[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11047-11076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     AMERICAN JOBS AND CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES ACT OF 2010--Continued

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending 
legislation, which is called the American Jobs and Closing Tax 
Loopholes Act of 2010. Sometimes it is spoken of as the tax extenders 
bill. But in reality it is a deficit-extending bill. The reason I say 
that is because the substitute amendment still adds a reported $55 
billion in red ink to the deficit.
  More deficit spending is simply irresponsible. Our national debt, as 
we know, is over $13 trillion, and $2.3 trillion of that $13 trillion 
of debt has been added just since the time President Obama has been 
sworn into office. Congress is spending money in a way that would give 
drunken sailors a bad name--more than $30,000 per household, more than 
$12,000 per household from our children.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the public debt under 
the President's budget will be at 90 percent of our gross domestic 
product by the year 2020--90 percent of our gross domestic product. 
Greece had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 115 percent, and we are getting far 
too close for my comfort.
  Our debt represents a national security vulnerability. I am glad the 
substitute amendment retains my amendment, which we voted on earlier, 
to create greater transparency on exactly who owns our debt when we run 
up deficits and add to the debt, and it requires us to then 
periodically assess the strategic and economic risks associated with 
that debt. For example, the Treasury Department recently reported that 
China holds about $900 billion of U.S. debt. So when we spend

[[Page 11048]]

money here, somebody has to buy the debt. What happens is that China 
and other countries buy that debt, and that creates a potential 
national and economic security issue.
  The best way to reduce our strategic and economic risks associated 
with our debt is to stop spending money we do not have. Stop. Every 
family, every business in America, when they run out of money, they do 
not just continue to try to max out their credit card. The problem is 
that the credit card of the Federal Government knows no limits. Only 
the Federal Government can continue to print money and rack up debt and 
hope and pray that countries such as China will buy that debt in the 
future. It has to stop.
  America's fiscal mess is not just a math problem. Government debt 
crowds out private sector investment that instead could help create 
jobs for the 15 million Americans who are unemployed. Our unemployment 
rate is close to 10 percent. For Hispanics, it is 12.4 percent. For 
teenagers, it is 26.4 percent--the toughest job market for young people 
in 41 years even though it is summertime and many of them are out of 
school and looking for work. Nearly 9 out of 10 net jobs created in May 
were temporary jobs created by the Federal Government in hiring 
temporary census workers. Only 41,000 net private sector jobs were 
created in May--an anemic figure, to be sure. According to economist 
Larry Lindsey, as much as 20 percent of the net private sector job 
creation in May was due to the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico--
temporary workers hired to skim oil off the gulf and to protect our 
beaches and estuaries.
  We know the administration will, unfortunately, further exacerbate 
the unemployment situation, particularly along the gulf coast where I 
live in Texas, by its 6-month ban on offshore deepwater drilling. We 
all understand we have to stop this spewing well. That is job No. 1. 
No. 2 is we need to make sure we understand what happened and make 
absolutely sure, as much as humanly possible, that it never, ever 
happens again. But we also need to be mature enough and aware enough to 
assess what this means if we impose a lengthy ban on deepwater 
drilling. It means more dependence on imported oil from abroad, from 
dangerous parts of the world, even countries that wish us ill. It also 
means jobs here at home will be destroyed because these deepwater rigs 
will move to other parts of the world, Brazil and other places. 
According to the energy industry, more than 46,000 jobs could be lost 
as a result of the moratorium in the short term and 120,000 jobs in the 
long term.
  Unfortunately, the policies that are promulgated by the Congress and 
by this Senate have an impact on jobs. They can either be a positive 
impact and facilitate private sector investment in job creation or they 
can be job killers. I, for one, worry far too often that what is 
emanating from Washington, DC, these days amounts to job-killing 
policies, and this underlying bill we are debating has a couple of good 
examples.
  We know job creation should be our No. 1 priority when unemployment 
is at historic highs, when people are losing their homes due to 
foreclosure because they simply do not have jobs to be able to pay 
their mortgage. But this so-called tax extenders bill actually raises 
taxes on capital creation and on investment in a way that will hurt job 
creation. There are two taxes I am referring to specifically, and while 
both are somewhat technical, it is very important to understand them.
  The first tax relates to so-called carried interest. Partners in 
private equity firms are often paid based on their performance in 
addition to their salary. Under current law, this so-called carried 
interest is taxed like a capital gain at the 15-percent rate, if we are 
talking about right now, 15 percent, as opposed to ordinary income, 
which is taxed at a much higher rate.
  The substitute amendment would change the way this carried interest 
is taxed and take it from the capital gains, which is a much more 
attractive rate, which encourages capital formation, encourages 
investment, and raise that rate to the highest individual income tax 
rate for ordinary income of 39 percent. What do you think is going to 
happen when entrepreneurs and investors look at this change in the tax 
law from 15 percent to 39 percent? Do you think it will expand or will 
it contract the amount of money invested in job-creating ventures? 
Well, common sense should tell us it will contract it. It will reduce 
the number of jobs. It will reduce the capital available for 
investment. And it is exactly the opposite policy we ought to be 
pursuing with high unemployment and people losing their homes.
  Higher taxes on this type of business activity is bad enough, but 
even worse is another tax that is embedded in this bill called 
enterprise value. These are arcane subjects and, indeed, I felt a 
little better yesterday after talking to some of my colleagues on the 
floor. I said: Do you understand what enterprise value tax is? And 
thank goodness I saw some blank looks on their faces, and they did not 
understand it. So I did not feel alone. So we have all had to get a 
little bit smart and a little bit better educated. But let me tell you 
what I have discovered in the process of my own education. Enterprise 
value is known as brand value or good will. It is the value of the 
sweat equity, the hard work owners put into businesses over time.
  Under current law, when a partner sells his or her interest in a 
business, the enterprise value is taxed as a capital gain. This 
legislation would change the tax treatment on the sale of that business 
but only for certain types of businesses. In other words, this bill 
targets certain types of businesses. But as one writer commented 
recently--they said they worry that this is a stalking horse or an 
attempt to take all capital gains treatment for the sale of businesses 
and to raise it to ordinary income levels--in other words, to double, 
or more, the taxes on the sale of certain types of businesses.
  Owners of investment firms and real estate partnerships would be 
singled out for higher taxes when these businesses are sold. They would 
pay much higher taxes than what are paid under current law. Again, why 
should people care? Why should anyone within the sound of my voice care 
about what this handful of private equity firms and real estate 
partnerships pay? Well, it is because what this, in effect, does is it 
takes the seed corn that is used to grow the economy and it destroys 
it. It dries up the money that creates the investment, that then allows 
the creation of businesses and expansion of businesses to create jobs. 
That is why all of us should care even if we individually don't have to 
pay it.
  In fact, under this narrowly tailored and targeted and discriminatory 
bill, investment partnerships would be the only businesses in America 
where the value inherent in the enterprise would be ineligible for 
capital gains treatment and instead be hit with the higher tax bill 
when the overall enterprise part of it is sold.
  This legislation would break new ground in taxing enterprise value as 
ordinary income and would unfairly tax value accumulated perhaps over 
decades by small businesses all across America.
  Supporters of this bill will tell you this proposal is all about 
targeting the hedge fund managers on Wall Street, suggesting that this 
is payback or due retribution for the havoc a handful of people have 
wrought on the American financial system. But this proposal would not 
target the people who caused the financial meltdown. This targeted 
provision would have a devastating effect on Main Street in Illinois, 
in Montana, in Texas, in Pennsylvania--everywhere around this country.
  Let me give you an example. Private equity-backed companies based in 
my State employ about half a million workers. What happens to those 
jobs if this legislation becomes law? Well, not surprisingly, a lot of 
the investors in these private equity firms where the private equity-
backed companies get their money are retirement systems such as the 
Employees Retirement System in Texas and the Teacher Retirement System 
in Texas, both of which have a portion of their assets invested in 
private equity.
  So I ask again: What happens if this legislation becomes law? What 
happens

[[Page 11049]]

to small businesses that depend on private equity to grow their 
businesses and create jobs? Well, I received an answer to that question 
from Donald Brown, the chief executive officer of a medical device 
company that has an office in Fort Worth, TX. The name of that company 
is Arteriocyte Medical Systems, otherwise known as AMS. AMS is a fast-
growing company--again, something we ought to want to encourage, not 
discourage, by the policies emanating from Washington. Fast-growing 
companies create jobs which allow people to provide for their families. 
In a high unemployment economy, it ought to be exactly the sort of 
growth we ought to encourage.
  This company has an interesting story to tell because it is partnered 
with the Institute for Surgical Research at Fort Sam Houston in San 
Antonio. Their goal is to improve surgical outcomes for U.S. troops 
injured by blast burns and to reduce the necessity of amputations. AMS 
has also grown because private capital equity was invested in this 
business in 2007 and helped them grow from 6 employees to 70 employees, 
with an average employee salary that exceeds $72,000 a year.
  Here is what Mr. Brown told me in a letter he sent:

       By changing the tax treatment of carried interest to 
     ordinary income, [this bill] would penalize entrepreneurial 
     risk-taking and discourage investment in companies like ours 
     that need capital the most.

  I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Brown's letter to me printed in 
the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is telling and it is also disappointing 
that the Senate earlier today rejected the Thune alternative, which I 
cosponsored. The reason I say it is telling and disappointing is 
because the Senator from South Dakota offered us an option to extend 
many of these expiring tax provisions, but it would not have enacted 
punitive, economically destructive tax increases--things such as the 
enterprise value tax and the tax on carried interest.
  The option offered to us by Mr. Thune, the Senator from South Dakota, 
would have continued important expiring tax provisions, including the 
State and local tax deduction, which I must add provides Texans with 
over $1 billion in Federal tax relief annually. That is because we do 
not have a State income tax, and we are proud of it. That is one reason 
why we continue to grow and create jobs while many other parts of the 
country do not fare as well. But this at least provides equity to us by 
allowing people in Texas who pay sales tax to write that off of their 
Federal income tax, as other States do when they pay a State income 
tax, to write it off their Federal income tax.
  But instead of increasing the budget deficit by $55 billion--which 
this bill does, as it currently has been offered--the option offered by 
the Senator from South Dakota would have reduced the deficit--reduced 
the deficit--by $68 billion and extended the expired tax provisions.
  It is baffling to me why we would reject, why the Senate would 
reject, an opportunity to do what on a bipartisan basis we want to do: 
extend these tax benefits for the benefit of the American people, but 
to do so in a way that is fiscally responsible. I just do not get it. 
Hence, further evidence of the growing disconnect between what is 
happening here in Washington in the Congress and what we are hearing 
from the American people, who are tired of reckless spending, and they 
are tired of endless debt, and they know a day of reckoning will come.
  If the Senate adopts the legislation before us, it will send another 
clear message. It will send the message to investment firms and real 
estate partnerships: You have been punished for taking risks, you have 
been punished for creating jobs, and you have been punished for 
success.
  To all other American entrepreneurs--the people we ought to be 
encouraging because these are the people who make the investments that 
allow companies to be started and companies to grow and jobs to be 
created, but to all other American entrepreneurs, it will send the 
message that it may not have been you this time, but you are next. The 
next time the big spenders want more money to grow the size of the 
Federal Government, your company, your business, could be the next on 
the chopping block.
  To global investors--and we know in a globalized economy there are 
people all around the world who have a lot of different choices as to 
where they want to start their business--unfortunately, to these global 
investors, it will send the message, if we pass this bill as written: 
America does not want your business. America does not want your 
business.
  I cannot think of a more damaging, more destructive message to be 
sent by what we do here in the Congress than sending the message to 
global investors: We do not want your business here in America. That is 
because our economic rivals, other countries such as China and India, 
and others, offer a much lower tax and offer a much more welcoming 
environment when it comes to entrepreneurs and investors from a tax 
perspective.
  To the 15 million Americans who are unemployed--15 million Americans, 
including the 472,000 who filed for unemployment claims for the first 
time last week--this legislation will send the message that 
Washington's priority is not in creating jobs. Washington's priority is 
to grow the government.
  I do not think these are the messages we should be sending. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this substitute amendment. We will have a chance 
to show the American people on which side we stand when we have the 
cloture vote on this bill tomorrow morning. Make no mistake about it, a 
vote for this bill will be a vote for killing jobs, for chasing away 
investment, for saying America is not interested in your business--at a 
time when Americans are suffering high unemployment and people are 
losing their homes because they cannot pay their mortgage payments 
because they have lost their jobs, with no end in sight.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                          AMS,

                                                    June 15, 2010.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing to you regarding an issue 
     in H.R. 4213, now pending in the Senate, which proposes tax 
     increases on Investment Managers that will interfere with job 
     creation and our nascent economic recovery. Arteriocyte is a 
     company that has dramatically benefited from private equity 
     capital, and that investment has enabled us to rapidly grow 
     our company. H.R. 4213 presents a significant risk of harming 
     small companies like Arteriocyte and will reduce our future 
     ability to finance our company's growth especially in today's 
     economy where access to capital has otherwise dried up due to 
     the fallout from the banking crisis that unfolded over the 
     last two years. I strongly support the position that 
     government policy should encourage the investment in 
     formation and growth of small companies, which are 
     responsible for the greatest contribution to new job growth. 
     H.R. 4213, if passed in its current form, will destroy the 
     ability of startups to raise capital and will harm companies 
     like Arteriocyte, by starving investment and reducing job 
     creation.
       Arteriocyte was started in 2004 to develop commercial stem 
     cell based therapies created for patients ``At Bedside''. As 
     a fast growing medical device company we are committed to 
     providing innovative solutions to patients and medical 
     professionals to address serious unmet medical needs 
     particularly in cardiac, orthopedic and vascular surgeries. 
     We have worked with DARPA on Advanced Theater Blood Pharming 
     initiatives for forward military operations and currently we 
     are active partners with the Department of Defense's 
     Institute for Surgical Research at Fort Sam Houston to 
     improve the surgical outcomes for blast-burn wounded soldiers 
     including amputation prevention. Arteriocyte has benefited 
     from private equity capital, and this investment has enabled 
     us to make our company stronger. In late 2007 we were 
     fortunate enough to receive a private equity investment from 
     DW Healthcare Partners. Over the last two years, as a direct 
     result of that investment, we have increased annual revenues 
     to $16 Million for 2010 (up 45% and 38% annually the last two 
     years). We have grown from 6 employees to 70 across fifteen 
     states. Our 2010 payroll for U.S. employees will exceed $5.1 
     Million, and our average employee income exceeds $72,000. We 
     are one of the few U.S. based companies that have brought a 
     multimillion dollar business, its technology its and its 
     manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.

[[Page 11050]]

     from Mexico. If not for our private equity investment, we 
     would not have grown and we would not have hired 64 people. 
     In fact, without that investment we likely would not be in 
     business today.
       H.R. 4213, now pending in the Senate, proposes tax 
     increases on Investment Managers that will interfere with job 
     creation and our nascent economic recovery.
       Our company and our employees urge you and your colleagues 
     to modify this bill to maintain private equity and growth 
     capital incentives in this country. By changing the tax 
     treatment of ``carried interest'' to ordinary income, H.R. 
     4213 would penalize entrepreneurial risk-taking and 
     discourage investment in companies like ours that need 
     capital the most. The pending legislation should characterize 
     carried interest as a capital gain.
       The House bill will make the United States less competitive 
     globally. Virtually every other nation with which the United 
     States competes treats carried interest as a capital gain and 
     taxes it at rates ranging from 0% in India to 10% in China 
     and 18% in the United Kingdom. The new tax rate contained in 
     the House legislation will create a flight of capital from 
     the U.S. that our nation cannot afford to lose as we seek to 
     grow out of the recession.
       Finally, the House bill would make investment partnerships 
     the only businesses in America where the value inherent in 
     the enterprise would be ineligible for long term capital 
     gains rates if the overall enterprise or part of it is sold. 
     If our team builds a successful business over decades, then 
     we receive a capital gain on the value we create. It would be 
     unfair and punitive to treat our private equity, real estate, 
     and venture capital partners more harshly. These partners 
     work just as hard as us to create value, and bring the best 
     resource to create that value: capital.
       Our company encourages you to do everything possible to 
     ensure that the final version of H.R. 4213 addresses these 
     concerns and preserves strong incentives for investing risk 
     capital in businesses like ours, by treating carried interest 
     as a capital gain.
       My executive team and I are available to provide you and 
     your staff with more information about how Arteriocyte has 
     benefitted from private capital.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Donald Brown,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Government Oversight

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we have watched with horror the 
unfolding disaster in the gulf. We have seen precious lives lost, hard-
earned livelihoods hammered, treasured ways of life imperiled. We have 
seen the largest deployment of resources ever against an environmental 
disaster. We have seen astonishing corporate negligence.
  But we have seen something else too--something that ought to be a 
lasting lesson from this catastrophe. We have seen the revolting 
specter of an agency of government subservient to--captive to--the 
industry it is supposed to regulate.
  From the Minerals Management Service, which is supposed to regulate 
deep sea oil drilling, here is what we have seen.
  From the 2008 inspector general's report on MMS's Royalty in Kind 
Program, based in Colorado: senior executives steering lucrative 
contracts to an outside company created by the executives; staff 
failing to collect millions of dollars in royalties owed to the 
American people and allowing oil and gas companies to revise their own 
multimillion-dollar bids; staff accepting gifts and money from oil and 
gas companies with whom the office was conducting official business; 
and staff participating in social events with industry representatives 
that included illegal drug use and sex.
  From the IG report, the inspector general's report, released last 
month on the MMS office in Lake Charles, LA: the district manager 
telling investigators: ``obviously we're all oil industry,'' employees 
accepting numerous gifts from companies doing business with MMS, 
including a trip to the 2005 Peach Bowl on a private airplane, skeet 
shooting contests, hunting and fishing trips, and gulf tournaments; an 
MMS inspector conducted four inspections while negotiating a job for 
himself with the company that owned those platforms, and finding--guess 
what--no violations during those inspections.
  A 2007 inspector general report into the Minerals Revenue Management 
Office of MMS cited ``significant issues worthy of separate 
investigation, including ethical lapses, program mismanagement, and 
process failures.''
  As my hometown Providence Journal wrote in a recent editorial:

       The Deepwater Horizon accident has made it painfully clear 
     that, in its current form, MMS is a pathetic public guardian. 
     Neither it nor BP was prepared for a disaster of this 
     magnitude, and MMS's cozy relationship with industry is a big 
     reason why.

  I agree with the Providence Journal.
  The scope, the extent, the insidious nature of corporate influence in 
regulatory agencies of government--this question of regulatory 
capture--is something we should attend to here. It is the lesson, and 
it raises the question beyond the Minerals Management Service: How far 
does this corporate influence reach into our agencies of government?
  The wealth of the international corporate world is staggering. The 
five biggest oil companies just this quarter posted profits of $23 
billion--that is a 23 with 12 zeroes behind it--in just one quarter. 
The Republican appointees on the Supreme Court just overturned decades 
of precedent and 100 years of practice to give these big corporations 
freedom to spend unlimited funds in our American elections. Put it to 
scale. Consider $23 billion of pure profits just in one quarter by big 
oil, and compare: The Obama and McCain campaigns together spent about 
$1 billion in the last election. Do the math. For 5 percent of one 
quarter's profits, big oil could outspend both American Presidential 
campaigns. That may be some politician's idea of a happy day because 
that is who they work to please, but it is wrong and it needs to be 
stopped.
  But think, if that is what corporate influence could do in a national 
election, think of what those vast, powerful tentacles of corporate 
influence can do to a little government agency such as the Minerals 
Management Service: Revolving doors to lucrative jobs in the industry 
so you are set for life; sports tickets, gifts, drugs; constant, 
relentless lobbying pressure and threats of litigation; steadily 
inserting operatives in regulatory positions. Inch by inch, the 
tentacles of industry reach further and further into the regulator, 
until it silently and invisibly comes under industry control and 
becomes the industry's puppet, until it is serving the special 
interests and not the public interest.
  This is no new phenomenon. Marver Bernstein wrote about regulatory 
capture more than 50 years ago. He explained that a regulator tends 
over time to ``become more concerned with the general health of the 
industry and tries to prevent changes which will adversely affect it,'' 
to become ``passive toward the public interest.'' This, he said, ``is a 
problem of ethics and morality as well as administrative method,'' and 
he called it ``a blow to democratic government and responsible 
political institutions.'' Ultimately, this leads to what he called 
``surrender: the commission finally becomes a captive of the regulated 
groups.''
  If you don't want to go back half a century for a discussion of 
regulatory capture, look to last week's Wall Street Journal editorial 
page where a senior fellow at the Cato Institute writes:

       By all accounts, MMS operated as a rubber stamp for BP. It 
     is a striking example of regulatory capture: Agencies tasked 
     with protecting the public interest come to identify with the 
     regulated industry and protect its interests against that of 
     the public. The result: Government fails to protect the 
     public.

