[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10198-10230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          AMERICAN JOBS AND CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES ACT OF 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 
4213, which the clerk will report.

[[Page 10199]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment to H.R. 4213, an act to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       Baucus motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Baucus 
     amendment No. 4301 (to the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill), in the nature of a 
     substitute;
       Sessions/McCaskill amendment No. 4303 (to amendment No. 
     4301), to establish 3-year discretionary spending caps;
       Cardin amendment No. 4304 (to amendment No. 4301), to 
     provide for the extension of dependent coverage under the 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits Program;
       Franken amendment No. 4311 (to amendment No. 4301), to 
     establish the Office of the Homeowner Advocate for purposes 
     of addressing problems with the Home Affordable Modification 
     Program; and
       Cornyn/Kyl amendment No. 4302 (to amendment No. 4301), to 
     increase transparency regarding debt instruments of the 
     United States held by foreign governments, to assess the 
     risks to the United States of such holdings.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in a few moments I will speak on the 
pending business before the Senate--the American Jobs and Closing Tax 
Loopholes Act--but before I do, I would like to refer to the comments 
of the Republican leader, as well as the statement of the Senator from 
Louisiana that he gave yesterday.
  For several months now, Americans have witnessed a massive oilspill 
in the Gulf of Mexico, Americans have seen the sweeping environmental 
damage, and Americans have seen the dramatic economic effects. It is 
something that is overwhelming, it is appalling, and it is incredible 
how much damage is being created by the BP gulf oilspill. I am sure to 
the average observer there might seem no better time than now to ask 
oil companies to contribute more to shoulder the burden of the 
oilspill. Actually, they have caused the spill--at least one company 
has--and they should bear the burden.
  This, then, would seem to be an appropriate time to raise the 
oilspill liability tax. The oilspill liability tax is pretty small. It 
is 8 cents a barrel. That is all it is currently. One would have to 
come up with a pretty creative argument if one wanted to protect big 
oil companies from this fee.
  Well, the Senator from Louisiana, and just now the Republican leader, 
have done that. They have come up with a pretty creative argument to 
protect the oil companies. The Senator from Louisiana, for example, has 
returned to the last refuge of bean counters, and he has cried double 
counting. The double counting argument seems to be a favorite among 
bean counters, Mr. President. It seems to be the argument one falls 
back on when one cannot argue the substance and one just wants to muddy 
the waters. In reality, the funds collected by raising the oilspill 
liability tax will strengthen the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That 
is simple arithmetic. But opponents of raising the tax on big oil 
companies want to make it less attractive for doing so. They want to 
make it so that the funds collected by raising taxes on big oil do not 
count in the Federal budget. That way it will be less effective and 
less attractive to raise taxes on big oil.
  So don't be misled by the green eyeshades talk. Don't be misled by 
the bogus charges of double counting. Don't buy into the arguments of 
those who want to protect big oil. I urge my colleagues that when we 
get to it later today to vote against the Vitter amendment and to 
reject the arguments we have been hearing today that raising the per-
barrel tax for funds which go into the oilspill liability fund is 
somehow double counting because, clearly, that money goes into the 
trust fund, and funds from that trust fund are then used to pay for the 
cleanup and some damage that has occurred and also counts toward 
reducing the Federal deficit because it is extra money that goes to 
government debt and, therefore, is money which is not doubled counted.
  I urge my colleagues to reject those arguments.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Montana yield for a question?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I listened to the statements made today by the Republican 
leader about the increase in this fee that is to be paid into the Oil 
Spill Liability Trust Fund. I would like to ask the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, currently, the fee is 8 cents a barrel?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. And the price of a barrel of oil, as of this morning's 
Wall Street Journal, is $71.99 a barrel?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. So this is a small, tiny fraction--one-tenth----
  Mr. BAUCUS. Of the current fee.
  Mr. DURBIN. Of the current fee. One-tenth of 1 percent as best I can 
calculate it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is true.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is being paid by oil companies into a fund so that 
if there would be a spill and the oil company responsible couldn't pay 
for it, they would have at least accumulated enough money to protect 
the taxpayers----
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. From this liability.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. I might also say this fund was created 
in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Twenty-one years ago. I might also ask the chairman of 
the Finance Committee, it is my understanding that the total value of 
the current Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is somewhere in the range of 
$1.5 billion?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I think that is the amount. I am not certain, but it is 
about that.
  Mr. DURBIN. So the effort in this bill is to increase that per-barrel 
tax paid by oil companies for this oilspill liability fund to----
  Mr. BAUCUS. Forty-one cents.
  Mr. DURBIN. Forty-one cents. So 41 cents would represent, as I 
calculate it, one-half of 1 percent of the current cost of a barrel of 
oil.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The current oil priced at $71 a barrel.
  Mr. DURBIN. Right. So the argument from the other side is that even 
if we accumulated this money and put it into this fund for cleaning up 
spills, we shouldn't count it as additional money being held by the 
Federal Government at the same time; is that correct?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. And if we fail to count it as an additional source of 
revenue being held by the Federal Government, is it not true that it 
would be subject to a budget point of order, which would then require 
60 votes, and that would allow the oil companies to find 41 friends on 
the Senate floor--and I think I know where they will start looking--to 
defeat this effort to create this tax?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I might say that is my reading of the Budget Act; that is 
correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Could I also ask the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
in this situation--where BP is clearly responsible for the mess in the 
Gulf of Mexico and has at least stated its responsibility; where we 
have a deep-pocket defendant that declared $5.6 billion in profits the 
first quarter of this year--if the next spill or the next accident 
resulting in multibillion-dollar damage to the Gulf of Mexico, or 
wherever, is caused by a company without deep pockets, is this fund the 
only place to turn to protect taxpayers?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is exactly correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. And if we fail to increase this tax and increase the size 
of this fund, it means the taxpayers would be called on to bail out 
other oil companies that may be responsible for similar damage in the 
future?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is the precise theory of all trust funds in the 
first place, but now the cap needs to be raised.
  Mr. DURBIN. So all the protests from the other side of the aisle 
about this 40-cent tax on big oil companies is basically not only to 
protect the big oil companies but to put the taxpayers on the hook for 
another bailout----
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. If we run into another oilspill?

[[Page 10200]]


  Mr. BAUCUS. If the fund is not large enough, that is exactly correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I know my friend wants to speak, but let 
me just set the lay of the land so my friend from Vermont can speak.
  The Senate has returned to the American Jobs and Closing Tax 
Loopholes Act. I want to remind my colleagues this bill is about jobs. 
It is about helping 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs as 
well. We are talking about people who have worked, who want to work, 
and who will work again. These are our neighbors, and they need our 
help.
  The Labor Department just reported that although things are getting 
better, there are still five unemployed Americans for every job opening 
available--five. For comparison, throughout 2007 there were fewer than 
two unemployed workers for every job opening. Again, today there are 
five. We need to do more to help create jobs. We need to continue to 
help those who do not have jobs to get by.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that hundreds of thousands of 
unemployed Americans need the assistance in this bill just to get by. 
The Senate needs to pass this bill, and we need to do it soon. As I 
have noted, this bill is about jobs. This bill is about helping the 15 
million Americans who have lost their jobs. I remind my colleagues 
about that because, so far, aside from the substitute, none of the 
amendments offered is about jobs or about helping the 15 million 
Americans who have lost their jobs.
  Many of the pending amendments are worthy efforts, but I encourage my 
colleagues to stick to the task, to address the subject at hand, and to 
pass this bill. People need help.
  Right now, we have five amendments pending: this Senator's amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, the Sessions amendment to cap 
appropriations, the Cardin amendment to provide for dependent coverage 
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the Franken amendment 
to create the homeowner advocate in the Home Affordable Modification 
Program, and the Cornyn amendment for more reports on government debt.
  The majority leader has requested that the Senate address the backlog 
of pending amendments before we allow more amendments to become 
pending. That is why I am serving notice that until we have voted on 
some of the pending amendments, I will be obliged to object to setting 
aside any of the pending amendments in order to allow further 
amendments to become pending. Thus, we would like to line up some of 
the votes, Mr. President.
  If possible, we would like to have votes at least by noon or, at the 
very latest, 2 p.m. We very much hope we can make some progress today--
not just hopefully but make progress. It is our obligation to make 
progress. That is our job. People elected us to do what is right for 
America. It is right to help extend these so-called tax extenders, the 
R&D tax credit, and so on and so forth, but it is also right to make 
sure unemployment benefits are available for those who are out of work.
  I urge us to come together and do our work in these next couple of 
days. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about an 
amendment I have filed and look forward to getting pending in a short 
while. This is an amendment which addresses many of the issues we have 
been hearing about this morning about which the American people are 
concerned.
  This amendment helps us lower the record-breaking deficit this 
country is facing, and this amendment will help us transform our energy 
system away from fossil fuel--away from the oil disaster that we are 
seeing in the gulf right now--to energy efficiency and sustainable 
energy. So for all my colleagues who are concerned about record-
breaking deficits, I hope they will support this amendment which I will 
explain in a moment. And for all of my colleagues who understand that 
the future of this country is not offshore drilling, I hope they will 
support this amendment.
  Let me explain briefly what this amendment does. At a time when the 
profits of big oil companies are soaring, at a time when we are in the 
midst of the largest oilspill in our Nation's history--one of the 
greatest ecological disasters this country has ever experienced--at a 
time when we desperately need to end our dependence on oil and gas and 
seriously transform our energy system by investing in energy 
efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy, this amendment is 
simple and it is straightforward and I think it addresses all of those 
concerns.
  This amendment simply repeals over $35 billion in tax breaks to the 
oil and gas industry. Let me repeat that. This amendment simply repeals 
over $35 billion in tax breaks to the oil and gas industry, all of 
which were recommended for elimination in President Obama's fiscal year 
2011 budget. What this amendment is doing is simply bringing to the 
floor of the Senate the recommendations that were in President Obama's 
budget.
  According to OMB, the repeal of these tax breaks would be equivalent 
to about 1 percent of domestic oil and gas industry revenues over the 
next decade. This is not an onerous attack on the oil industry. In 
other words, the cost to the oil and gas industry of repealing these 
tax breaks is negligible. And $25 billion of the money saved under this 
amendment would be used to reduce the deficit and $10 billion would be 
used to invest in the highly successful Energy Efficiency and 
Conservation Block Grant Program over a 5-year period.
  This amendment does two things. For all of my friends, and every 
American who is concerned about a $13 trillion national debt and 
record-breaking deficits, this amendment says let us put $25 billion 
into deficit reduction. For all of us who are concerned about 
transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy 
efficiency and sustainable energy, this amendment says, over the next 5 
years let's put $10 billion into the Energy Efficiency and Conservation 
Block Grant Program, which provides funding to States, cities, and 
towns all over America to begin transforming energy in their 
communities.
  This amendment is supported by Physicians for Social Responsibility, 
Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, moveon.org, Center for Biological 
Diversity, One Sky, Environment America, the Sierra Club, and 
Greenpeace.
  If there is anything we should be learning from the gulf disaster, 
the horrendous disaster we are experiencing today on the gulf coast, it 
is that it is time to move aggressively away from polluting and unsafe 
fossil fuels which are getting more and more difficult to produce as we 
move farther and farther offshore to drill for them. With a $13 
trillion national debt, the last thing we need to be doing is giving 
huge tax breaks to big oil and gas companies that have been making 
record-breaking profits year after year.
  As I indicated before, all of the oil and gas tax breaks that my 
amendment seeks to repeal have been targeted for elimination in 
President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget. So here we are. For all of 
my deficit hawk friends: $25 billion into deficit reduction by asking 
the oil industry, which has been hugely profitable in recent years, to 
start paying their fair share of taxes.
  Let me quote from a speech that President Obama gave on this subject.

       Our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize 
     our national security. It will smother our planet. And it 
     will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk. 
     . . . If we refuse to take into account the full cost of our 
     fossil fuel addiction--if we don't factor in the 
     environmental costs and national security costs and true 
     economic costs--we will have missed our best chance to seize 
     a clean energy future. . . . The time has come once and for 
     all for this Nation to fully embrace a clean energy future. 
     Now, that means . . . rolling back billions of dollars of tax 
     breaks to oil companies so that we can prioritize investments 
     in clean energy research and development.

  That is the end of the quote from President Barack Obama. Frankly, 
that is what this amendment is all about.

[[Page 10201]]

  Let me give one interesting example of the absurdity of continuing to 
provide tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. Last year, ExxonMobil, 
the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, reported 
to the SEC that not only did it avoid paying any Federal taxes, it 
actually received a $46 million refund from the IRS. How is that, 
folks? So, for all of the taxpayers in this country, people who are 
making $30,000 or $40,000 a year, who are prepared to pay their fair 
share of taxes, we have a situation where last year ExxonMobil, the 
most profitable corporation in the history of the world, reported to 
the SEC that not only did it avoid paying any Federal taxes, it 
actually received a $46 million refund from the IRS.
  We have a lot of working people in the State of Vermont who make 
$50,000 or $60,000 a year, working 6 or 7 days a week in order to take 
care of their family. They pay taxes. ExxonMobil, the most profitable 
corporation in America, gets a refund from the IRS. If anyone thinks 
that makes sense I would like to hear about it.
  ExxonMobil is the same huge oil company that had enough money to pay 
a $398 million retirement package to its outgoing CEO, Lee Raymond, a 
few years ago, so it is a real struggling company. They make more 
profits than any company in the history of the world and paid their 
outgoing CEO $398 million in a retirement package but they cannot 
afford to pay a nickel in taxes. In fact, they get a tax refund. Do you 
think we need to change that system? I do.
  ExxonMobil is the same company that is making its profits by gouging 
consumers at the pump by charging higher and higher prices for gasoline 
even when demand is low and supply is high. In Vermont, gas is now 
$2.85 a gallon. That has to stop.
  This amendment would begin to make sure that ExxonMobil, BP, and 
other big oil companies pay at least a minimal amount of their record-
breaking profits in taxes to the Federal Government so we can begin to 
deal with our record-breaking deficit; so we can begin the process of 
transforming our energy system.
  Let me be clear. As millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their 
homes, their life savings, and their ability to send their kids to 
college because of this horrendous Wall Street recession, we cannot 
continue to allow big oil companies to make out like bandits. In the 
first quarter--I refer people to this chart--in the first quarter of 
2009, when our gross domestic product shrank by 6.4 percent and overall 
corporate profits decreased by 5.25 percent--that is what a recession 
is about; profits are down, overall corporate profits--the five largest 
oil companies were still able to earn over $13 billion in profits. As 
this chart shows, during the last 10 years the five largest oil 
companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips--
earned over $750 billion in profits: a 10-year period, $750 billion in 
profits. That is not chickenfeed.
  During the first quarter of this year, big oil's profits increased by 
85 percent--not bad, 85 percent. Instead of using these profits to 
invest in renewable energy and to prevent oilspills, big oil and gas 
companies are primarily using this money to buy back their own stock 
and enrich their CEOs. According to the American Petroleum Institute, 
between 2000 and 2007 the entire oil and gas industry, of all of their 
profits--remember, $750 billion of profits over the last 10 years--
invested only $1.5 billion in North American ``nonhydrocarbon 
investments'' aimed at reducing the Nation's dependence on oil. That is 
less than one-quarter of 1 percent of their profits during this time 
period.
  Meanwhile, the CEOs of big oil companies have received hundreds of 
millions in retirement packages and total compensation. Over the last 5 
years, Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum, received over $725 
million in total compensation; John Hess, the CEO of the Hess Oil 
Company, has received over $240 million in total compensation; David 
Lesar, the CEO of Halliburton, has received over $114 million in total 
compensation; James Mulva, the CEO of ConocoPhillips, has received over 
$95 million in total compensation; and Rex Tillerson, the CEO of 
ExxonMobil, made over $30 million in total compensation over that 5-
year period. Further, since 2002, the five largest oil companies have 
repurchased almost $270 billion of their own stock.
  It is important for the American people to understand how excessively 
we are subsidizing fossil fuels and benefiting big oil. It is not only 
that they are making record-breaking profits; it is not only that they 
are not paying their fair share of taxes; it is not only that they are 
not investing in renewable energy so we can break our dependency on 
fossil fuel and clean up this planet, but in addition to that, they are 
receiving huge amounts of taxpayer subsidies. These guys who tell us 
how terrible the big government is are not hesitant to be running here 
to Capitol Hill to get their fair share of their welfare payments.
  As this chart shows, according to the Environmental Law Institute, 
from 2002 to 2008, the U.S. Government provided more than $70 billion 
in fossil fuel subsidies compared to just over $12 billion for wind, 
solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewable energies which in fact 
are the future of this country in terms of energy. This set of 
priorities is totally absurd. We have to put an end to the outrageous 
tax breaks and subsidies that have been given to big oil and gas 
companies.
  But that, again, is not all this amendment would do. It is not only 
$25 billion in deficit reductions. This amendment begins to move us 
away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and renewable energy by 
investing $10 billion into the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block 
Grant Program. The stimulus package provided $3.2 billion for this 
highly successful program, and that money is filtering throughout 50 
States in America. Hundreds and hundreds and thousands of communities 
are now making energy efficiency improvements in their townhalls, in 
their schools, and they are moving toward sustainable energy as a 
result of this program. We would put $10 billion more, over a 5-year 
period, into a program which finally moves us away from fossil fuel to 
sustainable energy and energy efficiency.
  Let me give an example of how this program is working. This program 
is helping to build wind turbines in Carmel, IN, to power its city 
sewer treatment plant. It is being used in Salt Lake City, UT, to 
provide loans to businesses to make energy efficiency upgrades. It is 
being used in Columbus, OH, to make 29 public buildings more energy 
efficient.
  I think, as everybody knows, the most significant thing we can do 
today, the best return on our dollar, is energy efficiency. That is 
what they are doing in Columbus, OH. That is what they are doing in 
Vermont. That is what they are doing, in fact, all over this country, 
as a result of programs such as the Energy Efficiency Block Grant 
Program. It is being used in Portland, ME, to retrofit 55 public 
buildings. It is being used in Miami, FL, to convert landfill gas into 
the production of electricity. Methane gas out of rotting organic 
matter in a landfill provides electricity. What can be smarter than 
that? It is being used in New York City to help homeowners and 
businesses with energy efficiency and renewable energy loans, among 
many other projects we are seeing all over America, 50 States utilizing 
this program, young people getting involved in thinking about energy, 
energy efficiency, sustainable energy. We need to keep these 
investments in energy efficiency and conservation going and that is 
what this amendment does.
  Finally, this amendment would dedicate $25 billion for deficit 
reduction. At a time of record-breaking deficits and debt, we simply 
cannot continue to give oil and gas companies huge tax breaks.
  When it comes down to it, this amendment asks a very simple question: 
Which side are you on? Which side are you on? Are you on the side of 
big oil and gas companies or are you on the side of reducing the 
deficit, reducing our dependence on oil, saving consumers and 
businesses money on their energy bills, and saving the planet we

[[Page 10202]]

live on? I would hope most of our colleagues here are on the side of 
doing what is right for the American people. That is what this 
amendment is about. I understand that anytime you stand up to big oil 
and to big gas companies, there is going to be a lot of political push 
back. We know that since 1990 the oil and the gas industry has made 
over $238 million in campaign contributions, and over the past 2 years 
alone, they spent over $210 million on lobbying. With the BP disaster 
in the gulf coast, my guess is these guys are all over the place now 
lobbying and sending out their campaign contributions. But this 
amendment is the right thing to do. It should bring together all of us 
who are concerned about transforming our energy system, all of us who 
are concerned about lowering our record-breaking deficits.
  I intend to be offering this amendment. I look for widespread support 
on both sides of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Foreign Law and the U.S. Constitution

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I send to the desk to have printed in the 
Record a letter I sent to Justice Sonia Sotomayor dated the day before 
yesterday. The reason for that concern is our Supreme Court process has 
broken down.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committtee on the Judiciary,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2010.
     Justice Sonia Sotomayor,
     Supreme Court of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Justice Sotomayor: I write to inquire about your 
     decision to join Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the 
     case of Graham v. Florida, No. 08-1224. In that case, a 5-4 
     majority of the Court ruled that sentencing a juvenile 
     offender to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide 
     crime is unconstitutional.
       In Justice Kennedy's opinion, he employs a methodology 
     similar to that used in Roper v. Simmons. In Roper and 
     Graham, the majority relies on what five Justices perceive to 
     be ``evolving standards of decency'' in concluding that the 
     punishment in question violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on 
     cruel and unusual punishment. In arriving at this conclusion, 
     Justice Kennedy looked to both the sentencing practices of 
     the states and the federal government and to the ``judgments 
     of other nations.'' Justice Kennedy's opinion in Graham, 
     which you joined, states, ``[the] global consensus against 
     the sentencing practice in question'' provides ``support for 
     our conclusion'' that the punishment is unconstitutional. He 
     further writes, the ``judgments of other nations and the 
     international community'' and the ``climate of international 
     opinion'' are ``not irrelevant'' to determining the 
     ``acceptability of a particular punishment.'' Specifically, 
     the opinion notes, ```the overwhelming weight of 
     international opinion against' life without parole for 
     nonhomicide offenses committed by juveniles `provide[s] 
     respected and significant confirmation for our own 
     conclusion''' that it violates the Eighth Amendment.
       Given your testimony at your confirmation hearing, I have 
     serious concerns about your decision to join Justice 
     Kennedy's opinion, which extensively cites foreign law, At 
     your hearing. I asked you the following question: ``[W]ill 
     you affirm to this Committee and the American public that, 
     outside of where you are directed to do so through statute or 
     through treaty, refrain from using foreign law in making the 
     decisions that you make that affect this country and the 
     opinions that you write?'' You responded: ``I will not use 
     foreign law to interpret the Constitution or American 
     statutes. I will use American law, constitutional law to 
     interpret those laws, except in the situations where American 
     law directs a court.'' I sought further clarification and 
     asked: ``So you stand by it? There is no authority for a 
     Supreme Court justice to utilize foreign law in terms of 
     making decisions based on the Constitution or statutes?'' You 
     responded: ``Unless the statute requires you or directs you 
     to look at foreign law . . . the answer is no.''
       Your decision to join Justice Kennedy's opinion that uses 
     foreign law to ``support'' its conclusion conflicts with your 
     pledge to the Judiciary Committee and the American public not 
     to ``use foreign law to interpret the Constitution.'' In 
     light of that conflict. I respectfully request that you 
     explain why you chose to join the majority's opinion in 
     Graham. I recognize that Justice Kennedy's opinion does not 
     rely on foreign law as precedent for its decision; however, 
     if foreign law is of no value to the reasoning of the opinion 
     and did not influence the final outcome, then please explain 
     why you supported its inclusion in the opinion. These 
     questions are particularly relevant as the Senate is faced 
     with evaluating another Supreme Court nominee in the coming 
     months. Accordingly, I would appreciate a prompt response.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Tom Coburn, M.D.,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. COBURN. I want to read you some quotes of the Justice, and then I 
want to read you the answers she gave to my queries during her hearing 
on the Judiciary Committee. I think it is going to be plain to see that 
we have to change what we are doing on Supreme Court nominees.
  Previous quotes from Judge Sotomayor on foreign law; the use of 
foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, which is forbidden 
under the Constitution, except in those international treaties where it 
is so directed under statute and treaty.
  Statement of Judge Sotomayor:

       To suggest to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign 
     or international law is a sentiment that is based on a 
     fundamental misunderstanding. What you would be asking 
     American judges is to close their minds to good ideas. 
     Nothing in the American legal system prevents us from 
     considering the ideas.

