spending has overhead. There is some, but really very
little overhead in Social Security and Medicare. And we can do better.
I know Chairman Baucus has worked on Medicare overhead. I don't know
how much can be squeezed out of Social Security overhead; not a lot,
because most of it is that check that goes out to seniors, who count on
it every month. But there is overhead in discretionary spending--all
the things we spend our money on. Trust me, I have been in the Federal
Government; I have worked there. I know it can be made more efficient.
This past year, we increased spending on the Department of the
Interior and EPA by 17 percent total. I think the EPA account went up
33 percent. In 1 year they got a 33-percent increase in their budget.
And by the by, this does not include any of the $800 billion stimulus
funds that were allocated--about half of which has gone out. It doesn't
include that. EPA got money out of that, Interior got money out of
that, highways got money out of that--large amounts. We are seeing
unprecedented increases in spending in these accounts.
Consider the Department of Agriculture. I remember people criticized
President Bush for spending too much money on Agriculture. If you look
at his Agriculture budget over the 8 years he was President, it
averaged less than a 2-percent increase. Last year, our Agriculture
budget--not counting the stimulus package, which sent a large amount to
Agriculture--increased 15 percent. I always try to support the
Agriculture budget, but I could not support that. That would double the
entire agriculture spending in, what, 5 years, at compounded increases.
It is not responsible. We have to do better.
The American people, I think, are upset. This recent CNN poll asked a
tough question of the voters in America: Which of the following comes
closer to your view of the budget deficit--the government should run a
deficit if necessary when the country is in a recession and at war, or
the government should balance the budget even when the country is in a
recession and is at war? Sixty-seven percent said balance the budget,
you guys. Because they have heard these excuses before. They have heard
all of it before. What they are seeing is red ink as far as the eye can
see, with record deficits above anything we have ever seen. That is
what I am hearing when I go out and talk to my constituents. And
frankly, I am glad I don't have to defend having voted for this
stimulus package. I am glad I don't have to defend the $700 billion
Wall Street bailout, and $182 billion going to AIG. They sold off one
of their most profitable companies, or are talking about it, I saw in
the paper today, and they are going to bring in $35 billion. They are
going to use a chunk of that to pay down some of that $182 billion
debt. But if they keep selling off what they have, how will they have
any money to pay the rest of it? I think they are not going to pay the
rest of it.
Finally, I will add that spending billions, adding billions to the
baseline budget, makes a big difference. I made this chart for the DOD
appropriations bill. It is an interesting little chart. I hope my
colleague can pay a little attention to this weird, fine print chart.
It shows what happens when there was gimmicked up on the bill an $18
billion add-on, all unpaid for. There was $18 billion added to the
Defense bill. If this gets in as baseline spending, which is what it
tends to do, then next year when you advertise how much you increase
the Defense bill, you have this $18 billion in and it adds up, so that
next year it is not just $18 billion, it is the $18 billion additional
money that is in the baseline from the previous year and then you add
another $18 billion. Let's say, hypothetically, you jack it up each
year by $18 billion, and the net deficit is $36 billion; and then next
it is $36 billion plus $18 billion; and the next year it is $54 billion
plus $18 billion; and the next year it is $72 billion plus $18 billion.
You carry that out to the tenth year, and it is $162 billion plus $18
billion, or $180 billion extra for the Defense budget in 1 year, which
is about $990 billion over 10 years.
So an $18 billion addition, or failure to contain the growth in a
discretionary account, has tremendous ramifications over the years. It
is this kind of psychology that has led us into this mess. Some of our
appropriators and others in this Congress, I think, have felt a thrill
if they can beat the limit on their account. If they have been given an
account, and they get $80 billion or $100 billion to spend they can
figure a way to gimmick it up $18 billion or $5 billion or $7 billion,
and they can maneuver it through and then tell you when the bill hits
the floor: Well, if you don't vote for it, Sessions, you are against
agriculture and people back home are going to attack you because you
voted against agriculture. And I say: Well, Mr. Senator, you put too
much money in there. I can't vote for it; there is too big an increase.
Therefore, you are either for agriculture or you are against
agriculture.
What they said to Senator Bunning down here the other night, when he
said unemployment insurance should be paid for, was: You are against
unemployment insurance. You do not want people to have any unemployment
insurance. That was absolutely false. They repeated it over and over
and over again. But he stood like a solid rock and he didn't give in.
He said: I am not agreeing to it because you could pay for it, and it
is increasing the debt on my 42 grandchildren. He didn't agree to it.
Well, every now and then somebody stands up in this Senate and says:
I have had enough. I am not going to say yes this time. I respect him
for the courage he showed.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is a bipartisan
group in DC, issued a report not long ago that said that freezing all
nonwar-related discretionary spending next year could save us $60
billion in 1 year, and it will set up a new baseline that would save
us--as this chart which creates a new baseline mentality shows--$600
billion over 10 years. That is a lot. Even in Washington, $600 billion
is real money. On the other hand, the committee stated that if we allow
discretionary spending to grow at the projected rate of GDP growth
instead of inflation, it would cost us $1.7 trillion more over the next
10 years.
This is a nonbiased group. I don't think anybody would fundamentally
disagree with that. So it does make a difference how much money we
spend on every single account, on every single funding in an
appropriations bill that comes through this Senate.
Can we get bipartisan support for having a tougher line and
containing spending? I think the answer is absolutely we can. Why is
there a conflict? The simple fact is the 5-year binding caps that were
passed in 1990 had broad bipartisan support. In fact, a number of
currently serving Republicans voted for them and 10 of our currently
serving Democratic Senators did also, including Senator Reid, our
Democratic leader, and Senator Inouye, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. He voted for them in the 1990s.
If we think this through, we have every reason to believe we can get
there. The 5-year spending cap that passed in the 1990 budget deal had
even stronger bipartisan support. It passed again in 1997. I know
Senator Baucus was here then, and it passed 85 to 15, with 44 currently
serving Senators supporting it, and 26 of them were Democrats. Senators
Reid, Durbin, Conrad, and Inouye all voted for them. If we could do it
in 1990, and again in 1997,
[[Page 2124]]
there is no reason we cannot do it now. In fact, I and my staff have
met with numerous groups across the political spectrum, including the
Brookings Institute, the Committee for Responsible Federal Government,
the Urban Institute, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Concord
Coalition, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--everybody we met with has
said getting a handle on discretionary spending is essential.
Although AARP, the Association of Retired Persons, initially
expressed opposition to the amendment, I believe we have addressed
their concerns. Their chief concern was that we would not separate
defense and nondefense spending, which would let the defense spending
raid nondefense accounts. However, we have separated them, so that is
not a danger.
Of course, one criticism some might give to the bill is that it
raises the threshold for waiving--breaking the spending limits from 60
Senate votes to 67 Senate votes, and they say that is just too
restrictive. But we have to raise this threshold because we have a 60-
vote situation now and we have been able to muster 60 votes to pass
every kind of possible emergency bill, and some of those clearly were
not emergencies. It takes 67 votes in this Chamber to make a change to
the Senate Journal, but we can max out the Senate's credit card with 60
votes. Something doesn't seem right about that. I think, with the
seriousness of our situation, this would be a good step.
Furthermore, the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution already accounted
for about $10 billion per year in emergency spending, which we have
allowed to remain in this amendment. Any emergencies for which that is
inadequate should be able to receive the support of 67 Senators--if we
have an emergency. In fact, all the disaster relief emergencies, those
kinds of emergencies since the emergency designation was created in
1990 to try to contain spending, have received support of more than 67
Senators. Isn't that interesting? All of our emergency designations for
hurricanes and earthquakes and fires and storms and the like have
received more than 67 votes. So I think it is just not a good argument
to say we can't respond to a legitimate emergency.
The prospect of massive Federal spending is hurting jobs and growth.
In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Stanford University
economics professor Michael Boskin stated:
The explosion of spending, deficits and debt foreshadows
even higher prospective taxes on work, saving, investment and
employment. That not only will damage our economic future but
is harming jobs and growth now.
China and other countries may not be able to keep financing our debt
in the future even if they would like to--which I really think they
won't. Professor Allan Meltzer, a well-known scholar on the Federal
Reserve and monetary policy, noted in a column in the Wall Street
Journal that our current and projected deficits are too large relative
to current and prospective world savings to rely on other countries
being able to finance them for the next 10 years. In other words, there
may not be enough surplus money in the world to buy these debt
instruments we are going to have to issue. In fact, a recent Washington
Times editorial entitled ``Spending to a Depression'' notes that, since
China and other countries are trying to reduce their holdings of
dollars, we will have to rely more and more on U.S. banks to buy our
bonds, which will decrease capital available for lending to businesses.
On an airplane today, coming back from Alabama, I read an article
that made reference to the fact that when the Federal Government puts
out this much money and interest rates become higher than they have
been. They are currently extraordinarily low, and banks are now buying
Treasury securities at 3.6 or 3.7 percent interest for 10-year Treasury
notes. Instead of loaning to local businesses, banks can get the money
from the Fed at less than 1 percent and they can buy a Federal
Government debt instrument for 3.5 or 4 percent and not have to loan it
to some businessperson who might be a higher risk. We are crowding out
resources necessary for economic growth. This is a reality.
In a Budget Committee hearing on budget reform on November 10, former
Comptroller of the Currency and GAO head David Walker testified that by
2040, 30 years from now, we will have to double taxes just to keep up
with current commitments. Can you imagine that? The way we are
spending, we are going to have to double taxes in 30 years. He stated
that in 12 years, interest will be the single biggest line item in the
entire budget, even assuming interest rates do not change from today's
low rates. But they are going to go up. Everybody knows that. Some are
predicting the kinds of interest rates we had in the late 1970s. I
truly hope that does not occur, but many people believe we do not have
any idea how high interest rates could surge when the whole world,
including Europe and other places, is spending money it does not have
and attempting to borrow in the marketplace to have that happen. Mr.
Walker also said that deficits are the public's largest concern by 20
points, in opinion polls.
In a Financial Times editorial in May of last year, Mr. Walker warned
that the United States is in danger of losing its triple-A credit
rating. Moody's made that clear. Moody's stated that the United States
is in danger of losing its triple-A credit rating. Pierre Cailleteau,
the chief economist at Moody's, stated that, unlike several years ago,
``Now the question of a potential downgrade of the U.S. is not
inconceivable.'' Under the most pessimistic scenario put forth by
Moody's, the United States could lose its top rating in 2013--3 years
from now.
I was very pleased we had strong bipartisan support for the amendment
previously. By allowing us not to apply these budget limits we passed
last year to the current year, it gives some relief to our Members of
the Senate who complain that next year we will start cutting spending
but we should not this year. We will give a little bit there, although
it will mean we will not save as much money for sure. But I really
believe we need to pass this legislation. I truly hope we can. We only
need three or four more votes to make it a reality. I count now, with
the ones who voted for it before and a new Senator in the body, we will
have 57 votes. We need 60. The situation has not gotten any better, and
I am hoping my colleagues will look at it afresh and that we might be
able to reach that number. It will make a difference. It made a
difference in the 1990s and led to an actual surplus. I believe it
could help us again this time. We have much more serious problems this
time. We have more challenges this time. But it could make a very
significant difference in our spending level. It would really be a
statement to the entire financial world that we are beginning to take
some steps and that next year we are not going to have 12 percent
increases in spending for discretionary accounts but we are going to
hold it to the 1- or 2-percent increase level. I think that might have
some psychological improvement in our entire financial condition.
I apologize to the fine chairman of the Finance Committee for taking
this long, but I really believe it is an important issue. I am so
hopeful we are getting close to getting the votes to take this positive
step.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Alabama. He
is concerned, as we all are, with our current fiscal situation, our
debts and our deficits. I might add--this is not an excuse; it is clear
we Americans have a problem that has to be addressed--other countries
are in the same fix. It is not just America. But again, that is no
excuse. Our deficits are high primarily because of the financial
crisis, working our way through all that. The real test is whether we
as a country, when times get better and incomes increase, live much
more within our means. I certainly hope so. I know every Senator in
this body hopes so.
More precisely, the Senator from Alabama seeks to place caps on the
appropriated accounts. That is pretty
[[Page 2125]]
much the same amendment the Senate rejected about a month ago; I think
it was January 28.
I believe the pending Sessions amendment addresses matters within the
jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. It therefore violates section 306
of the Congressional Budget Act. I will not raise that point of order
at this time, but I believe the amendment does violate the Budget Act.
Furthermore, this subject is really more within the purview of the
Appropriations Committee. I defer to the chairman of the Budget
Committee to address this amendment in due course.
I also note that the Senator from Minnesota has been waiting very
patiently to speak. We are all anxious to hear from the Senator from
Minnesota, so I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, did the Senator make a budget point of
order?
Mr. BAUCUS. No, I did not.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Franken are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I also would like to take a few minutes
to speak on another topic, the extension of unemployment benefits and
COBRA subsidies. I admire those in this body who take a principled
stand. The Senate would get more done if all Members were guided by
their basic core principles and put principles ahead of political
posturing, ahead of party, ahead of polling.
To block a legislative measure because it is not fully offset--sure,
that could be based on principle. Believe me, I am concerned about our
budget deficit. But principles are something you consistently stand
behind. That is what makes it a principle, something you care about,
something that guides you throughout your career. That is what makes it
a principle. Principles cannot be ignored, even when it is expedient or
advantageous to do so. Yet that is exactly what is happening now. A
principle is being invoked only now that it is convenient.
You might remember that when George W. Bush entered office, it was
with a $200 billion budget surplus. He also entered office with
projections of nearly $1 billion in future surpluses over the next
decade, on a glide path to paying off the entire national debt.
But instead of doing the sensible thing and paying down our debt when
we had the means, the Bush administration racked up massive deficits at
a record pace. Vice President Cheney even said ``deficits do not
matter.'' Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testified that we might pay off
our debt just too quickly. We were told we might have too much money.
Really. He did this. He testified to Congress saying that was a real
worry.
Then we paid for an unnecessary war in Iraq, without offsets. We
passed Medicare Part D without offsets. We passed three different sets
of tax cuts totaling trillions of dollars, most benefitting the
wealthiest people in the Nation, without offsets.
Yet last Thursday night the Senate repeatedly attempted to extend
benefits for America's unemployed workers, and these efforts were
blocked supposedly because it was not fully offset. For some reason
benefits to the wealthiest Americans did not need to be offset, but
keeping unemployment benefits flowing to those families who have been
hardest hit by this recession suddenly need an offset.
If this is a matter of principle, it seems to me we have very bizarre
principles. One principle we should all stand behind is supporting
American families when economic times are tough. Last week, half a
million Americans applied for unemployment benefits for the first time.
Despite what some might suggest, our Nation's unemployment crisis is
not over. We know unemployment can persist long after recovery begins.
This downturn will continue affecting American families for months and
years to come.
That is why we need to extend Federal unemployment benefits now.
Without an extension, over 1 million Americans, including thousands of
Minnesotans, will lose their benefits this month. Without those
unemployment benefits, many families will have no other way to keep
paying their mortgage and buying groceries. Even with some economic
progress, there are still six applicants for every job opening, and in
some industries there are simply no jobs to be found.
Our obligation to America's working families is a serious one. When
there are jobs to be had, working and middle-class families keep our
economy running. After Wall Street's indiscretions were the cause of an
economic collapse and our government bailed them out, we are in no
place to tell America's families that there is not enough help to go
around. Their interests should have been placed ahead of the big banks
from the start.
Further, the provisions that are currently being blocked will also
provide for the vital COBRA subsidy. Right now, the COBRA subsidy is
helping American families retain their health care coverage while they
continue to look for work. Facing a medical crisis while being employed
and uninsured is a burden most families simply cannot withstand. We
should not be putting Americans in that position when it is due to no
fault of their own.
We should not be driving them to a place where they simply have run
out of options. This procedural stalling is unacceptable. I have heard
from Minnesota's employment commissioner that the expiration and
subsequent agreement on an extension will be an administrative burden
on our State, not to mention an inefficient use of State resources.
The delays are also stressful and disruptive for Minnesota's
families. This is the case in all 50 of our States. So I call on all of
my colleagues to come together today and stand behind the principle,
the principle of supporting American families when times are tough.
This is the principle on which we should all be focused and all be
judged.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) The Senator from South Dakota
is recognized.
Amendment No. 3338 to Amendment No. 3336
(Purpose: To create additional tax relief for businesses,
and for other purposes.)
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3338 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, is the Senator asking unanimous consent
to set aside the pending amendment?
Mr. THUNE. I would like to have my amendment be made pending.
Mr. BAUCUS. You wish to set aside the pending amendment?
Mr. THUNE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an
amendment numbered 3338 to amendment No. 3336.
Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as we all know, our economy is suffering.
We have an unemployment rate that is currently at 9.7 percent.
Furthermore, we have large portions of the population that are either
underemployed or have dropped out of the workforce because of limited
job prospects.
There are a variety of factors that have contributed to this
recession. The government's response so far has been largely
ineffective, particularly with regard to employment, and I would argue
that the best thing that we can do to address the issue of unemployment
and having to extend unemployment benefits and COBRA and other types of
benefits, all of which are considered in this underlying bill, is to
get people back to work.
That is fundamentally the very best thing that we can be doing--
focusing
[[Page 2126]]
on how we create jobs, how we grow this economy, how we provide
opportunities for those who have lost their jobs, who are
underemployed, to get back into the workforce. That, to me, ought to be
the focus of our efforts in the Senate.
The bill that was passed about a year ago, the stimulus legislation
which we now know is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of
$862 billion without interest, with interest well over $1 trillion, was
all borrowed money. It is going to add $1 trillion to the national
debt.
Despite that amount of spending, only $6.2 billion was spent on tax
incentives for small businesses, and another $730 million was spent in
funding for the Small Business Administration. So I want to think about
for a moment what that means in terms of the dimensions of the bill
that was passed last year. We had a $1 trillion bill. Together the
incentives for small business in that bill represented less than 1
percent of the total cost.
We all know small businesses have a much greater impact on the
economy and on employment than that number represents. Small businesses
employ more than half of all of the Nation's private sector employees.
They create nearly two-thirds of all of the new jobs and create a
disproportionate number of the patents that are issued in our Nation.
At the time we voted last year on the stimulus bill, I believe now
this was one example of the priorities in that legislation that were
misplaced if we are intent on and focused as a laser on creating jobs
and getting this economy growing again.
I made the argument at the time, as did many of my colleagues--and we
offered amendments in support of that belief--that the best way to get
the economy growing again is not to focus on a lot of government
spending on new government programs, but, in fact, to provide
incentives for small businesses, the engines of our economy; to get out
there and to start investing and to start creating jobs.
So I offered an amendment that was an alternative to the stimulus
bill a year ago, which, according to the economic model developed by
the President's economic adviser, would have created twice as many
jobs, and it would have cost half of what this stimulus legislation is
going to end up costing the taxpayers of this country--again, all of
which is borrowed from future generations.
While the Senate passed a smaller jobs bill last week, Senators in
the Chamber were blocked from offering amendments. I wanted to offer
this amendment a week ago when we considered the other jobs bill that
passed through here. That was a $15 billion jobs bill which I think is
now pending action in the House of Representatives.
But I am offering this amendment now because we have this underlying
tax extenders bill, and I think it is important that we discuss and
debate how best we can stimulate the economy, how best we can grow the
economy, get it expanding again, and how best we can create jobs to get
people back to work. It seems to me, again, that ought to be the first
priority on which we as a Senate get focused.
What my amendment would do is, it would, for the year 2010, extend
depreciation. It would permanently increase the section 179 deductions
that allow small business to expense more of the investment they make
as opposed to having to depreciate those.
By lowering the cost of new capital expenditures, these provisions
would encourage companies to invest in new equipment, make capital
purchases, capital investments; it would increase both growth and
employment. It would also eliminate capital gains taxes on small
business investment.
This simple, permanent reduction in taxes was supported by the
President in his State of the Union Address, and it would increase
investment as well in small businesses. This amendment also would allow
a 20-percent deduction for small business income. We currently have a
lot of small business owners who pay their taxes at the individual
level. It is called flowthrough income. They have a small business. The
income flows through to their individual tax returns and so they pay at
individual tax rates, and those tax rates are set to rise on small
businesses beginning in 2011. In fact, a lot of our small businesses,
about half, are going to be impacted by those increases in marginal
income tax rates that will occur in 2011. This would help mitigate the
impact of those increases on the 20 million people working in small
businesses, those small businesses which would be taxed at a higher
rate under the President's tax proposals.
Finally, this bill would prevent Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements from raising the cost for projects funded under the
stimulus bill. While I understand the importance of good wages,
projects that comply with Davis-Bacon restrictions see labor costs on
average 22 percent higher than market rates. This stimulus bill was the
first time where that requirement was inserted into this sort of a
stimulus bill designed to create jobs and grow the economy. Waiving
these provisions will help eliminate the confusion and stretch taxpayer
dollars so we get more bang for our buck in the amount of dollars
currently out there, hopefully, trying to create jobs.
My amendment would be paid for by redirecting unspent or unobligated
stimulus funds from the bill passed last year. Out of that $862 billion
in spending, according to what we hear from the administration's Web
site, recovery.org, about 37 percent of that money has been spent as of
the end of this last year. Bear in mind, a lot of that money is
obligated, but we understand that the unspent, unobligated amount on
the spending portion, not on the tax portion, is about $160 billion. It
would seem to me that if the purpose of all our efforts is to create
jobs, we ought to begin to think about who creates those jobs. Two-
thirds of the jobs in our economy are created by small businesses. Why
then should we not be focusing our efforts on creating incentives for
small businesses to invest? Frankly, that would have been the way I
would have gone about the stimulus bill.
Many of my colleagues offered amendments, and many of them supported
my amendment. I think I had 37 votes for my amendment that would have
focused in the stimulus bill of a year ago more on small businesses,
whereas the bill that ultimately passed only spent under 1 percent of
that total amount, almost $1 trillion, on small businesses which are
the economic engine, the job creators in the economy.
If we can figure out ways to get small businesses some relief so they
can start hiring again, we address all these other issues--9.7 percent
unemployment which, incidentally, the promises made when the big
stimulus bill passed last year was that if we didn't pass this stimulus
bill, unemployment would go up to 8 percent. We have blown way by. That
is at 9.7 percent. We were told it would create millions of jobs. We
know now that since its passage last year, we have actually lost 2.7
million jobs in the economy. Clearly, the prescription put in place is
not working. I argue that is largely because it was misdirected. It was
directed toward creating new bureaucracies in Washington, perhaps some
government jobs, but the fact is, the good-paying, permanent jobs in
our economy are created in the private economy. The biggest creator of
those jobs is small businesses.
Frankly, we ought to be looking at what types of policies can we put
in place that will create an environment in which small businesses can
go back out there, make investments, put people back to work and then
we start, hopefully, bringing the unemployment rate down, get people
back employed again, and a lot of these measures we are now having to
take with regard to unemployment benefits hopefully would cost the
taxpayers a lot less. The best thing we could do for people who are
without a job is to get them back to work. The best way to do that is
to get small businesses hiring again.
One final point. One of the things I hear repeatedly from small
businesses in South Dakota and across the country is there is a sort of
paralysis about investors looking at investing in different areas and
different projects. But
[[Page 2127]]
looking at Washington, DC, and seeing all this policy uncertainty, they
see this cloud over the economy. It is creating economic anxiety. What
I hear from a lot of small businesses and people who create jobs is
that they are worried about the policy uncertainty in Washington, DC.
Is Washington going to pass this massive new health care bill which
includes an employer mandate that would raise taxes on small
businesses? Is Washington going to pass a climate change bill that has
punishing energy taxes, particularly on areas in the Midwest? I have a
couple of power plants in my State that are on ice right now because of
uncertainty about what is going to happen with regard to coal-fired
power.
There is a lot of uncertainty out there swirling around about what
Congress might do or, worse yet, what the EPA might do on their own.
There is uncertainty about what is going to happen with taxes. Are we
going to see taxes go up in 2011? In fact, for small businesses, about
half who do allow their income from their small business to flow
through to their individual income tax return are going to see those
marginal rates increase when they go from 33 to 36 and 35 to 39.6
percent, significant tax increases, which is why I have a deduction for
small business income as part of this amendment. We need to bring some
certainty to small businesses in the area of taxes, certainty with
regard to regulation, certainty with regard to the litigation
environment. We have so much uncertainty swirling around Washington, it
is creating a huge cloud.
Now we have a situation where small businesses are making decisions
based upon political factors rather than economic factors. We want them
making decisions based upon economic factors, not worrying what has
become the new center of gravity, and that is Washington, DC.
Washington cannot create permanent, good-paying jobs in our economy.
Those can only be recreated in the economy as we unleash small
businesses and entrepreneurs and provide incentives for them to do what
they do best. That is to grow their businesses and to make capital
investments and to create jobs.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is paid for. It
is offset. This doesn't add anything to the debt. We don't have to
borrow money. All we do is redirect unspent, unobligated stimulus
moneys, moneys left over from last year's stimulus bill toward small
business tax incentives which, frankly, many of us argue--and I argued
at the time and I hope more people agree now--should have been a
greater focus of the stimulus in the first place. If we are serious
about creating jobs, we have to go to where the job creators are. The
economic engine is small business. My amendment creates tax incentives
for them to go out and create jobs and does it in a way that doesn't
add to the deficit, doesn't add more borrowing and allows the small
businesses to do what they do best.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to address the Republican
filibuster attacking the American worker and the Republican filibuster
attacking America's small businesses.
I had the chance to go home this weekend. I started my trip home in
Deschutes County where there is 14 percent unemployment. Next door to
Deschutes, Crook County has 16.8 percent unemployment. That is only
counting workers officially unemployed as opposed to those who have
given up on finding jobs. I went down to Klamath County to the south,
with 12.6 percent unemployment. I went to Hood River and Columbia
Gorge, Washington County, the Portland metropolitan area. Everywhere I
went in Oregon, whether it be eastern or western or north or south--
because I was in every quarter this weekend--citizens wanted to know
why are the Republicans attacking the American worker and American
small business?
Across this country, our working families are in trouble. They are
looking to this body for help. They want to know when are we going to
get it done. And by ``it,'' they mean extension of unemployment
benefits. They want to know when are we going to get extended the COBRA
health benefits. They want to know when we are going to fix the
Medicare rates that changed today and dropped more than 20 percent so
that it is that much harder to get into the door of a doctor if you are
a senior. They want to know why transportation projects are grinding to
a halt, even though we need those jobs.
The answer lies in this Chamber. This attack on the American worker
by the Republican filibuster is unacceptable. This attack on the
American senior is unacceptable. This attack on American small business
is unacceptable.
Not only does this directly impact working Americans and retired
Americans, it also affects the economy. Unemployment insurance, COBRA
extensions are good for the economy. They help put food on the table.
They help pay the rent. All of that money stays in our economy. All of
it goes for most families, because they have bills to pay to businesses
in the communities. Those businesses can then pay their workers and pay
their contractors. One of the best bangs for the buck in terms of
economic growth is right before us in unemployment insurance and a
COBRA extension.
I have puzzled over this challenge. Because what I have observed is
this: When it comes to giving away money out of the Treasury to the
wealthiest Americans, my colleagues across the aisle are delivering it
on a silver platter to the wealthiest and best off. But when it comes
to a plan to assist working Americans and seniors and small businesses,
my colleagues across the aisle, through this Republican filibuster, are
taking the hatchet to them. They are saying: Working Americans don't
count. We only want to have benefits on the silver platter for the
wealthiest.
It is working Americans who made this Nation great. It is the
American middle class that created the strongest economy in the world.
It is the American public school system and our working families that
have come up with the industriousness and the ingenuity to take this
Nation forward.
When I am talking about the silver platter the Republicans have for
the wealthiest in America, let's examine the details. Unfunded
Republican program, 2001 tax cuts, a $1.35 trillion giveaway, borrowed
from the next generation, from our children. That is quite a gift. That
is quite a silver platter. The 2003 tax cuts, $350 billion delivered on
a silver platter for the wealthiest Americans. Medicare Part D, an
unfunded program, $400 billion on a silver platter; the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, almost $1 trillion--$944 billion--through June of
2009. The total this year will exceed $1 trillion, unpaid for,
unfunded, borrowed from our children.
There have been some colleagues rising to say how this is a matter of
being consistent in paying for American programs. But when you check
the record, they voted time and time again for unfunded giveaways to
the wealthiest Americans--the 2001 tax cuts, the 2003 tax cuts. And
they voted for other programs I like but they were not funded, and I
include in that Medicare Part D.
When I hear a colleague talking about fiscal responsibility, it is a
little like listening to Bernie Madoff talking about tough accounting
rules; it is a little bit like hearing from Brett Favre about promising
he will retire; it is a little bit like listening to Simon Cowell
delivering a lecture that people should not utilize sarcasm. Because
after these trillions of dollars of unfunded giveaways, my colleagues
have put together a Republican filibuster to attack the American worker
in a completely inconsistent manner.
I have a different outlook. I think many of my colleagues here have a
different outlook. We should be here to make America work for working
Americans. That means when they are hurting, we are going to assist
them with
[[Page 2128]]
unemployment insurance, we are going to help with the COBRA extension,
we are going to help with these loans to small businesses, and we are
going to help our seniors by fixing that Medicare provision. We are not
going to take the hammer to those programs. We are going to assist our
working families.
Because of this Republican filibuster, nearly 1.2 million Americans
will lose their benefits, and by June this number will grow to 5
million unemployed workers who will be left without vital benefits if
Congress does not act.
Let's talk about that small business provision. Small business owners
have been hurt because the Small Business Administration's general
business loan program expired yesterday, making it more difficult for
our small businesses to access loans in an already difficult business
climate.
My colleague from South Dakota was just on the floor speaking about
the importance of helping small businesses. But I say to him and the
Republican filibuster attacking small business in America: Come to this
floor and say enough is enough; I am going to stand with our workers
and our seniors and our small businesses.
It is time to end the political posturing, take our eyes off November
and put our eyes on the challenge of American families, and pass this
legislation right away.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank the
Senator from Oregon for those very passionate comments. We have had the
opportunity to join in a number of forums to speak out about the
importance of creating jobs in America and of helping those who through
no fault of their own have lost their job, and I thank the Senator for
his eloquence and passion again this evening.
I come to the floor to also add my voice to what I believe to be an
outrageous situation. I say this with all due respect to my friend from
Kentucky. We work together on a number of issues, and I look forward to
continuing to do that. But on this I believe what is being done is
absolutely wrong. It is outrageous.
We are in a situation right now where nearly 135,000 Michigan
residents will lose the unemployment assistance they need by the end of
this month if we do not take action immediately. That is just in 1
month as to people who have been hit by nothing less than an economic
tsunami.
We have a sense of urgency when an earthquake happens, when storms
come, and the floods come. Well, to families across this country, the
storms have come. They have been here--in our case for years--and we
need to have the same sense of urgency as any other disaster would call
us, focusing not only on helping people who have lost their job but in
creating jobs.
I am proud to be a part of a caucus that has placed jobs at the
forefront and a President who, last year, started at the beginning of
the year with a jobs bill, a Recovery Act, and moving on, and this year
with an entire jobs agenda. But the reality is that until jobs are
created, we have millions of people in this country who have played by
the rules all their lives, paid their taxes, cared about their
families, gave back to their communities, and their only sin is the
fact that they have lost their job through no fault of their own.
They are trying to keep a roof over their head, keep food on the
table, keep the heat on, trying to make sure their kids have what they
need. Most of them are receiving $200 or $300 a week to try to hold it
together while they go job training, while they look every day for
work. People want to work. This is not about people who do not want to
work. People want to work. But we have six people applying for every
one job in America.
So while we focus on job creation and partnering with the private
sector to make that happen, we have millions of people in America who
do not understand how something such as merely extending unemployment
benefits could be held up. Last night, the unemployment benefits
stopped that process now. This month, people are getting notices,
afraid about what is going to happen to themselves and their families.
What we have is a misuse of the rules, in my judgment. What we have
is an objection, and it is one for which we have been down here many
times. We have the charts now. We have had it happen over 116 times
this session, where we have seen objections, bringing to a halt the
will of the majority, blocking the democratic process of voting--of
simply voting--and being able to solve problems and move things
forward.
I received an e-mail from a woman in Livonia, MI, who lost her job
last year. She took the opportunity to go back to school to get new job
skills to become a registered dietitian. But now, as she is doing that,
because of this obstruction, this woman is going to lose the help she
needs to allow her to make it and keep a roof over her head while she
is turning the corner and gaining new skills to get a new job. The rug
is, frankly, being pulled out from under her, and I think that is
outrageous.
She is not alone. As I indicated before, we have nearly 135,000
people in Michigan who will lose the help they need under unemployment
benefits by the end of this month if we do not act, and act
immediately.
I received another e-mail from a woman in Greenbush, MI. She and her
husband both worked at the same manufacturing plant. It is a common
story in Michigan. They both lost their job. She writes:
We are both seeking work and schooling for new careers. We
have both eceived a letter from the unemployment office that
our benefits will end. We have no other source of income and
we fear we will lose our home.
This is real for millions of people across this country, millions of
middle-class families who assume that in a disaster, an economic
disaster, their government, the people of the country, will step up to
help. That is what unemployment benefits are all about.
It is time to act, it is time to stop blocking democracy. If my
friend from Kentucky has an amendment to offer, offer it, debate it,
and vote. But just blocking us from exercising our right to vote is not
the American way. The American way is to vote, to act, to make
decisions, not to block. We have seen way too much of blocking
democracy from our Republican colleagues in these last months and
months.
I also want to speak to other provisions in this bill because I find
it interesting that within hours of the health care summit last
Thursday, the blocking of this bill showed us what the health care plan
is by Republicans: cut people off from help with COBRA, cut doctors'
benefits. That came within hours of the health care summit. We are now
getting calls from people who are concerned about whether their doctor
is going to be available.
Are senior citizens under Medicare going to be able to see their same
doctor because of the cuts that will happen if we do not act
immediately? People who one day lost their job, the next day lost their
health care--we have been able to help them through the jobs bill we
passed last February to be able to continue their health insurance
through work. It is expensive to do under something called COBRA, but
we have been able to help them do that by helping to pay on a short-
term basis for part of that cost.
So the health care summit happens on Thursday, and hours later there
is an objection that will stop health care for hundreds of thousands if
not millions of Americans, and stop the ability of doctors to be
reimbursed at a fair rate to be able to care for their patients. This
is, in my judgment, an absolutely outrageous situation, and it has to
stop.
I thank our chairman of the Finance Committee for his work and
advocacy and being here on the floor calling for us to vote. I am
hopeful people around the country will speak out loudly between tonight
and tomorrow and that we will be able to come to the floor and stop
what is effectively blocking the democratic process and blocking our
ability to vote, to make decisions, and to move forward.
We have millions of Americans who are counting on us to understand
what
[[Page 2129]]
is happening in real people's lives every day--not political games, not
all the partisanship, but real people's lives--who are going to get up
tomorrow morning and say: OK, what do I do now? How am I going to keep
my roof over my head? And how am I going to continue to go to school to
get that new skills I need? How am I going to put food on the table for
my family? That is what is affecting people across this country.
In addition to the millions of people who have lost their job and are
on unemployment, we have millions of others who are one paycheck away
from being in the very same situation--people who could be spending in
the economy now to be able to help move things forward, who are afraid
of what happens next. Part of that fear is not only will they have a
job, but what happens if they do not? And what is the message that is
sent if we do not make it clear we will be there for them if that
happens? Will they be able to continue to have the basics to keep their
family going?
I strongly urge we do everything possible. I know we will stop this
obstruction, to allow the democratic process to go forward, to allow us
to vote, to solve problems, to move this bill forward, and send a very
strong message that we understand what is happening to millions of
families who have faced a disaster of epic proportions. It is truly as
much a disaster as anything else any community has ever felt in terms
of losing their jobs and fighting and working to get something.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we are here to do the people's business.
The folks in our home States elected us to do what is right. Most folks
don't care too much about the process, as long as we get our job done
and as long as it is reasonable, within the boundaries of
reasonableness, and as long as they think we give the subject
considerable thought. I think we agree that is true. I think it is
largely true that most of the people would think: Well, gee, why don't
you go ahead and pass that extenders thing you are talking about back
there because it is the right thing to do.
People need to collect their unemployment checks. They need their
health insurance. Some of these tax provisions need to be continued;
otherwise, this is a job-killer action the other side is taking. It is
a job destroyer. To not continue these provisions actually destroys
jobs. That is not what we want to do.
On another matter: The Senator from South Dakota proposes an
amendment to make a series of tax cuts for small business. I might say
that some of these tax cuts, the ones he proposes, actually have merit.
We in the Finance Committee hope to address small business tax cuts in
a markup perhaps as early as this month. This is a jobs agenda. It is
additional legislation to help create jobs, preserve jobs, and help the
recovery come along a little more quickly.
The offset, however, that the Senator from South Dakota proposes is
another matter. The Senator from South Dakota seeks to pay for his
amendment by cutting funding from the Recovery Act, and that idea does
not have much merit, at least not in this Senator's judgment. Pretty
much the last thing we should do is to be seeking to cut the Recovery
Act.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the independent
organization we rely upon around here--both sides of the aisle in both
bodies--says the Recovery Act is working. The Congressional Budget Act
says that in the third quarter of last year, for example, the Recovery
Act caused between 600,000 and 1.6 million people to have jobs. That
sounds as though it is working to me. The CBO also said these people
had jobs who would not otherwise have had jobs. I, therefore, think we
should not be cutting back on the Recovery Act; rather, we should let
it work its will.
The investments the Senator from South Dakota seeks to cut in
addition are largely within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations
Committee and, thus, I will defer to the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee who I think at the appropriate time will have quite a bit to
say about this Thune amendment and will speak to it at greater length.
I suggest that is an appropriate time to have a more lengthy discussion
on this matter.
Madam President, 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
______
CONGRATULATIONS TO MINNESOTA'S 2010 OLYMPIANS
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, 50 years ago this month, a group of
athletes gathered in Squaw Valley, CA, for the Winter Olympics. A part
of the U.S. contingent--the 1960 men's ice hockey team--unexpectedly
surprised the world and brought home the Olympic gold medal by
defeating the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Canada. Of these 17
remarkable men, 8 were from my home State, the great State of
Minnesota. As anyone could see from watching this year's games, this
outsized contribution from Minnesotans continues to this day.