  There is plenty of evidence that the oil and gas industry had 
captured MMS. When you have a captive agency, you get what we have 
seen: altering, deleting, or ignoring recommendations from government 
scientists.

[[Page 11051]]

  A draft environmental analysis for drilling in the gulf from May of 
2000 included the haunting prediction that ``the oil industry's 
experience base in deep-water well control is limited,'' and a massive 
oilspill, ``could easily turn out to be a potential showstopper for 
the'' Outer Continental Shelf ``program if the industry and MMS do not 
come together as a whole to prevent such an incident.''
  This unwelcome observation was deleted from the final analysis 
published.
  Oil and gas company employees filling out official inspection forms 
in pencil for the MMS inspectors to trace over in pen; nearly 400 
categorical exclusions, shielding even deepwater drilling from thorough 
environmental review. Cut-and-paste Environmental Assessments were 
provided by the oil and gas companies. BP's Environmental Assessment 
listed walruses as a species of concern in the Gulf of Mexico. There 
are not, and never have been in the memory of man, walruses in the Gulf 
of Mexico. When they are writing about walruses in the Gulf of Mexico, 
you know, No. 1, they are cutting and pasting out of documents in 
Alaska; No. 2, they are paying no attention to what they write because 
they know it doesn't matter; and, No. 3, they know perfectly well that 
MMS will never catch the fact that they have cut and pasted because 
they are not looking at it either.
  MMS adopted wholesale for its oil and gas drilling ``best practices'' 
proposals of the American Petroleum Institute, and then they made most 
of those best practices only suggestions.
  There has been virtually no enforcement. According to the MMS Web 
site, between 2000 and 2009, civil penalties averaged less than $130 
per well per year on our Outer Continental Shelf, and only three 
criminal referrals were made to the Department since 1990 in the last 
20 years. Add it all up and there is no real question: MMS was a 
captive regulator.
  So the question is, After all those years of corporate control of 
government in the Bush years, how far-reaching is the insinuation of 
corporate influence? We know big PhRMA wrote the Bush pharmacy benefit 
legislation. We know big oil and big coal sat down in secret with Dick 
Cheney to write their energy policy. But down below the decks, down in 
the guts of the administration's agencies, how far were the tentacles 
of corporate influence allowed to reach? How many industry plants are 
stealthily embedded in the government, there to serve the industry, not 
the administration or the public?
  Well, how is it looking? It is not looking good. The Securities and 
Exchange Commission, for instance, gave up its watchdog role years ago 
and became the lapdog of the big Wall Street financiers, raising 
leverage limits, refusing to investigate Bernie Madoff, and helping to 
precipitate the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.
  Twenty-nine miners were killed in a West Virginia mine with a safety 
record that President Obama called ``troubled.'' The Mine Safety and 
Health Administration has been described as a ``revolving door'' with 
industry, staffed by people with mining companies' interests at heart, 
even at the expense of worker safety.
  The Bush head of MHSA, for instance, oversaw the rewriting of 
regulations in 2004 that allowed conveyor belt tunnels to double as 
ventilation shafts, a practice that contributed to a fatal 2006 Massey 
mine disaster.
  Who knows how far it leads? Think of the timber rights the taxpayer 
gives up every year, the grazing rights, the multibillion-dollar 
contracts to big government contractors, the oil and coal leases on 
land, the carnival of public wealth at which these big corporations 
feed.
  The vital question is this: Are these assets of our Nation still in 
the hands of servants of the Nation or have the servants of the Nation 
quietly and insidiously become the servants of the big private 
corporations that want to profit from that public wealth--corporations 
for whom every dollar of a sweet deal, every avoided expense allowed by 
a cozy regulator, every corner cut in safety or environmental 
protection, goes straight to their bottom line and right into their 
pockets. The big multibillion-dollar corporations, is this who we want 
safeguarding our national assets? Is this who we want controlling 
agencies of the U.S. Government?
  Winston Churchill once said in a phrase I like that history turns on 
sharp agate points. What is the sharp agate point on which the history 
of this gulf catastrophe should turn? What lesson of history, if left 
unlearned after this disaster, are we condemned to repeat?
  I hope the lesson we learn is this one: that we can never, never 
again let agencies of the Government of the United States of America 
fall so under the influence of the corporations they are supposed to 
regulate.
  This government of ours, founded in a revolution pledging the lives 
and fortune and sacred honor of those early patriots; this government 
of ours, which has raised for more than two centuries the promise of 
freedom in human hearts; this government that lifts its lamp aloft to 
brighten the darkness of chaos and despair in far distant corners of 
the globe; this government, whose finely tuned balance, crafted by the 
Founders, has seen us through Civil War and World War, through westward 
expansion and Great Depression, through the light bulb and the Model T 
and the Boeing 747 and the iPod; this government of ours, formed by 
Washington and Madison, Jefferson and Adams, and led by each of them, 
and later led by Abraham Lincoln and by Harry Truman and by Theodore 
Roosevelt and by Franklin Roosevelt and by John Fitzgerald Kennedy; 
this American Government of ours should never be on its knees before 
corporate power, no matter how strong. It should never be in the thrall 
of corporate wealth, no matter how vast.
  This American Government of ours should never give the American 
citizen reason to question whose interests are being served. Never.
  In this complex world of ours, government must protect us in remote 
and specialized precincts of the economy. In those remote precincts, 
few people are watching, but big money is made. We must be able to 
trust our government, both in plain view in front of us, and in corners 
far from sight, to be serving always the public interest, not doing the 
secret bidding of special interests, of corporate interests because 
that is where the big money is at stake.
  Have we now learned, have we now finally learned, with the financial 
meltdown and the gulf disaster, the terrible price of all those quietly 
cut corners? Have we now learned what price must be paid when the 
stealthy tentacles of corporate influence are allowed to reach into and 
capture our agencies of government? I pray let us have learned this. 
Let us have learned that lesson. I sincerely pray we have learned our 
lesson and that this will never happen again. But let's not just pray.
  In this troubled world, God works through our human hands, grows a 
more perfect union through our human hearts, creates a beloved 
community through our human thoughts and ideas. So it is not enough to 
pray. We must act. We must act in defense of the integrity of this 
great government of ours, which has brought such light to the world, 
such freedom and equality to our country.
  We cannot allow this government that is a model around the world, 
that inspires people to risk their lives and fortunes to come to our 
shores--we cannot allow any element of this government to become the 
tool of corporate power, the avenue of corporate influence, the puppet 
of corporate tentacles.
  I propose a simple device in this country of laws--not men, of rule 
of law--and that is to allow our top national law officer, the Attorney 
General of the United States, to step in and clean house whenever an 
agency or element of government is no longer credibly independent of 
the industries and businesses it is intended to regulate.
  When a component of government is deemed no longer credibly 
independent of the corporations or industry it is supposed to regulate, 
I suggest that the

[[Page 11052]]

Attorney General be allowed to come in and clean up, hire and fire and 
take personnel action to ensure the integrity of the personnel; to 
establish interim regulations and procedures to ensure the integrity of 
the process; to audit permits and contracts and ensure they were not 
affected by improper corporate influence, and if they were, to rescind 
them where they are not in the public interest due to that improper 
corporate influence; to establish an integrity plan for that component 
of government, all subject to appropriate judicial review where private 
rights are affected. Then the Attorney General can get back out, with 
his or her job done, sort of like an ethics trusteeship or 
receivership.
  I will conclude by saying that the damage to America from the 
corporate takeover of the SEC was nothing short of catastrophic. Just 
in my State of Rhode Island, 70,000 Rhode Islanders are unemployed. 
Many have lost their homes, retirement, health insurance. The toll is 
devastating. The damage from the corporate takeover of the Minerals 
Management Service has also been catastrophic. Who knows what 
potentially catastrophic damage lurks in whatever other agencies of 
government that have silently succumbed to corporate takeover but just 
have not yet exploded in disaster.
  If the financial catastrophe and the gulf catastrophe and whatever 
other catastrophes lurk have any meaning at all, it is that business as 
usual is no longer enough to stem the tide of corporate influence--
insidious, secret corporate influence--in agencies of the U.S. 
Government. It is an institutional problem--relentless, remorseless, 
constantly grasping and insinuating corporate influence. It will never 
go away. It will only worsen as corporations get bigger and richer and 
more global, and there has to be an institutional mechanism in place to 
resist it so that it no longer takes a catastrophe to call the failure 
of governance of an American regulator to proper attention.
  I think this is the right way. If a colleague has a better idea, I am 
more than willing to listen. But one thing I know is that after an 
economic catastrophe and this environmental catastrophe, this much, at 
least, is clear: We can no longer wait for catastrophes to root out 
improper corporate influence in our government, in this government of 
our United States. We have to, at long last, address the problem of 
insidious regulatory capture of agencies of our government, captive to 
the industries they are supposed to regulate.
  I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
be the next four amendments in order to the Baucus motion to concur, 
with each of the amendments in this agreement subject to an affirmative 
60-vote threshold; that if the amendments achieve that threshold, then 
they be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table; that if they do not achieve that threshold, then 
they be withdrawn; that if there is a sequence of votes with respect to 
these amendments, then prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form and that after the 
first vote, any succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each; 
further, that no intervening amendment be in order during consideration 
of these amendments: No. 4371, Casey; Coburn, No. 4331; Whitehouse, No. 
4324; and that the Whitehouse amendment be modified with the changes at 
the desk. And the final amendment in this sequence is the LeMieux 
amendment No. 4300.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
speakers be Senator Coburn--does the Senator from Oklahoma have any 
idea how long he will be?
  Mr. COBURN. A fairly short period of time.
  Mr. REID. Senator Casey, how long?
  Mr. CASEY. About 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Senator Stabenow?
  Mrs STABENOW. About 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. We need not do a consent agreement. Everybody can watch the 
clock on their own.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                Amendment No. 4331 to Amendment No. 4369

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4331 to the Baucus 
substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4331 to Amendment No. 4369.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, at this time, I ask that the amendment be 
divided in the form I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to have his amendment 
divided.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that will actually 
pay for everything we are doing. It does several things that the 
American people are demanding that we do.
  It discloses the true cost of borrowing and spending that we actually 
do in this body.
  It reduces the budgets of the Members of Congress. We had a 4.8-
percent increase in our budgets. This is going to decrease that by less 
than a third, making us suffer with the rest of the country in terms of 
trying to get control of our massive debt and deficit spending.
  It enacts what President Obama has been asking his own agencies to 
do: it takes 5 percent from all the agencies, except Defense and 
Veterans Affairs, and says: Cut that amount. The size of the agencies 
has doubled since 1999. We are asking the agencies to find 5 percent of 
efficiency within their agency to help us not continue to add trillions 
of dollars of debt to our children.
  It eliminates nonessential government travel. It will save us $10 
billion over 10 years. It doesn't eliminate essential; it just says 
that when you can do a teleconference, you do that. You don't 
necessarily fly and take a hotel room when you can accomplish it 
another way.
  It reduces unnecessary printing and publishing costs of government 
documents. That saves us $4 billion over 10 years. Nobody reads these. 
They are all available online. If we get rid of the ones that don't 
have to be printed, we save hundreds of thousands of trees every year--
which absorb CO2, by the way--but it also saves us $4.4 
billion by not printing stuff we all have on our computers already.
  In working with the OMB, they are behind what we are trying to do in 
terms of unused and unneeded government property and government 
buildings. So what it does is it gives us $15 billion in direct savings 
in revenue by getting rid of things that we are spending $8 billion a 
year on maintaining that we are not using. So we save $15 billion over 
10 years, plus we get the savings of not having to maintain what we own 
but are not using.
  We will sell unused and unneeded equipment. We have $\1/4\ billion 
worth just sitting there in warehouses. We are never going to use it, 
but it is sitting there. We can get good prices from the private sector 
that can go out and utilize this and put it to work.
  It caps the total number of Federal employees. Why is that important? 
I am a supporter of our Federal employees. We had a speech on the floor 
today accusing those of us who want to limit the growth of the Federal 
Government in terms of employees and the size, saying we were against 
our Federal employees. We are not. What we are saying is that in a time 
when we are running a $1.6 trillion deficit--that is what it will be 
this year; we said 1.4, but we have already borrowed $200 billion

[[Page 11053]]

more than that on this floor since February 12--we ought to be getting 
more productivity out of what we have, not because it is not the right 
thing to do--it is the right thing--but because we cannot afford to be 
lax in anything we are doing today. Every time we don't save a dollar, 
we are now charging that dollar to our children and grandchildren.
  It puts a cap on the total number of Federal employees. There is 
plenty of flexibility within the Federal Government. The Federal 
Government has added 160,000 employees in the last 16 months. There are 
441,000 for the census, but that doesn't count them. This is 160,000 
full-time Federal employees in the last 16 months. How many more 
employees do we need? Can we afford more Federal employees at this time 
or should we get more with what we have?
  We also put a temporary 1-year freeze on total salary. That doesn't 
mean people who work for the Federal Government cannot get a raise. 
They can. But they need to be more productive and recognized for it. 
But there should be no more automatic pay increases this next year 
because we are running a $1.6 trillion deficit and also because the 
average Federal employee makes $78,000 a year and has benefits worth 
$40,000. The average private sector employee makes $42,000 a year and 
has benefits worth $20,000. Freezing that for 1 year will have a 
minimal long-term effect, especially when we saw today that we are 
actually in a deflationary period where the Consumer Price Index went 
down one-tenth of 1 percent. We had a nine-tenths of 1 percent decrease 
this year. So the cost of living is not going up; it is going down. All 
we are saying is, let's do this for 1 year and demonstrate that we 
understand the tough choices the public is making and that we are 
willing to make tough choices.
  I agree, it is a tough choice. It is hard. But it does not mean that 
stellar employees cannot get raises. They can. That saves $2.6 billion 
this year, for 1 year.
  It collects unpaid taxes from employees of the Federal Government. We 
have employees of the Federal Government who owe $3 billion. It directs 
a garnishee of those payments from the Federal employees. These are not 
disputed. These are not still under negotiation. These are things that 
have already been agreed to that are owed by Federal employees to the 
Federal Government. That gets us $3 billion that we do not have.
  We also have a section that excessive duplication and overhead within 
the Federal Government should be eliminated. Two easy examples: Across 
60 different agencies, we have 70 different programs to feed people who 
are hungry. Why do we have 70? Why don't we have 7 or one? Not one of 
those 70 programs has a metric on it to see if it is effective in what 
it does.
  We have 105 programs across seven different agencies that incentivize 
at the cost of billions of dollars a year people to go into math, 
science, engineering, and technology. Why do we have 105 programs? Why 
not one run by one set of overhead and one agency and measure the 
results? There are 640 other examples of duplication just like that in 
the Federal Government.
  What this amendment says is we ought to be about eliminating that 
duplication. We ought to be able to increase productivity and also 
increase the results of the very programs for the people we are trying 
to help.
  The other thing we do is we eliminate bonuses for contractors to the 
Federal Government who are not meeting performance requirements. That 
is $800 million a year that your government is paying out to people who 
do work for the Federal Government who do not meet the minimum 
requirements for their contract, and yet we are paying them $800 
million in bonuses as if they were meeting the requirements of their 
contract. That saves $8 billion over 10 years. None of us would do that 
with anybody who worked for us. Why do we allow the Federal Government 
to do that?
  This government gives the United Nations 25 percent of its entire 
budget. But we also give voluntary payments to the United Nations. I 
just talked with Peter Orszag from OMB, and I am getting that report as 
we speak. It was due January 1. It is now mid to late June.
  What we do is eliminate no more than $1 billion more than what our 
obligations are in terms of peacekeeping or our dues to the United 
Nations. There are good reasons to do that. There was, with the last 
foreign appropriations, a requirement that the United Nations show us 
where our money is going. That got thrown out in conference. But we do 
not even know where the $6 billion a year that we give to the United 
Nations is spent because they will not show us where it is spent. We 
would never tolerate that from any agency we fund. And yet we don't. We 
are saying do not give more than a billion more than that to the United 
Nations. We limit that. That is a $10 billion a year savings.
  Here is what we do know about the United Nations. In the peacekeeping 
money that we give, 45 percent of it is lost to fraud. Think about 
that. Forty-five percent of the $3 billion that we give to peacekeeping 
operations is lost to fraud, documented. We found that one out by 
accident. They did not want us to find that out.
  We ought to be good stewards with the money of the American people 
when it comes to contributing their money to the United Nations.
  Returning excessive funds from an unnecessary, unneeded, unrequested, 
duplicative reserve fund that will never be spent: That is $362 
million. It is a one-time savings. It will never be spent. It is 
sitting there. We ought to take it back.
  Rescinding unspent Federal funds: There is $1.7 trillion sitting in 
accounts right now. Of that, $690 billion has not been obligated for 
the future expenditure. We are saying move $50 billion of that back 
into this year and use it to pay for things that are important, such as 
unemployment insurance, rather than borrow from our children.
  Why is that important? If you have three bank accounts and each one 
had $100 in it and you had to write a $200 check, you would go to the 
accounts you had and write the check from the two accounts so you could 
pay the check. This money is rolling out there to the tune of $600 
billion every year that is not obligated.
  Common sense would say we would be more efficient with our money 
rather than paying interest on that money. We would use it in a more 
timely fashion. Everybody does that except the Federal Government. We 
ought to be doing it as well.
  Reducing wasteful costs at the Department of Energy. The Department 
of Energy is supposed to be setting the example for this country on 
energy efficiency. They are the worst agency as far as energy costs and 
efficiency in energy. All we are doing is you follow the rules you have 
set for everybody else. It saves $13.8 million per year. That is just 
one agency following the rules they have told every other agency to 
follow.
  Finally, we strike the new taxes that are in this bill because we do 
not need to pay for them because we can cut spending somewhere else. 
The last thing we need to be doing, as we have the threat of a double-
dip recession, is taking more private capital out of the economy and 
putting it into government because the multiplier effect of government 
spending is very low. Private spending multiplier effect is about 1.5. 
That means for every dollar you spend, you end up generating about $1.5 
in economic activity. For every government dollar that is spent, you 
generate $1.1 in economic activity. The last thing we ought to be doing 
is raising taxes. I don't care where it is in this economy. It is so 
precarious that we need private capital being invested to create jobs 
and opportunities for jobs in this country.
  I have listed the vast majority of provisions that are in the bill. I 
will be back to discuss each one individually.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                Amendment No. 4371 to Amendment No. 4369

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 4371 to amendment No. 4369 proposed by Senator Baucus.

[[Page 11054]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Casey], for himself and 
     Mr. Brown of Ohio, proposes an amendment numbered 4371 to 
     amendment No. 4369.