  That is true.

       The international law and foreign law will be very 
     important in the discussion of how we think about unsettled 
     issues in our own legal system. It is my hope that judges 
     everywhere will continue to do this. Within the American 
     legal system, we are commanded to interpret our law in the 
     best way we can. That means looking to what anyone has said 
     to see if it has pervasive value.

  Well, that is wrong. The Constitution defines what judges look at in 
considering their decisions. So I asked her the following questions 
during her confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee:

       [W]ill you affirm to this Committee and the American public 
     that outside of where you are directed to do so through 
     statute or through treaty, refrain from using foreign law in 
     making the decisions that you make that affect this country 
     and the opinions that you write? [or concur with.]

  Sotomayor's response:

       I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution or 
     American statutes. I will use American law, constitutional 
     law to interpret those laws, except in situations where 
     American law directs a court [to do otherwise.]
       So you stand by it?

  These are my words.

       There is no authority for a Supreme Court Justice to 
     utilize foreign law in terms of making decisions based on the 
     Constitution or our statutes?

  Here is her response.

       Unless the statute requires you or directs you to look at 
     foreign law, the answer is no.

  So her statements before she comes before the committee are totally 
opposite of what she tells the committee, and then what she has done 
since proves that her testimony before the committee was totally 
meaningless.
  On May 17, Justice Sotomayor joined an opinion citing the ``judgments 
of other nations'' when interpreting the eighth amendment to prohibit 
sentencing of a juvenile offender. The opinion states the following:

       [The] global consensus against the sentencing practice in 
     question provides support for our conclusion.

  Well, either she was dishonest with us in the committee or she does 
not know what she is signing on to, which tells you that our process 
for intervening and holding Supreme Court candidates is a failure.
  The opinion further states that:

       The judgments of other nations and the international 
     community [and the] climate of international opinion are not 
     irrelevant to determining the acceptability of a particular 
     punishment.

  That is a total violation of the U.S. Constitution and its statutes. 
It is a total negation of what she told the committee as she came 
through the committee process. That is one of the reasons I did not 
believe her, because I believed her earlier statements to be her true 
feeling.
  So what we have before the Judiciary Committee--and we have another 
nominee coming up now--is the ability for Justices to say whatever we 
want to hear, and then do whatever they

[[Page 10203]]

want to do and ignore the U.S. Constitution, as she did, and in her 
testimony before the committee.
  As journalist Stuart Taylor recently wrote in The Atlantic--this 
opinion that she cosigned onto:

       The opinion was based on little more than the personal 
     policy preferences of the five majority justices. And it 
     looked abroad for consensus that so plainly does not exist 
     here and violates our own U.S. Constitution.

  So it did not matter what she told the committee. She did exactly the 
opposite of what she told the committee as she signed onto this 
opinion. We are going to need more than promises from the next nominee. 
An acceptable Supreme Court nominee must have a demonstrated record of 
adhering to the Constitution and their judicial oath by strictly 
interpreting the Constitution, according to our Founders' intent, not 
international opinion or consensus. It has no role in the 
interpretation of our Constitution. Senators cannot simply accept 
pledges from Supreme Court nominees that they will not use foreign law 
when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. The nominee to come before us, 
Solicitor General Kagan, wrote the following:

       There are some circumstances in which it may be proper for 
     judges to consider foreign law sources in ruling on 
     constitutional questions.

  Oh, really? Is that what our Constitution says? Is that what this 
candidate believes? Here is what she said. What is she going to say 
before us in committee, that she will not? What value is that if, in 
fact, she knows that to be the law, she admits that is what the U.S. 
Constitution says, and as soon as she is affirmed, does exactly the 
opposite? The process has to be changed. We can no longer take it on 
faith because, in fact, the process under which--since Bork actually 
spoke what he believed, since him, nobody has said what they believe. 
They have all chiseled on what they believe. They will not be 
accountable to what they believe. So we have to change that process.
  The other concerning thing about Nominee Kagan is that when she went 
to Harvard, she made international law mandatory in terms of getting a 
degree out of law school at Harvard. But do you realize Harvard does 
not require its lawyers to take constitutional law? You can graduate 
from Harvard Law School and never have studied U.S. constitutional law. 
That tells you the trend this country is going in; we are abandoning 
our Constitution and the very wisdom that gives us the freedom we have 
today.
  I will finish by saying, the consideration of any judge in the 
future, in terms of this Senator, is going to be borne out by what they 
have said before they got to the committee, not what they say to the 
committee, because we can no longer, as a body, trust what the nominees 
say in committee.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is a bill that 
includes many provisions. It is known in shorthand as the extenders 
bill because each year there are portions of the Tax Code which expire, 
and they relate to a lot of different things we kind of take for 
granted--the biofuels tax credit, for example--and other things. Each 
year, Congress extends or reauthorizes those portions of the Tax Code, 
and most of them are noncontroversial.
  The obvious question many people ask who are affected by them is, Why 
do you do this every year and go through this exercise? It is an honest 
and legitimate question. I just say that the honest answer is, Because 
the extenders themselves are not controversial; they are popular. They 
become the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down because 
they usually accompany other things that have more controversy with 
them. That is the way politics works. That is the way the Congress 
works, and that is what we do each year. This year is no exception, and 
we are considering the extension of portions of the Tax Code and 
including with it other things that will have an impact on the country 
and on the economy.
  When I look at what is included in this bill, which is going to be 
important, there are several provisions that I think are critically 
important for the economy.
  Most of us believe we would be better off in America if we stopped 
exporting good-paying American jobs overseas. So the President has said 
repeatedly and many of us have said in our speeches on the floor and 
back home that we want to stop rewarding in the Tax Code companies that 
decide it is to their economic advantage to locate overseas, closing 
down a factory in Galesburg, IL, and moving over to Europe or Japan or 
China or India or wherever it happens to be. So this bill, first and 
foremost, eliminates major tax cuts and loopholes available to U.S. 
corporations that want to relocate their business operations overseas. 
I think that is eminently sensible. Why would we in our Tax Code reward 
companies that want to leave the country, companies that want to 
eliminate American jobs? That is the No. 1 thing this extenders package 
does, in addition to extending some of the tax provisions I mentioned 
earlier.
  It also provides help for small businesses across America. If we are 
going to get out of this recession sooner rather than later, we really 
need to depend on small businesses in America that will be able to step 
up and hire more people. We all think about the big company that is 
going to locate its new plant in our hometown and create 1,000 or 2,000 
jobs. Occasionally, that happens. But more likely than not, the job 
growth in most communities and most cities will be when smaller 
businesses can hire 1 or 2 people or maybe 10 or 20 people. 
Cumulatively, those efforts result in a growth in the American 
workforce. This bill, as a second part, creates tax incentives and help 
for small businesses to hire more people in this weak economy.
  Those are the two pillars of the bill: stop the export of American 
jobs by eliminating the tax incentives in our American laws that reward 
companies for sending jobs overseas and, secondly, create an 
environment in our Tax Code and programs that help small businesses 
retain and hire more American workers. I cannot think of two better 
things to do in a weak economy. Yet it seems there is opposition to 
this bill from the Republican side of the aisle. There are some who may 
support it, and I hope they do. I hope it genuinely becomes a 
bipartisan bill.
  But there is a genuine concern about some other provisions that I 
would like to address.
  I don't know that there is an American alive today who is unaware of 
what is going on in the Gulf of Mexico. I don't know what day we are 
in--60, 61--of this terrible environmental disaster where the BP rig 
blew up, killing 11 innocent people, and then the oil started spewing 
into the Gulf of Mexico. British Petroleum came in and has been trying 
vainly to stop this oil from flowing into the gulf. They have said 
repeatedly that they will make this all whole at the end of the day; 
they will stop the oil from flowing and set about repairing the damage, 
which is extensive.
  Twenty-one years ago, I was on a congressional trip up to Prince 
William Sound in Alaska. The Exxon Valdez, a large tanker, had run 
aground because the captain, they think--it was alleged--had been 
drinking and didn't pay attention. It gashed the hull of the boat and 
ended up spewing oil in every direction. I will never forget that as 
long as I live because there was this black, dirty, sludgy oil all over 
everything. We went out on a Coast Guard ship and looked at it. You 
would see these horrible situations where, in this pristine Alaskan 
environment, everything would be covered with this black oil, and you 
would look down into the rocks and you could see as deep as you could 
see that there was more and more of that oil.
  I asked Senator Murkowski of Alaska what Prince William Sound is like

[[Page 10204]]

 21 years later, and she said things have gotten back to a more normal 
state but some things have changed forever. Some species of fish, such 
as the herring, are just gone from this particular place. Maybe at some 
distant point in the future, they will return, but for the last 20 
years, they have been extinct and gone. I hope Mother Nature takes care 
of that over time. You can see that it will take a long period of time.
  We don't know what is going to happen in the Gulf of Mexico, but we 
know it will be expensive, first, in terms of human life--losing 11 
people--and, second, in terms of the environmental damage, which is 
incalculable at this moment; that is, the economic cost of the damage.
  If there is any encouraging thing--and there isn't much--in this 
whole conversation, it is the fact that British Petroleum is a very 
wealthy company. In the first 3 months of this year, they announced 
$5.6 billion in profits. When they say they can pay for the damage, it 
is clear that they have deep pockets and they can pay. And they will 
pay. The taxpayers will not pay.
  There is a provision in this bill relating to this issue that has 
become controversial on the floor. We decided back in the time of the 
Exxon Valdez spill that we would create an oilspill liability fund. In 
other words, we would collect money and put it into a ``rainy day 
fund'' that would be there in case of an environmental disaster to pay 
for the damage. We collect, under current law, 8 cents for every barrel 
of oil to put into this fund. This morning's paper tells us that a 
barrel of oil is selling for $71.99, so 8 cents represents about one-
tenth of 1 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil. It is a tiny, small 
amount.
  Over time, with all the oil that has been explored and produced, we 
have collected over $1 billion into this oilspill liability fund, 
thinking we were prepared for the worst. We couldn't imagine what 
happened in the Gulf of Mexico, where $1.5 billion wouldn't even come 
close to paying for the damage that has been created by this BP 
disaster. So this bill will increase the amount of tax on a barrel of 
oil to 41 cents a barrel.
  Remember, the price of a barrel of oil is $71.99, and we are going to 
charge 41 cents to be put into this oilspill liability fund. There is 
an objection to this from the Republican side of the aisle. Their 
objection is a little hard to follow because they are kind of tied up 
in a budgetary argument here. I think it is pretty clear to see what 
the choices will be. If we don't collect this money for every barrel of 
oil and put it into an oilspill liability fund, God forbid if there is 
another environmental disaster; there won't be enough money to pay for 
it.
  Today, British Petroleum has its slimy fingerprints all over this 
mess. We know they are going to end up holding the bag, as they should. 
They have the money to pay for the damages associated with it. But what 
about tomorrow? What if the company involved is not as well off as BP? 
What if they are bankrupted by an environmental disaster and they go 
out of business? Who then is going to compensate the shrimpers, the 
oystermen, the fishermen, the tourist industry, the resorts, and all 
the others who are affected by all this? At that point in time, you 
would look to this oilspill liability fund. But the $1.5 billion it 
currently holds is not enough to do the job. That is why this bill 
increases the amount per barrel of oil from 8 to 41 cents, so instead 
of one-tenth of 1 percent, it is about one-half of 1 percent of the 
current cost of a barrel of oil that will be set aside as an insurance 
fund.
  The Republicans are objecting to this. You have to ask them, what is 
the alternative? If the oil companies don't pay so that we have an 
insurance fund for the next environmental disaster, who will pay? I 
think we know the answer. It will require another taxpayer bailout, 
which means taxpayers across America will be called on to come up with 
the emergency disaster funds to pay for the next environmental 
disaster, God forbid it ever occurs. Isn't it better to have the 
industry drilling for oil building up the reserves in this oilspill 
liability fund so that the taxpayers don't end up ultimately paying for 
the cleanup? It is obvious to me. The alternative is unacceptable, but 
the alternative is what is being argued for on the Republican side of 
the aisle. They want to step aside from what is the clear 
responsibility of the big oil companies and those who would drill.
  Yesterday, we had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we 
talked about the liability of the oil companies in this situation. It 
turns out that Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, and Senator Sheldon 
Whitehouse, from Rhode Island, did some research on it and found that 
most of the law that governed this situation was ancient law--150, 160 
years old. The law, for example, for the 11 people who died on this oil 
rig in the explosion limits the recovery of their surviving families to 
the actual monetary losses--in other words, how much future income will 
be lost to that family because of the death of that worker. They cannot 
collect for any loss of companionship due to the death of a father or 
husband, and they cannot collect punitive damages, except to the amount 
of the actual compensatory damages--one to one. There is a limit to 
what they can recover.
  Yesterday, Christopher Jones testified about his brother Gordon, who 
died as a result of the explosion on this rig in the Gulf of Mexico. He 
showed us photos of the family, the two little boys--one born after the 
father died and another young boy and his mom. It was so compelling.
  The argument was made by a man representing the oil and energy 
industry that it would be reckless for us to expand the liability of 
oil companies beyond the current limitations in the law. I think it is 
reckless for us to consider allowing anybody to drill in the Gulf of 
Mexico who doesn't have the bonding and wherewithal to stand up for any 
damages they should incur. Why in the world would we allow anybody to 
go out in this circumstance, when we can see what happens when it goes 
wrong, and do it again without having some sort of insurance that 
protects those involved working there, as well as those who are 
affected by the environment around the Gulf of Mexico? They have no 
business drilling, as far as I am concerned, if they are not 
financially responsible and if they cannot stand behind their 
operations to make sure the taxpayers don't end up in a situation where 
they are vulnerable.
  The Republican position that says we should not impose a new tax on 
oil companies to make sure there is enough money in an oilspill fund so 
that the taxpayers won't have to pay for these disasters in the future 
is a position that is indefensible. It is a position that makes no 
sense.
  They argue, incidentally, that if we collect this money, we should 
somehow say it won't be used for any other purpose. Well, the money 
will be used for the purpose of oilspill cleanup, but because it will 
be a new asset of the Federal Government, it will be shown on the books 
on the positive side. We are collecting the tax, gaining the asset, and 
increasing in a small way our budget picture on the positive side. I 
think they are lost in a budgetary argument that really is, in effect, 
trying to protect the oil companies from this new tax.
  I hope my colleagues won't be discouraged in this debate but will 
stand by the efforts of the committee to impose this new tax 
responsibility. I hope that as Members of the Senate consider this 
bill--and I see my friend from Ohio here, and I will yield momentarily 
to him--they will try to understand how difficult it might be to 
explain why they voted against a bill that eliminates tax breaks for 
American companies that want to locate their businesses overseas and 
why they voted against a bill that provides help for small businesses 
in America to hire more workers in a time of high unemployment. Those 
are the two most important elements in this so-called extension bill. I 
hope--wouldn't it be a great day--we could have bipartisan support for 
those two basic ideas and at the end of the day do something on the 
floor to create jobs in America and, in the process, do it in a 
sensible way that builds for our future.

[[Page 10205]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I stand here a bit incredulous 
about the comments of Senator Durbin, the assistant majority leader, 
about the oil industry and Republican opposition to simply making them 
pay for potential problems they cause.
  I say I am incredulous, but as I think a little longer, I realize 
that is par for the course. I have only been in the Senate 3\1/2\ 
years. I have seen the Republicans side with the insurance companies on 
health care reform. I have seen them side with the drug companies on 
Medicare issues. I have seen them side with big Wall Street banks on 
Wall Street reform. Now they side with the oil industry, with BP, with 
Exxon and these companies that have had--literally, BP's profits were 
over $1 billion, several billion, multibillion-dollar profits per 
quarter. And my friends on the other side of the aisle--I don't know if 
it is the campaign contributions, social connections, what it is with 
the oil industry--it is always the oil industry first, taxpayers 
second, and the consuming public third with them. I don't get that.


                         COBRA Subsidy Payments

  I wish to talk about an amendment Senator Casey is offering and of 
which I am a primary cosponsor dealing with COBRA, the health insurance 
issue. When this recession started and unemployment began to spike, 
most of us in Congress acted to help those in clear need with the 
stimulus package and with the extension of unemployment insurance.
  Remember, it is insurance; it is not welfare. People pay into the 
unemployment insurance fund when they are working, and when they lose 
their jobs, through no fault of their own, they get assistance from the 
unemployment insurance fund.
  Another part of that is, when someone in Joliet or Cleveland or 
Springfield, IL, or Springfield, OH, loses their job, they all too 
often lose their insurance. There is a Federal program, a Federal law, 
that you can continue to draw health insurance when you lose your job 
if you, the employee, pay for your part of it and you pay the employer 
contribution for your health insurance, which at least doubles, 
sometimes triples the amount of money you were paying for health 
insurance when you were working.
  That means simply, when you are working, you are paying X dollars, 
which is never cheap. When you lose your job, you are paying 2X or 3X, 
and almost nobody can afford that. If you have lost your job, how can 
you pay more money for health insurance than before you lost it?
  That is why in the Recovery Act a year and a half ago, I wrote 
legislation, later amended in the bill, to give a significant subsidy 
to those people who lost their job but are trying and struggling to 
keep their insurance. It allows newly unemployed workers to stay on 
their former employer's health plan with that subsidy.
  I have received countless letters and e-mails from Ohioans who 
describe how COBRA is more expensive than rent or food. That is why we 
stepped in. We did a 65-percent subsidy. In other words, if you lose 
your job, instead of paying your part of the insurance and your 
employer's part, instead of paying that combined amount, which was 
Federal law for years, we are subsidizing 65 percent of that amount.
  I cannot count the number of people I have talked with in the last 
year who have come up to me and said: I still have insurance because I 
was able--it is still difficult; it is not as though money is growing 
on trees for these people who lost their jobs. It is still difficult. 
But so many people have come up to me and said: I still have my 
insurance because of that subsidy.
  In this legislation, the House took away the COBRA subsidy under the 
view that we simply cannot afford this subsidy anymore. The Casey-Brown 
amendment says: Yes, we can, and we are going to do it.
  A recent report by the U.S. Department of Treasury concludes COBRA 
``has been an important source of insurance coverage during the 
recession, especially for the middle class.''
  It said that COBRA has ``significantly slowed the growth of the 
uninsured population, which had been skyrocketing through February 
2009.'' In other words, this government report showed what we are doing 
is working. A lot more people have insurance as a result of the COBRA 
subsidy, just as a lot more people have jobs today because of the 
stimulus package.
  Granted, it is not good. There are too many people who have lost 
their insurance and too many people who have lost their jobs. More 
people have jobs because of the stimulus package and a whole lot more 
people have health insurance and are not a burden on the State, their 
community, or their families because they actually have insurance 
through COBRA.
  The COBRA subsidy expired for newly unemployed Americans on May 31, 9 
days ago. The managers' amendment includes an extension of the 
unemployment insurance program, which is a good thing, but it does not 
include an extension of COBRA.
  This absence is striking, given the fact that a recent survey shows 
that 15 percent of unemployed insurance recipients rely on COBRA for 
affordable coverage. Unemployment insurance is an important lifeline. 
Of course, we need to do that. But it does not give enough money for a 
family to pay for their insurance.
  Again, look at the math. Your unemployment insurance is less than you 
were making when you were working. Your insurance payment for COBRA, if 
we do not subsidize it, is a lot more, a factor of two or three times, 
in most cases, what you were paying for insurance when you were 
working. You have less income and significantly higher health care 
costs. That is why that subsidy is so very important. That is why I am 
joining with Senator Casey in offering an amendment that will extend 
the COBRA Premium Assistance Program for another 6 months.
  Let me conclude with a couple letters from Ohioans who explain the 
personal side of this issue. We all come to the floor and talk about 
policy. We all are a little geeky sometimes. I like to come to the 
floor and read letters from people I represent in my State.
  Robert and Rachel are from Montgomery County. That is Dayton, 
Kettering, Huber Heights, West Carrollton--those communities:

       One month after I was laid off, my wife, a registered 
     nurse, had a stroke.
       Since that time, we have struggled but managed to keep our 
     heads above water because of the COBRA subsidy. We have four 
     children, and simply cannot live without health insurance, 
     because the cost can be devastating.

  Understand, too, if you lose your insurance, trying to get insurance 
again is so difficult and so expensive. We do not want this 
interrupted.
  Robert writes:

       We feel the need to be one more voice encouraging your 
     colleagues to speak out for the families that have been hurt 
     the most by this economic disaster.
       Please keep fighting for us.

  Montgomery County, Dayton, has been inflicted with a GM plant 
closing. National Cash Register, NCR, one of the oldest companies 
people associate with the city of Dayton--the CEO did not talk to 
anybody. He pulled the company up, left, and moved to Atlanta. DHL, a 
large cargo carrier, a German company, pulled out of Wilmington nearby. 
That was several thousand jobs. They have had that kind of economic 
hardship in Dayton.
  We absolutely need to extend the COBRA subsidy for people such as 
Robert and Rachel.
  The last note I wish to read is from Mary from Cuyahoga County, which 
is the northeastern Ohio area:

       I live in northeast Ohio and have been out of work 13 
     months. I live alone with no dependents, yet I can barely 
     meet my monthly financial challenges.
       I became a cancer victim last year, but when my COBRA 
     subsidy is stopped, it will feel like an additional cancer in 
     my life.
       The COBRA subsidy has bought me time to explore what I hope 
     to be an improving job market.

