[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11030-11042]
[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.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment with an 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. 4369 (to the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill), in the nature of a 
     substitute.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, once again, we are here today to try to 
help create jobs. That is what the underlying bill and substitute 
amendment are all about.
  But the Thune amendment would move in the wrong direction. Instead of 
helping to create jobs, the Thune amendment would probably cost jobs.
  The Thune amendment would reduce aggregate demand in the economy by 
more than $50 billion. Instead of continuing the good that the Recovery 
Act has done, the Thune amendment would stop it in its tracks.
  The Thune amendment would, among other things, cancel unspent and 
unallocated mandatory spending in the Recovery Act.
  The Recovery Act is working.
  This is what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in its 
most recent report:

       CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 
     2010, [the Recovery Act's] policies:
       Raised the level of real . . . gross domestic product . . . 
     by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent;
       Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage 
     points and 1.5 percentage points;
       Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 
     million and 2.8 million; and
       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.

  And the Congressional Budget Office projects that the Recovery Act 
will continue to create jobs. CBO projects that the Recovery Act will 
create the most jobs in the third quarter of this year. And then it 
will begin to taper off.
  We should not cut that job creation off. In this fragile economy, the 
last thing that we should want to do is to cut back this proven job 
creator.
  We passed the Recovery Act to give a needed boost to our economy. We 
designed the bill to work over 2 years. If we were to withdraw these 
critical funds, we would risk causing further damage to a fragile 
economy.
  The Thune amendment would also cut other important spending programs.
  The Thune substitute amendment would cut discretionary spending by 5 
percent across the board for all agencies, except for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense.
  This 5 percent cut would apply to the Department of Homeland 
Security. It would apply to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 
Apparently, it would apply to the intelligence agencies.
  The Thune substitute amendment would freeze the salaries of all 
Federal employees, except for members of the Armed Forces.
  It would freeze the salaries of civilian defense workers. It would 
freeze the salaries of law enforcement. It would freeze the salaries of 
border protection agents.
  Another provision would cap the total number of federal employees at 
current levels. If an agency needed to hire a new employee, it would 
first need to fire an existing employee. That is not how to create 
jobs. This would

[[Page 11031]]

dramatically reduce the flexibility of agencies to make hiring 
decisions.
  I support finding ways to make our government more efficient. But 
these cuts are arbitrary. They are mindless meat-ax cuts.
  The Thune amendment would also make changes to the new health care 
law. These changes would leave more Americans without health insurance. 
The Thune amendment would do this by expanding the affordability 
exception to the responsibility for individuals to buy health 
insurance.
  This expansion would eliminate coverage for millions of Americans. 
And CBO tells us that this would raise health care premiums.
  The irony of this proposal is that it raises money for the government 
because the government would not provide as much in tax credits to 
Americans to help them buy insurance.
  But Congress has just enacted health care reform. Congress just 
expressed our Nation's commitment to helping all Americans to buy 
health insurance. We should let the new health care law take effect.
  The Thune amendment would also propose changes to our medical 
malpractice system that the Senate has rejected many times.
  The Thune amendment would cap damages and make other changes to State 
laws. This is the not the solution to medical malpractice.
  The Congressional Budget Office has said that these kinds of ideas 
would generate savings. But we need to ask: At what cost?
  What would be the cost to patients? What would be the cost to the 
States?
  CBO relied on outside studies in calculating its cost estimate. And 
those same studies point out that certain tort reform policies may also 
increase the number of risky procedures performed. And these policies 
may lead to more patient injuries and more patient deaths.
  One study upon which CBO relied said that these policies would lead 
to a 0.2-percent increase in mortality. These policies in the Thune 
amendment could lead to more patient deaths.
  That is an awfully high price to pay.
  Our Nation's civil liability system has always been forged at the 
State level. Nationalizing that system with damage caps would put 
patients at risk.
  The Thune amendment employs some of the offsets that it does because 
it drops the oil spill liability tax. And the Thune amendment employs 
some of the offsets that it does because it drops the tax loophole 
closers in the underlying substitute amendment.
  The Thune amendment thus would allow big oil companies to pay less 
into the oil spill liability trust fund, to pay for oil spills.
  The Thune amendment thus would allow investment managers to continue 
to pay lower capital gains tax rates on their service income than other 
Americans do on their wages.
  The Thune amendment thus would allow some professionals who organize 
as S corporations to avoid paying their fair share of Social Security 
and Medicare payroll taxes.
  And the Thune amendment thus would allow multinational corporations 
to continue accounting dodges to avoid paying their fair share of taxes 
here in America.
  These decisions reflected in the Thune amendment are bad tax policy. 
These decisions preserve unfairness and inequity in the tax law.
  And so, the Thune amendment would put the recovery at risk by 
curtailing the Recovery Act. It would cut the number of Americans with 
health insurance and raise premiums. It would nationalize medical 
malpractice law, putting patients at risk. And it would protect big oil 
and multinational corporations that ship their jobs overseas.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Thune amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is 
recognized.


                Amendment No. 4376 to Amendment No. 4369

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as provided for in the order, I now call 
up my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4376 to amendment No. 4369.

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, this amendment is, in my view, probably 
the most important thing that we can do for the economy right now. The 
Senator from Montana talked about job creation. Everybody in this 
Chamber cares about that. I think Democrats and Republicans alike 
believe we have to create jobs in our economy. We need to get economic 
growth going again.
  I think we have a fundamental difference about how best to do that, 
and what my amendment would do is address what I think are the two 
biggest problems we face--the sort of clouds, if you will, hanging over 
the economy in this country. One is debt. We have this spiraling 
Federal debt which is set to double in 5 years and triple in 10 years 
on the current path under the budget that has been proposed by the 
President.
  If we include the debt that government agencies owe each other--in 
other words, intergovernmental debt--add that to the public debt, right 
now we are in debt $13 trillion. That is the total amount of debt we 
have today. That is going to balloon in the next 5 years and the next 
10 years. The budget window we use to do our budgeting around here 
suggests it is going to be much higher than that.
  So I think what the American people are saying, at least what I 
believe the American people are saying--and I think we have probably 
different interpretations of that, but what I believe the American 
people are saying and what I see in poll after poll after poll is 
people are concerned about the cloud this growing public debt imposes 
on our economy and the burden it places on future generations. They are 
also profoundly concerned about their jobs and about their economy. 
They want Congress to take steps that will help grow the economy and 
create jobs.
  The best way to do that is for the government to get out of the way, 
so to speak, and incentivize small businesses to do what they do best; 
that is, create jobs. It is the small businesses in our economy that 
are the economic engine. They are job creators. We should not be 
imposing more burdens on them. We should try and keep taxes low. We 
should try and keep regulations and keep from imposing new governmental 
burdens on our small business sector and our economy.
  So we have a piece of legislation before us today in which I think 
both sides, Republicans and Democrats, agree we need to do something to 
address unemployment insurance and extending the benefits of those who 
have lost their jobs in the recession.
  We need to address the issue of physician reimbursement cuts which 
will occur if Congress does not take steps to address that. Of course, 
we need to extend the expiring tax provisions that many of us support--
for example, the tax credit for investment in research and development, 
which is one of the things companies use to keep us more competitive. 
Those are all things that have expired, are expiring. Those are issues 
that need to be addressed. I think both of us agree on that.
  The question becomes, What is the best remedy, how best do we do 
that? What the Democratic majority has proposed is a solution which, at 
the end--and I think this is even under the best-case scenario, which I 
do not believe we have a CBO score on yet--but the more recent version 
of their piece of legislation would still add about $50 billion to the 
debt. So it would increase the amount of debt I just mentioned earlier. 
It does raise taxes. It raises taxes on small business. It raises taxes 
on investment.
  It puts more taxes on oil companies by raising taxes that would go 
into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And, of course, because my 
amendment does not include that tax increase, somehow we are painted as 
being in defense of