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

(Purpose: To provide for the extension of premium assistance for COBRA 
                               benefits)

       At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the 
     following:

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

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Extension of eligibility period.--Subsection (a)(3)(A) 
     of section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), as amended by 
     section 3(a) of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-157), is amended by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``November 30, 2010''.
       (2) Rules relating to 2010 extension.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), as amended by 
     section 3(b) of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-157), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(19) Additional rules related to 2010 extension.--In the 
     case of an individual who, with regard to coverage described 
     in paragraph (10)(B), experiences a qualifying event related 
     to a termination of employment on or after June 1, 2010, and 
     prior to the date of the enactment of this paragraph--
       ``(A) paragraph (2)(A)(ii)(I) shall be applied by 
     substituting `6 months' for `15 months'; and
       ``(B) rules similar to those in paragraphs (4)(A) and 
     (7)(C) shall apply with respect to all continuation coverage, 
     including State continuation coverage programs.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect as if included in the provisions of section 
     3001 of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act of 2009.
       (b) Elimination of Advance Refundability of Earned Income 
     Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3507, subsection (g) of section 
     32, and paragraph (7) of section 6051(a) are repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 6012(a) is amended by striking paragraph (8) 
     and by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (8).
       (B) Section 6302 is amended by striking subsection (i).
       (3) Effective date.--The repeals and amendments made by 
     this subsection shall apply to taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2010.

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, Senator Brown of Ohio and I have offered 
this amendment which will extend the eligibility period for the COBRA 
Premium Assistance Program until November 30. We appreciate the support 
of many Senators--Senators Franken, Stabenow, Reed, Leahy, Akaka, 
Begich, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Kerry, Wyden, Harkin, Levin, Burris, 
the Presiding Officer, Gillibrand, Kaufman, Specter, Menendez, Merkley, 
Schumer, Mikulski, Dodd, Durbin, Murray, Shaheen, Rockefeller, and 
Boxer. All are cosponsors of the original amendment we offered the 
other day, first offered by Senator Brown and me as an amendment to 
Senator Baucus's original amendment.
  I thank Senator Baucus, the Chair of our Finance Committee, for his 
very hard work on this bill. We are nearing the end. We are working 
very hard to complete this bill.
  As we do that, we are also mindful that we are recovering from this 
economic recession. We must continue, in my judgment, to support vital 
safety net programs that our citizens need to support their own 
families.
  The national unemployment rate now stands at 9.7 percent. That 
translates in Pennsylvania into more than 584,000 people out of work. 
We got a report today that across the country, jobless claims are going 
up, unfortunately, after having gone down for a number of months. The 
economy is showing improvement. We are recovering. Jobs are being added 
every day. But certain industries are experiencing layoffs, and that is 
why we must continue this program to ensure that Americans have access 
to quality health care, especially those who have lost their jobs.
  Without the extension of the COBRA Premium Assistance Program, a 
report from the National Employment Law Projects predicts as many as 
150,000 Americans each month will lose out on the subsidies necessary 
to afford quality health care.
  In the Senate, we do not have to worry about health care. We have 
both job security and health care that millions of Americans do not 
have today.
  Today we received a report from the Treasury Department which 
outlines important information on the success of the COBRA Premium 
Assistance Program. The report is entitled ``Interim Report to The 
Congress on COBRA Premium Assistance.'' It is dated June 2010 from the 
Department of Treasury. I commend this report to my colleagues.
  In the report, it states that over 2 million households in America 
have benefited from the COBRA Premium Assistance Program. In 
Pennsylvania, that means over 100,000--107,311--Pennsylvania households 
have benefited from it. That is 2 million households across the country 
were able to afford quality health care while they were searching for a 
job. Millions of Americans had one less thing to worry about--their 
health and the health of their family--while they searched for that 
job.
  In very brief form, I wish to highlight a section from the report 
that talks about how this program actually works, and many Americans 
understand this. I am quoting from page 2:

       Workers eligible for COBRA premium assistance send a 
     premium payment to their employers, plan administrators, or 
     insurers for continuation coverage.

  Because of the Recovery Act we passed in 2009, those individuals pay 
only 35 percent of the premium. Then, of course, the employers are 
allowed a credit against their payroll taxes for the remaining 65 
percent. That is how it works. It works well, and it has shown results, 
according to this new report from the Treasury Department.
  The total cost of this program in 2009 was $2 billion. However, the 
score that the Congressional Budget Office gave it originally back in 
2009 was $16 billion. They predicted $16 billion; it cost but $2 
billion. Of course, in 2009, we had a tremendously high job loss 
compared to this year.
  That cost is going to go significantly down. Part of the reason for 
being so much cheaper is the efficiency of administering this program. 
The Treasury report I referred to states that the total cost to 
administer the program, with three Federal agencies involved, was $8 
million--.5 percent of the cost of the overall program. Based on the 
Treasury report, it is obvious this program is both effective and 
efficient and has assisted millions of Americans.
  In addition to ensuring quality health care, the program is a 
lifeline for Americans across the country. I received a letter back in 
March from a woman in Pennsylvania, Lisa. I will not give her name and 
address. I do not have permission. But I want to highlight her personal 
situation without identifying her. I am quoting a pertinent part in her 
letter. She said:

       I have been receiving chemotherapy nearly every other week 
     for the past 18 months--

  After being diagnosed in 2008.

       The treatments were covered by my COBRA benefits and has 
     kept me alive. I must continue chemotherapy but ran into a 
     problem when an extension of my COBRA coverage was denied.

  Lisa in Pennsylvania speaks for hundreds of thousands, if not 
millions, of Americans when she tells us what this program means to 
her. It is, in fact, a program which has kept her alive, to use her 
words, not mine. That is what this is about. It is about real life. It 
is about real families who are living through the double nightmare--the 
horror of losing a job and then being hit over the head again by losing 
their health care coverage.
  There are countless stories similar to Lisa's across the country, and 
many of us have heard these stories. These stories relate to how COBRA, 
including this premium assistance program itself, gave people hope in 
the midst of despair from losing a job and also losing health care 
coverage.
  So I would encourage my fellow colleagues in the Senate to support 
the

[[Page 11055]]

amendment that Senator Brown of Ohio and I have introduced, which 
includes an offset to the extension of the program so it is paid for.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I thank my friend from 
Pennsylvania for his leadership and passion on this issue, and I am 
very pleased to join him in this amendment. I also thank the chairman 
of the Finance Committee for many hours on this floor working very hard 
to put together this very important jobs bill that we need to get done 
as quickly as possible.
  I want to spend a few moments talking about the gulf and what has 
happened and what it more broadly represents--both in terms of what is 
happening on the Senate floor and in our country.
  When I flip on the television and see what is happening in the gulf, 
like all of us, I know this truly is a tragedy. To see the workers who 
have lost their jobs, who can't go out on their fishing or shrimping 
boats, who haven't seen any tourists come their way in over a month; to 
see the environmental devastation, I know it is a terrible crisis that 
is testing our Nation and our government. The Obama administration 
inherited a perfect storm--an oil company known for a history of 
egregious safety violations, being given permits to drill a mile down 
under the ocean with no credible public oversight, and a public agency 
that believed oil companies should basically police themselves, even if 
there was a risk to American families. That is what they inherited.
  The tragic events in the Gulf of Mexico started with an explosion 
that killed 11 workers onboard an offshore oil rig operating in waters 
deeper than it had ever operated before, with technology that wasn't 
designed for drilling that deep. It happened because the company 
operating the oil rig took risks with the lives of the workers. They 
cut corners, and they ignored the interests of millions of Americans in 
the gulf who would be affected by their actions.
  This is a tragedy that was allowed to happen by an agency that was 
transformed by 8 years of Republican policies urging them to look the 
other way, an agency whose employees thought they worked for the oil 
industry rather than the American people, an agency that allowed the 
oil industry to fill out their own inspection reports.
  There was a belief articulated by a current Republican Senate 
candidate who said it was un-American for President Obama to criticize 
BP.
  Well, I don't think it is un-American for our President to stand up 
for the men and women who work in the Gulf of Mexico, whose livelihoods 
and lives have been jeopardized by this catastrophe. We are seeing 
millions of barrels of oil being spilled into the waters--waters that 
are owned by the American people--and I think it is the duty of the 
American President to make sure BP cleans it up and does everything 
possible in the gulf to make the people whole.
  Just this morning, during an ongoing Congressional hearing, we heard 
another example of this belief in the words of a senior Republican 
House Member who apologized--apologized--to BP for the President's 
actions in demanding that BP set up a fund to reimburse the losses of 
local small businesspeople and families in the gulf and for their 
tremendous hardships caused, I might add, by BP. This Congressman 
called it a shakedown, a slush fund. Mr. President, I call it 
leadership and standing up for the American people. That is his job, 
and that is our job as well.
  But there is a larger issue represented in this disaster. Public 
accountability and commonsense regulations do matter. That is our job 
as well. My colleagues know that as a Senator from Michigan, there is 
no one who will fight harder for the auto industry than myself. But 
even while I will fight tooth and nail--and I have--for this industry 
and the success of this industry, I still support safety regulations.
  When I put my grandkids in a car, I want the car to have seatbelts 
and airbags, and I want to make sure that automobile has gone through a 
rigorous crash test. Our economy and our quality of life depend on 
vibrant successful businesses, but our quality of life also depends on 
public accountability, on commonsense regulations to protect the health 
and safety of our families.
  Someone has to stand and protect the water and the air we breathe. 
Someone has to stand for our children and for our elders. Someone has 
to stand for the safety of workers--the 11 workers who were killed on 
that rig or the 29 workers who were killed in the mine collapse in 
April or the millions of fishermen and shrimpers and tourism workers 
whose livelihoods are at risk today on the gulf coast.
  When we look at our record in this Congress, we have seen this same 
debate played out time and time again. Even this week, two different 
beliefs, two different sets of values. The first bill that President 
Obama signed into law was named after a woman named Lilly Ledbetter--
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act--to require equal pay for equal work. 
On that very first bill, we saw two different views and beliefs: the 
Republican view that essentially said corporations should be able to 
discriminate against women or people with color if they choose to and 
on our side we stood with a woman, Lilly Ledbetter, who for years had 
gotten paid significantly less than her male coworkers for doing the 
exact same job just because she was a woman. We passed that bill, and 
it was signed into law so that women, so that people of color would not 
have to go through that in the future. We happen to believe in fair 
play. We happen to believe in equal pay for equal work.
  Then there was the Recovery Act. There, again, we saw a very big 
difference. After the biggest bailout of Wall Street in the history of 
our country, on one side was a belief that government shouldn't get 
involved to help the American people hurt by the financial crisis in 
the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression; that 
the proper course would be to sit back and let the economy fix itself, 
even though those who caused the financial crisis were, in fact, being 
helped. Never mind that millions of people who used to live comfortable 
middle-class lives lost their jobs, their entire life savings and their 
homes to a bunch of traders on Wall Street who made some bad deals with 
no public accountability.
  But we believed something different, Mr. President: that when the 
economy is on the edge of a cliff and millions of middle-class families 
have been hurt due to no fault of their own, you don't just sit back 
and hope for the best. That is not leadership; you do something. So we 
passed a historic Recovery Act focused on the American people--focused 
on jobs, on helping small businesses grow by building clean energy 
technology, schools, bridges, and roads--and making investments in our 
future and, yes, helping people who had been caught in that economic 
tsunami so they could keep the lights on at home and have a roof over 
their head and take care of their families.
  When President Obama took office in January of 2009, we were losing 
750,000 jobs a month. Today, thanks to this Recovery Act and other work 
done here, we are creating jobs. It is not as fast as I would like, 
certainly coming from Michigan, where we have been hit harder than 
anyone else, but we are moving in the right direction. It wouldn't be 
the case if we had done nothing last year.
  We heard for years that Wall Street needed less regulation, more 
freedom to innovate, and for nearly a decade there were policies in 
place that took a hands-off approach. What we saw was an over-the-
counter derivatives market that grew to be worth over $500 trillion, 
completely in the dark, completely unregulated, with no oversight and 
no transparency. There were many people who thought this was great. 
Here was an example of a market with no public oversight at all, and it 
was making money hand over fist.
  Then the bubble burst, and it turned out the whole thing was smoke 
and

[[Page 11056]]

mirrors. Because there was nobody there speaking out for the American 
public, it was the American families who paid the price, and we paid a 
heavy price. That is why we recently passed Wall Street reform, and we 
need to get it to the President to create public accountability and 
commonsense regulation to protect investors and consumers. That is our 
job.
  We passed a bill to give consumers the power to get their mortgages 
modified so they could stay in their homes and prevent foreclosures 
from emptying out entire communities. We also passed a law giving new 
tools to law enforcement and prosecutors to help them crack down on 
mortgage fraud and securities fraud. On each and every issue our 
Democratic majority has been fighting for the people of this country. 
Our Republican colleagues believe and have expressed--and I assume this 
is sincere--that the old policies of deregulation and no public 
accountability are better. They believe that large corporate 
interests--mining companies, oil companies, Wall Street, big banks--
should police themselves and things will be OK.
  But for the 11 workers on the oil rig in the gulf and the millions of 
people who live in that region of our country, those policies just 
didn't work. For the 29 miners who lost their lives in West Virginia, 
those policies just didn't work. For the millions of Americans who lost 
their jobs or their life savings because of Wall Street's recklessness, 
those policies just didn't work. I can't believe the American people 
want to go back and relive all of that again. I certainly don't.
  When President Obama took office, we saw the wreckage left behind 
after 8 years of deregulation and, frankly, it was time to put people 
first. So that is why we got to work. From day one we have seen 
unprecedented obstruction--the Republican leadership using every trick 
in the book to stop us from making the changes the American people 
want. But we have kept on fighting, we have passed now 242 bills, 175 
of them signed into law to move our country forward.
  Frankly, though, this isn't about numbers. Numbers don't matter. What 
matters is whether things are getting better for people. But let me 
just review some of what has been put in place to begin to turn things 
around.
  The Recovery Act I mentioned to focus on jobs, the expansion of 
health insurance for children so that working moms and dads can know at 
least the kids are going to be able to see a doctor, protection of our 
public lands and national parks so our kids and grandkids can enjoy our 
beautiful land and our beautiful parks in this country, credit card 
reform, veterans health care so our troops coming home get the care 
they need and the care they deserve, that is the least we can do.
  We have increased support for our disabled veterans. We have enacted 
tobacco regulation to keep our kids from smoking. We have stood up to 
the tobacco industry on behalf of our children's health. We also passed 
the Serve America Act to support our young people and seniors and help 
get them involved to give back to the community--a very important value 
that we believe in as Americans. We also passed an FAA bill to 
modernize our air traffic control systems so that we have safer air 
travel; a national Defense bill that gives a pay raise to our men and 
women in uniform, which is the least we can do, and that helps our 
veterans who don't have a home; a jobs bill to help our small 
businesses expand and local communities have the tools they need to 
create jobs; a health care bill that saves families money, makes sure 
that every family can have a family doctor and improve the quality of 
care in this country; student loan changes to stop subsidies to banks 
and putting more money into making sure students can get some help to 
go to college and that it costs less so they can afford to go; and 
major financial industry reform so we never see another Wall Street 
bailout.
  As I said, we know none of this matters if you do not have a job and 
if you are fighting to keep your home. We have to make sure that all of 
this--and we are working hard to make sure--adds up to real 
improvements in people's lives and economic security.
  We are beginning to see things turn around because we have changed 
the values, we have changed the priorities back to what is best for the 
American people, what is best for middle-class families--the people we 
all talk about who are playing by the rules and want to know they will 
have a fair shot to be able to care for their families and be 
successful.
  At every issue we run into roadblocks and opposition from the other 
side because they believe--and I believe it is an honest belief; we 
hear it over and over again--that more tax cuts for wealthy Americans 
and less regulation is always the answer. If that were true, given what 
has happened in the former administration when they controlled the 
House and Senate and the White House, things would be great. I wish 
things were great. But that view has not worked for the majority of 
Americans.
  Today, every American with a television set can see the results of 
those beliefs. We had 8 years of that and we cannot go back. But this 
is not only about the past, it is also about the differences we debate 
every day in the Senate. It is about this week, last week, and I am 
sure next week. It is about the future. We need someone to be a check 
on the mining and the oil and the banking industries. We need 
commonsense regulators who do not think they work for the industry they 
are supposed to oversee. That is what this new administration is about 
and what we are about. We have to hold companies accountable when they 
ignore the rules and put the public or their workers at risk. We have 
to move America forward and continue making the changes this country 
needs. That is what we have been fighting for. That is what all of the 
actions we have taken have been about. That is what we will continue to 
do.
  But it is not about growing the government. We know that 
overregulation is not the answer either. But we want the government we 
have to work. That is the question: Who should our government work for? 
The special interests, those with great wealth and power, or families 
working hard to make ends meet and hold onto the American dream--small 
businesses and entrepreneurs with a great idea; people who want to know 
that the rules are fair for them, that if they work hard they will be 
able to have a job and they can be successful in our economy; families 
who want to know that somebody is making sure the rules protect their 
401(k), their pension, their savings; that they can drink the water and 
breathe the air and eat the food they buy without getting sick.
  We all want to be able to trust that the safety rules are enforced. 
If you or a loved one work on a mine or on an oil rig--or if you are 
getting in the car to take your kids to a soccer game--we all want to 
trust that when you get permits to drill in our precious waters, we 
will be looking out for the fishing jobs and our Nation's tourism 
industry and that we will not allow risky drilling without strong, 
commonsense regulation and accountability.
  Our country cannot afford to go back to the previous beliefs that 
created the crises that President Obama and this Congress have been 
forced to deal with every day. We believe, the majority believes, it is 
our public responsibility to be on the side of the American people and 
that is what each of these legislative battles here in Congress is all 
about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3347

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I welcome following my distinguished 
colleague from Michigan and her impassioned plea against 
obstructionism. I have been facing the same challenges in particular 
with certain programs that are absolutely crucial for Louisiana but 
more broadly for the country. One that is absolutely important for all 
of us in Louisiana is the National Flood Insurance Program. It is a 
national program. It is important for our economy. It is important for 
the real estate industry. It is important for homeowners and closings 
around the

[[Page 11057]]

country, for economic activity to move forward, particularly when we 
need every bit of economic activity in these tough times of recession. 
But it is really important in Louisiana. We face enormous flood threats 
so it is important there.
  Unfortunately, the extension of the present National Flood Insurance 
Program--which everyone, as far as I know, supports--is being held 
hostage, essentially, in this extenders bill. I have been trying to pry 
it loose from that so we can extend the program, not let it expire as 
it has expired--it expired June 1; it is not in operation today--get it 
back in place, get it fully extended through the rest of the calendar 
year.
  I would have thought this would be a ``no brainer,'' this would be 
consensus, this would not be partisan. It should not be. This is a 
simple extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. What is more, 
this extension does not create any additional deficit. Obviously, a big 
part of this debate about this larger bill on the floor is about 
increasing deficit spending. Lots of folks, including me, have real 
concern about that. I think that is a legitimate concern that all of us 
have at some level. This extension does not increase the deficit at 
all.
  I came to the floor before the Memorial Day recess because I saw this 
train wreck coming. I asked unanimous consent to simply extend that 
National Flood Insurance Program with no deficit impact, extend it by 
unanimous consent until the end of the year.
  The distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, objected. I tried to 
engage in a meaningful debate, because I think the American people 
deserve it, about what is wrong with the program, what is wrong with 
the extension, what is wrong with the proposal. It has no deficit 
impact.
  The silence from the distinguished majority leader was deafening. He 
objected because he could object. That is his right--no explanation, no 
justification.
  The result has been the train wreck I was trying to avoid. The 
program expired on June 1. The program is not in place today. That is 
stopping and making a lot more complicated real estate closings--people 
trying to buy their first home, people trying to buy another home. Lord 
knows we need every real estate closing we can get to happen in this 
economy. We cannot create unnecessary barriers to that when we are 
trying to come out of this real-estate-led recession. Yet this 
majority, this Senate, this Congress let that absolutely crucial 
National Flood Insurance Program expire June 1. So here we are again.
  My plea is the same. Everyone, as far as I know, supports the 
extension of the National Flood Insurance Program which is now expired. 
Everyone, as far as I know, says, rightfully, that it is a necessary 
program. We need to reinstate it to get the economy humming again, to 
make these real estate closings easier and not harder, to help 
recovery, not hinder it. And everybody admits, including the 
Congressional Budget Office, there is zero deficit impact with this 
extension. It is a clean extension. It does not increase the deficit in 
any way.
  Let's do the right thing. Let's extend that. Let's not make something 
partisan which should not be. It is not an ideological difference. Many 
members of our community--homeowners, folks in the real estate sector--
strongly support this effort. In that vein, I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record this letter from 22 trade associations, 
including the National Association of Realtors and many others strongly 
in support of this sort of stand-alone extension of the program.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 15, 2010.
       To All Members of Congress: On behalf of our organizations, 
     we want to share with you our respective memberships' 
     frustration with the fact that Congress, on May 31, 2010, 
     again allowed the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to 
     expire--the third time this year. We urge you to immediately 
     reauthorize the program.
       Five and a half million taxpayers depend on the NFIP as 
     their main source of protection against flooding, the most 
     common natural disaster in the United States. Without flood 
     insurance, no federally-related mortgage loans may be made in 
     nearly 20,000 communities nationwide.
       The frequent lapses in the NFIP program are undermining 
     homeowner and commercial property owner confidence in this 
     vital program. Given the fragile state of residential and 
     commercial real estate markets, Congress should take 
     immediate action to restore confidence in the NFIP through a 
     long-term, stand-alone extension.
       The NFIP is critically important to American citizens and 
     the U.S. economy. We urge you to immediately approve a 
     reauthorization and extension of the NFIP and avoid 
     exacerbating the uncertainty for taxpayers who rely on the 
     NFIP to insure residential and commercial properties.
           Sincerely,
         American Escrow Association; American Insurance 
           Association; American Land Title Association; American 
           Resort Development Association; Building Owners and 
           Managers Association; CCIM Institute; The Chamber 
           Southwest LA; Credit Union National Association; 
           Financial Services Roundtable; Greater New Orleans, 
           Incorporated; Independent Community Bankers of America; 
           Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America; 
           Institute of Real Estate Management; Mortgage Bankers 
           Association; National Apartment Association; National 
           Association of Federal Credit Unions; National 
           Association of Home Builders; National Association of 
           REALTORS; National Multi-Housing Council; National 
           Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; Property 
           Casualty Insurers Association of America; The Real 
           Estate Roundtable.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the letter truthfully says--it is very 
simple:

       The frequent lapses in the National Flood Insurance Program 
     are undermining homeowners and commercial property owner 
     confidence in this vital system. Given the fragile state of 
     residential and commercial real estate markets, Congress 
     should take immediate action to restore confidence in the 
     National Flood Insurance Program through a long-term, stand-
     alone extension.