  We are seeing good signs in northeast Ohio of increased job numbers 
and companies hiring people.

       The COBRA subsidy has bought me time to explore what I hope 
     to be an improving job market. And not only would it buy me 
     time, it would renew my faith in government.


[[Page 10206]]


  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to continue the COBRA 
subsidy. It clearly is the right thing to do. It is going to matter to 
so many families.
  I don't understand why so many on the other side would oppose 
something such as this. It simply makes sense. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Casey-Brown amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an urgent issue 
that faces the American people, and it is an issue the Senate as well 
as the House must deal with, in my judgment; that is, the issue of 
extending COBRA premium assistance, health insurance assistance, to 
many Americans who, through no fault of their own, are out of work; in 
many instances, millions of Americans who have been out of work for a 
long time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators 
as cosponsors of an amendment I have that extends COBRA premium 
assistance. These are Senators who will be added beyond those who were 
original cosponsors.
  They are Senators Franken, Stabenow, Reed of Rhode Island, and 
Gillibrand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the basic issue 
to have health insurance coverage for those who have been out of work. 
I know I join Senator Brown and the other cosponsors of this amendment 
to urge support for the extension of the eligibility period of the 
COBRA Premium Assistance Program, which was authorized under the 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
  I do want to commend and note my appreciation for the support of 
Senators Begich, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Kerry, Wyden, Harkin, Levin, 
Burris--the Presiding Officer--Franken, Reed of Rhode Island, and 
Stabenow, who have cosponsored the amendment.
  We continue to recover from this economic recession, a horrific 
chapter in American history almost too difficult or too complicated for 
some of us to fully understand because we haven't lived through it 
ourselves. We in the Senate haven't lost our jobs or lost our health 
insurance. But we hear from and know of people who have, and that is 
one of the main reasons we are here to talk about this issue today.
  We are recovering but we haven't recovered fully, and now is not the 
time to pull up the ladder on people who are still hanging on, in some 
cases to the last rung of the ladder. These basic, and I would argue, 
vital safety net programs--whether it is unemployment insurance or 
COBRA premium assistance for health care--are programs that we can't 
short-circuit. We can't cut people off at this point.
  The American people agree with us, by the way. They understand we 
have made progress on economic recovery, but the unemployment rate is 
still far too high. It has just been a little bit less than 10 percent 
for far too long. In my home State of Pennsylvania, fortunately it is 
lower than that. It has been lower than 9 percent a long time but has 
bumped up to around 9. But that doesn't really matter. The percentage 
doesn't really tell the story. In our State, we have over 580,000 
people out of work, and the total number or the percentage number is a 
lot higher in many other States. So we just can't pull up the ladder 
and pretend we have fully recovered, that we can begin to transition to 
a different strategy.
  For millions of Americans out of work, through no fault of their own, 
medical costs continue to rise while their personal savings dwindle or 
in some cases have been wiped out because of this recession, leaving 
millions of Americans without adequate health care coverage and leading 
many to refuse necessary treatment due to the high cost.
  Americans who lose their coverage through job loss cannot be expected 
to purchase expensive health care plans while they are unemployed. It 
is difficult enough for someone who has a job to pay for health 
insurance. We know that is difficult. A lot of small businesses were 
telling us about that throughout the health care debate. But just 
imagine if you are out of work and you are trying to survive and you 
are called upon or required to pay for an expensive health care plan. 
So we should act, and we should act now, to provide an extension for 
COBRA subsidies to ease the economic strain of expensive health care 
coverage for the unemployed.
  The amendment I have offered, and that today I am just speaking 
about, will provide much needed relief at a very difficult time for 
many families as unemployed workers focus on finding new employment 
rather than having to worry--and worry doesn't even begin to describe 
the anguish people feel--about receiving adequate health care coverage 
for themselves and their families. We ought to provide them some peace 
of mind so they can concentrate on finding a job instead of worrying 
about whether they, someone in their family, or a loved one is going to 
get the medical treatment they deserve.
  The COBRA Premium Assistance Program has already been successful in 
ensuring that Americans receive quality health care. Let me give one 
example from a letter I received from Susan, in LeHigh County, PA. She 
is a cancer survivor, but due to her treatments she has been diagnosed 
with congestive heart failure as well. She is on five different 
medications. Susan has relied upon her husband's health insurance, but 
in September of 2009 her husband lost his job.
  What I am describing has happened to millions of people. This isn't 
isolated. This isn't anecdotal. This is a situation that millions of 
Americans, if not tens of thousands, at a minimum, in a State such as 
Pennsylvania have faced. So what does Susan do at that point? She has 
to rely upon her husband's health insurance, he loses his job, and now 
they have nothing. They have no coverage at all.
  So Susan and her husband were able to utilize the COBRA Premium 
Assistance Program as a means to keep their health insurance. Thank 
goodness the Recovery Act provided that kind of help. When my office 
followed up with Susan, we were happy to learn her husband had found a 
new job and they were off of their COBRA Premium Assistance Program and 
on her husband's new health insurance. Fortunately, that has a good 
ending, but a lot of stories don't end that way.
  Susan's story is a perfect example of the purpose behind the COBRA 
Premium Assistance Program which helps people transition.
  Here is another letter, which I will refer to in pertinent part. This 
is a letter I received from another constituent in Pennsylvania by the 
name of Lisa. I will not read her full name because I don't have 
permission, but this is a letter she sent to us in early March, and 
here, in pertinent part, is what she wrote about her own health care 
situation. She said:

       I have been receiving chemotherapy nearly every other week 
     for the past 18 months. The treatments were covered by my 
     COBRA benefits and has kept me alive.

  So she is not saying the premium assistance from COBRA was something 
that just gave her a little help when she needed it. She isn't just 
saying: Thank goodness the COBRA premium assistance can pay for my 
treatments--the chemotherapy that she needed. She is saying the COBRA 
benefits ``kept me alive.'' That is a direct quotation from her letter. 
Then she says:

       I must continue chemotherapy but ran into a problem when an 
     extension of my COBRA coverage was denied.

  In this country, with all the challenges we have, some things aren't 
difficult to solve. If we pass an extension of COBRA premium 
assistance, Lisa doesn't have to worry whether she is going to be able 
to continue her chemotherapy treatments. Why should she have to worry 
when we can help her here?

[[Page 10207]]

  I know we will hear from people in Washington--a lot of hot air, a 
lot of lecturing, a lot of speeches--that it is time to transition; 
that the economy is getting better and it is time to transition now and 
let Lisa get her treatments on her own. We hope she lives. But some 
people in Washington may not want to help her any longer.
  We know the American people support this extension. We know they 
understand what real people are up against because, guess what, they 
are living with it. People in Washington who come to the Senate every 
day and are Senators and Congressmen, they do not quite understand this 
sometimes. We don't have a full appreciation for how difficult it is 
for Lisa and her chemotherapy treatments. We don't have a full 
appreciation here for how difficult it has been for Susan. Thank 
goodness her husband was able to get a job, but it was pretty tough 
when they didn't have a job and they didn't have health insurance.
  So COBRA helps a lot of people, and we should know what the 
consequences are of inaction, without the extension of the COBRA 
Premium Assistance Program. A report from the National Employment Law 
Projects predicts that as many as 150,000 Americans each month will 
lose out on the subsidies necessary to afford quality health care. A 
study by Families USA shows that 4 million Americans, including almost 
100,000 in Pennsylvania, lost their employer-based coverage due to job 
loss in 2009 alone--4 million Americans.
  The average cost of COBRA family coverage is three-fourths of the 
monthly unemployment benefits in Pennsylvania and 40 other States. So 
the good news is you have unemployment coverage if you lost your job, 
but the bad news is three-fourths of that goes for your health 
insurance. We shouldn't force people to be in those situations.
  In some States, health premiums actually cost more than the monthly 
unemployment benefits, slowly driving families further into debt. 
Providing continued relief for Americans is not just necessary, it is 
essential to keep some people alive, literally--no exaggeration--as 
Lisa's letter tells us. Giving people assistance in their greatest time 
of need will allow them to focus on finding employment, caring for 
their families rather than avoiding expensive treatments or teetering 
on the brink of bankruptcy.
  In conclusion, besides the amendment that Senator Brown and I have 
been working on, along with our cosponsors, we circulated a letter that 
will be delivered to Senator Reid and Senator Baucus this afternoon 
that urges both to support the extension of the program and also the 
pleas from people in Pennsylvania and a lot of other States who are 
telling us how important this is--to provide an extension through the 
end of November for COBRA premium assistance, so people can have health 
care and in a larger sense, I guess, to have peace of mind to know even 
though they are out of work we care about them, we are going to fight 
for them, and we are going to make sure they have health insurance 
coverage as they try to go from joblessness to transition into having a 
job.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4303

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, today, once again, the Senate is 
going to consider the Sessions-McCaskill discretionary spending cap. I 
wish to take a couple of minutes and try to, once again, talk some 
common sense about Congress and our spending habits and about this very 
modest baby step we must take if we are ever going to do the right 
thing when it comes to spending in the U.S. Government.
  What is this amendment about? Well, at its heart, this amendment is 
about trying to regain the trust of the American people. We have had to 
do big, bold things because of an economic crisis. No question this 
President inherited a mess, and that we had to do some big, bold things 
to try to get out of the ditch.
  But in the process, we have also, I hope, begun to realize that there 
is a two-step here. One is, big, bold things we had to do to get the 
economy back on track, and the other is beginning to recognize, maybe 
for the first time in a long time, that the path we are on is 
unsustainable.
  Chairman Bernanke said it yesterday. It is unsustainable, the path we 
are on, in terms of spending in Washington, DC. What this amendment 
does is something that is very responsible and, frankly, modest. It is 
not a cut in spending. In this economy, I understand many economists 
would argue it is not the time to cut spending, but is it not time we 
capped growth?
  Think about it for a minute. Everywhere in America, whether it is at 
a family's kitchen table or whether it is at a school board meeting or 
whether it is at a city council meeting or a county legislative body 
meeting or a State legislative budget hearing, everywhere in America 
they are having to trim their sails, cut their budgets, try to find a 
meaningful way to do more with less.
  And what are we doing here? We cannot agree to cap growth? Are you 
kidding me? We cannot even say to the American people, we are not going 
to grow by as much over the next 3 years?
  This does not even try to cut spending, it tries to cap growth. There 
are actually people in this body who think we cannot take this small 
modest step to say we are not going to grow as quickly or by as much 
over the next several years?
  How on Earth can we do hard stuff? How on Earth can we live up to our 
responsibility as Members of the Senate, when it comes to fiscal 
policy? How can we ever in the future do what we are going to have to 
do to rein in this government if we cannot even cap spending at a time 
when everybody in America is cutting? Reining in growth should not be a 
hard vote. It should not be a hard vote.
  There are people, and I understand this, I understand there are a lot 
of people in this body who have made it their work to appropriate, and 
that has been the committee everybody wants to get on. It has been the 
powerful committee. Everybody knows around here, if you spend the 
money, you have power. I understand this is like the Earth shifting a 
little bit, that all of a sudden people who appropriate around here are 
going to have to take a different view of what their job is.
  It is inevitable that that happens. Whether it happens this year, 
next year, or the next decade, anybody knows we cannot sustain the 
course we are on. But what is frustrating to me is that some of the 
people who are so anxious to defeat this amendment are using such old-
fashioned fear tactics it is almost insulting. There are talking points 
that are being circulated against this amendment that I think you ought 
to blush if you are responsible for. The notion is that we are going to 
make these cuts in our most important programs. There is a talking 
point going around that this would make us have to cut Border Patrol. 
Come on. That we are going to have to cut the priorities of this 
government right now. No, we are not. We may have to cut back on some 
of the earmarking? Yes, probably. And cut that money from the budget.
  Would we have to maybe cut out some low-performing government 
programs? Yes, we would. In fact, the President announced that he wants 
everyone in the executive branch to identify 5 percent of their low-
performing programs. Then the next step would be that he would cut half 
of that, 2\1/2\ percent. He is asking them to find cuts in government.
  All this amendment is doing is saying, we are going to curb growth. 
So this amendment is not going as far as the President has asked his 
executive branch to do. The other thing about this is I keep getting 
pushed at, well, these are priorities, our domestic discretionary 
spending--and this is from a lot of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle. But this amendment is not just about domestic discretionary 
spending. It is about defense discretionary spending. It exempts out 
$50 billion a year

[[Page 10208]]

for our overseas contingency operations. It clearly exempts out 
emergencies, and there have always been more than 67 votes when we have 
appropriated for emergencies in this country. It is not as though 67 
votes are hard to get after a Katrina, after some kind of emergency 
that demands we respond to it.
  The notion that we have now for the first time gotten the kind of 
support this amendment has received from Republican Senators to freeze 
the growth on defense spending is huge. It is huge. Anybody who has 
spent any time looking around at contracting in the Department of 
Defense, which I have spent a lot of time on, or the way money is spent 
at the Pentagon, knows there are savings there. To curb the growth in 
spending, in discretionary spending in the Defense Department is a 
wonderful step forward. So it is not just domestic that is impacted by 
this amendment, it is both domestic spending and defense spending, and 
it is time. It is time.
  I hope everyone who has voted against this amendment in the past does 
a gut check this time and thinks of themselves in front of a bunch of 
people they work for in their home State, explaining to them why they 
could not vote to curb growth in the Federal Government's budget. I am 
telling you what, that is one explanation I would not want to have to 
give right now at home. I would not want to tell the people in Missouri 
that it was impossible for us to even put a lid on the growth of the 
Federal Government, right now at this time in this Nation's history, 
with all of the economic issues that are swirling around.
  I think it would have a positive impact on our economy, to send this 
signal. I think it would have a positive effect on our markets. I think 
it would have a positive global effect as we look at what is going on 
in Europe, that the Federal Government is finally acknowledging we have 
got to begin to curb the growth of our expenditures.
  These votes have been close. We got 56 the first time. We got 59, and 
then everybody got nervous because we got 59 votes. Then the next time 
we got 57. Three more votes. Three more votes, and we will send the 
right signal to the American people that we get it. I hope today is the 
day we send the signal to the American people that we know there are 
hard decisions ahead and we are beginning to take some modest steps to 
show we have the guts and the fortitude to make those decisions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I stand to strongly support my amendment 
No. 4312, which I introduced today, along with Senators Gregg, Cornyn, 
Enzi, Alexander, and Hutchison, and I urge all of my colleagues, both 
sides of the aisle, to support this commonsense amendment.
  This is about something at issue in this present extenders bill on 
the floor now that is near and dear to my heart, because it is directly 
related to the ongoing oil disaster, the ongoing crisis in the gulf, 
and that is an increase in taxes to supposedly fund the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund but which does not do that at all, which is stolen 
from that trust fund, used for completely unrelated purposes.
  Put another way, it is double counted. It is used as a fraudulent 
offset to mask other spending, other deficit spending in the bill. We 
have a real crisis on our hands. Obviously it affects my State more 
than any other. But it is a national challenge and a national crisis. I 
have a pretty modest suggestion, in my opinion. Let's focus on the 
challenge. Let's meet the challenge, not use it and abuse it 
politically for other unrelated goals up here in Washington.
  But I am afraid the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is being used and 
abused in this bill for those other completely unrelated goals. I am 
afraid it is a perfect example of Rahm Emanuel's now famous phrase from 
around February 2009, ``We are not going to let a good crisis go to 
waste.''
  Well, this is a crisis. This is a whopper. But I take offense to not 
letting it go to waste, meaning to using and abusing it for other 
purposes. This bill proposes increasing the tax which ultimately is a 
consumer tax on energy products that is supposed to be for the Oil 
Spill Liability Trust Fund.
  It increases that tax from 8 cents a barrel to 41 cents a barrel. 
That is an over fivefold increase. If that is necessary to clean up 
oilspills, to have it ready for the future, I am completely open to it. 
But that is not where the number came from. The number was pulled out 
of thin air. Because as soon as that money supposedly goes into the 
trust fund, it is stolen. It pays for completely unrelated spending 
items in the bill--for example, $15 billion over 10 years, and in this 
bill that is double-counted because it is used as an offset to mask 
deficit spending, to mask other spending items. That is wrong.
  Amendment No. 4312 is simple and straightforward. It says and does 
two things. No. 1, it says that the revenue supposedly going into the 
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can only be used to clean up oilspills. 
It is supposed to be there to clean up oilspills, it is supposed to be 
a trust fund, so it can only be used for that purpose. Secondly, it 
says that it cannot be double-counted. It is not be used as an offset 
under the Congressional Budget Act or pay-as-you-go or anything else, 
as an offset for unrelated spending, to hide other deficit spending.
  That is the amendment--two things, pure and simple. A number of the 
leadership of the majority have come to the floor concerned about this, 
as they should be, because it stinks, and the American people know it 
stinks, and have done gyrations and backflips to try to say they are 
not stealing the money, they are not double-counting, it will be there. 
If they really mean that, it is simple: No. 1, they should support my 
amendment. No. 2, they should publicly admit that the true deficit cost 
of this bill is not what they say it is. It is $15 billion more. It is 
not $79 billion; it is $94 billion. If they are sincere, if they mean 
it, great. Support my amendment and admit that the true deficit cost of 
the bill before us is $15 billion more. But don't steal from that trust 
fund. Don't use that money that is supposed to be there to clean up 
oilspills, such as the one that is hammering my State, for completely 
unrelated purposes. Don't double-count it. Don't use it as Enron 
accounting, a fraud to mask other spending, to artificially lower the 
deficit impact of this bill. That is wrong. That is using a crisis. 
That is ``not letting a crisis go to waste.''
  We have a crisis. It is a heck of a crisis. It is a serious crisis. 
We should solve it. We should go at it. We should address it together 
as a national challenge. We should not use it and abuse it politically 
for an unrelated tax-and-spend agenda in Washington.
  I urge all colleagues to come together, support amendment 4312, 
protect the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, prevent it from being used 
and abused, double-counted--Enron accounting to mask deficit spending. 
Do the right thing by the people of Louisiana and by the people of this 
Nation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Burning of the Gaspee

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, here in this historic Chamber it is 
appropriate to recall those who came before us and risked their lives 
to create the great Republic we serve in this Senate.
  Today, I would like to talk about a group of men who, 238 years ago, 
on this date, engaged in a daring act of defiance against the British 
Crown--the first bloody act of defiance in the conflict that became the 
American Revolution.
  For many, the Boston Tea Party is considered a first act of defiance. 
Growing up, we were taught how, on December 16, 1773, Bostonians poured 
shipments of tea overboard into Boston Harbor to defend the principle, 
``no taxation without representation.'' I

[[Page 10209]]

think almost every schoolchild in America has heard of the Boston Tea 
Party.
  Conspicuously missing from those children's education is the story of 
the brave Rhode Islanders who dared to challenge the British Crown more 
than a year before those Bostonians threw tea into the Boston Harbor. 
Today I would like to take us back to the real beginning of America's 
fight for independence and share with all of you the story of the 
British vessel, the HMS Gaspee, and to introduce some little known 
names, heroes from history, who seem now to be lost in history's 
footnotes.
  In 1772, amidst growing tensions with American Colonies, King George, 
III, stationed the HMS Gaspee in Rhode Island to prevent smuggling and 
enforce the payment of taxes to the Crown. But to Rhode Islanders, the 
Gaspee quickly became a symbol of oppression.
  The patronizing presence of the Gaspee was matched by the patronizing 
and domineering manner of its captain, LT William Dudingston. 
Lieutenant Dudingston was known for destroying fishing vessels and 
confiscating their contents and flagging down ships only to harass, 
humiliate, and interrogate their sailors. But on June 9, 1772, an 
audacious Rhode Islander named Captain Benjamin Lindsey took a stand.
  Aboard his boat, the Hannah, Captain Lindsey set sail from Newport to 
Providence. When he was hailed by Lieutenant Dudingston to stop for a 
search by the Gaspee, the defiant Captain Lindsey continued on his 
course. Gunshots were fired, and the Hannah sped north up Narragansett 
Bay with the Gaspee in full chase behind.
  Outsized and outgunned, Captain Lindsey drew courage and confidence 
from his and his crew's keen familiarity with Rhode Island waters. He 
led the Gaspee into the shallow waters of Pawtuxet Cove, where the 
smaller Hannah cruised over the sandbars and the heavier Gaspee ran 
aground. The Gaspee was stranded in a falling tide, and it would be 
hours before high tide would again set her free.
  Captain Lindsey took advantage of this favorable situation. Arriving 
triumphantly in Providence, Captain Lindsey visited John Brown, whose 
family helped found Brown University. Knowing the Gaspee's helpless 
state, the two men rallied a group of patriots at Sabin's Tavern--one 
daren't speculate on the form of refreshment they took there--in what 
is now the east side of Providence.
  The Gaspee was universally despised by colonists who had been bullied 
in their own waters, and the vulnerability now of this once powerful 
vessel presented these patriots an irresistible opportunity. On that 
dark night, 60 men in longboats with muffled oars, led by Captain 
Lindsey and Abraham Whipple, moved quietly down the dark waters of 
Narragansett Bay.
  As they encircled the Gaspee, Brown shouted a demand for Lieutenant 
Dudingston to surrender his ship. Dudingston refused and instead 
ordered his men to fire upon anyone who tried to board. The fearless 
Rhode Islanders took this as a cue to force their way onto the Gaspee 
and forward they charged in a raging uproar of screams, gunshots, 
powder smoke, and clashing swords. It was amidst this violent struggle 
that Lieutenant Dudingston was shot by a musket ball. Right there in 
Rhode Island, right then, the very first blood of the conflict that 
would lead to the American Revolution was drawn. Victory was soon in 
the hands of the Rhode Islanders.
  Brown and Whipple took the captive Englishmen back to shore and 
returned to set the abandoned Gaspee afire. She burned prodigiously 
through the night, until the flames reached her powder magazine. Then, 
with a convulsive explosion, she was flung in pieces across the bay. 
The site of this historic victory would later be named Gaspee Point.
  Too few people know of this bold undertaking which occurred 16 full 
months before the heroes of Boston painted their faces and threw tea 
into the Boston Harbor in the event that became known as the Boston Tea 
Party. I hope the tale of the Gaspee will work its way into the history 
books. It preceded the Tea Party. It was more significant than the Tea 
Party. It was more violent than the Tea Party. And I think it set the 
stage of conflict that led to our independence and the freedoms we 
enjoy today.
  So I hope Americans will think not just of the date of the Boston Tea 
Party but will remember June 9, the day the Hannah led the Gaspee 
across the sandbars of Pawtuxet Cove, stranding her, and those 60 Rhode 
Islanders came down by oar to attack, burn, and destroy the Gaspee and 
engage in armed conflict with her crew.
  I do know these events are not forgotten in my home State. Over the 
years, I have often had the chance to march in the annual Gaspee Day's 
parade through Warwick, RI, as every year we recall the courage and the 
zeal of these men who risked it all for the freedoms we enjoy today, 
drawing the first blood of our later Revolutionary conflict.
  I hope the young pages I see in the Chamber who, I assume, have all 
heard of the Boston Tea Party--I see heads nodding, yes, they have--and 
may not have heard of the Gaspee--I see heads shaking, they have not 
heard of the Gaspee--at least a small audience of young people today 
has been educated that it was Rhode Islanders first, Rhode Islanders 
more energetically, Rhode Islanders more aggressively, and Rhode 
Islanders more defiantly than anyone else at the early stages of the 
Revolution.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Islands of Secrecy

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this week there was a full-page 
advertisement in the magazine Politico. It was actually a letter to me, 
an open letter to Senator Byron Dorgan, and then it says: ``Setting the 
Record Straight About the Cayman Islands.'' It is signed by a man named 
Anthony Travers, chairman of the Cayman Islands Financial Services 
Association. The letter says:

       During the recent debate over financial regulatory reform, 
     you--

  Meaning me--

     perpetuated the myth that the Cayman Islands is a tax secrecy 
     jurisdiction with unbelievably enormous loopholes. Neither of 
     these claims are true.