[[Page 11032]]

big oil. Well, let me point out one thing about that--this was true in 
health care; it has been true with many things that have happened here 
on the floor--and that is, it would be one thing if the revenues raised 
by increasing the tax from 8 cents to 49 cents per barrel of oil were 
actually going to be used to clean up oilspills. It is stated to go 
into the trust fund, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but it will be 
used to fund other things. So, again, you get this double-counting. You 
get this practice we have seen employed here by the majority on a 
number of occasions where you are raising revenue that is supposedly 
for a specific purpose, the proceeds of which are going to be used for 
something entirely different. That, of course, is coupled with the fact 
that the tax, as we all know, is going to be passed on to the American 
consumers. So the American consumers are going to be burdened with 
higher taxes. At the same time, the other side can say: We are being 
tough on big oil. We are going to stick them with this big new tax. 
Ironically, it is not going to go to clean up oilspills; it is going to 
go to fund these things we are talking about funding here.
  We have a better way. We can reduce government spending and do this. 
We can actually extend these expiring tax provisions by reducing taxes 
by about $26 billion under my amendment. We can cut spending by over 
$100 billion under my amendment. And we can actually make some progress 
toward reducing the Federal debt. We have about $68 billion, under my 
amendment, that can be used to pay down the Federal debt. So we reduce 
the debt, we cut taxes, we extend unemployment benefits, we address the 
physician reimbursement issue--and by the way, my amendment addresses 
that through the end of the year 2012. The amendment now offered by the 
Democratic majority extends it to the end of this year. So if you are a 
physician out there who is looking for some certainty and looking for 
something that is a long-term solution to this issue of cuts in 
reimbursement, then you get, under my amendment, an extension to the 
end of the year 2012. Under the Democratic majority option here today, 
you get something that extends it only until the end of this year. So 
you can do all those things and still cut the debt, cut taxes, and 
reduce Federal spending. So what we are offering is a different way.
  It seems to me, when you are sitting on a $13 trillion debt and you 
are growing your debt at $1.5 trillion every year, which is what is 
happening--the deficit this year is going to be about $1.5 trillion. 
That is what it was last year. We are looking at trillion-dollar 
deficits as far as the eye can see, to the point where the interest on 
the debt at the end of the 10-year period we use for budgeting purposes 
in the Senate will exceed the amount we spend on defense. We will spend 
more on interest on the debt than we spend on national security in this 
country if we continue down this path. In fact, we will spend, at the 
end of the 10 years, 4.1 percent of our entire economy--our entire 
gross domestic product--on interest on the debt.
  Madam President, $13 trillion in debt--the other day, I tried to put 
that in perspective so people can appreciate and understand it because 
I think sometimes it is hard for most of us, myself included, to wrap 
our heads around $1 trillion. It sounds like a lot in the abstract. But 
to try to put it into a perspective that perhaps we can understand, I 
used the analogy of, what is 1 trillion seconds? If you took 1 trillion 
seconds, what would that mean in terms of total number of years? Well, 
1 trillion seconds represents 31,746 years. If you took 13 trillion 
seconds--which is what the debt now represents, the total debt our 
country owes--you are looking at over 412,000 years, if a dollar equals 
a second. So 1 trillion seconds: 31,746. Madam President, $13 trillion 
is what our total debt consists of today. Again, you are looking at 
over 412,000 years. I think that speaks to why we need to get the debt 
and the spending here under control.
  Interestingly enough, a while back here in the Senate, to much 
fanfare, the majority passed pay-go rules. The assumption would be that 
somehow going forward new spending would be paid for and reductions in 
tax revenues would be offset somehow by increases in tax revenues and 
all that.
  Well, since that time, since the passage of pay-go, the Senate has 
already approved well over $100 billion in new spending, not paid for 
that is added to the debt. If this legislation is enacted, that number 
will approach $200 billion since we passed pay-go--the much-touted, 
with much fanfare, as I said, solution that was going to solve the 
fiscal woes of our country and suggest a different way of doing things 
in the Congress.
  Well, anything but that has happened. On the contrary, every time we 
have had a major piece of legislation, pay-go has been waived. We waive 
it. We declare everything an emergency. Now everything is an emergency 
and nothing gets paid for, and the debt continues to grow, and the 
debt-o-meter, the spend-o-meter around here continues to spin faster 
and faster and faster, and the credit card is handed to future 
generations who are going to have to deal with our inability to live 
within our means.
  So the alternative we offer to the legislation before the Senate 
today that is being put forward by the Democratic majority is, as I 
said, very simple and very straightforward. It does a number of things. 
It does all the things we need to do in terms of extension of 
unemployment insurance, of the physician fee--making sure that cut does 
not occur, that the physician reimbursement issue is addressed, as I 
said, through the end of the year 2012--as well as extending these 
expiring tax provisions that are very important to our economy and to 
our economic growth.
  But we do that in a different way. We take $37.5 billion of the $50 
billion in unobligated stimulus funds and use those funds to extend 
existing tax and benefit provisions. We cut money from the government 
by reducing congressional budgets. I think it is fair that when the 
American family, the American business community, and people across 
this country are making hard decisions about their own personal 
budgets--their family budgets, their business budgets--having to figure 
out where they are going to cut back, the least we in Congress can do 
is to scrub our budgets and figure out what we can do to reduce 
spending.
  So we cut money from the government by reducing congressional 
budgets. We rescind unspent Federal funds. There are lots of 
appropriated moneys out there that do not get spent that revert back or 
get spent later. What this amendment simply says is, if moneys that 
have been appropriated have not been spent, then let's use that money 
to pay down the Federal debt. Let's do these things we need to do here, 
and then let's make sure we are not continuing to spend and spend and 
spend, particularly dollars that are not needed. It requires the 
government to sell unused lands and to auction off unused equipment.
  It also imposes a 1-year freeze on the salaries of Federal employees 
and eliminates their bonuses and caps the total number of Federal 
employees at current levels. I have a modification that would amend 
this legislation because there has been a concern raised that it would 
mean nobody could get a raise, even those who deserve it. What the 
modification would do is allow Federal agencies and managers 
flexibility to determine how they are going to work within their 
personnel budgets to provide, perhaps, raises for those who have been 
deserving. But, overall, their top-line number would be frozen. So it 
is not as if no Federal employee ever would have to go without any kind 
of a raise. But we think it is important that the Federal Government go 
on a diet, just as the family budget is having to do right now as well. 
We also collect $3 billion in unpaid taxes from Federal employees.
  We encourage responsibility and prioritizing within the Federal 
budget by requiring a 5-percent across-the-board discretionary spending 
cut for all agencies, except at the VA and the Department of Defense.
  Again, there has been a lot of suggestion that somehow this is going 
to wreck the economy and force--as I saw

[[Page 11033]]