  That is what my stand-alone bill is. It is not complicated. It is not 
controversial--should not be. Not partisan--should not be. It doesn't 
increase the deficit in any way, shape or form--not by a penny.
  Again, I will ask what I asked before the Memorial Day recess, trying 
to avoid this train wreck which has now happened for over a couple of 
weeks.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 372, which is my bill, S. 3347, a bill I 
introduced that extends the National Flood Insurance Program through 
December 31, 2010; that that bill be read a third time, passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Is there objection?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
say I very much understand and appreciate the concerns of the Senator. 
This is in the bill we have in front of us today that we hope will be 
passed today. The complete language is in the bill. I understand his 
concern. I feel the same about extending unemployment benefits which 
usually is overwhelmingly supported on a bipartisan basis but has been 
held up as well. I have been in the same situation on that. To me it is 
a ``no brainer.'' I would love to see that extended as well. I would 
have loved to have seen that extended a month ago. But the reality is 
these items have been put together in a package and we will have the 
opportunity, hopefully later today or tomorrow, to vote on that. So on 
behalf of the leader, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, again, I think it is a shame. If the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan wants to propound a UC to separate 
unemployment insurance, I will support that. I will not object. I think 
it is a good idea. I think we need to come together around things on 
which we agree. I think those things are and should be bipartisan and 
we should not bend over backwards to somehow make them partisan in this 
silly game. So I would support that unanimous consent request. I am 
sorry she cannot, at least on behalf of the leader, support mine.
  I understand it is part of the larger bill. It was 2\1/2\ weeks ago 
and that is exactly why the program lapsed on June 1--because it was 
part of the larger bill and that larger bill was not

[[Page 11058]]

going to pass then, did not pass yesterday, probably is not going to 
pass today.
  In the meantime, it is not some theoretical bill that is being held 
hostage. It is American citizens who are being held hostage. It is 
first-time home buyers who are being held hostage. It is people in the 
real estate industry who need every darned closing that they can close 
who are being held hostage. It is not right. It is politics ahead of 
people, purely and simply.
  I am very sorry that again the majority leader has rejected this 
simple idea. I will keep making the request because this program has 
now lapsed. It has not existed since June 1 and that is hurting people 
and that is hurting the economy.
  I would like to move on to another aspect of this bill which is 
hurting people, which is particularly offensive to me, representing 
Louisiana. This is only getting worse in terms of this bill going from 
one version to another; that is, the aspect of this bill on the Senate 
floor that pertains to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
  I represent Louisiana. More importantly, I live in Louisiana. I am 
all for oilspill cleanup. If there is anybody in the world who is for 
that, nobody is for it more than folks in Louisiana for obvious 
reasons. I am for a healthy and vibrant Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 
That trust fund has to be increased and grown. And lots of things about 
the Oil Pollution Act are clearly outdated. I have put forward 
proposals to update those, but unfortunately that is not what is going 
on.
  In this bill, there was initially an increase in the tax into the Oil 
Spill Liability Trust Fund from 8 cents a barrel to 41 cents a barrel. 
That is over a five-times increase. Now, if that was needed for 
oilspill cleanup and was going to be used for oilspill cleanup, I would 
be the first to say, great. The problem is, it was stuck in this bill 
not for that reason at all but to be stolen--that money to be stolen 
and used for other spending. As soon as that money went into this so-
called trust fund, it was going to be grabbed out and used for 
completely unrelated spending, nothing to do with any oilspill.
  I had an amendment on the floor, and the amendment was very simple. 
It did not disrupt the tax increase--did not touch that. It simply said 
that anything going into the oil fund has to be used to clean up 
oilspills--radical idea--and No. 2, anything going into the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund cannot be used as an offset, double-counted--Enron 
accounting to mask, to hide other deficit spending, which is going on 
in this bill.
  Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. But we had a good vote, 
quite frankly. I want to note and thank the Democratic majority 
chairman of the Budget Committee for voting yes on that. I think he 
voted yes because of the simple reality of what I am saying. That money 
should only be used to clean up oilspills. That money should not be 
double-counted, should not be used in Enron accounting to offset, to 
mask other completely unrelated deficit spending.
  In the new version of this so-called extenders bill recently 
unveiled, unfortunately we are going from bad to worse because they 
just increased the tax from 41 cents to 49 cents. Originally, it was 8 
cents, and it jumped to 41 cents--that is over a fivefold increase--and 
now to 49 cents. Between those two versions of the bill, we actually 
had President Obama meet with BP and set up a huge escrow fund to make 
sure BP, as the responsible party of the ongoing spill, pays for 
everything, as they absolutely should do. So in between the 41-cent 
version of the bill and the 49-cent version of this bill, we set up 
this escrow fund to ensure, as we should, that BP pays for everything.
  So the increase has nothing to do with the real crisis in the gulf; 
the increase has to do with politics in Washington because that first 
version of the bill did not get the votes because it had too much 
deficit spending. So what do we do? We are going to steal more. We are 
going to offset more out of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And 
that is why it went up again, from 41 cents to 49 cents.
  Well, I have to say that I find all of that pretty darn offensive. We 
have a real crisis in the gulf. It is an ongoing crisis because the 
flow is not stopped. Rather than deal with that real crisis through 
action, some folks up here are using and abusing that crisis to advance 
their own agenda--deficit spending, unrelated spending--through 
politics. I think that is wrong. I think it is wrong in a pretty raw 
way, and I find it offensive. And I say that on the Senate floor. It is 
going from bad to worse. We are now, under the current proposal, 
stealing even more from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, using it 
even more to mask other unrelated spending. We have a real crisis on 
our hands. Let's address it. Let's not use and abuse it politically.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 4300 to Amendment No. 4369

 (Purpose: To establish an expedited procedure for consideration of a 
             bill returning spending levels to 2007 levels)

  Mr. LeMIEUX. I send an amendment to the desk, No. 4300, and I ask 
that it be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. LeMieux] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4300 to amendment No. 4369.

  Mr. LeMIEUX. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of June 7, 2010, under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. LeMIEUX. I have offered amendment No. 4300 today. It is a piece 
of legislation in which Senators Wicker, Risch, and Gregg have joined 
me. It is called the 2007 Solution.
  The No. 1 problem facing this country is our out-of-control spending. 
It is to a point where it is unsustainable.
  I am new here to the Senate. I came last September. My background is 
in business as well as in State government in Florida. In both of those 
venues, I had the responsibility, both in chairing a business I helped 
to run as well as being the Governor's chief of staff in Florida, to 
make sure ends met. In the business I worked in, I would look at 
receipts, and we could only spend as much money as we took in. In State 
government, we had a balanced budget requirement. We had a balanced 
budget requirement in Florida.
  When the economy went bad in 2007, when I was the Governor's chief of 
staff, I would be on the phone with the budget people almost weekly 
monitoring how much money was coming in because I knew we could only 
spend as much as we had. We had three choices if revenues declined: We 
could raise taxes, we could cut spending, or we could find a new source 
of revenue. We did not have the option of spending money we did not 
have.
  So I always knew there was a problem in Washington when Washington 
did not understand those basic dynamics that families in Florida and 
around the country had to deal with in terms of making ends meet, the 
same decisions families make around their kitchen tables to decide: 
Well, we cannot afford it this month, so we are going to have to put it 
off until next month or we are going to have to cut down on some of 
this spending so we can make sense of our fiscal house. I knew that 
didn't happen in Washington, but I never knew the degree to which it 
did not happen.
  When I came here and was sworn in in September of last year, the 
national debt of this country was $12 trillion. That is a staggering 
amount, and it is a number that is hard for us to get our brains 
around.
  One trillion--what does it mean? Well, 1 trillion is 1,000 billion--
$1,000 billion--and 1 billion is 1,000 million.

[[Page 11059]]

Just to put it into some perspective, if you took dollar bills and put 
them on the floor and laid them side by side, $1 million would cover 
two football fields; $1 billion would cover Key West, FL--3.4 square 
miles of one-dollar bills carpeting Key West, FL; $1 trillion would 
cover Rhode Island twice. If you stacked 1 trillion one-dollar bills on 
the ground up to the sky, it would go 600 miles into the sky.
  When I came here in September, this government owed $12 trillion in 
money that it shouldn't have spent in the past, that it couldn't afford 
to spend, and it was carrying that debt. That was bad enough, but time 
has elapsed and now we are in June of 2010, and now the national debt 
is $13 trillion. The debt has gone up $1 trillion in less than a year's 
time. It took 200 years for this country to amass its first trillion 
dollars in debt, and we just did another trillion dollars in less than 
1 year's time.
  Right now in our budget, we spend $200 billion a year paying interest 
on the debt. That is on expenditures we shouldn't have made in the 
past--$200 billion. At our current rate of spending, as projected by 
the White House, by the end of this decade we will spend $900 billion a 
year just making interest payments on debt. By 2020, it is estimated 
that our debt, our national debt, will not be $13 trillion, it will be 
$25.7 trillion. And when we get to that point, our country is going to 
fail. This is not just a problem for our children or our grandchildren, 
it is a problem for all of us. And $900 billion is more than we spend 
fighting both wars and all of the expenditures for the Defense 
Department right now. And we are going to be paying that just in 
interest?
  Perhaps most troubling of all is this fact: Today the money we take 
in in revenues is only enough to cover Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid--the entitlements. Every other dollar we spend for every other 
function of government--from the men and women who keep us free and 
safe in the military to the FAA that guides your plane, to the roads 
you drive on, to the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, 
the Department of Agriculture--every other function of government is 
borrowed. It is unsustainable.
  I am new enough to Washington to not think this is normal. This still 
seems bizarre to me. What this body and what the body down the hall 
fail to do is set priorities and say: We are going to afford this, but 
we cannot afford that--just as families do, as the State government in 
Tallahassee does, as businesses do every day.
  We do not go into the agencies now that are spending all this money 
and say, are they spending money on things that are effective, 
efficient? Are they getting bang for the buck? No. What we do in 
Washington is create new programs. We pass this financial regulatory 
reform bill, and instead of firing all the people at the SEC who failed 
to do their job in policing Wall Street, we create a new governmental 
institution because that is what Washington does--more and more layers 
of government on top of government, with nobody looking to see what 
government is doing now and whether your tax dollars are being spent 
effectively and efficiently because there is no mechanism in place to 
balance the budget.
  I wish we had a balanced budget amendment. I wish we had to do what 
our States have to do. This past spring, in Florida, our State leaders 
had to sit down, when there were less revenues than there had been in 
the past, and they had to make decisions about what to cut. That is 
what leaders do. We do not do that in Washington.
  But I have an amendment, a proposal, that would get us into a 
mechanism to at least have the debate about how we can save this 
country by stemming this uncontrollable spending. It is called the 2007 
Solution. It would require this, simply: Each year, the majority leader 
will be required to offer a piece of legislation that would have 50 
hours of debate, where we would have to go back to 2007 spending 
levels. Why 2007? Well, 2007 was the last year we had a robust economy. 
It was not until December of that year that we entered into recession.
  When I talk with most Floridians, they would be happy to have the 
money they made in 2007 as income in 2010. It was before the stimulus. 
It should be enough for us to live off of. And it is not as though 
things were being done efficiently and effectively in 2007. It is not 
as though someone was going into the agencies trying to chop out waste 
and abuse, set priorities. It was not being done then, either. So there 
should be plenty of wiggle room.
  So if we go back to 2007 level spending at $2.729 trillion, by 2013 
we would balance the budget, and by 2020, instead of having a $25.7 
trillion national debt, we would cut the current national debt in half, 
and it would be somewhere around $6 trillion, and we would save 
America.
  What this amendment does, what this proposal does, is require the 
majority leader to offer an amendment where we will have 50 hours of 
debate on the floor of the Senate--as they will in the House--to set 
spending levels at 2007 levels. And guess what we are going to have to 
do then. We are going to have to be adults. We are going to have to be 
leaders. We are going to have to make decisions about what is 
important.
  The $90 billion Washington spends every year to subsidize different 
businesses around the country--is that important? The billions of 
dollars that go into earmarks--are they important? Could we not cut 10 
percent from each agency, 20 percent from each agency? The $100 billion 
of Medicare fraud a year--could we not combat that? Would we not then 
have a motivation, an impetus, to actually start doing better by the 
American people and watching the dollars they send to us, and spending 
them as if they were our own, and doing it wisely?
  My amendment does not say what has to be cut. It does say there will 
not be any tax increases. We do not need to create more revenue and 
create more of a problem because, trust me, if we create more revenue, 
this Congress will spend it. We do not have a revenue problem. We have 
a spending problem.
  Let's have this debate. Who is afraid of a discussion? Let's go back 
and forth and say what we could cut. Should we cut things in the 
Department of Defense? Is there not waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
Department of Defense? Sure there is. Let's cut it. Secretary Gates 
wants to cut spending in defense. No one wants to cut our capabilities. 
But are there things we could do without, and do things more 
efficiently, not just in defense but in every department of government?
  There are 100,000 people working at the Department of Agriculture. By 
best estimate--and it is less than this--there is 1 person at the 
Department of Agriculture for every 30 farmers. What are all these 
people doing? Has someone looked under the hood at that agency?
  The President is now asking all the agency heads, the Cabinet 
members, to look for 5-percent cuts, some of which would go toward 
deficit reduction, some which would go toward other programs they could 
spend money on. When is the last time we cut any agency? We have not 
had fiscal sanity in the Congress since the mid 1990s when we balanced 
the budget. We are talking 13 years, 14 years. Someone needs to look 
under the hood of these agencies and set priorities.
  This amendment will require that discussion to happen. We are going 
to have to look at the entitlement programs.
  We are going to have to look at Medicare. We are going to have to 
look at Social Security. This is not a popular thing to talk about. You 
are not going to see my colleagues come to the floor of this body and 
talk about reforming entitlements because it is politically dangerous. 
But the truth is, if we do not reform them, they are not going to be 
there for our seniors in the generations who follow. We are going to 
have to have the courage of our convictions. We are going to have to 
care about the next generation more than we care about the next 
election.
  I hope the 2007 Solution will pass. It does not require any specific 
program be cut. It just requires that we have a debate about it every 
year. If the majority leader does not introduce it, the

[[Page 11060]]

minority leader can. If the minority loader does not introduce it, any 
Senator can. There would be 50 hours of privileged debate. It can go 
through committees, but only for 30 days so it does not get stuck in 
the committees. It would require a three-fifths majority to pass. That 
is a peculiarity of the Senate--our 60-vote rule. So it makes sense, 
and it is consistent with the history and the precedents of this body.
  I want to conclude with this: For us to be here and to do anything 
else, without tackling this debt issue, is unfair to the American 
people. I have four little kids. My wife and I just welcomed a new 
daughter into the world. It is our first daughter because we have three 
young sons. My greatest fear is that my four kids--or one of the four 
kids--someday will come to me and say: Dad, I am moving to a foreign 
country. I am going to Brazil or India or China or--pick your country--
because the opportunities in that country are greater than the ones in 
the United States.
  The greatest threat we have to this country today is our inability to 
control this out-of-control spending. If we do not do it, we will 
violate the American creed, which is that we leave this country a 
better place than we found it for each generation that follows.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will embrace this 
amendment. Again, it does not require anything to be cut. It requires a 
discussion and a good debate on what should be cut. It sets the 
parameter that if we hold ourselves to that cap, we could save this 
country. There are folks I know on the other side of the aisle who care 
about this issue. I have talked to them. This is not a Republican 
issue. This is not a Democratic issue. This is a moral issue. It is a 
moral obligation of the people who serve in this body and the one down 
the hall to fix this out-of-control spending.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I did not intend to speak again, except 
after hearing my colleague, I do feel it is important to say--I am not 
speaking to the specifics at all in terms of a proposal--but I do feel 
it is important to talk for a moment about how we got to where we are 
with the deficit. Because it is pretty hard to listen to folks who were 
involved in policies that got us where we are and are now talking to us 
about how terrible it is as to where we are.
  I want to stress, when I came to the Senate in 2001, we were trying 
to figure out what to do with the largest budget surplus in the history 
of the country. I was in the House when we made the very tough vote to 
balance the budget under President Clinton.
  Unfortunately, for all of us--I mean that sincerely--rather than 
doing what many of us had proposed--which was to take that large budget 
surplus and take a third of it to do strategic investments in tax cuts 
and a third of it for investments in things such as health research and 
education and jobs, and a third of it to prefund the deficit for the 
future; that was a proposal we had--instead, all of it went to top-down 
tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. It put us in a 
situation where we had no backup, no surplus. Then we went to war with 
two countries and put it on the credit card, which we have now used for 
10 years.
  Then we saw a huge new Medicare entitlement. I certainly believe 
strongly in providing prescription drug help for seniors, but that was 
not paid for either. There was item after item after item--until 
President Obama inherited now the largest deficit.
  So as we are trying to dig our way out of this now, it is very 
disconcerting to hear over and over, with all due respect, about how 
deficits matter. Deficits did not matter when it was the Republican 
agenda. And my guess is, if we were talking about another round of huge 
tax cuts, it would not matter either. It matters now when we are 
talking about things that middle-class families want. It matters now 
when we are talking about jobs or the cost of college or whether we are 
going to be able to have families be able to have a family doctor for 
their kids--or all the other things. Now it matters. It did not 
matter--the Wall Street bailout? OK. A people's bailout? A families 
bailout? Oh, no, no, no, no, that is deficit spending.
  I will say this, with all due respect: with over 15 million people on 
unemployment benefits right now and another how many--who knows--
working part time or who completely had to leave the labor market--
millions and millions of people--we will never get out of deficit until 
people get back to work. We will never get out of this deficit ditch 
until people get back to work and they are back contributing and being 
a part of the economy and being able to care for their families and 
being able to get this economic engine going again.
  That is a basic philosophical difference we have. It is a basic 
difference in beliefs that I was talking about earlier today: about 
whether it is important to focus on people and putting people back to 
work on things that middle-class families need or now--when it is a 
different agenda, when we have different priorities and different 
values, and we are fighting for different people--now, all of a sudden, 
despite the former Vice President's claim that deficits did not matter, 
now they matter.
  I believe they do matter. I believed they mattered in, I think it was 
1997, when I voted for a balanced budget under President Clinton. I 
believed they mattered in 2001 when I was a member of the Budget 
Committee. I voted for efforts to have us be fiscally responsible. And 
I believed they mattered when we voted to reinstate rules that were 
taken off for 8 years--that you should pay as you go when you do 
something. I know we have to make sure we are actually living up to 
that.
  But with all due respect, we have a very different view of the world. 
Coming from the great State of Michigan right now, our folks would say 
it is about time somebody focused on them and their jobs and what is 
happening to their families. That is what this bill is all about that 
is on the floor. That is what we are all about. I think it is the right 
course.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Would my friend yield for a question?
  Ms. STABENOW. I would be happy to.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Your State has high unemployment and my State does too. 
I think you are at 14-some percent, and we are at 12 percent. Everybody 
cares about trying to get folks back to work, but shouldn't we find a 
pay-for on this bill? Everybody wants to extend unemployment 
compensation, but why should we put it off on our kids and our 
grandkids? Is there not $55 billion we could find to pay for this bill?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend, the 
reality is that we have an economic emergency in this country. If 15 
million people out of work isn't an emergency, I don't know what one 
is. So I would just fundamentally disagree with the Senator.
  In order for something to be an economic stimulus every economist--
from Reagan economists to Clinton economists to Bush economists to 
Obama economists--has said by funding this as emergency spending, we 
jump-start the economy. For every dollar we put into a family's pocket, 
we get $1.60 in economic turnaround, economic benefit because families 
who are out of work are forced to spend the money that is put in their 
pockets.
  So, no, I would fundamentally disagree. We have had economists 
testify who would fundamentally disagree with that premise. It sounds 
good. It sounds good. I wish we had paid for the huge tax cuts that 
were done a number of years ago. I wish we had paid for that. But right 
now what we are saying is, where we ought to focus our energies is on 
taking away the stimulus that comes from unemployment benefits, and 
somehow we have to get our focus back on people who have lost their 
jobs. So I fundamentally have a disagreement.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, if I could just ask one more question. I 
don't disagree with the Senator about spending the money; I would like 
to extend unemployment compensation. But