  And so on. I thought I would respond to Mr. Travers. I don't know Mr. 
Travers from a cord of wood, but since he bothered to buy a full-page 
ad in the newspaper Politico setting me straight, I thought perhaps it 
would be useful for those who might ever have read this to know the 
facts.
  The Cayman Islands is a wonderful place. It has I guess the nicest 
water I have ever seen; blue-green, beautiful water, beautiful beaches. 
I don't know much about the Cayman Islands. I have visited there. I 
know about some of the Cayman Islands from a number of things I have 
read and seen about their banking system. What I have done on many 
occasions on the floor of the Senate when I have been talking about 
those who have been trying to avoid paying taxes to the United States 
and those who want all that America has to offer them, except they 
don't want to meet the obligations of citizenship by paying the taxes 
they owe, is I have held up a picture of a house in the Cayman Islands. 
So I will do it again today. This is called the Ugland House. A very 
enterprising reporter named David Evans from Bloomberg News brought 
this to my attention the first time.
  This is a five-story white house. It sits on Church Street in the 
Cayman Islands. It is a building that has 18,857 corporations that call 
it home.
  The first time I showed this on the floor, this five-story white 
building on Church Street in the Cayman Islands, it had, I believe, 
12,748 corporations that say this is our corporate home. Now it has 
grown. There are actually 18,857 companies in this five-story building. 
Oh, they are not there; it is

[[Page 10210]]

just a fiction. They claim a mailbox in this little white stucco 
building in order to find a way to avoid responsibilities to others 
outside of the Cayman Islands. Many of them would be American companies 
searching for ways to provide secrecy for their financial transactions 
and presumably searching for ways to avoid paying their tax 
obligations.
  The fellow who wrote to me, whose name is Anthony Travers--and let me 
describe who he is. Mr. Travers, says the Cayman Islands News Service, 
is chairman of CSI Stock Exchange and a former partner of Maples and 
Calder. Anthony Travers apparently chairs the Cayman Islands Financial 
Services Association. So he is a former partner of Maples and Calder. 
Who is Maples and Calder? The law firm of Maples and Calder is the only 
occupant of the Ugland House. Isn't that interesting? They have 18,857 
companies that claim to be there--that is pretty crowded, right--18,857 
companies claim to be crowded into this five-story white stucco 
building. But these companies are just there to claim a mailbox--
perhaps they all use the same mailbox--to avoid their obligations to 
other countries, especially our country.
  So Mr. Travers has an epileptic seizure because I suggest that the 
Cayman Islands is a place where there is tax secrecy and he writes a 
letter to set the record straight. He does no such thing. He doesn't 
have the foggiest idea what he is talking about. I know what I am 
talking about. This is a place he used to work. This is where the law 
firm he worked for existed. They are the ones that accomplished 
apparently the opportunity to have 18,857 companies claim a mail box as 
their legal address.
  Well, if that is not enough, let me say this: The Wall Street Journal 
had an opinion piece by Robert Morgenthau in New York, he said:

       There is $1.9 trillion--

  He is talking about the lack of financial transparency and the 
activities of principals in the financial markets--

       There is $1.9 trillion, almost all of it run out of the New 
     York metropolitan area, that sits in the Cayman Islands, a 
     secrecy jurisdiction. Let me say that again: ``A secrecy 
     jurisdiction.''

  That is from Mr. Robert Morgenthau, who knows what he is talking 
about.
  By the way, let me also say that McClatchy reported this:

       Goldman Sachs used offshore tax havens to shuffle its 
     mortgage-backed securities to institutions worldwide, 
     including European and Asian banks, often in secret deals run 
     through the Cayman Islands, a British territory in the 
     Caribbean that companies use to bypass U.S. disclosure 
     requirements.

  Well, I guess Mr. Travers sure did set me straight, except he didn't 
have the facts. He knows what the facts are because he has been in this 
building with 18,857 corporations. One wonders where he could find a 
chair or even find lunch--a pretty crowded place.
  Let me further then say, the Asset Protection Law Center, reportedly 
run out of a law firm located in California, describes this as the four 
main factors for being involved in the Caymans and being involved in 
what they are doing:

       No. 1: There are no income taxes, capital gains taxes, 
     profits tax or estate taxes.
       No. 2: The bank secrecy laws are among the strictest in the 
     world with criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure.
       No. 3: The law allows companies to be formed with a minimum 
     of paperwork, and shares can be held anonymously in bearer 
     form or by nominees.
       No. 4: The law regarding the formation of trusts is highly 
     developed and allows an excellent level of flexibility--

  I will bet it does--

     an excellent level of flexibility, asset protection, and 
     privacy.

  I guess that describes what we have in the Cayman Islands. Again, the 
letter from Mr. Travers to myself explains how the claims of tax 
secrecy jurisdictions are untrue.
  Then, if I might, one more time, without being too repetitious, the 
five-story white building where Mr. Travers--or at least Mr. Travers' 
old firm--occupies and accommodated 18,857 neighbors to join them for 
the purpose of getting their mail there in order to claim that is where 
their business location exists. Is it because they have relatives in 
this building? No, no relatives. Is it because they visit the building 
from time to time? No, likely they have never seen the building. Is it 
because they want to claim an address in the Cayman Islands because 
they like blue and green water or beaches? No. It is because they need 
a location in an area where you have unbelievable secrecy so you can 
claim this is home to avoid taxes and to avoid other disclosures of 
what you are doing with a substantial amount of money.
  Mr. Morgenthau had it correct. Mr. Morgenthau talked about $1.9 
trillion that has been run around through these orifices, in this case 
a five-story building in the Cayman Islands. All I say to Mr. Travers 
is this: I have certain expectations of those who want everything that 
America has to offer. If you are an American citizen or an American 
corporation, which is an artificial person, if in those circumstances 
you want all that America has to offer, then I believe you have 
responsibilities to pay your taxes and become productive citizens and 
meet the responsibilities that citizens have in this country. Most of 
the people I represent up the street and down the block and out on the 
farm don't have the ability or the willingness to decide to hide their 
income from their government. But some of the biggest enterprises in 
the country do, so they find a willing partner in a little white 
building on Church Street in the Cayman Islands that allows them to do 
that. That is very unfortunate.
  I would say to Mr. Travers: Next time you try to set somebody 
straight, use a few facts. Perhaps it will buttress your argument. But 
don't try to fool me or the Congress or the American people about what 
is going on inside of this white building. We understand what is going 
on inside this building, and I think the people who allow that to 
happen and to decide it is a legitimate way to do business ought to be 
ashamed of themselves.


                             Gulf Oilspill

  Madam President, if I might--I understand some colleagues are here--I 
wish to make some very brief comments about a hearing we had this 
morning in the Energy Committee with Secretary Salazar dealing with the 
oilspill.
  I asked this morning again about the promise and the pledge that BP 
has made that they will cover all of the ``legitimate'' costs that 
occur as a result of this oilspill. I have asked this question to the 
U.S. Justice Department, I talked to the President about it yesterday, 
and I talked to Secretary Salazar about it. Isn't it time now, on the 
51st day of this gusher, for us to say to BP that we expect you to pay 
and we don't expect the American taxpayer to bear the burden of your 
mistakes? If, in fact, you have made a pledge--and they have 
repeatedly--to cover all legitimate costs, let us finally take steps to 
make that pledge binding. BP is a very large company that has made $150 
billion in net profits over the last 10 years, averaging $15 billion a 
year. This company made $6 billion in net profits in the first quarter 
of this year. It is time to say to that company: If you are serious and 
your commitment is real, then let's make a binding commitment.
  I believe we ought to ask BP to put $10 billion in a gulf coast 
recovery fund now, and that fund ought to be the result of a signed 
agreement between our government and BP. That signed agreement ought to 
create a special master and a special counselor from BP working 
together to disperse funds from that $10 billion which will be the 
first tranche of funds that likely will be necessary to respond to this 
oilspill.
  As I speak, there are people standing on a dock in a small town on 
the gulf and they have a fishing boat at the end of a pier that is 
going nowhere because there is no fishing to be done. They have to make 
a payment on that boat at the end of this month. Also, there is likely 
a small cafe on that pier and the people who put their life savings 
into that don't have any customers. Who is going to help them? Who is 
going to respond to their needs, and when? It is time, in my judgment--
past the time--for us to make this commitment that BP has said they 
will pledge a binding commitment.
  The initiation of that, in my judgment--I have written to the Justice

[[Page 10211]]

Department. I hope very much they will initiate that effort to do this. 
If BP says, You know what, no, we are just going to give you a pledge, 
I would say we have seen that pledge and heard that pledge before, and 
long after people are dead. I am talking about Exxon Valdez. A company 
that was still objecting to paying, despite the fact they made the same 
pledge.
  I want BP to make that pledge binding, and that can be done I believe 
contractually through our government and BP by establishing a gulf 
coast recovery fund. Placing the first $10 billion into that fund and 
having a special master and counselor be in charge of that fund in 
order to respond to those people out on the dock who are wondering: How 
do I make my payment? How do I make my living? What do I do tomorrow, 
next week, next month?
  This is a very important issue, and I hope in the coming days the 
administration and the Congress will be able to address this.
  Let me make one final point. I know there are people trying to create 
other issues from this disaster in the gulf. This President, President 
Obama, did not punch that hole in the planet, he didn't drill that 
well, and he can't cap that well. The fact is he, his administration, 
and others have done everything possible.
  This morning I met with Dr. Tom Hunter. I don't know whether people 
know Dr. Tom Hunter. He is the head of Sandia National Laboratory. He 
is one of the extraordinary minds, one of the really interesting people 
in this country. Dr. Tom Hunter had some health issues some many months 
ago, but I will tell my colleagues where he has spent his last 51 days. 
He, as a part of a group with the other best thinkers in this country, 
has been called by this administration to represent the core of 
competent people to try to figure out how to address this issue. When I 
heard Dr. Hunter was working on this with Dr. Steve Chu, the Energy 
Secretary, Ken Salazar and so many others, I told the Secretary of the 
Interior this morning: You know what, you look like you need 10, 12 
hours of sleep.
  I said: That doesn't mean you look awful; I just know how weary it 
has been working every day for 51 days. This administration has tried 
very hard, and they are continuing to try. The fact is, there are a lot 
of people playing politics with this oilspill. We don't need to point 
fingers. We need to gather together and join hands and understand this 
was a national disaster, and the consequences of it will be with us for 
a long time.
  Now our first responsibility is simply to work together to figure out 
how to shut off this gusher. Second, how do we deal with the problems 
that exist for so many people as a result? How do we begin the process 
of trying to clean up the environmental damage it has done? Third, it 
is quite clear to me things aren't going to change with respect to 
offshore drilling.
  We need oil production. Thirty percent of our domestic production 
comes from offshore drilling. Perhaps there is a difference between 
shallow water and deep water production. There will be changes in 
regulations and in approaches. All of that is necessary. But first and 
foremost, we need to stop this gusher and then begin work to find a way 
to address the needs of so many people who have lost hope and their 
livelihoods. We can do that.
  Let me just say again that this administration has done everything it 
can, and it continues to do that. I am pleased to see Dr. Hunter and so 
many of the others with the best minds in America brought together, 
brought to bear on this issue. If this gusher can be stopped--and it 
will be--it will be because some of the best people in the country have 
worked 51 days overtime trying to find a way to address this very 
significant disaster.
  I apologize to my colleague for the waiting. I will perhaps come back 
again if Mr. Traverse from the Cayman Islands wishes to send additional 
information out about the Ugland House. Maybe I should visit the Ugland 
House, if it is not too crowded with the 18,857 companies calling it 
home. But that is perhaps for another speech and another day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I enjoy it very much and I learn a lot 
every time the Senator from North Dakota gets up to speak. There is no 
one in this body who better states the issues I am concerned about than 
he does. This house in the Cayman Islands--maybe we should take a codel 
down there. Also, his comments on the gulf are absolutely right on 
point. Not only am I not disturbed, I enjoyed the opportunity to hear 
him speak once again.


                    In Praise of Judge Timothy Rice

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize another of 
our Nation's great Federal employees.
  Since first embarking on this series over a year ago, I have honored 
so many dedicated public employees from across the executive branch. I 
have shared the stories of some who work in the legislative branch as 
well. Today, it is my distinct privilege to highlight an outstanding 
public servant from the Federal judiciary.
  Ever since the First Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, one 
of the hallmarks of American life has been our fair and independent 
judicial system. Indeed, our courts have long been the envy of the 
world and a model for other nations.
  It has been an honor to serve on the Judiciary Committee and to 
participate in the confirmation of Federal judges. Over the past year 
in office and in my many years of working as chief of staff for the 
former Judiciary chairman, Joe Biden, I have met so many highly 
qualified judges.
  America's Federal judges have, at times, faced great danger. From 
those who served on the frontier in the 19th century to those who today 
face ever-increasing threats from angry litigants and others, Federal 
judges honor us all through selfless devotion to duty.
  Although they come from diverse backgrounds, judges must all share a 
dedication to justice and the law. For so many, these are truly a 
passion. They don their robes each day inspired by the biblical 
pronouncement: ``justice, justice, you shall pursue.''
  The great Federal employee I am honoring today serves as a magistrate 
judge for the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
That court falls under the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit, which 
also covers Delaware.
  Judge Timothy Rice has been a Federal magistrate judge since 2005. 
Before coming to the bench, Tim spent 17 years working for the Justice 
Department as an assistant U.S. attorney. He served as chief of the 
Eastern District's financial crimes section from 1995-1997 and later as 
chief of the public corruption section from 1997-2002. In his last 3 
years as an assistant U.S. attorney, Tim served as chief of the 
criminal division.
  While obtaining his law degree magna cum laude from Temple 
University, he held the position of editor-in-chief of the Temple Law 
Review. After graduating he clerked for Judge Anthony Scirica of the 
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Before attending law school, Tim worked for 4 years as a news 
reporter for the Observer-Dispatch in Utica, NY.
  Despite his busy schedule presiding over a wide range of criminal and 
civil matters, Tim makes time to give back to his community and his 
country. He has taught courses at the Temple University School of Law 
since 1990, and he was appointed last year by Chief Justice John 
Roberts to serve on the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure of the U.S. Judicial Conference.
  Tim volunteers his time with a number of charitable Catholic 
organizations, such as the St. Vincent De Paul Society and 
ResponseAbility. He also works with Philadelphia Reads, a literacy 
mentorship program for second grade students.
  As a magistrate judge, Tim cofounded the Supervision to Aid Re-entry 
or ``STAR'' program to help reduce recidivism among ex-offenders.

[[Page 10212]]

Not only has the 3-year-old STAR program helped dozens of ex-offenders 
make a smoother transition back into society, it has also saved the 
Federal prison system an estimated $380,000. With volunteers from the 
court system, the Philadelphia Bar Association, and area law schools, 
as well as support from local charitable organizations, the STAR 
program mentors ex-offenders to finish high school or college, find 
employment, and avoid a return to crime. Thanks in large part to Tim's 
commitment, energy, and vision, the STAR model is being replicated 
elsewhere around the country.
  Tim and his wife Elaine have passed on a love of public service to 
their daughters, Meghan and Courtney, who work for the State Department 
and have been assigned to numerous overseas posts since 2005, including 
war-time service by both in Iraq. Their youngest daughter, Caitlin, 
just graduated from the College of Charleston.
  Judge Timothy Rice is just one of hundreds of Federal judges across 
the Nation working day in and day out to fulfill the promise of our 
Constitution's preamble to ``establish justice'' throughout this land. 
I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking him and all those serving 
in the Federal judiciary for their tireless work to protect our lives 
and our liberties. They are all truly great Federal employees.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Resolution of Disapproval

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before us on the floor is the bill 
from the Senate Finance Committee, the extenders bill relating to the 
Tax Code, but I would like to address an issue which is to come before 
the Senate tomorrow. It is an issue that rarely comes here under a 
procedure that was designed to give Congress a voice in the 
determination of regulations and rules promulgated by a President and 
the administration.
  The Senate has entered into a unanimous consent agreement to consider 
S.J. Res. 26 tomorrow, which would disapprove of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's endangerment. As a result of this action by the 
Senate, if we vote, we will vote in disapproval of this endangerment. 
The EPA's action was in response to a Supreme Court order that it make 
a determination about whether greenhouse gases as pollutants could be 
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
  This is an interesting story because it began with a question that 
was posed to Carol Browner, then head of the Environmental Protection 
Agency under President Bill Clinton. As I was told the story, the 
Republican leader in the House, Tom DeLay, asked Carol Browner of the 
EPA whether the Clean Air Act covered greenhouse gases, and she said 
she would have to get back to him because that particular question had 
never been directly asked or answered. After long study, she replied in 
the affirmative, which was not the reply the gentleman from Texas was 
expecting. This led to a flurry of lawsuits and questions because it 
really raised the question as to whether greenhouse gases, as we know 
them, going into the atmosphere are dangerous to the health and safety 
of people living on Earth and particularly here in the United States.
  The EPA studied this for a long period of time. The Supreme Court 
considered this case, as to whether the Clean Air Act applied to 
greenhouse gases, and ultimately concluded that it did but left it to 
the EPA to make the final determination as to whether in fact these 
greenhouse gases were dangerous. The EPA responded to the direction 
provided by the Supreme Court by proposing to find that the emission of 
six greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, 
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluorides--
threatened the public health and welfare of current and future 
generations and the combined emissions of these same gases from new 
motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric 
concentrations of these greenhouse gases and hence the threat of 
climate change.
  So, literally, tomorrow the Senate will be debating and voting on the 
question of climate change and whether greenhouse gases in fact are 
dangerous to the environment and the health and safety of people living 
in the United States. This has been a long, torturous process that led 
us to this moment. But the resolution being offered by the Senator from 
Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, would basically ask the Senate to find against 
the scientific findings linking greenhouse gases and climate change. 
The judgment of the EPA was based on scientific findings that showed 
that the concentration of greenhouse gases is at unprecedented levels 
compared to the recent and distant past; the effects of climate changed 
observed to date and projected to occur in the future will have impacts 
on public health and welfare; and the emissions of greenhouse gases 
from on-road vehicles regulated by the Clean Air Act contribute to 
climate change.
  There are those who deny the connection between greenhouse gases and 
what is happening to the Earth, the world in which we live. There are 
some who do not believe in climate change, they do not believe in 
global warming, and they are very vocal in their positions.
  I have had many groups come to see me on the issue from my State of 
Illinois. Many of them are farmers, agricultural groups, and I have 
made a point of asking these farmers--as they tell me they oppose any 
type of efforts to control carbon, to tax it or measure it in the 
future--a very basic question: Do you believe human activity on Earth 
is leading to changes in the world we live in--climate changes, the 
melting of glaciers, different problems with pollution, public health 
issues, asthma, lung problems? And I have been surprised, at least 
initially, to find that none of them believed it--not one. Three--after 
I asked this repeatedly--three said they had some questions about it, 
but not one said they believed it; that human activity was changing the 
world in which we live. I said to them: It is very difficult for us to 
have a conversation let alone a debate about this issue if you don't 
buy the premise, if you don't buy the starting point that things we are 
doing--the way we live, the way we produce electricity, the way we move 
from one place to another--create pollution which changes the Earth.
  This resolution by Senator Murkowski basically takes the same 
position: that the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that these 
greenhouse gases are a danger to us in the future and now is wrong. The 
EPA did not reach this conclusion lightly, as to whether there was a 
connection between greenhouse gases and the safety and health of people 
living on Earth. They had over 380,000 public comments they elicited 
for this work.
  The EPA endangerment finding has been supported not only by their 
conclusions but peer-reviewed literature in the work of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences. For the Senate to decide tomorrow that 
greenhouse gases do not pose a danger to our environment or our own 
health is comparable to the Senate voting against gravity, saying 
basically we are going to disagree with the scientific conclusion on 
gravity.
  I could argue without gravity the space program would be a lot 
cheaper. But the fact is, gravity is a scientific finding backed up by 
virtually everyone. Here we have a scientific finding backed up by the 
National Academy of Sciences, and the Senator from Alaska is going to 
ask us to vote tomorrow to reject it--the Senate to reject it. We will 
stand in judgment of these scientists and find they are wrong.
  By what authority could we reach that conclusion? They have gone

[[Page 10213]]

through this long process of concluding that greenhouse gas emissions 
endanger the planet we live on and our lives in the future. They have 
suggested we need to take that into consideration when we talk about 
the fuels we burn in the future, the way we generate electricity in the 
future, and start making plans to improve fuel efficiency, energy 
efficiency, to reduce the dangers associated with this.
  I think this is an important vote, maybe a historic vote. It is also 
interesting who supports the position of Senator Murkowski that we 
basically reject the sound science behind the EPA position. It is a 
position backed by many groups but particularly supported by big oil. 
The big oil companies are concerned about the impact of measuring 
greenhouse gas emissions and carbon emissions on the environment 
because it directly impacts the product they create and produce and 
sell.
  Here we are in the midst of an environmental disaster in the Gulf of 
Mexico brought on by one of the biggest oil companies on Earth, and we 
are now going to consider in the Senate a Murkowski resolution that is 
supported by the same big oil interests asking us to reject the finding 
by the EPA that greenhouse gas emissions do pose a danger to our 
environment and the people living in the United States.
  I say to my colleagues, tomorrow I hope they will think long and hard 
about this vote. This is not just another vote about another political 
issue. The credibility of the Senate is at issue. If we are going to 
stand in judgment of these scientific findings and reject them, then I 
think we will at least subject ourselves to a level of criticism that 
we have not accepted basic and sound science as it has been developed.
  There are many groups supporting the Murkowski resolution. I 
mentioned big oil. But there are many groups that oppose the Murkowski 
resolution. Among them are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 
Children's Environmental Health Network, the American Nurses 
Association, the American Lung Association, Public Health Association, 
Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Association of Schools of 
Public Health, Union of Concerned Scientists--the list goes on and on.
  It is interesting, too, that automobile manufacturers oppose the 
Murkowski effort to reject the science behind greenhouse gas emissions. 
An alliance of automobile manufacturers and 11 member companies have 
written to us expressing concern over the Murkowski resolution that 
would overturn the EPA's endangerment finding on greenhouse gas 
emissions.