Twenty years after this ``forgotten miracle,'' Team USA again shocked
the world by miraculously defeating Finland and the vaunted Soviet
Union to again win the gold medal. Thirteen Minnesotans played for the
1980 ``Miracle on Ice'' team, and a 14th was their coach.
This year's Olympic men's ice hockey team was considered by many not
to have a chance for a medal. They were too young, too inexperienced;
they had not played together before. And the U.S. men had not defeated
Canada in Olympic play in 50 years. Yet a week ago, despite being the
underdog, Team USA upset the favored Canadians in their own arena.
After defeating Switzerland and soundly beating Finland in the semi-
finals, Team USA played Canada a second time last night for the gold
medal. Although we fell behind early, Zach Parise--a Prior Lake, MN,
native--tied the game with under a minute to play. Sadly for us, Canada
would end up scoring in overtime to win the gold medal. But that cannot
take away from what was truly a golden performance by the Americans.
Jamie Langenbrunner, from Cloquet, did a stand-up job as captain,
leading and pulling together a team that also included Minnesotans Erik
Johnson, from Bloomington, and David Backes, from Blaine.
The American women's ice hockey team was expected to be great. And
they were. Before falling to Canada, they had outscored their opponents
40-2. With Edina native Natalie Darwitz as captain, as well as Jenny
Potter from Edina and Gigi Marvin from Warroad, they brought home a
well-earned silver medal.
And of the 12 members of the U.S. Olympic curling team, 8 are from
Minnesota. Natalie Nicholson of Bemidji and Allison Pottinger of Eden
Prairie were on the women's team. The men's team was an all-Minnesota
affair with John Shuster and Jason Smith of Chisholm, Chris Plys and
Jeff Isaacson of Duluth and John Benton of St. Michael. Even their
coach, Phil Drobnick is from Eveleth, MN.
Tony Benshoof of White Bear Lake is an Olympic luger. Kaylin
Richardson of Edina was in her second Olympics, competing in alpine
skiing. Wynn Roberts of Battle Lake was a competitor in the biathlon.
Rebekah Bradford of Apple Valley is an Olympic speedskater. And Caitlin
Compton and Garrott Kuzzy, each of Minneapolis, competed in cross-
country skiing.
And there are many other Olympic athletes, like Lindsey Vonn, who
have strong Minnesota ties but reside now in other States--which have
mountains.
Yesterday marked the end of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in
Vancouver. I
[[Page 2130]]
am so proud to see that there were more athletes in this year's
Olympics from Minnesota than from any other State. Twenty-one
Minnesotans took part in these games. Most were in their first
Olympics. A few others were in their second Games. Natalie Darwitz has
been to three. Jenny Potter has now been to four, winning a medal every
time. Isn't that something--four-time medal-winning Olympian and mother
of two.
Twenty-one athletes from all over Minnesota who now will be going
back to tending a bar or being a teacher or being an engineer or a mom.
Natalie Nicholson will return to Red Lake Indian Reservation as a nurse
practitioner. The men's ice hockey players will be going back to finish
the National Hockey League season. John Shuster will be getting
married. All will continue to inspire us.
I congratulate every single one of these competitors. Each has shown
tremendous grit and determination to earn a place representing our
Nation at these Winter Olympics. Whether you won a medal, or simply
gave it your all and competed, each of you is a champion.
Olympians make the children of our State and Nation dream of what
they might do, and grownups like me dream of what we wish we could do,
all while fulfilling their dreams on the world's stage and representing
our Nation admirably. We owe them thanks for their hard work, their
perseverance, and most of all their heart. And I hope I have the chance
in the coming weeks to meet with each of these Minnesota athletes so I
can congratulate them in person.
____________________
RECOGNIZING JESSE WHITE TUMBLERS
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to congratulate a well-loved
Chicago institution on a landmark anniversary.
For 50 years, the Jesse White Tumblers troupe has delighted audiences
in Illinois and beyond and opened doors of opportunity for thousands of
young people.
Jesse White, the man who gave the team its name, is probably best
known today as Illinois' secretary of state and the first African
American ever elected to statewide office in the ``Land of Lincoln.''
As a child, Jesse White was studious and well behaved. He was also a
phenomenal athlete. His passion for sports won him a scholarship to
Alabama State University, where he was all-conference in baseball and
basketball for all 4 years.
After college, Jesse White served 2 years in the U.S. Army as a
paratrooper.
Then sports opened another door for him. Jesse White was able to
fulfill what for many of us is only a dream. He played professional
baseball for the Chicago Cubs Triple-A farm team.
Returning to Chicago after his baseball days, Jesse White decided to
become a Chicago Public Schools teacher. He also worked nights as a
physical education teacher for the Chicago Park District.
In 1959, the park district asked him to create an acrobatic show. The
result was so impressive that the troupe began performing on a regular
basis. Its mission was--and remains--to keep children in school, off of
drugs, and out of gangs in the Chicago area. And it has been a huge
success.
A half century later, more than 11,000 young people have participated
in the Jesse White Tumblers. Becoming a Jesse White Tumbler is no easy
task. Thousands of young people apply every year but only a fraction
are chosen. To make the team, members must stay in school and maintain
at least a C average. They have to obey the law and stay out of gangs
and away from drugs and alcohol. In exchange, the young athletes get to
experience the excitement and glory of performing before appreciative
fans. They also receive tutoring and college scholarship opportunities,
performance fees, and a chance to travel and perform around the world.
The power of the Jesse White Tumblers to transform young lives and
open new doors may be best illustrated by the story of three brothers.
They performed together with the Tumblers, but at some point they
decided together to drop out and join a gang. One of the brothers was
murdered by a rival gang. The second brother, seeking to avenge his
brother's death, killed an innocent man by mistake and ended up going
to jail for murder. Instead of following in his brothers' footsteps,
the third brother decided to rejoin the Jesse White Tumblers. The
direction and discipline he received helped him not only avoid the
pitfalls of his siblings but helped him earn a college education and
eventually a law degree from the University of Notre Dame.
Multiply that story hundreds or even thousands of times and you begin
to understand the importance of the Jesse White Tumblers.
The Jesse White Tumblers have earned their reputation as an icon in
the State of Illinois. The program has done wonders, and I wish it
another 50 years of continued success.
____________________
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS OFFICE IN JAKARTA, INDONESIA
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, as my colleagues are aware, the Library
of Congress, LOC, diligently works to keep the Congress fully informed
on a plethora of issues. Today I would like to highlight the important
work of a component of the LOC that is less known to colleagues, and
that is its operation in Southeast Asia. The work of this regional
operation immensely contributes to U.S. understanding of Southeast
Asia, the Pacific Islands, China and India, thereby facilitating our
foreign policy objectives.
The LOC office is one of six overseas offices operated by the
Overseas Operations Division of the LOC. Staff to the overseas offices
``acquire, catalog, preserve and distribute library and research
materials . . . and provide assistance to the U.S. Congress.''
For too many Americans, Southeast Asia is a distant unknown. In
reality, the region is of significant economic importance to the
American people. The approximately 580-million citizens--and
consumers--of the 10 nations comprising the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations, ASEAN, represent the fourth largest market for American
exports.
Based in Jakarta, the mission of the LOC regional operation is
diverse. Primary among its responsibilities is to provide research and
information services to the U.S. Congress and the Congressional
Research Service. Jakarta LOC staff also manage the Cooperative
Acquisitions Program, CAPSEA, whereby they acquire materials from
countries in the region on behalf of the LOC and member institutions,
which include 30 U.S. research libraries and 10 international research
libraries.
It is important to note the ongoing, extensive assistance the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee receives from the Jakarta LOC office.
Research and preparation for committee projects on issues ranging from
global food security, to international trade, nonproliferation, the
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, EITI, counterterrorism
and human trafficking, have been augmented by the diligent efforts of
LOC staff in Jakarta and elsewhere in the region.
The Jakarta LOC office ensures that the U.S. Congress and the
Congressional Research Service have up-to-date legal and legislative
regional information, and it assists other U.S. Government agencies in
providing and sharing open source information as well as acquiring
publications.
The Jakarta LOC office has also worked with the House Democracy
Partnership, HDP, and The Asia Foundation to create a legislative
library for the National Parliament of Timor-Leste and to train the
library staff, and is cooperating with the HDP to develop a
parliamentary research service and an improved information technology
system there.
Indonesia is a young democracy. Its Parliament is confronted with
many challenges, including the development of its own operational and
staff infrastructure. The LOC office in Jakarta serves as a bridge
facilitating communications and meetings between the
[[Page 2131]]
staff of the U.S. Congress and the Indonesian Parliament. Our
counterparts in the Indonesian Parliament have expressed appreciation
for this initiative.
In conclusion, I am grateful for the assistance provided to the U.S.
Senate by the Southeast Asia LOC office, and wanted to take this
opportunity to openly convey my appreciation.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
REMEMBERING SAM HAMILTON
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I speak today to
commemorate the life of a true friend of Florida, Mr. Sam Hamilton, who
passed away on Saturday. In September of last year, Mr. Hamilton became
the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. That was a
fitting position for a man who had dedicated 30 years to protecting the
Nation's natural resources and wildlife.
Long before he was Director of Fish and Wildlife, Mr. Hamilton was
committed to this country's wild spaces. Just last month, I was
fortunate enough to attend the groundbreaking ceremony for an
Everglades restoration project called the Picayune Strand, and Mr.
Hamilton was there. It was a proud day for us all, but certainly for a
man who had worked so long on Everglades issues and knew how much this
project would benefit the endangered Florida panther. On that unusually
cold morning, he spoke about his experience in the Youth Conservation
Corps at 15 years old in Mississippi and how that molded his dedication
to wildlife conservation. Mr. Hamilton started his career with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in Texas. He moved up the ranks to become the
southeast region's director based in Atlanta.
During his time in Atlanta, he oversaw the Service's role in
restoring the Everglades ecosystem. He took the Service's role of
advising Federal agencies with regard to the Endangered Species Act
seriously. He knew the ins and outs of the Apalachicola-Chatahoochee-
Flint River Basin, and worked to protect the threatened and endangered
species that call that system home, like the gulf sturgeon and the
purple bankclimber mussel.
Mr. Hamilton was an avid fisher and hunter, and this gave him
perspective on how to work with people from different backgrounds
towards a common goal of conserving America's wildlife and the habitat
that sustains it. I know that I echo my friends at the Department of
the Interior like Secretary Ken Salazar and the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks Tom Strickland when I say that Mr. Hamilton
will be sorely missed and his great contributions to my state and the
country at large will not be forgotten. And to his family: wife Becky,
sons Sam Jr. and Clay, and grandson Davis, you are in our thoughts
during this difficult time. Thank you for helping your husband, father,
and grandfather to serve this country.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KATHERINE PATERSON
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the
lifetime work and recent achievements of Katherine Paterson of Barre,
VT. Recently, Ms. Paterson was named National Ambassador for Young
People's Literature by the Librarian of Congress James H. Billington.
Katherine Paterson's accomplishments as an author surely merit her
appointment. She has twice been awarded the prestigious Newbery Medal,
once for ``Bridge to Terabithia'' and a second time for ``Jacob Have I
Loved.'' In addition, she won the National Book Award, also twice, for
``The Great Gilly Hopkins'' and ``The Master Puppeteer.'' Nor are these
the only major recognitions of her importance as one of the major
writers of our time. She has won 19 additional literary awards for
other works, including the Hans Christian Andersen Medal, the Astrid
Lindgren Memorial Award and the Governor's Award for Excellence in the
Arts, which was awarded to her by her home State of Vermont.
Katherine Paterson was named a Living Legend by the Library of
Congress in 2000.
Her most recent book is ``The Day of the Pelican,'' a moving,
dramatic story of a refugee family's flight from war-torn Kosovo to
America. It is the 2010 selection for Vermont Reads, a statewide
reading program.
Katherine Paterson has long been dedicated to promoting literacy
among young people, which makes her appointment as National Ambassador
for Young People's Literature particularly appropriate. She has chosen
``Read for Your Life'' as the theme for her platform for the upcoming 2
years as National Ambassador. Throughout her tenure, she will be a most
articulate advocate for the importance of literature in young people's
lives.
We in Vermont are proud of Katherine Paterson's accomplishments as a
writer. We are proud of her dedication to literacy among young readers.
And, at this moment, we are proud that our national library, the
Library of Congress, has conferred upon her this new honor, and the
enlarged task of being the Nation's leading advocate for young people's
literature.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Pate, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
PROPOSED CONSTITUTION FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS--PM 47
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources:
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the requirements of Public Law 94-584 (the
``Act''), I hereby transmit to the Congress a proposed constitution for
the United States Virgin Islands (USVI). The constitution, drafted by
the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin
Islands, was submitted to me on December 31, 2009, by Governor John P.
deJongh, United States Virgin Islands. In submitting the proposed
constitution, Governor deJongh expressed his concerns about several
provisions of the proposed constitution, but he also expressed his hope
that the people of the United States Virgin Islands continue to ``move
ahead towards [their] goal of increased local governmental autonomy.''
The Act requires that I submit this proposed constitution to the
Congress, along with my comments. The Congress then has 60 days to
amend, modify, or approve the proposed constitution. If approved, or
approved with modification, the constitution will be submitted for a
referendum in the Virgin Islands for acceptance or rejection by the
people.
In carrying out my responsibilities pursuant to the Act, I asked the
Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of the
Interior, to provide its views of the proposed constitution. The
Department of Justice concluded that several features of the proposed
constitution warrant analysis and comment, including: (1) the absence
of an express recognition of United States sovereignty and the
supremacy of Federal law; (2) provisions for a special election on the
USVI's territorial status; (3) provisions conferring legal advantages
on certain groups defined by place and timing of birth, timing of
residency, or ancestry; (4) residence requirements for certain offices;
(5) provisions guaranteeing legislative representation of certain
geographic areas; (6) provisions addressing
[[Page 2132]]
territorial waters and marine resources; (7) imprecise language in
certain provisions of the proposed constitution's bill of rights; (8)
the possible need to repeal certain Federal laws if the proposed USVI
constitution is adopted; and (9) the effect of congressional action or
inaction on the proposed constitution.
To assist the Congress in its deliberations about this important
matter, I attach the analysis of the Department of Justice, with which
the Department of the Interior concurs. I believe that the analysis
provided by the Department of Justice warrants careful attention.
I commend the electorate of the Virgin Islands and its governmental
representatives in their continuing commitment to increasing self-
government and the rule of law.
Barack Obama.
The White House, February 26, 2010.
____________________
NOTICE RELATIVE TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH
RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS AND POLICIES OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF ZIMBABWE AND OTHER PERSONS TO UNDERMINE ZIMBABWE'S
DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES OR INSTITUTIONS--PM 48
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs:
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless,
prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President
publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a
notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the
anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the
Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the
national emergency with respect to the actions and policies of certain
members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine
Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions is to continue in
effect beyond March 6, 2010.
The crisis constituted by the actions and policies of certain members
of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's
democratic processes or institutions has not been resolved. These
actions and policies continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the foreign policy of the United States. For these reasons, I
have determined that it is necessary to continue this national
emergency and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond to this
threat.
Barack Obama.
The White House, February 26, 2010.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE DURING ADJOURNMENT
Enrolled Bill Signed
Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 6, 2009,
the following enrolled bill, previously signed by the Speaker of the
House, was signed on February 26, 2010, during the adjournment of the
Senate, by the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd):
H.R. 3961. An act to extend expiring provisions of the USA
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
until February 28, 2011.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 2:04 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
agreed to the following concurrent resolutions, in which it requests
the concurrence of the Senate:
H. Con. Res. 227. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of National Urban Crimes Awareness Week.
H. Con. Res. 238. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
difficult challenges Black veterans faced when returning home
after serving in the Armed Forces, their heroic military
sacrifices, and their patriotism in fighting for equal rights
and for the dignity of a people and a Nation.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following concurrent resolutions were read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 227. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of National Urban Crimes Awareness Week; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
H. Con. Res. 238. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
difficult challenges Black veterans faced when returning home
after serving in the Armed Forces, their heroic military
sacrifices, and their patriotism in fighting for equal rights
and for the dignity of a people and a Nation; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
H.R. 4626. An act to restore the application of the Federal
antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect
competition and consumers.
H.R. 4691. An act to provide a temporary extension of
certain programs, and for other purposes.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. LeMieux):
S. 3050. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey to Miami-Dade County certain federally owned land in
Florida, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. VITTER:
S. 3051. A bill to suspend flood insurance rate map updates
in geographic areas in which certain levees are being
repaired; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mr. MENENDEZ:
S. 3052. A bill to address the establishment and
maintenance of the Systemic Resolution Fund of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 3053. A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 to permit the Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Fund to be used for transportation and use of
dredged materials for abandoned mine reclamation, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. MENENDEZ:
S. 3054. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act to establish efficiency standards for bottle-type water
dispensers, commercial hot food holding cabinets, and
portable electric spas; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Mr. CASEY:
S. 3055. A bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to
award grants to municipalities to carry out community
greening initiatives, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Isakson, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs.
Feinstein, and Mr. Leahy):
S. Res. 427. A resolution designating the first week of
April 2010 as ``National Asbestos Awareness Week''; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LeMIEUX (for himself and Mr. Coburn):
S. Res. 428. A resolution expressing concern about
violations of civil liberties taking place in Venezuela and
commending the people of Venezuela for their steadfast
support of democracy; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 384
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 384, a bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to provide assistance
to foreign countries to promote food security, to stimulate rural
economies, and to improve emergency response to food crises, to amend
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for other purposes.
[[Page 2133]]
S. 405
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 405, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that a deduction equal to fair
market value shall be allowed for charitable contributions of literary,
musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions created by the donor.
S. 428
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 428, a bill to allow travel
between the United States and Cuba.
S. 535
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 535, a bill
to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal requirement for
reduction of survivor annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan by
veterans' dependency and indemnity compensation, and for other
purposes.
S. 621
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 621, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to coordinate Federal congenital
heart disease research efforts and to improve public education and
awareness of congenital heart disease, and for other purposes.
S. 738
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 738, a bill to amend the
Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful disclosures of the
terms of rental-purchase agreements, including disclosures of all costs
to consumers under such agreements, to provide certain substantive
rights to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes.
S. 749
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 749, a bill to improve and
expand geographic literacy among kindergarten through grade 12 students
in the United States by improving professional development programs for
kindergarten through grade 12 teachers offered through institutions of
higher education.
S. 841
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) were
added as cosponsors of S. 841, a bill to direct the Secretary of
Transportation to study and establish a motor vehicle safety standard
that provides for a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of
motor vehicle operation.
S. 902
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 902, a bill
to provide grants to establish veteran's treatment courts.
S. 941
At the request of Mr. Crapo, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. McCain) was added as a cosponsor of S. 941, a bill to reform the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, modernize firearm
laws and regulations, protect the community from criminals, and for
other purposes.
S. 1067
At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1067, a bill to support
stabilization and lasting peace in northern Uganda and areas affected
by the Lord's Resistance Army through development of a regional
strategy to support multilateral efforts to successfully protect
civilians and eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army
and to authorize funds for humanitarian relief and reconstruction,
reconciliation, and transitional justice, and for other purposes.
S. 1204
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1204, a bill to amend the
Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of
2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care and services to
veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, and for
other purposes.
S. 1643
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Begich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1643, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit for the conversion of
heating using oil fuel to using natural gas or biomass feedstocks, and
for other purposes.
S. 1744
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1744, a bill to require the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prescribe
regulations to ensure that all crewmembers on air carriers have proper
qualifications and experience, and for other purposes.
S. 1966
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1966, a bill to provide
assistance to improve the health of newborns, children, and mothers in
developing countries, and for other purposes.
S. 2760
At the request of Mr. Udall of New Mexico, the name of the Senator
from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2760, a
bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an increase
in the annual amount authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to carry out comprehensive service programs for
homeless veterans.
S. 2794
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2794, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the
donation of wild game meat.
S. 2796
At the request of Mr. Enzi, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Bond) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2796, a bill to extend the
authority of the Secretary of Education to purchase guaranteed student
loans for an additional year, and for other purposes.
S. 2919
At the request of Mr. Udall of Colorado, the name of the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. Reid) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2919, a bill to amend
the Federal Credit Union Act to advance the ability of credit unions to
promote small business growth and economic development opportunities,
and for other purposes.
S. 2961
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, his name was added as a cosponsor
of S. 2961, a bill to provide debt relief to Haiti, and for other
purposes.
S. 2998
At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2998, a bill
to temporarily expand the V nonimmigrant visa category to include
Haitians whose petition for a family-sponsored immigrant visa was
approved on or before January 12, 2010.
S. 3021
At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3021, a bill to amend the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to authorize the
Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations to allow electric
utilities to use renewable energy to comply with any Federal renewable
electricity standard, and for other purposes.
S. 3036
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the names of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) were added
as cosponsors of S. 3036, a bill to establish the Office of the
National Alzheimer's Project.
S. 3043
At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the names of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Brown), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Burris) and the Senator
from New
[[Page 2134]]
York (Mr. Schumer) were added as cosponsors of S. 3043, a bill to award
planning grants and implementation grants to State educational agencies
to enable the State educational agencies to complete comprehensive
planning to carry out activities designed to integrate engineering
education into K-12 instruction and curriculum and to provide
evaluation grants to measure efficacy of K-12 engineering education.
S. RES. 372
At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 372, a resolution
designating March 2010 as ``National Autoimmune Diseases Awareness
Month'' and supporting efforts to increase awareness of autoimmune
diseases and increase funding for autoimmune disease research.
S. RES. 409
At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 409, a resolution
calling on members of the Parliament in Uganda to reject the proposed
``Anti-Homosexuality Bill'', and for other purposes.
S. RES. 414
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 414, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate on the recovery, rehabilitation, and
rebuilding of Haiti following the humanitarian crisis caused by the
January 12, 2010, earthquake in Haiti.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 3053. A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 to permit the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to be used
for transportation and use of dredged materials for abandoned mine
reclamation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation concerning the beneficial use of materials derived from
river dredging activities. This concept was the subject of a Committee
Resolution passed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works on
October 26, 2005.
This legislation relates directly to the deepening of the Delaware
River, which was authorized in the 1992 Water Resources Development
Act. The project deepens from 40 to 45 feet the main shipping channel
of the Delaware River from Philadelphia and Camden, NJ, to the mouth of
the Delaware Bay. Deepening the river will help sustain and grow the
maritime economy of the Delaware Valley region, as the river's current
depth, which has remained stagnant since 1941, does not accommodate the
size of most modern ships.
Despite the tremendous benefit the deepening will have on the region,
some concerns have been raised regarding the disposal of the dredge
material that will be produced during the deepening process. Currently,
the Army Corps of Engineers dredges the river every year to maintain
the 40-foot depth and deposits materials in Corps-owned sites along the
river. While capacity remains at these sites, there are compelling
questions about whether dredge material may have other useful purposes.
On October 26, 2005, the Committee on Environment and Public Works
passed a Resolution requesting the Army Corps of Engineers to study the
beneficial uses of dredge material from the Delaware River, including
the potential for use in coal and other mine restoration areas. The
Corps has undertaken this study with funding I secured for the past
several years and intend to request this year and in the future. The
outcome of this study could yield tremendous benefits for the Nation,
including in the Delaware Valley region and in Pennsylvania, where
there are already proposals to use the dredge materials.
One such proposal involves using dredge material from the Delaware
River Deepening project to reclaim abandoned mine lands in northeast
Pennsylvania. One likely benefit would be stream quality improvement in
the Pocono Mountains due to a reduction in acid mine flows. This
proposal would also help advance an economic development project in
Hazleton, PA, which could potentially create thousands of jobs and
contribute to the economic development of a region still impacted by
the decline of the coal industry. The use of dredge material for these
purposes has been endorsed by numerous local elected officials, state
legislators and members of the community.
The legislation I have introduced would authorize the use of funding
under the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund for the transportation and
use of dredge material in the reclamation of abandoned mines.
Specifically, an eligible use of this funding would be for dredging
material from the Delaware River for use in abandoned mines around the
State of Pennsylvania. This use could significantly reduce the amount
of additional dredge material deposited along the river as well as
advance the mine cleanup effort which has been ongoing for decades in
Pennsylvania.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 427--DESIGNATING THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL 2010 AS
``NATIONAL ASBESTOS AWARENESS WEEK''
Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Isakson, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Leahy) submitted
the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary:
S. Res. 427
Whereas dangerous asbestos fibers are invisible and cannot
be smelled or tasted;
Whereas the inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers can
cause significant damage;
Whereas asbestos fibers can cause mesothelioma, asbestosis,
and other health problems;
Whereas asbestos-related diseases can take 10 to 50 years
to present themselves;
Whereas the expected survival time for those diagnosed with
mesothelioma is between 6 and 24 months;
Whereas generally, little is known about late-stage
treatment of asbestos-related diseases, and there is no cure
for such diseases;
Whereas early detection of asbestos-related diseases may
give some patients increased treatment options and might
improve their prognoses;
Whereas the World Health Organization, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Surgeon General currently state
that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos;
Whereas the United States has reduced its consumption of
asbestos substantially, yet continues to consume almost 2,000
metric tons of the fibrous mineral for use in certain
products throughout the Nation;
Whereas asbestos-related diseases have killed thousands of
people in the United States;
Whereas exposure to asbestos continues, but safety and
prevention of asbestos exposure already has significantly
reduced the incidence of asbestos-related diseases and can
further reduce the incidence of such diseases;
Whereas asbestos has been a cause of occupational cancer;
Whereas thousands of workers in the United States face
significant asbestos exposure;
Whereas thousands of people in the United States die from
asbestos-related diseases every year;
Whereas a significant percentage of all asbestos-related
disease victims were exposed to asbestos on naval ships and
in shipyards;
Whereas asbestos was used in the construction of a
significant number of office buildings and public facilities
built before 1975;
Whereas people in the small community of Libby, Montana
have asbestos-related diseases at a significantly higher rate
than the national average and suffer from mesothelioma at a
significantly higher rate than the national average; and
Whereas the establishment of a ``National Asbestos
Awareness Week'' will raise public awareness about the
prevalence of asbestos-related diseases and the dangers of
asbestos exposure: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the first week of April 2010 as ``National
Asbestos Awareness Week'';
(2) urges the Surgeon General to warn and educate people
about the public health issue of asbestos exposure, which may
be hazardous to their health; and
[[Page 2135]]
(3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate
transmit a copy of this resolution to the Office of the
Surgeon General.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 428--EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL
LIBERTIES TAKING PLACE IN VENEZUELA AND COMMENDING THE PEOPLE OF
VENEZUELA FOR THEIR STEADFAST SUPPORT OF DEMOCRACY
Mr. LeMIEUX (for himself and Mr. Coburn) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 428
Whereas since his election as the President of Venezuela in
1998, Hugo Chavez has systematically weakened democratic
institutions in Venezuela by restricting individual rights
and the activities of political parties, discouraging the
free exchange of ideas, and centralizing and expanding the
powers of the Executive over the other branches of government
and the people of Venezuela;
Whereas Article 57 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela guarantees the right of all citizens to
freely express their thoughts and opinions;
Whereas Article 68 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela guarantees the right of all citizens to
peacefully demonstrate and prohibits the use of firearms or
toxic substances to control peaceful demonstrations;
Whereas on May 24, 2007, the Senate approved by unanimous
consent Senate Resolution 211, 110th Congress, expressing
profound concern about the transgression against freedom of
thought and expression that was being carried out in
Venezuela by the refusal of President Chavez to renew the
broadcasting license of ``Radio Caracas Television'', also
known as RCTV;
Whereas on May 24, 2007, the European Parliament adopted a
Resolution criticizing the non-renewal of the RCTV license
for undermining the right of the press to hold the
authorities to account;
Whereas Venezuela and Cuba are the only 2 Western
Hemisphere countries listed in the United States Commission
for International Religious Freedom ``Watch List'' as
countries requiring close monitoring due to the nature and
extent of violation of religious freedom engaged in or
tolerated by their governments;
Whereas the 2009 Report of the United States Commission for
International Religious Freedom states that in Venezuela,
``religious communities and leaders viewed as political
opponents are routinely targeted and harassed by government
officials;
Whereas several international human rights organizations
have consistently expressed serious concerns regarding
weakening of respect for human rights in Venezuela;
Whereas on January 24, 2010, President Chavez ordered what
amounted to a shutdown of ``Radio Caracas Television
Internacional'' due to its failure to air one of his
speeches;
Whereas on the night of January 25, 2010, 2 students were
killed and 5 others were injured by gunfire during peaceful
demonstrations against the order by President Chavez to
shutdown RCTV Internacional;
Whereas the Government of Venezuela has increasingly failed
to address the legitimate needs of its people for greater
economic, political, and social opportunities and has
aggravated political divisions in Venezuela; and
Whereas the Government of Venezuela has engaged in a
military build-up that goes beyond the reasonable security
concerns of the Venezuelan state and threatens to launch a
destabilizing regional arms race: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) condemns the recurring and ongoing repression of
peaceful demonstrators in Venezuela by security forces and
government-affiliated groups;
(2) mourns the loss of life resulting from actions taken by
authorities in Venezuela to violently disband peaceful
protestors, including the students killed on January 25,
2010, during demonstrations against President Chavez's
decision to shutdown ``Radio Caracas Television
Internacional'';
(3) urges both the people and the Government of Venezuela
to choose a path towards democracy, transparency, and
tolerance in order to begin the process of achieving national
reconciliation and a rebuilding of democratic institutions in
their country;
(4) urges the people of Venezuela to remain vigilant
against further encroachments on their constitutional and
internationally-recognized civil and human rights;
(5) urges President Barack Obama to clearly reject and call
attention to the violent measures taken by authorities in
Venezuela against citizens who are exercising their
constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties;
(6) urges the United States Ambassador to the Organization
of American States to call on the member states of the
Organization of American States to investigate events taking
place in Venezuela and adopt the necessary measures to ensure
the Government of Venezuela abides by its commitments under
the Inter-American Democratic Charter; and
(7) urges President Obama to provide robust support for
peaceful civil society groups in Venezuela and to take
measures that protect the flow of uncensored information
among the people of Venezuela.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3335. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Wicker,
and Mr. Cochran) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3336. Mr. BAUCUS proposed an amendment to the bill H.R.
4213, supra.
SA 3337. Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mrs. McCaskill)
proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3336 proposed by Mr.
Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, supra.
SA 3338. Mr. THUNE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3336 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the
bill H.R. 4213, supra.
SA 3339. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3340. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3341. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3342. Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mrs. Boxer) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R.
4213, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3343. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3336 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the
bill H.R. 4213, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3344. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr.
Whitehouse) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3336 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R.
4213, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3345. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3336 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the
bill H.R. 4213, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3335. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Wicker)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R.
4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain
expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
After section 185, insert the following:
SEC. 186. EXTENSION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT RULES FOR
BUILDINGS IN GO ZONES.
Section 1400N(c)(5) is amended by striking ``January 1,
2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 2013''.
______
SA 3336. Mr. BAUCUS proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 4213, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring
provisions, and for other purposes; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``American
Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of 1986 Code; table of contents.
TITLE I--EXTENSION OF EXPIRING PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Energy
Sec. 101. Alternative motor vehicle credit for new qualified hybrid
motor vehicles other than passenger automobiles and light
trucks.
Sec. 102. Incentives for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
Sec. 103. Credit for electricity produced at certain open-loop biomass
facilities.
Sec. 104. Credit for refined coal facilities.
Sec. 105. Credit for production of low sulfur diesel fuel.
Sec. 106. Credit for producing fuel from coke or coke gas.
[[Page 2136]]
Sec. 107. New energy efficient home credit.
Sec. 108. Excise tax credits and outlay payments for alternative fuel
and alternative fuel mixtures.
Sec. 109. Special rule for sales or dispositions to implement FERC or
State electric restructuring policy for qualified
electric utilities.
Sec. 110. Suspension of limitation on percentage depletion for oil and
gas from marginal wells.
Subtitle B--Individual Tax Relief
PART I--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 111. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary
school teachers.
Sec. 112. Additional standard deduction for State and local real
property taxes.
Sec. 113. Deduction of State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 114. Contributions of capital gain real property made for
conservation purposes.
Sec. 115. Above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related
expenses.
Sec. 116. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for
charitable purposes.
Sec. 117. Look-thru of certain regulated investment company stock in
determining gross estate of nonresidents.
PART II--Low-Income Housing Credits
Sec. 121. Election for refundable low-income housing credit for 2010.
Subtitle C--Business Tax Relief
Sec. 131. Research credit.
Sec. 132. Indian employment tax credit.
Sec. 133. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 134. Railroad track maintenance credit.
Sec. 135. Mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 136. Employer wage credit for employees who are active duty
members of the uniformed services.
Sec. 137. 5-year depreciation for farming business machinery and
equipment.
Sec. 138. 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold
improvements, qualified restaurant buildings and
improvements, and qualified retail improvements.
Sec. 139. 7-year recovery period for motorsports entertainment
complexes.
Sec. 140. Accelerated depreciation for business property on an Indian
reservation.
Sec. 141. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food
inventory.
Sec. 142. Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book
inventories to public schools.
Sec. 143. Enhanced charitable deduction for corporate contributions of
computer inventory for educational purposes.
Sec. 144. Election to expense mine safety equipment.
Sec. 145. Special expensing rules for certain film and television
productions.
Sec. 146. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 147. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to
domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 148. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to
controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 149. Exclusion of gain or loss on sale or exchange of certain
brownfield sites from unrelated business income.
Sec. 150. Timber REIT modernization.
Sec. 151. Treatment of certain dividends and assets of regulated
investment companies.
Sec. 152. RIC qualified investment entity treatment under FIRPTA.
Sec. 153. Exceptions for active financing income.
Sec. 154. Look-thru treatment of payments between related controlled
foreign corporations under foreign personal holding
company rules.
Sec. 155. Reduction in corporate rate for qualified timber gain.
Sec. 156. Basis adjustment to stock of S corps making charitable
contributions of property.
Sec. 157. Empowerment zone tax incentives.
Sec. 158. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 159. Renewal community tax incentives.
Sec. 160. Temporary increase in limit on cover over of rum excise taxes
to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 161. American Samoa economic development credit.
Subtitle D--Temporary Disaster Relief Provisions
PART I--National Disaster Relief
Sec. 171. Waiver of certain mortgage revenue bond requirements.
Sec. 172. Losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 173. Special depreciation allowance for qualified disaster
property.
Sec. 174. Net operating losses attributable to federally declared
disasters.
Sec. 175. Expensing of qualified disaster expenses.
PART II--Regional Provisions
subpart a--new york liberty zone
Sec. 181. Special depreciation allowance for nonresidential and
residential real property.
Sec. 182. Tax-exempt bond financing.
subpart b--go zone
Sec. 183. Special depreciation allowance.
Sec. 184. Increase in rehabilitation credit.
Sec. 185. Work opportunity tax credit with respect to certain
individuals affected by Hurricane Katrina for employers
inside disaster areas.
subpart c--midwestern disaster areas
Sec. 191. Special rules for use of retirement funds.
Sec. 192. Exclusion of cancellation of mortgage indebtedness.
TITLE II--UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, HEALTH, AND OTHER PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Unemployment Insurance
Sec. 201. Extension of unemployment insurance provisions.
Subtitle B--Health Provisions
Sec. 211. Extension and improvement of premium assistance for COBRA
benefits.
Sec. 212. Extension of therapy caps exceptions process.
Sec. 213. Treatment of pharmacies under durable medical equipment
accreditation requirements.
Sec. 214. Enhanced payment for mental health services.
Sec. 215. Extension of ambulance add-ons.
Sec. 216. Extension of geographic floor for work.
Sec. 217. Extension of payment for technical component of certain
physician pathology services.
Sec. 218. Extension of outpatient hold harmless provision.
Sec. 219. EHR Clarification.
Sec. 220. Extension of reimbursement for all Medicare part B services
furnished by certain indian hospitals and clinics.
Sec. 221. Extension of certain payment rules for long-term care
hospital services and of moratorium on the establishment
of certain hospitals and facilities.
Sec. 222. Extension of the Medicare rural hospital flexibility program.
Sec. 223. Extension of section 508 hospital reclassifications.
Sec. 224. Technical correction related to critical access hospital
services.
Sec. 225. Extension for specialized MA plans for special needs
individuals.
Sec. 226. Extension of reasonable cost contracts.
Sec. 227. Extension of particular waiver policy for employer group
plans.
Sec. 228. Extension of continuing care retirement community program.
Sec. 229. Funding outreach and assistance for low-income programs.
Sec. 230. Family-to-family health information centers.
Sec. 231. Implementation funding.
Sec. 232. Extension of ARRA increase in FMAP.
Sec. 233. Extension of gainsharing demonstration.
Subtitle C--Other Provisions
Sec. 241. Extension of use of 2009 poverty guidelines.
Sec. 242. Refunds disregarded in the administration of Federal programs
and federally assisted programs.
Sec. 243. State court improvement program.
Sec. 244. Extension of national flood insurance program.
Sec. 245. Emergency disaster assistance.
Sec. 246. Small business loan guarantee enhancement extensions.
TITLE III--PENSION FUNDING RELIEF
Subtitle A--Single Employer Plans
Sec. 301. Extended period for single-employer defined benefit plans to
amortize certain shortfall amortization bases.
Sec. 302. Application of extended amortization period to plans subject
to prior law funding rules.
Sec. 303. Lookback for certain benefit restrictions.
Subtitle B--Multiemployer Plans
Sec. 311. Adjustments to funding standard account rules.
TITLE IV--OFFSET PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Black Liquor
Sec. 401. Exclusion of unprocessed fuels from the cellulosic biofuel
producer credit.
Sec. 402. Prohibition on alternative fuel credit and alternative fuel
mixture credit for black liquor.
Subtitle B--Homebuyer Credit
Sec. 411. Technical modifications to homebuyer credit.
Subtitle C--Economic Substance
Sec. 421. Codification of economic substance doctrine; penalties.
[[Page 2137]]
Subtitle D--Additional Provisions
Sec. 431. Revision to the Medicare Improvement Fund.
TITLE V--SATELLITE TELEVISION EXTENSION
Sec. 501. Short title.
Subtitle A--Statutory Licenses
Sec. 501. Reference.
Sec. 502. Modifications to statutory license for satellite carriers.
Sec. 503. Modifications to statutory license for satellite carriers in
local markets.