some things out yesterday--that this is going to force a government 
shutdown. What this amounts to is a 2-percent reduction through the end 
of this fiscal year, which is September 30. I do not think, out of a 
$652 billion budget, that if you are a good manager at these Federal 
agencies, you could not find 2 percent to shave in order to achieve the 
savings we need to pay for this legislation. It encourages 
responsibility and prioritizing as well by saving $5 billion in 
eliminating what is nonessential government travel. And it eliminates 
bonuses for poor-performing government contractors.
  Finally, it does create a new deficit reduction trust fund where 
rescinded balances and moneys saved through this amendment will be 
deposited for the purposes of paying down the Federal debt.
  Now, I said this the other day, and I will say this again: I think 
this ought to be a no-brainer for us here. Irrespective of which side 
of the political aisle you are on, you undoubtedly are hearing from 
constituents across this country who are very concerned about the 
amounts of spending, the amounts of debt, who are concerned about 
increasing taxes, particularly businesses. We hear a lot about 
investment frozen on the sidelines because investors are concerned 
about the uncertainty that exists out there with regard to taxes and 
what they are going to do in the future.
  Clearly, this bill, as I said earlier, raises taxes. It raises taxes 
by about $50 billion in the current version of it. What we would do is 
reduce the tax burden by extending these expiring tax provisions but do 
it in a way that does not require new taxes on investment, new taxes on 
small businesses, new taxes on our economy at a time when we can least 
afford it, when we ought to be looking at ways to keep taxes low and to 
make sure we are doing everything possible to lessen the burden on our 
small businesses, those job creators in our economy.
  One of the things that was mentioned, and we do in our legislation, 
is we do address one of the issues with regard to health care. I think 
the Senator from Montana characterized that lowering the affordability 
threshold for the individual mandate will strike at the heart of health 
care reform.
  Well, first off, let me just point out that this amendment was taken 
directly from an amendment that was filed by Senator Schumer during the 
Finance Committee markup of the health care reform bill. I do not think 
his intention was to strike at the heart of health care reform. I 
thought the heart of health care reform was to make sure people have 
access to affordable coverage. I do not think that was Senator 
Schumer's intent. I think he was thinking we ought to make sure low-
income people were not forced to buy unaffordable coverage simply 
because of health care reform and because they needed a way to finance 
health care reform.
  This amendment would make sure individuals and families are not 
subject to an intrusive and burdensome new Federal mandate if they 
cannot afford health insurance. So it is a fairly straightforward 
modification to the health care legislation which takes away some of 
the burden that is imposed on people at lower income levels. In fact, 
it makes a lot of sense to me. If you look at the current health care 
bill, under that bill low-income individuals--those under 300 percent 
of the Federal poverty level--are slated to pay about $1 billion in 
mandate penalties.
  Now, the suggestion was that somehow, if we make this change, 
insurance premiums are going to go up. Well, I am telling you 
something. We tried to make this point many times during the course of 
the debate on health care reform. Insurance premiums are going up. In 
fact, PricewaterhouseCoopers predicted this week that health care costs 
are going to continue to rise at an unsustainable rate--next year by 
about 9 percent. So it is already clear that health care reform is not 
going to live up to many of its promises. It is going to continue to 
raise premiums for most Americans. And that has a lot more to do with 
the health care reform, the substance of that, than anything else. It 
does not have anything to do with what we are trying to accomplish here 
by, as I said, reducing the impact of the individual mandate on low-
income individuals in this country.
  So these are all fairly straightforward reforms. We do touch medical 
malpractice reform. We think that is something that should have been a 
part of health care reform and was not that would help reduce health 
care costs for people in this country and achieve some savings we can 
use to, again, help pay down the Federal debt, help address the 
concerns we need to address with this legislation.
  But bottom line, as I said earlier, what we are looking at here is a 
very clear choice for U.S. Senators. U.S. Senators can choose to solve 
the problem before us in one of two ways. The first way is through $50 
billion in tax increases, $50 billion in additional debt, and over $100 
billion in additional spending--or about $100 billion in additional 
spending. The alternative I offer cuts taxes by $26 billion, reduces 
spending by $100 billion, and cuts the Federal debt, reduces the 
Federal debt by $68 billion, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  In my view, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there is 
nothing more important to our economy than dealing with this cloud of 
debt, this huge burden that hangs over our economy of out-of-control 
Federal spending, out-of-control Federal debt, deficits that are over 
$1 trillion or at $1 trillion as far as the eye can see, the concern 
about tax increases on our economy and how those would impact our small 
businesses and their ability to create jobs. So this legislation, 
again, deals with the issue of the debt, deals with the issue of taxes, 
deals with the issue of spending, and accomplishes all of the 
underlying objectives we all have of extending unemployment benefits, 
of dealing with these expiring tax provisions, and dealing with the 
impending reduction in physician reimbursements.
  So with that introduction, I reserve the remainder of my time. I 
think we have other speakers who want to come down, and I look forward 
to hearing from them as well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I might ask if the Senator from New 
Hampshire wishes to speak.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I appreciate the chairman's request. I 
wish to speak for 5 minutes in support of the Thune amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Sure.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise to congratulate the Senator from 
South Dakota for his amendment. This is a responsible way to approach 
this issue.
  The amendment to the bill that is before us, offered by the 
Democratic leadership, adds $50 billion to the deficit; that is $50 
billion to the debt. That is $50 billion our kids have to pay so we can 
spend money today on politically attractive things. On top of that, the 
bill, as proposed, has some onerous tax policy in it which will 
significantly contract economic activity in this country by taxing 
people at ordinary income for activity which has historically been 
taxed at a capital gains rate, thus forcing people to be less 
incentivized to go out there and be productive and create jobs. It is 
poor tax policy.
  So the Senator from South Dakota has come up with a proposal, which 
is the way we should be governing now, which is to pay today for the 
things we want to spend on today. We are facing a $1.4 trillion 
deficit--$1.4 trillion--this year. Next year, we are facing an equally 
large deficit. Under the President's budget and the budget of the 
Democratic leadership, we are talking a $1 trillion deficit for as far 
as the eye can see. The debt of this country is going to double in 5 
years under the President's and the Democratic budget--double. It is 
going to triple in 10 years. A child born at the beginning of the Obama 
administration arrived in our Nation with an $89,000 debt--$89,000. By 
the time my colleagues on the other side of the aisle get finished, 
should the President be reelected, under the terms of his budget that

[[Page 11034]]

child is going to have a $200,000 debt to pay. Why? Because we keep 
getting bills like this: $50 billion here, $100 billion here, $25 
billion here; money being spent without being paid for and, therefore, 
being added to the deficit and to the debt. It is totally wrong. It is 
unfair. It is unfair that one generation should do this to another 
generation, and it is certainly not responsible government.
  We had a big debate in this Chamber about 2 months ago now about how 
responsible the other side of the aisle was going to be on spending. 
They called it pay-go. It should have been called fraud-go because as a 
very practical matter, that is what it has become. This bill games the 
pay-go rules of the Democratic leadership to the tune of $50 billion by 
declaring it an emergency on items that are not emergencies, that we 
know exist and that have been spent on now for quite a while. Since 
that bill was passed, that pay-go bill, which allegedly was going to 
require this Congress to pay for all the money it was going to spend, 
the other side of the aisle has brought forward, or is in the process 
of bringing forward, $200 billion of spending which is not paid for--
$200 billion in spending which will be added to the deficit and to the 
debt. That is totally irresponsible.
  So the Senator from South Dakota has it right, as he so often does. 
He has said: Let's do this responsibly. If we are going to spend this 
money, if we are going to put forward these extenders, if we are going 
to spend this money on these different social initiatives, let's pay 
for them because they benefit us today and we shouldn't pass the bill 
for them on to our children tomorrow, next year, and 10 years from now. 
This is responsible budgeting.
  I congratulate the Senator from South Dakota, and I look forward with 
enthusiasm to finally voting for a bill around here that is paid for, 
which is what we should be doing every day instead of spending money we 
don't have and passing those bills on to our kids.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, could I inquire how much time we have on 
our side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 35\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors of this 
amendment Senators McConnell, McCain, Isakson, Bond, Enzi, Cornyn, 
Barrasso, Roberts, Coburn, Chambliss, Scott Brown, and Judd Gregg.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am pleased to be here to cosponsor and 
support my friend from South Dakota, Senator Thune, on this amendment. 
As the Senator from New Hampshire just stated, isn't it time we stopped 
burdening our children and our grandchildren with massive debt?
  Our office is being flooded with calls concerning the extension of 
unemployment benefits. We want to extend the unemployment benefits 
under this amendment until November, but we want to pay for it. We want 
to do something groundbreaking around here that hasn't happened in a 
long time: We want to pay for it. We want to pay for the expiring 
unemployment provisions until November. We want to extend the expired 
tax provisions, including a tax credit for research and 
experimentation, and the State and local sales tax deduction through 
the end of the year. We want to drop the tax increases, drop the $4 
billion extension of Build America bonds, and drop the $24 billion in 
State Medicaid bailouts. We want to fully pay for this with spending 
cuts. The amendment does provide relief for the doctors by adding an 
additional 2 years to the doc fix and reforming our broken and onerous 
medical malpractice system.
  Let me point out that day after day during the ObamaCare debate we 
came to the floor and said: You are using phony assumptions as to 
assessments of the entire cost of ObamaCare, and part of that was the 
``doc fix'' which wasn't going to happen, which was going to cut 
Medicare payments to physicians by some 21 percent. We said every time: 
You are not going to do this. You are not going to cut physician 
payments by some 21 percent for doctors who provide care for Medicare 
enrollees. Over on the other side, they even admitted it. So now we 
have to do the doc fix. We have to make sure doctors who treat Medicare 
patients are adequately reimbursed; otherwise, they will stop treating 
Medicare patients.
  So it is kind of hypocritical for us to be blamed for the delay in 
the ``doc fix'' when that was the assumption--that was the assumption, 
that there would be a 21-percent cut in the selling of ObamaCare to the 
American people.
  This amendment saves the taxpayers $113 billion in unnecessary 
spending. It rescinds $38 billion in the unobligated spending of 
stimulus funds. It cuts wasteful and unnecessary government spending. 
It collects the unpaid taxes of Federal employees. It freezes their 
salaries and caps their numbers. It imposes a 5-percent, across-the-
board cut in government spending for all agencies except the VA and the 
DOD, and it creates a new deficit reduction trust fund where rescinded 
balances and monies saved through this amendment will be deposited for 
the purposes of paying down the Federal debt.
  Now, regarding the 5-percent across-the-board cut in government 
spending for all agencies except Veterans and Department of Defense, do 
Americans know the size of government has doubled since 1999; that the 
cost of government has spiraled out of control? A 5-percent cut would 
be minuscule as compared to the dramatic increases we have imposed--
yes, during the previous administration, as well as this 
administration--including a $1 trillion unpaid-for Medicare Part D 
prescription drug program.
  So this amendment cuts taxes, it cuts spending, and it reduces the 
deficit. The deficit has now spiraled so far out of control that there 
is no rational economist who believes this is sustainable without some 
kind of profound financial crisis. Now we are up to a projection of a 
$16 trillion deficit by the end of the next decade. We are amassing as 
far as the eye can see--I think now it is up to $1.6 trillion--debt 
just for this year alone that we are laying on our children and our 
grandchildren.
  As I have said several times on this floor, there is a revolution 
going on out there. It is a peaceful revolution. It has been derided by 
the liberal left and many in the media. But the fact is, they are angry 
and they have every right to be angry. They have every right. The 
greatness of America is that every generation has passed on to the 
following generation a better Nation than the one we inherited. With 
this overwhelming burden of debt and deficit in the name of economic 
stimulus, in the name of job creation--which, obviously, has not met 
the predictions at the time of the passage of the stimulus package--
have turned out to be totally false.
  So here we are. We are in a situation where we have an opportunity to 
extend the expiring unemployment provisions, extend the expired tax 
provisions, including an important tax credit for research and 
development. It drops things such as Build America bonds. Build America 
bonds. Please. Right now, that is just an additional $4 billion. We are 
going to cut spending, and we will provide relief for doctors by adding 
an additional 2 years for the doc fix.
  Obviously, that fix needs to be enacted. I am in support of that. But 
isn't it a little bit of a hypocrisy to come to the floor and say we 
have to get this done, we have to have the doc fix, when all during the 
debate on so-called health care reform, the 21-percent cut for Medicare 
patients was part of our selling the American people that the cost of 
ObamaCare would be less than $1 trillion? Isn't that a little 
hypocritical?
  I wish to quote from the New York Times recently:

       If the economists are divided about what just happened, the 
     rest of the world is not divided about what should come next. 
     Voters, business leaders and political leaders do not seem to 
     think that the stimulus was such a

[[Page 11035]]

     smashing success that we should do it again, even with 
     today's high unemployment.

  There is no better example than last May's unemployment numbers that 
show a drop from 9.9 to 9.7, until you get into the not-so-fine print: 
41,000 jobs created in the private sector, and 440 new jobs, 
approximately, to hire census takers. That is what the stimulus is all 
about? Give me a break.
  So this is our chance. This is our chance to show the American people 
that we are going to cut their taxes, we are going to take care of the 
unemployed, we are going to make the doc fix, and we are going to at 
the same time cut spending and start at least a beginning attempt to 
get this burgeoning deficit under control. It reduces the deficit by 
some $68 billion.
  Are there tough things in this measure? Of course. Of course there 
are tough things in this measure. But it is about time we started 
making some tough decisions because we do have an obligation to our 
children and our grandchildren which we have, up until now, clearly 
abrogated.
  I hope my colleagues will consider voting for this amendment and get 
us on the path toward reducing this debt burden we are placing on 
future generations of Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty-six minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I wish to take over for Senator Thune, 
if I may. I want to cover for a moment what Senator Gregg talked about, 
because we are looking for the pea under the pinochle shell.
  We passed, on February 12, pay-go. On February 24, we borrowed $46 
billion outside of pay-go. We said it didn't apply. On March 3, we 
borrowed $99 billion and said it didn't apply. On March 2, it was $10 
billion and we said it didn't apply. In April, it was $18 billion.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. After passage of legislation that was trumpeted 
everywhere that from now on we were going to pay for additional 
spending, how could that happen?
  Mr. COBURN. It happened because we waived the pay-go rules and we 
were outvoted. The pay-go rules are a farce.
  On May 27, $59 billion. With the new bill, another $50 billion. So 46 
and 18 is 64, 74, 173, 193, 262, and now 50--that is $312 billion added 
to the deficit this year above the $1.5 trillion we are already going 
to run.
  We get criticized all the time--and I specifically do--as the party 
of no. Here is what we have offered: Reduce the national debt; this 
body said no. Sell unused property; this body said no. Reduce the 
printing costs, which is $4 billion, and we can save printing this, 
which nobody reads, and it is all on line; this body said no. Freeze 
total Federal pay for right now until we get out of the mess we are in; 
this body said no. Living within our means--an amendment that said we 
have to live within the revenues that come in--this body said no. 
Complying with pay-go; this body said no. Cut agency overhead costs; 
this body voted no. Cut Congress's own budget; this body said no. These 
are all recorded votes. Eliminate corporate welfare; this body said no. 
Stop the bridge to nowhere, that happened 4, 5 years ago but this body 
said no. Make Federal employees pay taxes; they owe $3 billion in 
unpaid taxes and we have no enforcement, but this body said no. 
Consolidate duplicative government programs that do the same thing. 
There are 70 programs to feed the hungry, 105 programs for math, 
education, science, and technology incentives--6 different agencies--
this body said no. Eliminate bonuses for failed contractors in the 
private sector who don't perform, which is $8 billion a year; this body 
said no. Decrease nonessential government travel, which saves $5 
billion a year; this body said no. Require the Department of Energy to 
save energy; ironically, they are the worst offender in the Federal 
Government in terms of wasting energy, and this body said no.
  Isn't it interesting that, with 41 votes, we offer these things and 
every time they are rejected? They are commonsense things that 
everybody else in America expects us to be doing, but this body says 
no.
  Why should we do the Thune amendment? I heard the chairman of the 
Finance Committee say a minute ago that having a 5-percent cut across 
the board in all of the agencies, except the VA and the Defense 
Department, would wreck the Federal Government. He obviously isn't 
aware that President Obama has asked his own agencies to do exactly 
that. All Senator Thune is doing in this amendment is what the 
President is asking the agencies to do. But do you know what. This body 
is going to say no. We bring forward a bill that only spends $50 
billion of our children's money instead of $78 billion or $88 billion, 
which was defeated yesterday, as if that is some big deal.
  This body is going to pass it. They are not going to say no to 
growing the government, to spending money that we don't have, to giving 
advantage to those who are well heeled and connected. They are not 
going to do that. We have lost control of what is important in America. 
If we were to pass the Thune amendment today, do you know what would 
happen? The international financial community would get the first 
signal from the American Congress that we are starting to make some 
steps toward austerity--the first signal. We don't have any out there 
now.
  Yesterday, it was reported that the M3 money supply in this country 
is at the lowest level of GDP since 1932. Do you know what that 
predicts? It predicts that the economy is going to slow rather than 
increase. That predicts a double dip recession. We have tried 
everything Japan tried for 10 years, and it didn't work. It is a lost 
decade in Japan. It is stimulus money and not failing to cut the 
spending of the government. We are going to do that again. We are going 
to continue to increase the government.
  People may say, why would you want to freeze total Federal wages? 
Well, it is easy. The average Federal employee in the United States 
today makes $78,000 a year. They have benefits of $40,000 a year. The 
average private sector employee makes $42,000 a year and has $20,000 
worth of benefits. Shouldn't we, when we are running a $1.6 trillion--
it is not $1.4 trillion because we have added $200 billion, and we are 
going to add another $50 billion with this. When we are running that 
kind of deficit, shouldn't we say, time out, no increases, except for 
stellar performance, in the Federal Government, until we get our house 
in order? But this body is going to say no again. They are going to say 
no.
  The question is, what can we do to fix our economy? Borrowing money 
that we don't have to spend on things that we don't absolutely need is 
not the answer to solving the problems with our economy. The answer is 
for us to live within our means, create a stable environment where 
business will invest and can plan on what is coming next from Congress. 
We have them so skittish that they won't spend. That is the reason we 
are going to have a double dip recession. That is the reason the money 
supply has shrunk in spite of zero percent interest rates at the 
Federal Reserve--because people will not take a risk, because we are 
not leading with something that gives them confidence about the future. 
We have to change that.
  I will end with this. That is the party of yes. Increase the national 
debt, yes. Violate pay-go, yes. More corporate welfare, yes. Increase 
the debt limit, yes. Fund the bridge to nowhere and every other earmark 
like it, yes. Increase Congress's own budget at a time when we should 
be austere, yes. Tax breaks for special interests, yes. Borrow 
billions--not billions, but trillions--from our grandchildren, yes. 
Create duplicative government programs, yes. Finally, create a lower 
standard of living for us, our children, and our grandchildren.
  That is not what we are about, except that is what the Baucus bill 
does. It thinks in the short term and ignores the long term. It ignores 
the reality