       . . . if these resolutions are enacted into law, the 
     historic agreement creating the One National Program for 
     regulating vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions 
     would collapse.

  They are, of course, referring to an agreement which is trying to 
move toward more fuel-efficient vehicles and vehicles that pollute 
less. An agreement is being reached. Most Americans would agree that is 
a good thing. But the basis for agreeing it is a good thing is the 
belief that what is coming out of your tailpipe is not necessarily good 
for the world we live in, and if we can reduce the greenhouse gas 
emissions by moving toward hybrid engines, electric cars, getting 
better mileage in cars we do use, it is a good thing for the American 
owning the car--they buy less fuel oil--and it is a good thing for the 
environment because there are fewer emissions.
  If the Murkowski resolution prevails, we are rejecting the scientific 
basis for believing that what comes out of your tailpipe can be harmful 
to the world in which we live. That is a position which is hard to 
understand and difficult to explain.
  The auto workers have written to us asking us to vote against the 
Murkowski resolution, saying they are very concerned that such a vote 
``would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for 
fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.''
  We have had EPA Administrators from Presidents, both Democratic and 
Republican--under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan--who oppose the Murkowski 
resolution: Russell Train, William Ruckelshaus, many faith groups, a 
long list of environmental groups, and key stakeholders who oppose this 
Murkowski resolution. The list goes on and on.
  It will be an interesting vote tomorrow to see if this Senate, this 
historic and traditional body, will be looking forward to the future 
and realizing if we do not take better care of the world we live in, we 
will not be leaving as clean a world, as safe a world to our children 
in the future.
  The Murkowski resolution says ignore the science, ignore the 
findings, and ignore the responsibility we face to do something about 
this problem. I think that is clearly a move in the wrong direction, 
and I hope my colleagues will reject this resolution when it comes 
before us tomorrow.
  There are some who have argued if we do not pass the Murkowski 
resolution the EPA will start regulating just about everything in 
sight. When my farmers come here and start worrying about the tractors 
they drive in the fields, I wonder if they have taken a close look at 
what the EPA rule has suggested.
  There are approximately 900 currently regulated facilities, and the 
EPA estimates there will be about 550 more that would be affected by 
this rule. No small farms, restaurants, or midsize commercial 
facilities emit enough carbon to be regulated by the EPA. Many of these 
entities have been frightened by people who have been exaggerating the 
reach of the EPA or their interest in this particular issue.
  When you look at the phase-in called for by the EPA, they are dealing 
with the largest emitters of pollution in our country. What I think it 
does is, unfortunately, make the debate somewhat distorted to suggest 
it is going to apply to a farmer or small businessperson because the 
EPA's schedule and rules do not.
  The alternative of doing nothing is unacceptable from my point of 
view. I do believe, sadly, things are changing for the worse in many 
respects when it comes to the environment of the world in which we 
live. I do believe there has been, as the EPA has found, an increase in 
greenhouse gas emissions and accumulation of those emissions in the 
environment which have had a negative impact on the world.
  I have seen the photos--most everyone has--about the warming of this 
Earth. Although there are clearly days and weeks when we have a lot of 
cold weather--we had it in Washington--we know on average the 
temperature of the world we live in is going up. As it does, things 
change: glaciers melt, there is more water in the oceans, currents 
change, the temperature of the water that moves around the world 
changes, and climate patterns start to change as well.
  We need to do something about it. Voting for the Murkowski resolution 
is a step in the wrong direction. It basically says we are walking away 
from our responsibility, a responsibility which, though it is 
politically difficult, I think is a responsibility we must face because 
the science and our human experience lead us to that conclusion.
  I know it is going to mean some changes in the world. I come from a 
State where there is a lot of coal. That coal is a source of a lot of 
energy. But it also could be the source of a lot of pollution. There 
are ways to deal with it.
  I see the Senator from Missouri on the Senate floor. He and I have 
come together, not on every issue but at least on the notion of carbon 
sequestration. The idea is to take the emissions from an electric 
powerplant using coal, for example, and pipe them deep into the earth 
well below any surface where they could escape. I think this is one of 
the technologies, one of the scientific processes that should be 
researched as a possibility.
  Let me conclude, because I see my colleague on the floor, by urging 
my colleagues to oppose the Murkowski resolution tomorrow. This 
resolution wants to basically reject scientific findings that have been 
backed up across the world. It would subject this body to not only 
criticism but maybe even ridicule for us to step away from basic 
scientific findings which have linked the activities of humans on

[[Page 10214]]

Earth and a change in the Earth in which we live. We need to accept 
that basic premise and accept that basic responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks on this 
extenders bill now before us. It would seem to me, from what I have 
heard as I traveled this past week, that Americans want to send a very 
clear message to Washington. They have had enough of runaway spending, 
exploding debt, the bailouts, and the job-killing policies coming out 
of this Congress and this administration.
  Unfortunately, with the bill on the floor now, it is clear that 
Washington, or most of it, has stopped listening to the American 
people. This bill is supposed to be about getting job creators some 
certainty that temporary tax benefits they rely on to retain workers 
will continue to be there. Instead, it seems Democrats cannot resist 
the opportunity to use this bill to expand the debt and extend the 
government reach because this $126 billion baby does all of the above. 
It is loaded up with unrelated spending that has nothing to do with 
extending necessary benefits and creating jobs. It is not fully paid 
for and would add another $78.7 billion to the debt.
  With the national debt at now a whopping $13 trillion, the American 
people have said enough. Our children and grandchildren, if they were 
here, would say: Don't put any more on our credit cards. Our debt is 
now at an unprecedented $13 trillion for the first time in history. 
This is no small milestone.
  Make no mistake, the next crisis our Nation must deal with is the 
exploding debt crisis that is upon us. I believe Chairman Bernanke 
referred to that today.
  I support the provisions in this bill that would give our small 
businesses, our job creators, the security that longstanding tax 
benefits they are counting on will continue. I also support extending 
necessary benefits such as the Medicare reimbursements to keep doctors 
supplying Medicare patients with health care. This was left out of the 
ObamaCare bill to make it look not as expensive as it really was. But 
we need to pay for that.
  The difference between our view on this side of the aisle and that of 
those on the other side of the aisle is that we should pay for 
temporary tax extensions with reductions and cuts in spending, not with 
permanent tax increases. We want to pay for necessary benefits with 
cuts now, not saddle our children and grandchildren with even more debt 
down the road.
  I believe most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle agree. Like 
me, many Republicans support some of the provisions buried in this 
boondoggle of a bill. In fact, many of these provisions would easily 
sail through the Senate, but Democrats continue to bury these 
provisions in massive spending bills such as the ones before us, 
compelling anyone who cares about our Nation's fiscal health to vote 
no. Americans are demanding that we say no, that we put an end to the 
Washington-gone-wild policies.
  They have had enough spending, tax increases, debt, bailout, 
government overreaching, and job-killing policies. Right now it appears 
that the majority is not listening. This bill contains provisions that 
will severely curtail the ability of U.S. businesses that operate 
internationally, and will drive countless more jobs and corporate 
headquarters overseas at a time when we should be focusing on job 
creation and improving the competitiveness of the United States.
  These tax increases are a step in the wrong direction. The President 
has even said we are going to have an economic recovery driven by 
exports. Well, he has not stepped up and said we need to do free trade 
agreements which would do that; free trade with Colombia, South Korea, 
Panama.
  This bill, by taxing the people who go overseas to create the 
opportunity for more exports of American goods, will obviously destroy 
our ability and lessen our ability to export more. As a technical 
matter, six of the eight international tax increases in the extenders 
bill have not even been considered in the committee. Two of the eight 
were in the President's Greenbook. The other six were only publicly 
bounced out for the first time May 20. This is $14.5 billion of tax 
increases over the next 10 years.
  Let me point out, as I have traveled overseas and looked at job 
creation, I have been stunned to see that America is one of only two 
countries that taxes businesses overseas and taxes them at home. Most 
other countries which are growing in their export and their influence 
overseas do not tax double.
  Well, we are taxing double and we are increasing those taxes now. 
Several of the international tax increases are retroactive tax 
increases. Many companies, in their reports with the SEC for the 
benefit of the investing public, have already claimed financial 
statement benefit for certain foreign tax credits they have already 
earned but for which they have not yet claimed credit.
  The retroactive tax increases affect companies that have already 
claimed credit for the tax credits to which they were entitled. They 
have been treated properly as money in the bank. This extenders bill 
would cause such companies to lose the credits, issue earnings 
restatements and perhaps even lay off U.S. employees.
  These international tax increases are permanent changes to the 
Internal Revenue Code, meant to pay for 1 year of temporary provisions 
in the Internal Revenue Code, a real mismatch. And how will the 
extenders be paid for next year?
  Some on the other side may say these tax increases are necessary to 
preserve American jobs or keep business in America. Well, I can tell 
you firsthand that is not the way it works. If you say that, you do not 
understand economics and international business.
  I have made many statements on this floor and written a book about 
how the best foreign policy we can have is export and foreign 
investment from this country. It is vitally important as a foreign 
policy imperative, but also, I have seen firsthand that investment 
overseas not only creates wealth overseas, but it brings more exports 
from the United States, creating more jobs here. So it is a win-win for 
both countries.
  Foreign countries where we want to strengthen their economy are 
crying for investments and for more of our exports because that is how 
we can help them grow. But these tax increases make it less likely that 
American businesses will hire, that American businesses will grow. 
Instead, Germany, India, and Chinese companies, Australia, and the 
British will outcompete us. They will be hiring more as they grow 
overseas and as we shrink. This is not the way we should move forward 
in job creation.
  You may say there are reforms needed in the international tax arena, 
but I think the biggest reform is to put us back on the same footing as 
most other countries in the world that do not tax overseas. Why are we 
the only ones? We are one of only two that do it. Does it make good 
economic sense to penalize productive investment abroad which brings 
back profits, capital, and export opportunities here at home? That is 
just one. That is a $14\1/2\ billion job killer.
  Another $14 billion job killer is on entrepreneurs, the people who 
are creating jobs and need to have venture capital. This is designed to 
cut the ability of venture capital groups to put together the money you 
need for researchers or inventors who are creating jobs. I happen to be 
very interested in this, because my State of Missouri has tremendous 
research in universities and in organizations such as the Danforth 
Plant Science Center coming up with innovation in agricultural 
biotechnology that can provide better food, better products, 
pharmaceuticals, improve the environment, and improve the well being of 
people around the world. But there is a big jump between having 
something in the lab that may work and getting it out in sufficient 
quantity to supply the Nation and the world. Under the current law, 
entrepreneurs have a clear signal to take risks on investments in 
partnerships.

[[Page 10215]]

The signal is this: They pay a 15-percent tax if they put their time 
and effort to bring money and ideas together and make it workable. They 
have to pay a 15-percent tax when it becomes valuable enough to sell.
  That clear signal incentivizes the flow of capital into startup and 
other ventures. You cut that off and we are going to see venture 
capital-driven new business opportunities disappear. What are we 
thinking about? Let's go back.
  The No. 1 concern of Missourians, of Americans, is creating jobs. 
These are the jobs of the 21st century. We are losing lots of jobs of 
the 20th century. We have to replace them with the jobs of the 21st 
century. That is where venture capital comes in working with 
entrepreneurs, working with researchers, bringing together the business 
acumen, the business skill to get these good ideas into provable 
products in the marketplace and supply the needs of the people in the 
world.
  Unfortunately, the majority and the Obama administration want to 
raise that rate to 33 percent in a little over 6 months. This 33-
percent hit is set to be augmented by an additional tax hike on the 
part of the partnership gain attributable to carried interest. It means 
there is a double whammy coming at startups and other business entities 
seeking capital to grow and, by the way, not incidentally, primarily 
create jobs.
  We want jobs. Stop the idea of taxing people who are going to create 
jobs. Rule 1, if you want more of something, tax it less. If you want 
less of something, tax it more. We want less jobs. That is the message 
this substitute sends. The double whammy on startups and other 
businesses would mean that almost half that carried interest, that is 
now capital gain, would be treated as ordinary income. So with ordinary 
rates set to rise to almost 40 percent, which will help kill small 
businesses, it means two-thirds of that carried interest would be 
almost 40 percent. That is a lot worse deal. That is the kind of thing 
this country cannot afford when we need jobs. Even though many in the 
business sector said they want some of the extenders, the temporary 
extenders the bill includes, research and development and other things, 
they do not want them if the price of getting them is these 
international tax increases.
  Those opposing the bill include the Chamber of Commerce, the Business 
Roundtable, the National Foreign Trade Council, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Information Technology Council, IBM, 
and Microsoft. You can see that the innovative companies in our country 
know this is going to shrink their business if these tax increases go 
forward and it is going to cut both in international exports and to 
startup venture capital.
  This goes back to what the Gallup poll has shown, that only 16 
percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, and 80 
percent disapprove. If you poll those who will lose their jobs, the 
disapproval rate would be even higher.
  I believe the only way to restore America's confidence in elected 
officials, particularly in this body, is to prove we are listening. The 
folks in my home State of Missouri, like most Americans, want Congress 
and the President to quit treating their hard-earned tax dollars like 
Monopoly money. The folks in Missouri want me to vote no and oppose any 
effort to pile more debt on our children and grandchildren, and to 
oppose efforts that would tax exports and job-creating investments in 
small and growing businesses.
  I have heard. I am listening. I want to act on it. I hope my 
colleagues will join me.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Health Care Campaign

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, here we are the day after some elections 
in various States around the country. I think everybody will draw their 
own conclusion as a result of those elections, but it is hard to 
dispute the assertion that the so-called tea party candidates did 
rather well in the elections around the country.
  Those people who believe the disconnect between themselves and their 
neighbors and their fellow citizens and what we do here in our Nation's 
capital is clearly disconnected. The anger and dissatisfaction 
continues to be displayed in poll after poll and election after 
election. And why are they so upset?
  Well, our national debt has just surpassed $13 trillion for the first 
time. We now, this morning, in a prediction, have predictions that it 
will surpass $19 trillion in 5 years.
  In the first 206 years of this Nation's existence, we were able to 
accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion. Now it is going to take us 5 
years to add $4 more trillion, up to $19 trillion. So what is the 
response now by the administration and my colleagues across the aisle? 
Another bill that addresses $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, $100 billion 
additional to the debt and, of course, not paid for. And here we are, 
after spending a good part of a $787 billion stimulus package, where we 
were promised and assured that if we passed that the maximum 
unemployment in the United States would be 8 percent. As we all know, 
it is now at 9.7 percent, with the latest job information with a paltry 
41,000 new jobs, and 400,000 temporary government Census jobs.
  So is it surprising to anyone that there is great anger and 
dissatisfaction throughout the country? We seem to be not just tone 
deaf but deaf, which brings me to the issue of the so-called health 
care reform.
  CBO recently came forward and said, the real cost of the reform in 
its new authorization is over $1 trillion, something we were assured at 
the time, in the year-long debate, that it would not be over $1 
trillion. It will cost over $2.6 trillion over its first 10 years of 
full implementation.
  I guess there was the assumption that either the American people 
would forget the debate that was held here in the Congress or would 
forget these promises were made about the benefits of health care 
reform, but they were wrong. Recent polls show that about 60 percent of 
the American people still oppose the legislation that was passed 
through the Congress and signed by the President, to great fanfare.
  In the immortal words of the Speaker of the House, who said, ``We 
have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,'' the 
American people are finding out what is in it, including medical device 
makers who assert that the new tax on them will cost jobs because of a 
2.3-percent excise tax on companies that supply medical devices such as 
heart defibrillators and surgical tools to hospitals. It will cost an 
estimated $20 billion. The list of taxes goes on and on.
  The response of those on the other side of the aisle is to launch a 
$125 million health campaign. They will spend an estimated $25 million 
a year over 5 years so that, quoting from a Politico story:

       The extraordinary campaign, which could provide an 
     unprecedented amount of cover for a White House in a policy 
     debate, reflects urgency among Democrats to explain, defend 
     and depoliticize health care reform now that people are 
     beginning to feel the new law's effects.

  Interesting--$125 million.
  To do its bit, the Medicare people have decided to spend--because we 
have lots of money; there are no worries--$18 million--chicken feed--in 
Medicare funds to send a mailer to Medicare beneficiaries. The flier is 
entitled ``Medicare and the New Health Care Law, What it Means for 
You.'' It was sent to 43 million Medicare beneficiaries under the guise 
of explaining how the new law will impact them. However, the brochure 
goes into great detail about provisions of the law that do not even 
apply to seniors and leaves out any mention of the cuts they will face. 
For example, 330,000 of my fellow citizens in Arizona are enjoying a 
program called Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage does what the 
government doesn't want our Medicare recipients to do, and that is to 
give people

[[Page 10216]]

choices on dental care, eyeglasses, other decisions they would make. Of 
course, those people will see the Medicare Advantage program, which is 
very popular, dismantled under this law.
  The flier and the President point out that over $500 billion in 
Medicare cuts could jeopardize seniors' health care, forcing millions 
to pay more. The cuts, according to the Obama administration's own 
Medicare actuaries, will lead to 7.4 million Medicare beneficiaries 
losing their health plan because of the $206 billion in cuts to 
Medicare Advantage. The CBO estimates that Medicare prescription drug 
coverage premiums will increase by 9 percent as a result of that law.
  I look forward to continuing this debate with the President and my 
friends. He took time out from his musical evenings to have a health 
care townhall yesterday to talk about this great benefit to the 
American people that his legislation has brought. Unfortunately, 
seniors and the American people are not fooled.
  I quote from a Wall Street Journal article of May 28, 2010:

       In the full-circle department, recall the moment last 
     September when Senator Max Baucus and Medicare went after the 
     insurer Humana for having the nerve to criticize one part of 
     ObamaCare. It turns out those same regulators have different 
     standards for their own political advocacy.
       This week Medicare sent a flyer to seniors, ostensibly to 
     inform them of what ObamaCare ``means for you.'' Many elderly 
     Americans are worried--and rightly so--about where they'll 
     rank in national health care, given that the new entitlement 
     is funded by nearly a half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. 
     They must have been relieved to hear that ``The Affordable 
     Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama 
     this year will provide you and your family greater savings 
     and increased quality health care.''
       That's the first sentence of the four-page mailer, and it 
     gives a flavor of the Administration's respect for the 
     public's intelligence. It goes on to mention ``improvements 
     to Medicare Advantage,'' the program that Democrats hate 
     because it gives nearly one out of four seniors private 
     health insurance options. ``If you are in a Medicare 
     Advantage plan, you will still receive guaranteed Medicare 
     benefits.''
       But that's not what Medicare's own actuary thinks. In an 
     April memo, Richard Foster estimated that the $206 billion 
     hole in Advantage will reduce benefits, cause insurers to 
     withdraw from the program and reduce overall enrollment by 
     half. Doug Elmendorf and his team at the Congressional Budget 
     Office came to the same conclusion, as did every other honest 
     expert.