Sec. 504. Modifications to cable system secondary transmission rights
under section 111.
Sec. 505. Certain waivers granted to providers of local-into-local
service for all DMAs.
Sec. 506. Copyright Office fees.
Sec. 507. Termination of license.
Sec. 508. Construction.
Subtitle B--Communications Provisions
Sec. 521. Reference.
Sec. 522. Extension of authority.
Sec. 523. Significantly viewed stations.
Sec. 524. Digital television transition conforming amendments.
Sec. 525. Application pending completion of rulemakings.
Sec. 526. Process for issuing qualified carrier certification.
Sec. 527. Nondiscrimination in carriage of high definition digital
signals of noncommercial educational television stations.
Sec. 528. Savings clause regarding definitions.
Sec. 529. State public affairs broadcasts.
Subtitle C--Reports and Savings Provision
Sec. 531. Definition.
Sec. 532. Report on market based alternatives to statutory licensing.
Sec. 533. Report on communications implications of statutory licensing
modifications.
Sec. 534. Report on in-state broadcast programming.
Sec. 535. Local network channel broadcast reports.
Sec. 536. Savings provision regarding use of negotiated licenses.
Sec. 537. Effective date; noninfringement of copyright.
Subtitle D--Severability
Sec. 541. Severability.
TITLE VI--OTHER PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. Increase in the Medicare physician payment update.
TITLE VII--DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS
Sec. 701. Determination of budgetary effects.
TITLE I--EXTENSION OF EXPIRING PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Energy
SEC. 101. ALTERNATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED
HYBRID MOTOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER
AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT TRUCKS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 30B(k) is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property purchased after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 102. INCENTIVES FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL.
(a) Credits for Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Used as
Fuel.--Subsection (g) of section 40A is amended by striking
``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Excise Tax Credits and Outlay Payments for Biodiesel
and Renewable Diesel Fuel Mixtures.--
(1) Paragraph (6) of section 6426(c) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 6427(e)(6) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31,
2010''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 103. CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED AT CERTAIN OPEN-
LOOP BIOMASS FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 45(b)(4)(B) is
amended by striking ``5-year period'' and inserting ``6-year
period''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to electricity produced and sold after December
31, 2009.
SEC. 104. CREDIT FOR REFINED COAL FACILITIES.
(a) In General .--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
45(d)(8) are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to facilities placed in service after December
31, 2009.
SEC. 105. CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION OF LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL.
(a) Applicable Period.--Paragraph (4) of section 45H(c) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in section 339 of the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
SEC. 106. CREDIT FOR PRODUCING FUEL FROM COKE OR COKE GAS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 45K(g) is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1,
2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to facilities placed in service after December
31, 2009.
SEC. 107. NEW ENERGY EFFICIENT HOME CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 45L is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to homes acquired after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 108. EXCISE TAX CREDITS AND OUTLAY PAYMENTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE FUEL AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL MIXTURES.
(a) In General.--Sections 6426(d)(5), 6426(e)(3), and
6427(e)(6)(C) are each amended by striking ``December 31,
2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 109. SPECIAL RULE FOR SALES OR DISPOSITIONS TO IMPLEMENT
FERC OR STATE ELECTRIC RESTRUCTURING POLICY FOR
QUALIFIED ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 451(i) is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1,
2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to transactions after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 110. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERCENTAGE DEPLETION
FOR OIL AND GAS FROM MARGINAL WELLS.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 613A(c)(6)(H) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
Subtitle B--Individual Tax Relief
PART I--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 111. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2) is
amended by striking ``or 2009'' and inserting ``2009, or
2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 112. ADDITIONAL STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL
REAL PROPERTY TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 63(c)(1) is
amended by striking ``or 2009'' and inserting ``2009, or
2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 113. DEDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 114. CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAPITAL GAIN REAL PROPERTY MADE
FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Clause (vi) of section 170(b)(1)(E) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Contributions by Certain Corporate Farmers and
Ranchers.--Clause (iii) of section 170(b)(2)(B) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31,
2010''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 115. ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED TUITION AND
RELATED EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 222 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 116. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
PLANS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (F) of section 408(d)(8) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 117. LOOK-THRU OF CERTAIN REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANY
STOCK IN DETERMINING GROSS ESTATE OF
NONRESIDENTS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 2105(d) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to estates of decedents dying after December 31,
2009.
PART II--LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDITS
SEC. 121. ELECTION FOR REFUNDABLE LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT
FOR 2010.
(a) In General.--Section 42 is amended by redesignating
subsection (n) as subsection (o) and by inserting after
subsection (m) the following new subsection:
[[Page 2138]]
``(n) Election for Refundable Credits.--
``(1) In general.--The housing credit agency of each State
shall be allowed a credit in an amount equal to such State's
2010 low-income housing refundable credit election amount,
which shall be payable by the Secretary as provided in
paragraph (5).
``(2) 2010 low-income housing refundable credit election
amount.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `2010 low-
income housing refundable credit election amount' means, with
respect to any State, such amount as the State may elect
which does not exceed 85 percent of the product of--
``(A) the sum of--
``(i) 100 percent of the State housing credit ceiling for
2010 which is attributable to amounts described in clauses
(i) and (iii) of subsection (h)(3)(C), and
``(ii) 40 percent of the State housing credit ceiling for
2010 which is attributable to amounts described in clauses
(ii) and (iv) of such subsection, multiplied by
``(B) 10.
``(3) Coordination with non-refundable credit.--For
purposes of this section, the amounts described in clauses
(i) through (iv) of subsection (h)(3)(C) with respect to any
State for 2010 shall each be reduced by so much of such
amount as is taken into account in determining the amount of
the credit allowed with respect to such State under paragraph
(1).
``(4) Special rule for basis.--Basis of a qualified low-
income building shall not be reduced by the amount of any
payment made under this subsection.
``(5) Payment of credit; use to finance low-income
buildings.--The Secretary shall pay to the housing credit
agency of each State an amount equal to the credit allowed
under paragraph (1). Rules similar to the rules of
subsections (c) and (d) of section 1602 of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 shall apply with
respect to any payment made under this paragraph, except that
such subsection (d) shall be applied by substituting `January
1, 2012' for `January 1, 2011'.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``42(n),'' after
``36A,''.
Subtitle C--Business Tax Relief
SEC. 131. RESEARCH CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 41(h)(1) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section
45C(b)(1) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 132. INDIAN EMPLOYMENT TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45A is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 133. NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (F) of section 45D(f)(1) is
amended by inserting ``and 2010'' after ``2009''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 45D(f)
is amended by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar years beginning after 2009.
SEC. 134. RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45G is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1,
2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 135. MINE RESCUE TEAM TRAINING CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 45N is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 136. EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ACTIVE
DUTY MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 45P is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 137. 5-YEAR DEPRECIATION FOR FARMING BUSINESS MACHINERY
AND EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--Clause (vii) of section 168(e)(3)(B) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 138. 15-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE COST RECOVERY FOR QUALIFIED
LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS, QUALIFIED RESTAURANT
BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND QUALIFIED
RETAIL IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Clauses (iv), (v), and (ix) of section
168(e)(3)(E) are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2010''
and inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Clause (i) of section 168(e)(7)(A) is amended by
striking ``if such building is placed in service after
December 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2010,''.
(2) Paragraph (8) of section 168(e) is amended by striking
subparagraph (E).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 139. 7-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS
ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(i)(15) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 140. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY ON
AN INDIAN RESERVATION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 168(j) is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 141. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FOOD INVENTORY.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(C) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 142. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF
BOOK INVENTORIES TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(D) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 143. ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CORPORATE
CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMPUTER INVENTORY FOR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 170(e)(6) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 144. ELECTION TO EXPENSE MINE SAFETY EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 179E is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 145. SPECIAL EXPENSING RULES FOR CERTAIN FILM AND
TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 181 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to productions commencing after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 146. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 198 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after December
31, 2009.
SEC. 147. DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE WITH RESPECT TO INCOME
ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES
IN PUERTO RICO.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 199(d)(8) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``first 4 taxable years'' and inserting
``first 5 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January
1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 148. MODIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS
TO CONTROLLING EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 512(b)(13)(E) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments received or accrued after December
31, 2009.
SEC. 149. EXCLUSION OF GAIN OR LOSS ON SALE OR EXCHANGE OF
CERTAIN BROWNFIELD SITES FROM UNRELATED
BUSINESS INCOME.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (K) of section 512(b)(19) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property acquired after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 150. TIMBER REIT MODERNIZATION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 856(c) is amended
by striking ``means'' and
[[Page 2139]]
all that follows and inserting ``means December 31, 2010.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (I) of section 856(c)(2) is amended by
striking ``the first taxable year beginning after the date of
the enactment of this subparagraph'' and inserting ``in a
taxable year beginning on or before the termination date''.
(2) Clause (iii) of section 856(c)(5)(H) is amended by
inserting ``in taxable years beginning'' after
``dispositions''.
(3) Clause (v) of section 857(b)(6)(D) is amended by
inserting ``in a taxable year beginning'' after ``sale''.
(4) Subparagraph (G) of section 857(b)(6) is amended by
inserting ``in a taxable year beginning'' after ``In the case
of a sale''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after May 22, 2009.
SEC. 151. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DIVIDENDS AND ASSETS OF
REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C) of section
871(k) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 152. RIC QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITY TREATMENT UNDER
FIRPTA.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 897(h)(4)(A) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
take effect on January 1, 2010. Notwithstanding the preceding
sentence, such amendment shall not apply with respect to the
withholding requirement under section 1445 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 for any payment made before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(2) Amounts withheld on or before date of enactment.--In
the case of a regulated investment company--
(A) which makes a distribution after December 31, 2009, and
before the date of the enactment of this Act, and
(B) which would (but for the second sentence of paragraph
(1)) have been required to withhold with respect to such
distribution under section 1445 of such Code,
such investment company shall not be liable to any person to
whom such distribution was made for any amount so withheld
and paid over to the Secretary of the Treasury.
SEC. 153. EXCEPTIONS FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.
(a) In General.--Sections 953(e)(10) and 954(h)(9) are each
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 953(e)(10) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31,
2010''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations
beginning after December 31, 2009, and to taxable years of
United States shareholders with or within which any such
taxable year of such foreign corporation ends.
SEC. 154. LOOK-THRU TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS BETWEEN RELATED
CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER FOREIGN
PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RULES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 954(c)(6) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations
beginning after December 31, 2009, and to taxable years of
United States shareholders with or within which any such
taxable year of such foreign corporation ends.
SEC. 155. REDUCTION IN CORPORATE RATE FOR QUALIFIED TIMBER
GAIN.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 1201(b) is
amended by striking ``ending'' and all that follows through
``such date''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 1201(b)
is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Application of subsection.--The qualified timber gain
for any taxable year shall not exceed the qualified timber
gain which would be determined by not taking into account any
portion of such taxable year after December 31, 2010.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after May 22, 2009.
SEC. 156. BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPS MAKING
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 1367(a) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 157. EMPOWERMENT ZONE TAX INCENTIVES.
(a) In General.--Section 1391 is amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2009'' in subsection
(d)(1)(A)(i) and inserting ``December 31, 2010'', and
(2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (h)(2).
(b) Increased Exclusion of Gain on Stock of Empowerment
Zone Businesses.--Subparagraph (C) of section 1202(a)(2) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting
``December 31, 2015'', and
(2) by striking ``2014'' in the heading and inserting
``2015''.
(c) Treatment of Certain Termination Dates Specified in
Nominations.--In the case of a designation of an empowerment
zone the nomination for which included a termination date
which is contemporaneous with the date specified in
subparagraph (A)(i) of section 1391(d)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect before the enactment of
this Act), subparagraph (B) of such section shall not apply
with respect to such designation unless, after the date of
the enactment of this section, the entity which made such
nomination reconfirms such termination date, or amends the
nomination to provide for a new termination date, in such
manner as the Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's
designee) may provide.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 158. TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 1400 is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' each place it appears and
inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Tax-Exempt DC Empowerment Zone Bonds.--Subsection (b)
of section 1400A is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009''
and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(c) Zero-Percent Capital Gains Rate.--
(1) Acquisition date.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i), (3)(A),
(4)(A)(i), and (4)(B)(i)(I) of section 1400B(b) are each
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(2) Limitation on period of gains.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 1400B(e) is
amended--
(i) by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting
``December 31, 2015'', and
(ii) by striking ``2014'' in the heading and inserting
``2015''.
(B) Partnerships and s-corps.--Paragraph (2) of section
1400B(g) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2015''.
(d) First-Time Homebuyer Credit.--Subsection (i) of section
1400C is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to periods after December 31, 2009.
(2) Tax-exempt dc empowerment zone bonds.--The amendment
made by subsection (b) shall apply to bonds issued after
December 31, 2009.
(3) Acquisition dates for zero-percent capital gains
rate.--The amendments made by subsection (c) shall apply to
property acquired or substantially improved after December
31, 2009.
(4) Homebuyer credit.--The amendment made by subsection (d)
shall apply to homes purchased after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 159. RENEWAL COMMUNITY TAX INCENTIVES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 1400E is
amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2009'' in paragraphs (1)(A)
and (3) and inserting ``December 31, 2010'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' in paragraph (3) and
inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Zero-Percent Capital Gains Rate.--
(1) Acquisition date.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i), (3)(A),
(4)(A)(i), and (4)(B)(i) of section 1400F(b) are each amended
by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1,
2011''.
(2) Limitation on period of gains.--Paragraph (2) of
section 1400F(c) is amended--
(A) by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting
``December 31, 2015'', and
(B) by striking ``2014'' in the heading and inserting
``2015''.
(3) Clerical amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 1400F is
amended by striking ``and `December 31, 2014' for `December
31, 2014'''.
(c) Commercial Revitalization Deduction.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (g) of section 1400I is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section
1400I(d)(2) is amended by striking ``after 2001 and before
2010'' and inserting ``which begins after 2001 and before the
date referred to in subsection (g)''.
(d) Increased Expensing Under Section 179.--Subparagraph
(A) of section 1400J(b)(1) is amended by striking ``January
1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(e) Treatment of Certain Termination Dates Specified in
Nominations.--In the case of a designation of a renewal
community the nomination for which included a termination
date which is contemporaneous with the date specified in
subparagraph (A) of section 1400E(b)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect before the enactment of
this Act), subparagraph (B) of such section shall not apply
with respect to such designation unless, after the date of
the enactment of this section, the entity which made such
nomination reconfirms such termination date, or amends the
nomination to provide for a new termination date, in such
manner as the Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's
designee) may provide.
(f) Effective Dates.--
[[Page 2140]]
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to periods after December 31, 2009.
(2) Acquisitions.--The amendments made by subsections
(b)(1) and (d) shall apply to acquisitions after December 31,
2009.
(3) Commercial revitalization deduction.--
(A) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (c)(1)
shall apply to buildings placed in service after December 31,
2009.
(B) Conforming amendment.--The amendment made by subsection
(c)(2) shall apply to calendar years beginning after December
31, 2009.
SEC. 160. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN LIMIT ON COVER OVER OF RUM
EXCISE TAXES TO PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distilled spirits brought into the United
States after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 161. AMERICAN SAMOA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 119 of division
A of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is amended--
(1) by striking ``first 4 taxable years'' and inserting
``first 5 taxable years'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January
1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
Subtitle D--Temporary Disaster Relief Provisions
PART I--NATIONAL DISASTER RELIEF
SEC. 171. WAIVER OF CERTAIN MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (11) of section 143(k) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Special Rule for Residences Destroyed in Federally
Declared Disasters.--Paragraph (13) of section 143(k), as
redesignated by subsection (c), is amended by striking
``January 1, 2010'' in subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B)(i) and
inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Subsection (k) of section 143 is
amended by redesignating the second paragraph (12) (relating
to special rules for residences destroyed in federally
declared disasters) as paragraph (13).
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendment made by this section shall apply to
bonds issued after December 31, 2009.
(2) Residences destroyed in federally declared disasters.--
The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply with
respect to disasters occurring after December 31, 2009.
(3) Technical amendment.--The amendment made by subsection
(c) shall take effect as if included in section 709 of the
Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008.
SEC. 172. LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO FEDERALLY DECLARED
DISASTERS.
(a) In General.--Subclause (I) of section 165(h)(3)(B)(i)
is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) $500 Limitation.--Paragraph (1) of section 165(h) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply to federally declared disasters occurring after
December 31, 2009.
(2) $500 limitation.--The amendment made by subsection (b)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 173. SPECIAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR QUALIFIED
DISASTER PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subclause (I) of section 168(n)(2)(A)(ii)
is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to disasters occurring after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 174. NET OPERATING LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO FEDERALLY
DECLARED DISASTERS.
(a) In General.--Subclause (I) of section 172(j)(1)(A)(i)
is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to losses attributable to disasters occurring
after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 175. EXPENSING OF QUALIFIED DISASTER EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 198A(b)(2) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenditures on account of disasters occurring
after December 31, 2009.
PART II--REGIONAL PROVISIONS
Subpart A--New York Liberty Zone
SEC. 181. SPECIAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1400L(b)(2) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting
``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 182. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 1400L(d)(2) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2009.
Subpart B--GO Zone
SEC. 183. SPECIAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 1400N(d)(6) is
amended by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 184. INCREASE IN REHABILITATION CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 1400N is amended
by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December
31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31,
2009.
SEC. 185. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED BY HURRICANE KATRINA FOR
EMPLOYERS INSIDE DISASTER AREAS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 201(b) of the
Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 is amended by
striking ``4-year'' and inserting ``5-year''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individuals hired after August 27, 2009.
Subpart C--Midwestern Disaster Areas
SEC. 191. SPECIAL RULES FOR USE OF RETIREMENT FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Section 702(d)(10) of the Heartland
Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343; 122
Stat. 3918) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' both places it appears
and inserting ``January 1, 2011'', and
(2) by striking ``December 31, 2009'' both places it
appears and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in section 702(d)(10) of the
Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008.
SEC. 192. EXCLUSION OF CANCELLATION OF MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS.
(a) In General.--Section 702(e)(4)(C) of the Heartland
Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343; 122
Stat. 3918) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to discharges of indebtedness after December 31,
2009.
TITLE II--UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, HEALTH, AND OTHER PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Unemployment Insurance
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 ``February 28, 2010'' each place it appears
and inserting ``December 31, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``february 28, 2010'' and inserting ``december 31, 2010'';
and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``July 31, 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 ``February 28, 2010''
and inserting ``December 31, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking
``february 28, 2010'' and inserting ``december 31, 2010'';
and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``August 31, 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 ``February 28, 2010'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 1, 2011''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``July 31, 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 ``July 31, 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 (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``1009'' and inserting
``1009(a)(1)''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) 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
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law
111-118).
[[Page 2141]]
Subtitle B--Health Provisions
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) is amended by
striking ``February 28, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31,
2010''.
(b) Clarifications Relating to Section 3001 of ARRA.--
(1) Clarification regarding cobra continuation resulting
from reductions in hours.--Subsection (a) of section 3001 of
division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)(C), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``or consists of a reduction of hours
followed by such an involuntary termination of employment
during such period'';
(B) in paragraph (16)--
(i) by striking clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), and
inserting the following:
``(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
subparagraph (D)(ii), 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).''; and
(ii) by striking subclause (I) of subparagraph (C)(i), and
inserting the following:
``(I) such assistance eligible individual experienced an
involuntary termination that was a qualifying event prior to
the date of enactment of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2010; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(17) Special rules in case of individuals losing coverage
because of a reduction of hours.--
``(A) New election period.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of the COBRA continuation
provisions, in the case of an individual described in
subparagraph (C) who did not make (or who made and
discontinued) an election of COBRA continuation coverage on
the basis of the reduction of hours of employment, the
involuntary termination of employment of such individual
after the date of the enactment of the American Workers,
State, and Business Relief Act of 2010 shall be treated as a
qualifying event.
``(ii) Counting cobra duration period from previous
qualifying event.--In any case of an individual referred to
in clause (i), the period of such individual's continuation
coverage shall be determined as though the qualifying event
were the reduction of hours of employment.
``(iii) Construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as requiring an individual referred to in clause
(i) to make a payment for COBRA continuation coverage between
the reduction of hours and the involuntary termination of
employment.
``(iv) Preexisting conditions.--With respect to an
individual referred to in clause (i) who elects COBRA
continuation coverage pursuant to such clause, rules similar
to the rules in paragraph (4)(C) shall apply.
``(B) Notices.--In the case of an individual described in
subparagraph (C), the administrator of the group health plan
(or other entity) involved shall provide, during the 60-day
period beginning on the date of such individual's involuntary
termination of employment, an additional notification
described in paragraph (7)(A), including information on the
provisions of this paragraph. Rules similar to the rules of
paragraph (7) shall apply with respect to such notification.
``(C) Individuals described.--Individuals described in this
subparagraph are individuals who are assistance eligible
individuals on the basis of a qualifying event consisting of
a reduction of hours occurring during the period described in
paragraph (3)(A) followed by an involuntary termination of
employment insofar as such involuntary termination of
employment occurred after the date of the enactment of the
American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010.''.
(2) Clarification of period of assistance.--Subsection
(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of such section is amended by striking ``of
the first month''.
(3) Enforcement.--Subsection (a)(5) of such section is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``In addition to
civil actions that may be brought to enforce applicable
provisions of such Act or other laws, the appropriate
Secretary or an affected individual may bring a civil action
to enforce such determinations and for appropriate relief. In
addition, such Secretary may assess a penalty against a plan
sponsor or health insurance issuer of not more than $110 per
day for each failure to comply with such determination of
such Secretary after 10 days after the date of the plan
sponsor's or issuer's receipt of the determination.''.
(4) Amendments relating to section 3001 of arra.--
(A) Subsection (g) of section 35 is amended by striking
``section 3002(a) of the Health Insurance Assistance for the
Unemployed Act of 2009'' and inserting ``section 3001(a) of
title III of division B of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
(B) Section 139C is amended by striking ``section 3002 of
the Health Insurance Assistance for the Unemployed Act of
2009'' and inserting ``section 3001 of title III of division
B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
(C) Section 6432 is amended--
(i) in subsection (a), by striking ``section 3002(a) of the
Health Insurance Assistance for the Unemployed Act of 2009''
and inserting ``section 3001(a) of title III of division B of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'';
(ii) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ``section
3002(a)(1)(A) of such Act'' in subsection (c)(3) and
inserting ``section 3001(a)(1)(A) of title III of division B
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''; and
(iii) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as
subsections (f) and (g), respectively, and inserting after
subsection (d) the following new subsection:.
``(e) Employer Determination of Qualifying Event as
Involuntary Termination.--For purposes of this section, in
any case in which--
``(1) based on a reasonable interpretation of section
3001(a)(3)(C) of division B of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 and administrative guidance
thereunder, an employer determines that the qualifying event
with respect to COBRA continuation coverage for an individual
was involuntary termination of a covered employee's
employment, and
``(2) the employer maintains supporting documentation of
the determination, including an attestation by the employer
of involuntary termination with respect to the covered
employee,
the qualifying event for the individual shall be deemed to be
involuntary termination of the covered employee's
employment.''.
(D) Subsection (a) of section 6720C is amended by striking
``section 3002(a)(2)(C) of the Health Insurance Assistance
for the Unemployed Act of 2009'' and inserting ``section
3001(a)(2)(C) of title III of division B of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
(c) 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
March 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) 2101 transition period.--
``(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.''.
(d) 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 to which they relate, except that--
(1) the amendments made by subsections (b)(1) shall apply
to periods of coverage beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(2) the amendments made by paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
[[Page 2142]]
SEC. 212. EXTENSION OF THERAPY CAPS EXCEPTIONS PROCESS.
Section 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(g)(5)) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
SEC. 213. TREATMENT OF PHARMACIES UNDER DURABLE MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1834(a)(20) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(20)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (F)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``clause (ii)'' and inserting ``clauses
(ii) and (iii)'';
(ii) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''; and
(iii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (ii)(II), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and'';
(C) by inserting after clause (ii)(II) the following new
clause:
``(iii)(I) subject to subclause (II), with respect to items
and services furnished on or after January 1, 2011, the
accreditation requirement of clause (i) shall not apply to a
pharmacy described in subparagraph (G); and
``(II) effective with respect to items and services
furnished on or after the date of the enactment of this
subparagraph, the Secretary may apply to pharmacies quality
standards and an accreditation requirement established by the
Secretary that are an alternative to the quality standards
and accreditation requirement otherwise applicable under this
paragraph if the Secretary determines such alternative
quality standards and accreditation requirement are
appropriate for pharmacies.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
``If determined appropriate by the Secretary, any alternative
quality standards and accreditation requirement established
under clause (iii)(II) may differ for categories of
pharmacies established by the Secretary (such as pharmacies
described in subparagraph (G)).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) Pharmacy described.--A pharmacy described in this
subparagraph is a pharmacy that meets each of the following
criteria:
``(i) The total billings by the pharmacy for such items and
services under this title are less than 5 percent of total
pharmacy sales for a previous period (of not less than 24
months) specified by the Secretary.
``(ii) The pharmacy has been enrolled under section 1866(j)
as a supplier of durable medical equipment, prosthetics,
orthotics, and supplies, has been issued (which may include
the renewal of) a provider number for at least 2 years, and
for which a final adverse action (as defined in section
424.57(a) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations) has not
been imposed in the past 2 years.
``(iii) The pharmacy submits to the Secretary an
attestation, in a form and manner, and at a time, specified
by the Secretary, that the pharmacy meets the criteria
described in clauses (i) and (ii).
``(iv) The pharmacy agrees to submit materials as requested
by the Secretary, or during the course of an audit conducted
on a random sample of pharmacies selected annually, to verify
that the pharmacy meets the criteria described in clauses (i)
and (ii). Materials submitted under the preceding sentence
shall include a certification by an independent accountant on
behalf of the pharmacy or the submission of tax returns filed
by the pharmacy during the relevant periods, as requested by
the Secretary.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1834(a)(20)(E) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(20)(E)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in the third sentence, the'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentences:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentences, any alternative
quality standards and accreditation requirement established
under subparagraph (F)(iii)(II) shall be established through
notice and comment rulemaking. The Secretary may implement by
program instruction or otherwise subparagraph (G) after
consultation with representatives of relevant parties. The
specifications developed by the Secretary in order to
implement subparagraph (G) shall be posted on the Internet
website of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.''.
(c) Administration.--Chapter 35 of title 44, United States
Code, shall not apply to this section.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in the provisions of, or
amendments made by, this section shall be construed as
affecting the application of an accreditation requirement for
pharmacies to qualify for bidding in a competitive
acquisition area under section 1847 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3).
(e) Waiver of 1-Year Reenrollment Bar.--In the case of a
pharmacy described in subparagraph (G) of section 1834(a)(20)
of the Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a), whose
billing privileges were revoked prior to January 1, 2011, by
reason of noncompliance with subparagraph (F)(i) of such
section, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
waive any reenrollment bar imposed pursuant to section
424.535(d) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) for such
pharmacy to reapply for such privileges.
SEC. 214. ENHANCED PAYMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
Section 138(a)(1) of the Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31,
2010''.
SEC. 215. EXTENSION OF AMBULANCE ADD-ONS.
(a) In General.--Section 1834(l)(13) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(13)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``before January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``before January 1,
2011''; and
(B) in each of clauses (i) and (ii), by striking ``before
January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``before January 1, 2011''.
(b) Air Ambulance Improvements.--Section 146(b)(1) of the
Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-275) is amended by striking ``ending on
December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``ending on December 31,
2010''.
(c) Super Rural Ambulance.--Section 1834(l)(12)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(12)(A)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``2010'' and
inserting ``2011''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For
purposes of applying this subparagraph for ground ambulance
services furnished on or after January 1, 2010, and before
January 1, 2011, the Secretary shall use the percent increase
that was applicable under this subparagraph to ground
ambulance services furnished during 2009.''.
SEC. 216. EXTENSION OF GEOGRAPHIC FLOOR FOR WORK.
Section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-4(e)(1)(E)) is amended by striking ``before January 1,
2010'' and inserting ``before January 1, 2011''.
SEC. 217. EXTENSION OF PAYMENT FOR TECHNICAL COMPONENT OF
CERTAIN PHYSICIAN PATHOLOGY SERVICES.
Section 542(c) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted
into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554), as
amended by section 732 of the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4
note), section 104 of division B of the Tax Relief and Health
Care Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4 note), section 104 of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public
Law 110-173), and section 136 of the Medicare Improvements
for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275),
is amended by striking ``and 2009'' and inserting ``2009, and
2010''.
SEC. 218. EXTENSION OF OUTPATIENT HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(7)(D)(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)(D)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (II)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``2010''and
inserting ``2011''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``or 2009'' and
inserting ``, 2009, or 2010''; and
(2) in subclause (III), by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Permitting All Sole Community Hospitals To Be Eligible
for Hold Harmless.--Section 1833(t)(7)(D)(i)(III) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)(D)(i)(III)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In
the case of covered OPD services furnished on or after
January 1, 2010, and before January 1, 2011, the preceding
sentence shall be applied without regard to the 100-bed
limitation.''.
SEC. 219. EHR CLARIFICATION.
(a) Qualification for Clinic-Based Physicians.--
(1) Medicare.--Section 1848(o)(1)(C)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(o)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by
striking ``setting (whether inpatient or outpatient)'' and
inserting ``inpatient or emergency room setting''.
(2) Medicaid.--Section 1903(t)(3)(D) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(t)(3)(D)) is amended by striking
``setting (whether inpatient or outpatient)'' and inserting
``inpatient or emergency room setting''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of the
HITECH Act (included in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5)).
(c) Implementation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary may implement the amendments made by this
section by program instruction or otherwise.
SEC. 220. EXTENSION OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL MEDICARE PART B
SERVICES FURNISHED BY CERTAIN INDIAN HOSPITALS
AND CLINICS.
Section 1880(e)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395qq(e)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``5-year period'' and
inserting ``6-year period''.
SEC. 221. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PAYMENT RULES FOR LONG-TERM
CARE HOSPITAL SERVICES AND OF MORATORIUM ON THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN HOSPITALS AND
FACILITIES.
(a) Extension of Certain Payment Rules.--Section 114(c) of
the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (42
U.S.C. 1395ww note), as amended by section
[[Page 2143]]
4302(a) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public
Law 111-5), is amended by striking ``3-year period'' each
place it appears and inserting ``4-year period''.
(b) Extension of Moratorium.--Section 114(d)(1) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395ww note), as amended by section 4302(b) of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5), in
the matter preceding subparagraph (A), is amended by striking
``3-year period'' and inserting ``4-year period''.
SEC. 222. EXTENSION OF THE MEDICARE RURAL HOSPITAL
FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM.
Section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395i-4(j)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2010, and for'' and inserting ``2010,
for''; and
(2) by inserting ``and for making grants to all States
under subsection (g), such sums as may be necessary in fiscal
year 2011, to remain available until expended'' before the
period at the end.
SEC. 223. EXTENSION OF SECTION 508 HOSPITAL
RECLASSIFICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 106 of division
B of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C.
1395 note), as amended by section 117 of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-
173) and section 124 of the Medicare Improvements for
Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275), is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2009'' and inserting
``September 30, 2010''.
(b) Special Rule for Fiscal Year 2010.--For purposes of
implementation of the amendment made by subsection (a),
including (notwithstanding paragraph (3) of section 117(a) of
the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-173), as amended by section 124(b) of the
Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-275)) for purposes of the implementation of
paragraph (2) of such section 117(a), during fiscal year
2010, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this
subsection referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall use the
hospital wage index that was promulgated by the Secretary in
the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 43754),
and any subsequent corrections.
SEC. 224. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATED TO CRITICAL ACCESS
HOSPITAL SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Subsections (g)(2)(A) and (l)(8) of
section 1834 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m) are
each amended by inserting ``101 percent of'' before ``the
reasonable costs''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
405(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat.
2266).
SEC. 225. EXTENSION FOR SPECIALIZED MA PLANS FOR SPECIAL
NEEDS INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-28(f)(1)) is amended by striking
``2011'' and inserting ``2012''.
(b) Temporary Extension of Authority To Operate but No
Service Area Expansion for Dual Special Needs Plans That Do
Not Meet Certain Requirements.--Section 164(c)(2) of the
Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-275) is amended by striking ``December 31,
2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.
SEC. 226. EXTENSION OF REASONABLE COST CONTRACTS.
Section 1876(h)(5)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395mm(h)(5)(C)(ii)) is amended, in the matter
preceding subclause (I), by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
SEC. 227. EXTENSION OF PARTICULAR WAIVER POLICY FOR EMPLOYER
GROUP PLANS.
For plan year 2011 and subsequent plan years, to the extent
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is applying
the 2008 service area extension waiver policy (as modified in
the April 11, 2008, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services'
memorandum with the subject ``2009 Employer Group Waiver-
Modification of the 2008 Service Area Extension Waiver
Granted to Certain MA Local Coordinated Care Plans'') to
Medicare Advantage coordinated care plans, the Secretary
shall extend the application of such waiver policy to
employers who contract directly with the Secretary as a
Medicare Advantage private fee-for-service plan under section
1857(i)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
27(i)(2)) and that had enrollment as of January 1, 2010.
SEC. 228. EXTENSION OF CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
PROGRAM.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall continue to conduct the
Erickson Advantage Continuing Care Retirement Community
(CCRC) program under part C of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act through December 31, 2011.
SEC. 229. FUNDING OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME
PROGRAMS.
(a) Additional Funding for State Health Insurance
Programs.--Subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 119 of the
Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
(42 U.S.C. 1395b-3 note) is amended by striking ``(42 U.S.C.
1395w-23(f))'' and all that follows through the period at the
end and inserting ``(42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(f)), to the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services Program Management Account--
``(i) for fiscal year 2009, of $7,500,000; and
``(ii) for fiscal year 2010, of $6,000,000.
Amounts appropriated under this subparagraph shall remain
available until expended.''.
(b) Additional Funding for Area Agencies on Aging.--
Subsection (b)(1)(B) of such section 119 is amended by
striking ``(42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(f))'' and all that follows
through the period at the end and inserting ``(42 U.S.C.
1395w-23(f)), to the Administration on Aging--
``(i) for fiscal year 2009, of $7,500,000; and
``(ii) for fiscal year 2010, of $6,000,000.
Amounts appropriated under this subparagraph shall remain
available until expended.''.
(c) Additional Funding for Aging and Disability Resource
Centers.--Subsection (c)(1)(B) of such section 119 is amended
by striking ``(42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(f))'' and all that follows
through the period at the end and inserting ``(42 U.S.C.
1395w-23(f)), to the Administration on Aging--
``(i) for fiscal year 2009, of $5,000,000; and
``(ii) for fiscal year 2010, of $6,000,000.
Amounts appropriated under this subparagraph shall remain
available until expended.''.
(d) Additional Funding for Contract With the National
Center for Benefits and Outreach Enrollment.--Subsection
(d)(2) of such section 119 is amended by striking ``(42
U.S.C. 1395w-23(f))'' and all that follows through the period
at the end and inserting ``(42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(f)), to the
Administration on Aging--
``(i) for fiscal year 2009, of $5,000,000; and
``(ii) for fiscal year 2010, of $2,000,000.
Amounts appropriated under this subparagraph shall remain
available until expended.''.
SEC. 230. FAMILY-TO-FAMILY HEALTH INFORMATION CENTERS.
Section 501(c)(1)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 701(c)(1)(A)(iii)) is amended by striking ``fiscal
year 2009'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2009 through
2011''.
SEC. 231. IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING.
For purposes of carrying out the provisions of, and
amendments made by, this title that relate to titles XVIII
and XIX of the Social Security Act, there are appropriated to
the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services Program Management Account,
from amounts in the general fund of the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $100,000,000. Amounts appropriated
under the preceding sentence shall remain available until
expended.
SEC. 232. EXTENSION OF ARRA INCREASE IN FMAP.
Section 5001 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``first calendar
quarter'' and inserting ``first 3 calendar quarters'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``July 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2011'';
(B) in paragraph (3)(B)(i), by striking ``July 1, 2010''
each place it appears and inserting ``January 1, 2011''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)(C)(ii), by striking ``the 3-
consecutive-month period beginning with January 2010'' and
inserting ``any 3-consecutive-month period that begins after
December 2009 and ends before January 2011'';
(3) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``September 30, 2011''
and inserting ``March 31, 2012'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting ``of such Act'' after ``1923''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Voluntary contributions by a political subdivision to the
non-Federal share of expenditures under the State Medicaid
plan or to the non-Federal share of payments under section
1923 of the Social Security Act shall not be considered to be
required contributions for purposes of this section.''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Certification by chief executive officer.--No
additional Federal funds shall be paid to a State as a result
of this section with respect to a calendar quarter occurring
during the period beginning on January 1, 2011, and ending on
June 30, 2011, unless, not later than 45 days after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, the chief executive officer
of the State certifies that the State will request and use
such additional Federal funds.''; and
(4) in subsection (h)(3), by striking ``December 31, 2010''
and inserting ``June 30, 2011''.
SEC. 233. EXTENSION OF GAINSHARING DEMONSTRATION.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d)(3) of section 5007 of the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) is amended
by inserting ``(or 21 months after the date of the enactment
of the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of
2010, in the case of a demonstration project in operation as
of October 1, 2008)'' after ``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Funding.--
[[Page 2144]]
(1) In general.--Subsection (f)(1) of such section is
amended by inserting ``and for fiscal year 2010,
$1,600,000,'' after ``$6,000,000,''.
(2) Availability.--Subsection (f)(2) of such section is
amended by striking ``2010'' and inserting ``2014 or until
expended''.
(c) Reports.--
(1) Quality improvement and savings.--Subsection (e)(3) of
such section is amended by striking ``December 1, 2008'' and
inserting ``18 months after the date of the enactment of the
American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010''.
(2) Final report.--Subsection (e)(4) of such section is
amended by striking ``May 1, 2010'' and inserting ``42 months
after the date of the enactment of the American Workers,
State, and Business Relief Act of 2010''.
Subtitle C--Other Provisions
SEC. 241. EXTENSION OF USE OF 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.
Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) is amended--
(1) by striking ``before March 1, 2010''; and
(2) by inserting ``for 2011'' after ``until updated poverty
guidelines''.