[[Page 11036]]

that this government has to get smaller for us to not become Greece. It 
plays the games that are typical of Washington, which the American 
people are rejecting.
  One final word about doctors, having been one and practiced for over 
25 years. What is happening out there right now? What is happening out 
there now is the same kind of confusion that is happening in the 
business community. Doctors are saying: I can no longer take a Medicare 
patient. You are going to give me an extension for 6 months, but there 
is no guarantee that in 5 or 6 months I am going to have the revenue I 
need to keep an office open to care for Medicare patients. So what is 
happening? Medicare patients all across this country are going and 
finding out their doctors no longer take Medicare.
  We saw, earlier this week, when HHS released the first of the 
thousands of regulations that between 87 million and 127 million 
Americans aren't going to get to keep the insurance they have. They are 
not going to under the grandfather clause. So what we are doing is 
sending every mixed signal possible to not create stable planning, 
positive input, and positive attitudes about what can happen positively 
in this country. We have to send a signal to the doctors. The Thune 
amendment pays for a doctor fix until 2012. It gives them a chance to 
say, yes, I will stay in Medicare; I can afford to stay in Medicare. If 
we don't do that, we are going to have hundreds of thousands of 
Medicare patients who no longer have the doctor they have had for 
years. It is not because the doctor wants to turn away the patient, but 
because the doctor has to turn away the patient because they can no 
longer afford to care for Medicare patients.
  So we play this game and bring to the floor a bill with $50 billion 
that we are going to charge to our grandchildren, and we have bought 
the votes off so we can pass it, and we are still doing the same thing. 
We are still expanding the Federal Government, we are borrowing against 
our future, we are lowering the standards of living of our children, 
and we are creating a mockery of the American dream.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I may need 3 or 4 or 5 more minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield as much time as the Senator wishes to consume.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, when I was appointed to the Senate, I made a promise 
to myself not to let this opportunity pass without helping to recognize 
the contribution made to this Nation by its government workers. This is 
why I began my weekly ``great Federal employee'' series last May.
  In all my years working as a Federal employee, I have met so many 
wonderful individuals who have dedicated their careers to working for 
the American people. So many are deserving but will not make it onto 
the poster I bring to the Senate floor each week commemorating great 
Federal employees simply because there are so many of them.
  Over the years, as I have witnessed countless acts of personal 
courage, devotion to country, and real sacrifice, I have also seen and 
heard such disheartening and baseless attacks against those who choose 
to serve.
  The pending amendment is just the latest assault. It comes on the 
heels of a new myth being peddled on television, on talk radio, in 
print, and on this very floor--the allegation that somehow Federal 
employees are overpaid; that their salaries have been rising unfairly 
compared to those with similar jobs in the private sector; that we 
should freeze or cut their pay or lay them off; that we should make it 
nearly impossible to hire any new government worker at all.
  Before I rebut these arguments piecemeal, I remind my colleagues and 
the American people what we are talking about. This is not an exercise 
in the abstract. There are concrete facts. There are names, faces, and 
real life stories of achievement and hard work.
  Nearly 2 million wake up every day and go to work for the American 
people, for their neighbors, their friends and family, for folks they 
have never met or will never meet.
  They do it for substantially less pay than the same job in the 
private sector and with considerably more at stake. As I have said 
before, there are no Wall Street bonuses, and there is rarely ever 
recognition for their hard work. For many, working as a Federal 
employee is a tough choice.
  In his keynote address at the annual dinner on Monday honoring the 
winners of this year's Arthur S. Flemming Awards for public service, 
NIST physicist Dr. William Phillips--whom I honored as a great Federal 
employee this past December--told his audience about a colleague who 
decided to work for the Federal Government. This scientist had been 
working most of his early career in the private sector. At a certain 
point, he realized it was more important for him to make a difference 
and serve his country, so he went to work in a government lab.
  He told Dr. Phillips that, to do so, he took a pay cut that was a 
factor of 10.
  That is 10 times less pay. I am sure it was a difficult decision, but 
ultimately he made the choice to work for his country.
  I met an appointee the other day who is taking a 95 percent pay cut. 
I have constantly been amazed by the number of highly skilled and 
highly experienced individuals willing to take 20, 40, 60 percent 
salary cuts to work in the Obama Administration. These political 
appointees join the career personnel, so many of who would also be 
making much more in the private sector.
  Just look at some of those I have honored as great Federal employees 
this past year.
  By the way, I do not pick the people at the top of the spectrum. When 
I honor a great Federal employee, it is at any level in the government. 
Anybody who does their job well should be honored. We have so many 
great Federal employees who operate at all levels of government that I 
try to honor them all.
  I am hard pressed to think of any who would not be making a lot more 
in the private sector. Not only do we have brilliant physicists such as 
Dr. William Phillips who won a Nobel Prize. We also have those such as 
Brian Persons, the executive director of NAVSEA who has spent his 
career designing and maintaining our Navy's ships and who holds an 
engineering degree from Michigan State. Or Erica Williams, an 
enforcement attorney with the SEC with a degree from the University of 
Virginia Law School, who I am sure could be making a lot more if she 
worked for a Wall Street firm. Or Judge Timothy Rice, a Temple Law 
School graduate who could have chosen to work as an attorney in private 
practice but, instead, went to work for the Justice Department and on 
the Federal bench.
  I am not saying that all Federal employees earn 10 times less than 
their private sector counterparts. I am not even saying all Federal 
employees earn less.
  Still, those who claim that Federal employees are making more on 
average than private sector counterparts simply don't have all their 
facts straight. We know how these things happen. In this case, much of 
the data used to make these claims are from a USA Today study a few 
months ago, which analyzed findings from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.
  The big problem with that study is that it is both highly selective 
of the job categories compared and it fails to take into account the 
demographics of our Federal workforce.
  The number of employees in various private sector job categories 
dwarfs that of the Federal Government, skewing salary data lower for 
the private sector, where there are more minimum wage jobs. Also, a 
large number of Federal jobs require highly specialized skills and, as 
a result, employees are often older and more educated than the average 
worker in comparable private sector roles.

[[Page 11037]]