  I don't know if my colleagues will recall, but the first amendment we 
had proposed from this side when the bill came to the floor was to 
prohibit cuts in Medicare. Now we are seeing that there will be a $206 
billion hole in Medicare Advantage that will reduce benefits and cause 
insurers to withdraw from the program and reduce overall enrollment by 
half, just as we predicted on the floor of the Senate.
  I look forward to coming back to the floor with my friend from 
Tennessee and others as we continue this debate. Perhaps we should have 
been discussing it more all along. I can assure my colleagues, from the 
many townhall meetings I am having all over the State of Arizona, the 
people of Arizona, especially those in programs such as Medicare 
Advantage and others, are deeply concerned and deeply skeptical.
  Our proposal still remains valid. Starting next January, we will make 
every effort to repeal and replace because we cannot lay this burden on 
future generations of Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his leadership 
and for his thoughtful comments on the health care law. We fought those 
battles last year. We won the argument but lost the vote. That is not 
so good for the country, as our country is now finding out.
  I am one of those 40 million Americans who are eligible for Medicare, 
who received that brochure in the mail last week. I spoke about it 
yesterday. I found it very disingenuous and misleading and unfortunate.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3470 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                Amendment No. 4325 to Amendment No. 4301

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 4325.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4325 to amendment No. 4301.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To exempt pediatric medical devices from the medical device 
                      tax, and for other purposes)

       At the end of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. ___. EXEMPTION FOR PEDIATRIC MEDICAL DEVICES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 4191(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' 
     at the end of subparagraph (C), by redesignating subparagraph 
     (D) as subparagraph (E), and by inserting after subparagraph 
     (C) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) medical devices primarily designed to be used by or 
     for pediatric patients, and''.
       (b) Expansion of Affordability Exception to Individual 
     Mandate.--Section 5000A(e)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by striking ``8 percent'' and inserting 
     ``5 percent''.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 
reached an understanding that this amendment will be a side-by-side 
amendment to the amendment offered by Senator Cardin. So at the time it 
would be considered we would have the vote.
  Mr. President, included in the $\1/2\ trillion of new taxes in the 
health care reform law is a tax hike of $20 billion on medical devices. 
That is right. This new law imposes a $20 billion excise tax, a tax of 
2.3 percent, on lifesaving medical devices.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee 
on Taxation both confirmed that these excise taxes will not be borne by 
the medical device industry--will not be borne by the medical device 
industry. Instead, the tax will be passed on to patients in the form of 
higher prices and higher insurance premiums.
  Recognizing that this tax, as initially proposed, was unpopular--
because as written it would have increased taxes on medical devices 
such as eyeglasses and hearing aids--the bill was modified to exclude 
these and other items that are generally purchased by the general 
public at retail for individual use.
  Yet even with these exemptions, patients still bear the burden of 
this new tax. Here are just a few examples of the people who will be 
hit by this new tax and the types of devices that will be taxed. People 
with disabilities, diabetics, amputees, people with cancer, and those 
with heart problems are just some of the people who will see their 
health care costs go up because of this tax.
  During debate on the health care bill, I offered amendments to simply 
strike this unfair tax. Unfortunately, the majority did not approve 
these amendments. My amendment today prevents this new tax from raising 
the costs for pediatric medical devices--those devices that treat the 
youngest in our population: children who have serious or life-
threatening illnesses such as cancer or a heart problem. The amendment 
exempts from the excise tax medical devices primarily designed to be 
used by or for pediatric patients.
  This tax on medical devices is a tax on innovation as well. It harms 
research and development that leads to medical advancement. It creates 
an additional burden for medical device manufacturers to develop new 
products or to redesign them to meet the specific needs of pediatric 
patients.
  As the FDA notes on its Web site:

       Designing pediatric medical devices can be challenging: 
     [Obviously] children are often smaller and more active than 
     adults, body structures and functions change throughout 
     childhood, and children may be long-term device users.


[[Page 10217]]


  With these challenges and other barriers that exist to the 
development, approval, and availability of pediatric devices, it seems 
to me--and I think it should be clear to everyone, all of my 
colleagues--we should not add another barrier by taxing medical device 
manufacturers who develop and manufacture pediatric devices. Imposing 
the excise tax on pediatric medical devices will do nothing but slow 
innovation for these necessary and lifesaving devices.
  So when innovative and lifesaving technologies are taxed, when the 
cost of many tests increases because the devices used in the tests are 
taxed, when new devices are not developed, and when fewer manufacturers 
are able to survive in the anticompetitive environment this tax will 
create, the consumers of health care will suffer for it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to exempt pediatric 
medical devices from the excise tax to ensure that the youngest 
patients who need the lifesaving treatment these devices can offer do 
not have to pay more for that treatment. This is a step in the right 
direction to correcting the serious flaws in the health care law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are hoping to reach an agreement soon 
on a procedure during which we can cast votes on various amendments. 
The first would be an amendment by Mr. Cardin; the next, Mr. Roberts; 
and then the Sessions amendment. At the conclusion of the Sessions 
amendment, I think we will then have 40 minutes of debate, and then the 
Baucus amendment and then the Cornyn amendment, but that will be 
outlined much more specifically in a unanimous consent request which I 
think should be coming fairly quickly.
  I wish to say a word or two about the Roberts side-by-side amendment 
with respect to medical devices. I think it is important to remind 
ourselves that we are a democracy. Sometimes I think that is forgotten. 
That is, we are a country of laws. This is a country where we live by 
the will of the majority, as enacted into law.
  It used to be that we here in the Senate would air our differences, 
vote, and then move on. I must say that lately, and especially with 
regard to health care reform, many on the other side of the aisle 
appear to be unable to move on. Many on the other side of the aisle 
appear unwilling to accept the results of our legislative process as 
enacted into law and signed by the President. Many on the other side of 
the aisle appear simply unwilling to accept the new health care law. 
Some come to the floor daily to complain about it and, in a sense, 
relitigate it. It is already passed. It is the law. For the life of me, 
I don't understand why Senators don't realize that now is the time, 
since the law has been enacted, to offer constructive remarks to help 
make sure it works even better. We are here to serve the American 
people. We are not here to score partisan political points. I think 
most people at home want the Senate to work to offer ideas to help make 
the recently enacted health care reform law work even better.
  So today, unfortunately, we have again an amendment to carve out an 
exception to the medical device fee that helps pay for health care 
reform. This amendment would pay for the loss of revenue by leaving 
more Americans without health insurance. We are in a situation where if 
we cut out this medical device provision, then we have to make it up in 
some way, so this amendment would pay for the lost revenue by leaving 
more Americans without health insurance.
  Senator Roberts offered this amendment a few minutes ago, and it 
would again seek to make changes to the medical device excise tax that 
is set to go into effect in the year 2013. The Senate rejected an 
amendment earlier in the year very much like this one. It rejected it 
during consideration of the Health Reconciliation Act on March 24. We 
have already been there. We voted on this, not only in the health care 
reform bill that passed, but we also already voted on this amendment, 
and the Senate rejected an amendment very similar to this and rejected 
it soundly by a vote of 57 to 40. Here we are again.
  But, still, some on the other side of the aisle appear unwilling to 
move on. So for the same reasons we rejected this amendment in March, 
we should reject it again today. We should not exempt one set of 
medical device manufacturers from contributing their fair share toward 
health care reform. We should not decrease the number of Americans with 
health insurance, which this amendment would do--decrease the number of 
Americans with health insurance. We should, therefore, reject the 
Roberts amendment.
  Let me describe the amendment in a little bit more detail. First, the 
amendment tries to exclude certain medical device sales from 
assessment. As my colleagues will recall, a fee was placed on various 
providers to help pay for health care reform, and in virtually every 
case, the providers agreed to the fee. They would rather not have to 
pay a fee, but they agreed to it. They didn't cause a big fuss. Why? 
Because, as a result, more people would have health insurance, and with 
more health insurance, providers generally make a little more money. 
What they may lose on markup they could make up in volume as more 
people would have health insurance.
  Products that consumers will buy at retail are already excluded. 
Further attempts to exclude devices are attempts to undermine the 
entire medical device policy.
  The health care reform bill included shared responsibility for all 
health care industries. I would remind my colleagues, that was the 
basic premise of health care reform. We are all in this together. 
Shared responsibility. All Americans help share responsibility--
individuals, companies, insurance companies, manufacturers, doctors, 
hospitals. It is shared. All Americans share. It is about the only way 
we could make health care reform work in this country, and reform we 
must because of all the waste that otherwise occurs in our system. 
There are some estimates that there is up to 29 percent waste in the 
American health care system. That is a lot of money. We spend about 
$2.5 trillion a year on health care reform and waste in the American 
health care system. That is a lot of money. We spend about $2.5 
trillion a year on health care reform, and 29 percent comes out to 
around over $800 billion of waste. I am not saying we can get all of 
that waste out of the system, but I am saying the passage of this 
legislation will go a long way, in many respects because of its very 
strong provisions to attack fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare.
  The health care reform bill included shared responsibility for all 
health care industries. Medical device companies pledged to do their 
part. They pledged to do their part, and they must do their part. This 
is particularly true since that industry will see at least 32 million 
more customers as a result of reform, leading to substantial new 
profits. The device industry and many other industries in health care 
will see 32 million more customers as a result of this health care 
reform law we passed, leading to substantial new profits for them.
  This amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas also seeks to 
weaken the individual responsibility requirement in health reform--
weaken it. Remember, this is a shared responsibility. He wants us to 
weaken a large part. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that 
the requirement is one of the most critical pieces of reform; that is, 
that requirement that the Senator wishes to weaken. CBO, again, states 
this requirement is one of the most critical pieces of reform. Without 
it, we lose coverage for millions of Americans. Without it--without 
that reform--premiums could spike by up to 15 to 20 percent in the 
nongroup market. Premiums were likely to go up 15

[[Page 10218]]

to 20 percent in the nongroup market if this health care reform bill 
had not passed. That is the analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office.
  So, clearly, we must resist efforts to weaken the individual 
responsibility policy in the health care reform bill. I, therefore, do 
not support this amendment.
  I have a couple of other matters. I have not had much opportunity to 
speak today, so I wish to speak on those matters. I see my good friend 
from Utah wishes to speak and I will try to speak quickly so he can 
make his remarks.
  The Senator from Arizona came to the floor a few moments ago to 
attack a number of laws we have enacted this Congress. First, he 
attacked the Recovery Act. The Senator from Arizona ridiculed the 
Recovery Act's effects. But we here turn to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office for the straight facts. What are the facts? 
I think it was the late Senator Moynihan from New York who once said, 
you know, you can argue the policy, but you can't argue facts. Facts 
are facts. Facts are very tenacious things that are there that you 
can't wish away. So what are the facts, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office? The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that in 
the first quarter of calendar year 2010, the Recovery Act's policies 
raised the level of real gross domestic product--that is adjusted for 
inflation--raised the level of gross domestic product by between 1.7 
percent and 4.2 percent--not zero, not decreased but raised--raised the 
gross domestic product in the United States between 1.7 percent and 2.4 
percent. Also, CBO says the Recovery Act lowered the unemployment rate 
by between .7 percentage point and 1.5 percentage points. That is the 
conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office.
  What else did the Congressional Budget Office say? That the Recovery 
Act increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 
2.8 million--increased the number of people employed. That is the 
consequence of the act. The Congressional Budget Office further states 
that it increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 1.8 
million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been 
otherwise. I think that is pretty clear.
  I respect the ability of the Senator from Arizona to state his own 
thoughts. That is why we are here in the Senate, in many respects. But 
we can't dispute the facts as stated by the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, the facts which I just recited.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. today, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the 
order listed and that no intervening amendment be in order prior to the 
votes, with 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, with the time 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first 
vote in the sequence, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes 
each: Cardin amendment No. 4304; Roberts amendment No. 4325; Sessions 
amendment No. 4303, with a modification which is at the desk, and that 
the amendment be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I won't 
object, but I want to make sure I have enough time to give the remarks 
I was supposed to give.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That depends on how long the remarks are going to be.
  Mr. HATCH. They will be wonderful remarks.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am sure they are going to be wonderful. That wasn't the 
question.
  Mr. HATCH. I am hopeful that I can be finished by 4 o'clock.
  Mr. BAUCUS. We will work it out. We can always delay the first vote 
until, say, 5 minutes after 4 to accommodate the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Amendment No. 4303, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Point of Order.--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, $540,116,000,000 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, $543,790,000,000 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, $551,498,000,000 in budget 
     authority.
       (4) With respect to fiscal years following 2013, 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, or 2013, 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; and
       (iii) with respect to fiscal year 2013, $50,000,000,000 in 
     new budget authority.
       (B) Internal revenue service tax enforcement.--
       (i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported 
     making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or 2013, 
     that includes the amount described in clause (ii)(I), plus an 
     additional amount for enhanced tax 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, and for fiscal year 2013, 
     $7,315,000,000.
       (II) For fiscal year 2011, $899,000,000, for fiscal year 
     2012, and $908,000,000, for fiscal year 2013, $917,000,000.

       (C) Continuing disability reviews and ssi 
     redeterminations.--
       (i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported 
     making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or 2013 
     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, and for fiscal year 2013, $281,000,000.
       (II) For fiscal year 2011, $490,000,000; for fiscal year 
     2012, and $495,000,000; for fiscal year 2013, $500,000,000.

       (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

[[Page 10219]]

     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, and for fiscal year 2013, 
     $35,030,000.

       (D) Health care fraud and abuse.--
       (i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported 
     making appropriations for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or 2013 
     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, and for fiscal year 2013, $320,000,000.
       (E) Unemployment insurance improper payment reviews.--If a 
     bill or joint resolution is reported making appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or 2013 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;
       (ii) with respect to fiscal year 2012, $51,000,000 in new 
     budget authority; and
       (iii) with respect to fiscal year 2013, $52,000,000 in new 
     budget authority.
       (F) Low-income home energy assistance program (liheap).--If 
     a bill or joint resolution is reported making appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2011, 2012, or 2013 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.--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 this 
     section, sections 302 and 311 of this Act, section 201 of S. 
     Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) (relating to pay-as-you-go), 
     section 311 of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th Congress) (relating to 
     long-term deficits), and section 404 of S. Con. Res. 13 
     (111th Congress).
       (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 subsections (a) and (e) 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 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.
       (g) Limitations on changes to this section.--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 section.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's remarks and I 
appreciate his leadership on the Finance Committee. He is a fine man. 
We have been friends for a long time. He has had a very tough job on 
health care.
  But I was a little amazed that he would suggest the Republicans are 
opening up the health care bill after the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland actually opened it up with his amendment. I suspect there is 
going to be a lot of opening by Democrats, as well as Republicans, of 
the health care bill because it is a colossally bad bill. There is no 
sin in doing that. Plus I have to say, coming from one of the States 
that is one of the major producers of medical devices, most of those 
device companies hardly agreed to what has happened to them. They are 
going to have to pass those additional taxes on to consumers.
  I make those remarks to correct the record a little bit. I realize 
what my friend is saying. I suspect there will be a lot of amendments 
to what I consider to be a bill that I think will be a problem for the 
rest of our lives if we don't reform it.
  I rise today to express my deep concern about the so-called American 
Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. I also wish to relay my growing 
frustration with the partisan gamesmanship and lack of leadership by 
the majority of this body that has brought us to the deplorable state 
in which we find ourselves in connection with the expired tax 
provisions.
  As a long-time member of the Committee on Finance, it has been my 
privilege to work with my colleagues

[[Page 10220]]

on both sides of the aisle to try to improve the tax laws of this 
country. While we have had our share of partisan fights over the nearly 
20 years I have served on the committee, there has been an overall 
spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship that has set this panel apart 
from all the others on which I have served. Unfortunately, this 
positive spirit, which is so badly needed in the Congress today, has 
been unraveling for some time now.
  Nowhere is this degradation of bipartisan cooperation more evident 
than in taking care of what used to be the routine business of 
extending expiring tax provisions. This, of course, is a major 
objective of the bill before us.
  Let us move back a few steps and take an objective look at what we 
are attempting to do here with this bill. This legislation started out 
with the purpose of reinstating a growing number of important tax 
provisions that expired at the end of last year. I recall a time not so 
long ago when the Senate took care of expiring provisions before they 
lapsed, not 6 months or even more, after their sunset.
  The problem is not with the provisions themselves--they almost 
universally enjoy wide and deep support on both sides of the aisle. Nor 
is it a problem that these provisions are not important to the American 
economy. Admittedly, some of them are more significant than others. The 
research credit, for example, is vital to our battle to keep R&D 
activities here in the U.S.--which, by the way, is a battle we are in 
danger of losing to many of our trading partners, who are working hard 
to attract these activities away from our shores.
  Rather, the problem is twofold--a lack of taking care of needed 
business on the part of the Senate leadership and the tendency of the 
majority to use the expired tax provisions as a pawn in the games of 
politics they are playing.
  Let me offer several examples of this. First, it has sadly become 
commonplace for the leadership of the Senate to not even begin to take 
the extension of expiring tax provisions seriously until after they 
have expired. We have, so many times now, routinely extended these 
provisions after the fact on a retroactive basis, that we have created 
a sort of expectation that this is a normal and fine way of doing 
things. This is true despite the fact that we know and admit that this 
sloppy way of managing public policy will create additional complexity 
and burdens to the taxpayers that are dependent on these provisions.
  Second, the majority had ample opportunity before now to take up and 
pass the tax extenders, but political games got in the way. For 
example, early this year in a demonstration of bipartisanship worthy of 
the reputation of the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus reached out to 
Senator Grassley and other committee members on both sides of the aisle 
in an attempt to put together a job creation bill. This bill, which was 
eventually enacted as the HIRE Act, was to have included the expired 
tax provisions. Practically everyone agrees that these provisions are 
job creators, and both sides wanted to put them in the bill.
  Instead, however, the majority leader essentially hijacked this 
cooperation and turned it into a partisan game where it was impossible 
for our side to participate. In the process of doing so, he 
inexplicably removed from the bill the expired tax provisions and 
trashed them as Republican-only initiatives. Thus, these tax extenders 
could have been enacted in March but the Democratic leadership 
demonstrated that it would rather play political games than get these 
important provisions taken care of, which we all pretty much supported.
  Third, when the majority finally did turn its attention to extending 
these expired tax provisions, it decided to attach unrelated provisions 
that it felt it could push through the Congress because extender bills 
eventually become ``must pass'' legislative vehicles. These unrelated 
provisions include an expansion of the controversial Build America 
Bonds program and a Medicare ``doc fix'' provision that had been 
promised in the so-called health care reform bill. Adding these 
provisions effectively turned the extenders into a pawn in this game of 
politics.
  Finally, the majority has engaged in a strange game of insisting that 
the expired tax provisions be offset with tax increases on other 
taxpayers, while allowing far larger portions of the bill, such as the 
extension of unemployment benefits, to remain un-offset under the guise 
that we are in an emergency.
  Mr. President, we are indeed in an emergency, but it is an emergency 
caused by too-high taxes and by lack of spending restraint. And by 
national debt that is compounding itself day after day, year after 
year, until we double our deficit in the next 5 years and triple it in 
10, if we are lucky.
  The solution is certainly not to raise taxes and increase spending, 
yet this is exactly what this bill does. It is to these tax increases 
included in the bill that I wish to address the remainder of my 
remarks.
  Most of my colleagues know that I have been a strong and long-time 
supporter of many of the expired tax provisions. Let me again mention 
the importance of the research tax credit. I, along with Senator 
Baucus, have long championed this provision, and I have worked to make 
it a permanent credit so we do not have to see these repetitive lapses 
in its coverage, which only make it less effective as an incentive.
  I wish this bill included a permanent research tax credit, which many 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the Obama 
administration insist they are in favor of enacting. Knowing that a 
permanent extension was out of the question, I attempted to strengthen 
the credit on a temporary basis, along the lines of the bill that 
Senator Baucus and I introduced last year, but the other side was not 
even willing to do this. Nevertheless, a straight extension of the 
current law research tax credit is significant and is of dire 
necessity.
  I hasten to point out it would not have been as effective as the 
strengthening provision that we both had agreed should be in the bill.
  Why, then, am I planning to vote against this bill? Along with the 
huge increase in un-offset spending, it is for the same reason that 
much of the business community is opposed to this legislation--the tax 
increases added to the bill will damage the economy and job creation 
and outweigh the benefits of extending the expired tax provisions.
  That is at a time when we know that unemployment is not coming down, 
nor is the economy getting that much better.
  Let us take a look at some of these so-called tax loopholes that this 
legislation is attempting to close.
  The largest revenue raiser in the bill is the so-called carried 
interest provision. For several years now, we have heard it stated with 
outrage that hedge fund managers get by with paying a lower tax rate on 
their billion dollar compensation packages than the tax rate their 
secretaries pay on their relatively meager salaries. Well, if it were 
this simple, maybe this is a legitimate loophole that we should have 
closed a long time ago. Unfortunately, it is not this simple.
  Rather, the carried interest issue is a complex one that permeates 
through many structures throughout our economy in ways that are 
difficult to understand. For example, the same partnership structure 
that is often utilized by a hedge fund is also used by venture 
capitalists and real estate developers. These structures have long been 
part of our tax law and many multi-billion dollar deals that have 
created millions of jobs have been built upon them.
  I am not here to say that from a tax policy point of view, the way we 
tax carried interest should not be examined and possibly changed. What 
I am here to say is that we need to use extreme caution in making any 
changes to the taxation of these structures. Why? Because the simple 
fact is that if we increase the tax rates and change the nature of 
income from these partnerships, the economic hurdle rates will rise, 
and fewer deals will get done. And if fewer deals are done, less 
economic activity will be generated and fewer jobs will be created. At 
this time of economic strife in this country, this is not a chance we 
should take.