SEC. 242. REFUNDS DISREGARDED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED
PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 65 is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 6409. REFUNDS DISREGARDED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED
PROGRAMS.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any refund (or advance payment with respect to a
refundable credit) made to any individual under this title
shall not be taken into account as income, and shall not be
taken into account as resources for a period of 12 months
from receipt, for purposes of determining the eligibility of
such individual (or any other individual) for benefits or
assistance (or the amount or extent of benefits or
assistance) under any Federal program or under any State or
local program financed in whole or in part with Federal
funds.
``(b) Termination.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
amount received after December 31, 2010.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Sec. 6409. Refunds disregarded in the administration of Federal
programs and federally assisted programs.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts received after December 31, 2009.
SEC. 243. STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Section 438 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629h) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2)(A), by striking ``2010'' and
inserting ``2011''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``2010'' and inserting
``2011''.
SEC. 244. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
Section 129 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2010 (Public Law 111-68), as amended by section 1005 of
Public Law 111-118, is further amended by striking ``by
substituting'' and all that follows through the period at the
end, and inserting ``by substituting December 31, 2010, for
the date specified in each such section.''.
SEC. 245. EMERGENCY DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) Definitions.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, in this section:
(1) Disaster county.--
(A) In general.--The term ``disaster county'' means a
county included in the geographic area covered by a
qualifying natural disaster declaration for the 2009 crop
year.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``disaster county'' does not
include a contiguous county.
(2) Eligible aquaculture producer.--The term ``eligible
aquaculture producer'' means an aquaculture producer that
during the 2009 calendar year, as determined by the
Secretary--
(A) produced an aquaculture species for which feed costs
represented a substantial percentage of the input costs of
the aquaculture operation; and
(B) experienced a substantial price increase of feed costs
above the previous 5-year average.
(3) Eligible producer.--The term ``eligible producer''
means an agricultural producer in a disaster county.
(4) Eligible specialty crop producer.--The term ``eligible
specialty crop producer'' means an agricultural producer
that, for the 2009 crop year, as determined by the
Secretary--
(A) produced, or was prevented from planting, a specialty
crop; and
(B) experienced crop losses in a disaster county due to
excessive rainfall or related condition.
(5) Qualifying natural disaster declaration.--The term
``qualifying natural disaster declaration'' means a natural
disaster declared by the Secretary for production losses
under section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(7) Specialty crop.--The term ``specialty crop'' has the
meaning given the term in section 3 of the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-465; 7 U.S.C.
1621 note).
(b) Supplemental Direct Payment.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary to make supplemental payments under sections 1103
and 1303 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 8713, 8753) to eligible producers on farms located in
disaster counties that had at least 1 crop of economic
significance (other than crops intended for grazing) suffer
at least a 5-percent crop loss due to a natural disaster,
including quality losses, as determined by the Secretary, in
an amount equal to 90 percent of the direct payment the
eligible producers received for the 2009 crop year on the
farm.
(2) ACRE program.--Eligible producers that received
payments under section 1105 of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8715) for the 2009 crop year and
that otherwise meet the requirements of paragraph (1) shall
be eligible to receive supplemental payments under that
paragraph in an amount equal to 90 percent of the reduced
direct payment the eligible producers received for the 2009
crop year under section 1103 or 1303 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713, 8753).
(3) Insurance requirement.--As a condition of receiving
assistance under this subsection, eligible producers on a
farm that--
(A) in the case of an insurable commodity, did not obtain a
policy or plan of insurance for the insurable commodity under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) (other
than for a crop insurance pilot program under that Act) for
each crop of economic significance (other than crops intended
for grazing), shall obtain such a policy or plan for those
crops for the next available crop year, as determined by the
Secretary; or
(B) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, did not file
the required paperwork, and pay the administrative fee by the
applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable
commodity under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) for each
crop of economic significance (other than crops intended for
grazing), shall obtain such coverage for those crops for the
next available crop year, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) Relationship to other law.--Assistance received under
this subsection shall be included in the calculation of farm
revenue for the 2009 crop year under section 531(b)(4)(A) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1531(b)(4)(A)) and
section 901(b)(4)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2497(b)(4)(A)).
(c) Specialty Crop Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall use not more than
$150,000,000, 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 excessive rainfall
and related conditions affecting the 2009 crops.
(2) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall notify the State
department of agriculture (or similar entity) in each State
of the availability of funds to assist eligible specialty
crop producers, including such terms as are determined by the
Secretary to be necessary for the equitable treatment of
eligible specialty crop producers.
(3) Provision of grants.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to States
for disaster counties with excessive rainfall and related
conditions on a pro rata basis based on the value of
specialty crop losses in those counties during the 2008
calendar year, as determined by the Secretary.
(B) Timing.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall make grants to
States to provide assistance under this subsection.
(C) Maximum grant.--The maximum amount of a grant made to a
State under this subsection may not exceed $40,000,000.
(4) Requirements.--The Secretary shall make grants under
this subsection only to States that demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that the State will--
(A) use grant funds to assist eligible specialty crop
producers;
(B) provide assistance to eligible specialty crop producers
not later than 90 days after the date on which the State
receives grant funds; and
(C) not later than 30 days after the date on which the
State provides assistance to eligible specialty crop
producers, submit to the Secretary a report that describes--
(i) the manner in which the State provided assistance;
(ii) the amounts of assistance provided by type of
specialty crop; and
(iii) the process by which the State determined the levels
of assistance to eligible specialty crop producers.
(5) Relation to other law.--Assistance received under this
subsection shall be included in the calculation of farm
revenue for
[[Page 2145]]
the 2009 crop year under section 531(b)(4)(A) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1531(b)(4)(A)) and section
901(b)(4)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2497(b)(4)(A)).
(d) Cottonseed Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall use not more than
$42,000,000 to provide supplemental assistance to eligible
producers and first-handlers of the 2009 crop of cottonseed
in a disaster county.
(2) General terms.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the Secretary shall provide disaster assistance
under this subsection under the same terms and conditions as
assistance provided under section 3015 of the Emergency
Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2006 (title III of
Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 477).
(3) Distribution of assistance.--The Secretary shall
distribute assistance to first handlers for the benefit of
eligible producers in a disaster county in an amount equal to
the product obtained by multiplying--
(A) the payment rate, as determined under paragraph (4);
and
(B) the county-eligible production, as determined under
paragraph (5).
(4) Payment rate.--The payment rate shall be equal to the
quotient obtained by dividing--
(A) the sum of the county-eligible production, as
determined under paragraph (5); by
(B) the total funds made available to carry out this
subsection.
(5) County-eligible production.--The county-eligible
production shall be equal to the product obtained by
multiplying--
(A) the number of acres planted to cotton in the disaster
county, as reported to the Secretary by first-handlers;
(B) the expected cotton lint yield for the disaster county,
as determined by the Secretary based on the best available
information; and
(C) the national average seed-to-lint ratio, as determined
by the Secretary based on the best available information for
the 5 crop years immediately preceding the 2009 crop,
excluding the year in which the average ratio was the highest
and the year in which the average ratio was the lowest in
such period.
(e) Aquaculture Assistance.--
(1) Grant program.--
(A) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall use not more than
$25,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, to
carry out a program of grants to States to assist eligible
aquaculture producers for losses associated with high feed
input costs during the 2009 calendar year.
(B) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall notify the State
department of agriculture (or similar entity) in each State
of the availability of funds to assist eligible aquaculture
producers, including such terms as are determined by the
Secretary to be necessary for the equitable treatment of
eligible aquaculture producers.
(C) Provision of grants.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to States
under this subsection on a pro rata basis based on the amount
of aquaculture feed used in each State during the 2008
calendar year, as determined by the Secretary.
(ii) Timing.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall make grants to
States to provide assistance under this subsection.
(D) Requirements.--The Secretary shall make grants under
this subsection only to States that demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that the State will--
(i) use grant funds to assist eligible aquaculture
producers;
(ii) provide assistance to eligible aquaculture producers
not later than 60 days after the date on which the State
receives grant funds; and
(iii) not later than 30 days after the date on which the
State provides assistance to eligible aquaculture producers,
submit to the Secretary a report that describes--
(I) the manner in which the State provided assistance;
(II) the amounts of assistance provided per species of
aquaculture; and
(III) the process by which the State determined the levels
of assistance to eligible aquaculture producers.
(2) Reduction in payments.--An eligible aquaculture
producer that receives assistance under this subsection shall
not be eligible to receive any other assistance under the
supplemental agricultural disaster assistance program
established under section 531 of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1531) and section 901 of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2497) for any losses in 2009 relating to the same
species of aquaculture.
(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 240 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress a report that--
(A) describes in detail the manner in which this subsection
has been carried out; and
(B) includes the information reported to the Secretary
under paragraph (1)(D)(iii).
(f) Hawaii Transportation Cooperative.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary shall use $21,000,000
of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make a
payment to an agricultural transportation cooperative in the
State of Hawaii, the members of which are eligible to
participate in the commodity loan program of the Farm Service
Agency, for assistance to maintain and develop employment.
(g) Livestock Forage Disaster Program.--
(1) Definition of disaster county.--In this subsection:
(A) In general.--The term ``disaster county'' means a
county included in the geographic area covered by a
qualifying natural disaster declaration announced by the
Secretary in calendar year 2009.
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``disaster county'' includes a
contiguous county.
(2) Payments.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall use not more than
$50,000,000 to carry out a program to make payments to
eligible producers that had grazing losses in disaster
counties in calendar year 2009.
(3) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
assistance under this subsection shall be determined under
the same criteria as are used to carry out the programs under
section 531(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1531(d)) and section 901(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2497(d)).
(B) Drought intensity.--For purposes of this subsection, an
eligible producer shall not be required to meet the drought
intensity requirements of section 531(d)(3)(D)(ii) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1531(d)(3)(D)(ii)) and
section 901(d)(3)(D)(ii) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2497(d)(3)(D)(ii)).
(4) Amount.--Assistance under this subsection shall be in
an amount equal to 1 monthly payment using the monthly
payment rate under section 531(d)(3)(B) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1531(d)(3)(B)) and section
901(d)(3)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2497(d)(3)(B)).
(5) Relation to other law.--An eligible producer that
receives assistance under this subsection shall be ineligible
to receive assistance for 2009 grazing losses under the
program carried out under section 531(d) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1531(d)) and section 901(d) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2497(d)) .
(h) Emergency Loans for Poultry Producers.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Announcement date.--The term ``announcement date''
means the date on which the Secretary announces the emergency
loan program under this subsection.
(B) Poultry integrator.--The term ``poultry integrator''
means a poultry integrator that filed proceedings under
chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code, in United States
Bankruptcy Court during the 30-day period beginning on
December 1, 2008.
(2) Loan program.--
(A) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall use not more than
$75,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the cost
of making no-interest emergency loans available to poultry
producers that meet the requirements of this subsection.
(B) Terms and conditions.--Except as otherwise provided in
this subsection, emergency loans under this subsection shall
be subject to such terms and conditions as are determined by
the Secretary.
(3) Loans.--
(A) In general.--An emergency loan made to a poultry
producer under this subsection shall be for the purpose of
providing financing to the poultry producer in response to
financial losses associated with the termination or
nonrenewal of any contract between the poultry producer and a
poultry integrator.
(B) Eligibility.--
(i) In general.--To be eligible for an emergency loan under
this subsection, not later than 90 days after the
announcement date, a poultry producer shall submit to the
Secretary evidence that--
(I) the contract of the poultry producer described in
subparagraph (A) was not continued; and
(II) no similar contract has been awarded subsequently to
the poultry producer.
(ii) Requirement to offer loans.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, if a poultry producer meets the eligibility
requirements described in clause (i), subject to the
availability of funds under paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary
shall offer to make a loan under this subsection to the
poultry producer with a minimum term of 2 years.
(4) Additional requirements.--
(A) In general.--A poultry producer that receives an
emergency loan under this subsection may use the emergency
loan proceeds only to repay the amount that the poultry
producer owes to any lender.
(B) Conversion of the loan.--A poultry producer that
receives an emergency loan under this subsection shall be
eligible to have the balance of the emergency loan converted,
but not refinanced, to a loan that has the same terms and
conditions as an operating loan under subtitle B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941 et
seq.).
(i) Administration.--
(1) Regulations.--
[[Page 2146]]
(A) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this section.
(B) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this section shall be made without regard
to--
(i) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(ii) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of
Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804),
relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public
participation in rulemaking; and
(iii) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(C) Congressional review of agency rulemaking.--In carrying
out this paragraph, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Administrative costs.--Of the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation, the Secretary may use up to $15,000,000
to pay administrative costs incurred by the Secretary that
are directly related to carrying out this Act.
(3) Prohibition.--None of the funds of the Agricultural
Disaster Relief Trust Fund established under section 902 of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2497a) may be used to carry
out this Act.
SEC. 246. SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE ENHANCEMENT
EXTENSIONS.
(a) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any funds
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional
amount for ``Small Business Administration - Business Loans
Program Account'', $354,000,000, to remain available through
December 31, 2010, for the cost of--
(1) fee reductions and eliminations under section 501 of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 151), as amended by this
section, for loans guaranteed under section 7(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)), title V of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695 et seq.), or
section 502 of division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 152),
as amended by this section; and
(2) loan guarantees under section 502 of division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5; 123 Stat. 152), as amended by this section,
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Extension of Programs.--
(1) Fees.--Section 501 of division A of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123
Stat. 151) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2010'' each
place it appears and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
(2) Loan guarantees.--Section 502(f) of division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5; 123 Stat. 153) is amended by striking ``February 28,
2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
TITLE III--PENSION FUNDING RELIEF
Subtitle A--Single Employer Plans
SEC. 301. EXTENDED PERIOD FOR SINGLE-EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT
PLANS TO AMORTIZE CERTAIN SHORTFALL
AMORTIZATION BASES.
(a) Amendments to ERISA.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 303(c) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1083(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following
subparagraph:
``(D) Special election for eligible plan years.--
``(i) In general.--If a plan sponsor elects to apply this
subparagraph with respect to the shortfall amortization base
of a plan for any eligible plan year (in this subparagraph
and paragraph (7) referred to as an `election year'), then,
notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B)--
``(I) the shortfall amortization installments with respect
to such base shall be determined under clause (ii) or (iii),
whichever is specified in the election, and
``(II) the shortfall amortization installment for any plan
year in the 9-plan-year period described in clause (ii) or
the 15-plan-year period described in clause (iii),
respectively, with respect to such shortfall amortization
base is the annual installment determined under the
applicable clause for that year for that base.
``(ii) 2 plus 7 amortization schedule.--The shortfall
amortization installments determined under this clause are--
``(I) in the case of the first 2 plan years in the 9-plan-
year period beginning with the election year, interest on the
shortfall amortization base of the plan for the election year
(determined using the effective interest rate for the plan
for the election year), and
``(II) in the case of the last 7 plan years in such 9-plan-
year period, the amounts necessary to amortize the remaining
balance of the shortfall amortization base of the plan for
the election year in level annual installments over such last
7 plan years (using the segment rates under subparagraph (C)
for the election year).
``(iii) 15-year amortization.--The shortfall amortization
installments determined under this subparagraph are the
amounts necessary to amortize the shortfall amortization base
of the plan for the election year in level annual
installments over the 15-plan-year period beginning with the
election year (using the segment rates under subparagraph (C)
for the election year).
``(iv) Election.--
``(I) In general.--The plan sponsor of a plan may elect to
have this subparagraph apply to not more than 2 eligible plan
years with respect to the plan, except that in the case of a
plan described in section 106 of the Pension Protection Act
of 2006, the plan sponsor may only elect to have this
subparagraph apply to a plan year beginning in 2011.
``(II) Amortization schedule.--Such election shall specify
whether the amortization schedule under clause (ii) or (iii)
shall apply to an election year, except that if a plan
sponsor elects to have this subparagraph apply to 2 eligible
plan years, the plan sponsor must elect the same schedule for
both years.
``(III) Other rules.--Such election shall be made at such
time, and in such form and manner, as shall be prescribed by
the Secretary of the Treasury, and may be revoked only with
the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary
of the Treasury shall, before granting a revocation request,
provide the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation an
opportunity to comment on the conditions applicable to the
treatment of any portion of the election year shortfall
amortization base that remains unamortized as of the
revocation date.
``(v) Eligible plan year.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `eligible plan year' means any plan
year beginning in 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011, except that a
plan year shall only be treated as an eligible plan year if
the due date under subsection (j)(1) for the payment of the
minimum required contribution for such plan year occurs on or
after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.
``(vi) Reporting.--A plan sponsor of a plan who makes an
election under clause (i) shall inform the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation of such election in such form and manner
as the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
may prescribe.
``(vii) Increases in required installments in certain
cases.--For increases in required contributions in cases of
excess compensation or extraordinary dividends or stock
redemptions, see paragraph (7).''.
(2) Increases in required installments in certain cases.--
Section 303(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1083(c)) is amended by adding at the end
the following paragraph:
``(7) Increases in alternate required installments in cases
of excess compensation or extraordinary dividends or stock
redemptions.--
``(A) In general.--If there is an installment acceleration
amount with respect to a plan for any plan year in the
restriction period with respect to an election year under
paragraph (2)(D), then the shortfall amortization installment
otherwise determined and payable under such paragraph for
such plan year shall, subject to the limitation under
subparagraph (B), be increased by such amount.
``(B) Total installments limited to shortfall base.--
Subject to rules prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury,
if a shortfall amortization installment with respect to any
shortfall amortization base for an election year is required
to be increased for any plan year under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) such increase shall not result in the amount of such
installment exceeding the present value of such installment
and all succeeding installments with respect to such base
(determined without regard to such increase but after
application of clause (ii)), and
``(ii) subsequent shortfall amortization installments with
respect to such base shall, in reverse order of the otherwise
required installments, be reduced to the extent necessary to
limit the present value of such subsequent shortfall
amortization installments (after application of this
paragraph) to the present value of the remaining unamortized
shortfall amortization base.
``(C) Installment acceleration amount.--For purposes of
this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `installment acceleration
amount' means, with respect to any plan year in a restriction
period with respect to an election year, the sum of--
``(I) the aggregate amount of excess employee compensation
determined under subparagraph (D) with respect to all
employees for the plan year, plus
``(II) the aggregate amount of extraordinary dividends and
redemptions determined under subparagraph (E) for the plan
year.
``(ii) Limitation to aggregate reduced required
contributions.--The installment acceleration amount for any
plan year shall not exceed the excess (if any) of--
``(I) the sum of the shortfall amortization installments
for the plan year and all preceding plan years in the
amortization period elected under paragraph (2)(D) with
respect to the shortfall amortization base with respect to an
election year, determined without regard to paragraph (2)(D)
and this paragraph, over
``(II) the sum of the shortfall amortization installments
for such plan year and all such
[[Page 2147]]
preceding plan years, determined after application of
paragraph (2)(D) (and in the case of any preceding plan year,
after application of this paragraph).
``(iii) Carryover of excess installment acceleration
amounts.--
``(I) In general.--If the installment acceleration amount
for any plan year (determined without regard to clause(ii))
exceeds the limitation under clause (ii), then, subject to
subclause (II), such excess shall be treated as an
installment acceleration amount with respect to the
succeeding plan year (without regard to whether such
succeeding plan year is in the restriction period).
``(II) Cap to apply.--If any amount treated as an
installment acceleration amount under subclause (I) or this
subclause with respect any succeeding plan year, when added
to other installment acceleration amounts (determined without
regard to clause (ii)) with respect to the plan year, exceeds
the limitation under clause (ii), the portion of such amount
representing such excess shall be treated as an installment
acceleration amount with respect to the next succeeding plan
year (without regard to whether such succeeding plan year is
in the restriction period).
``(III) Ordering rules.--For purposes of applying subclause
(II), installment acceleration amounts for the plan year
(determined without regard to any carryover under this
clause) shall be applied first against the limitation under
clause (ii) and then carryovers to such plan year shall be
applied against such limitation on a first-in, first-out
basis.
``(D) Excess employee compensation.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `excess employee compensation'
means, with respect to any employee for any plan year, the
excess (if any) of--
``(I) the aggregate amount includible in income under
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for
remuneration during the calendar year in which such plan year
begins for services performed by the employee for the plan
sponsor (whether or not performed during such calendar year),
over
``(II) $1,000,000.
``(ii) Amounts set aside for nonqualified deferred
compensation.--If during any calendar year assets are set
aside or reserved (directly or indirectly) in a trust (or
other arrangement as determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury), or transferred to such a trust or other
arrangement, by a plan sponsor for purposes of paying
deferred compensation of an employee under a nonqualified
deferred compensation plan (as defined in section 409A of
such Code) of the plan sponsor, then, for purposes of clause
(i), the amount of such assets shall be treated as
remuneration of the employee includible in income for the
calendar year unless such amount is otherwise includible in
income for such year. An amount to which the preceding
sentence applies shall not be taken into account under this
paragraph for any subsequent calendar year.
``(iii) Only remuneration for certain post-2009 services
counted.--Remuneration shall be taken into account under
clause (i) only to the extent attributable to services
performed by the employee for the plan sponsor after February
4, 2010.
``(iv) Exception for certain equity payments.--
``(I) In general.--There shall not be taken into account
under clause (i)(I) any amount includible in income with
respect to the granting on or after February 4, 2010, of
service recipient stock (within the meaning of section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that, upon such grant,
is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture (as defined
under section 83(c)(1) of such Code) for at least 5 years
from the date of such grant.
``(II) Secretarial authority.--The Secretary of the
Treasury may by regulation provide for the application of
this clause in the case of a person other than a corporation.
``(v) Other exceptions.--The following amounts includible
in income shall not be taken into account under clause
(i)(I):
``(I) Commissions.--Any remuneration payable on a
commission basis solely on account of income directly
generated by the individual performance of the individual to
whom such remuneration is payable.
``(II) Certain payments under existing contracts.--Any
remuneration consisting of nonqualified deferred
compensation, restricted stock, stock options, or stock
appreciation rights payable or granted under a written
binding contract that was in effect on February 4, 2010, and
which was not modified in any material respect before such
remuneration is paid.
``(vi) Self-employed individual treated as employee.--The
term `employee' includes, with respect to a calendar year, a
self-employed individual who is treated as an employee under
section 401(c) of such Code for the taxable year ending
during such calendar year, and the term `compensation' shall
include earned income of such individual with respect to such
self-employment.
``(vii) Indexing of amount.--In the case of any calendar
year beginning after 2010, the dollar amount under clause
(i)(II) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) of such Code for the calendar year,
determined by substituting `calendar year 2009' for `calendar
year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
If the amount of any increase under clause (i) is not a
multiple of $1,000, such increase shall be rounded to the
next lowest multiple of $1,000.
``(E) Extraordinary dividends and redemptions.--
``(i) In general.--The amount determined under this
subparagraph for any plan year is the excess (if any) of--
``(I) the sum of the dividends declared during the plan
year by the plan sponsor plus the aggregate fair market value
of the stock of the plan sponsor redeemed during the plan
year, over
``(II) the adjusted net income (within the meaning of
section 4043) of the plan sponsor for the preceding plan
year.
``(ii) Only certain post-2009 dividends and redemptions
counted.--For purposes of clause (i), there shall only be
taken into account dividends declared, and redemptions
occurring, after February 4, 2010.
``(iii) Exception for intra-group dividends.--Dividends
paid by one member of a controlled group (as defined in
section 302(d)(3)) to another member of such group shall not
be taken into account under clause (i).
``(F) Other definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) Plan sponsor.--The term ` plan sponsor' includes any
member of the plan sponsor's controlled group (as defined in
section 302(d)(3)).
``(ii) Restriction period.--The term `restriction period'
means, with respect to any election year--
``(I) except as provided in subclause (II), the 4-year
period beginning with the election year, and
``(II) if the plan sponsor elects 15-year amortization for
the shortfall amortization base for the election year, the 7-
year period beginning with the election year.
``(iii) Elections for multiple plans.--If a plan sponsor
makes elections under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to 2 or
more plans, the Secretary of the Treasury shall provide rules
for the application of this paragraph to such plans,
including rules for the ratable allocation of any installment
acceleration amount among such plans on the basis of each
plan's relative reduction in the plan's shortfall
amortization installment for the first plan year in the
amortization period described in subparagraph (A) (determined
without regard to this paragraph).
``(iv) Mergers and acquisitions.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall prescribe rules for the application of
paragraph (2)(D) and this paragraph in any case where there
is a merger or acquisition involving a plan sponsor making
the election under paragraph (2)(D).''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Section 303 of such Act (29
U.S.C. 1083) is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``the shortfall
amortization bases for such plan year and each of the 6
preceding plan years'' and inserting ``any shortfall
amortization base which has not been fully amortized under
this subsection'', and
(B) in subsection (j)(3), by adding at the end the
following:
``(F) Quarterly contributions not to include certain
increased contributions.--Subparagraph (D) shall be applied
without regard to any increase under subsection (c)(7).''.
(b) Amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 430(c) is amended
by adding at the end the following subparagraph:
``(D) Special election for eligible plan years.--
``(i) In general.--If a plan sponsor elects to apply this
subparagraph with respect to the shortfall amortization base
of a plan for any eligible plan year (in this subparagraph
and paragraph (7) referred to as an `election year'), then,
notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B)--
``(I) the shortfall amortization installments with respect
to such base shall be determined under clause (ii) or (iii),
whichever is specified in the election, and
``(II) the shortfall amortization installment for any plan
year in the 9-plan-year period described in clause (ii) or
the 15-plan-year period described in clause (iii),
respectively, with respect to such shortfall amortization
base is the annual installment determined under the
applicable clause for that year for that base.
``(ii) 2 plus 7 amortization schedule.--The shortfall
amortization installments determined under this clause are--
``(I) in the case of the first 2 plan years in the 9-plan-
year period beginning with the election year, interest on the
shortfall amortization base of the plan for the election year
(determined using the effective interest rate for the plan
for the election year), and
``(II) in the case of the last 7 plan years in such 9-plan-
year period, the amounts necessary to amortize the remaining
balance of the shortfall amortization base of the plan for
the election year in level annual installments over such last
7 plan years (using the segment rates under subparagraph (C)
for the election year).
[[Page 2148]]
``(iii) 15-year amortization.--The shortfall amortization
installments determined under this subparagraph are the
amounts necessary to amortize the shortfall amortization base
of the plan for the election year in level annual
installments over the 15-plan-year period beginning with the
election year (using the segment rates under subparagraph (C)
for the election year).
``(iv) Election.--
``(I) In general.--The plan sponsor of a plan may elect to
have this subparagraph apply to not more than 2 eligible plan
years with respect to the plan, except that in the case of a
plan described in section 106 of the Pension Protection Act
of 2006, the plan sponsor may only elect to have this
subparagraph apply to a plan year beginning in 2011.
``(II) Amortization schedule.--Such election shall specify
whether the amortization schedule under clause (ii) or (iii)
shall apply to an election year, except that if a plan
sponsor elects to have this subparagraph apply to 2 eligible
plan years, the plan sponsor must elect the same schedule for
both years.
``(III) Other rules.--Such election shall be made at such
time, and in such form and manner, as shall be prescribed by
the Secretary, and may be revoked only with the consent of
the Secretary. The Secretary shall, before granting a
revocation request, provide the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation an opportunity to comment on the conditions
applicable to the treatment of any portion of the election
year shortfall amortization base that remains unamortized as
of the revocation date.
``(v) Eligible plan year.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `eligible plan year' means any plan
year beginning in 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011, except that a
plan year shall only be treated as an eligible plan year if
the due date under subsection (j)(1) for the payment of the
minimum required contribution for such plan year occurs on or
after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.
``(vi) Reporting.--A plan sponsor of a plan who makes an
election under clause (i) shall inform the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation of such election in such form and manner
as the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
may prescribe.
``(vii) Increases in required installments in certain
cases.--For increases in required contributions in cases of
excess compensation or extraordinary dividends or stock
redemptions, see paragraph (7).''.
(2) Increases in required contributions if excess
compensation paid.--Section 430(c) is amended by adding at
the end the following paragraph:
``(7) Increases in alternate required installments in cases
of excess compensation or extraordinary dividends or stock
redemptions.--
``(A) In general.--If there is an installment acceleration
amount with respect to a plan for any plan year in the
restriction period with respect to an election year under
paragraph (2)(D), then the shortfall amortization installment
otherwise determined and payable under such paragraph for
such plan year shall, subject to the limitation under
subparagraph (B), be increased by such amount.
``(B) Total installments limited to shortfall base.--
Subject to rules prescribed by the Secretary, if a shortfall
amortization installment with respect to any shortfall
amortization base for an election year is required to be
increased for any plan year under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) such increase shall not result in the amount of such
installment exceeding the present value of such installment
and all succeeding installments with respect to such base
(determined without regard to such increase but after
application of clause (ii)), and
``(ii) subsequent shortfall amortization installments with
respect to such base shall, in reverse order of the otherwise
required installments, be reduced to the extent necessary to
limit the present value of such subsequent shortfall
amortization installments (after application of this
paragraph) to the present value of the remaining unamortized
shortfall amortization base.
``(C) Installment acceleration amount.--For purposes of
this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `installment acceleration
amount' means, with respect to any plan year in a restriction
period with respect to an election year, the sum of--
``(I) the aggregate amount of excess employee compensation
determined under subparagraph (D) with respect to all
employees for the plan year, plus
``(II) the aggregate amount of extraordinary dividends and
redemptions determined under subparagraph (E) for the plan
year.
``(ii) Limitation to aggregate reduced required
contributions.--The installment acceleration amount for any
plan year shall not exceed the excess (if any) of--
``(I) the sum of the shortfall amortization installments
for the plan year and all preceding plan years in the
amortization period elected under paragraph (2)(D) with
respect to the shortfall amortization base with respect to an
election year, determined without regard to paragraph (2)(D)
and this paragraph, over
``(II) the sum of the shortfall amortization installments
for such plan year and all such preceding plan years,
determined after application of paragraph (2)(D) (and in the
case of any preceding plan year, after application of this
paragraph).
``(iii) Carryover of excess installment acceleration
amounts.--
``(I) In general.--If the installment acceleration amount
for any plan year (determined without regard to clause(ii))
exceeds the limitation under clause (ii), then, subject to
subclause (II), such excess shall be treated as an
installment acceleration amount with respect to the
succeeding plan year (without regard to whether such
succeeding plan year is in the restriction period).
``(II) Cap to apply.--If any amount treated as an
installment acceleration amount under subclause (I) or this
subclause with respect any succeeding plan year, when added
to other installment acceleration amounts (determined without
regard to clause (ii)) with respect to the plan year, exceeds
the limitation under clause (ii), the portion of such amount
representing such excess shall be treated as an installment
acceleration amount with respect to the next succeeding plan
year (without regard to whether such succeeding plan year is
in the restriction period).
``(III) Ordering rules.--For purposes of applying subclause
(II), installment acceleration amounts for the plan year
(determined without regard to any carryover under this
clause) shall be applied first against the limitation under
clause (ii) and then carryovers to such plan year shall be
applied against such limitation on a first-in, first-out
basis.
``(D) Excess employee compensation.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `excess employee compensation'
means, with respect to any employee for any plan year, the
excess (if any) of--
``(I) the aggregate amount includible in income under this
chapter for remuneration during the calendar year in which
such plan year begins for services performed by the employee
for the plan sponsor (whether or not performed during such
calendar year), over
``(II) $1,000,000.
``(ii) Amounts set aside for nonqualified deferred
compensation.--If during any calendar year assets are set
aside or reserved (directly or indirectly) in a trust (or
other arrangement as determined by the Secretary), or
transferred to such a trust or other arrangement, by a plan
sponsor for purposes of paying deferred compensation of an
employee under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan (as
defined in section 409A) of the plan sponsor, then, for
purposes of clause (i), the amount of such assets shall be
treated as remuneration of the employee includible in income
for the calendar year unless such amount is otherwise
includible in income for such year. An amount to which the
preceding sentence applies shall not be taken into account
under this paragraph for any subsequent calendar year.
``(iii) Only remuneration for certain post-2009 services
counted.--Remuneration shall be taken into account under
clause (i) only to the extent attributable to services
performed by the employee for the plan sponsor after February
4, 2010.
``(iv) Exception for certain equity payments.--
``(I) In general.--There shall not be taken into account
under clause (i)(I) any amount includible in income with
respect to the granting on or after February 4, 2010, of
service recipient stock (within the meaning of section 409A)
that, upon such grant, is subject to a substantial risk of
forfeiture (as defined under section 83(c)(1)) for at least 5
years from the date of such grant.
``(II) Secretarial authority.--The Secretary may by
regulation provide for the application of this clause in the
case of a person other than a corporation.
``(v) Other exceptions.--The following amounts includible
in income shall not be taken into account under clause
(i)(I):
``(I) Commissions.--Any remuneration payable on a
commission basis solely on account of income directly
generated by the individual performance of the individual to
whom such remuneration is payable.
``(II) Certain payments under existing contracts.--Any
remuneration consisting of nonqualified deferred
compensation, restricted stock, stock options, or stock
appreciation rights payable or granted under a written
binding contract that was in effect on February 4, 2010, and
which was not modified in any material respect before such
remuneration is paid.
``(vi) Self-employed individual treated as employee.--The
term `employee' includes, with respect to a calendar year, a
self-employed individual who is treated as an employee under
section 401(c) for the taxable year ending during such
calendar year, and the term `compensation' shall include
earned income of such individual with respect to such self-
employment.
``(vii) Indexing of amount.--In the case of any calendar
year beginning after 2010, the dollar amount under clause
(i)(II) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by
substituting `calendar year 2009' for `calendar year 1992' in
subparagraph (B) thereof.
[[Page 2149]]
If the amount of any increase under clause (i) is not a
multiple of $1,000, such increase shall be rounded to the
next lowest multiple of $1,000.
``(E) Extraordinary dividends and redemptions.--
``(i) In general.--The amount determined under this
subparagraph for any plan year is the excess (if any) of--
``(I) the sum of the dividends declared during the plan
year by the plan sponsor plus the aggregate fair market value
of the stock of the plan sponsor redeemed during the plan
year, over
``(II) the adjusted net income (within the meaning of
section 4043 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974) of the plan sponsor for the preceding plan year.
``(ii) Only certain post-2009 dividends and redemptions
counted.--For purposes of clause (i), there shall only be
taken into account dividends declared, and redemptions
occurring, after February 4, 2010.
``(iii) Exception for intra-group dividends.--Dividends
paid by one member of a controlled group (as defined in
section 412(d)(3)) to another member of such group shall not
be taken into account under clause (i).
``(F) Other definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) Plan sponsor.--The term ` plan sponsor' includes any
member of the plan sponsor's controlled group (as defined in
section 412(d)(3)).
``(ii) Restriction period.--The term `restriction period'
means, with respect to any election year--
``(I) except as provided in subclause (II), the 4-year
period beginning with the election year, and
``(II) if the plan sponsor elects 15-year amortization for
the shortfall amortization base for the election year, the 7-
year period beginning with the election year.
``(iii) Elections for multiple plans.--If a plan sponsor
makes elections under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to 2 or
more plans, the Secretary shall provide rules for the
application of this paragraph to such plans, including rules
for the ratable allocation of any installment acceleration
amount among such plans on the basis of each plan's relative
reduction in the plan's shortfall amortization installment
for the first plan year in the amortization period described
in subparagraph (A) (determined without regard to this
paragraph).
``(iv) Mergers and acquisitions.--The Secretary shall
prescribe rules for the application of paragraph (2)(D) and
this paragraph in any case where there is a merger or
acquisition involving a plan sponsor making the election
under paragraph (2)(D).''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Section 430 is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``the shortfall
amortization bases for such plan year and each of the 6
preceding plan years'' and inserting ``any shortfall
amortization base which has not been fully amortized under
this subsection'', and
(B) in subsection (j)(3), by adding at the end the
following:
``(F) Quarterly contributions not to include certain
increased contributions.--Subparagraph (D) shall be applied
without regard to any increase under subsection (c)(7).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 302. APPLICATION OF EXTENDED AMORTIZATION PERIOD TO
PLANS SUBJECT TO PRIOR LAW FUNDING RULES.
(a) In General.--Title I of the Pension Protection Act of
2006 is amended by redesignating section 107 as section 108
and by inserting the following after section 106:
``SEC. 107. APPLICATION OF EXTENDED AMORTIZATION PERIODS TO
PLANS WITH DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.
``(a) In General.--If the plan sponsor of a plan to which
section 104, 105, or 106 of this Act applies elects to have
this section apply for any eligible plan year (in this
section referred to as an `election year'), section 302 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and
section 412 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in
effect before the amendments made by this subtitle and
subtitle B) shall apply to such year in the manner described
in subsection (b) or (c), whichever is specified in the
election. All references in this section to `such Act' or
`such Code' shall be to such Act or such Code as in effect
before the amendments made by this subtitle and subtitle B.
``(b) Application of 2 and 7 Rule.--In the case of an
election year to which this subsection applies--
``(1) 2-year lookback for determining deficit reduction
contributions for certain plans.--For purposes of applying
section 302(d)(9) of such Act and section 412(l)(9) of such
Code, the funded current liability percentage (as defined in
subparagraph (C) thereof) for such plan for such plan year
shall be such funded current liability percentage of such
plan for the second plan year preceding the first election
year of such plan.
``(2) Calculation of deficit reduction contribution.--For
purposes of applying section 302(d) of such Act and section
412(l) of such Code to a plan to which such sections apply
(after taking into account paragraph (1))--
``(A) in the case of the increased unfunded new liability
of the plan, the applicable percentage described in section
302(d)(4)(C) of such Act and section 412(l)(4)(C) of such
Code shall be the third segment rate described in sections
104(b), 105(b), and 106(b) of this Act, and
``(B) in the case of the excess of the unfunded new
liability over the increased unfunded new liability, such
applicable percentage shall be determined without regard to
this section.
``(c) Application of 15-Year Amortization.--In the case of
an election year to which this subsection applies, for
purposes of applying section 302(d) of such Act and section
412(l) of such Code--
``(1) in the case of the increased unfunded new liability
of the plan, the applicable percentage described in section
302(d)(4)(C) of such Act and section 412(l)(4)(C) of such
Code for any pre-effective date plan year beginning with or
after the first election year shall be the ratio of--
``(A) the annual installments payable in each year if the
increased unfunded new liability for such plan year were
amortized over 15 years, using an interest rate equal to the
third segment rate described in sections 104(b), 105(b), and
106(b) of this Act, to
``(B) the increased unfunded new liability for such plan
year, and
``(2) in the case of the excess of the unfunded new
liability over the increased unfunded new liability, such
applicable percentage shall be determined without regard to
this section.