  Many Americans do not realize that about 20 percent of Federal 
employees hold a master's or professional degree, compared to 13 
percent in the private sector. Fifty-one percent of Federal employees 
have at least a bachelor's degree, while this is true for only 35 
percent of the private sector workforce.
  In the words of Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for 
Public Service which, by the way, is a nonpartisan organization this is 
``not an apples-to-apples comparison.''
  You cannot simply ask what the average salaries for budget analysts 
are in the private sector and for budget analysts in government. The 
same goes for librarians or statisticians or paralegals.
  The occupational categories might be called by the same name, but the 
work is very different. There are different skill sets required, 
different types of experience necessary.
  When actual job tasks are compared, few government jobs have exact 
equivalents in the private sector.
  Contrary to what many have said, Federal workers' salaries are 
actually lower, not higher, than those in the private sector.
  Indeed, the Federal Salary Council reported last October that Federal 
employees were making an average of over 26 percent--less--than those 
in the private sector doing comparable work. Moreover, this represents 
a widening of the private-public pay gap from the previous year, 
continuing a recent trend.
  However, this line of attack continues from those who routinely 
disparage the role of government. Unfortunately, it has become all too 
common to criticize Washington by defaming the civilian employees who 
work across our government.
  Federal employees continue to serve as a convenient scapegoat. That, 
essentially, is what this amendment does. It assigns blame and does not 
really address the budgetary problems we face.
  It reminds me of an amendment proposed by one of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle when we were considering the health insurance 
reform bill. It would have mandated that ``for each new bureaucrat 
added to any department or agency for the purpose of implementing the 
provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the head 
of such department or agency shall ensure that the addition of such new 
bureaucrat is offset by a reduction of one existing bureaucrat at such 
department or agency.''
  In effect, we would have to fire a Federal worker to hire one. This 
so-called ``bureaucrat offset'' amendment--using a word that has 
become, unfortunately, pejorative in our political discourse--was bad 
enough.
  The Thune amendment, with its blanket pay freeze and hiring caps, 
takes this a step further, prohibiting any Federal agency from hiring a 
new employee until one retires.
  At a moment when we are faced with a difficult choice about how to 
reduce our deficit and get our economy moving again, this amendment 
represents an easy cop-out.
  All those who blame Federal employees for our Nation's problems or 
believe that cutting their salaries or capping their number will in any 
way solve those problems remain averse to making difficult decisions.
  The cuts to the Federal workforce in the Thune amendment would only 
save the taxpayers a meager amount compared to what we need to save. 
Its provisions on the Federal workforce and the ongoing, gratuitous 
disparagement of America's public employees from many directions 
constitute a dangerous distraction from the very tough steps we as a 
nation must take.
  The greatest challenges we face today--the gulf spill, two wars, 
carbon pollution, illegal immigration, market volatility--all of these 
will be tackled by hardworking Federal employees.
  All of these challenges require a readiness on our part to make 
difficult choices. Scapegoating and playing the blame game won't get us 
anywhere.
  Federal employees know firsthand about making tough choices. They do 
so every day. Many of the great Federal employees I have honored from 
this desk came to my attention because they faced difficult tasks, took 
risks, and achieved great accomplishments. Some of those I honored have 
served overseas in dangerous regions; one gave his life while working 
for USAID. One left a lucrative private sector job after September 11th 
to join the Justice Department as an anti-terror prosecutor. Others 
immigrated to this country from places like Afghanistan and Vietnam and 
became Federal employees because they wanted to give back to the 
country that took them in as refugees.
  These stories go on and on. They are as diverse and numerous as this 
great country of ours.
  Additionally, all of my honorees share with every other government 
employee the experience of making that initial decision to pursue 
government work hardly an easy one to make considering the sacrifices 
involved.
  Ultimately, those who support Federal salary cuts and hiring caps 
mistakenly view our civil service as a cost. Rather, it is an important 
national resource with real benefits for all of us.
  At the end of the day, I must remind my colleagues that it is our 
outstanding Federal employees who will carry out the programs we pass 
everyday in this Chamber. We will continue to count on the Federal 
workforce to keep our skies safe for travel, our troops provisioned and 
veterans cared for, our schools held to high standards, and our 
homeland secure.
  Woodrow Wilson, as a young political scientist during the civil 
service reform debates of the 1880s, advocated for a system of public 
administration because he believed that the conditions of modernity 
require it in order for a democratic state to function at its best.
  Indeed, our civil service has developed into one uniquely suited to 
our needs and incorporating America's best constitutional traditions. 
We have a Federal workforce of which we can be proud.
  Federal employees play a critical role in our national life and, 
through their work, exemplify so many of our Nation's great values. 
These include exemplary citizenship; industriousness; a willingness to 
take risks; perseverance; modesty; and intellect.
  Contrary to popular myth, most Federal employees work outside of 
Washington. In fact, no State--and I include the District of Columbia--
no State is home to more than 8.5 percent of the total Federal 
workforce. Our government employees work in communities large and 
small, spread out from coast to coast and overseas.
  One of the challenges we face is a Federal retirement boom. As the 
baby boomers get older, the Office of Personnel Management has 
estimated that one-fifth of the Federal workforce will retire by 2014. 
This comes at the same time that more new hires are needed in mission-
critical jobs dealing with public health, national security, 
transportation safety, financial regulation, and many other important 
areas.
  Now is not the time to talk about laying off Federal workers or 
freezing their pay. We should be talking about how to invest in 
recruiting the next generation of Federal employees.
  The scapegoating and baseless attacks against Federal workers only 
serve to demoralize those who are on the front lines of confronting our 
national challenges. It also discourages talented young Americans from 
making that difficult choice whether to start a career in service to 
their country.
  Let me reiterate. Federal employees make less than those in the 
private sector, not more. They represent some of our very best and 
brightest, a dedicated and hard-working group of Americans across this 
country. We need to recruit a new generation of government workers to 
help us tackle great challenges, and unfairly labeling Federal 
employees as a problem fails to realize their important role in finding 
so many solutions to the very difficult problems we face. The pending 
amendment's pay freeze and hiring restrictions will do almost nothing 
to reduce our deficit; rather, its effect on our government's ability 
to address serious issues will be disastrous.
  For those looking to shift the blame for our troubles and who have 
their

[[Page 11038]]

sights on America's Federal employees, I suggest look elsewhere.
  For those who want easy, let's-deal-with-this-later answers and are 
looking for a convenient distraction, I say look elsewhere.
  For those who support this amendment, for those who habitually shy 
away from making the tough choices we in this Chamber need to make, I 
say, though, look no further than the public employees you so casually 
fault.
  They know how to make tough choices.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that it be charged against both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, in response to the comments of my 
colleague from Delaware, I do not think anybody is denigrating the 
quality of Federal employees. To the contrary. We are all Federal 
employees. We all know Federal employees. We are all friends of Federal 
employees. And we have a lot of Federal employees who do a great job.
  All we are simply saying is when you are in a tough economy, 
everybody ought to look at what they can do to live more within their 
means. When we are running a $1.5 trillion deficit this year and 
trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, Lord knows we ought 
to be looking within to figure out what we can do to try and find some 
savings that we can use to either pay for the things we need to do or 
perhaps pay down the Federal debt which, as I said, my amendment does.


                    Amendment No. 4376, as Modified

  Also, because I think there is a concern that somehow every Federal 
employee is going to be frozen, I have a modification to my amendment 
that addresses that concern.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the changes at the desk 
be incorporated into my amendment. For the information of my 
colleagues, these are changes to section 403, and they address the 
criticisms.
  The amendment would prohibit increases in salaries or bonuses for 
Federal civilian employees. The changes that are at the desk will allow 
such increases and bonuses to occur so long as agencies do not exceed 
their fiscal year 2009 budget for salaries.
  This is a unanimous-consent request. This would address the concerns 
raised by some of my colleagues on the other side about making sure 
Federal agencies have adequate flexibility with salaries and bonuses to 
address those employees they think are deserving of pay raises. All 
they have to do is live under that top-line number that gives them 
flexibility as a Federal manager and to work within it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I may say to my friend 
from South Dakota that this sounds a lot like wage price controls, 
where the Congress is trying to decide the wages of all kinds of 
different sectors based on, I don't know what. A lot of trap lines have 
to be run before this request can be granted. So at this point, Madam 
President, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I simply offer that modification to my 
amendment to address the concern that every single Federal employee is 
going to be capped at some level for some foreseeable period of time. 
That is not the intention.
  In fact, what the modification would do is ensure that within the 
overall budget--within the top line--a manager could make adjustments 
to individual employee salaries or bonuses if that is something they 
desire to do. It just means the Federal Government--the agency--is 
going to have to live within a certain number at the top line. They can 
work within that salary number beneath that top line. That is all it 
does.
  Again, what I have said before, and I will reiterate for the benefit 
of my colleagues, is that I think we have a responsibility to be 
fiscally responsible in Washington, DC. As I said before, we have 
people all over the country making hard decisions with regard to their 
personal and family budgets, with regard to their small businesses, and 
they are having to reduce employee salaries, for example, and they are 
having to make reductions in force and let people go. Those are hard 
decisions to make. Surely in Washington, DC, where we have seen year-
over-year increases in Federal spending, in discretionary domestic 
spending, that exceeds inflation by six times--look at the fiscal year 
2010 and fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills and the increases that 
were allowed--21\1/2\ percent in those two appropriations bills, at a 
time when inflation was 3\1/2\ percent. How can we justify increasing 
spending over 20 percent in Washington, DC, when the rate of inflation 
in our economy is 3\1/2\ percent and people all over the country are 
having to make cuts? It is high time Washington, DC, and the Federal 
Government went on a diet.
  That is not to say anything to denigrate or impugn the quality of 
Federal employees. As I said before, there are a lot of Federal 
employees who do a great job. All this is simply saying we in 
Washington, DC, ought to lead by example. There is great power in 
example, and we have not been providing the example for the American 
people. We are asking them to make these hard choices, but we are not 
willing to make those choices ourselves.
  So I think this amendment gives Members of the Senate an opportunity 
to say yes to fiscal responsibility, yes to living within our means, 
yes to paying for what we spend money on, and yes to not handing the 
credit card to our children and grandchildren. These are not Draconian 
ideas; these are fairly straightforward savings that we would achieve 
simply by shaving a little bit from these Federal budgets--making sure 
we rescind those stimulus funds that haven't been spent or haven't been 
allocated to pay for this new spending. We use those funds that have 
been appropriated but not spent to finance some of what we are doing 
and then apply that to pay down the Federal debt and freeze some of the 
Federal agencies in terms of their budgets and ask for a 5-percent 
reduction in some of these agencies over the course of the next 
foreseeable years.
  Those are all fairly straightforward steps I think anybody would take 
if they were trying to get back within a reasonable budget to address 
what are very serious concerns about the amount of spending and the 
amount of debt we are piling on future generations. So I am sorry the 
majority is resistant to accepting the amendment. It would address the 
concern that was raised by a couple of our colleagues on the other 
side.
  It wasn't my intention to impose a very restrictive straitjacket-type 
approach on Federal managers. On the contrary, we think there should be 
a top line budget, that we ought to be able to live within it, and 
certainly managers can make decisions within that about how best to 
allocate those resources. Congress has actually blocked its own pay 
raise in the past 2 years, so it seems to me that is at least something 
we could apply to other areas of our Federal Government as well.
  So, again, I think the whole purpose behind this amendment is simply 
to create an opportunity for Senators to vote for fiscal 
responsibility, to vote for paying for the things we spend money on in 
Washington, to vote for living within our means, and to vote for not 
adding billions and billions of dollars to the Federal debt, which is 
already at $13 trillion and growing by the day.
  It seems, at least to me, this is an opportunity for us to 
demonstrate to the American people that we are serious about getting 
Washington's spending