[[Page 11061]]

would my friend not agree with me that there is $50 billion we could 
find somewhere in this government, money that has not been spent that 
is sitting in accounts, wasteful spending, programs that aren't 
working? Why can't we as a body get down to the business of looking at 
government and all of the trillions of dollars we spend and find money 
and set priorities and pay for this?
  Ms. STABENOW. I guess I would ask my friend back, would you agree 
that rather than decreasing the estate tax for less than one-half 
percent of the public, maybe we should make sure any dollars there 
should go back to somebody who doesn't have a job and maybe help create 
a partnership with a business to create a job? Would you say that is a 
better priority than what is going to be coming up not too long from 
now on the Senate floor to try to help folks who already make millions 
of dollars a year?
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Respectfully, I think the estate tax issue is a 
different issue, but I will address it.
  Ms. STABENOW. I don't think it is a different issue, with all due 
respect.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Ma'am, I let you finish. If I may, we don't have an 
estate tax right now. The joke is, don't go hunting with your children 
because right now there is no estate tax in this country this year. So 
we all agree that needs to be fixed.
  We have a difference in belief on taxes, but I am talking about just 
this spending issue. You and I and many of us in this Chamber all agree 
that we should continue unemployment compensation. People in your State 
are hurting; people in my State are hurting.
  My question is, Is there not $55 billion we could find somewhere in 
the more than $2 trillion that we are going to spend this year--
actually, more than $3 trillion--could we not find an offset so we 
don't put this upon our kids and our grandkids?
  Ms. STABENOW. Finally, I would say before having to leave the floor, 
I appreciate that in theory. I guess I would ask my colleague to come 
up with what your list would be of priorities, because----
  Mr. LeMIEUX. We will do that.
  Ms. STABENOW. From my standpoint, unfortunately, what I see over and 
over again are middle-class families and folks who are out of work are 
the ones who get hit over and over again. That is my concern. That is 
my concern when we get into tax policy, about who we are going to give 
a tax cut to, who is going to get money back in their pockets. Not too 
many folks in my State believe it has gone to them. So that is why I 
raise the estate tax.
  In general, I would just simply say we know President after 
President, Republican and Democrat, has extended unemployment benefits 
as emergency spending for decades. I am just very disappointed that 
now, suddenly, that is trying to be changed.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. I thank my colleague for the good conversation, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Motion to Refer

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] moves to refer 
     the House Message to accompany H.R. 4213 to the Committee on 
     Finance with instructions to report the same back to the 
     Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of the 
     15 percent income tax rate on capital gains and dividends 
     under section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and 
     to include provisions which decrease spending or increase net 
     revenues as appropriate to offset such permanent extension.

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, we are obviously considering a tax bill 
in the middle of a recession, with a lot of folks out of work. Yet we 
are talking very little about the fact that, within 6 months, tax rates 
for every American and every business are going to go up. It is already 
beginning to create uncertainty in our economy. Folks who would 
otherwise take risks and invest are holding back because of the 
increase in taxes.
  One of the main focuses of what we are doing needs to be on capital 
gains taxes as well as dividend taxes. Right now, the capital gains 
tax, in January, is going up--if we do nothing--from 15 to 20 percent. 
This will discourage investment. The dividend tax will go up from 15 
percent to the top rate of nearly 40 percent.
  The Heritage Foundation estimates that if we would hold tax rates the 
same on these two taxes, we would save over 250,000 jobs next year 
alone.
  I am asking my colleagues to consider the urgent need to keep our 
current tax rates the same, particularly on capital gains and 
dividends, as we know a lot of seniors are living in part off dividends 
they receive. If we raise the tax rates on them, it is not going to do 
anything to help them or our economy.
  I am asking that this bill be referred back to committee, that they 
add this requirement that the capital gains and dividends stay the 
same, at 15 percent, and bring it back to the floor for a vote.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to address my colleagues on a 
couple of different issues. One would be to speak in support of part of 
the Coburn amendment, and the second one would be to speak on the issue 
of taxes.
  I want to speak in favor of Senator Coburn's amendment that would 
repeal a special deal for California. As I have said before, Medicare's 
payment system for physicians is flawed in many ways. One of those 
flaws has resulted in unfairly low payments to physicians in my own 
State of Iowa and many other rural States over the course of many 
years.
  Medicare payments vary from one area to another based upon geographic 
adjustments made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 
These adjustments are supposed to reflect the differences in the cost 
of providing care in different areas and equalizing physician payment. 
But the geographic adjustors have been a dismal failure. They do not 
accurately represent the costs in rural States. Instead, they have 
created unfairly low Medicare rates and have, in fact, even discouraged 
physicians from practicing in rural areas such as Arkansas, New Mexico, 
Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, and maybe, you could say, a lot of rural 
States.
  Last fall, I offered an amendment to reform the unfair formula that 
has caused these unduly low rural payments during the Finance Committee 
markup of the health care reform bill. My amendment requires CMS to use 
accurate data rather than inaccurate proxies to calculate the 
geographic adjustors for physician practice costs. My amendment was 
accepted unanimously by the entire Senate Finance Committee, and it was 
included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that was 
signed into law by the President in March. It is a national solution to 
this problem that has plagued so many rural States.
  Unfortunately, the rural equity that my amendment would finally 
achieve has been endangered by the Democratic majority's sweetheart 
deals. One of these sweetheart deals was added to the Senate health 
care reform bill that is now law. This special deal was added behind 
the closed doors of the Senate majority leader, and it addressed the 
unfairly low payments in rural States. It was included in the Senate 
health reform bill for two of my Democratic colleagues from so-called 
frontier States. It is what I call the frontier freeloader

[[Page 11062]]

provision. And it can be called that because it just helped five States 
at the expense of 45 others.
  The frontier freeloader deal gives higher Medicaid payments to just 
five States--North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah--
and it is at the expense of every other State. Even though Iowa, New 
Mexico, Arkansas, Missouri, and other rural States do not benefit from 
this deal, they have to pay for it. Here we are. Taxpayers in your 
State and mine--all the other 45 States--have to kick in to pay the $2 
billion for higher Medicare payments for these 5 so-called frontier 
States. This is another example of how the secret deals made by the 
Democratic majority leader to get votes during health care reform led 
to bad policies such as the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Louisiana 
purchase,'' and the Florida ``Gator aid.'' I introduced legislation in 
April to repeal this sweetheart deal for frontier states. My bill, the 
Medicare Rural Health Care Equity Act, would eliminate this special 
deal for these five States. We should improve physician payments for 
all rural States, not just a select few.
  The Coburn amendment would address a similar concern--yet another 
special deal for just one State has been included in the Democrat's tax 
extender bill. Section 522 of the Democratic substitute would provide 
$400 million over 10 years to create yet a new system for calculating 
payments for physicians in rural areas, but you know what, only in one 
State--California. This is just one more example of the sweetheart 
deals that have permeated the Democratic leadership's efforts during 
these times. Will these special deals ever stop? I strongly oppose 
these sweetheart deals, and I will continue to speak out against them, 
and I will continue to work to pass legislation to repeal these special 
deals, such as the Medicare Rural Health Care Equity Act, that I 
introduced this year.
  That is why I strongly support the amendment by my colleague from 
Oklahoma to strike this $400 million sweetheart deal for California 
from the bill, and I urge my colleagues, especially those from other 
rural States, to do the same. You see, what happens here when you start 
doing something for 1 State here and 5 States over here--there are 
about 30 States, maybe 35 States that have similar problems. We ought 
to attack these similar problems with the same principle, as I see it.
  As I said, I wish to continue to address my colleagues on the subject 
of time-sensitive tax legislative business. I have already spoken on 
other items. I have a chart here that says what the four items are that 
are time sensitive that we ought to be working on and how far we have 
gotten on some of them. Obviously, as you can see from the Xs there, we 
have not gotten very far on most of them.
  Last week, I discussed the unfinished tax legislative business. This 
chart gives you an update of the legislation before the Senate. It 
deals with only one small, however important, part of unfinished tax 
legislative business.
  These tax extenders are on their second Senate stop. This is the bill 
now before the Senate. As this chart shows, the tax extenders which are 
overdue by almost half a year are not alone. There are three other 
major areas of unfinished business.
  One area is the one I discussed a couple of days ago--the alternative 
minimum tax, the AMT patch. That issue, if you do not deal with it, is 
going to raise the taxes of 24 million Americans, middle-class 
Americans who, frankly, were never intended to pay the alternative 
minimum tax. If we do not fix it, 24 million people are going to see 
their taxes go up.
  Yesterday, I addressed the issue of the death tax. That is an area 
which is very important. I took a lot of time of my colleagues last 
night to explain the issue and particularly the impact on small, 
family-owned businesses that may be sold off because we do not have a 
good estate tax policy.
  The third area and the one I am going to address now is the 2001 and 
2003 tax rate cuts and family tax relief package. That is the one that, 
if Congress does nothing between now and December 31, starting January 
1, 2011, the American people are going to have the biggest tax increase 
in the history of the country and without even a vote of Congress. 
Existing law, with the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, sunsets. 
``Sunset'' simply means that if Congress does nothing, the biggest tax 
increase in the history of the country happens without us even casting 
a vote here in the Senate.
  As important as the AMT patch and the death tax are, these two I just 
mentioned are dwarfed by the impact of this third package of expiring 
tax provisions. I am referring to the marginal rate cuts and the family 
tax relief of the bipartisan tax relief that was enacted in 2001 and 
2003. Efforts to make these tax relief packages permanent were 
rebuffed. The resistance was the result of a hard and determined 
minority back then, marshaled by the Senate Democratic leadership. It 
was reflected in the budget resolutions offered in filibusters.
  Even more inexplicable than the Democratic leadership's failure to 
extend popular and bipartisan tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 were 
some of the reasons given. It was basically said that since Republicans 
wrote the law, it is our--meaning Republicans--problem. The left wing 
of the blogosphere echoed the Democratic leadership's position.
  Some of those reflections in the blogosphere even alleged that the 
sunset was a Republican conspiracy. I came across a 2007 posting on 
Daily KOS blog. The posting referred to the provisions of the Tax 
Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, which was enacted 
in May 2006. That legislation contained two basic pieces. One was an 
extension of lower rates for capital gains and dividends. Another was 
the extension of the alternative minimum tax patch. The poster's 
analysis concluded that the bill was a ``poison pill'' designed--can 
you believe it--to sabotage the economy, which supposedly would 
increase the prospects of Republican candidates in 2012. I know that 
sounds a little far-fetched, but that is what the KOS posting on their 
blog said. The argument seems to be that having popular and bipartisan 
tax relief from 2001 and 2003 all sunset at the end of 2010 would cause 
such an economic mess that the Democrats, assumed by the posters to be 
in power at the time, will take the blame and suffer at the polls.
  In the posting titled ``The Monster Republican Tax Hike,'' the poster 
stated that:

       Republican Congresses chose not to make their tax cuts . . 
     . permanent.

  The argument seems to be that Republicans put sunset clauses in the 
bill solely to improve long-term budget projections and that 
responsibility for the expiration of tax relief rests completely with 
Republicans. The implication is that by lowering taxes, Republicans are 
responsible for a tax increase that would occur when the Democratic 
majorities control both Houses of Congress. That is a little far-
fetched because it is just some sort of conspiracy that you can control 
the electorate and these things are going to exactly work out this way. 
That is obviously stupid, but that doesn't keep bloggers from talking--
whatever they want to believe.
  The commentaries I just referred to are available to anyone in the 
April 12, 2007, edition of the Congressional Record.
  I have heard some Members on the other side as well as key staff have 
made similar assertions. As one who was involved in the writing of 
these tax relief plans of 2001 and 2003, I want to tell my fellow 
Senators without reservation that these assertions are absolutely 
untrue, besides being ridiculous. To begin with, it is completely 
ridiculous to suggest that President Bush and Republicans in general 
did not intend or desire the permanence of tax relief. President Bush 
and Republicans in general have favored tax relief permanence. You need 
to look no further than the budgets to which I referred. The 
administration and Republican Congress budgeted for extension of the 
bipartisan tax relief provisions. That action affected the bottom lines 
of those budgets.
  We heard over and over the criticism of those budgets. We heard it 
from the

[[Page 11063]]

Democratic leadership, liberal think tanks, and some sympathetic east 
coast media. As a matter of fact, after 3\1/2\ years of congressional 
control, we still hear the Democratic leadership's criticism every day. 
Just recently, the Speaker of the House was asked when the Democratic 
leadership would cease laying the blame for all fiscal problems on 
Republican budgets of the years 2001 to 2006. MSNBC's Chuck Todd 
recently interviewed the highest ranking Democrat in the House. Mr. 
Todd asked if there was a statute of limitations on placing 
responsibility on the Presidency of Mr. Bush.

       At what point do you think the public says something [like 
     this]? ``You know what, yes, we were unhappy with the Bush 
     administration . . . [but] stop blaming the Bush 
     administration.

  Mr. Todd went on to say:

       When does that run out?

  But then the Speaker specifically replied:

       Well, it runs out when the problems go away.

  The blame game is no substitute for doing the job you have been hired 
to do. People elect folks to public office to do--what? To govern; 
govern at the will of the people. Governing is not just about enjoying 
the benefits of public office. This is a public trust we hold. We work 
for the American people; they don't work for us. Part of governing is 
also about making choices. Some of those choices are tough, as we know, 
and those of us in public life need to be accountable for those 
choices.
  The Democratic leadership cannot have it both ways. They cannot 
continue the bipartisan tax relief and not be responsible for the 
deficit impact those policies carry. No family can make decisions about 
its budget and evade the consequences by blaming their next-door 
neighbors. No business can make decisions about its budget and evade 
the consequences by blaming a competing business. The fiscal 
consequences are an important part of that decision.
  The statutory pay-go or pay-as-you-go regime was enacted as part of 
the last debt limit increase. It covers only part of the revenue loss 
of making permanent the bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and 2003. 
For instance, the alternative minimum tax patch is extended for only 2 
years. Death tax policy is extended at 2009 levels only through 2011. 
How do you plan estates when you only have a tax law in place for 2 
years?
  Even with those limitations, the Joint Committee on Taxation states: 
Complying with the pay-go rule means a revenue loss of over $1.5 
trillion over 10 years.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
Joint Committee on Taxation's estimate of the tax relief covered by 
statutory pay-go. And this is a summation of that.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 11064]]





[[Page 11065]]



[[Page 11066]]