``(d) Election.--
``(1) In general.--The plan sponsor of a plan may elect to
have this section apply to not more than 2 eligible plan
years with respect to the plan, except that in the case of a
plan to which section 106 of this Act applies, the plan
sponsor may only elect to have this section apply to 1
eligible plan year.
``(2) Amortization schedule.--Such election shall specify
whether the rules under subsection (b) or (c) shall apply to
an election year, except that if a plan sponsor elects to
have this section apply to 2 eligible plan years, the plan
sponsor must elect the same rule for both years.
``(3) Other rules.--Such election shall be made at such
time, and in such form and manner, as shall be prescribed by
the Secretary of the Treasury, and may be revoked only with
the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Eligible plan year.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `eligible plan year' means any plan
year beginning in 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011, except that a
plan year beginning in 2008 shall only be treated as an
eligible plan year if the due date for the payment of the
minimum required contribution for such plan year occurs on or
after the date of the enactment of this clause.
``(2) Pre-effective date plan year.--The term `pre-
effective date plan year' means, with respect to a plan, any
plan year prior to the first year in which the amendments
made by this subtitle and subtitle B apply to the plan.
``(3) Increased unfunded new liability.--The term
`increased unfunded new liability' means, with respect to a
year, the excess (if any) of the unfunded new liability over
the amount of unfunded new liability determined as if the
value of the plan's assets determined under subsection
302(c)(2) of such Act and section 412(c)(2) of such Code
equaled the product of the current liability of the plan for
the year multiplied by the funded current liability
percentage (as defined in section 302(d)(8)(B) of such Act
and 412(l)(8)(B) of such Code) of the plan for the second
plan year preceding the first election year of such plan.
``(4) Other definitions.--The terms `unfunded new
liability' and `current liability' shall have the meanings
set forth in section 302(d) of such Act and section 412(l) of
such Code.''.
(b) Eligible Charity Plans.--Section 104 of the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 is amended--
(1) by striking ``eligible cooperative plan'' wherever it
appears in subsections (a) and (b) and inserting ``eligible
cooperative plan or an eligible charity plan'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Eligible Charity Plan Defined.--For purposes of this
section, a plan shall be treated as an eligible charity plan
for a plan year if the plan is maintained by more than one
employer and 100 percent of the employers are described in
section 501(c)(3) of such Code.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
take effect as if included in the Pension Protection Act of
2006.
(2) Eligible charity plan.--The amendments made by
subsection (b) shall apply to plan years beginning after
December 31, 2007, except that a plan sponsor may elect to
apply such amendments to plan years beginning after December
31, 2008. Any such election shall be made at such time, and
in such form and manner, as shall be prescribed by
[[Page 2150]]
the Secretary of the Treasury, and may be revoked only with
the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury.
SEC. 303. LOOKBACK FOR CERTAIN BENEFIT RESTRICTIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Amendment to erisa.--Section 206(g)(9) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(D) Special rule for certain years.--Solely for purposes
of any applicable provision--
``(i) In general.--For plan years beginning on or after
October 1, 2008, and before October 1, 2010, the adjusted
funding target attainment percentage of a plan shall be the
greater of--
``(I) such percentage, as determined without regard to this
subparagraph, or
``(II) the adjusted funding target attainment percentage
for such plan for the plan year beginning after October 1,
2007, and before October 1, 2008, as determined under rules
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(ii) Special rule.--In the case of a plan for which the
valuation date is not the first day of the plan year--
``(I) clause (i) shall apply to plan years beginning after
December 31, 2007, and before January 1, 2010, and
``(II) clause (i)(II) shall apply based on the last plan
year beginning before November 1, 2007, as determined under
rules prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(iii) Applicable provision.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `applicable provision' means--
``(I) paragraph (3), but only for purposes of applying such
paragraph to a payment which, as determined under rules
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, is a payment
under a social security leveling option which accelerates
payments under the plan before, and reduces payments after, a
participant starts receiving social security benefits in
order to provide substantially similar aggregate payments
both before and after such benefits are received, and
``(II) paragraph (4).''.
(2) Amendment to internal revenue code of 1986.--Section
436(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) Special rule for certain years.--Solely for purposes
of any applicable provision--
``(A) In general.--For plan years beginning on or after
October 1, 2008, and before October 1, 2010, the adjusted
funding target attainment percentage of a plan shall be the
greater of--
``(i) such percentage, as determined without regard to this
paragraph, or
``(ii) the adjusted funding target attainment percentage
for such plan for the plan year beginning after October 1,
2007, and before October 1, 2008, as determined under rules
prescribed by the Secretary.
``(B) Special rule.--In the case of a plan for which the
valuation date is not the first day of the plan year--
``(i) subparagraph (A) shall apply to plan years beginning
after December 31, 2007, and before January 1, 2010, and
``(ii) subparagraph (A)(ii) shall apply based on the last
plan year beginning before November 1, 2007, as determined
under rules prescribed by the Secretary.
``(C) Applicable provision.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `applicable provision' means--
``(i) subsection (d), but only for purposes of applying
such paragraph to a payment which, as determined under rules
prescribed by the Secretary, is a payment under a social
security leveling option which accelerates payments under the
plan before, and reduces payments after, a participant starts
receiving social security benefits in order to provide
substantially similar aggregate payments both before and
after such benefits are received, and
``(ii) subsection (e).''.
(b) Interaction With Wrera Rule.--Section 203 of the
Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 shall
apply to a plan for any plan year in lieu of the amendments
made by this section applying to sections 206(g)(4) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and 436(e) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 only to the extent that
such section produces a higher adjusted funding target
attainment percentage for such plan for such year.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to plan years
beginning on or after October 1, 2008.
(2) Special rule.--In the case of a plan for which the
valuation date is not the first day of the plan year, the
amendments made by this section shall apply to plan years
beginning after December 31, 2007.
Subtitle B--Multiemployer Plans
SEC. 311. ADJUSTMENTS TO FUNDING STANDARD ACCOUNT RULES.
(a) Adjustments.--
(1) Amendment to erisa.--Section 304(b) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1084(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Special relief rules.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection--
``(A) Amortization of net investment losses.--
``(i) In general.--A multiemployer plan with respect to
which the solvency test under subparagraph (C) is met may
treat the portion of its experience loss attributable to the
net investment losses (if any) incurred in either or both of
the first two plan years ending after August 31, 2008, as an
item separate from other experience losses, to be amortized
in equal annual installments (until fully amortized) over a
period of 30 plan years.
``(ii) Coordination with extensions.--If this subparagraph
applies for any plan year--
``(I) no extension of the amortization period under clause
(i) shall be allowed under subsection (d), and
``(II) if an extension was granted under subsection (d) for
any plan year before the election to have this subparagraph
apply to the plan year, such extension shall not result in
such amortization period exceeding 30 years.
``(iii) Net investment losses.--For purposes of this
subparagraph--
``(I) In general.--Net investment losses shall be
determined in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury on the basis of the difference between actual and
expected returns (including any difference attributable to
any criminally fraudulent investment arrangement).
``(II) Criminally fraudulent investment arrangements.--The
determination as to whether an arrangement is a criminally
fraudulent investment arrangement shall be made under rules
substantially similar to the rules prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury for purposes of section 165 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(B) Expanded smoothing period.--
``(i) In general.--A multiemployer plan with respect to
which the solvency test under subparagraph (C) is met may
change its asset valuation method in a manner which--
``(I) spreads the difference between expected and actual
returns for either or both of the first 2 plan years ending
after August 31, 2008, over a period of not more than 10
years,
``(II) provides that for either or both of such 2 plan
years the value of plan assets at any time shall not be less
than 80 percent or greater than 130 percent of the fair
market value of such assets at such time, or
``(III) makes both changes described in subclauses (I) and
(II) to such method.
``(ii) Asset valuation methods.--If this subparagraph
applies for any plan year--
``(I) the Secretary of the Treasury shall not treat the
asset valuation method of the plan as unreasonable solely
because of the changes in such method described in clause
(i), and
``(II) such changes shall be deemed approved by such
Secretary under section 302(d)(1) and section 412(d)(1) of
such Code.
``(iii) Amortization of reduction in unfunded accrued
liability.--If this subparagraph and subparagraph (A) both
apply for any plan year, the plan shall treat any reduction
in unfunded accrued liability resulting from the application
of this subparagraph as a separate experience amortization
base, to be amortized in equal annual installments (until
fully amortized) over a period of 30 plan years rather than
the period such liability would otherwise be amortized over.
``(C) Solvency test.--The solvency test under this
paragraph is met only if the plan actuary certifies that the
plan is projected to have sufficient assets to timely pay
expected benefits and anticipated expenditures over the
amortization period, taking into account the changes in the
funding standard account under this paragraph.
``(D) Restriction on benefit increases.--If subparagraph
(A) or (B) apply to a multiemployer plan for any plan year,
then, in addition to any other applicable restrictions on
benefit increases, a plan amendment increasing benefits may
not go into effect during either of the 2 plan years
immediately following such plan year unless--
``(i) the plan actuary certifies that--
``(I) any such increase is paid for out of additional
contributions not allocated to the plan immediately before
the application of this paragraph to the plan, and
``(II) the plan's funded percentage and projected credit
balances for such 2 plan years are reasonably expected to be
at least as high as such percentage and balances would have
been if the benefit increase had not been adopted, or
``(ii) the amendment is required as a condition of
qualification under part I of subchapter D of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or to comply with other
applicable law.
``(E) Reporting.--A plan sponsor of a plan to which this
paragraph applies shall inform the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation of such application in such form and manner as
the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation may
prescribe.''.
(2) Amendment to internal revenue code of 1986.--Section
431(b) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(8) Special relief rules.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection--
``(A) Amortization of net investment losses.--
[[Page 2151]]
``(i) In general.--A multiemployer plan with respect to
which the solvency test under subparagraph (C) is met may
treat the portion of its experience loss attributable to the
net investment losses (if any) incurred in either or both of
the first two plan years ending after August 31, 2008, as an
item separate from other experience losses, to be amortized
in equal annual installments (until fully amortized) over a
period of 30 plan years.
``(ii) Coordination with extensions.--If this subparagraph
applies for any plan year--
``(I) no extension of the amortization period under clause
(i) shall be allowed under subsection (d), and
``(II) if an extension was granted under subsection (d) for
any plan year before the election to have this subparagraph
apply to the plan year, such extension shall not result in
such amortization period exceeding 30 years.
``(iii) Net investment losses.--For purposes of this
subparagraph--
``(I) In general.--Net investment losses shall be
determined in the manner prescribed by the Secretary on the
basis of the difference between actual and expected returns
(including any difference attributable to any criminally
fraudulent investment arrangement).
``(II) Criminally fraudulent investment arrangements.--The
determination as to whether an arrangement is a criminally
fraudulent investment arrangement shall be made under rules
substantially similar to the rules prescribed by the
Secretary for purposes of section 165.
``(B) Expanded smoothing period.--
``(i) In general.--A multiemployer plan with respect to
which the solvency test under subparagraph (C) is met may
change its asset valuation method in a manner which--
``(I) spreads the difference between expected and actual
returns for either or both of the first 2 plan years ending
after August 31, 2008, over a period of not more than 10
years,
``(II) provides that for either or both of such 2 plan
years the value of plan assets at any time shall not be less
than 80 percent or greater than 130 percent of the fair
market value of such assets at such time, or
``(III) makes both changes described in subclauses (I) and
(II) to such method.
``(ii) Asset valuation methods.--If this subparagraph
applies for any plan year--
``(I) the Secretary shall not treat the asset valuation
method of the plan as unreasonable solely because of the
changes in such method described in clause (i), and
``(II) such changes shall be deemed approved by the
Secretary under section 302(d)(1) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 and section 412(d)(1).
``(iii) Amortization of reduction in unfunded accrued
liability.--If this subparagraph and subparagraph (A) both
apply for any plan year, the plan shall treat any reduction
in unfunded accrued liability resulting from the application
of this subparagraph as a separate experience amortization
base, to be amortized in equal annual installments (until
fully amortized) over a period of 30 plan years rather than
the period such liability would otherwise be amortized over.
``(C) Solvency test.--The solvency test under this
paragraph is met only if the plan actuary certifies that the
plan is projected to have sufficient assets to timely pay
expected benefits and anticipated expenditures over the
amortization period, taking into account the changes in the
funding standard account under this paragraph.
``(D) Restriction on benefit increases.--If subparagraph
(A) or (B) apply to a multiemployer plan for any plan year,
then, in addition to any other applicable restrictions on
benefit increases, a plan amendment increasing benefits may
not go into effect during either of the 2 plan years
immediately following such plan year unless--
``(i) the plan actuary certifies that--
``(I) any such increase is paid for out of additional
contributions not allocated to the plan immediately before
the application of this paragraph to the plan, and
``(II) the plan's funded percentage and projected credit
balances for such 2 plan years are reasonably expected to be
at least as high as such percentage and balances would have
been if the benefit increase had not been adopted, or
``(ii) the amendment is required as a condition of
qualification under part I of subchapter D or to comply with
other applicable law.
``(E) Reporting.--A plan sponsor of a plan to which this
paragraph applies shall inform the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation of such application in such form and manner as
the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation may
prescribe.''.
(b) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect as of the first day of the first plan year ending
after August 31, 2008, except that any election a plan makes
pursuant to this section that affects the plan's funding
standard account for the first plan year ending after August
31, 2008, shall be disregarded for purposes of applying the
provisions of section 305 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and section 432 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to such plan year.
(2) Restrictions on benefit increases.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), the restrictions on plan amendments increasing
benefits in sections 304(b)(8)(D) of such Act and
431(b)(8)(D) of such Code, as added by this section, shall
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE IV--OFFSET PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Black Liquor
SEC. 401. EXCLUSION OF UNPROCESSED FUELS FROM THE CELLULOSIC
BIOFUEL PRODUCER CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 40(b)(6) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Exclusion of unprocessed fuels.--The term
`cellulosic biofuel' shall not include any fuel if--
``(I) more than 4 percent of such fuel (determined by
weight) is any combination of water and sediment, or
``(II) the ash content of such fuel is more than 1 percent
(determined by weight).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to fuels sold or used after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 402. PROHIBITION ON ALTERNATIVE FUEL CREDIT AND
ALTERNATIVE FUEL MIXTURE CREDIT FOR BLACK
LIQUOR.
(a) In General.--The last sentence of section 6426(d)(2) is
amended by striking ``or biodiesel'' and inserting
``biodiesel, or any fuel (including lignin, wood residues, or
spent pulping liquors) derived from the production of paper
or pulp''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2009.
Subtitle B--Homebuyer Credit
SEC. 411. TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS TO HOMEBUYER CREDIT.
(a) Expanded Documentation Requirement.--Subsection (d) of
section 36, as amended by the Worker, Homeownership, and
Business Assistance Act of 2009, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3),
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting a comma, and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) in the case of a taxpayer to whom such a credit would
be allowed (but for this paragraph) by reason of subsection
(c)(6), the taxpayer fails to attach to the return of tax for
such taxable year a copy of such property tax bills or other
documentation as are required by the Secretary to demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of subsection (c)(6), or
``(6) in the case of a taxpayer to whom such a credit would
be allowed (but for this paragraph) by reason of subsection
(h)(2), the taxpayer fails to attach to the return of tax for
such taxable year a copy of the binding contract which meets
the requirements of subsection (h)(2).''.
(b) Modification of Effective Date of Documentation
Requirements.--Paragraph (2) of section 12(e) of the Worker,
Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 is amended
by striking ``returns for taxable years ending after the date
of the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``returns filed
after the date of the enactment of this Act''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Documentation requirements.--The amendments made by
subsection (a) shall apply to purchases on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Effective date of worker, homeownership, and business
assistance act.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall
apply to purchases of a principal residence on or after the
date of the enactment of the Worker, Homeownership, and
Business Assistance Act of 2009.
Subtitle C--Economic Substance
SEC. 421. CODIFICATION OF ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE DOCTRINE;
PENALTIES.
(a) In General.--Section 7701 is amended by redesignating
subsection (o) as subsection (p) and by inserting after
subsection (n) the following new subsection:
``(o) Clarification of Economic Substance Doctrine.--
``(1) Application of doctrine.--In the case of any
transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is
relevant, such transaction shall be treated as having
economic substance only if--
``(A) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart
from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic
position, and
``(B) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from
Federal income tax effects) for entering into such
transaction.
``(2) Special rule where taxpayer relies on profit
potential.--
``(A) In general.--The potential for profit of a
transaction shall be taken into account in determining
whether the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (1) are met with respect to the transaction only if
the present value of the reasonably expected pre-tax profit
from the transaction is substantial in relation to the
present value of the expected net tax benefits that would be
allowed if the transaction were respected.
``(B) Treatment of fees and foreign taxes.--Fees and other
transaction expenses
[[Page 2152]]
shall be taken into account as expenses in determining pre-
tax profit under subparagraph (A). The Secretary may issue
regulations requiring foreign taxes to be treated as expenses
in determining pre-tax profit in appropriate cases.
``(3) State and local tax benefits.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), any State or local income tax effect which is
related to a Federal income tax effect shall be treated in
the same manner as a Federal income tax effect.
``(4) Financial accounting benefits.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(B), achieving a financial accounting benefit
shall not be taken into account as a purpose for entering
into a transaction if the origin of such financial accounting
benefit is a reduction of Federal income tax.
``(5) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Economic substance doctrine.--The term `economic
substance doctrine' means the common law doctrine under which
tax benefits under subtitle A with respect to a transaction
are not allowable if the transaction does not have economic
substance or lacks a business purpose.
``(B) Exception for personal transactions of individuals.--
In the case of an individual, paragraph (1) shall apply only
to transactions entered into in connection with a trade or
business or an activity engaged in for the production of
income.
``(C) Other common law doctrines not affected.--Except as
specifically provided in this subsection, the provisions of
this subsection shall not be construed as altering or
supplanting any other rule of law, and the requirements of
this subsection shall be construed as being in addition to
any such other rule of law.
``(D) Determination of application of doctrine not
affected.--The determination of whether the economic
substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction shall be made
in the same manner as if this subsection had never been
enacted.
``(E) Transaction.--The term `transaction' includes a
series of transactions.
``(6) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this subsection.''.
(b) Penalty for Underpayments Attributable to Transactions
Lacking Economic Substance.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 6662 is amended
by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) Any disallowance of claimed tax benefits by reason of
a transaction lacking economic substance (within the meaning
of section 7701(o)) or failing to meet the requirements of
any similar rule of law.''.
(2) Increased penalty for nondisclosed transactions.--
Section 6662 is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(i) Increase in Penalty in Case of Nondisclosed
Noneconomic Substance Transactions.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any portion of an
underpayment which is attributable to one or more
nondisclosed noneconomic substance transactions, subsection
(a) shall be applied with respect to such portion by
substituting `40 percent' for `20 percent'.
``(2) Nondisclosed noneconomic substance transactions.--For
purposes of this subsection, the term `nondisclosed
noneconomic substance transaction' means any portion of a
transaction described in subsection (b)(6) with respect to
which the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment are not
adequately disclosed in the return nor in a statement
attached to the return.
``(3) Special rule for amended returns.--Except as provided
in regulations, in no event shall any amendment or supplement
to a return of tax be taken into account for purposes of this
subsection if the amendment or supplement is filed after the
earlier of the date the taxpayer is first contacted by the
Secretary regarding the examination of the return or such
other date as is specified by the Secretary.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (B) of section
6662A(e)(2) is amended--
(A) by striking ``section 6662(h)'' and inserting
``subsections (h) or (i) of section 6662''; and
(B) by striking ``gross valuation misstatement penalty'' in
the heading and inserting ``certain increased underpayment
penalties''.
(c) Reasonable Cause Exception Not Applicable to
Noneconomic Substance Transactions.--
(1) Reasonable cause exception for underpayments.--
Subsection (c) of section 6664 is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively;
(B) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' in paragraph (4)(A), as
so redesignated, and inserting ``paragraph (3)''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
portion of an underpayment which is attributable to one or
more transactions described in section 6662(b)(6).''.
(2) Reasonable cause exception for reportable transaction
understatements.--Subsection (d) of section 6664 is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively;
(B) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)'' in paragraph (4), as
so redesignated, and inserting ``paragraph (3)(C)''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
portion of a reportable transaction understatement which is
attributable to one or more transactions described in section
6662(b)(6).''.
(d) Application of Penalty for Erroneous Claim for Refund
or Credit to Noneconomic Substance Transactions.--Section
6676 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection
(d) and inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Noneconomic Substance Transactions Treated as Lacking
Reasonable Basis.--For purposes of this section, any
excessive amount which is attributable to any transaction
described in section 6662(b)(6) shall not be treated as
having a reasonable basis.''.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to transactions entered into after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Underpayments.--The amendments made by subsections (b)
and (c)(1) shall apply to underpayments attributable to
transactions entered into after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(3) Understatements.--The amendments made by subsection
(c)(2) shall apply to understatements attributable to
transactions entered into after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(4) Refunds and credits.--The amendment made by subsection
(d) shall apply to refunds and credits attributable to
transactions entered into after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Subtitle D--Additional Provisions
SEC. 431. REVISION TO THE MEDICARE IMPROVEMENT FUND.
Section 1898(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395iii(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 1011(b) of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law
111-118), is amended by striking ``$20,740,000,000'' and
inserting ``$12,740,000,000''.
TITLE V--SATELLITE TELEVISION EXTENSION
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Satellite Television
Extension and Localism Act of 2010''.
Subtitle A--Statutory Licenses
SEC. 501. REFERENCE.
Except as otherwise provided, whenever in this subtitle an
amendment is made to a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to such section or
provision of title 17, United States Code.
SEC. 502. MODIFICATIONS TO STATUTORY LICENSE FOR SATELLITE
CARRIERS.
(a) Heading Renamed.--
(1) In general.--The heading of section 119 is amended by
striking ``superstations and network stations for private
home viewing'' and inserting ``distant television programming
by satellite''.
(2) Table of contents.--The table of contents for chapter 1
is amended by striking the item relating to section 119 and
inserting the following:
``119. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of
distant television programming by satellite.''.
(b) Unserved Household Defined.--
(1) In general.--Section 119(d)(10) is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) cannot receive, through the use of an antenna, an
over-the-air signal containing the primary stream, or, on or
after the qualifying date, the multicast stream, originating
in that household's local market and affiliated with that
network of--
``(i) if the signal originates as an analog signal, Grade B
intensity as defined by the Federal Communications Commission
in section 73.683(a) of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1999; or
``(ii) if the signal originates as a digital signal,
intensity defined in the values for the digital television
noise-limited service contour, as defined in regulations
issued by the Federal Communications Commission (section
73.622(e) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations), as such
regulations may be amended from time to time;'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``subsection (a)(14)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(13),''; and
(ii) by striking ``Satellite Home Viewer Extension and
Reauthorization Act of 2004'' and inserting ``Satellite
Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010''; and
(C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``(a)(12)'' and
inserting ``(a)(11)''.
(2) Qualifying date defined.--Section 119(d) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(14) Qualifying date.--The term `qualifying date', for
purposes of paragraph (10)(A), means--
[[Page 2153]]
``(A) July 1, 2010, for multicast streams that exist on
December 31, 2009; and
``(B) January 1, 2011, for all other multicast streams.''.
(c) Filing Fee.--Section 119(b)(1) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) a filing fee, as determined by the Register of
Copyrights pursuant to section 708(a).''.
(d) Deposit of Statements and Fees; Verification
Procedures.--Section 119(b) is amended--
(1) by amending the subsection heading to read as follows:
``(b) Deposit of Statements and Fees; Verification
Procedures.--'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) a royalty fee payable to copyright owners pursuant to
paragraph (4) for that 6-month period, computed by
multiplying the total number of subscribers receiving each
secondary transmission of a primary stream or multicast
stream of each non-network station or network station during
each calendar year month by the appropriate rate in effect
under this subsection; and'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively;
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Verification of accounts and fee payments.--The
Register of Copyrights shall issue regulations to permit
interested parties to verify and audit the statements of
account and royalty fees submitted by satellite carriers
under this subsection.'';
(5) in paragraph (3), as redesignated, in the first
sentence--
(A) by inserting ``(including the filing fee specified in
paragraph (1)(C))'' after ``shall receive all fees''; and
(B) by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(5)'';
(6) in paragraph (4), as redesignated--
(A) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(3)''; and
(B) by striking ``paragraph (4)'' each place it appears and
inserting ``paragraph (5)''; and
(7) in paragraph (5), as redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)''.
(e) Adjustment of Royalty Fees.--Section 119(c) is amended
as follows:
(1) Paragraph (1) is amended--
(A) in the heading for such paragraph, by striking
``analog'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``primary analog transmissions'' and
inserting ``primary transmissions''; and
(ii) by striking ``July 1, 2004'' and inserting ``July 1,
2009'';
(C) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``January 2, 2005, the Librarian of
Congress'' and inserting ``March 1, 2010, the Copyright
Royalty Judges''; and
(ii) by striking ``primary analog transmission'' and
inserting ``primary transmissions'';
(D) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``Librarian of
Congress'' and inserting ``Copyright Royalty Judges'';
(E) in subparagraph (D)--
(i) in clause (i)--
(I) by striking ``(i) Voluntary agreements'' and inserting
the following:
``(i) Voluntary agreements; filing.--Voluntary
agreements''; and
(II) by striking ``that a parties'' and inserting ``that
are parties''; and
(ii) in clause (ii)--
(I) by striking ``(ii)(I) Within'' and inserting the
following:
``(ii) Procedure for adoption of fees.--
``(I) Publication of notice.--Within'';
(II) in subclause (I), by striking ``an arbitration
proceeding pursuant to subparagraph (E)'' and inserting ``a
proceeding under subparagraph (F)'';
(III) in subclause (II), by striking ``(II) Upon receiving
a request under subclause (I), the Librarian of Congress''
and inserting the following:
``(II) Public notice of fees.--Upon receiving a request
under subclause (I), the Copyright Royalty Judges''; and
(IV) in subclause (III)--
(aa) by striking ``(III) The Librarian'' and inserting the
following:
``(III) Adoption of fees.--The Copyright Royalty Judges'';
(bb) by striking ``an arbitration proceeding'' and
inserting ``the proceeding under subparagraph (F)''; and
(cc) by striking ``the arbitration proceeding'' and
inserting ``that proceeding'';
(F) in subparagraph (E)--
(i) by striking ``Copyright Office'' and inserting
``Copyright Royalty Judges''; and
(ii) by striking ``February 28, 2010'' and inserting
``December 31, 2014''; and
(G) in subparagraph (F)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``compulsory arbitration''
and inserting ``copyright royalty judges proceeding'';
(ii) in clause (i)--
(I) in the heading, by striking ``proceedings'' and
inserting ``the proceeding'';
(II) in the matter preceding subclause (I)--
(aa) by striking ``May 1, 2005, the Librarian of Congress''
and inserting ``May 3, 2010, the Copyright Royalty Judges'';
(bb) by striking ``arbitration proceedings'' and inserting
``a proceeding'';
(cc) by striking ``fee to be paid'' and inserting ``fees to
be paid'';
(dd) by striking ``primary analog transmission'' and
inserting ``the primary transmissions''; and
(ee) by striking ``distributors'' and inserting
``distributors--'';
(III) in subclause (II)--
(aa) by striking ``Librarian of Congress'' and inserting
``Copyright Royalty Judges''; and
(bb) by striking ``arbitration''; and
(IV) by amending the last sentence to read as follows:
``Such proceeding shall be conducted under chapter 8.'';
(iii) in clause (ii), by amending the matter preceding
subclause (I) to read as follows:
``(ii) Establishment of royalty fees.--In determining
royalty fees under this subparagraph, the Copyright Royalty
Judges shall establish fees for the secondary transmissions
of the primary transmissions of network stations and non-
network stations that most clearly represent the fair market
value of secondary transmissions, except that the Copyright
Royalty Judges shall adjust royalty fees to account for the
obligations of the parties under any applicable voluntary
agreement filed with the Copyright Royalty Judges in
accordance with subparagraph (D). In determining the fair
market value, the Judges shall base their decision on
economic, competitive, and programming information presented
by the parties, including--'';
(iv) by amending clause (iii) to read as follows:
``(iii) Effective date for decision of copyright royalty
judges.--The obligation to pay the royalty fees established
under a determination that is made by the Copyright Royalty
Judges in a proceeding under this paragraph shall be
effective as of January 1, 2010.''; and
(v) in clause (iv)--
(I) in the heading, by striking ``fee'' and inserting
``fees''; and
(II) by striking ``fee referred to in (iii)'' and inserting
``fees referred to in clause (iii)''.
(2) Paragraph (2) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Annual royalty fee adjustment.--Effective January 1
of each year, the royalty fee payable under subsection
(b)(1)(B) for the secondary transmission of the primary
transmissions of network stations and non-network stations
shall be adjusted by the Copyright Royalty Judges to reflect
any changes occurring in the cost of living as determined by
the most recent Consumer Price Index (for all consumers and
for all items) published by the Secretary of Labor before
December 1 of the preceding year. Notification of the
adjusted fees shall be published in the Federal Register at
least 25 days before January 1.''.
(f) Definitions.--
(1) Subscriber.--Section 119(d)(8) is amended to read as
follows:
``(8) Subscriber; subscribe.--
``(A) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means a person or
entity that receives a secondary transmission service from a
satellite carrier and pays a fee for the service, directly or
indirectly, to the satellite carrier or to a distributor.
``(B) Subscribe.--The term `subscribe' means to elect to
become a subscriber.''.
(2) Local market.--Section 119(d)(11) is amended to read as
follows:
``(11) Local market.--The term `local market' has the
meaning given such term under section 122(j).''.
(3) Low power television station.--Section 119(d) is
amended by striking paragraph (12) and redesignating
paragraphs (13) and (14) as paragraphs (12) and (13),
respectively.
(4) Multicast stream.--Section 119(d), as amended by
paragraph (3), is further amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(14) Multicast stream.--The term `multicast stream' means
a digital stream containing programming and program-related
material affiliated with a television network, other than the
primary stream.''.
(5) Primary stream.--Section 119(d), as amended by
paragraph (4), is further amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(15) Primary stream.--The term `primary stream' means--
``(A) the single digital stream of programming as to which
a television broadcast station has the right to mandatory
carriage with a satellite carrier under the rules of the
Federal Communications Commission in effect on July 1, 2009;
or
``(B) if there is no stream described in subparagraph (A),
then either--
``(i) the single digital stream of programming associated
with the network last transmitted by the station as an analog
signal; or
``(ii) if there is no stream described in clause (i), then
the single digital stream of programming affiliated with the
network that, as of July 1, 2009, had been offered by the
television broadcast station for the longest period of
time.''.
(6) Clerical amendment.--Section 119(d) is amended in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (5) by striking ``which'' each place
it appears and inserting ``that''.
[[Page 2154]]
(g) Superstation Redesignated as Non-Network Station.--
Section 119 is amended--
(1) by striking ``superstation'' each place it appears in a
heading and each place it appears in text and inserting
``non-network station''; and
(2) by striking ``superstations'' each place it appears in
a heading and each place it appears in text and inserting
``non-network stations''.
(h) Removal of Certain Provisions.--
(1) Removal of provisions.--Section 119(a) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and
redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs
(4) through (14) as paragraphs (3) through (13),
respectively; and
(C) by striking paragraph (15) and redesignating paragraph
(16) as paragraph (14).
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 119 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(5), (6), and (8)'' and
inserting ``(4), (5), and (7)'';
(ii) in paragraph (2)--
(I) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``subparagraphs (B)
and (C) of this paragraph and paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and
(8)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) of this paragraph and
paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7)'';
(II) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking the second
sentence; and
(III) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated), by striking
clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the following:
``(i) Initial lists.--A satellite carrier that makes
secondary transmissions of a primary transmission made by a
network station pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall, not later
than 90 days after commencing such secondary transmissions,
submit to the network that owns or is affiliated with the
network station a list identifying (by name and address,
including street or rural route number, city, State, and 9-
digit zip code) all subscribers to which the satellite
carrier makes secondary transmissions of that primary
transmission to subscribers in unserved households.
``(ii) Monthly lists.--After the submission of the initial
lists under clause (i), the satellite carrier shall, not
later than the 15th of each month, submit to the network a
list, aggregated by designated market area, identifying (by
name and address, including street or rural route number,
city, State, and 9-digit zip code) any persons who have been
added or dropped as subscribers under clause (i) since the
last submission under this subparagraph.''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (3) (as
redesignated)--
(I) by striking ``under paragraph (3) or''; and
(II) by striking ``paragraph (12)'' and inserting
``paragraph (11)''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking the final sentence.
(i) Modifications to Provisions for Secondary Transmissions
by Satellite Carriers.--
(1) Predictive model.--Section 119(a)(2)(B)(ii) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(III) Accurate predictive model with respect to digital
signals.--Notwithstanding subclause (I), in determining
presumptively whether a person resides in an unserved
household under subsection (d)(10)(A) with respect to digital
signals, a court shall rely on a predictive model set forth
by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to a
rulemaking as provided in section 339(c)(3) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 339(c)(3)), as that
model may be amended by the Commission over time under such
section to increase the accuracy of that model. Until such
time as the Commission sets forth such model, a court shall
rely on the predictive model as recommended by the Commission
with respect to digital signals in its Report to Congress in
ET Docket No. 05-182, FCC 05-199 (released December 9,
2005).''.
(2) Modifications to statutory license where
retransmissions into local market available.--Section
119(a)(3) (as redesignated) is amended--
(A) by striking ``analog'' each place it appears in a
heading and text;
(B) by striking subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), and
inserting the following:
``(B) Rules for lawful subscribers as of date of enactment
of 2010 act.--In the case of a subscriber of a satellite
carrier who, on the day before the date of the enactment of
the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010,
was lawfully receiving the secondary transmission of the
primary transmission of a network station under the statutory
license under paragraph (2) (in this subparagraph referred to
as the `distant signal'), other than subscribers to whom
subparagraph (A) applies, the statutory license under
paragraph (2) shall apply to secondary transmissions by that
satellite carrier to that subscriber of the distant signal of
a station affiliated with the same television network, and
the subscriber's household shall continue to be considered to
be an unserved household with respect to such network, until
such time as the subscriber elects to terminate such
secondary transmissions, whether or not the subscriber elects
to subscribe to receive the secondary transmission of the
primary transmission of a local network station affiliated
with the same network pursuant to the statutory license under
section 122.
``(C) Future applicability.--
``(i) When local signal available at time of
subscription.--The statutory license under paragraph (2)
shall not apply to the secondary transmission by a satellite
carrier of the primary transmission of a network station to a
person who is not a subscriber lawfully receiving such
secondary transmission as of the date of the enactment of the
Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 and,
at the time such person seeks to subscribe to receive such
secondary transmission, resides in a local market where the
satellite carrier makes available to that person the
secondary transmission of the primary transmission of a local
network station affiliated with the same network pursuant to
the statutory license under section 122.
``(ii) When local signal available after subscription.--In
the case of a subscriber who lawfully subscribes to and
receives the secondary transmission by a satellite carrier of
the primary transmission of a network station under the
statutory license under paragraph (2) (in this clause
referred to as the `distant signal') on or after the date of
the enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and
Localism Act of 2010, the statutory license under paragraph
(2) shall apply to secondary transmissions by that satellite
carrier to that subscriber of the distant signal of a station
affiliated with the same television network, and the
subscriber's household shall continue to be considered to be
an unserved household with respect to such network, until
such time as the subscriber elects to terminate such
secondary transmissions, but only if such subscriber
subscribes to the secondary transmission of the primary
transmission of a local network station affiliated with the
same network within 60 days after the satellite carrier makes
available to the subscriber such secondary transmission of
the primary transmission of such local network station.'';
(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) as
subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively;
(D) in subparagraph (E) (as redesignated), by striking
``(C) or (D)'' and inserting ``(B) or (C)''; and
(E) in subparagraph (F) (as redesignated), by inserting
``9-digit'' before ``zip code''.
(3) Statutory damages for territorial restrictions.--
Section 119(a)(6) (as redesignated) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``$5'' and
inserting ``$250'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)----
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``$250,000 for each 6-month
period'' and inserting ``$2,500,000 for each 3-month
period''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``$250,000'' and inserting
``$2,500,000''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following flush sentences:
``The court shall direct one half of any statutory damages
ordered under clause (i) to be deposited with the Register of
Copyrights for distribution to copyright owners pursuant to
subsection (b). The Copyright Royalty Judges shall issue
regulations establishing procedures for distributing such
funds, on a proportional basis, to copyright owners whose
works were included in the secondary transmissions that were
the subject of the statutory damages.''.
(4) Technical amendment.--Section 119(a)(4) (as
redesignated) is amended by striking ``and 509''.
(5) Clerical amendment.--Section 119(a)(2)(B)(iii)(II) is
amended by striking ``In this clause'' and inserting ``In
this clause,''.
(j) Moratorium Extension.--Section 119(e) is amended by
striking ``February 28, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31,
2014''.
(k) Clerical Amendments.--Section 119 is amended--
(1) by striking ``of the Code of Federal Regulations'' each
place it appears and inserting ``, Code of Federal
Regulations''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(6), by striking ``or the Direct'' and
inserting ``, or the Direct''.
SEC. 503. MODIFICATIONS TO STATUTORY LICENSE FOR SATELLITE
CARRIERS IN LOCAL MARKETS.
(a) Heading Renamed.--
(1) In general.--The heading of section 122 is amended by
striking ``by satellite carriers within local markets'' and
inserting ``of local television programming by satellite''.
(2) Table of contents.--The table of contents for chapter 1
is amended by striking the item relating to section 122 and
inserting the following:
``122. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of
local television programming by satellite.''.
(b) Statutory License.--Section 122(a) is amended to read
as follows:
``(a) Secondary Transmissions Into Local Markets.--
``(1) Secondary transmissions of television broadcast
stations within a local market.--A secondary transmission of
a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary
transmission of a television broadcast station into the
station's local market
[[Page 2155]]
shall be subject to statutory licensing under this section
if--
``(A) the secondary transmission is made by a satellite
carrier to the public;
``(B) with regard to secondary transmissions, the satellite
carrier is in compliance with the rules, regulations, or
authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission
governing the carriage of television broadcast station
signals; and
``(C) the satellite carrier makes a direct or indirect
charge for the secondary transmission to--
``(i) each subscriber receiving the secondary transmission;
or
``(ii) a distributor that has contracted with the satellite
carrier for direct or indirect delivery of the secondary
transmission to the public.