[[Page 11039]]

and debt under control. This amendment addresses the issue of 
unemployment insurance and extending that, addresses the issue of 
expiring tax provisions, reduces taxes by $26 billion, addresses the 
impending cut in physician reimbursements that would occur if Congress 
doesn't take action, but it does it for 2 years longer than what the 
legislation of the majority would do. We address that up to the end of 
the year 2012.
  So it takes care of all those things, and it does it in a fiscally 
responsible way by reducing spending by over $100 billion, as I said 
before, by reducing taxes, by keeping taxes low on small businesses, 
which are the job creators in our economy. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, it reduces the Federal debt by $68 
billion. That is a win-win for the American people--the American 
taxpayer--and it should be a win-win for the Senate.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and with that, 
Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, may I inquire as to how much time remains 
on each side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota has 6 
minutes, and the majority has 34 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally 
divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Madam President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I might ask the Senator from South 
Dakota, through the Chair, whether he wishes to renew his request to 
modify his amendment because I might tell him, through the Chair, that 
the amendment has been cleared on this side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I will renew my request to so modify my 
amendment, and I appreciate the manager accepting that change.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The modification to amendment No. 4376 is as follows:

     SEC. 403. TEMPORARY ONE-YEAR FREEZE ON COST OF FEDERAL 
                   EMPLOYEES SALARIES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the total 
     amount of funds expended on salaries for civilian employees 
     of the Federal Government in fiscal year 2011 shall not 
     exceed the total costs for such salaries in Fiscal Year 2009: 
     Provided the amounts spent on salaries on members of the 
     armed forces are exempt from the provisions of this section; 
     Provided further, nothing in this section prohibits an 
     employee from receiving an increase in salary or other 
     compensation so long as such an increase does not increase 
     any agency's net expenditures for employee salaries.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally 
divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, first let me thank Senator Baucus for 
yielding time that he has for me to speak. I appreciate that very much.
  I want to support the Thune amendment. The Thune amendment is a 
responsible approach both to the things we need to do but also that 
need to be offset in ways that do not add to our deficit or raise 
taxes. It includes all of the major priorities that have been accepted 
by both sides here--by the Democratic Party's version of the extender 
bill as well as the things Republicans wish to do--but it is fully paid 
for. It cuts wasteful spending and doesn't raise a dime in taxes.
  The underlying proposal that the chairman of the committee has 
presented to us would increase spending by $126 billion. It includes 
over $70 billion in new taxes. That, by the way, is a net tax increase 
of $48 billion. It increases the deficit by $79 billion over the next 
10 years.
  That is the approach that we think is wrong. That is why Senator 
Thune has proposed an alternative that we will be voting on here in 
about 25 minutes, that I think takes the correct approach. It cuts 
taxes by $26 billion by extending current law. It cuts spending by over 
$100 billion. It actually reduces the deficit by $55 billion, all 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, which of course is 
nonpartisan.
  I want to add a point about the notion of offsetting spending 
increases or so-called paying for those increases. There are a couple 
of things that are done in the Baucus substitute that I think need to 
be pointed out because they are not an appropriate way to offset the 
costs of spending under the bill.
  In one of them, we take the oilspill trust fund that is supposed to 
contain money in it to take care of oilspills when the company's 
money--for example, British Petroleum's money--runs out and have the 
Government assist in cleaning up an oilspill when that fund is supposed 
to exist for that purpose, to clean up the oilspill. Today this is a 
tax--it is 8 cents per barrel--for the companies to pay into that fund. 
Under the Baucus substitute that would be raised to 49 cents per 
barrel. It may well be that we need to raise the tax on the oil 
companies for the trust fund to pay for oilspills but that is what it 
should be raised for, to pay for the oilspills, not to pay for 
something totally unrelated in this legislation. Because if we do that 
then when it comes time to tap the trust fund to pay for the oilspill, 
the money has already been spent on things other than what we raised 
the money for in the first place. So that is not an appropriate way to 
pay for part of this legislation.
  The second thing is, this is putting off the problem to the future in 
order to take care of a more immediate need. It has to do with the fact 
that we have to pay for physicians who take care of Medicare patients. 
This was a problem that should have been addressed in the health care 
legislation. It was not. As a result, all of the payment for physicians 
in Medicare was put off to be dealt with at a later time. Now is the 
later time except we do not want to do it now either, apparently.
  The payment for Medicare has already expired. There is not enough 
money and has not been enough money for the last couple of weeks to pay 
doctors to take care of Medicare patients. We are simply holding their 
bills. But within the next few days we are going to have to pass 
something that allows payment of those doctor fees to take care of 
Medicare patients. The idea here was to try to get that to at least a 
2- or 3-year period. The last version coming from the Democratic side 
was, I think, 18 months or so. The idea is to try to deal with that 
problem so we do not have to come back and keep dealing with it every 
couple of months or so.
  As I understand the latest proposal, we are now only going to deal 
with that to November of this year. Clearly right after the election we 
are going to have to come back in a lame duck session. That will make 
certain we will have a lame duck session because we will have to act on 
this yet again. Why would we do it that way? It is not the responsible 
way to do it, obviously. It is to reduce the cost of the legislation 
here so we do not have to have as much in the way of offsets.
  I appreciate the fact we are trying to reduce the size of the bill, 
but we are

[[Page 11040]]