[[Page 10221]]

  The problem Mr. President, is that these offsets are being considered 
for one reason and one reason only--for the tax revenue they are 
projected to provide. We are trying to fill a hole and we need a 
certain amount of new taxes to do it. We are not looking to improve tax 
policy here. If we were, we would approach this matter with the caution 
it warrants.
  Another big tax change in this bill before us also needs to be 
reconsidered. I refer to the provision to change the way certain owners 
of S corporations are subject to self-employment tax. This $11 billion 
plus revenue raiser will create all kinds of headaches for legitimate 
small businesses that are currently playing by the rules.
  The proponents of this change say that it is needed to close a 
loophole made famous by a former colleague of ours who will remain 
unnamed. However, the Internal Revenue Service already has all the 
tools it needs, in the form of existing tax rules, to enforce the kind 
of abuses that have occurred in this area.
  The provision in this bill to correct this problem would arbitrarily 
afflict certain small businesses whose only sin is that they might have 
three skilled professionals rather than four. Essentially, the 
provision creates a raft of unanswered and complex questions that will 
likely bedevil hundreds of thousands of small business owners who would 
much rather be concentrating on surviving the tough economic climate 
and possibly creating some new jobs.
  Finally, I must say a few words about another category of offsets in 
this bill that are entirely unjustified and were not well considered. 
These are the set of changes to the foreign tax credit rules that 
suddenly appeared on the scene just a few days ago. Unlike most other 
tax offsets that we discuss in the Finance Committee, which have been 
around for a long time and have had the benefit of examination by the 
professional tax community, these were sprung on us just a few days 
ago. They were not part of the administration's budget proposal and 
have not been subject to any kind of hearing in either House.
  Rather, they were apparently concocted by some backroom bureaucrats 
in the bowels of the executive branch and brought forth in the guise 
that these are glaring loopholes that must be closed for the sake of 
the future of the federal fisc. However, what I have been told by 
seasoned tax professionals in the business community is that these are, 
in large part, not loopholes at all but legitimate tax planning 
techniques that the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service have known 
about for years.
  What is worse is that the effective date of these provisions in this 
bill would have a retroactive effect. We all know that retroactive tax 
increases belie good public policy. Moreover, many on the majority 
side, including the chairmen of both of the tax-writing committees, 
earlier agreed that international tax reform provisions should be 
discussed in connection with international tax reform, not as a knee-
jerk reaction to a perceived need for revenues on an unrelated bill. 
This is not good lawmaking and we should abandon consideration of these 
revenue raisers until we can examine them from a tax policy point of 
view.
  In conclusion, we are on the low road with this bill. I am frankly 
ashamed to tell Utahns who ask me about the expired provisions that 
Congress has not dealt with them yet, and that the reason why is that 
we are too busy playing partisan games to manage the affairs of the 
nation in a responsible way.
  It is not too late. Let us walk away from this mess and start again. 
Let us take up a clean bill to extend the expired provisions, which we 
all agree should be enacted, and then deal with these other issues 
separately. Most importantly, let us not increase taxes on anyone when 
the economy is in such a precarious position.
  As our side has stated many times before, these tax provisions have 
been paid for many times over in previous years, by enacting permanent 
offsets to go along with their temporary extension. Let us not hurt our 
constituents in the name of false fiscal responsibility. Let us instead 
employ real fiscal responsibility and start finding ways to address our 
runaway spending addiction.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4304

  Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 4304, offered by 
the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the amendment we will be voting on is an 
amendment that allows the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan 
enrollees to enroll their children up to age 26 immediately rather than 
waiting until January 1, which is what the new law provides. Private 
insurance companies are providing this opportunity now for their 
individuals.
  Let me point out that I understand a point of order might be raised 
under the Budget Act. This has negligible costs. In fact, it will save 
some money in that children who reach the age of 22 between now and the 
end of the year will be required to disenroll and then reenroll again 
after January 1, which makes no sense whatsoever.
  The Office of Personnel Management wants to implement this plan now. 
They have the capacity to do it, but they need the legal authority to 
do it.
  For the sake of our 8 million active Federal workers, retirees, and 
their families, it makes sense for us in an orderly way to allow their 
children up to age 26 to be part of the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Plan now rather than have to wait until January 1.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support the 
waiver of the budget point of order.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, prior to enactment of health care reform, 
there was no law that required insurers to extend coverage for young 
adults to remain on their parents' plans.
  For years, getting a diploma also meant losing your health insurance. 
And whether you went on to college or not, it was often hard as a young 
person to find affordable coverage.
  Overall, Americans in their twenties were twice as likely to go 
without health insurance as older Americans.
  For too many young Americans over the years, the answer to these 
questions was simply to go without health insurance and hope that you 
stayed healthy.
  Under the new health reform law, insurers will be required to allow 
all Americans under the age of 26 who do not get health insurance 
through their job to stay on their parents' plan.
  And beginning in 2014, children up to age 26 can stay on their 
parent's employer plan even if they have another offer of coverage 
through an employer.
  This provision is scheduled to go into effect in September. But every 
major insurance company--more than 65 in total--and several major self-
insured organizations have said they will provide continuous coverage 
for young adults this summer.
  The amendment by the Senator from Maryland would make it possible for 
the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program to follow the lead of 
private insurance companies and make this coverage available sooner, as 
well.
  This is a worthy goal. And the amendment would have negligible 
effects on the budget. And so I support the motion by the Senator from 
Maryland and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been asked to raise a point of order 
that the Cardin amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional 
Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

[[Page 10222]]


  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask that there be a waiver of all points 
of order.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 57 and the nays are 
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.


                           Amendment No. 4325

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 4325, offered by 
the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, much like Senator Cardin's amendment, my 
amendment also recognizes the need to ensure that the youngest in our 
population have access to health care. My amendment does this by 
exempting medical devices primarily to be used by or for pediatric 
patients. The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation both confirmed 
that these excise taxes will not be borne by the medical device 
industry. The tax will be passed on to patients in the form of higher 
prices and higher insurance premiums.
  My amendment prevents this new tax from raising the cost for 
pediatric medical devices--those devices that treat the youngest in our 
population, children who have serious or life-threatening illnesses, 
such as a heart patient or a cancer patient.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Roberts amendment would address almost 
exactly the same matter the Senate voted on March 24. We rejected it 
then and we should reject it now.
  The amendment would carve out an exemption for certain medical device 
manufacturers from paying their fair share of costs for health care 
reform and it will be paid for by reducing the number of people to be 
covered by health insurance. The last thing we should do is cut back on 
health insurance coverage, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 4303, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 4303, as modified, offered by the Senator from Alabama, 
Mr. Sessions.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to spend a few moments to talk 
about this amendment. We have voted on this amendment before, although 
we have made a couple of changes: exempting moneys that are being spent 
on contingency operations for our military overseas and lowering the 
vote threshold for emergencies where we need to go beyond the spending 
cap.
  But this is the bottom line: On kitchen tables all across this 
country families are cutting their budgets. In county courthouses all 
over this country people are cutting budgets. In State legislatures all 
over this country people are cutting budgets. In city council chambers 
all over this country people are cutting budgets.
  Then we get to Washington, and what we are trying to do here is not 
cut a budget. That is the amazing part about this. This does not cut a 
penny. All it does is curb the growth. Are we going to say to this 
country that we are unable to cap the growth of this government over 
the next 3 years?
  This is a baby step. This is not a major assault on the spending of 
the Federal Government. This is a baby step.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this will be the fourth time this year the 
Senate will be voting on an amendment offered by the Senator from 
Alabama which seeks to constrain discretionary spending. Each one of 
the amendments has been similar.
  This is the fifth time I have risen to speak in opposition to this 
amendment, and I must admit I find myself somewhat at a loss for words. 
There are only so many ways to highlight the negative impact of this 
amendment on current services and the President's initiatives, while 
explaining how it does not address real deficit reduction.
  Fortunately, the Senate has voted this amendment down three times 
already. I thank my colleagues for rejecting this amendment in the 
past,

[[Page 10223]]

and I certainly hope we will do so again.
  There are a number of reasons why this amendment is a bad idea. Let 
me remind my colleagues, again, of several of those reasons:
  The Senator from Alabama uses last year's budget resolution as his 
starting point. He believes that since Congress passed a budget 
resolution last year with a nonbinding target for this year, that we 
should now make that target binding.
  But, since this amendment was originally proposed, the Budget 
Committee has reviewed the President's budget request for fiscal year 
2011 and has marked up a new budget resolution. In doing so, the 
committee has changed their recommendation.
  Since the committee with jurisdiction has determined the levels that 
it believes the Congress should keep to, I am not sure what advantage 
the Senate would have in agreeing to the notional targets in last 
year's resolution.
  I have stated this before, but it is important to note again for my 
colleagues. The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2011 allows 
growth in Homeland Security; this amendment does not assume growth. 
This could result in fewer border patrol agents and firefighting grants 
and would weaken TSA's ability to respond to threats to aviation 
security.
  The President has requested more than $732 billion in his budget for 
national defense for fiscal year 2011, including the cost of war. This 
amendment only allocates $614 billion.
  As I stated several weeks ago, over the 3 years covered in this 
amendment, the caps that would be put into place are $141 billion below 
President Obama's 3-year plan, including $50 billion below defense and 
$91 billion below nondefense spending.
  The Sessions amendment is $82 billion below the budget resolution 
which the committee adopted, and includes a cut of $50 billion from 
Defense, over 3 years. In the near term, for fiscal year 2011, the 
Sessions amendment will require the Appropriations Committee to cut 
defense spending by $9.5 billion and nondefense spending by about $11 
billion.
  Such across-the-board cuts make for a great photo opportunity for 
appearing to reduce the deficit, but the consequences could be severe. 
The lack of direction is reckless. Important needs would go unmet. This 
amendment could result in cutting research funds for traumatic brain 
injury, worsening the shortage of air traffic controllers, cutting 
afterschool centers and veterans employment programs, to name just a 
few.
  This week, the President has asked Federal agencies to identify 5 
percent in spending cuts for fiscal year 2012 to areas that are not 
critical to their overall mission. A more thorough, deliberative 
approach such as this is clearly more sensible than slashing budgets 
across-the-board with little or no consideration of the consequences.
  As I have said now several times before, a critical flaw in this 
amendment is it does nothing to seriously reduce the deficit. It fails 
to address the two principal reasons for the government's current 
financial distress.
  The two drivers behind the growth in the debt are unchecked mandatory 
spending and the huge tax cuts for the wealthy passed, with no offsets, 
by the previous administration. This amendment fails to address either 
of those two problems. It simply does not get the job done. Further, it 
hinders the efforts of those who do seek to address the deficit in a 
comprehensive manner.
  The fact of the matter is that many of our Republican colleagues are 
more than willing to put a cap on discretionary spending. At the same 
time, they refuse to support policies that would ensure the Nation has 
sufficient incoming revenue to make a real impact on the deficit, even 
though mandatory spending has increased significantly for the last few 
years.
  We all know that it is impossible to achieve a balanced budget simply 
by freezing discretionary spending. In fact, we could eliminate all 
discretionary spending increases for defense and nondefense spending 
and still not even come close to balancing the budget.
  And again, I remind my Democratic colleagues that if we cut 
discretionary spending without also reaching an agreement on mandatory 
spending and taxes, we will find it impossible to get those who do not 
want to address revenues to come to a meaningful compromise.
  I would also remind my colleagues that the deficit reduction 
commission is working, as we speak, to come up with a comprehensive 
solution to the current systemic imbalances we face.
  And in the fall, they will make their recommendations to the 
Congress, and we have a firm commitment to bring those recommendations 
up for a vote.
  The Senate has already rejected this flawed plan three times this 
year. The flaws remain, and the Senate should reject it a fourth time.
  This amendment fails to address the real causes of our deficits and 
the national debt in a fair and comprehensive manner. It would provide 
far less funding than either the President or the Senate Budget 
Committee recommend.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues once again to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is the Sessions-McCaskill amendment. 
We have voted at least four times on this amendment. The Senator from 
Alabama has offered pretty much the same amendment.
  For now, four times the Senator from Alabama has sought to fix caps 
on the work of the appropriations process. Three times the Senate has 
rejected this amendment. I think we should do so today. The amendment 
by the Senators from Alabama and Missouri robs the Appropriations 
Committee and the Congress of flexibility to respond to changed 
circumstances in years to come. It would set budget caps, binding years 
into the future, no matter what happens between now and then.
  So for all of the reasons the Senate rejected this amendment three 
times before, I believe we should reject it again today. The Sessions 
amendment seeks to change the budget process; therefore, it violates 
the Congressional Budget Act. I thus raise a point of order that the 
Sessions amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget 
Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I move to waive the applicable section of the budget 
resolution with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cardin
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer

[[Page 10224]]


     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Roberts
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 
41. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 
20 minutes of debate, with the time equally divided, with respect to 
the Cornyn amendment No. 4302, and that the amendment be modified with 
the changes at the desk; that Senator Baucus then be recognized to 
offer an amendment on the same subject as the Cornyn amendment; that 
the two amendments be debated concurrently for the total time as 
specified above, with no intervening amendment in order to either 
amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
proceed to vote with respect to the Baucus amendment, to be followed by 
a vote in relation to the Cornyn amendment, as modified; that prior to 
any succeeding votes in this sequence, there be 2 minutes of debate, 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and that any 
succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes; that the next amendment to 
be offered be from the majority and then an amendment from the 
Republican side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Cornyn amendment No. 4302 is modified 
with the changes at the desk.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     TITLE_--TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR FOREIGN-HELD DEBT

     SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Foreign-Held Debt 
     Transparency and Threat Assessment Act''.

     SEC. _02. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the following:
       (A) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, the Committee on Finance, and the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
       (B) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Debt instruments of the united states.--The term ``debt 
     instruments of the United States'' means all bills, notes, 
     and bonds issued or guaranteed by the United States or by an 
     entity of the United States Government, including any 
     Government-sponsored enterprise.

     SEC. _03. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the growing Federal debt of the United States has the 
     potential to jeopardize the national security and economic 
     stability of the United States;
       (2) the increasing dependence of the United States on 
     foreign creditors has the potential to make the United States 
     vulnerable to undue influence by certain foreign creditors in 
     national security and economic policymaking;
       (3) the People's Republic of China is the largest foreign 
     creditor of the United States, in terms of its overall 
     holdings of debt instruments of the United States;
       (4) the current level of transparency in the scope and 
     extent of foreign holdings of debt instruments of the United 
     States is inadequate and needs to be improved, particularly 
     regarding the holdings of the People's Republic of China;
       (5) through the People's Republic of China's large holdings 
     of debt instruments of the United States, China has become a 
     super creditor of the United States;
       (6) under certain circumstances, the holdings of the 
     People's Republic of China could give China a tool with which 
     China can try to manipulate the domestic and foreign 
     policymaking of the United States, including the United 
     States relationship with Taiwan;
       (7) under certain circumstances, if the People's Republic 
     of China were to be displeased with a given United States 
     policy or action, China could attempt to destabilize the 
     United States economy by rapidly divesting large portions of 
     China's holdings of debt instruments of the United States; 
     and
       (8) the People's Republic of China's expansive holdings of 
     such debt instruments of the United States could potentially 
     pose a direct threat to the United States economy and to 
     United States national security. This potential threat is a 
     significant issue that warrants further analysis and 
     evaluation.

     SEC. _04. QUARTERLY REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY FOREIGN HOLDINGS 
                   OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Quarterly Report.--Not later than March 31, June 30, 
     September 30, and December 31 of each year, the President 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report on the risks posed by foreign holdings of debt 
     instruments of the United States, in both classified and 
     unclassified form.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--Each report submitted under 
     this section shall include the following:
       (1) The most recent data available on foreign holdings of 
     debt instruments of the United States, which data shall not 
     be older than the date that is 7 months preceding the date of 
     the report.
       (2) The country of domicile of all foreign creditors who 
     hold debt instruments of the United States.
       (3) The total amount of debt instruments of the United 
     States that are held by the foreign creditors, broken out by 
     the creditors' country of domicile and by public, quasi-
     public, and private creditors.
       (4) For each foreign country listed in paragraph (3)--
       (A) an analysis of the country's purpose in holding debt 
     instruments of the United States and long-term intentions 
     with regard to such debt instruments;
       (B) an analysis of the current and foreseeable risks to the 
     long-term national security and economic stability of the 
     United States posed by each country's holdings of debt 
     instruments of the United States; and
       (C) a specific determination of whether the level of risk 
     identified under subparagraph (B) is acceptable or 
     unacceptable.
       (c) Public Availability.--The President shall make each 
     report required by subsection (a) available, in its 
     unclassified form, to the public by posting it on the 
     Internet in a conspicuous manner and location.

     SEC. _05. ANNUAL REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY THE FEDERAL DEBT OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than December 31 of each year, 
     the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
     risks to the United States posed by the Federal debt of the 
     United States.
       (b) Content of Report.--Each report submitted under this 
     section shall include the following:
       (1) An analysis of the current and foreseeable risks to the 
     long-term national security and economic stability of the 
     United States posed by the Federal debt of the United States.
       (2) A specific determination of whether the levels of risk 
     identified under paragraph (1) are sustainable.
       (3) If the determination under paragraph (2) is that the 
     levels of risk are unsustainable, specific recommendations 
     for reducing the levels of risk to sustainable levels, in a 
     manner that results in a reduction in Federal spending.

     SEC. _06. CORRECTIVE ACTION TO ADDRESS UNACCEPTABLE AND 
                   UNSUSTAINABLE RISKS TO UNITED STATES NATIONAL 
                   SECURITY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY.

       In any case in which the President determines under section 
     ___04(b)(4)(C) that a foreign country's holdings of debt 
     instruments of the United States pose an unacceptable risk to 
     the long-term national security or economic stability of the 
     United States, the President shall, within 30 days of the 
     determination--
       (1) formulate a plan of action to reduce the risk level to 
     an acceptable and sustainable level, in a manner that results 
     in a reduction in Federal spending;
       (2) submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report on the plan of action that includes a timeline for the 
     implementation of the plan and recommendations for any 
     legislative action that would be required to fully implement 
     the plan; and
       (3) move expeditiously to implement the plan in order to 
     protect the long-term national security and economic 
     stability of the United States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                    Amendment No. 4302, as Modified

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, according to the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, the pending legislation before the Senate will add $80 
billion to the Federal deficit. The Treasury Department, in a report to 
Congress last week, projects that by 2015 the national debt will reach 
$19.6 trillion.
  My amendment represents a modest attempt to ensure that Congress is 
kept informed on the economic and national security implications of two 
important matters: first, the ballooning national debt; and, secondly, 
the foreign financing of our deficit spending.
  I believe it is only prudent for Congress to get regular analyses on 
these issues, ones as critical as these.

[[Page 10225]]

  My amendment has two components. First, it requires the General 
Accounting Office to provide Congress with an annual risk assessment on 
the national security and economic hazards posed by the national debt. 
Secondly, it would require the President to provide Congress with 
quarterly risk assessments on the national security and economic 
hazards posed by current levels of foreign holdings of our debt. In the 
event the risk level is found to be too high, the President would have 
to put together and then execute a plan to mitigate that risk in a way 
that reduces Federal spending.
  It is the worst kept secret in the world that our deficit spending is 
being financed by foreign investors who may not always have our 
Nation's best interests at heart. We need to be thinking openly and 
clearly about the potential consequences of this, as well as the 
consequences of allowing our national debt to reach such massive 
proportions.
  The chairman of the Finance Committee apparently opposes my amendment 
and will offer an alternate based closely on mine. I regret to say, 
though, his amendment makes changes to the legislative language that 
could potentially result in tax increases on American taxpayers, which 
could not come at a worse time.
  Under my amendment, the Government Accountability Office would be 
required to recommend to Congress ways to bring down the security and 
economic risks posed by the huge national debt. These recommendations 
would be required to focus on spending reductions, not tax increases. 
By contrast, under the Baucus amendment, this limitation is deleted, 
effectively paving the way for the GAO to recommend that Congress raise 
taxes rather than cut spending.
  Similarly, in cases where foreign holdings of our debt pose 
unacceptable risks to our security and economy, my amendment would 
require the President of the United States to formulate and execute a 
plan to mitigate those risks. His plan would have to reduce Federal 
spending. The Baucus amendment deletes that limitation, opening the 
door for the President's plan to include tax hikes on the American 
taxpayer.
  The Baucus amendment also substantially weakens the requirements for 
the two types of debt risk assessments. First, it cuts the frequency of 
the President's reporting requirements on the risks posed by foreign 
debt holdings, making them annual rather than quarterly, and it also 
shifts the requirement over to the Secretary of the Treasury. It makes 
the reports more vague and, as a result, less useful to Members of 
Congress who need this information.
  Perhaps most puzzling, the Baucus amendment eliminates the 
requirement for the GAO to determine whether our country can sustain 
the security and economic risks posed by growing national debt. I 
recognize it may be unpleasant--or even inconvenient--to think about 
this, but it is a risk to our country, and it is an important question 
that needs transparency and our best thinking.
  We have an obligation to think openly and honestly about what effect 
Congress's runaway spending may have on our Nation's future which, of 
course, is the purpose of my amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to oppose the Baucus amendment and 
to support mine.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                Amendment No. 4326 To Amendment No. 4301

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I call up 
my amendment No. 4326 and ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with once it is reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr. 
     Kerry, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 4326 to 
     amendment No. 4301.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase transparency regarding debt instruments of the 
 United States held by foreign governments, to assess the risks to the 
        United States of such holdings, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

       TITLE __--TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR FOREIGN-HELD DEBT

     SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Foreign-Held Debt 
     Transparency and Threat Assessment Act''.

     SEC. _02. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the following:
       (A) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, the Committee on Finance, the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate.
       (B) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
     Committee on Financial Services, and the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Debt instruments of the united states.--The term ``debt 
     instruments of the United States'' means all bills, notes, 
     and bonds held by the public and issued or guaranteed by the 
     United States or by an entity of the United States 
     Government.

     SEC. _03. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the growing Federal debt of the United States has the 
     potential to jeopardize the national security and economic 
     stability of the United States;
       (2) large foreign holdings of debt instruments of the 
     United States have the potential to make the United States 
     vulnerable to undue influence by foreign creditors in 
     national security and economic policymaking;
       (3) the People's Republic of China, Japan, and the United 
     Kingdom are the 3 largest foreign holders of debt instruments 
     of the United States; and
       (4) the current level of transparency in the scope and 
     extent of foreign holdings of debt instruments of the United 
     States is inadequate and needs to be improved.

     SEC. _04. ANNUAL REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY FOREIGN HOLDINGS OF 
                   DEBT INSTRUMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Annual Report.--Not later than March 31 of each year, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report on the risks posed by 
     foreign holdings of debt instruments of the United States, in 
     both classified and unclassified form.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--Each report submitted under 
     this section shall include the following:
       (1) The most recent data available on foreign holdings of 
     debt instruments of the United States, which data shall not 
     be older than the date that is 9 months preceding the date of 
     the report.
       (2) The total amount of debt instruments of the United 
     States that are held by foreign residents, broken out by the 
     residents' country of domicile and by public and private 
     residents.
       (3) An analysis of the current and foreseeable risks to the 
     long-term national security and economic stability of the 
     United States posed by foreign holdings of debt instruments 
     of the United States.
       (c) Public Availability.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall make each report required by subsection (a) available, 
     in its unclassified form, to the public by posting it on the 
     Internet in a conspicuous manner and location.

     SEC. _05. ANNUAL REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY THE FEDERAL DEBT OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the risks to 
     the United States posed by the Federal debt of the United 
     States.
       (b) Content of Report.--Each report submitted under this 
     section shall include the following:
       (1) An analysis of the current and foreseeable risks to the 
     long-term national security and economic stability of the 
     United States posed by the Federal debt of the United States.
       (2) Specific recommendations for reducing the levels of 
     risk resulting from the Federal debt.

     SEC. _06. CORRECTIVE ACTION TO ADDRESS UNACCEPTABLE RISKS TO 
                   UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMIC 
                   STABILITY.