``(2) Significantly viewed stations.--
``(A) In general.--A secondary transmission of a
performance or display of a work embodied in a primary
transmission of a television broadcast station to subscribers
who receive secondary transmissions of primary transmissions
under paragraph (1) shall be subject to statutory licensing
under this paragraph if the secondary transmission is of the
primary transmission of a network station or a non-network
station to a subscriber who resides outside the station's
local market but within a community in which the signal has
been determined by the Federal Communications Commission to
be significantly viewed in such community, pursuant to the
rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Federal
Communications Commission in effect on April 15, 1976,
applicable to determining with respect to a cable system
whether signals are significantly viewed in a community.
``(B) Waiver.--A subscriber who is denied the secondary
transmission of the primary transmission of a network station
or a non-network station under subparagraph (A) may request a
waiver from such denial by submitting a request, through the
subscriber's satellite carrier, to the network station or
non-network station in the local market affiliated with the
same network or non-network where the subscriber is located.
The network station or non-network station shall accept or
reject the subscriber's request for a waiver within 30 days
after receipt of the request. If the network station or non-
network station fails to accept or reject the subscriber's
request for a waiver within that 30-day period, that network
station or non-network station shall be deemed to agree to
the waiver request.
``(3) Secondary transmission of low power programming.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), a
secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work
embodied in a primary transmission of a television broadcast
station to subscribers who receive secondary transmissions of
primary transmissions under paragraph (1) shall be subject to
statutory licensing under this paragraph if the secondary
transmission is of the primary transmission of a television
broadcast station that is licensed as a low power television
station, to a subscriber who resides within the same
designated market area as the station that originates the
transmission.
``(B) No applicability to repeaters and translators.--
Secondary transmissions provided for in subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to any low power television station that
retransmits the programs and signals of another television
station for more than 2 hours each day.
``(C) No impact on other secondary transmissions
obligations.--A satellite carrier that makes secondary
transmissions of a primary transmission of a low power
television station under a statutory license provided under
this section is not required, by reason of such secondary
transmissions, to make any other secondary transmissions.
``(4) Special exceptions.--A secondary transmission of a
performance or display of a work embodied in a primary
transmission of a television broadcast station to subscribers
who receive secondary transmissions of primary transmissions
under paragraph (1) shall, if the secondary transmission is
made by a satellite carrier that complies with the
requirements of paragraph (1), be subject to statutory
licensing under this paragraph as follows:
``(A) States with single full-power network station.--In a
State in which there is licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission a single full-power station that
was a network station on January 1, 1995, the statutory
license provided for in this paragraph shall apply to the
secondary transmission by a satellite carrier of the primary
transmission of that station to any subscriber in a community
that is located within that State and that is not within the
first 50 television markets as listed in the regulations of
the Commission as in effect on such date (47 C.F.R. 76.51).
``(B) States with all network stations and non-network
stations in same local market.--In a State in which all
network stations and non-network stations licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission within that State as of
January 1, 1995, are assigned to the same local market and
that local market does not encompass all counties of that
State, the statutory license provided under this paragraph
shall apply to the secondary transmission by a satellite
carrier of the primary transmissions of such station to all
subscribers in the State who reside in a local market that is
within the first 50 major television markets as listed in the
regulations of the Commission as in effect on such date
(section 76.51 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations).
``(C) Additional stations.--In the case of that State in
which are located 4 counties that--
``(i) on January 1, 2004, were in local markets principally
comprised of counties in another State, and
``(ii) had a combined total of 41,340 television
households, according to the U.S. Television Household
Estimates by Nielsen Media Research for 2004,
the statutory license provided under this paragraph shall
apply to secondary transmissions by a satellite carrier to
subscribers in any such county of the primary transmissions
of any network station located in that State, if the
satellite carrier was making such secondary transmissions to
any subscribers in that county on January 1, 2004.
``(D) Certain additional stations.--If 2 adjacent counties
in a single State are in a local market comprised principally
of counties located in another State, the statutory license
provided for in this paragraph shall apply to the secondary
transmission by a satellite carrier to subscribers in those 2
counties of the primary transmissions of any network station
located in the capital of the State in which such 2 counties
are located, if--
``(i) the 2 counties are located in a local market that is
in the top 100 markets for the year 2003 according to Nielsen
Media Research; and
``(ii) the total number of television households in the 2
counties combined did not exceed 10,000 for the year 2003
according to Nielsen Media Research.
``(E) Networks of noncommercial educational broadcast
stations.--In the case of a system of three or more
noncommercial educational broadcast stations licensed to a
single State, public agency, or political, educational, or
special purpose subdivision of a State, the statutory license
provided for in this paragraph shall apply to the secondary
transmission of the primary transmission of such system to
any subscriber in any county or county equivalent within such
State, if such subscriber is located in a designated market
area that is not otherwise eligible to receive the secondary
transmission of the primary transmission of a noncommercial
educational broadcast station located within the State
pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(5) Applicability of royalty rates and procedures.--The
royalty rates and procedures under section 119(b) shall apply
to the secondary transmissions to which the statutory license
under paragraph (4) applies.''.
(c) Reporting Requirements.--Section 122(b) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``station a list'' and
all that follows through the end and inserting the following:
``station--
``(A) a list identifying (by name in alphabetical order and
street address, including county and 9-digit zip code) all
subscribers to which the satellite carrier makes secondary
transmissions of that primary transmission under subsection
(a); and
``(B) a separate list, aggregated by designated market area
(by name and address, including street or rural route number,
city, State, and 9-digit zip code), which shall indicate
those subscribers being served pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subsection (a).''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``network a list'' and
all that follows through the end and inserting the following:
``network--
``(A) a list identifying (by name in alphabetical order and
street address, including county and 9-digit zip code) any
subscribers who have been added or dropped as subscribers
since the last submission under this subsection; and
``(B) a separate list, aggregated by designated market area
(by name and street address, including street or rural route
number, city, State, and 9-digit zip code), identifying those
subscribers whose service pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subsection (a) has been added or dropped since the last
submission under this subsection.''.
(d) No Royalty Fee for Certain Secondary Transmissions.--
Section 122(c) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by inserting ``for Certain Secondary
Transmissions'' after ``Required''; and
(2) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a)''.
(e) Violations for Territorial Restrictions.--
(1) Modification to statutory damages.--Section 122(f) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``$5'' and inserting
``$250''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$250,000'' each place
it appears and inserting ``$2,500,000''.
(2) Conforming amendments for additional stations.--Section
122 is amended--
(A) in subsection (f), by striking ``section 119 or'' each
place it appears and inserting the following: ``section 119,
subject to statutory licensing by reason of paragraph (2)(A),
[[Page 2156]]
(3), or (4) of subsection (a), or subject to''; and
(B) in subsection (g), by striking ``section 119 or'' and
inserting the following: ``section 119, paragraph (2)(A),
(3), or (4) of subsection (a), or''.
(f) Definitions.--Section 122(j) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``which contracts'' and
inserting ``that contracts'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(6) and (7), respectively;
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by redesignating such paragraph as paragraph (4);
(B) in the heading of such paragraph, by inserting ``non-
network station;'' after ``Network station;''; and
(C) by inserting ```non-network station','' after
```network station','';
(4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Low power television station.--The term `low power
television station' means a low power TV station as defined
in section 74.701(f) of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on June 1, 2004. For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `low power television station'
includes a low power television station that has been
accorded primary status as a Class A television licensee
under section 73.6001(a) of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations.'';
(5) by inserting after paragraph (4) (as redesignated) the
following:
``(5) Noncommercial educational broadcast station.--The
term `noncommercial educational broadcast station' means a
television broadcast station that is a noncommercial
educational broadcast station as defined in section 397 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect on the date of
the enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and
Localism Act of 2010.''; and
(6) by amending paragraph (6) (as redesignated) to read as
follows:
``(6) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means a person or
entity that receives a secondary transmission service from a
satellite carrier and pays a fee for the service, directly or
indirectly, to the satellite carrier or to a distributor.''.
SEC. 504. MODIFICATIONS TO CABLE SYSTEM SECONDARY
TRANSMISSION RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 111.
(a) Heading Renamed.--
(1) In general.--The heading of section 111 is amended by
inserting at the end the following: ``of broadcast
programming by cable''.
(2) Table of contents.--The table of contents for chapter 1
is amended by striking the item relating to section 111 and
inserting the following:
``111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of
broadcast programming by cable.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 111(a)(4) is amended by
striking ``; or'' and inserting ``or section 122;''.
(c) Statutory License for Secondary Transmissions by Cable
Systems.--Section 111(d) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``A cable system whose secondary'' and
inserting the following: ``Statement of account and royalty
fees.--Subject to paragraph (5), a cable system whose
secondary''; and
(ii) by striking ``by regulation--'' and inserting ``by
regulation the following:'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``a statement of account'' and inserting
``A statement of account''; and
(ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
(C) by striking subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) and
inserting the following:
``(B) Except in the case of a cable system whose royalty
fee is specified in subparagraph (E) or (F), a total royalty
fee payable to copyright owners pursuant to paragraph (3) for
the period covered by the statement, computed on the basis of
specified percentages of the gross receipts from subscribers
to the cable service during such period for the basic service
of providing secondary transmissions of primary broadcast
transmitters, as follows:
``(i) 1.064 percent of such gross receipts for the
privilege of further transmitting, beyond the local service
area of such primary transmitter, any non-network programming
of a primary transmitter in whole or in part, such amount to
be applied against the fee, if any, payable pursuant to
clauses (ii) through (iv);
``(ii) 1.064 percent of such gross receipts for the first
distant signal equivalent;
``(iii) 0.701 percent of such gross receipts for each of
the second, third, and fourth distant signal equivalents; and
``(iv) 0.330 percent of such gross receipts for the fifth
distant signal equivalent and each distant signal equivalent
thereafter.
``(C) In computing amounts under clauses (ii) through (iv)
of subparagraph (B)--
``(i) any fraction of a distant signal equivalent shall be
computed at its fractional value;
``(ii) in the case of any cable system located partly
within and partly outside of the local service area of a
primary transmitter, gross receipts shall be limited to those
gross receipts derived from subscribers located outside of
the local service area of such primary transmitter; and
``(iii) if a cable system provides a secondary transmission
of a primary transmitter to some but not all communities
served by that cable system--
``(I) the gross receipts and the distant signal equivalent
values for such secondary transmission shall be derived
solely on the basis of the subscribers in those communities
where the cable system provides such secondary transmission;
and
``(II) the total royalty fee for the period paid by such
system shall not be less than the royalty fee calculated
under subparagraph (B)(i) multiplied by the gross receipts
from all subscribers to the system.
``(D) A cable system that, on a statement submitted before
the date of the enactment of the Satellite Television
Extension and Localism Act of 2010, computed its royalty fee
consistent with the methodology under subparagraph (C)(iii),
or that amends a statement filed before such date of
enactment to compute the royalty fee due using such
methodology, shall not be subject to an action for
infringement, or eligible for any royalty refund or offset,
arising out of its use of such methodology on such statement.
``(E) If the actual gross receipts paid by subscribers to a
cable system for the period covered by the statement for the
basic service of providing secondary transmissions of primary
broadcast transmitters are $263,800 or less--
``(i) gross receipts of the cable system for the purpose of
this paragraph shall be computed by subtracting from such
actual gross receipts the amount by which $263,800 exceeds
such actual gross receipts, except that in no case shall a
cable system's gross receipts be reduced to less than
$10,400; and
``(ii) the royalty fee payable under this paragraph to
copyright owners pursuant to paragraph (3) shall be 0.5
percent, regardless of the number of distant signal
equivalents, if any.
``(F) If the actual gross receipts paid by subscribers to a
cable system for the period covered by the statement for the
basic service of providing secondary transmissions of primary
broadcast transmitters are more than $263,800 but less than
$527,600, the royalty fee payable under this paragraph to
copyright owners pursuant to paragraph (3) shall be--
``(i) 0.5 percent of any gross receipts up to $263,800,
regardless of the number of distant signal equivalents, if
any; and
``(ii) 1 percent of any gross receipts in excess of
$263,800, but less than $527,600, regardless of the number of
distant signal equivalents, if any.
``(G) A filing fee, as determined by the Register of
Copyrights pursuant to section 708(a).'';
(2) in paragraph (2), in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``The Register of Copyrights'' and
inserting the following ``Handling of fees.--The Register of
Copyrights''; and
(B) by inserting ``(including the filing fee specified in
paragraph (1)(G))'' after ``shall receive all fees'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``The royalty fees'' and inserting the
following: ``Distribution of royalty fees to copyright
owners.--The royalty fees'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``any such'' and inserting ``Any such'';
and
(ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
(C) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``any such'' and inserting ``Any such'';
and
(ii) by striking the semicolon and inserting a period; and
(D) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``any such'' and
inserting ``Any such'';
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``The royalty fees'' and
inserting the following: ``Procedures for royalty fee
distribution.--The royalty fees''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) 3.75 percent rate and syndicated exclusivity
surcharge not applicable to multicast streams.--The royalty
rates specified in sections 256.2(c) and 256.2(d) of title
37, Code of Federal Regulations (commonly referred to as the
`3.75 percent rate' and the `syndicated exclusivity
surcharge', respectively), as in effect on the date of the
enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism
Act of 2010, as such rates may be adjusted, or such sections
redesignated, thereafter by the Copyright Royalty Judges,
shall not apply to the secondary transmission of a multicast
stream.
``(6) Verification of accounts and fee payments.--The
Register of Copyrights shall issue regulations to provide for
the confidential verification by copyright owners whose works
were embodied in the secondary transmissions of primary
transmissions pursuant to this section of the information
reported on the semiannual statements of account filed under
this subsection on or after January 1, 2010, in order that
the auditor designated under subparagraph (A) is able to
confirm the correctness of the calculations and royalty
payments reported therein. The regulations shall--
``(A) establish procedures for the designation of a
qualified independent auditor--
[[Page 2157]]
``(i) with exclusive authority to request verification of
such a statement of account on behalf of all copyright owners
whose works were the subject of secondary transmissions of
primary transmissions by the cable system (that deposited the
statement) during the accounting period covered by the
statement; and
``(ii) who is not an officer, employee, or agent of any
such copyright owner for any purpose other than such audit;
``(B) establish procedures for safeguarding all non-public
financial and business information provided under this
paragraph;
``(C)(i) require a consultation period for the independent
auditor to review its conclusions with a designee of the
cable system;
``(ii) establish a mechanism for the cable system to remedy
any errors identified in the auditor's report and to cure any
underpayment identified; and
``(iii) provide an opportunity to remedy any disputed facts
or conclusions;
``(D) limit the frequency of requests for verification for
a particular cable system and the number of audits that a
multiple system operator can be required to undergo in a
single year; and
``(E) permit requests for verification of a statement of
account to be made only within 3 years after the last day of
the year in which the statement of account is filed.
``(7) Acceptance of additional deposits.--Any royalty fee
payments received by the Copyright Office from cable systems
for the secondary transmission of primary transmissions that
are in addition to the payments calculated and deposited in
accordance with this subsection shall be deemed to have been
deposited for the particular accounting period for which they
are received and shall be distributed as specified under this
subsection.''.
(d) Effective Date of New Royalty Fee Rates.--The royalty
fee rates established in section 111(d)(1)(B) of title 17,
United States Code, as amended by subsection (c)(1)(C) of
this section, shall take effect commencing with the first
accounting period occurring in 2010.
(e) Definitions.--Section 111(f) is amended--
(1) by striking the first undesignated paragraph and
inserting the following:
``(1) Primary transmission.--A `primary transmission' is a
transmission made to the public by a transmitting facility
whose signals are being received and further transmitted by a
secondary transmission service, regardless of where or when
the performance or display was first transmitted. In the case
of a television broadcast station, the primary stream and any
multicast streams transmitted by the station constitute
primary transmissions.'';
(2) in the second undesignated paragraph--
(A) by striking ``A `secondary transmission''' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Secondary transmission.--A `secondary
transmission'''; and
(B) by striking ```cable system''' and inserting ``cable
system'';
(3) in the third undesignated paragraph--
(A) by striking ``A `cable system''' and inserting the
following:
``(3) Cable system.--A `cable system'''; and
(B) by striking ``Territory, Trust Territory, or
Possession'' and inserting ``territory, trust territory, or
possession of the United States'';
(4) in the fourth undesignated paragraph, in the first
sentence--
(A) by striking ``The `local service area of a primary
transmitter', in the case of a television broadcast station,
comprises the area in which such station is entitled to
insist'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Local service area of a primary transmitter.--The
`local service area of a primary transmitter', in the case of
both the primary stream and any multicast streams transmitted
by a primary transmitter that is a television broadcast
station, comprises the area where such primary transmitter
could have insisted'';
(B) by striking ``76.59 of title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations'' and inserting the following: ``76.59 of title
47, Code of Federal Regulations, or within the noise-limited
contour as defined in 73.622(e)(1) of title 47, Code of
Federal Regulations''; and
(C) by striking ``as defined by the rules and regulations
of the Federal Communications Commission,'';
(5) by amending the fifth undesignated paragraph to read as
follows:
``(5) Distant signal equivalent.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph
(B), a `distant signal equivalent'--
``(i) is the value assigned to the secondary transmission
of any non-network television programming carried by a cable
system in whole or in part beyond the local service area of
the primary transmitter of such programming; and
``(ii) is computed by assigning a value of one to each
primary stream and to each multicast stream (other than a
simulcast) that is an independent station, and by assigning a
value of one-quarter to each primary stream and to each
multicast stream (other than a simulcast) that is a network
station or a noncommercial educational station.
``(B) Exceptions.--The values for independent, network, and
noncommercial educational stations specified in subparagraph
(A) are subject to the following:
``(i) Where the rules and regulations of the Federal
Communications Commission require a cable system to omit the
further transmission of a particular program and such rules
and regulations also permit the substitution of another
program embodying a performance or display of a work in place
of the omitted transmission, or where such rules and
regulations in effect on the date of the enactment of the
Copyright Act of 1976 permit a cable system, at its election,
to effect such omission and substitution of a nonlive program
or to carry additional programs not transmitted by primary
transmitters within whose local service area the cable system
is located, no value shall be assigned for the substituted or
additional program.
``(ii) Where the rules, regulations, or authorizations of
the Federal Communications Commission in effect on the date
of the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976 permit a cable
system, at its election, to omit the further transmission of
a particular program and such rules, regulations, or
authorizations also permit the substitution of another
program embodying a performance or display of a work in place
of the omitted transmission, the value assigned for the
substituted or additional program shall be, in the case of a
live program, the value of one full distant signal equivalent
multiplied by a fraction that has as its numerator the number
of days in the year in which such substitution occurs and as
its denominator the number of days in the year.
``(iii) In the case of the secondary transmission of a
primary transmitter that is a television broadcast station
pursuant to the late-night or specialty programming rules of
the Federal Communications Commission, or the secondary
transmission of a primary transmitter that is a television
broadcast station on a part-time basis where full-time
carriage is not possible because the cable system lacks the
activated channel capacity to retransmit on a full-time basis
all signals that it is authorized to carry, the values for
independent, network, and noncommercial educational stations
set forth in subparagraph (A), as the case may be, shall be
multiplied by a fraction that is equal to the ratio of the
broadcast hours of such primary transmitter retransmitted by
the cable system to the total broadcast hours of the primary
transmitter.
``(iv) No value shall be assigned for the secondary
transmission of the primary stream or any multicast streams
of a primary transmitter that is a television broadcast
station in any community that is within the local service
area of the primary transmitter.'';
(6) by striking the sixth undesignated paragraph and
inserting the following:
``(6) Network station.--
``(A) Treatment of primary stream.--The term `network
station' shall be applied to a primary stream of a television
broadcast station that is owned or operated by, or affiliated
with, one or more of the television networks in the United
States providing nationwide transmissions, and that transmits
a substantial part of the programming supplied by such
networks for a substantial part of the primary stream's
typical broadcast day.
``(B) Treatment of multicast streams.--The term `network
station' shall be applied to a multicast stream on which a
television broadcast station transmits all or substantially
all of the programming of an interconnected program service
that--
``(i) is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, one or
more of the television networks described in subparagraph
(A); and
``(ii) offers programming on a regular basis for 15 or more
hours per week to at least 25 of the affiliated television
licensees of the interconnected program service in 10 or more
States.'';
(7) by striking the seventh undesignated paragraph and
inserting the following:
``(7) Independent station.--The term `independent station'
shall be applied to the primary stream or a multicast stream
of a television broadcast station that is not a network
station or a noncommercial educational station.'';
(8) by striking the eighth undesignated paragraph and
inserting the following:
``(8) Noncommercial educational station.--The term
`noncommercial educational station' shall be applied to the
primary stream or a multicast stream of a television
broadcast station that is a noncommercial educational
broadcast station as defined in section 397 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as in effect on the date of the
enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism
Act of 2010.''; and
(9) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Primary stream.--A `primary stream' is--
``(A) the single digital stream of programming that, before
June 12, 2009, was substantially duplicating the programming
transmitted by the television broadcast station as an analog
signal; or
``(B) if there is no stream described in subparagraph (A),
then the single digital stream of programming transmitted by
the television broadcast station for the longest period of
time.
[[Page 2158]]
``(10) Primary transmitter.--A `primary transmitter' is a
television or radio broadcast station licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission, or by an appropriate governmental
authority of Canada or Mexico, that makes primary
transmissions to the public.
``(11) Multicast stream.--A `multicast stream' is a digital
stream of programming that is transmitted by a television
broadcast station and is not the station's primary stream.
``(12) Simulcast.--A `simulcast' is a multicast stream of a
television broadcast station that duplicates the programming
transmitted by the primary stream or another multicast stream
of such station.
``(13) Subscriber; subscribe.--
``(A) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means a person or
entity that receives a secondary transmission service from a
cable system and pays a fee for the service, directly or
indirectly, to the cable system.
``(B) Subscribe.--The term `subscribe' means to elect to
become a subscriber.''.
(f) Timing of Section 111 Proceedings.--Section 804(b)(1)
is amended by striking ``2005'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2015''.
(g) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Corrections to fix level designations.--Section 111 is
amended--
(A) in subsections (a), (c), and (e), by striking
``clause'' each place it appears and inserting ``paragraph'';
(B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``clauses'' and
inserting ``paragraphs''; and
(C) in subsection (e)(1)(F), by striking ``subclause'' and
inserting ``subparagraph''.
(2) Conforming amendment to hyphenate nonnetwork.--Section
111 is amended by striking ``nonnetwork'' each place it
appears and inserting ``non-network''.
(3) Previously undesignated paragraph.--Section 111(e)(1)
is amended by striking ``second paragraph of subsection (f)''
and inserting ``subsection (f)(2)''.
(4) Removal of superfluous ands.--Section 111(e) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in paragraph (1)(D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(E) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``and'' at the end.
(5) Removal of variant forms references.--Section 111 is
amended--
(A) in subsection (e)(4), by striking ``, and each of its
variant forms,''; and
(B) in subsection (f), by striking ``and their variant
forms''.
(6) Correction to territory reference.--Section 111(e)(2)
is amended in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by
striking ``three territories'' and inserting ``five
entities''.
(h) Effective Date With Respect to Multicast Streams.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
amendments made by this section, to the extent such
amendments assign a distant signal equivalent value to the
secondary transmission of the multicast stream of a primary
transmitter, shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Delayed applicability.--
(A) Secondary transmissions of a multicast stream beyond
the local service area of its primary transmitter before 2010
act.--In any case in which a cable system was making
secondary transmissions of a multicast stream beyond the
local service area of its primary transmitter before the date
of the enactment of this Act, a distant signal equivalent
value (referred to in paragraph (1)) shall not be assigned to
secondary transmissions of such multicast stream that are
made on or before June 30, 2010.
(B) Multicast streams subject to preexisting written
agreements for the secondary transmission of such streams.--
In any case in which the secondary transmission of a
multicast stream of a primary transmitter is the subject of a
written agreement entered into on or before June 30, 2009,
between a cable system or an association representing the
cable system and a primary transmitter or an association
representing the primary transmitter, a distant signal
equivalent value (referred to in paragraph (1)) shall not be
assigned to secondary transmissions of such multicast stream
beyond the local service area of its primary transmitter that
are made on or before the date on which such written
agreement expires.
(C) No refunds or offsets for prior statements of
account.--A cable system that has reported secondary
transmissions of a multicast stream beyond the local service
area of its primary transmitter on a statement of account
deposited under section 111 of title 17, United States Code,
before the date of the enactment of this Act shall not be
entitled to any refund, or offset, of royalty fees paid on
account of such secondary transmissions of such multicast
stream.
(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms ``cable
system'', ``secondary transmission'', ``multicast stream'',
and ``local service area of a primary transmitter'' have the
meanings given those terms in section 111(f) of title 17,
United States Code, as amended by this section.
SEC. 505. CERTAIN WAIVERS GRANTED TO PROVIDERS OF LOCAL-INTO-
LOCAL SERVICE FOR ALL DMAS.
Section 119 is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(g) Certain Waivers Granted to Providers of Local-Into-
Local Service to All DMAs.--
``(1) Injunction waiver.--A court that issued an injunction
pursuant to subsection (a)(7)(B) before the date of the
enactment of this subsection shall waive such injunction if
the court recognizes the entity against which the injunction
was issued as a qualified carrier.
``(2) Limited temporary waiver.--
``(A) In general.--Upon a request made by a satellite
carrier, a court that issued an injunction against such
carrier under subsection (a)(7)(B) before the date of the
enactment of this subsection shall waive such injunction with
respect to the statutory license provided under subsection
(a)(2) to the extent necessary to allow such carrier to make
secondary transmissions of primary transmissions made by a
network station to unserved households located in short
markets in which such carrier was not providing local service
pursuant to the license under section 122 as of December 31,
2009.
``(B) Expiration of temporary waiver.--A temporary waiver
of an injunction under subparagraph (A) shall expire after
the end of the 120-day period beginning on the date such
temporary waiver is issued unless extended for good cause by
the court making the temporary waiver.
``(C) Failure to provide local-into-local service to all
dmas.--
``(i) Failure to act reasonably and in good faith.--If the
court issuing a temporary waiver under subparagraph (A)
determines that the satellite carrier that made the request
for such waiver has failed to act reasonably or has failed to
make a good faith effort to provide local-into-local service
to all DMAs, such failure--
``(I) is actionable as an act of infringement under section
501 and the court may in its discretion impose the remedies
provided for in sections 502 through 506 and subsection
(a)(6)(B) of this section; and
``(II) shall result in the termination of the waiver issued
under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Failure to provide local-into-local service.--If the
court issuing a temporary waiver under subparagraph (A)
determines that the satellite carrier that made the request
for such waiver has failed to provide local-into-local
service to all DMAs, but determines that the carrier acted
reasonably and in good faith, the court may in its discretion
impose financial penalties that reflect--
``(I) the degree of control the carrier had over the
circumstances that resulted in the failure;
``(II) the quality of the carrier's efforts to remedy the
failure; and
``(III) the severity and duration of any service
interruption.
``(D) Single temporary waiver available.--An entity may
only receive one temporary waiver under this paragraph.
``(E) Short market defined.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `short market' means a local market in
which programming of one or more of the four most widely
viewed television networks nationwide as measured on the date
of the enactment of this subsection is not offered on the
primary stream transmitted by any local television broadcast
station.
``(3) Establishment of qualified carrier recognition.--
``(A) Statement of eligibility.--An entity seeking to be
recognized as a qualified carrier under this subsection shall
file a statement of eligibility with the court that imposed
the injunction. A statement of eligibility must include--
``(i) an affidavit that the entity is providing local-into-
local service to all DMAs;
``(ii) a request for a waiver of the injunction; and
``(iii) a certification issued pursuant to section 342(a)
of Communications Act of 1934.
``(B) Grant of recognition as a qualified carrier.--Upon
receipt of a statement of eligibility, the court shall
recognize the entity as a qualified carrier and issue the
waiver under paragraph (1).
``(C) Voluntary termination.--At any time, an entity
recognized as a qualified carrier may file a statement of
voluntary termination with the court certifying that it no
longer wishes to be recognized as a qualified carrier. Upon
receipt of such statement, the court shall reinstate the
injunction waived under paragraph (1).
``(D) Loss of recognition prevents future recognition.--No
entity may be recognized as a qualified carrier if such
entity had previously been recognized as a qualified carrier
and subsequently lost such recognition or voluntarily
terminated such recognition under subparagraph (C).
``(4) Qualified carrier obligations and compliance.--
``(A) Continuing obligations.--
``(i) In general.--An entity recognized as a qualified
carrier shall continue to provide local-into-local service to
all DMAs.
[[Page 2159]]
``(ii) Cooperation with gao examination.--An entity
recognized as a qualified carrier shall fully cooperate with
the Comptroller General in the examination required by
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Qualified carrier compliance examination.--
``(i) Examination and report.--The Comptroller General
shall conduct an examination and publish a report concerning
the qualified carrier's compliance with the royalty payment
and household eligibility requirements of the license under
this section. The report shall address the qualified
carrier's conduct during the period beginning on the date on
which the qualified carrier is recognized as such under
paragraph (3)(B) and ending on December 31, 2011.
``(ii) Records of qualified carrier.--Beginning on the date
that is one year after the date on which the qualified
carrier is recognized as such under paragraph (3)(B), but not
later than October 1, 2011, the qualified carrier shall
provide the Comptroller General with all records that the
Comptroller General, in consultation with the Register of
Copyrights, considers to be directly pertinent to the
following requirements under this section:
``(I) Proper calculation and payment of royalties under the
statutory license under this section.
``(II) Provision of service under this license to eligible
subscribers only.
``(iii) Submission of report.--The Comptroller General
shall file the report required by clause (i) not later than
March 1, 2012, with the court referred to in paragraph (1)
that issued the injunction, the Register of Copyrights, the
Committees on the Judiciary and on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives, and the Committees on the Judiciary
and on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
``(iv) Evidence of infringement.--The Comptroller General
shall include in the report a statement of whether the
examination by the Comptroller General indicated that there
is substantial evidence that a copyright holder could bring a
successful action under this section against the qualified
carrier for infringement. The Comptroller General shall
consult with the Register of Copyrights in preparing such
statement.
``(v) Subsequent examination.--If the report includes the
Comptroller General's statement that there is substantial
evidence that a copyright holder could bring a successful
action under this section against the qualified carrier for
infringement, the Comptroller General shall, not later than 6
months after the report under clause (i) is published,
initiate another examination of the qualified carrier's
compliance with the royalty payment and household eligibility
requirements of the license under this section since the last
report was filed under clause (iii). The Comptroller General
shall file a report on such examination with the court
referred to in paragraph (1) that issued the injunction, the
Register of Copyrights, the Committees on the Judiciary and
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and
the Committees on the Judiciary and on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate. The report shall include a
statement described in clause (iv), prepared in consultation
with the Register of Copyrights.
``(vi) Compliance.--Upon motion filed by an aggrieved
copyright owner, the court recognizing an entity as a
qualified carrier shall terminate such designation upon
finding that the entity has failed to cooperate with the
examinations required by this subparagraph.
``(C) Affirmation.--A qualified carrier shall file an
affidavit with the district court and the Register of
Copyrights 30 months after such status was granted stating
that, to the best of the affiant's knowledge, it is in
compliance with the requirements for a qualified carrier.
``(D) Compliance determination.--Upon the motion of an
aggrieved television broadcast station, the court recognizing
an entity as a qualified carrier may make a determination of
whether the entity is providing local-into-local service to
all DMAs.
``(E) Pleading requirement.--In any motion brought under
subparagraph (D), the party making such motion shall specify
one or more designated market areas (as such term is defined
in section 122(j)(2)(C)) for which the failure to provide
service is being alleged, and, for each such designated
market area, shall plead with particularity the circumstances
of the alleged failure.
``(F) Burden of proof.--In any proceeding to make a
determination under subparagraph (D), and with respect to a
designated market area for which failure to provide service
is alleged, the entity recognized as a qualified carrier
shall have the burden of proving that the entity provided
local-into-local service with a good quality satellite signal
to at least 90 percent of the households in such designated
market area (based on the most recent census data released by
the United States Census Bureau) at the time and place
alleged.
``(5) Failure to provide service.--
``(A) Penalties.--If the court recognizing an entity as a
qualified carrier finds that such entity has willfully failed
to provide local-into-local service to all DMAs, such finding
shall result in the loss of recognition of the entity as a
qualified carrier and the termination of the waiver provided
under paragraph (1), and the court may, in its discretion--
``(i) treat such failure as an act of infringement under
section 501, and subject such infringement to the remedies
provided for in sections 502 through 506 and subsection
(a)(6)(B) of this section; and
``(ii) impose a fine of not less than $250,000 and not more
than $5,000,000.
``(B) Exception for nonwillful violation.--If the court
determines that the failure to provide local-into-local
service to all DMAs is nonwillful, the court may in its
discretion impose financial penalties for noncompliance that
reflect--
``(i) the degree of control the entity had over the
circumstances that resulted in the failure;
``(ii) the quality of the entity's efforts to remedy the
failure and restore service; and
``(iii) the severity and duration of any service
interruption.
``(6) Penalties for violations of license.--A court that
finds, under subsection (a)(6)(A), that an entity recognized
as a qualified carrier has willfully made a secondary
transmission of a primary transmission made by a network
station and embodying a performance or display of a work to a
subscriber who is not eligible to receive the transmission
under this section shall reinstate the injunction waived
under paragraph (1), and the court may order statutory
damages of not more than $2,500,000.
``(7) Local-into-local service to all dmas defined.--For
purposes of this subsection:
``(A) In general.--An entity provides `local-into-local
service to all DMAs' if the entity provides local service in
all designated market areas (as such term is defined in
section 122(j)(2)(C)) pursuant to the license under section
122.
``(B) Household coverage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), an entity that makes available local-into-local service
with a good quality satellite signal to at least 90 percent
of the households in a designated market area based on the
most recent census data released by the United States Census
Bureau shall be considered to be providing local service to
such designated market area.
``(C) Good quality satellite signal defined.--The term
`good quality signal' has the meaning given such term under
section 342(e)(2) of Communications Act of 1934.''.
SEC. 506. COPYRIGHT OFFICE FEES.
Section 708(a) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon;
(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10) on filing a statement of account based on secondary
transmissions of primary transmissions pursuant to section
119 or 122; and
``(11) on filing a statement of account based on secondary
transmissions of primary transmissions pursuant to section
111.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Fees
established under paragraphs (10) and (11) shall be
reasonable and may not exceed one-half of the cost necessary
to cover reasonable expenses incurred by the Copyright Office
for the collection and administration of the statements of
account and any royalty fees deposited with such
statements.''.
SEC. 507. TERMINATION OF LICENSE.
Section 1003(a)(2)(A) of Public Law 111-118 is amended by
striking ``February 28, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31,
2014''.
SEC. 508. CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in section 111, 119, or 122 of title 17, United
States Code, including the amendments made to such sections
by this subtitle, shall be construed to affect the meaning of
any terms under the Communications Act of 1934, except to the
extent that such sections are specifically cross-referenced
in such Act or the regulations issued thereunder.
Subtitle B--Communications Provisions
SEC. 521. REFERENCE.
Except as otherwise provided, whenever in this subtitle an
amendment is made to a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to such section or
provision of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et
seq.).
SEC. 522. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.
Section 325(b) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``February 28, 2010''
and inserting ``December 31, 2014''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``March 1, 2010'' each
place it appears in clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting
``January 1, 2015''.
SEC. 523. SIGNIFICANTLY VIEWED STATIONS.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 340(b)
are amended to read as follows:
``(1) Service limited to subscribers taking local-into-
local service.--This section shall apply only to
retransmissions to subscribers of a satellite carrier who
receive retransmissions of a signal from that satellite
carrier pursuant to section 338.
``(2) Service limitations.--A satellite carrier may
retransmit to a subscriber in high definition format the
signal of a station determined by the Commission to be
significantly viewed under subsection (a) only if
[[Page 2160]]
such carrier also retransmits in high definition format the
signal of a station located in the local market of such
subscriber and affiliated with the same network whenever such
format is available from such station.''.
(b) Rulemaking Required.--Within 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications
Commission shall take all actions necessary to promulgate a
rule to implement the amendments made by subsection (a).
SEC. 524. DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION CONFORMING
AMENDMENTS.
(a) Section 338.--Section 338 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(3) effective date.--
No satellite'' and all that follows through ``until January
1, 2002.''; and
(2) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows:
``(g) Carriage of Local Stations on a Single Reception
Antenna.--
``(1) Single reception antenna.--Each satellite carrier
that retransmits the signals of local television broadcast
stations in a local market shall retransmit such stations in
such market so that a subscriber may receive such stations by
means of a single reception antenna and associated equipment.
``(2) Additional reception antenna.--If the carrier
retransmits the signals of local television broadcast
stations in a local market in high definition format, the
carrier shall retransmit such signals in such market so that
a subscriber may receive such signals by means of a single
reception antenna and associated equipment, but such antenna
and associated equipment may be separate from the single
reception antenna and associated equipment used to comply
with paragraph (1).''.
(b) Section 339.--Section 339 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``Such two network
stations'' and all that follows through ``more than two
network stations.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the heading for subparagraph (A), by striking ``to
analog signals'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) in the heading for clause (i), by striking ``analog'';
(II) in clause (i)--
(aa) by striking ``analog'' each place it appears; and
(bb) by striking ``October 1, 2004'' and inserting
``October 1, 2009'';
(III) in the heading for clause (ii), by striking
``analog''; and
(IV) in clause (ii)--
(aa) by striking ``analog'' each place it appears; and
(bb) by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2009'';
(iii) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) Rules for other subscribers.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a subscriber of a
satellite carrier who is eligible to receive the signal of a
network station under this section (in this subparagraph
referred to as a `distant signal'), other than subscribers to
whom subparagraph (A) applies, the following shall apply:
``(I) In a case in which the satellite carrier makes
available to that subscriber, on January 1, 2005, the signal
of a local network station affiliated with the same
television network pursuant to section 338, the carrier may
only provide the secondary transmissions of the distant
signal of a station affiliated with the same network to that
subscriber if the subscriber's satellite carrier, not later
than March 1, 2005, submits to that television network the
list and statement required by subparagraph (F)(i).