only fooling ourselves by reducing this particular element of the bill. 
We ought to be reducing other elements of this legislation rather than 
the physician payments because we know those bills are going to come 
due and we are simply putting off the inevitable.
  The final point of criticism of the chairman's bill is the way it 
deals with something called S corps. These are generally small 
businesses run by an individual--a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant who 
has a couple of employees. We are trying to raise--not we, not we, the 
majority is trying to raise money by changing the tax treatment for 
these particular legal entities. In order to do what? To raise $11 
billion.
  I submit that rather than trying to find a way to raise $11 billion, 
and in this particular case it does not work, we ought to be reducing 
the cost of the legislation by $11 billion or finding offsets, such as 
Senator Thune has found in his legislation, that do not result in bad 
tax policy.
  The net result is that, with all due respect to the chairman--again I 
thank him for yielding his time so that I could speak against his 
legislation--I do not think it is the right approach. I think we are 
going to have to go back and get this right or we are not going to be 
able to move forward or to proceed to the consideration of his 
proposal. I think a better approach is the Thune proposal.
  As I said, we will have a chance to vote on that here in a minute and 
I hope my colleagues will support the Thune proposal as more fiscally 
prudent, as not adding to the deficit, not increasing taxes, and not 
making bad tax policy.
  Again, I thank my colleague for yielding his time and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. How much time is remaining to each side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 20 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. There is 20 minutes 40 seconds on our side; zero seconds 
on the other side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, my understanding is that we are headed 
toward a noon vote, perhaps a little bit ahead of that. I ask unanimous 
consent to have about 3 minutes to close debate on our side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, actually I think we are 
going to probably vote earlier than that. I just wonder how much time 
is remaining on the other side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Zero minutes remain.
  Mr. BAUCUS. No time remaining on the other side. There is no time on 
the side of those who wish to speak in favor of the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 15 minutes on the 
Senator's side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. And no time remaining on the side of those who wish to 
speak in favor of the Thune amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Correct.
  Mr. BAUCUS. There is about 15 minutes remaining on this side. I 
wonder if my friend from South Dakota, who wishes to speak in favor of 
the amendment, even though his time has expired, may want to speak 
favorably about the Baucus substitute, or, if he wishes to speak on his 
own amendment, he can point out some of the good points of the Baucus 
substitute at the same time; otherwise, I have no objection.
  But to be fair to my side, too, and given the time constraints that 
we might have, I can only give 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. I will proceed accordingly and try to conclude this in 
2\1/2\ minutes. That, unfortunately, does not give me enough time to 
say favorable things about the substitute of the Senator from Montana.
  But I do want to close the debate on this amendment by saying that I 
do think this presents to us a very clear choice about how to 
accomplish what this legislation strives to accomplish; that is, as we 
have all talked about--something I think both sides agree on, Democrats 
and Republicans--extending unemployment benefits to those who have lost 
jobs; extending expiring tax provisions that are currently in law, such 
as the research and development tax credit, that are important to our 
economy and to our competitiveness; and, finally, making sure the 
reduction or the cut in physician reimbursements under Medicare does 
not go into effect.
  So those are basically the elements we are talking about today in 
terms of the things we are trying to get done. The difference occurs as 
to how we would propose paying for that. The Democratic majority has 
put forward their proposal which does include tax increases, about $50 
billion now in the current version of it in tax increases. It does 
raise the debt by about $50 billion, adds more onto the Federal debt, 
notwithstanding the commitment to pay for things under the pay-go rules 
that were enacted in the Senate, and it does increase spending 
substantially.
  What I am offering as an alternative for Senators to vote on is an 
approach that is very different. It reduces taxes. There are no tax 
increases in it. The tax reductions occur because of extending existing 
tax law, actually reducing taxes by $26 billion.
  It reduces the Federal debt, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, by $68 billion, and it reduces spending by $100 billion. As I 
said earlier, I think it is important the Federal Government go on a 
diet. We have all kinds of issues, and Americans across this country 
have lost jobs, unemployment is at a high rate, people are having to 
make decisions. There has been a loss of income. They are reducing 
their personal budgets, their family budgets, their business budgets.
  Here in Washington, DC, we continue to spend and spend and spend like 
there is no tomorrow and hand the bill to future generations. So this 
is the debate. It is a clear difference in approach, and I hope my 
colleagues will vote in favor of fiscal responsibility, vote in favor 
of paying our way, vote in favor of living within our means, and vote 
in favor of reducing the debt on future generations.
  So I would ask my colleagues in the Senate to support this amendment. 
I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think it is good to again remind my 
colleagues what is in the Thune amendment and why it is not good policy 
and why it should not be adopted. First of all, it would call for a 5-
percent cut in most of government. The Defense Department is exempt; 
the Veterans Department is exempt but not other sections. Homeland 
Security comes to mind. Law enforcement comes to mind. Border Patrol 
comes to mind. There are various areas that would be cut 5 percent 
across the board arbitrarily.
  Second, it would impose harsh caps on medical malpractice damages, 
the so-called tort reform. The Thune amendment includes tort reform in 
a way that is unthought through, very harsh caps that would, frankly, 
result, according to the CBO, in more deaths in America.
  The Thune amendment would also cut the number of people insured under 
health care reform. It would reduce the number of people insured under 
health care reform. I do not think many people would like that part of 
the Thune

[[Page 11041]]

amendment to stand alone and of itself.
  Moreover, the Thune amendment cuts back Recovery Act funds. That 
endangers jobs. The Congressional Budget Office made it very clear that 
the Recovery Act does create jobs; it lowers unemployment. The Thune 
amendment would go in the opposite direction of preventing job 
creation, of encouraging high unemployment. That would be the effect of 
it.
  The Thune amendment also shields the oil companies and multinational 
corporations from paying their fair share of taxes. I do not think, 
especially with the gulf oilspill, many Americans want to shield the 
oil companies from paying their fair share of taxes, from paying funds 
into an oil liability trust fund to pay for future oilspills. I think 
Americans also do not want to shield multinational corporations from 
paying their fair share of taxes.
  There are loopholes in current law that multinationals take advantage 
of. I think most Americans would not like these loopholes to continue. 
The Thune amendment continues those loopholes.
  So for all of those reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to not 
support the Thune amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time, and I raise a point of order 
against section 701 of the Thune amendment pursuant to section 403 of 
S. Con. Res 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
2010.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(G)(3) of the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of 
those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my 
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 Minnesota (Ms. 
Klobuchar) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Klobuchar
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Gulf Oilspill

  Mr. LeMIEUX. Madam President, I come to the floor again today to talk 
about the situation in the Gulf of Mexico.
  Yesterday, I came to report on my meeting with the President of the 
United States, as well as Jeff Miller, our Governor, and ADM Thad 
Allen, that we had on Tuesday in Pensacola. I am pleased to report what 
the President has done with this fund. It is a good idea to get the $20 
billion in claims that can be made and can be paid.
  However, there is another issue. The most pressing issue right now is 
keeping the oil off the coast of the gulf. We do not have a handle on 
this situation with the skimmers. We just met with Admiral Allen, and 
the information isn't any better than it was 2 days ago. In fact, for 
Florida, the information appears to be worse.
  On Tuesday, there were 32 skimmers, according to the Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida incident command 
off the coast of Florida--32. There is a plume of oil 2 miles wide and 
40 miles long off the coast of Pensacola. There is another plume that 
ranges from Pensacola, FL, all the way over to Fort Walton, and we had 
32 skimmers. Today, the report is we have 20 skimmers--20 skimmers. 
That is like me and my buddies getting in our boats out there and 
trying to clean this up. That is not the Federal Government doing its 
best effort to clean up this oilspill.
  The incident command from the Coast Guard's report says there are 
100-some skimmers off the coast. It is unclear whether those are off 
the coast of Florida or completely off the coast. It could be the coast 
of all of the States. I asked Admiral Allen to clarify that. He said he 
would.
  Admiral Allen tells us there are 2,000 skimmers in the United States 
of America. Why aren't those skimmers, where available, steaming toward 
the Gulf of Mexico? He said he is going to put a process in place where 
we can request them. It has been 60 days since the oil started 
spilling. Why are we waiting until now to request skimmers? Why are we 
contacting Governors now to request skimmers? Why are there only 20 
skimmers off of my home State when we have this huge mass of oil?
  The State Department reported Tuesday morning that 21 requests have 
come in from 17 countries--rather, 21 offers of support from 17 
countries to give us skimming equipment. The State Department says they 
have been declined. I talked about it to the President on Tuesday and 
Admiral Allen, and they say: No, it is not true; we have gotten things 
in from other countries. What is the truth? What is the answer? Are we 
refusing foreign country assistance or not?
  Now there is this thing about, we are going to have a process to let 
people request waivers of the Jones Act. We are 60 days into this. On 
Monday, I sent a letter to the President, along with Congressman Jeff 
Miller, asking for the Jones Act to be waived. Why aren't we doing 
everything possible to bring skimmers to the Gulf of Mexico? What is 
the problem?
  I am going to come to the floor of the Senate every day we are in 
session until this oilspill stops, until every drop of oil is cleaned 
up, and make a point about this skimmer issue. It is not acceptable. 
Who is in charge of this? Is it the President? Is it Admiral Allen? Is 
it BP? Who is in charge? There are only 20 skimmers off the coast of 
Florida. It doesn't make any sense. Somebody has to do something about 
it. In my position, what I can do is complain, and that is what I am 
doing today and will continue to do. I am going to press Admiral Allen 
and this administration to get as many skimmers there as possible. We 
need engagement from this administration

[[Page 11042]]

on this issue, and no other question should be answered until we find 
out where all those skimmers are.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to thank Senator LeMieux for 
raising this matter.
  I was at the Alabama gulf coast on Friday. We were told there was a 
batch of oil 30 feet wide, 2 miles long that they could see coming onto 
the shores of the beaches that had not yet been hit in any significant 
way. In my mind, a good skimmer, even at 1 or 2 miles per hour, could 
get every bit of that, virtually. I first thought skimmers wouldn't be 
that effective. I assumed the oil would be very thin and it would come 
in and be hard to skim, but apparently it is coming in patches and 
bunches, which makes it more skimmable than I had originally thought.
  The admiral, whom we spoke to less than an hour ago, indicated that 
he was requesting of the Navy, as I heard what he said, a certain 
number of skimmers, and they had 400, and we haven't gotten them yet. 
Perhaps some plan somewhere calls for them to have skimmers in this bay 
or this harbor in case something happens, but when we have a national 
catastrophe as we have going on, every one that could possibly be 
spared should have already been moved to the gulf coast. I really feel 
as though this is a frustrating event. It is more serious than I had 
realized.
  Also, I think there are several thousand worldwide that have not been 
asked for that could be asked for. So I think we can do better. I am 
going to find out if the decisionmaking process is so bureaucratic that 
for no good reason, we have been delayed in receiving help that could 
make a big difference on the gulf coast.
  I asked him about President Obama's speech last night. As a result, 
he made comments----
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, would my friend yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased to yield.

                          ____________________