  Mr. GRASSLEY. The expiring tax relief I am talking about today 
includes the marginal rate cuts and family tax relief. Under the 
statutory pay as you go, the amount permitted in this area is about 
$1.4 trillion as you can see at the top of the chart on the right. It 
covers about 80 percent of extending all of the marginal rate cuts and 
family tax relief from the 2001 and 2003 bipartisan plan.
  That number makes sense because the bipartisan tax relief plans cut 
taxes for virtually every American family who pays income tax. How 
significant and how widespread is this tax relief? This chart here, 
drawn by the Congressional Budget Office--and I want to remind people 
throughout the Nation that CBO is a professional group of people who 
see numbers as what they are, void of politics, and make predictions. 
So I hope this may shed some light on the question of how significant 
and widespread is the tax relief.
  The line measures the effective tax rate paid by the top 5 percent of 
the taxpayers. That is at the top, the top line. This group roughly 
represents those taxpaying families with incomes over $250,000. Under 
the Democratic leadership's budget, this line will go back up to where 
it was in the year 2000. That is also where the President's budget, 
meaning President Obama's budget, and the statutory pay-as-you-go 
regime would take the rates.
  The Republicans believe this significant tax increase will be a 
mistake. We hope we will be able to debate this policy in the House and 
Senate, in committee and on the floor. That was, after all, the process 
that was followed when the bipartisan tax relief plans were passed in 
years 2001, 2003, and 2005.
  We will point out that about half of the heavy tax increases will 
fall on small business owners. The top marginal rate on small business 
owners will rise by 17 percent. Democrats and Republicans agree, small 
businesses are a key job creator of the future and for a long period of 
time in our country. President Obama correctly points out that small 
business creates 70 percent of new jobs. I do not argue with his 
percentage.
  The rest will also hit investment hard. The top capital gains rate 
will rise by 33 percent. The top dividend rate could rise by almost 275 
percent. All of this is set to occur not at some far distant future 
point, it occurs a little over a half a year from right now.
  We all hope the economy is on a path to recovery. But does this heavy 
tax increase on small business owners and investments ever make sense? 
Because even the most liberal Members on the other side might wonder 
whether it makes sense right now to increase taxes at this time. Is the 
recession ending? There is good news some days, bad news some days. But 
the uncertainty is a factor that people do not want to move forward 
with investment and creating jobs.
  Do we think then that the private sector will grow if we hit small 
businesses and investors this hard 6 months from now? They are not 
going to wait 6 months from now to make some decisions. They are making 
those decisions right now. If we can give them some certainty, I think 
it would be a big boost for our economy.
  You can see that the broad bipartisan tax relief brought the 
effective rate down with respect to the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers. 
This is the red line. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle may be thinking to themselves, sure, this is true for income 
taxes. But what about other Federal taxes such as Social Security, 
which make up a large percentage of the taxes paid by middle and low-
income individuals?
  Well, this chart is not just a depiction of Federal income taxes, it 
includes all Federal taxes. This includes Social Security, other 
payroll taxes, excise taxes, frequently referred to by my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle as regressive taxes, everything, including 
all Federal taxes over the last 30 years.
  The top 5 percent has paid a lot higher effective tax rate than the 
bottom 95 percent. It has been that way no matter which party has 
controlled the White House or controlled Congress or controlled both. 
It shows something you would never know if you listened to the rhetoric 
from the other side or even the punditry of the media and the left.
  Here is what it shows: A progressive income tax system is very deeply 
embedded into our culture. The bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and 
2003 made the system yet more progressive. Those plans brought the 
rates down for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers. The 2001 and 2003 
tax relief plans dropped the effective tax rate for taxpaying families 
under $250,000 to their lowest levels in a whole generation.
  This is the current law level of taxation. In a little over half a 
year, these rates will pop back up for all of these taxpayers. I have a 
couple of charts that illustrate how significant the tax hit will be. 
Middle-income families will run right through these tax walls. I have 
used these charts several times in the last few months.
  For a family of four with an income of $50,000, that is a tax wall of 
a $2,300 tax increase. For a single mom with two kids earning $30,000, 
that tax wall will be $1,100. The President, as powerful as he is, 
cannot unilaterally hike or cut taxes. He needs a bill from Congress to 
do that. On our side, we want all of the tax relief made permanent. We 
want the opportunity to debate and to amend a bill that deals with this 
basic level of taxation.
  As has been made clear for the last 3\1/2\ years, Republicans do not 
control this Congress. We cannot decide the fate of the marginal rate 
cuts and family tax relief. This is unfinished business. It is 
unfinished tax legislative business that affects every American 
taxpayer. It will have fiscal consequences. They are pretty significant 
fiscal consequences, as you can see by the figures on this chart. That 
is going to raise taxes an awful lot. If the Democratic leadership 
wants to keep these levels of taxation low, then they have to deal with 
the fiscal consequences. Alternately, the Democratic leadership can 
raise taxes and claim the revenue.
  Not changing the law by failing to act is the same as raising rates 
on virtually every American taxpayer. But they will have to explain to 
the taxpayers why they raised taxes by almost 10 percent, on average. 
In the 2006 election, almost 4 years ago, the American people provided 
the Democratic leadership with control of the Congress. In the 2008 
election, over 18 months ago, the American people provided the 
Democratic leadership with yet the largest majority in more than a 
generation. They also provided the Democratic leadership with a 
President of their party.
  The Democratic leadership spent the periods of 2001 to 2006 thwarting 
our efforts to make bipartisan tax relief of 2001 and 2003 permanent. 
It would seem okay to keep Republican bills from 2001 through 2006 from 
being made permanent, but the 2001 tax bill was very bipartisan.
  Upon assuming control, they have spent 3\1/2\ years with no 
legislation to make permanent or even extend marginal tax rates and 
family tax relief packages. My friends in the Democratic leadership 
need to step to the plate. We have had budgets and statutory pay-as-
you-go. We have debated this and voted on the breadth and composition 
of marginal rate cuts and family tax relief in those contexts, yet no 
legislative action; no House committee and floor action; no Senate 
committee and floor action. And that would be the bottom line there. 
The Xs show nothing happening on something to give permanence to tax 
law, to give predictability to the future of those people who have to 
put up money to create jobs that expand our economy.
  Without it, the biggest tax increase in the history of the country 
could be a fact. So I say once again, step to the plate. Blaming former 
President George W. Bush and Republican Congresses of many sessions ago 
is no substitute for running this time-sensitive tax legislative 
business through the process. Put forward proposals. Let us debate 
those proposals. Let's allow for amendments. Allow votes on amendments. 
Do the people's business. It is time to check every one of these boxes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page 11067]]


  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I offered a rather lengthy amendment to 
this bill, not because I was trying to be cute, but I think the 
American people have got to hear from us on whether we are going to 
make some of the commonsense changes they would expect us to make.
  There are a lot of easy votes in this amendment. I mean, to not pay 
contractors when they do not deserve to be paid, whether to continue to 
do it, we did it to the tune of $6 billion at the Pentagon in the last 
6 years. That is not hard.
  To quit printing and wasting money on printing things we should not 
be printing, that is not hard. But the debate is.
  It is just as important as taking care of those people who are 
unemployed. If we don't cycle through to a good recovery, we are going 
to have less opportunity to borrow money to help those people who are 
unemployed. We now stand at a crossroads we have never been at before. 
Our gross debt is in excess of $17 trillion. Our net debt is at $13.2 
trillion. The difference between that is the money the Congress has 
stolen from Social Security and myriad other trust funds that are much 
smaller. But we have borrowed it and put a piece of paper in that says: 
We will pay you back.
  The fact is, we have to pay interest. It is compounded. We will 
eventually have to pay it back. Only in Washington would we talk about 
net debt when, in fact, we are paying interest on the gross debt.
  We had testimony before the debt commission 2 weeks ago by Dr. 
Reinhart, one of the leading economists in the country, who said we are 
in excess of 90 percent of our GDP, our debt. What did they tell us? We 
are struggling with a recession. We are trying to come out of a 
recession. They told us with that much debt, it is suppressing the 
growth of our economy by 1 percent a year. One percent a year is $170 
billion in productivity and economic activity that didn't happen. If we 
calculate that in terms of jobs, that is about 3 million jobs that are 
not going to be created next year because Congresses before us and this 
one as well have refused to live within their means.
  We have, in terms of Washington, a relatively small bill now, $100 
billion plus. It was pulled from the floor to make it smaller--not to 
pay for a significant amount more, just to make it smaller--when, in 
fact, what the American people want us to do is find something within 
the Federal Government that doesn't make sense, don't borrow it from 
our children, do the hard work of finding what is not working here.
  We are going to have a cloture vote on this legislation. My hope is, 
unless we change this bill, that this bill does not proceed until we 
accede to the demands of the American public. It is simple: Congress, 
start living like we are living. Start making the hard choices. When 
you have a limited budget, do what is most important first. Do what is 
least important last. Get rid of waste, get rid of things that should 
have been gotten rid of a long time ago and do what is best for the 
future.
  We are not doing that with this bill, and we can't get anybody to 
debate on the other side. They will not defend it. You cannot defend 
borrowing $50 billion more against our children and grandchildren when 
we have $300 billion of waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication in the 
government right now that we have rejected every time when those 
amendments come to the floor. You can't do it.
  So we play the political game in Washington. We had it in February, 
when our colleagues passed pay-go. It is really to pay-go or not to 
pay-go. What pay-go means is, you American taxpayers, you pay, and we 
will go spend your money.
  The statute said we would no longer spend new money on anything 
unless we paid for it. Since February 12 when this bill was signed into 
law, on February 24 we borrowed $46 billion. We waived pay-go. We said 
the rule doesn't apply now. This is more important. It was the highway 
trust fund. Rather than cut some of the waste, fraud, and abuse, rather 
than cut out some of the things that are duplications, we borrowed that 
from our grandchildren. We did it twice in March, $99 billion out of 
the Senate and $10 billion. One was for an extension; one was for the 
overall tax extenders. We didn't quit there. April came, $18 billion 
more. May came, May 20, we did $20 billion more. Pay-go didn't apply. 
We waived it. We said it doesn't count. The rule doesn't count.
  What good is it to have a rule or a statute that says we are not 
going to steal from our children anymore, and every time something 
comes up we steal from our children? It is a farce. It is meaningless. 
That is why we didn't vote for it, because it was just a charade to 
tell the American people somebody was doing something they actually 
weren't.
  The proof is in the pudding. Then we borrowed $59 billion on May 27. 
Now we have a bill out here on June 17 that is going to borrow another 
$50 billion. How valuable are the lives of our children that we would 
steal opportunity? That sounds like a fallacious claim. It is not.
  I want you to meet Madeline. Madeline is a little girl. I saw this on 
the Internet. I actually got to meet her. Her sign actually said 
$37,000 6 months ago. In the last 6 months, she has gone from owing 
$37,000, every individual, man, woman and child in this country, to 
owing $42,000. What is her life worth? What is the opportunity for her 
worth? Are children just a toy, or do we owe it to them, based on what 
has been given to us, to create opportunity and a chance for a better 
life for the Madelines of this country?
  The problem is, as we are set up right now, 9 years from now, that 
number is going to be $187,000 per man, woman, and child. In 25 years, 
if we don't change what we are doing--and we will change because the 
world financial community will quit loaning us money--it will be over 
$1 million.
  Put your calculator on for a minute and calculate 6 percent of 1 
million. That is the interest cost for what we will have spent in money 
that we didn't have per person in this country. That is $60,000 25 
years from now that every one of us who is still alive will be paying 
each year just in additional interest before we do anything with the 
Federal Government.
  This government is so far out of control. It is not President Obama's 
fault, it is the Congress's fault. Presidents can't do things without 
us. We allow it or don't allow it. We have been rebellious against the 
principles and values that made this country great. There has never 
been a country that has achieved--economically, culturally, and 
scientifically--anything close to what we have created. Congresses are 
destroying it. This bill is another drop that will eventually turn the 
statute over that says the future is not here.
  This isn't a partisan debate, this is a generational debate. We are 
thieving. Generational theft is what we are about because we lack the 
courage to confront the real problems we have and embrace, though it 
may cost us politically, doing the right things to ensure an American 
dream for the Madelines of this world. We are failing to do that. What 
an abandonment of our oath, what a rejection of what was given to us. 
Yet we have the gall to come out here week after week and spend money 
we don't have on some things that are necessary, some that are not, but 
that allow us to continue to spend billions of dollars on things that 
we should not be spending it on because, basically, we lack courage. It 
is cowardice.
  I am committed not just to Madeline. This doesn't have anything to do 
with the Republican or Democratic Party. It has to do with the survival 
of our country as we know it.
  Yet we continuously hear: No, we can't. We can't do this. We can't do 
this. We can't get rid of the easy things to get rid of because 
somebody well heeled or somebody well connected somewhere doesn't want 
us to. So who runs the country? Do the people of this country control 
us or is it the well heeled or the well connected or those who will be 
advantaged by us continuing to waste money?
  Is it a fact that we spent $6 billion over the last 5 years paying 
performance bonuses to companies that contract with the Federal 
Government on

[[Page 11068]]

performance they didn't earn, and we will not pass a law in a bill that 
says they can't do that anymore? Who is getting that money? Whose palms 
are we greasing? The fact is, we will not vote that out of here and say 
it isn't going to happen anymore. You are either going to perform under 
your contract or you are going to lose the contract, and we are not 
going to give you bonuses for not performing. Yet three times the 
Senate has voted that down.
  Who benefits? It certainly isn't the average American. It is some 
corporate client somewhere who has too good of a sweetheart deal 
contracting with the Federal Government and has allies within the 
Congress who say: We will protect you on the basis of having helped 
them in a campaign before. Do we want a future or do we want well-
heeled buddies for the short term when it all collapses around us?
  What we are is addicted to bad behavior. We are addicted to spending 
money that we don't have on things we don't need. We are addicted to 
not confronting the very real problems in the government. Again, it is 
not President Obama or President Bush's fault. Congress has that 
responsibility. We reject our responsibility. We have abandoned our 
responsibility and, with that, our integrity by not doing what we 
should do.
  As a physician, I know what addictive behaviors are all about. What 
do we need to do? One of the things President Obama wants us to do that 
we refuse to do is to end no-bid contracts. Let's end the sweetheart 
deals. Let's get rid of the no-bid contracts that the well connected, 
well heeled get to have at a higher price than what we would pay if we 
competitively bid it. Why don't we do that? That has been voted down by 
this body as well twice; we can't do that; we have to protect our 
friends; we are more interested in protecting our friends than we are 
in saving the country. Eliminate bonuses to contractors, I talked about 
that. Determine the total number, cost, and purpose of every Federal 
program. The Government Accountability Office can't give us that 
number. It is too big. The Congressional Research Service can't tell us 
all the government programs, what their cost and what their purpose is.
  We did get through, late last year, an amendment that is going to 
force the Government Accountability Office to tell us. Do you know how 
long it will take them to tell us? Three years. That is how big the 
problem is. With all their resources, it is still going to take them 3 
years to tell us all the government programs.
  What do we know that I found out and my staff has found out in 
researching this over the last 5\1/2\ years? We have identified at 
least 640 different areas where there are more than five programs that 
have the same goal run by different agencies in the Federal Government.
  We know, for example, right now some American people are struggling 
and a lot of people are actually having trouble getting enough food. So 
we have to guess how many programs to help feed those people who are 
needing food? Across six different Departments, we have 70 government 
programs. Not one of them has a metric on it to say: Are you effective? 
How do you measure your effectiveness? But we have 70 sets of overhead 
in the Federal Government to do exactly the same thing.
  You may say, How in the world did that happen? I will tell you how it 
happens. Some constituent comes up here and says: Here is a problem. 
Oh, yes, it is a problem. We do not research it to see what the Federal 
Government is already doing, so we author a bill. Because nobody wants 
to keep food away from the hungry, we pass a bill, not knowing that we 
already have 69 other programs. That happens time after time after 
time, still today, because we do not know what we have.
  In math, engineering, science, and technology, which is where we 
would like for lots of our young people to go, we have documented 105 
different programs that are funded by the Federal Government to 
incentivize our young people to go into those areas in eight different 
government agencies, eight different government Departments. Not the 
Department of Education--some of them are in there--but in every area. 
Why? Yet we do not want to do the hard work of eliminating those.
  Let's identify the 105, and let's cut it to one. Let's put metrics on 
it. Let's have just one set of overhead. Let's accomplish that.
  We have added 160,000 Federal employees in the last 16 months. Every 
business I know out there is doing more with less. That is not a 
denigration to our Federal employees. It is embracing reality that we 
cannot continue to add Federal employees. We cannot afford the 
government we have. Forty-three cents out of every dollar the Federal 
Government spends today is borrowed from China or Russia or countries 
with sovereign bank accounts, many of which would like to see us end. 
Can we continue to do that? Can we continue to have 40 percent of 
everything we are spending borrowed?
  What we do know is, necessity becomes the mother of invention, and if 
we put the clamps and the brakes on both the growth and the size and 
the total amount the government spends, we will get more for the same 
amount--but not until we try, not until we mandate it has to happen.
  Limit the overhead costs of the Federal programs. The overhead and 
the layers of duplication are unbelievable. A tremendous amount of 
savings can be done. I just visited with a three-star general who is 
working inside the Pentagon. One of the areas where I want to see us 
eliminate $50 billion a year in spending is inside the Pentagon because 
they have that much waste. They are going through a process now to look 
at where they have redundancy. Do you know what. They are finding it 
everywhere. But the Pentagon is so big, unless you look for it you are 
never going to see it.
  So we now have the military starting to do what they finally need to 
do. They have never done it before--starting to look at redundancy, 
starting to look at good management, best practices, to create 
efficiencies so more dollars can defend us and less dollars will be 
spent on overhead. We need to do that government-wide, but especially 
in the Pentagon because it is our greatest discretionary cost with the 
exception of interest.
  Disclose the cost, purpose, and text of legislation that is 
considered by Congress. There should not be a bill that comes before 
Congress that we do not adequately and accurately know what it is 
designed to do. Have a measurement on it so we know it did what we 
designed it to do, know what it is going to cost, and then force 
ourselves to evaluate it.
  This is the 111th Congress. In the 109th Congress, I held 47 
oversight hearings. That was more oversight hearings than the entire 
rest of the Senate combined. You see, we do not want to do the 
oversight because it is hard work and you do not get great press 
clippings. It does not help your campaign, your political career. But 
we were not sent up here for a political career. We were sent here to 
do the best, right thing for the country as a whole.
  Most of the problems we are seeing are parochial in nature, where we 
have concentrated on what is best for our State at the expense of what 
is best for our country. I would posit that my State, Oklahoma, and the 
Presiding Officer's State cannot be healthy if the country is not 
healthy. They cannot be. Yet when our focus becomes more parochial than 
national, we actually undermine our future as a country.
  No. 8, require the Congress to justify the creation of new government 
programs that duplicate existing ones. I am notorious for not letting 
bills get to the floor because they duplicate something that has 
already been done. We have created a new program, but we did not 
eliminate the old one, so now we have both of them running. I usually 
get beat. I usually get rolled with 60 votes and we create the new 
program. But we never eliminated the one that was not working, and we 
never changed the one that was not working. So we just create another 
program.
  Mandate that Congress has to do oversight--has to do it. It must do 
oversight. We can do that by changing our rules. But we do not have any 
interest in changing our rules. It is easier to coast and not do the 
hard job of oversight.

[[Page 11069]]

  I will just finish up.
  One of the things I have thought about--I am not sure it will be 
helpful, but right now in the trouble we are in, everybody who walks 
through this Capitol ought to be informed of how much debt we owe and 
what it is per person. We ought to have that. It is in my office. If 
you walk by--the Rules Committee will not let me put it in the hall; 
they say it does not look professional--I have a computer screen where, 
if you walk by my office, you can see the national debt clock ticking. 
Your eyes will roll as fast as it is coming up. Remember, we are 
borrowing about $4 million a second. That is how fast it is going up.
  So, anyhow, there are a lot of things we can do to stop the 
addiction.
  I see the Senator from Georgia.
  I ask the Senator, did you want to have some time? I will be happy to 
yield to you if you would yield back to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
yielding. I will be brief.
  But I spend a lot of time, as all of us do, listening to the speeches 
of our colleagues. I spend a lot of time thinking about what they say. 
I was compelled to come to the floor, as I heard the opening remarks by 
the Senator from Oklahoma, to tell a little story.
  Talking about grandchildren, my wife and I are blessed. We have nine 
of them. This past Tuesday, June 15, was our 42nd wedding anniversary. 
Really, the rest of my life is about those grandchildren, to whatever 
extent I can do it, either as a grandfather or a legislator, trying to 
make sure we leave them a life that at least has the hope of 
opportunity as great as was left to all of us by the generations who 
preceded us.
  A few weeks ago, in Albany, GA--actually a few months ago--I was 
making a speech, as all of us do, and used ``a trillion'' as easily as 
all of us do in our speeches. After my speech, I opened the floor for 
questions, and a gentleman at the back of the room said: I just can't 
quite get my hands on how much a trillion really is. Can you explain 
it?
  I was up there doing the best I could. I got the number of zeroes 
past a billion, and all this. But I could not quantify it to magnify 
the gravity of what that number means.
  So when I got home that night, my wife of 42 years suggested: Why 
don't you just figure out how many years have to go by for a trillion 
seconds to pass? I said: You know, that is a good idea. Everybody would 
understand that.
  So I got the calculator out and multiplied 60 times 60 to get how 
many seconds are in an hour, 3,600; multiplied that by 24 to get how 
many seconds are in a day; multiplied that by 365 to get how many 
seconds are in a year. Then I divided that into 1 trillion. The answer 
is it would take 31,709 years for 1 trillion seconds to go by.
  Thursday, 2 weeks ago, our debt went above $13 trillion. So you can 
take that and multiply 13 times 31,709 and see how big that obligation 
is. If you spread it over a lot of people, you can reduce the number 
down to an amount that does not seem as big, but we are one country. It 
is our debt. To pay it off we do one of either three things: We inflate 
the dollar to a value that is so cheap that what everybody has is 
worthless, and you pay off the debt with cheap dollars, but you destroy 
your country or you can just look the other way and say: Well, maybe 
nobody else will care. Maybe they will still buy our debt. We are going 
to keep spending, which is kind of what appears to be happening now or 
you can do what American families have been doing all their lives, but 
in particular the last 18 to 24 months: you sit around the kitchen 
table--and in this case we sit around the conference table--and you 
start setting your priorities to live within your means.
  I just want to commend the Senator from Oklahoma because his examples 
about accountability for expenditures, doing away with redundancy and 
all those things--yes, that is hard to do, and, yes, it is tedious to 
do, and, yes, it is more fun to talk about other things, but that is 
what Americans are having to do, and they are having to do it big time 
right now.
  So I just could not help but come to the floor, having just 
celebrated my 42nd wedding anniversary. Well, I did not get to 
celebrate it because I was here and she was in Marietta, but we are 
going to celebrate it this weekend. Thinking about my nine 
grandchildren and thinking about the challenges of the debt that is 
rising and the increase that is just in this bill alone--as well as 
some of the pay-fors in this bill, which actually are going to stunt 
growth even worse, like carried interest--I thought I would just come 
and commend the Senator from Oklahoma on being right on point.
  We all might have different opinions of what ought to be cut and what 
ought to be moved and what ought to be removed from being redundant, 
but we ought to be at the table figuring out what those should be, 
making agreements we can live with, and making the future for our 
grandchildren at least as bright, as prosperous, and as free as the one 
our parents left to us.
  I yield back to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. It 
does not matter if you are a Democrat or Republican, liberal or 
conservative or Independent, what your faith is, what your sexual 
orientation is: Out of many one. But if we are not careful, that one is 
going to fall based on what we do, and the debt affects a liberal as 
much as it affects a conservative. It steals opportunity from liberal 
children as much as it does conservative children. We have to come to a 
point where we say: Enough is enough.
  I was just thinking, as the Senator talked, the $50 billion we are 
going to borrow from our kids with this bill, it would run the 
government of the entire State of Oklahoma for 8 years--every branch, 
every employee, pay all the costs, build all the highways, do 
everything we do for 8 years, just on what we are going to borrow.
  When you start putting it down into, how much is $50 billion?--we 
throw away billions like they were pennies here.
  And how many years for a trillion seconds?
  Mr. ISAKSON. That is 31,709 years.
  Mr. COBURN. That is 31,709 years. So we are going to have a $1.6 
trillion deficit this year. Well, that is 50,000 years of seconds. Just 
this year, it is 50,000 years of seconds.
  Let me go into the amendment a little bit and talk about it. The 
first section of this amendment would require public disclosure of the 
amount of any new borrowing or spending approved by the Senate. In 
other words, it is about transparency. It is about letting the American 
people hold us accountable. It means that on the Senate Web site, after 
we make new spending decisions and borrowing decisions, we have to 
publicize it so the American people can see it, rather than hide behind 
it. It is simple. There is no score for it on savings. I guarantee it 
will save money, because if we know the American people are going to 
know what the financial consequences are of what we do with every vote, 
it is going to change some votes around here.
  The other question we ought to be asking is why shouldn't they know 
what we are doing and the ramifications of it. It is pretty simple. It 
is pretty straightforward. I have told the Rules Committee that I would 
pay out of my personal office budget the cost of that program. In other 
words, I would turn back over $500,000 every year. I will pay for it 
out of my budget and make sure that is available, so there is no cost 
to it whatsoever. I will pay for it out of my budget, out of my office, 
so it doesn't cost us anything. But it gives the transparency the 
President and I worked on in this body, and he wants to see from this 
body, and it makes it available to the American people. So we are going 
to get a vote on that.
  It is important to know that with this bill, if it passes, we will 
have borrowed 59 plus 20, that is 79; 89, 97, 143, 513, 252, plus 50--
$302 billion since February 14, outside of the budget. That is