``(II) In a case in which the satellite carrier does not
make available to that subscriber, on January 1, 2005, the
signal of a local network station pursuant to section 338,
the carrier may only provide the secondary transmissions of
the distant signal of a station affiliated with the same
network to that subscriber if--
``(aa) that subscriber seeks to subscribe to such distant
signal before the date on which such carrier commences to
carry pursuant to section 338 the signals of stations from
the local market of such local network station; and
``(bb) the satellite carrier, within 60 days after such
date, submits to each television network the list and
statement required by subparagraph (F)(ii).
``(ii) Special circumstances.--A subscriber of a satellite
carrier who was lawfully receiving the distant signal of a
network station on the day before the date of enactment of
the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010
may receive both such distant signal and the local signal of
a network station affiliated with the same network until such
subscriber chooses to no longer receive such distant signal
from such carrier, whether or not such subscriber elects to
subscribe to such local signal.'';
(iv) in subparagraph (C)--
(I) by striking ``analog'';
(II) in clause (i), by striking ``the Satellite Home Viewer
Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004; and'' and
inserting the following:
``the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010
and, at the time such person seeks to subscribe to receive
such secondary transmission, resides in a local market where
the satellite carrier makes available to that person the
signal of a local network station affiliated with the same
television network pursuant to section 338 (and the
retransmission of such signal by such carrier can reach such
subscriber); or''; and
(III) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) lawfully subscribes to and receives a distant signal
on or after the date of enactment of the Satellite Television
Extension and Localism Act of 2010, and, subsequent to such
subscription, the satellite carrier makes available to that
subscriber the signal of a local network station affiliated
with the same network as the distant signal (and the
retransmission of such signal by such carrier can reach such
subscriber), unless such person subscribes to the signal of
the local network station within 60 days after such signal is
made available.'';
(v) in subparagraph (D)--
(I) in the heading, by striking ``digital'';
(II) by striking clauses (i), (iii) through (v), (vii)
through (ix), and (xi);
(III) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (i) and
transferring such clause to appear before clause (ii);
(IV) by amending such clause (i) (as so redesignated) to
read as follows:
``(i) Eligibility and signal testing.--A subscriber of a
satellite carrier shall be eligible to receive a distant
signal of a network station affiliated with the same network
under this section if, with respect to a local network
station, such subscriber--
``(I) is a subscriber whose household is not predicted by
the model specified in subsection (c)(3) to receive the
signal intensity required under section 73.622(e)(1) or, in
the case of a low-power station or translator station
transmitting an analog signal, section 73.683(a) of title 47,
Code of Federal Regulations, or a successor regulation;
``(II) is determined, based on a test conducted in
accordance with section 73.686(d) of title 47, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation, not to be
able to receive a signal that exceeds the signal intensity
standard in section 73.622(e)(1) or, in the case of a low-
power station or translator station transmitting an analog
signal, section 73.683(a) of such title, or a successor
regulation; or
``(III) is in an unserved household, as determined under
section 119(d)(10)(A) of title 17, United States Code.'';
(V) in clause (ii)--
(aa) by striking ``digital'' in the heading;
(bb) by striking ``digital'' the first two places such term
appears;
(cc) by striking ``Satellite Home Viewer Extension and
Reauthorization Act of 2004'' and inserting ``Satellite
Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010''; and
(dd) by striking ``, whether or not such subscriber elects
to subscribe to local digital signals'';
(VI) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) Time-shifting prohibited.--In a case in which the
satellite carrier makes available to an eligible subscriber
under this subparagraph the signal of a local network station
pursuant to section 338, the carrier may only provide the
distant signal of a station affiliated with the same network
to that subscriber if, in the case of any local market in the
48 contiguous States of the United States, the distant signal
is the secondary transmission of a station whose prime time
network programming is generally broadcast simultaneously
with, or later than, the prime time network programming of
the affiliate of the same network in the local market.''; and
(VII) by redesignating clause (x) as clause (iv); and
(vi) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``distant analog
signal or'' and all that follows through ``(B), or (D))'' and
inserting ``distant signal'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) Establishment of improved predictive model and on-
location testing required.--
``(A) Predictive model.--Within 180 days after the date of
the enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and
Localism Act of 2010, the Commission shall develop and
prescribe by rule a point-to-point predictive model for
reliably and presumptively determining the ability of
individual locations, through the use of an antenna, to
receive signals in accordance with the signal intensity
standard in section 73.622(e)(1) of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations, or a successor regulation, including to account
for the continuing operation of translator stations and low
power television stations. In prescribing such model, the
Commission shall rely on the Individual Location Longley-Rice
model set forth by the Commission in CS Docket No. 98-201, as
previously revised with respect to analog signals, and as
recommended by the Commission with respect to digital signals
in its Report to Congress in ET Docket No. 05-182, FCC 05-199
(released December 9, 2005). The Commission shall establish
procedures for the continued refinement in the application of
the model by the use of additional data as it becomes
available.
[[Page 2161]]
``(B) On-location testing.--The Commission shall issue an
order completing its rulemaking proceeding in ET Docket No.
06-94 within 180 days after the date of enactment of the
Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010. In
conducting such rulemaking, the Commission shall seek ways to
minimize consumer burdens associated with on-location
testing.'';
(B) by amending paragraph (4)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--If a subscriber's request for a waiver
under paragraph (2) is rejected and the subscriber submits to
the subscriber's satellite carrier a request for a test
verifying the subscriber's inability to receive a signal of
the signal intensity referenced in clause (i) of subsection
(a)(2)(D), the satellite carrier and the network station or
stations asserting that the retransmission is prohibited with
respect to that subscriber shall select a qualified and
independent person to conduct the test referenced in such
clause. Such test shall be conducted within 30 days after the
date the subscriber submits a request for the test. If the
written findings and conclusions of a test conducted in
accordance with such clause demonstrate that the subscriber
does not receive a signal that meets or exceeds the requisite
signal intensity standard in such clause, the subscriber
shall not be denied the retransmission of a signal of a
network station under section 119(d)(10)(A) of title 17,
United States Code.'';
(C) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``the signal
intensity'' and all that follows through ``United States
Code'' and inserting ``such requisite signal intensity
standard''; and
(D) in paragraph (4)(E), by striking ``Grade B intensity''.
(c) Section 340.--Section 340(i) is amended by striking
paragraph (4).
SEC. 525. APPLICATION PENDING COMPLETION OF RULEMAKINGS.
(a) In General.--During the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which the
Federal Communications Commission adopts rules pursuant to
the amendments to the Communications Act of 1934 made by
section 523 and section 524 of this title, the Federal
Communications Commission shall follow its rules and
regulations promulgated pursuant to sections 338, 339, and
340 of the Communications Act of 1934 as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Translator Stations and Low Power Television
Stations.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), for purposes of
determining whether a subscriber within the local market
served by a translator station or a low power television
station affiliated with a television network is eligible to
receive distant signals under section 339 of the
Communications Act of 1934, the rules and regulations of the
Federal Communications Commission for determining such
subscriber's eligibility as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of this Act shall apply until the date
on which the translator station or low power television
station is licensed to broadcast a digital signal.
(c) Definitions.--As used in this subtitle:
(1) Local market; low power television station; satellite
carrier; subscriber; television broadcast station.--The terms
``local market'', ``low power television station'',
``satellite carrier'', ``subscriber'', and ``television
broadcast station'' have the meanings given such terms in
section 338(k) of the Communications Act of 1934.
(2) Network station; television network.--The terms
``network station'' and ``television network'' have the
meanings given such terms in section 339(d) of such Act.
SEC. 526. PROCESS FOR ISSUING QUALIFIED CARRIER
CERTIFICATION.
Part I of title III is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 342. PROCESS FOR ISSUING QUALIFIED CARRIER
CERTIFICATION.
``(a) Certification.--The Commission shall issue a
certification for the purposes of section 119(g)(3)(A)(iii)
of title 17, United States Code, if the Commission determines
that--
``(1) a satellite carrier is providing local service
pursuant to the statutory license under section 122 of such
title in each designated market area; and
``(2) with respect to each designated market area in which
such satellite carrier was not providing such local service
as of the date of enactment of the Satellite Television
Extension and Localism Act of 2010--
``(A) the satellite carrier's satellite beams are designed,
and predicted by the satellite manufacturer's pre-launch test
data, to provide a good quality satellite signal to at least
90 percent of the households in each such designated market
area based on the most recent census data released by the
United States Census Bureau; and
``(B) there is no material evidence that there has been a
satellite or sub-system failure subsequent to the satellite's
launch that precludes the ability of the satellite carrier to
satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (A).
``(b) Information Required.--Any entity seeking the
certification provided for in subsection (a) shall submit to
the Commission the following information:
``(1) An affidavit stating that, to the best of the
affiant's knowledge, the satellite carrier provides local
service in all designated market areas pursuant to the
statutory license provided for in section 122 of title 17,
United States Code, and listing those designated market areas
in which local service was provided as of the date of
enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism
Act of 2010.
``(2) For each designated market area not listed in
paragraph (1):
``(A) Identification of each such designated market area
and the location of its local receive facility.
``(B) Data showing the number of households, and maps
showing the geographic distribution thereof, in each such
designated market area based on the most recent census data
released by the United States Census Bureau.
``(C) Maps, with superimposed effective isotropically
radiated power predictions obtained in the satellite
manufacturer's pre-launch tests, showing that the contours of
the carrier's satellite beams as designed and the geographic
area that the carrier's satellite beams are designed to cover
are predicted to provide a good quality satellite signal to
at least 90 percent of the households in such designated
market area based on the most recent census data released by
the United States Census Bureau.
``(D) For any satellite relied upon for certification under
this section, an affidavit stating that, to the best of the
affiant's knowledge, there have been no satellite or sub-
system failures subsequent to the satellite's launch that
would degrade the design performance to such a degree that a
satellite transponder used to provide local service to any
such designated market area is precluded from delivering a
good quality satellite signal to at least 90 percent of the
households in such designated market area based on the most
recent census data released by the United States Census
Bureau.
``(E) Any additional engineering, designated market area,
or other information the Commission considers necessary to
determine whether the Commission shall grant a certification
under this section.
``(c) Certification Issuance.--
``(1) Public comment.--The Commission shall provide 30 days
for public comment on a request for certification under this
section.
``(2) Deadline for decision.--The Commission shall grant or
deny a request for certification within 90 days after the
date on which such request is filed.
``(d) Subsequent Affirmation.--An entity granted qualified
carrier status pursuant to section 119(g) of title 17, United
States Code, shall file an affidavit with the Commission 30
months after such status was granted stating that, to the
best of the affiant's knowledge, it is in compliance with the
requirements for a qualified carrier.
``(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
``(1) Designated market area.--The term `designated market
area' has the meaning given such term in section 122(j)(2)(C)
of title 17, United States Code.
``(2) Good quality satellite signal.--
``(A) In general.--The term ``good quality satellite
signal'' means--
``(i) a satellite signal whose power level as designed
shall achieve reception and demodulation of the signal at an
availability level of at least 99.7 percent using--
``(I) models of satellite antennas normally used by the
satellite carrier's subscribers; and
``(II) the same calculation methodology used by the
satellite carrier to determine predicted signal availability
in the top 100 designated market areas; and
``(ii) taking into account whether a signal is in standard
definition format or high definition format, compression
methodology, modulation, error correction, power level, and
utilization of advances in technology that do not circumvent
the intent of this section to provide for non-discriminatory
treatment with respect to any comparable television broadcast
station signal, a video signal transmitted by a satellite
carrier such that--
``(I) the satellite carrier treats all television broadcast
stations' signals the same with respect to statistical
multiplexer prioritization; and
``(II) the number of video signals in the relevant
satellite transponder is not more than the then current
greatest number of video signals carried on any equivalent
transponder serving the top 100 designated market areas.
``(B) Determination.--For the purposes of subparagraph (A),
the top 100 designated market areas shall be as determined by
Nielsen Media Research and published in the Nielsen Station
Index Directory and Nielsen Station Index United States
Television Household Estimates or any successor publication
as of the date of a satellite carrier's application for
certification under this section.''.
SEC. 527. NONDISCRIMINATION IN CARRIAGE OF HIGH DEFINITION
DIGITAL SIGNALS OF NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL
TELEVISION STATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 338(a) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Nondiscrimination in carriage of high definition
signals of noncommercial educational television stations.--
[[Page 2162]]
``(A) Existing carriage of high definition signals.--If,
before the date of enactment of the Satellite Television
Extension and Localism Act of 2010, an eligible satellite
carrier is providing, under section 122 of title 17, United
States Code, any secondary transmissions in high definition
format to subscribers located within the local market of a
television broadcast station of a primary transmission made
by that station, then such satellite carrier shall carry the
signals in high-definition format of qualified noncommercial
educational television stations located within that local
market in accordance with the following schedule:
``(i) By December 31, 2010, in at least 50 percent of the
markets in which such satellite carrier provides such
secondary transmissions in high definition format.
``(ii) By December 31, 2011, in every market in which such
satellite carrier provides such secondary transmissions in
high definition format.
``(B) New initiation of service.--If, on or after the date
of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and
Localism Act of 2010, an eligible satellite carrier initiates
the provision, under section 122 of title 17, United States
Code, of any secondary transmissions in high definition
format to subscribers located within the local market of a
television broadcast station of a primary transmission made
by that station, then such satellite carrier shall carry the
signals in high-definition format of all qualified
noncommercial educational television stations located within
that local market.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 338(k) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (8) as
paragraphs (3) through (9), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Eligible satellite carrier.--The term `eligible
satellite carrier' means any satellite carrier that is not a
party to a carriage contract that--
``(A) governs carriage of at least 30 qualified
noncommercial educational television stations; and
``(B) is in force and effect within 60 days after the date
of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and
Localism Act of 2010.'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (9) (as
previously redesignated) as paragraphs (7) through (10),
respectively; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph:
``(6) Qualified noncommercial educational television
station.--The term `qualified noncommercial educational
television station' means any full-power television broadcast
station that--
``(A) under the rules and regulations of the Commission in
effect on March 29, 1990, is licensed by the Commission as a
noncommercial educational broadcast station and is owned and
operated by a public agency, nonprofit foundation, nonprofit
corporation, or nonprofit association; and
``(B) has as its licensee an entity that is eligible to
receive a community service grant, or any successor grant
thereto, from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or any
successor organization thereto, on the basis of the formula
set forth in section 396(k)(6)(B) of this title.''.
SEC. 528. SAVINGS CLAUSE REGARDING DEFINITIONS.
Nothing in this subtitle or the amendments made by this
subtitle shall be construed to affect--
(1) the meaning of the terms ``program related'' and
``primary video'' under the Communications Act of 1934; or
(2) the meaning of the term ``multicast'' in any
regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission.
SEC. 529. STATE PUBLIC AFFAIRS BROADCASTS.
Section 335(b) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``STATE PUBLIC AFFAIRS,'' after
``EDUCATIONAL,'' in the heading;
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Channel capacity required.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Commission shall require, as a condition of any
provision, initial authorization, or authorization renewal
for a provider of direct broadcast satellite service
providing video programming, that the provider of such
service reserve a portion of its channel capacity, equal to
not less than 4 percent nor more than 7 percent, exclusively
for noncommercial programming of an educational or
informational nature.
``(B) Requirement for qualified satellite provider.--The
Commission shall require, as a condition of any provision,
initial authorization, or authorization renewal for a
qualified satellite provider of direct broadcast satellite
service providing video programming, that such provider
reserve a portion of its channel capacity, equal to not less
than 3.5 percent nor more than 7 percent, exclusively for
noncommercial programming of an educational or informational
nature.'';
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``For purposes of the
subsection--'' and inserting ``For purposes of this
subsection:''; and
(4) by adding at the end of paragraph (5) the following:
``(C) The term `qualified satellite provider' means any
provider of direct broadcast satellite service that--
``(i) provides the retransmission of the State public
affairs networks of at least 15 different States;
``(ii) offers the programming of State public affairs
networks upon reasonable prices, terms, and conditions as
determined by the Commission under paragraph (4); and
``(iii) does not delete any noncommercial programming of an
educational or informational nature in connection with the
carriage of a State public affairs network.
``(D) The term `State public affairs network' means a non-
commercial non-broadcast network or a noncommercial
educational television station--
``(i) whose programming consists of information about State
government deliberations and public policy events; and
``(ii) that is operated by--
``(I) a State government or subdivision thereof;
``(II) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt from
taxation under section 501(a) of such Code and that is
governed by an independent board of directors; or
``(III) a cable system.''.
Subtitle C--Reports and Savings Provision
SEC. 531. DEFINITION.
In this subtitle, the term ``appropriate Congressional
committees'' means the Committees on the Judiciary and on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committees on the Judiciary and on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives.
SEC. 532. REPORT ON MARKET BASED ALTERNATIVES TO STATUTORY
LICENSING.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and after consultation with the Federal
Communications Commission, the Register of Copyrights shall
submit to the appropriate Congressional committees a report
containing--
(1) proposed mechanisms, methods, and recommendations on
how to implement a phase-out of the statutory licensing
requirements set forth in sections 111, 119, and 122 of title
17, United States Code, by making such sections inapplicable
to the secondary transmission of a performance or display of
a work embodied in a primary transmission of a broadcast
station that is authorized to license the same secondary
transmission directly with respect to all of the performances
and displays embodied in such primary transmission;
(2) any recommendations for alternative means to implement
a timely and effective phase-out of the statutory licensing
requirements set forth in sections 111, 119, and 122 of title
17, United States Code; and
(3) any recommendations for legislative or administrative
actions as may be appropriate to achieve such a phase-out.
SEC. 533. REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS IMPLICATIONS OF STATUTORY
LICENSING MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
that analyzes and evaluates the changes to the carriage
requirements currently imposed on multichannel video
programming distributors under the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and the regulations promulgated by
the Federal Communications Commission that would be required
or beneficial to consumers, and such other matters as the
Comptroller General deems appropriate, if Congress
implemented a phase-out of the current statutory licensing
requirements set forth under sections 111, 119, and 122 of
title 17, United States Code. Among other things, the study
shall consider the impact such a phase-out and related
changes to carriage requirements would have on consumer
prices and access to programming.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall report
to the appropriate Congressional committees the results of
the study, including any recommendations for legislative or
administrative actions.
SEC. 534. REPORT ON IN-STATE BROADCAST PROGRAMMING.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall submit
to the appropriate Congressional committees a report
containing an analysis of--
(1) the number of households in a State that receive the
signals of local broadcast stations assigned to a community
of license that is located in a different State;
(2) the extent to which consumers in each local market have
access to in-state broadcast programming over the air or from
a multichannel video programming distributor; and
(3) whether there are alternatives to the use of designated
market areas, as defined in section 122 of title 17, United
States Code, to define local markets that would provide more
consumers with in-state broadcast programming.
SEC. 535. LOCAL NETWORK CHANNEL BROADCAST REPORTS.
(a) Requirement.--
(1) In general.--On the 180th day after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and on each succeeding anniversary of
such 180th day, each satellite carrier shall submit an annual
report to the Federal Communications Commission setting
forth--
[[Page 2163]]
(A) each local market in which it--
(i) retransmits signals of 1 or more television broadcast
stations with a community of license in that market;
(ii) has commenced providing such signals in the preceding
1-year period; and
(iii) has ceased to provide such signals in the preceding
1-year period; and
(B) detailed information regarding the use and potential
use of satellite capacity for the retransmission of local
signals in each local market.
(2) Termination.--The requirement under paragraph (1) shall
cease after each satellite carrier has submitted 5 reports
under such paragraph.
(b) FCC Study; Report.--
(1) Study.--If no satellite carrier files a request for a
certification under section 342 of the Communications Act of
1934 (as added by section 526 of this title) within 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal
Communications Commission shall initiate a study of--
(A) incentives that would induce a satellite carrier to
provide the signals of 1 or more television broadcast
stations licensed to provide signals in local markets in
which the satellite carrier does not provide such signals;
and
(B) the economic and satellite capacity conditions
affecting delivery of local signals by satellite carriers to
these markets.
(2) Report.--Within 1 year after the date of the initiation
of the study under paragraph (1), the Federal Communications
Commission shall submit a report to the appropriate
Congressional committees containing its findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
(c) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``local market'' and ``satellite carrier''
have the meaning given such terms in section 339(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 339(d)); and
(2) the term ``television broadcast station'' has the
meaning given such term in section 325(b)(7) of such Act (47
U.S.C. 325(b)(7)).
SEC. 536. SAVINGS PROVISION REGARDING USE OF NEGOTIATED
LICENSES.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this title, title 17, United
States Code, the Communications Act of 1934, regulations
promulgated by the Register of Copyrights under this title or
title 17, United States Code, or regulations promulgated by
the Federal Communications Commission under this title or the
Communications Act of 1934 shall be construed to prevent a
multichannel video programming distributor from
retransmitting a performance or display of a work pursuant to
an authorization granted by the copyright owner or, if within
the scope of its authorization, its licensee.
(b) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be
construed to affect any obligation of a multichannel video
programming distributor under section 325(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 to obtain the authority of a
television broadcast station before retransmitting that
station's signal.
SEC. 537. EFFECTIVE DATE; NONINFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
Unless specifically provided otherwise, this title, and the
amendments made by this title, shall take effect on February
27, 2010, and all references to enactment of this Act shall
be deemed to refer to such date unless otherwise specified.
The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a
work embodied in a primary transmission is not an
infringement of copyright if it was made by a satellite
carrier on or after February 27, 2010 and prior to enactment
of this Act, and was in compliance with the law as in
existence on February 27, 2010.
Subtitle D--Severability
SEC. 541. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this title, an amendment made by this
title, or the application of such provision or amendment to
any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional,
the remainder of this title, the amendments made by this
title, and the application of such provision or amendment to
any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
TITLE VI--OTHER PROVISIONS
SEC. 601. INCREASE IN THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.
Paragraph (10) of section 1848(d) of the Social Security
Act, as added by section 1011(a) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``February 28, 2010''
and inserting ``September 30, 2010''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``March 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2010''.
TITLE VII--DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS
SEC. 701. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
(a) In General.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
(b) Emergency Designation.--Sections 201, 211, and 232 of
this Act are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g)) and section 403(a) of
S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 2010. In the House of
Representatives, sections 201, 211, and 232 of this Act are
designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go
principles.
______
SA 3337. Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mrs. McCaskill) proposed an
amendment to amendment SA 3336 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R.
4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain
expiring provisions, and for other purposes; as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
SEC. _01. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``discretionary spending limits
``Sec. 316. (a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--It shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that includes any provision that would
cause the discretionary spending limits as set forth in this
section to be exceeded.
``(b) Limits.--In this section, the term `discretionary
spending limits' has the following meaning subject to
adjustments in subsection (c):
``(1) For fiscal year 2011--
``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050),
$564,293,000,000 in budget authority; and
``(B) for the nondefense category, $529,662,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(2) For fiscal year 2012--
``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050),
$573,612,000,000 in budget authority; and
``(B) for the nondefense category, $533,232,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(3) For fiscal year 2013--
``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050),
$584,421,000,000 in budget authority; and
``(B) for the nondefense category, $540,834,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(4) For fiscal year 2014--
``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050),
$598,249,000,000 in budget authority; and
``(B) for the nondefense category, $550,509,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(5) With respect to fiscal years following 2014, the
President shall recommend and the Congress shall consider
legislation setting limits for those fiscal years.
``(c) Adjustments.--
``(1) In general.--After the reporting of a bill or joint
resolution relating to any matter described in paragraph (2),
or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of
a conference report thereon--
``(A) the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget
may adjust the discretionary spending limits, the budgetary
aggregates in the concurrent resolution on the budget most
recently adopted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by the amount of new
budget authority in that measure for that purpose and the
outlays flowing there from; and
``(B) following any adjustment under subparagraph (A), the
Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately
revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this
subsection.
``(2) Matters described.--Matters referred to in paragraph
(1) are as follows:
``(A) Overseas deployments and other activities.--If a bill
or joint resolution is reported making appropriations for
fiscal year 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014, that provides funding
for overseas deployments and other activities, the adjustment
for purposes paragraph (1) shall be the amount of budget
authority in that measure for that purpose but not to
exceed--
``(i) with respect to fiscal year 2011, $50,000,000,000 in
new budget authority;
``(ii) with respect to fiscal year 2012, $50,000,000,000 in
new budget authority;
``(iii) with respect to fiscal year 2013, $50,000,000,000
in new budget authority: and
``(iv) with respect to fiscal year 2014, $50,000,000,000 in
new budget authority.
``(B) Emergency spending.--For fiscal year 2011, 2012,
2013, or 2014 for appropriations for discretionary accounts
designated as emergency requirements, the adjustment for
purposes of paragraph (1) shall be the total of such
appropriations in discretionary accounts designated as
emergency requirements, but not to exceed $10,454,000,000 for
2011, $10,558,000,000 for 2012, $10,664,000,000 for 2013, and
$10,877,000,000 for 2014. Appropriations designated as
emergencies in excess of these limitations shall be treated
as new budget authority.
``(C) Internal revenue service tax enforcement.--
``(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is
reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012,
2013, or 2014 that includes the amount described in clause
(ii)(I), plus an additional amount for enhanced tax
[[Page 2164]]
enforcement to address the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but
not paid) described in clause (ii)(II), the adjustment for
purposes of paragraph (1) shall be the amount of budget
authority in that measure for that initiative not exceeding
the amount specified in clause (ii)(II) for that fiscal year.
``(ii) Amounts.--The amounts referred to in clause (i) are
as follows:
``(I) For fiscal year 2011, $7,171,000,000, for fiscal year
2012, $7,243,000,000, for fiscal year 2013, $7,315,000,000,
and for fiscal year 2014, $7,461,000,000.
``(II) For fiscal year 2011, $899,000,000, for fiscal year
2012, $908,000,000, for fiscal year 2013, $917,000,000, and
for fiscal year 2014, $935,000,000.
``(D) Continuing disability reviews and ssi
redeterminations.--
``(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is
reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012,
2013, or 2014 that includes the amount described in clause
(ii)(I), plus an additional amount for Continuing Disability
Reviews and Supplemental Security Income Redeterminations for
the Social Security Administration described in clause
(ii)(II), the adjustment for purposes of paragraph (1) shall
be the amount of budget authority in that measure for that
initiative not exceeding the amount specified in clause
(ii)(II) for that fiscal year.
``(ii) Amounts.--The amounts referred to in clause (i) are
as follows:
``(I) For fiscal year 2011, $276,000,000; for fiscal year
2012, $278,000,000; for fiscal year 2013, $281,000,000; for
fiscal year 2014, $287,000,000.
``(II) For fiscal year 2011, $490,000,000; for fiscal year
2012, $495,000,000; for fiscal year 2013, $500,000,000; for
fiscal year 2014, $510,000,000.
``(iii) Asset verification.--
``(I) In general.--The additional appropriation permitted
under clause (ii)(II) may also provide that a portion of that
amount, not to exceed the amount specified in subclause (II)
for that fiscal year instead may be used for asset
verification for Supplemental Security Income recipients, but
only if, and to the extent that the Office of the Chief
Actuary estimates that the initiative would be at least as
cost effective as the redeterminations of eligibility
described in this subparagraph.
``(II) Amounts.--For fiscal year 2011, $34,340,000, for
fiscal year 2012, $34,683,000, for fiscal year 2013,
$35,030,000 and for fiscal year 2014, $35,731,000.
``(E) Health care fraud and abuse.--
``(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is
reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012,
2013, or 2014 that includes the amount described in clause
(ii) for the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control program at
the Department of Health & Human Services for that fiscal
year, the adjustment for purposes of paragraph (1) shall be
the amount of budget authority in that measure for that
initiative but not to exceed the amount described in clause
(ii).
``(ii) Amount.--The amount referred to in clause (i) is for
fiscal year 2011, $314,000,000, for fiscal year 2012,
$317,000,000, for fiscal year 2013, $320,000,000, and for
fiscal year 2014, $327,000,000.
``(F) Unemployment insurance improper payment reviews.--If
a bill or joint resolution is reported making appropriations
for fiscal year 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014 that includes
$10,000,000, plus an additional amount for in-person
reemployment and eligibility assessments and unemployment
improper payment reviews for the Department of Labor, the
adjustment for purposes paragraph (1) shall be the amount of
budget authority in that measure for that initiative but not
to exceed--
``(i) with respect to fiscal year 2011, $51,000,000 in new
budget authority; and
``(ii) with respect to fiscal year 2012, $51,000,000 in new
budget authority.
``(iii) with respect to fiscal year 2013, $52,000,000 in
new budget authority; and
``(iv) with respect to fiscal year 2014, $53,000,000 in new
budget authority.
``(G) Low-income home energy assistance program (liheap).--
If a bill or joint resolution is reported making
appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014 that
includes $3,200,000,000 in funding for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program and provides an additional amount
up to $1,900,000,000 for that program, the adjustment for
purposes of paragraph (1) shall be the amount of budget
authority in that measure for that initiative but not to
exceed $1,900,000,000.
``(d) Emergency Spending.--
``(1) Authority to designate.--In the Senate, with respect
to a provision of direct spending or receipts legislation or
appropriations for discretionary accounts that Congress
designates as an emergency requirement in such measure, the
amounts of new budget authority, outlays, and receipts in all
fiscal years resulting from that provision shall be treated
as an emergency requirement for the purpose of this
subsection.
``(2) Exemption of emergency provisions.--Subject to the
limitations provided in subsection (c)(2)(B), any new budget
authority, outlays, and receipts resulting from any provision
designated as an emergency requirement, pursuant to this
subsection, in any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report shall not count for purposes of sections
302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section
201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) (relating to pay-as-
you-go), and section 311 of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th Congress)
(relating to long-term deficits).
``(3) Designations.--If a provision of legislation is
designated as an emergency requirement under this subsection,
the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
paragraph (6).
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms `direct
spending', `receipts', and `appropriations for discretionary
accounts' mean any provision of a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that affects direct
spending, receipts, or appropriations as those terms have
been defined and interpreted for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
``(5) Point of order.--
``(A) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill,
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, if a
point of order is made by a Senator against an emergency
designation in that measure, that provision making such a
designation shall be stricken from the measure and may not be
offered as an amendment from the floor.
``(B) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
``(i) Waiver.--Subparagraph (A) may be waived or suspended
in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
``(ii) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions
of the Chair relating to any provision of this paragraph
shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between,
and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill
or joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and
sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling
of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph.
``(C) Definition of an emergency designation.--For purposes
of subparagraph (A), a provision shall be considered an
emergency designation if it designates any item as an
emergency requirement pursuant to this paragraph.
``(D) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under
subparagraph (A) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
``(E) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any
Senator pursuant to this paragraph, and such point of order
being sustained, such material contained in such conference
report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed
to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede
from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or
concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as
the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of
only that portion of the conference report or House
amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such
motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which
such point of order is sustained against a conference report
(or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by
operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be
in order.
``(6) Criteria.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, any
provision is an emergency requirement if the situation
addressed by such provision is--
``(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or
beneficial);
``(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building
up over time;
``(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
``(iv) subject to clause (ii), unforeseen, unpredictable,
and unanticipated; and
``(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
``(7) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an
aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when
normally estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
``(e) Limitations on Changes to Exemptions.--It shall not
be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to
consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference
report that would exempt any new budget authority, outlays,
and receipts from being counted for purposes of this section.
``(f) Point of Order in the Senate.--
``(1) Waiver.--The provisions of this section shall be
waived or suspended in the Senate only--
``(A) by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members,
duly chosen and sworn; or
``(B) in the case of the defense budget authority, if
Congress declares war or authorizes the use of force.
``(2) Appeal.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure.
An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the
Senate, duly
[[Page 2165]]
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this
section.
``(3) Limitations on changes to this subsection.--It shall
not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives
to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference
report that would repeal or otherwise change this
subsection.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents set forth in
section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 315 the following new item:
``Sec. 316. Discretionary spending limits.''.
______
SA 3338. Mr. THUNE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3336 proposed by Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R. 4213, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring
provisions, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end, insert the following:
TITLE ----ADDITIONAL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF
Subtitle A--General Provisions
SEC. --01. PERMANENT INCREASE IN LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSING OF
CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.
(a) Permanent Increase.--Subsection (b) of section 179 is
amended--
(1) by striking ``$25,000'' and all that follows in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``$500,000.'',
(2) by striking ``$200,000'' and all that follows in
paragraph (2) and inserting ``$2,000,000'',
(3) by striking ``after 2007 and before 2011, the $120,000
and $500,000'' in paragraph (5)(A) and inserting ``after
2009, the $500,000 and the $2,000,000'',
(4) by striking ``2006'' in paragraph (5)(A)(ii) and
inserting ``2008'', and
(5) by striking paragraph (7).
(b) Permanent Expensing of Computer Software.--Section
179(d)(1)(A)(ii) is amended by striking ``and before 2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (b)
and (c) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December
31, 2008.
SEC. --02. EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL FIRST-YEAR DEPRECIATION
FOR 50 PERCENT OF THE BASIS OF CERTAIN
QUALIFIED PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 168(k), as
amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of
2009, is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subparagraph (A)(iv)
and inserting ``January 1, 2012'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2010'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The heading for subsection (k) of section 168, as
amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of
2009, is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(2) The heading for clause (ii) of section 168(k)(2)(B), as
so amended, is amended by striking ``Pre-january 1, 2010''
and inserting ``Pre-january 1, 2011''.
(3) Subparagraph (D) of section 168(k)(4) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the
period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting a comma, and
by adding at the end the following new clauses:
``(iv) `January 1, 2011' shall be substituted for `January
1, 2012' in subparagraph (A)(iv) thereof, and
``(v) `January 1, 2010' shall be substituted for `January
1, 2011' each place it appears in subparagraph (A)
thereof.''.
(4) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(l)(5), as so amended,
is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(5) Subparagraph (C) of section 168(n)(2), as so amended,
is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(6) Subparagraph (D) of section 1400L(b)(2) is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting ``January 1,
2011''.
(7) Subparagraph (B) of section 1400N(d)(3), as so amended,
is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting
``January 1, 2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2009.
SEC. --03. INCREASED EXCLUSION AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS
APPLICABLE TO QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.
(a) Increased Exclusion.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) Exclusion.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, gross income shall not include the applicable
percentage of any gain from the sale or exchange of qualified
small business stock held for more than 5 years.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage is--
``(A) 50 percent, in the case of stock issued after August
10, 1993, and on or before February 18, 2009,
``(B) 75 percent, in the case of stock issued after
February 18, 2009, and on or before the date of the enactment
of the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of
2010, and
``(C) 100 percent, in the case of stock issued after the
date of the enactment of the American Workers, State, and
Business Relief Act of 2010.
``(3) Empowerment zone businesses.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of qualified small business
stock acquired after December 21, 2000, and on or before
February 18, 2009, in a corporation which is a qualified
business entity (as defined in section 1397C(b)) during
substantially all of the taxpayer's holding period for such
stock, paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting `60
percent' for `50 percent'.
``(B) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of paragraphs (5) and (7) of section 1400B(b) shall apply for
purposes of this paragraph.
``(C) Gain after 2014 not qualified.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to gain attributable to periods after
December 31, 2014.
``(D) Treatment of dc zone.--The District of Columbia
Enterprise Zone shall not be treated as an empowerment zone
for purposes of this paragraph.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The heading for section 1202 is amended by striking
``PARTIAL''.
(B) The item relating to section 1202 in the table of
sections for part I of subchapter P of chapter 1 is amended
by striking ``Partial exclusion'' and inserting
``Exclusion''.
(C) Section 1223(13) is amended by striking
``1202(a)(2),''.
(b) Repeal of Minimum Tax Preference.--Paragraph (7) of
section 57(a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to stock issued
after the date of the enactment of the American Workers,
State, and Business Relief Act of 2010.''.
(c) Increase in Limitation.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1202(b)(1) is
amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting
``$15,000,000''.
(2) Married individuals.--Subparagraph (A) of section
1202(b)(3) is amended by striking ``paragraph (1)(A) shall be
applied by substituting `$5,000,000' for `$10,000,000''' and
inserting ``the amount under paragraph (1)(A) shall be half
of the amount otherwise in effect''.
(d) Modification of Definition of Qualified Small
Business.--Section 1202(d)(1) is amended by striking
``$50,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting
``$75,000,000''.
(e) Inflation Adjustments.--Section 1202 is amended by
redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l) and by
inserting after subsection (j) the following new subsection:
``(k) Inflation Adjustment.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning after 2010, the $15,000,000 amount in subsection
(b)(1)(A), the $75,000,000 amount in subsection (d)(1)(A),
and the $75,000,000 amount in subsection (d)(1)(B) shall each
be increased by an amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost of living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2009'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(2) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph
(1) is not a multiple of $1,000,000 such amount shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000,000.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a),
(b), and (d) shall apply to stock acquired after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(2) Limitation; inflation adjustment.--The amendments made
by subsections (c) and (e) shall apply to taxable years
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
EC. --04. DEDUCTION FOR ELIGIBLE SMALL BUSINESS INCOME.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 199(a) is amended
to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a deduction an
amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) 9 percent of the lesser of--
``(i) the qualified production activities income of the
taxpayer for the taxable year, or
``(ii) taxable income (determined without regard to this
section) for the taxable year, and
``(B) in the case of an eligible small business for any
taxable year beginning after 2009, 20 percent of the lesser
of--
``(i) the eligible small business income of the taxpayer
for the taxable year, or
``(ii) taxable income (determined without regard to this
section) for the taxable year.''.
(b) Eligible Small Business; Eligible Small Business
Income.--Section 199 is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Eligible Small Business; Eligible Small Business
Income.--
``(1) Eligible small business.--For purposes of this
section, the term `eligible small business' means, with
respect to any taxable year--
``(A) a corporation the stock of which is not publicly
traded, or
``(B) a partnership,
which meets the gross receipts test of section 448(c)
(determined by substituting `$50,000,000' for `$5,000,000'
each place it appears in such section) for the taxable year
(or, in the case of a sole proprietorship, which would meet
such test if such proprietorship were a corporation).