       If the President determines that foreign holdings of debt 
     instruments of the United States pose an unacceptable risk to 
     the long-term national security or economic stability of the 
     United States, the President shall, within 30 days of the 
     determination--
       (1) formulate a plan of action to reduce such risk;
       (2) submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report on the plan of action that includes a timeline for the 
     implementation of the plan and recommendations for any 
     legislative action that would be required to fully implement 
     the plan; and

[[Page 10226]]

       (3) move expeditiously to implement the plan in order to 
     protect the long-term national security and economic 
     stability of the United States.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I support transparency. I think most of us 
do, certainly in concept. I support the transparency and deficit 
reduction goals of the Cornyn-Kyl amendment. But that amendment is 
unworkable. Why? Because it requires Treasury to speculate about the 
intent behind foreign purchases of U.S. Treasuries. How in the world is 
Treasury going to be able to know the intent behind foreign purchases 
of U.S. treasuries?
  The Cornyn-Kyl amendment also sends the wrong message that the United 
States is deeply suspicious of foreign holders of U.S. debt, and it 
potentially could chill foreign purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. I do 
not think we want to do that now.
  Purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds have held interest rates very low. 
We are very lucky. We are very lucky. I do not think many appreciate 
this: With the budget deficits we have, and even with unemployment way 
too high, things could be much worse; that is, if interest rates were 
much higher. But investors like the safe haven of U.S. Treasuries--and 
that is domestic and foreign purchases of U.S. Treasuries--and that is 
helping to keep interest rates down at very low rates, and that is 
keeping inflation down at very low rates. We are lucky that is a 
condition we are experiencing in the United States today.
  With America just beginning to recover from the financial crisis, we 
cannot risk our ability to finance the debt. We cannot risk it. For 
those reasons, I must oppose the Cornyn amendment.
  However, I urge Senators to support my side-by-side amendment, which 
meets the transparency objectives of the Cornyn-Kyl amendment, but 
could actually be implemented and will avoid roiling financial markets 
in this time of uncertainty.
  Think a bit about what is happening in Europe. This is an uncertain 
time. This is not a time to be taking big risks. Rather, it is a time 
to be steady as she goes and be smart and be steady.
  My amendment would require the President to submit an assessment to 
Congress on the risks posed by foreign holdings of U.S. debt, but 
without unnecessarily singling out individual countries. I do not think 
we want to single out individual countries because that has too great a 
risk of unintended consequences.
  My amendment would require the GAO to assess the risk associated with 
Federal debt, but it would not impose an unconstitutional requirement 
on the President.
  I am joined in this amendment by the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, Senator Kerry, and the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, Senator Dodd. I urge Senators to support the Baucus-Kerry 
side-by-side amendment and oppose the Cornyn-Kyl amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes twenty seconds.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will respond briefly.
  The reason why we require, in my amendment, the President of the 
United States to make the report on the risks to our national security 
and our financial system is because only the President can command all 
of the resources of the U.S. Government, including that of our 
intelligence services, which may have something to say about the 
national security risks associated with countries such as China owning 
so much of our debt. We know that, for example, leaders in the Chinese 
military have threatened retaliation in exchange for the United States 
selling defensive weapons to the country of Taiwan. I would think the 
Treasury Department, which in the Baucus amendment would be required to 
make that report, would not have access to the intelligence and the 
other information necessary--or from the Department of Defense--in 
dealing with China.
  The Senator from Montana also says we should not rock the boat. We 
ought to go steady as she goes. The problem is our boat is going to 
sink and go to the bottom of an ocean of debt if we do not change our 
ways. This is a first step to try to provide additional transparency to 
let the American people assess for themselves whether they think this 
is a good idea or whether their elected representatives in Congress 
should do something about rising debt and runaway spending. I 
understand the Senator from Montana saying we don't want to single out 
special countries. It is true that some of our closest allies such as 
Japan and the United Kingdom also purchased large amounts of our debt, 
but, frankly, I am not as worried about those allies of the United 
States as I am the intention of China, which is not an ally, which is a 
rival, to say the least, and one whose actions we need to be 
appropriately skeptical about and discerning.
  So unfortunately, I think the alternative amendment offered by the 
Senator from Montana waters down this important amendment, and I think 
it would obscure the facts from the American people and policymakers 
here in Congress. So I ask my colleagues to vote against the Baucus 
alternative and vote for the Cornyn amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the rest of my 
time, and I wonder if the Senator from Texas is prepared to yield back 
his.
  Mr. CORNYN. I yield back the remaining time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back our time as well, and I move to table the 
Cornyn amendment. Wait. Which amendment is up first?
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as I understand it, although the Senator 
from Texas personally is, the other side is not prepared to yield back 
the rest of their time. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 
my time and Senator Cornyn's time as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is 
that the Senator from Montana was yielding back. I was willing to yield 
back my time and ask for a vote as soon as it can be conveniently 
arranged.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. I understand you are OK, but your side 
is--now they are OK. So now that we have that settled, all time is 
yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 4326 of the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)

[[Page 10227]]


     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The amendment (No. 4326) was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 4302, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate, to be equally divided, on the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Texas, as modified.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Cornyn 
amendment. This is a transparency amendment. It just gives the American 
people and Congress the information we need in order to make a 
determination of whether Third World countries owning our debt poses a 
national security or a financial risk to the United States. I ask for 
your support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Cornyn amendment is a dangerous one. 
It would send the wrong message to people who are buying America's 
debt. It would send a message that we are suspicious of people who buy 
our debt and would require the Treasury to opine the intent of 
purchasers of U.S. debt. It would thus discourage people from buying 
American debt. This would cause us to have to pay higher interest rates 
on our debt, and that would mean higher rates of inflation. It would 
roil the bond markets at a sensitive time. Look at what has happened in 
Europe and the softness there.
  For lots of reasons I think it is unwise to undertake this risky 
adventure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for a brief 
minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. As soon as this vote is complete, that will be the last 
vote for this evening. We are going to come in tomorrow morning at 9:45 
and immediately go to the Murkowski resolution. There are 6 hours set 
aside for that, and then a motion to proceed, and then an hour if the 
motion to proceed succeeds. So everyone should be prepared tomorrow for 
a long day. We will be in session on Friday more than likely. There 
will be no votes on Friday or Monday. I remind everyone these are the 
only days during the entire work period that there will be no votes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the Cornyn amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Burris
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--61

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The motion to table was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4302), as modified, is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                Amendment No. 4318 to Amendment No. 4301

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I move to set aside the pending amendment 
to call up amendment No. 4318 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4318 to amendment No. 4301.

  Mr. SANDERS. 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 as follows.

 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate big 
oil and gas company tax loopholes, and to use the resulting increase in 
 revenues to reduce the deficit and to invest in energy efficiency and 
                             conservation)

       At the end of subtitle D of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. --. REPEAL OF EXPENSING AND 60-MONTH AMORTIZATION OF 
                   INTANGIBLE DRILLING COSTS.

       Subsection (c) of section 263 is amended by striking the 
     period at the end of the third sentence and inserting ``, or 
     to any costs paid or incurred after December 31, 2010.''.

     SEC. --. REPEAL OF PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR OIL AND GAS 
                   WELLS.

       (a) In General.--Section 613 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Termination of Percentage Depletion for Oil and Gas 
     Properties.--In the case of oil and gas properties, this 
     section shall not apply to any taxable year beginning after 
     December 31, 2010.''.
       (b) Limitations on Percentage Depletion in Case of Oil and 
     Gas Wells.--Section 613A is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any 
     taxable year beginning after December 31, 2010.''.

     SEC. --. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO 
                   DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, NATURAL GAS, OR 
                   PRIMARY PRODUCTS THEREOF.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``, or'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following 
     new clause:
       ``(iv) the production, refining, processing, 
     transportation, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any 
     primary product thereof.''.
       (b) Primary Product.--Section 199(c)(4)(B) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following flush sentence:

     ``For purposes of clause (iv), the term `primary product' has 
     the same meaning as when used in section 927(a)(2)(C), as in 
     effect before its repeal.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 199(c)(4) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(i)(III) by striking ``electricity, 
     natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity'', and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``electricity, 
     natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity''.
       (2) Section 199(d) is amended by striking paragraph (9) and 
     by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (9).
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010.

     SEC. --. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.

       Out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, there is appropriated to

[[Page 10228]]

     the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, 
     under subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act 
     of 2007, $2,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011, 2012, 
     2013, 2014, and 2015.


                Amendment No. 4312 to Amendment No. 4301

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment to call up amendment No. 4312 to amendment No. 4301.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself, Mr. 
     Gregg, and Mr. Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 4312 to 
     amendment No. 4301.

  Mr. VITTER. 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 as follows:

 (Purpose: To ensure that any new revenues to the Oil Spill Liability 
Trust Fund will be used for the purposes of the fund and not used as a 
               budget gimmick to offset deficit spending)

       At the end of the subtitle D of title IV, add the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. NEW REVENUES TO THE OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND.

       The revenue resulting from any increase in the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund financing rate under section 4611 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall--
       (1) not be counted for purposes of offsetting revenues, 
     receipts, or discretionary spending under the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 or the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
     2010; and
       (2) shall only be used for the purposes of the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund.

  Mr. VITTER. With that, I relinquish the floor and thank my colleague 
for the courtesy of letting me call it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 4318

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, at a time when the profits of big oil 
companies are soaring, at a time when we are in the midst of a 
horrendous and huge oilspill on the gulf coast, at a time when we 
desperately need to end our dependence on oil and gas and significantly 
increase our investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy, the 
amendment I am offering is simple and it is straightforward. This 
amendment simply repeals over $35 billion in tax breaks to the oil and 
gas industry, all of which were recommended for elimination in 
President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget.
  Specifically, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 
repeal of expensing of intangible drilling costs, repeal of percentage 
depletion for oil and gas wells, and repeal of the domestic 
manufacturing deduction for oil and gas production would save $35.3 
billion over a 10-year period. According to OMB, the repeal of these 
tax breaks would be equivalent to about 1 percent of domestic oil and 
gas industry revenues over the next decade--1 percent. In other words, 
the costs to the oil and gas industry of repealing these tax breaks is 
negligible.
  More than $25 billion of the money saved under this amendment would 
be used to reduce the deficit, and $10 billion would be used to invest 
in the highly successful Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant 
Program over a 5-year period.
  So we are accomplishing two very important goals. Every day, Members 
of the Senate come down here and they say we have to deal with the 
deficit. Under this amendment, we would save $25 billion for deficit 
reduction. That is pretty significant. Second, Members come down here 
every day and talk about the need to transform our energy system, to 
move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy--wind, solar, biomass, 
geothermal, other technologies. This amendment puts $10 billion in 
moving us away from fossil fuel. So it accomplishes two very important 
purposes.
  This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Whitehouse and Senator 
Wyden. We have support for funding for the Energy Efficiency and 
Conservation Block Grant Program from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
from the National Association of State Energy Officials, and the 
National League of Cities. Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly supports 
our efforts to repeal the oil and gas tax breaks and pay down the 
deficit. Also supporting our amendment are the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, 
the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Conservation Law 
Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends of the Earth, 
Public Citizen, moveon.org, Center for Biological Diversity, One Sky, 
Environment America, and Oceana.
  If there is anything we should be learning from the gulf disaster, it 
is that it is time to move aggressively away from polluting and unsafe 
fossil fuels which are getting more difficult to produce and more 
expensive to produce and that we must move toward safe, clean energy.
  With a $13 trillion national debt, the last thing we need to be doing 
is giving tax breaks to big oil and gas companies that have been making 
recordbreaking profits, year after year.
  I know there are some people who come down here and say that one way 
to deal with the deficit problem is to privatize Social Security, to 
privatize Medicare, to place at risk the retirement benefits of 
millions of senior citizens. I think that is a very bad idea. There are 
other people who come down to the floor and talk about cuts in 
education, cuts to health care that the middle-class and working 
families of this country desperately need. I think cutting those 
programs is a bad idea. But I think going after some of the largest and 
most profitable corporations in this country, which have not paid their 
fair share of taxes, is a positive and intelligent way to deal with 
deficit reduction.
  Let me quote from the President of the United States, Barack Obama, 
in his statements on this subject. Again, what we are proposing is what 
President Obama has recommended in his 2011 budget. This is what 
President Obama said:

       Our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize 
     our national security. It will smother our planet. And it 
     will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk. 
     . . . If we refuse to take into account the full cost of our 
     fossil fuel addiction--if we don't factor in the 
     environmental costs and national security costs and true 
     economic costs--we will have missed our best chance to seize 
     a clean energy future. . . . The time has come, once and for 
     all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future. 
     Now that means . . . rolling back billions of dollars of tax 
     breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in 
     clean energy research and development.

  That is exactly what this amendment is all about. Let me give just 
one example. I hope people are listening to this one. Let me give one 
example of the absurdity of continuing to provide tax breaks to the oil 
and gas industry.
  Last year, ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in the history 
of the world, reported to the SEC that not only did it avoid paying any 
Federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million refund from 
the IRS. So middle-class Americans, people in Vermont and all over this 
country who are working 50 and 60 hours in order to provide the 
necessary income they need to pay the bills for their families, those 
folks go out and they pay their income tax. They may not be too happy 
about it, but they understand that in a civilized society you have to 
pay taxes to pay the bills of government. Not ExxonMobil. The most 
profitable corporation in the history of the world last year not only 
avoided paying any Federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 
million refund from the IRS. If that makes sense to anybody--maybe it 
does--it surely does not make sense to me.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the page of 
ExxonMobil's 10-K report to the SEC that discloses this information.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 10229]]



            United States Securities and Exchange Commission
      Form 10-K--Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of 
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                                   NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS--18. INCOME, SALES-BASED AND OTHER TAXES
                                                                  [Millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      2009                                   2008                                   2007
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         U.S.       Non-U.S.      Total         U.S.       Non-U.S.      Total         U.S.       Non-U.S.      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income taxes:
  Federal and non-U.S.:
    Current........................      $ (838)      $15,830      $14,992       $3,005      $31,377      $34,382       $4,666      $24,329      $28,955
    Deferred--net..................          650        (665)         (15)          168        1,289        1,457        (439)          415         (24)
  U.S. tax on non-U.S. operations..           32  ...........           32          230  ...........          230          263  ...........          263
    Total federal and non-U.S......        (156)       15,165       15,009        3,403       32,666       36,069        4,490       24,744       29,234
  State............................          110  ...........          110          461  ...........          461          630  ...........          630
    Total income taxes.............         (46)       15,165       15,119        3,864       32,666       36,530        5,120       24,744       29,864
  Sales-based taxes................        6,271       19,665       25,936        6,646       27,862       34,508        7,154       24,574       31,728
All other taxes and duties:
  Other taxes and duties...........          581       34,238       34,819        1,663       40,056       41,719        1,008       39,945       40,953
  Included in production and                 699        1,318        2,017          915        1,720        2,635          825        1,445        2,270
   manufacturing expenses..........
  Included in SG&A expenses........          197          538          735          209          660          869          215          653          868
    Total other taxes and duties...        1,477       36,094       37,571        2,787       42,436       45,223        2,048       42,043       44,091
      Total........................       $7,702      $70,924      $78,626      $13,297     $102,964     $116,261      $14,322      $91,361     $105,683
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All other taxes and duties include taxes reported in production and manufactunng and selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses. The above
  provisions for deferred income taxes include net credits for the effect of changes in tax laws and rates of $9 million in 2009, $300 million in 2008
  and $258 million in 2007.

  Mr. SANDERS. ExxonMobil is the same huge oil company that has had 
enough money to provide a $398 million retirement package to its 
outgoing CEO, Lee Raymond, just a few years ago. They made more money 
than any corporation in the history of the world last year. They did 
not pay any Federal taxes. In fact, they got a huge refund from the 
Federal Government. And some years ago this particular corporation paid 
out $398 million in retirement package for its CEO. I do not think that 
makes a whole lot of sense. I think we ought to end that nonsense and 
end it now. This country is at record-breaking deficits. We cannot 
allow large corporations such as ExxonMobil not to pay taxes.
  ExxonMobil is the same oil company that is making its profits by 
gouging consumers at the pump by charging higher and higher prices for 
gasoline even when demand is low and supply is high. In Vermont, it is 
$2.85 a gallon. Working people are having a hard time paying high 
prices for gas. It does not matter whether demand is high or low, it 
appears that gas prices go up. This amendment would begin to make sure 
that ExxonMobil, BP, and the other big oil companies pay at least a 
minimal amount of their huge profits in taxes to the Federal 
Government. That, it seems to me, is the very least we can do.
  Let's be clear. As millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their 
homes, their life savings, and their ability to send their kids to 
college as a result of this Wall Street-induced recession, we cannot 
continue to allow big oil companies to make out like bandits. Enough is 
enough. In the first quarter of 2009, when our gross domestic product 
shrank by 6.4 percent, and overall corporate profits decreased by 5.25 
percent, the five largest oil companies were still able to earn over 
$13 billion in profits. That is in the middle of a severe recession.
  As this chart shows, the combined annual profits of the five largest 
oil companies during the last 10 years--these five companies, 
ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips--earned over 
$750 billion in profits. Not bad. Not bad.
  During the first quarter of this year, big oils' profits increased by 
85 percent. Instead of using these profits to invest in renewable 
energy and to prevent oilspills, big oil and gas companies are 
primarily using this money to buy back their own stock and enrich their 
CEOs.
  According to the American Petroleum Institute, between 2000 and 2007, 
the entire oil and gas industry invested only $1.5 billion in North 
American nonhydrocarbon investments aimed at reducing the Nation's 
dependance on oil. That is less than one-quarter of 1 percent of their 
total profits during this time period. So here you have these companies 
making huge profits. They are not reinvesting that money in making our 
country cleaner and in moving us away from fossil fuels.
  Meanwhile, the CEOs of the big oil companies have received hundreds 
of millions of dollars in retirement packages and total compensation. 
Over the past 5 years Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum, 
received over $725 million in total compensation--$725 million, in a 5-
year period, is not too sloppy.
  John Hess, the CEO of the Hess Oil Company, has received over $240 
million in total compensation; David Lesar, the CEO of Halliburton, has 
received over $114 million; James Mulva, the CEO of ConocoPhillips, has 
received over $95 million; and Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, 
made over $30 million in total compensation over the past 5 years.
  Further, since 2002, the five largest oil companies have repurchased 
almost $270 billion of their own stock. When we talk about asking the 
oil companies to start paying their fair share of taxes, we should also 
remember that the Federal Government has provided very generous 
subsidies above and beyond tax breaks for the oil companies. As this 
chart shows, according to the Environmental Law Institute, from 2002 to 
2008, the United States provided more than $70 billion for fossil fuel 
subsidies, compared to just $12 billion for wind, solar, geothermal, 
biomass, and other renewable energy. This makes no sense at all. We 
have got to put an end to the outrageous tax breaks and subsidies we 
have been giving to oil and gas companies.
  But that is not all this amendment would do. This amendment would 
also invest $10 billion into the Energy Efficiency and Conservation 
Block Grant Program. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
provided $3.2 billion for this highly successful program. It is already 
having a very positive impact in creating jobs, in saving energy in all 
50 States of our country.
  I am now quoting from a letter sent, in support of the $10 billion 
block grant funding that this amendment provides, from Tom Cochran, the 
executive director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. This is what Mr. 
Cochran says:

       Throughout the United States more than 1,200 cities are now 
     receiving direct funding under the EECBG program. We strongly 
     support your efforts to secure predictable and ongoing 
     funding for the EECBG program allowing the nation to continue 
     to invest in these successful local energy and climate 
     initiatives which have been shown to reduce energy use, 
     harmful greenhouse gas emissions and environmental 
     degradation.

  Let me give you some examples of how this program, of which this 
amendment would provide $10 billion over a 5-year period, is working. 
This program is helping to build wind turbines in Carmel, IN, to power 
a city sewer treatment plant. It is being used in Salt Like City, UT, 
to provide loans to businesses to make energy efficiency upgrades. It 
is being used in Columbus, OH, to make 29 public buildings more energy 
efficient. It is being used in Portland, ME, to retrofit 55 public 
buildings. It is being used in Miami to convert landfill gas into the 
production of electricity. It is being

[[Page 10230]]

used in New York City to help homeowners and businesses with energy 
efficiency and renewable energy loans, among many other areas.
  I know in my State of Vermont, dozens and dozens of communities and 
schools are using this money to make their buildings more energy 
efficient and, in some cases, move to sustainable energy. We need to 
keep these investments in energy efficiency and conservation going. 
That is exactly what this amendment would do to the tune of $10 
billion.
  Finally, this amendment would dedicate $25 billion for deficit 
reduction, $10 billion for the block grant program to make our country 
more energy efficient. And the $25 billion for deficit reduction at a 
time of record-breaking deficits and debt, we simply cannot continue to 
give oil and gas companies huge tax breaks.
  I know it is easy for some of my colleagues to come to the floor and 
talk about the deficit, talk about the debt we are leaving our kids and 
grandkids. It makes for great rhetoric. But, occasionally, you are 
going to have to stand up if you are serious about the debt and deficit 
and take on some of those very powerful special interests who are 
getting huge tax breaks, do not need those tax breaks and do not 
deserve those tax breaks. It is more important to protect our kids and 
grandchildren here and the deficit than it is to give tax breaks to 
ExxonMobil. When it comes down to it, this amendment asks a very simple 
question: Which side are you on? Are you on the side of big oil and gas 
companies, companies that year after year after year are making huge 
profits or are you on the side of reducing the deficit, reducing our 
dependence on oil, saving consumers and businesses money on their 
energy bills, and saving the planet we live on? That is what this 
amendment is about.
  I understand that there will be opposition to this amendment. I have 
seen it surface already. After all, since 1990, the oil and gas 
industry has made over $238 million in campaign contributions. And over 
the past 2 years alone, this industry has spent $210 million on 
lobbying, probably half a billion dollars since 1990 on campaign 
contributions and lobbying. They have gotten a lot for that, I must 
confess. For that investment, they have gotten a lot in tax breaks and 
subsidies. But I think now is the time, given the oilspill in the gulf, 
because of the threat of global warming, in order to clean up our 
country, in order to create jobs and energy efficiency and sustainable 
energy, we have got to say to big oil: Sorry. No more. No more. You are 
going to have to start paying your fair share of taxes so we can 
transform our energy system and so we can begin to deal with this very 
serious deficit problem.
  This amendment is the right thing to do for deficit reduction. It is 
the right thing to do to transform our energy system. It is the right 
thing to do for consumers. I ask my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________