[[Page 11070]]

outside of the budget. Now, $300 billion will run Oklahoma for 40 
years. We could run the whole State of Oklahoma for 40 years on what we 
have spent in 6 months. So why shouldn't we let the American people see 
what we are doing, since it is going to cost nothing, and it is 
transparency, so they can hold us accountable? Why should we not do 
that?
  The second thing that is important is in the last year, we have 
markedly increased--not counting the stimulus bill--the discretionary 
spending of the Federal Government. We didn't leave ourselves out on 
that. Inflation was nothing, but we increased our own budget by 4.8 
percent. So the other component of one of these amendments is that 4.8 
percent, I say we give $100 million of it back, which would be a third 
of that. That means we still get three times what the rest of the 
country got in terms of an increase, but it shows at least we are 
willing to let--and if anybody ran their office with any 
appropriateness, they would have a surplus as well every year. So it is 
not a hard cut, but it is important, since we gave ourselves a budget 
increase, that we demonstrate to the American people we are serious 
about doing it. Vote against it and say you don't think so or vote for 
it and let's put it in this bill. Let's start showing the American 
people we get it. We will do the right, best thing for the country in 
the long term.
  I have occasional conversations with the President, and one of the 
things he has told his administration to do, and we heard it flatly 
rejected--not just rejected but flatly rejected on the basis of a lack 
of knowledge by the chairman of the Finance Committee. He has told 
every agency to find 5 percent in cuts. Those are the instructions he 
has sent out to the head of every agency. Why has he done that? Because 
he knows we have to. This portion of the amendment says that is exactly 
what we are going to do. We are going to cut 5 percent of the 
discretionary spending of every branch of government save Defense and 
Veterans. Some would say, Well, that is \1/20\th of the budget. Yes, it 
is. But when you look at it in light of the size of the agencies today, 
in the last 10 years they are twice as big as they were 10 years ago. 
They have grown by an average of 10 percent per year and we can't find 
5 percent or one-fifth of the growth they have had over the last 10 
years that can be done more efficiently or as a lower priority or not 
as important? We can't find that? Yet, as the Senator from Georgia 
said, almost every family in this country is having to do that. We 
refuse to mandate that the Federal Government get on a diet, do things 
more efficiently, more effectively; take another look to see if it can 
be done a different way. It is called productivity increases. We can 
get that.
  We won't ever get it if we don't ask for it. It is not a hard 
concept. We can do that. We allow the agencies to make those 
recommendations, and that is one of the things President Obama has 
already asked all of his agencies to do, to go find that 5 percent. 
That sends a wonderful signal to the American people that we get it.
  It does something else that is important, and so will the defeat of 
this bill, and if we pass it with it being paid for. Right now in this 
country the value of our dollar is pretty good. The reason it is good 
is because people are worried about Japan and the value of the yen, and 
they are significantly worried about the Euro because of what is 
happening to Greece and now what is getting ready to happen to Spain. 
So money is rushing in. Smart money around the world in these other 
economies is rushing to hide in dollars. In about 2 years from now, 
that money is going to be sucked back out of here, because those 
economies will have made the hard choices of austerity with which to 
restabilize the Euro or their currencies. They will have done it.
  What we need to send to the international finance market is a signal 
that says we too are way overextended and we are going to start making 
the appropriate choices to secure our financial future.
  It was 2 months ago that Moody's put a notice out that said if things 
don't happen and start to change with U.S. Government bonds, they are 
going to be downgraded from AAA to AA. That is a big downgrade. We have 
never had an AA rating. So all of a sudden, the world rating system is 
going to say that maybe an investment in our product, our dollars, is 
not what it should be.
  We need to make sure that doesn't happen. We need to make sure we 
have sent a signal to the world. When we start doing things where we 
are paying for new things by cutting lower priority items, we send that 
signal. We build that confidence back. When we start paying for new 
bills and the extensions of benefits, we extend that back up.
  We are going to hear--actually, we won't hear, because we won't hear 
anybody come out and debate against these things. What they will choose 
to do is to ignore them and then vote against them. So the American 
people won't hear a legitimate debate on why we shouldn't cut 5 percent 
across the board, letting them decide what areas are most important and 
recommending them to us; we won't have a debate. We won't debate, and 
then we will kill it, thinking it will go away. Well, the American 
people have gotten that already. That is not acceptable to the American 
people. If you think we shouldn't cut spending in the Federal 
Government, come out here and defend it. Come out here and give us a 
philosophical, logical reason why we ought to continue to steal from 
our children and grandchildren. We won't see that. We won't see a 
strong debate against each of the points I am going to make associated 
with this amendment. The real question ought to be: Why? Because it is 
indefensible to vote against it. That is why. You cannot see the waste, 
fraud, abuse, and duplication in this government and not say we can do 
better.
  Section 4 of the amendment eliminates nonessential government travel. 
Do my colleagues realize that almost every government office now has 
audio-visual equipment for the ability to carry on a teleconference 
anywhere in this country and overseas? Yet, last year, we spent--no, 2 
years ago we spent--the data is behind--we spent $13.8 billion on 
airline tickets and hotels for Federal Government employees of which 
over half was nonessential. In 2006, $3.3 billion was spent on airfare. 
In 2007, $3.5 billion was spent on airfare. In 2008, $4 billion was 
spent on airfare. We can't get the numbers for 2009 yet. Hotel rooms, 
$2.3 billion, up to $2.5 billion. Car rentals, from $423 million to 
$437 million. Most of this can be done by teleconferencing. Why 
wouldn't we say at a time when we are borrowing $1.6 trillion from our 
kids that maybe we ought to teleconference rather than get on an 
airplane? I can tell you it is a whole lot easier than traveling 1,600 
miles twice a week. So what does this do? It saves us money.
  One of my favorite ways of saving money is to cap the printing costs 
in the Federal Government. We have examples of it right here. Every 
day, we put a Calendar of Business out, we put an Executive Calendar 
out, and we publish the Congressional Record, and we print hundreds of 
thousands of copies. You know what. It is all on line. We can save $4 
billion over the next 10 years by printing limited amounts of things we 
need and not printing some things everybody else has access to on a 
computer. Why would we not do that? Why would we not cap our printing 
costs? Think of the thousands of acres of trees we can save every year. 
What we know is every year, Federal employees, through our direction, 
spend $1.3 billion on printing. The analysis by GAO says $440 million 
of that is unnecessary. So over 10 years, that is $4.4 billion. That is 
$4.4 billion that we won't take from Madeline. Madeline and her other 
3- and 4-year-olds won't have to pay it back. Remember, they won't be 
paying $4.4 billion back; they will be paying the compounded interest 
that will double that debt in 10, 12 years. In 20 years, it will triple 
it. In 30, it will quadruple it. So they won't be paying $4.4 billion 
back, they will be paying $20 billion back. Why would we not do that? 
Why would we not make this decision to do that? It has been rejected by 
this body in the past.

[[Page 11071]]

  Before the Bush administration left, I was working with them on 
unused Federal real property. We have billions, if not hundreds of 
billions, in underutilized Federal property owned by the taxpayers.
  We spend $8 billion a year maintaining buildings we are not using. 
Think about that. We are spending $8 billion a year maintaining 
buildings we are not using. But we can't sell them because there is a 
little bill called the McKinney-Vento Act that says every used building 
in the Federal Government has to be offered as a homeless shelter 
first--even if it is an airplane hangar on a closed military base.
  We created a bureaucracy nightmare that doesn't allow us to do that. 
Consequently, we could take a tenth of the $8 billion we are spending 
and appropriate that directly to the homeless and save $7.2 billion a 
year. But this body has rejected that as well. They voted it down. They 
didn't give a reason, they just voted it down. We have 46,745 
underutilized properties, 18,849 properties we are not using at all, 
and a total of 65,000 properties we are not utilizing with an estimated 
value of $83 billion. That's $83 billion of property you are paying the 
maintenance on that we are not using, that we could sell and pay for 
almost all of this bill. But we won't do it.
  Of course, we don't buy many properties anymore. The reason for that 
is because of the way our budget scoring is, even though it would be 
smarter to buy it because the total cost of the building is charged to 
the agency in the year in which the building is completed. None of the 
agencies are buying buildings anymore, they are renting them. We should 
not be renting the first building. We should be getting rid of the $85 
billion worth of buildings we don't need and buying a building, because 
you can own a building a lot cheaper than renting one--maybe not last 
year, but commercial rates are coming back up. Yet we don't do it.
  Since 2005, out of this $85 billion, because of the bureaucratic 
nightmare of steps you have to go through, we have only sold $2.5 
billion worth of an $85 billion portfolio. None of you would do that 
with your own property. If you had property out there that you owned, 
and you were spending 10 percent of the value of that property every 
year maintaining it, and you weren't utilizing it, and you had an 
opportunity to sell it, you would sell it. Not the Federal Government. 
We ought to be asking why. Who took a stupid pill to say not to do 
that?
  Some of the properties are not of any value, so we ought to demolish 
them, because it costs less to do that than to maintain them. I will 
give you a rundown on some of them. On the buildings we now have, which 
we are utilizing, we have a maintenance backlog of $35.5 billion. We 
are spending money on buildings we don't want, maintaining them, but we 
can't take care of the buildings we have because we don't have enough 
money because we are spending it on buildings we don't use.
  Section 7 provides that the Department of Defense would auction new, 
unused, or excellent condition excess inventory to the highest bidder, 
rather than transferring it at no cost to State agencies and others. 
You buy tons of stuff every year through the Defense Department that 
they don't need. As a matter of fact, they don't even know what they 
have. It is sitting in warehouses around the country. And what do we do 
when we figure out we don't need it? We give it away. When we are $13.2 
trillion in debt, it is time to stop giving it away. It is time to get 
some value for the American taxpayers who paid retail price for that 
and turn around and sell it. It has been voted on before and rejected.
  I mentioned in my opening words about capping the total number of 
Federal employees this year. That is called a hiring freeze. But it is 
not a hiring freeze because if you have retirements, you can replace 
them. We added 160,000 Federal employees in the last 16 months. We have 
only have an increase in net new jobs of about 450,000. Almost 50 
percent of the net new jobs have been Federal jobs--at a time when our 
deficit is going to be one of the highest on record.
  I say time out. I say do it with whom you have. If you have 
retirements, or people who leave, replace them, but don't increase the 
numbers anymore. Those numbers don't include the census of 441,000 
temporary workers we have hired and will go away. How else are we going 
to get our budget under control if we don't do it in terms of 
personnel?
  The other thing is, if you look at the process over the last few 
years on Federal employees--and I will say it again--I will discuss the 
fact that those of us who think we are in a crisis moment in our 
country and feel we ought to be making tough choices would say we ought 
to freeze total salary costs. That is not a salary freeze per 
individual. That is just saying that in this department, this agency, 
here is how much you are going to spend on salaries, and we are not 
going to go up this year. We are not going to raise the total amount we 
spend on salaries this year. That still allows every manager great 
flexibility. You can promote and give raises to people who are 
performing. But you can't increase the total amount of money.
  Why is that important? There is an article in today's paper that OPM 
is starting to look at it. We looked at it, and here is what we know: 
In 1999, the average Federal salary was $49,536. It is now $78,806. 
Inflation during that period of time averaged 2.4 percent. Salary 
increases during that period of time averaged 4 percent--1\1/2\ times 
the rate of private pay increases in this country.
  What happened to benefits? Average personnel benefit per Federal 
employee is nearing $40,000 per year. Depending on how much you make, 
that may seem like a lot, or not, but when you look at the average 
private sector pay, it is $42,000. It is $36,000 less than the average 
Federal employee is paid. I don't want Federal employees to get a cut. 
I just don't think we ought to increase them at a time when most people 
aren't getting pay increases. I don't think we ought to increase 
Federal pay.
  The benefit differential is even more stark. The average for benefits 
for the average person in this country, who doesn't work for the 
Federal Government, is $20,000 per year. So we have almost twice as 
rich a benefit, or 1\1/2\ to 2 times as rich a benefit for Federal 
employees as everybody else in the country who is employed. I am not 
saying cut them. I am saying for 1 year let's not let it increase. 
Let's do right by the American people, who are struggling, and let's do 
right by the grandchildren and young children in our country by putting 
some common sense into what is allowable, given that we are in a time 
of crisis. We voted on that before. It failed.
  Federal employees also have, unpaid to the Federal Government, $3 
billion in back taxes, and that is not under dispute. Federal 
employees, who average $78,000 a year, owe the Federal Government $3 
billion. I say they ought to be paying that. I say it ought to be 
coming out of their wages. It is time to not allow that as a condition 
of your employment anymore. It seems unconscionable to me that you 
cannot pay your taxes, when you make $78,000 a year, and we are not 
going to force you to pay them. So it is a $3 billion savings, but it 
is an important signal to send to people: We are all paying taxes, and 
you ought to, too, since you make 1\1/2\ times what the average person 
in this country makes.
  We talked earlier about section 11. It eliminates the awarding of 
bonuses to government contractors when they have unsatisfactory 
performance. That is a no-brainer. Nobody in the private sector is 
going to give a bonus to somebody who isn't performing. But the Federal 
Government does it all the time. We need to statutorily say you cannot 
do that anymore.
  We now know that we spent $6.2 billion at the United Nations last 
year. We have no transparency from them on how our money was spent. We 
know we account for 25 percent of their regular budget and 26 percent 
of the peacekeeping budget. We did get a little piece that leaked data 
on an audit. We know that nearly 40 percent of the

[[Page 11072]]

money spent on peacekeeping is defrauded. Our voluntary additional 
contributions to the U.N. were $1.3 billion last year.
  All this amendment says is, don't give more than a billion to an 
incompetent organization where we cannot find out where they are 
spending our taxpayer money. It is a ridiculous commitment. Why would 
we even let them have a billion? At least save $3 billion a year over 
the next 10 years, but by not allowing that to go forward.
  I want to talk about one other thing I think is important that most 
of this body has voted against several times. We have $1.7 trillion 
sitting in the bank--money that the Congress has appropriated to be 
spent in outyears. Almost $700 billion of that has not been obligated 
for anything. Yet we have T-bonds and T-bills we are paying interest on 
while that sits over there.
  Prudent management would say that rather than borrow more money, you 
would use money from the bank account you already have. So this portion 
of the amendment takes $50 billion out of that $700 billion. We ought 
to eliminate it all, if it is unobligated. I recognize they have to 
have some movement back and forth, but they will never notice that $50 
billion that isn't in the unobligated balances, and when that 
expenditure comes, we can appropriate money for it. We are letting 
money sit idle while we borrow additional money to do additional 
things. This simply says that we move $50 billion out of that.
  Section 18 is about getting energy efficiency at the Department of 
Energy.
  Section 19--I talked to one of the Senators from California on this 
amendment. I am not opposed to fixing the problems with Medicare, the 
statistical inaccuracies in their payments, but I am opposed to not 
fixing it for the five other States that have it as well.
  It is unfair to take the State of California when the States of 
Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, and Virginia all have exactly the same 
problem. Yet in this bill, as we heard Senator Grassley say earlier, we 
only fixed one of the States. That is called an earmark. There is 
nothing wrong with fixing it for California, but there is plenty wrong 
with fixing it for California but not fixing it for these other four 
States. If it is something that needs to be fixed, why would we 
advantage California over these other States? It is called favoritism. 
It is called exceptionalism. It says that the citizens of California 
are worth more in this country than the citizens in Ohio and Georgia 
and Virginia and Michigan. They are not. If it is a problem that needs 
to be addressed, let's address the whole problem.
  Why did they not address the whole problem? Because it would have 
cost more money. We are going to borrow $400 million per year to fix it 
in California, and that is OK but it is not OK to fix it in the other 
States. That is inherently unfair, it borders on the unethical, and it 
is exactly the type of thing the American people reject. If there is a 
problem, fix it for everybody. Do not single out one group of people at 
the expense of the rest of Americans.
  Finally, this amendment eliminates all tax increases in this bill. 
The last thing we need to be doing right now is decreasing capital 
formation in this country, decreasing the ability to invest in new 
ideas, decreasing the capability of small businesses, which this bill 
goes after in terms of their subchapter S status, and making it more 
expensive to start a new business or keep one running when 70 percent 
of the jobs that are created in this country--and we are hurting for 
jobs--are created by small businesses.
  This amendment has 20 segments, and we are going to have 20 votes. We 
are going to see where this body lines up on these issues. Vote against 
common sense at your peril. Vote against the future of our country. 
Vote against Madeline and everybody else like her. Vote to increase the 
debt even higher. Vote to increase the size of the Federal Government. 
Vote to undo pay-go again. Continue doing what we are doing, and what 
we will see is the American people are going to reject that. They are 
rejecting it now. It is high time we started listening to the American 
people.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the oilspill that 
is absorbing so much of the time and attention of our country. There is 
a minor point, one that I think needs to be addressed right now, and 
that is the Jones Act.
  The Jones Act was put in place in 1920 to ensure that the United 
States was able to maintain a fleet of merchant ships. It was really 
for protection of U.S.-flagged carriers against competition from 
foreign carriers that might undercut our ability to have profitable 
merchant ships.
  The Jones Act is currently preventing resources, however, from being 
used in the massive cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico. This legislation 
that has been on the books since 1920 is hindering foreign vessels from 
assisting gulf communities as they work to prevent oil from reaching 
their shores.
  Currently, foreign vessels need to obtain a Jones Act waiver from the 
Federal Government in order to help with the cleanup efforts. For many 
of the vessels wishing to respond, this request needs to be reviewed by 
three separate agencies--the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, 
and Customs and Border Protection. That is three layers of bureaucracy 
when time is of the essence. During this crisis, we need to cut through 
the redtape. We must get all available assets on the scene as quickly 
as possible. I think everyone agrees.
  Other countries have offered their services. They have offered to 
help. There are European countries that also drill in the oceans and 
waters on their shores, and they have offered to send ships to help to 
try to absorb the oil and skim it off. There are volunteers waiting 
with the right equipment, and they are willing to come to our aid. We 
should know that with oil leaking from the ocean's floor, the natural 
resources of the gulf are being destroyed as we speak. We need every 
resource at our disposal to prevent further destruction. In my State of 
Texas, I have a constituent who would like to provide equipment to aid 
in the cleanup--his ship has a foreign flag--but he is unable to help 
because no waiver has been issued to the Jones Act in this particular 
crisis.
  There is precedent for waiving the Jones Act in disasters. It has 
been waived to speed up disaster responses in the past, including a 
waiver that was issued in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina nearly 5 
years ago. It was done by the Executive with an Executive order.
  Without this key waiver, foreign vessels are prohibited from working 
with their American counterparts to skim the oils from the water of the 
gulf within 3 miles of shore. Of course, that is where we desperately 
need to have the most help to skim the oil before it reaches and 
damages our shores.
  That is why next week I intend to introduce legislation that will 
waive the Jones Act for vessels whose sole intent is to assist in the 
cleanup of the Gulf of Mexico. We will ensure these foreign ships will 
work under the auspices of the Coast Guard. We will make sure there is 
a clearinghouse for them, but we should not be waiting to have three 
different Federal agencies look at a Jones Act waiver request when we 
know what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. We see the pictures every 
day. This waiver would be applied for a period of time that is 
necessary to respond to this oilspill and restore the waters of the 
Gulf of Mexico during this emergency.
  The Federal response to this spill has been a little short of 
immediate. It has