[[Page 2166]]
``(2) Eligible small business income.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`eligible small business income' means the excess of--
``(i) the income of the eligible small business which--
``(I) is attributable to the actual conduct of a trade or
business,
``(II) is income from sources within the United States
(within the meaning of section 861), and
``(III) is not passive income (as defined in section
904(d)(2)(B)), over
``(ii) the sum of--
``(I) the cost of goods sold that are allocable to such
income, and
``(II) other expenses, losses, or deductions (other than
the deduction allowed under this section), which are properly
allocable to such income.
``(B) Exceptions.--The following shall not be treated as
income of an eligible small business for purposes of
subparagraph (A):
``(i) Any income which is attributable to any property
described in section 1400N(p)(3).
``(ii) Any income which is attributable to the ownership or
management of any professional sports team.
``(iii) Any income which is attributable to a trade or
business described in subparagraph (B) of section 1202(e)(3).
``(iv) Any income which is attributable to any property
with respect to which records are required to be maintained
under section 2257 of title 18, United States Code.
``(C) Allocation rules, etc.--Rules similar to the rules of
paragraphs (2), (3), (4)(D), and (7) of subsection (c) shall
apply for purposes of this paragraph.
``(3) Special rules.--Except as otherwise provided by the
Secretary, rules similar to the rules of subsection (d) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 199(a)(2) is amended by
striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(A)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
SEC. --05. NONAPPLICATION OF CERTAIN LABOR STANDARDS.
Section 1601 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax
Act of 2009 is hereby repealed.
Subtitle B--Transfer of Stimulus Funds
SEC. --11. TRANSFER OF STIMULUS FUNDS.
Notwithstanding section 5 of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. Law 111-5), from the amounts
appropriated or made available and remaining unobligated
under such Act, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall transfer from time to time to the general fund
of the Treasury an amount equal to the sum of the amount of
any net reduction in revenues and the amount of any net
increase in spending resulting from the enactment of this
Act.
______
SA 3339. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ARRA REPORTING.
Section 1512 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 287) is amended--
(1) 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 head of an agency distributing recovery funds may
impose a civil penalty in an amount not more than $250,000 on
a recipient of recovery funds from the 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. 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.--The head of an agency 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) Guidelines.--In determining the amount of a penalty
under this paragraph for a recipient of recovery funds, the
head of an agency 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
grant, contract, task order, or other type of funding
mechanism--
``(i) made or entered into after the date of enactment of
this paragraph (including any renewal of a grant, contract,
task order, or other type of funding mechanism after the date
of enactment of this paragraph); or
``(ii) that includes terms allowing the terms of the grant,
contract, task order, or other type of funding mechanism to
be modified by Act of Congress.
``(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), each agency distributing
recovery funds shall make available on a website of the
agency a list of all recipients of recovery funds from the
agency 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 head of the agency, the reason for
noncompliance.
``(5) OMB guidance and reporting.--
``(A) Guidance.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, in consultation with the Chairperson,
shall promulgate regulations regarding implementation of this
section by agencies.
``(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
``(III) any other information determined appropriate by the
Director.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Termination.--The reporting requirements under this
section shall terminate on September 30, 2013.''.
______
SA 3340. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ARRA PLANNING.
Section 1512(d) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 288) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Plans and''
after ``Agency'';
(2) 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--
[[Page 2167]]
``(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
(3) 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.''.
______
SA 3341. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
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 head of an agency distributing recovery funds may
impose a civil penalty in an amount not more than $250,000 on
a recipient of recovery funds from the 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. 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.--The head of an agency 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) Guidelines.--In determining the amount of a penalty
under this paragraph for a recipient of recovery funds, the
head of an agency 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
[[Page 2168]]
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
grant, contract, task order, or other type of funding
mechanism--
``(i) made or entered into after the date of enactment of
this paragraph (including any renewal of a grant, contract,
task order, or other type of funding mechanism after the date
of enactment of this paragraph); or
``(ii) that includes terms allowing the terms of the grant,
contract, task order, or other type of funding mechanism to
be modified by Act of Congress.
``(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), each agency distributing
recovery funds shall make available on a website of the
agency a list of all recipients of recovery funds from the
agency 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 head of the agency, the reason for
noncompliance.
``(5) OMB guidance and reporting.--
``(A) Guidance.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, in consultation with the Chairperson,
shall promulgate regulations regarding implementation of this
section by agencies.
``(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
``(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.''.
______
SA 3342. Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mrs. Boxer) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end, insert the following:
TITLE __--TAXPAYER FAIRNESS ACT
SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Fairness Act''.
SEC. _02. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) During the years 2008 and 2009, the Nation's largest
financial firms received extraordinary and unprecedented
assistance from the public.
(2) Such assistance was critical to the success and in many
cases the survival of these firms during the year 2009.
(3) High earners at such firms should contribute a portion
of any excessive bonuses obtained for the year 2009 to help
the Nation reduce the public debt and recover from the
recession.
SEC. _03. EXCISE TAXES ON EXCESSIVE 2009 BONUSES RECEIVED
FROM MAJOR RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE.
(a) Imposition of Tax.--Chapter 46 is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``SEC. 4999A. EXCESSIVE 2009 BONUSES RECEIVED FROM MAJOR
RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC
ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed on any
person who receives a covered excessive 2009 bonus a tax
equal to 50 percent of the amount of such bonus.
``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`covered excessive 2009 bonus' has the meaning given such
term by section 280I(b).
``(c) Administrative Provisions and Special Rules.--
``(1) Withholding.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any covered excessive
2009 bonus which is treated as wages for purposes of section
3402, the amount otherwise required to be deducted and
withheld under such section shall be increased by the amount
of the tax imposed by this section on such bonus.
``(B) Bonuses paid before enactment.--In the case of any
covered excessive 2009 bonus to which subparagraph (A)
applies which is paid before the date of the enactment of
this section, no penalty, addition to tax, or interest shall
be imposed with respect to any failure to deduct and withhold
the tax imposed by this section on such bonus.
``(2) Treatment of tax.--For purposes of subtitle F, any
tax imposed by this section shall be treated as a tax imposed
by subtitle A.
``(3) Notice requirements.--The Secretary shall require
each major Federal emergency economic assistance recipient
(as defined in section 280I(d)(1)) to notify, as soon as
practicable after the date of the enactment of this section
and at such other times as the Secretary determines
appropriate, the Secretary and each covered employee (as
defined in section 280I(e)) of the amount of covered
excessive 2009 bonuses to which this section applies and the
amount of tax deducted and withheld on such bonuses.
``(4) Secretarial authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations, rules, and guidance of general
applicability as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
of this section, including--
``(A) to prescribe the due date and manner of payment of
the tax imposed by this section with respect to any covered
excessive 2009 bonus paid before the date of the enactment of
this section, and
``(B) to prevent--
``(i) the recharacterization of a bonus payment as a
payment which is not a bonus payment in order to avoid the
purposes of this section,
``(ii) the treatment as other than an additional 2009 bonus
payment of any payment of increased wages or other payments
to a covered employee who receives a bonus payment subject to
this section in order to reimburse such covered employee for
the tax imposed by this section with regard to such bonus, or
``(iii) the avoidance of the purposes of this section
through the use of partnerships or other pass-thru
entities.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The heading and table of sections for chapter 46 are
amended to read as follows:
``Chapter 46--Taxes on Certain Excessive Remuneration
``Sec. 4999. Golden parachute payments.
``Sec. 4999A. Excessive 2009 bonuses received from major recipients of
Federal emergency economic assistance.''.
(2) The item relating to chapter 46 in the table of
chapters for subtitle D is amended to read as follows:
``Chapter 46. Taxes on certain excessive remuneration.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments of covered excessive 2009 bonuses
after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such
date.
SEC. _04. LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION OF AMOUNTS PAID AS
EXCESSIVE 2009 BONUSES BY MAJOR RECIPIENTS OF
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 280I. EXCESSIVE 2009 BONUSES PAID BY MAJOR RECIPIENTS
OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE.
``(a) General Rule.--The deduction allowed under this
chapter with respect to the amount of any covered excessive
2009 bonus shall not exceed 50 percent of the amount of such
bonus.
``(b) Covered Excessive 2009 Bonus.--For purposes of this
section, the term `covered excessive 2009 bonus' means any
2009 bonus payment paid during any calendar year to a covered
employee by any major Federal emergency economic assistance
recipient, to the extent that the aggregate of such 2009
bonus payments (without regard to the date on which such
payments are paid) with respect to such employee exceeds the
dollar amount of the compensation received by the President
under section 102 of title 3, United States Code, for
calendar year 2009.
``(c) 2009 Bonus Payment.--
``(1) In general.--The term `2009 bonus payment' means any
payment which--
``(A) is a payment for services rendered,
``(B) is in addition to any amount payable to a covered
employee for services performed by such covered employee at a
regular hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or similar periodic
rate,
``(C) in the case of a retention bonus, is paid for
continued service during calendar year 2009 or 2010, and
``(D) in the case of a payment not described in
subparagraph (C), is attributable to services performed by a
covered employee during
[[Page 2169]]
calendar year 2009 (without regard to the year in which such
payment is paid).
Such term does not include payments to an employee as
commissions, contributions to any qualified retirement plan
(as defined in section 4974(c)), welfare and fringe benefits,
overtime pay, or expense reimbursements. In the case of a
payment which is attributable to services performed during
multiple calendar years, such payment shall be treated as a
2009 bonus payment to the extent it is attributable to
services performed during calendar year 2009.
``(2) Deferred deduction bonus payments.--
``(A) In general.--The term `2009 bonus payment' includes
payments attributable to services performed in 2009 which are
paid in the form of remuneration (within the meaning of
section 162(m)(4)(E)) for which the deduction under this
chapter (determined without regard to this section) for such
payment is allowable in a subsequent taxable year.
``(B) Timing of deferred deduction bonus payments.--For
purposes of this section and section 4999A, the amount of any
payment described in subparagraph (A) (as determined in the
year in which the deduction under this chapter, determined
without regard to this section, for such payment would be
allowable) shall be treated as having been made in the
calendar year in which any interest in such amount is granted
to a covered employee (without regard to the date on which
any portion of such interest vests).
``(3) Retention bonus.--The term `retention bonus' means
any bonus payment (without regard to the date such payment is
paid) to a covered employee which--
``(A) is contingent on the completion of a period of
service with a major Federal emergency economic assistance
recipient, the completion of a specific project or other
activity for the major Federal emergency economic assistance
recipient, or such other circumstances as the Secretary may
prescribe, and
``(B) is not based on the performance of the covered
employee (other than a requirement that the employee not be
separated from employment for cause).
A bonus payment shall not be treated as based on performance
for purposes of subparagraph (B) solely because the amount of
the payment is determined by reference to a previous bonus
payment which was based on performance.
``(d) Major Federal Emergency Economic Assistance
Recipient.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `major Federal emergency
economic assistance recipient' means--
``(A) any financial institution (within the meaning of
section 3 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008) if at any time after December 31, 2007, the Federal
Government acquires--
``(i) an equity interest in such person pursuant to a
program authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization
Act of 2008 or the third undesignated paragraph of section 13
of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 343), or
``(ii) any warrant (or other right) to acquire any equity
interest with respect to such person pursuant to any such
program,
but only if the total value of the equity interest described
in clauses (i) and (ii) in such person is not less than
$5,000,000,000,
``(B) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and
``(C) any person which is a member of the same affiliated
group (as defined in section 1504, determined without regard
to subsection (b) thereof) as a person described in
subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(2) Treatment of controlled groups.--All persons treated
as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section
52 or subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 shall be treated
as a single employer with respect to any covered employee.
``(e) Covered Employee.--For purposes of this section, the
term `covered employee' means, with respect to any major
Federal emergency economic assistance recipient--
``(1) any employee of such recipient, and
``(2) any director of such recipient who is not an
employee.
In the case of any major Federal emergency economic
assistance recipient which is a partnership or other
unincorporated trade or business, the term `employee' shall
include employees of such recipient within the meaning of
section 401(c)(1).
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations, rules, and guidance of general applicability as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section,
including--
``(1) to prescribe the due date and manner of reporting and
payment of any increase in the tax imposed by this chapter
due to the application of this section to any covered
excessive 2009 bonus paid before the date of the enactment of
this section, and
``(2) to prevent--
``(A) the recharacterization of a bonus payment as a
payment which is not a bonus payment in order to avoid the
purposes of this section, or
``(B) the avoidance of the purposes of this section through
the use of partnerships or other pass-thru entities.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part IX
of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``Sec. 280I. Excessive 2009 bonuses paid by major recipients of Federal
emergency economic assistance.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (F) of section 162(m)(4) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``and excessive 2009 bonuses'' after
``payments'' in the heading,
(B) by striking ``the amount'' and inserting ``the total
amounts'', and
(C) by inserting ``or 280I'' before the period.
(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 3121(v)(2) is amended by
inserting ``, to any covered excessive 2009 bonus (as defined
in section 280I(b)),'' after ``section 280G(b))''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments of covered excessive 2009 bonuses
after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such
date.
______
SA 3343. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3336 proposed by Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R. 4213, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring
provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SMALL BUSINESS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Microloan Program.--Section 7(m)(4)(B) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)(4)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``As a condition'' and all that follows
through ``the Administration shall require'' and inserting
the following:
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), as a condition
of a grant made under subparagraph (A), the Administrator
shall require''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Waiver of non-federal share.--
``(I) In general.--Upon request by an intermediary, and
in accordance with this clause, the Administrator may waive,
in whole or in part, the requirement to obtain non-Federal
funds under clause (i).
``(II) Considerations.--In determining whether to waive
the requirement to obtain non-Federal funds under this
clause, the Administrator shall consider--
``(aa) the economic conditions affecting the
intermediary;
``(bb) the impact a waiver under this clause would have
on the credibility of the microloan program under this
subsection;
``(cc) the demonstrated ability of the intermediary to
raise non-Federal funds; and
``(dd) the performance of the intermediary.
``(III) Limitation.--The Administrator may not waive the
requirement to obtain non-Federal funds under this clause if
granting the waiver would undermine the credibility of the
microloan program under this subsection.''.
(b) Women's Business Center Program.--Section 29(c) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``As a condition'' and
inserting ``Subject to paragraph (5), as a condition''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Waiver of non-federal share relating to technical
assistance and counseling.--
``(A) In general.--Upon request by a recipient
organization, and in accordance with this paragraph, the
Administrator may waive, in whole or in part, the requirement
to obtain non-Federal funds under this subsection for the
technical assistance and counseling activities of the
recipient organization carried out using financial assistance
under this section.
``(B) Considerations.--In determining whether to waive
the requirement to obtain non-Federal funds under this
paragraph, the Administrator shall consider--
``(i) the economic conditions affecting the recipient
organization;
``(ii) the impact a waiver under this clause would have
on the credibility of the women's business center program
under this section;
``(iii) the demonstrated ability of the recipient
organization to raise non-Federal funds; and
``(iv) the performance of the recipient organization.
``(C) Limitation.--The Administrator may not waive the
requirement to obtain non-Federal funds under this paragraph
if granting the waiver would undermine the credibility of the
women's business center program under this section.''.
______
SA 3344. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Whitehouse)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3336
proposed by Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
[[Page 2170]]
At the end add the following:
TITLE VIII--STOP TAX HAVEN ABUSE
SEC. 801. AUTHORIZING SPECIAL MEASURES AGAINST FOREIGN
JURISDICTIONS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, AND
OTHERS THAT IMPEDE UNITED STATES TAX
ENFORCEMENT.
Section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 5318A. Special measures for jurisdictions, financial
institutions, or international transactions that are of
primary money laundering concern or impede United States
tax enforcement'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking the subsection heading
and inserting the following:
``(a) Special Measures To Counter Money Laundering and
Efforts To Impede United States Tax Enforcement.--'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking the subsection heading
and inserting the following:
``(c) Consultations and Information To Be Considered in
Finding Jurisdictions, Institutions, Types of Accounts, or
Transactions To Be of Primary Money Laundering Concern or To
Be Impeding United States Tax Enforcement.--'';
(4) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``or is impeding
United States tax enforcement'' after ``primary money
laundering concern'';
(5) in subsection (a)(4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``in matters involving money laundering,''
before ``shall consult''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) in matters involving United States tax enforcement,
shall consult with the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue,
the Secretary of State, the Attorney General of the United
States, and in the sole discretion of the Secretary, such
other agencies and interested parties as the Secretary may
find to be appropriate; and'';
(6) in each of paragraphs (1)(A), (2), (3), and (4) of
subsection (b), by inserting ``or to be impeding United
States tax enforcement'' after ``primary money laundering
concern'' each place that term appears;
(7) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (5) and
inserting the following:
``(5) Prohibitions or conditions on opening or maintaining
certain correspondent or payable-through accounts or
authorizing certain payment cards.--If the Secretary finds a
jurisdiction outside of the United States, 1 or more
financial institutions operating outside of the United
States, or 1 or more classes of transactions within or
involving a jurisdiction outside of the United States to be
of primary money laundering concern or to be impeding United
States tax enforcement, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of State, the Attorney General of the United
States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, may prohibit, or impose conditions
upon--
``(A) the opening or maintaining in the United States of a
correspondent account or payable-through account; or
``(B) the authorization, approval, or use in the United
States of a credit card, charge card, debit card, or similar
credit or debit financial instrument by any domestic
financial institution, financial agency, or credit card
company or association, for or on behalf of a foreign banking
institution, if such correspondent account, payable-through
account, credit card, charge card, debit card, or similar
credit or debit financial instrument, involves any such
jurisdiction or institution, or if any such transaction may
be conducted through such correspondent account, payable-
through account, credit card, charge card, debit card, or
similar credit or debit financial instrument.''; and
(8) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``or is impeding
United States tax enforcement'' after ``primary money
laundering concern'';
(9) in subsection (c)(2)(A)--
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``bank secrecy or special
regulatory advantages'' and inserting ``bank, tax, corporate,
trust, or financial secrecy or regulatory advantages'';
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``supervisory and counter-
money'' and inserting ``supervisory, international tax
enforcement, and counter-money'';
(C) in clause (v), by striking ``banking or secrecy'' and
inserting ``banking, tax, or secrecy''; and
(D) in clause (vi), by inserting ``, tax treaty, or tax
information exchange agreement'' after ``treaty'';
(10) in subsection (c)(2)(B)--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``or tax evasion'' after
``money laundering''; and
(B) in clause (iii), by inserting ``, tax evasion,'' after
``money laundering''; and
(11) in subsection (d), by inserting ``involving money
laundering, and shall notify, in writing, the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives of any such action involving
United States tax enforcement'' after ``such action''.
______
SA 3345. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3336 proposed by Mr. Baucus to the bill H.R. 4213, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring
provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE VIII--SMALL BUSINESS LOANS
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Job
Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2010''.
Subtitle A--Next Steps for Main Street Credit Availability
SEC. 821. SECTION 7(A) BUSINESS LOANS.
(a) Amendment.--Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``75 percent'' and inserting
``90 percent''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``85 percent'' and
inserting ``90 percent''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``$1,500,000 (or if
the gross loan amount would exceed $2,000,000'' and inserting
``$4,500,000 (or if the gross loan amount would exceed
$5,000,000''.
(b) Prospective Repeal.--Effective January 1, 2011, section
7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``90 percent'' and inserting
``75 percent''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``90 percent'' and
inserting ``85 percent''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``$4,500,000'' and
inserting ``$3,750,000''.
SEC. 822. MAXIMUM LOAN AMOUNTS UNDER 504 PROGRAM.
Section 502(2)(A) of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``$1,500,000'' and inserting
``$5,000,000'';
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ``$2,000,000'' and
inserting ``$5,000,000'';
(3) in clause (iii), by striking ``$4,000,000'' and
inserting ``$5,500,000'';
(4) in clause (iv), by striking ``$4,000,000'' and
inserting ``$5,500,000''; and
(5) in clause (v), by striking ``$4,000,000'' and inserting
``$5,500,000''.
SEC. 823. MAXIMUM LOAN LIMITS UNDER MICROLOAN PROGRAM.
Section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking ``$35,000'' and
inserting ``$50,000'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``$3,500,000'' and
inserting ``$5,000,000''; and
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``$35,000'' each place
that term appears and inserting ``$50,000''; and
(3) in paragraph (11)(B), by striking ``$35,000'' and
inserting ``$50,000''.
SEC. 824. NEW MARKETS VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANY INVESTMENT
LIMITATIONS.
Section 355 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
(15 U.S.C. 689d) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Investment Limitations.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `covered
New Markets Venture Capital company' means a New Markets
Venture Capital company--
``(A) granted final approval by the Administrator under
section 354(e) on or after March 1, 2002; and
``(B) that has obtained a financing from the Administrator.
``(2) Limitation.--Except to the extent approved by the
Administrator, a covered New Markets Venture Capital company
may not acquire or issue commitments for securities under
this title for any single enterprise in an aggregate amount
equal to more than 10 percent of the sum of--
``(A) the regulatory capital of the covered New Markets
Venture Capital company; and
``(B) the total amount of leverage projected in the
participation agreement of the covered New Markets Venture
Capital.''.
SEC. 825. ALTERNATIVE SIZE STANDARDS.
Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Alternative Size Standard.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall establish an
alternative size standard for applicants for business loans
under section 7(a) and applicants for development company
loans under title V of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958 (15 U.S.C. 695 et seq.), that uses maximum tangible net
worth and average net income as an alternative to the use of
industry standards.
``(B) Interim rule.--Until the date on which the
alternative size standard established under subparagraph (A)
is in effect, an applicant for a business loan under section
7(a) or an applicant for a development company loan under
title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 may be
eligible for such a loan if--
``(i) the maximum tangible net worth of the applicant is
not more than $15,000,000; and
``(ii) the average net income after Federal income taxes
(excluding any carry-over losses) of the applicant for the 2
full fiscal
[[Page 2171]]
years before the date of the application is not more than
$5,000,000.''.
SEC. 826. SALE OF 7(A) LOANS IN SECONDARY MARKET.
Section 5(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634(g))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) If the amount of the guaranteed portion of any loan
under section 7(a) is more than $500,000, the Administrator
shall, upon request of a pool assembler, divide the loan
guarantee into increments of $500,000 and 1 increment of any
remaining amount less than $500,000, in order to permit the
maximum amount of any loan in a pool to be not more than
$500,000. Only 1 increment of any loan guarantee divided
under this paragraph may be included in the same pool.
Increments of loan guarantees to different borrowers that are
divided under this paragraph may be included in the same
pool.''.
SEC. 827. ONLINE LENDING PLATFORM.
It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator of the
Small Business Administration should establish a website
that--
(1) lists each lender that makes loans guaranteed by the
Small Business Administration and provides information about
the loan rates of each such lender; and
(2) allows prospective borrowers to compare rates on loans
guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.
Subtitle B--Small Business Access to Capital
SEC. 841. LOW-INTEREST REFINANCING UNDER THE LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM.
(a) Refinancing.--Section 502(7) of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(7)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(C) Refinancing not involving expansions.--
``(i) Definitions.--In this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `borrower' means a small business concern
that submits an application to a development company for
financing under this subparagraph;
``(II) the term `eligible fixed asset' means tangible
property relating to which the Administrator may provide
financing under this section; and
``(III) the term `qualified debt' means indebtedness--
``(aa) that--
``(AA) was incurred not less than 2 years before the date
of the application for assistance under this subparagraph;
``(BB) is a commercial loan;
``(CC) is not subject to a guarantee by a Federal agency;
``(DD) the proceeds of which were used to acquire an
eligible fixed asset;
``(EE) was incurred for the benefit of the small business
concern; and
``(FF) is collateralized by eligible fixed assets; and
``(bb) for which the borrower has been current on all
payments for not less than 1 year before the date of the
application.
``(ii) Authority.--A project that does not involve the
expansion of a small business concern may include the
refinancing of qualified debt if--
``(I) the amount of the financing is not more than 80
percent of the value of the collateral for the financing,
except that, if the appraised value of the eligible fixed
assets serving as collateral for the financing is less than
the amount equal to 125 percent of the amount of the
financing, the borrower may provide additional cash or other
collateral to eliminate any deficiency;
``(II) the borrower has been in operation for all of the 2-
year period ending on the date of the loan; and
``(III) for a financing for which the Administrator
determines there will be an additional cost attributable to
the refinancing of the qualified debt, the borrower agrees to
pay a fee in an amount equal to the anticipated additional
cost.
``(iii) Financing for business expenses.--
``(I) Financing for business expenses.--The Administrator
may provide financing to a borrower that receives financing
that includes a refinancing of qualified debt under clause
(ii), in addition to the refinancing under clause (ii), to be
used solely for the payment of business expenses.
``(II) Application for financing.--An application for
financing under subclause (I) shall include--
``(aa) a specific description of the expenses for which the
additional financing is requested; and
``(bb) an itemization of the amount of each expense.
``(III) Condition on additional financing.--A borrower may
not use any part of the financing under this clause for non-
business purposes.
``(iv) Loans based on jobs.--
``(I) Job creation and retention goals.--
``(aa) In general.--The Administrator may provide financing
under this subparagraph for a borrower that meets the job
creation goals under subsection (d) or (e) of section 501.
``(bb) Alternate job retention goal.--The Administrator may
provide financing under this subparagraph to a borrower that
does not meet the goals described in item (aa) in an amount
that is not more than the product obtained by multiplying the
number of employees of the borrower by $65,000.
``(II) Number of employees.--For purposes of subclause (I),
the number of employees of a borrower is equal to the sum
of--
``(aa) the number of full-time employees of the borrower on
the date on which the borrower applies for a loan under this
subparagraph; and
``(bb) the product obtained by multiplying--
``(AA) the number of part-time employees of the borrower on
the date on which the borrower applies for a loan under this
subparagraph; by
``(BB) the quotient obtained by dividing the average number
of hours each part time employee of the borrower works each
week by 40.
``(v) Nondelegation.--Notwithstanding section 508(e), the
Administrator may not permit a premier certified lender to
approve or disapprove an application for assistance under
this subparagraph.
``(vi) Total amount of loans.--The Administrator may
provide not more than a total of $4,000,000,000 of financing
under this subparagraph for each fiscal year.''.
(b) Prospective Repeal.--Effective 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, section 502(7) of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(7)) is amended
by striking subparagraph (C).
(c) Technical Correction.--Section 502(2)(A)(i) of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C.
696(2)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``subparagraph (B) or
(C)'' and inserting ``clause (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)''.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that the hearing scheduled
before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, previously
announced for February 9th, has been rescheduled and will now be held
on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building.
The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the
Bureau of Reclamation's implementation of the SECURE Water Act, (Title
9501 of P.L. 111-11) and the Bureau of Reclamation's Water Conservation
Initiative which includes the Challenge Grant Program, the Basin Study
Program and the Title XVI Program.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC
20510-6150, or by email to [email protected]
.gov.
For further information, please contact Tanya Trujillo at (202) 224-
5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks.
The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.,
in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following
bills:
S. 553, to revise the authorized route of the North Country
National Scenic Trail in northeastern Minnesota to include
existing hiking trails along Lake Superior's north shore and
in Superior National Forest and Chippewa National Forest, and
for other purposes;
S. 1017, to reauthorize the Cane River National Heritage
Area Commission and expand the boundaries of the Cane River
National Heritage Area in the State of Louisiana;
S. 1018, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
enter into an agreement with Northwestern State University in
Natchitoches, Louisiana, to construct a curatorial center for
the use of Cane River Creole National Historical Park, the
National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, and
the University, and for other purposes;
S. 1537, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the National Park Service, to
designate the Dr. Norman E. Borlaug Birthplace and Childhood
Home in Cresco, Iowa, as a National Historic Site and as a
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes;
S. 1629, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a special resource study of the archeological site
and surrounding land of the New Philadelphia town site in the
state of Illinois, and for other purposes;
S. 2892, to establish the Alabama Black Belt National
Heritage Area, and for other purposes;
S. 2933, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a special resource study
[[Page 2172]]
to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating
the Colonel Charles Young Home in Xenia, Ohio, as a unit of
the National Park System, and for other purposes;
S. 2951, to authorize funding to protect and conserve lands
contiguous with the Blue Ridge Parkway to serve the public,
and for other purposes; and
H.R. 3804, to make technical corrections to various Acts
affecting the National Park Service, to extend, amend, or
establish certain National Park Service authorities, and for
other purposes.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC
20510-6150, or by email to [email protected]
.gov.
For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224-
9863 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.
____________________
ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2010
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Tuesday,
March 2; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of
proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired,
the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the
day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour,
with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees, with Republicans controlling the first half and the
majority controlling the final half; that following morning business,
the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of
Barbara Keenan, as provided for under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, under a previous order, the time
following morning business until 12:15 p.m. will be equally divided and
controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees. At
12:15 p.m., the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to
invoke cloture on the nomination of Barbara Keenan to be a U.S. circuit
judge for the Fourth Circuit.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:37 p.m., adjourned until
Tuesday, March 2, 2010, at 10 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate:
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
KATHERINE M. GEHL, OF WISCONSIN, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT
CORPORATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 17, 2010, VICE
COLLISTER JOHNSON, JR., TERM EXPIRED.
MICHAEL JAMES WARREN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OVERSEAS PRIVATE
INVESTMENT CORPORATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 17, 2011,
VICE DIANE M. RUEBLING, TERM EXPIRED.
Department of Defense
MICHAEL J. MCCORD, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER). (NEW POSITION)
[[Page 2173]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Tuesday, March 2, 2010 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
MARCH 3
9:30 a.m.
Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the Army budget overview for
fiscal year 2011.
SD-192
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine chemical security, focusing
on assessing progress and charting a path forward.
SD-342
Appropriations
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine proposed budget estimates for
fiscal year 2011 for the Environmental Protection
Agency.
SD-124
Veterans' Affairs
To hold an oversight hearing to examine mental health
care and suicide prevention for veterans.
SR-418
10 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Business meeting to consider any pending nominations; to
be immediately followed by a hearing to examine the
President's proposed budget request for fiscal year
2011 for the Department of the Interior.
SD-366
Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings to examine transportation investments
relative to the national economy and jobs.
SD-406
Finance
To hold hearings to examine the 2010 trade agenda.
SD-215
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the President's proposed
budget request for fiscal year 2011 for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Fisheries
Enforcement Programs and Operations.
SR-253
2:15 p.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine encouraging innovative and
cost-effective crime reduction strategies.
SD-226
2:30 p.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services, and International Security
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine oversight challenges in the
Medicare prescription drug program.
SD-342
3:30 p.m.
Armed Services
Strategic Forces Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the protective forces at the
Department of Energy.
SR-232A
MARCH 4
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine the President's proposed
budget request for fiscal year 2011 for the Air Force
in review of the Defense Authorization and the Future
Years Defense Program; with the possibility of a closed
session in SVC-217 following the open session.
SH-216
Appropriations
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine proposed budget estimates for
fiscal year 2011 for the Department of Transportation.
SD-124
Veterans' Affairs
To hold hearings to examine legislative presentations
from the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Jewish War
Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Ex-
Prisoners of War, Blinded Veterans Association,
Military Officers Association of America, Air Force
Sergeants Association, and the Wounded Warrior Project.
345, Cannon Building
10 a.m.
Appropriations
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine funding and oversight of the
Department of Commerce.
SD-138
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine the Department of Energy's
implementation of programs authorized and funded under
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
SD-366
Appropriations
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine proposed budget estimates for
fiscal year 2011 for the Department of Energy.
SD-192
Environment and Public Works
Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee
To hold joint hearings to examine S. 2995, to amend the
Clean Air Act to establish a national uniform multiple
air pollutant regulatory program for the electric
generating sector.
SD-406
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine Middle East peace, focusing
on ground truths, challenges ahead.
SD-419
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To hold hearings to examine childhood obesity, focusing
on reversing the epidemic.
SD-430
Judiciary
Business meeting to consider S. 1132, to amend title 18,
United States Code, to improve the provisions relating
to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement
officers, S. 1789, to restore fairness to Federal
cocaine sentencing, S. 2772, to establish a criminal
justice reinvestment grant program to help States and
local jurisdictions reduce spending on corrections,
control growth in the prison and jail populations, and
increase public safety, S. 1624, to amend title 11 of
the United States Code, to provide protection for
medical debt homeowners, to restore bankruptcy
protections for individuals experiencing economic
distress as caregivers to ill, injured, or disabled
family members, and to exempt from means testing
debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious
medical problems, S. 1765, to amend the Hate Crime
Statistics Act to include crimes against the homeless,
S. 148, to restore the rule that agreements between
manufacturers and retailers, distributors, or
wholesalers to set the minimum price below which the
manufacturer's product or service cannot be sold
violates the Sherman Act, and the nominations of Dawn
Elizabeth Johnsen, of Indiana, to be an Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Justice, and Gloria M.
Navarro, to be United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, Audrey Goldstein Fleissig, to be
United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Missouri, Lucy Haeran Koh, to be United States
District Judge for the Northern District of California,
Jon E. DeGuilio, to be
[[Page 2174]]
United States District Judge for the Northern District
of Indiana, and Jane E. Magnus-Stinson and Tanya Walton
Pratt, both to be United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Indiana.
SD-226
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Business meeting to consider S. 2989, to improve the
Small Business Act.
SR-485
1 p.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and
Integration Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine disaster preparedness in the
private sector.
SD-342
2 p.m.
Budget
To hold hearings to examine the President's proposed
budget request for fiscal year 2011 for the Department
of Defense.
SD-608
2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine the President's proposed
budget request for fiscal year 2011 for the Department
of Transportation.
SR-253
Appropriations
Legislative Branch Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine proposed budget estimates for
fiscal year 2011 for the Office of the Secretary of the
Senate, the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and
the Office of the U.S. Capitol Police.
SD-138
Intelligence
To hold closed hearings to consider certain intelligence
matters.
SH-219
MARCH 5
9:30 a.m.
Joint Economic Committee
To hold hearings to examine the employment situation for
February 2010.
SD-106
MARCH 9
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine U.S. European Command, U.S.
Africa Command, and U.S. Joint Forces Command in review
of the Defense Authorization request for fiscal year
2011 and the Future Years Defense Program; with the
possibility of a closed session in SR-222 following the
open session.
SH-216
Veterans' Affairs
To hold hearings to examine a legislative presentation
from Veterans of Foreign Wars.
SD-G50
MARCH 10
10 a.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine the lessons and implications
of the Christmas day attack, focusing on watchlisting
and pre-screening.
SD-342
2:30 p.m.
Foreign Relations
International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights,
Democracy and Global Women's Issues Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the future of U.S. public
diplomacy.
SD-419
Energy and Natural Resources
Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine S. 2895, to restore forest
landscapes, protect old growth forests, and manage
national forests in the eastside forests of the State
of Oregon, S. 2907, to establish a coordinated
avalanche protection program, S. 2966 and H.R. 4474,
bills to authorize the continued use of certain water
diversions located on National Forest System land in
the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and
S. 2791 and H.R. 3759, bills 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.
SD-366
MARCH 11
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine U.S. Northern Command and
U.S. Southern Command in review of the Defense
Authorization request for fiscal year 2011 and the
Future Years Defense Program; with the possibility of a
closed session in SR-222 following the open session.
SD-G50
10 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine S. 1696, to require the
Secretary of Energy to conduct a study of video game
console energy efficiency, and S. 2908, to amend the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require the
Secretary of Energy to publish a final rule that
establishes a uniform efficiency descriptor and
accompanying test methods for covered water heaters.
SD-366
MARCH 16
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine U.S. Special Operations
Command and U.S. Central Command in review of the
Defense Authorization request for fiscal year 2011 and
the Future Years Defense Program; with the possibility
of a closed session in SVC-217 following the open
session.
SH-216
10 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Water and Power Subcommittee
To hold an oversight hearing to examine the Bureau of
Reclamation's implementation of the SECURE Water Act,
(Title 9501 of Public Law 111-11) and the Bureau of
Reclamation's Water Conservation Initiative which
includes the Challenge Grant Program, the Basin Study
Program and the Title XVI Program.
SD-366
2 p.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine assessing foster care and
family services in the District of Columbia, focusing
on challenges and solutions.
SD-342
MARCH 17
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
National Parks Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine S. 553, to revise the
authorized route of the North Country National Scenic
Trail in northeastern Minnesota to include existing
hiking trails along Lake Superior's north shore and in
Superior National Forest and Chippewa National Forest,
S. 1017, to reauthorize the Cane River National
Heritage Area Commission and expand the boundaries of
the Cane River National Heritage Area in the State of
Louisiana, S. 1018, to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to enter into an agreement with Northwestern
State University in Natchitoches, Louisiana, to
construct a curatorial center for the use of Cane River
Creole National Historical Park, the National Center
for Preservation Technology and Training, and the
University, S. 1537, to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service, to designate the Dr. Norman E. Borlaug
Birthplace and Childhood Home in Cresco, Iowa, as a
National Historic Site and as a unit of the National
Park System, S. 1629, to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a special resource study of the
archeological site and surrounding land of the New
Philadelphia town site in the state of Illinois, S.
2892, to establish the Alabama Black Belt National
Heritage Area, S. 2933, to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to conduct a special resource study to
determine the suitability and feasibility of
designating the Colonel Charles Young Home in Xenia,
Ohio, as a unit of the National Park System, S. 2951,
to authorize funding to protect and conserve lands
contiguous with the Blue Ridge Parkway to serve the
public, and H.R. 3804, to make technical corrections to
various Acts affecting the National Park Service, to
extend, amend, or establish certain National Park
Service authorities.
SD-366
MARCH 18
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold hearings to examine legislative presentations
from AMVETS, National Association of State Directors of
Veterans Affairs, Non Commissioned Officers
Association, Gold Star Wives, The Retired Enlisted
Association, Fleet Reserve Association, Vietnam
Veterans of America, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
of America.
SD-G50
MARCH 23
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine U.S. Pacific Command, U.S.
Strategic Command, and U.S. Forces Korea in review of
the Defense Authorization request for fiscal year 2011
and the Future Years Defense Program; with the
possibility of a closed session in SVC-217 following
the open session.
SH-216
[[Page 2175]]
MARCH 24
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold an oversight hearing to examine Veterans' Affairs
plan for ending homelessness among veterans.
SR-418
POSTPONEMENTS
MARCH 3
2:30 p.m.
Armed Services
To receive a closed briefing on policies, procedures, and
practices relating to the transfer of detainees held at
the Guantanamo Detention Facility.
SVC-217