[[Page 11073]]

been a day late and a dollar short, and that is not acceptable. It is 
time that Congress does what we can with the resources we have to urge 
the administration to act while it can to mitigate the damages we know 
are already there. It is time for us to be proactive. It is time for us 
to act.
  I look forward to having cosponsors. I am in the process of getting 
this bill in order now. I want to work with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle. Our Gulf States have a bipartisan senatorial delegation. 
I want to help to do everything possible. If we can waive the Jones Act 
for this disaster with all of the appropriate cautions that are 
necessary and get those foreign ships that are ready to help our 
country, that have offered to help our country, to get into the 3-mile 
limit before this oil does further damage to our coast and to the 
wildlife and to the natural resources on our coast, we need to do it. 
This is something that should have been done weeks ago. It was not 
done.
  It is time for Congress to step in. I hope my colleagues will help us 
move this legislation expeditiously and urge the administration to do 
what is within their realm, even before Congress acts. That would be my 
wish. If the President would issue an Executive order, that would do 
it. But since he has not and since weeks have passed, it is time for 
Congress to take the reins and try to do everything that is within our 
power to mitigate the damage to the Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus motion to concur in the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213 with amendment No. 4369 
occur at 7:30 p.m. this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my motion to 
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213 with 
an amendment be modified to provide for technical changes to my 
amendment which are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will have to object simply because we 
haven't read it yet. We are going to take a look at it. Quite possibly, 
after figuring out what it is, we might not object, but for the moment 
I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I renew the request and let the leader reserve the right 
to object again. The modification is to provide that the enterprise 
value, the good will of a partnership interest which is sold, would be 
valued at 50 percent cap gains, 50 percent ordinary income. That is the 
provision those in the industry who cared about carried interest agreed 
to. That was the intent in the underlying substitute amendment. 
Unfortunately, when the amendment was drafted, there was a glitch which 
did not fully provide for what I just described. It is my full intent 
for the substitute amendment to provide for what I just stated; namely, 
that the good will value, enterprise value of the sale of a partnership 
interest, be valued at 50 percent cap gain and 50 percent ordinary 
income. It is unfortunate that we are unable to make that change.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I appreciate that explanation. As the 
chairman of the committee knows, we still need to see the actual 
amendment, and we will take a look at it.

                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report 
the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     4213, the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 
     2010, with the Baucus amendment No. 4369.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Patrick J. Leahy, Jeanne Shaheen, 
           Byron L. Dorgan, Sherrod Brown, Edward E. Kaufman, 
           Daniel K. Akaka, Christopher J. Dodd, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jack Reed, Barbara A. Mikulski, 
           Roland W. Burris, Jon Tester, Daniel K. Inouye, Tom 
           Harkin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur with amendment No. 4369 to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the American Workers, State, and 
Business Relief Act of 2010, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), 
and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--40

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bond
     Byrd
     Graham
     Roberts
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to Calendar No. 210, H.R. 3962, and that the Baucus substitute 
amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the 
bill, as amended, be read the third time, passed, and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto 
be printed in the Record, as if read, with no further intervening 
action or debate.
  Mr. President, what this is, as of Tuesday, the doctor fix--the 
reimbursement for Medicare physicians--expired. The administration was 
able to--the Health and Human Services Department--extend that for 3 
days. It runs out, I think, tomorrow. It is still good until tomorrow. 
So if we don't do this, not only will doctors who take Medicare 
patients get a 21-percent cut, in addition to that, so will others that 
are based upon Medicare reimbursements--veterans, insurance companies, 
HMOs, even TRICARE and the military. It will be a shame if this weren't 
agreed to. Remember, it is paid for. It is not a question of running up 
the debt.
  My friends on the other side have the opportunity to take care of the 
doctors for the next 6 months, fully paid for. If

[[Page 11074]]

not, there is going to be havoc in America starting tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we just 
got this a few moments ago. We are going to take a look at it. I think 
we are all hoping we can come up with a way to do the so-called doc fix 
and in a paid-for fashion, but for today I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to a bill to provide for an extension of unemployment insurance 
provisions that are in this bill we just had a vote on, for an 
extension of unemployment insurance provisions; that the bill be read 
the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table; that statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record, 
as if read, with no further intervening action or debate.
  Mr. President, this is extending unemployment benefits for people who 
have been out of work a long time. As Mark Zandi, Senator McCain's 
chief economic adviser, says, nothing stimulates the economy more than 
giving an unemployment check to somebody who has been unemployed for a 
long period of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are still working together, on a 
bipartisan basis, to try to figure out how to go forward. For the 
moment, I object.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill--the provision in this 
bill we just dealt with--to extend the temporary increase of the 
Medicaid FMAP through June 30, 2011; that the bill be read the third 
time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that 
any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record, as if 
read, with no further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this issue is currently covered through 
the end of this calendar year. This matter doesn't have the urgency at 
the moment that some of the others arguably do. We still have 6 months 
to address this issue. Therefore, for the moment, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, here is one I hope we don't have objection 
to. If there were ever a bipartisan piece of legislation, this is it. 
This is legislation originally devised by the Senator from Georgia, 
Johnny Isakson. It has been good for the economy--the first-time home 
buyers tax credit.
  Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of people who have 
qualified for this first-time home buyers tax credit. The problem is 
that the banks processing the paper are taking too long. If we don't 
extend this time, they will lose the opportunity to buy a home for the 
first time. It is fully paid for. It passed by a large margin. It seems 
that we should at least get this done tonight. It would allow these 
papers to be processed. I cannot imagine why something as bipartisan as 
this should not go forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from 
H.R. 4994, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the 
amendment we dealt with yesterday, the so-called Reid amendment, which 
is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be 
read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table; that any statements relating to this matter be printed in 
the Record, as if read, with no further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the majority leader is entirely correct 
that there is support on both sides for the step he recommends we take. 
Senator Isakson has been the leader on this issue on our side. However, 
incredibly, CBO has decided this costs money, which nobody can quite 
understand. So there is still a disagreement over how to pay for it. 
There is an agreement on the result, but there is a disagreement on how 
to pay for it, since CBO has decreed that it will cost the government 
money.
  We are going to have to continue to work on this and, therefore, for 
the moment I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with respect to some of the previous 
consents, Americans are frustrated with the amount of spending and 
borrowing we are doing here. We have an opportunity to show the 
American people that we can be fully responsible and cut spending 
elsewhere. Earlier today, we voted for a bill that would have cut the 
deficit by almost $70 billion. Let's not wave on through legislation 
that is going to worsen the deficit and dig an even deeper hole than we 
are currently in.
  Americans want us to show that we are serious about lowering the 
debt. Therefore, I have a consent to extend all of these expired 
provisions, including unemployment insurance and the doc fix. I will 
propose that now.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 411, S. 3421; further, that the bill be 
read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table.
  Before the Chair rules, for clarity, this is a paid-for 30-day 
extension of the extenders bill, which includes unemployment insurance, 
the doc fix, COBRA, flood insurance, and the extension of the small 
business loan guarantee program, and the 2009 Federal poverty 
guidelines.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how is it 
paid for, I ask my friend?
  Mr. McCONNELL. With stimulus money.
  Mr. REID. That is what I thought. First of all, that money is not 
there; it is obligated. I also say this. The economic recovery money--
the stimulus money--has created millions of jobs in America today--at 
least 3 million. But the best bang for the buck will come in the next 
quarter of this year. All the economists say that. It has taken a while 
to get the programs up and running. This would be taking good money 
that will create lots of jobs. We are all aware of the deficit. We are 
all aware of that. We understand where it came from. We understand that 
President Obama found himself elected President in a huge hole created 
by the one who was President before him. That is the reason we passed 
the recovery bill. It wouldn't be right, with the country still 
struggling to gain its economic viability, to cut the legs out from 
under this program that has worked so well.
  I think this is the wrong way to go. I think it is too bad that we 
are trying to take good money and abuse it. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 
4313, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming still has the floor.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am trying to get my amendment No. 4313 
pending so we can have an up-or-down vote. It is unfortunate that this 
has been blocked.
  This amendment fixes flaws in the Cobell v. Salazar settlement, which 
is important to Indian country. These fixes will benefit thousands of 
class members involved in this suit.
  Congress has a responsibility, when they know legislation is broken, 
to fix it. The Cobell settlement legislation is no different. I will 
continue to raise this issue as long as the debate on this bill is 
occurring.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 11075]]


  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at around lunchtime, the Senate voted on 
Senator Thune's alternative to the Democratic leadership's extender 
bill. Senator Thune's amendment took the exact opposite approach to the 
Democratic leadership's substitute. It cuts taxes by $26 billion by 
extending current law. It cut spending by over $100 billion, and 
reduced the deficit by $68 billion. Those are Congressional Budget 
Office, CBO, and Joint Committee on Taxation estimates.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the current 
version of the Democratic leadership's extenders substitute would 
increase direct spending by about $105 billion through 2020 and raise 
revenues by about $50 billion over that period, resulting in a net 
deficit increase of about $55 billion for the 2010-2020 period.
  The contrast couldn't be clearer. The Republican Conference, along 
with one member of the Senate Democratic Caucus, voted to change the 
bottom-line fiscal effects of the Democratic leadership's extender 
substitute. The Thune amendment would reduce the deficit by $13 billion 
more than the amount the Democratic leadership's extender substitute 
would add to the deficit. Senator Thune's amendment reached this better 
fiscal result by restraining Federal spending.
  All but one of the Democratic Caucus who were present, 57 Senators, 
voted against Senator Thune's amendment.
  The junior Senator from Florida, one of the 41 Senators who voted for 
Senator Thune's amendment, came to the Senate floor to highlight the 
differences between the Democratic Caucus and the Republican Conference 
in the approach to this extender bill.
  The junior Senator from Michigan also made some comments on the 
current fiscal problems. She made her arguments in response to comments 
from the junior Senator from Florida. Last year, at about this time, 
there was a lot of revision or perhaps editing of recent budget 
history. I expect more of it from some on the other side.
  The President signaled as much in an interview with George 
Stephanopoulos a few months ago. I agree with the President that 
there's a lot of revisionism in the debate.
  The revisionist history basically boils down to two conclusions:
  1. That all of the ``good'' fiscal history of the 1990s was derived 
from a partisan tax increase bill of 1993; and
  2. That all of the ``bad'' fiscal history of this decade to date is 
attributable to the bipartisan tax relief plans.
  Not surprisingly, nearly all of the revisionists who spoke generally 
oppose tax relief and support tax increases. The same crew generally 
support spending increases and oppose spending cuts.
  In the debate so far, many on this side have pointed out some key, 
undeniable facts. The stimulus bill passed by the Senate, with interest 
included, increases the deficit by over $1 trillion. The stimulus bill 
was a heavy stew of spending increases and refundable tax credits, 
seasoned with small pieces of tax relief. The bill passed by the Senate 
had new temporary spending, that, if made permanent, will burden future 
budget deficits by over $3 trillion. That is not Chuck Grassley 
speaking. It is the official Congressional scorekeeper, the 
Congressional Budget Office, CBO.
  All of this occurred in an environment where the automatic economic 
stabilizers thankfully kicked in to help the most unfortunate in 
America with unemployment insurance, food stamps and other benefits.
  That antirecessionary spending, together with lower tax receipts, and 
the TARP activities has set a fiscal table of a deficit of $1.4 
trillion for the fiscal year that ended several months ago. That is the 
highest deficit, as a percentage of the economy, in post-World War II 
history.
  Not a pretty fiscal picture. And it is going to get a lot uglier with 
the budget put forward by the President this year. It's the same result 
under the budget crafted last year by the Democratic leadership. So, 
for the folks who see this bill as an opportunity to ``recover'' 
America with government taking a larger share of the economy over the 
long-term, I say congratulations. You have recovered America with a 
vast expansion of government and the American people have a lot of red 
ink to look forward to.
  Members who voted for the budget and the fiscal policy envisioned in 
it put us on the path to a bigger role for the government. But 
supporters of that fiscal policy need to own up to the fiscal course 
they are charting.
  That's where the revisionist history comes from. From the perspective 
of those on our side, it's seems to be a strategy to divert, through a 
twisted blame game, from the facts before us. How is the history 
revisionist? Let's take each conclusion one-by-one.
  The first conclusion is that all of the ``good'' fiscal history was 
derived from the 1993 tax increase. To test that assertion, all you 
have to do is take a look at data from the Clinton administration.
  The much-ballyhooed partisan tax increase of 1993 accounts for 13 
percent of the deficit reduction in the 1990s. Thirteen percent. That 
13 percent figure was calculated by the Clinton administration's Office 
of Management and Budget, OMB.
  The biggest source of deficit reduction, 35 percent, came from a 
reduction in defense spending. Of course, that fiscal benefit 
originated from President Reagan's stare-down of the communist regime 
in Russia. The same folks on that side who opposed President Reagan's 
defense build-up take credit for the fiscal benefit of the ``peace 
dividend.''
  The next biggest source of deficit reduction, 32 percent, came from 
other revenue. Basically, this was the fiscal benefit from pro-growth 
policies, like the bipartisan capital gains tax cut in 1997, and the 
free-trade agreements President Clinton, with Republican votes, 
established.
  The savings from the policies I have pointed out translated to 
interest savings. Interest savings accounts for 15 percent of the 
deficit reduction.
  Now, for all the chest-thumping about the 1990s, the chest thumpers, 
who push for big social spending, didn't bring much to the deficit 
reduction table in the 1990s. Their contribution was 5 percent.
  What's more the fiscal revisionist historians in this body tend to 
forget who the players were. They are correct that there was a 
Democratic President in the White House. But they conveniently forget 
that Republicans controlled the Congress for the period where the 
deficit came down and turned to surplus. They tend to forget they 
fought the principle of a balanced budget that was the centerpiece of 
Republican fiscal policy.
  Do my friends on the Democratic side remember the government shutdown 
of late 1995? Remember what that was about? It was about a plan to 
balance the budget. Republicans paid a political price for forcing the 
issue, but, in 1997, President Clinton agreed. Recall as well all 
through the 1990s what the year-end battles were about.
  On one side, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration 
pushed for more spending. On the other side, congressional Republicans 
were pushing for tax relief. In the end, both sides compromised. That 
is the real fiscal history of the 1990s.
  Let's turn to the other conclusion of the revisionist fiscal 
historians. That conclusion is that, in this decade, all fiscal 
problems are attributable to the widespread tax relief enacted in 2001, 
2003, 2004, and 2006.
  In 2001, President Bush came into office. He inherited an economy 
that was careening downhill. Investment started to go flat in 2000. The 
tech-fueled stock market bubble was bursting. Then came the economic 
shocks of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
  Add in the corporate scandals to that economic environment.
  And it is true, as fiscal year 2001 came to a close, the projected 
surplus turned to a deficit.
  In just the right time, the 2001 tax relief plan started to kick in. 
As the tax relief hit full force in 2003, the deficits grew smaller. 
This pattern continued up through 2007.
  If my comments were meant to be partisan shots, I could say this 
favorable fiscal path from 2003 to 2007 was the only period, aside from 
6 months in

[[Page 11076]]

2001, where Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress. 
But, unlike the fiscal history revisionists, I am not trying to make 
any partisan points, I am just trying to get to the fiscal facts.
  There is also data that compares the tax receipts for 4 years after 
the much-ballyhooed 1993 tax increase and the 4-year period after the 
2003 tax cuts.
  In 1993, the Clinton tax increase brought in more revenue as compared 
to the 2003 tax cut. That trend reversed as both policies moved along. 
Over the first few years, the extra revenue went up over time relative 
to the flat line of the 1993 tax increase.
  So, let's get the fiscal history right.
  The progrowth tax and trade policies of the 1990's along with the 
``peace dividend'' had a lot more to do with the deficit reduction in 
the 1990s than the 1993 tax increase. In this decade, deficits went 
down after the tax relief plans were put in full effect.
  No economist I am aware of would link the bursting of the housing 
bubble with the bipartisan tax relief plans of 2001 and 2003. Likewise, 
I know of no economic research that concludes that the bipartisan tax 
relief of 2001 and 2003 caused the financial meltdown of September and 
October 2008.
  As I said, from the period of 2003 through 2007, after the bipartisan 
tax relief program was in full effect, the general pattern was this: 
revenues went up and deficits went down.
  That is the past. We need to make sure we understand it. But what is 
most important is the future. People in our States send us here to deal 
with future policy.
  They don't send us here to flog one another, like partisan cartoon 
cut-out characters, over past policies. They don't send us here to 
endlessly point fingers of blame. The substitute before us takes us in 
the direction of more deficits and debt. The Thune amendment, which was 
rejected by most of the Democratic Caucus, would have put us on a path 
in the opposite fiscal direction. My friends on the other side fool no 
one if they pretend that the fiscal choices made by the Democratic 
Leadership and the President over the last year have nothing to do with 
this rapidly rising debt.
  President Obama rightly focused us on the future with his eloquence 
during the campaign. I would like to paraphrase a quote from the 
President's nomination acceptance speech:

       We need a President who can face the threats of the future, 
     not grasping at the ideas of the past.

  President Obama was right.
  We need a President, and I would add Congressmen and Senators, who 
can face the threats of the future. Grasping at ideas of the past or 
playing the partisan blame game will not deal with the threats to our 
fiscal future.
  It is not too late to correct the excesses of the stimulus bill or 
the bloated appropriations bills that will come. The Senate missed an 
opportunity, with a partisan rejection of Senator Thune's alternative.
  Senator McCaskill's and Sessions' amendment, which calls for a time 
out on the exponentially rising levels of appropriations spending, is a 
good start. The President called on the Democratic leadership to do 
something similar. That is what the American people want and need. 
There is a way to reach a real bipartisan compromise, not just picking 
off a few Senators that frequently vote with the Democrats.

                          ____________________