[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11305-11310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          BIODIESEL TAX CREDIT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request but I 
will wait until a Member from the other side is here to make it. As a 
predicate to that, I will make a statement on my reason for doing so.
  As the majority continues to struggle in an attempt to pass another 
massive deficit spending bill through Congress, biodiesel plants in 
Iowa and throughout the country continue to lay off workers because the 
Democratically controlled Congress has not extended the biodiesel tax 
credit. This is a simple and noncontroversial tax extension that will 
likely reinstate 20,000 jobs nationwide and about 2,000 jobs in my 
State of Iowa all by itself. These jobs have fallen victim to a tactic 
used by the Democratic leadership to hold this popular and 
noncontroversial tax provision hostage to out-of-control deficit 
spending in Washington.
  This past February, I worked out a bipartisan deal with Chairman 
Baucus to extend the expired tax provision, including the biodiesel tax 
credit. However, the Senate Democratic leadership decided to put 
partisanship ahead of job security for thousands of workers in the 
biodiesel industry. I am here again to try to put thousands of workers 
back to work, American workers, in the process of producing a clean and 
renewable fuel. We already stripped out and passed the so-called doctor 
fix from the larger extenders bill last week. We should do the same 
with the biodiesel tax credit right now.
  Also there is a difference between the biodiesel tax credit and the 
other tax provisions in the tax extenders bill. The failure to extend 
the biodiesel tax credit before it expires has ground the industry to a 
halt, because biodiesel is now more expensive than gasoline and gas 
stations know they can't sell it. So, of course, naturally, they don't 
buy it. Therefore, biodiesel producers have stopped producing it 
because they have nobody to sell it to. While the other tax provisions 
are important, they are not as time sensitive as biodiesel, because 
they are not transactional tax incentives like the biodiesel tax credit

[[Page 11306]]

but instead are based on the taxable year.
  I am going to reserve my unanimous consent request until the Senator 
from Michigan returns. I will go to other remarks I want to make at 
this point.
  I see the Senator has returned so I will make my unanimous consent 
request at this point.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4853

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 4853, that all after the enacting clause be 
stricken and the text of S. 3440, to extend the biodiesel fuel tax 
credit, be inserted; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time 
and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank 
my colleague for his courtesy in allowing me to return to the Chamber 
and also indicate that this particular provision on biodiesel, which I 
strongly support, is in the underlying jobs bill. We hope to have this 
passed in a couple of days. We will have another opportunity to vote on 
this shortly. As a result of that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4853

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a further unanimous consent 
request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 4853; that all after the enacting 
clause be stricken and that an amendment at the desk, which is the text 
of S. 3421, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third 
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object, I again say to my 
colleague, we will have an opportunity to address this. We had two 
opportunities last week to address it and did not get the votes. 
Hopefully, in the next couple days, we will be able to resolve these 
issues. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this morning we saw yet another replay of a dialog 
between some of my friends on the other side and some on my side of the 
aisle. It kind of goes like this. Republicans make a proposal to make a 
pending Democratic leadership proposal such as the extenders bill 
deficit neutral. The Democratic leadership marshals the votes and 
defeats the deficit-neutral proposal on a largely party-line basis. 
After the vote, debate ensues. My friends on the other side define the 
proposal that they defeat in an incorrect way. They define it as a 
proposal to carry out the policy of a fiscally responsible manner as 
opposition to the underlying policy in the proposal. Republicans 
counter that the Republican deficit-neutral proposal carries most, if 
not all, of the policy contained in the Democratic leadership's 
proposal.
  When the smoke clears, the true differences between the two sides' 
approaches become very clear. My friends on the other side want to add 
to the deficit to carry out the underlying initiative--be it an 
extension of unemployment benefits or a lot of other things in the 
bill. On this side, we want deficit neutrality at a minimum by rolling 
back future bloated spending. The Democratic leadership wants to keep 
in place the future bloated spending. Tax increases are OK, if they are 
offset. Bring on hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increase, 
whether they hit individuals, small businesses, or what have you. As an 
example, the latest tax is due to hit next week. Next Tuesday, July 1, 
users of tanning bed services will face a new 10-percent tanning bed 
excise tax. God help us if someone proposes to make the government even 
a little bit leaner. That proposal will be met with a brick wall of 
resistance, even if it is a proposal to roll back future unobligated, 
unallocated stimulus spending, which stimulus spending has not 
accomplished what it was intended to accomplish, keeping unemployment 
under 8 percent.
  The upshot is this: For my friends in the Democratic leadership, 
keeping the spending spigot all the way open trumps deficit reduction. 
Keep the spending going, in other words. Worry about our deficit 
sometime down the road. Let our grandchildren worry about it.
  On the Republican side, we want to trim the spending and save some 
taxpayers money by managing priorities. That is a worthwhile debate. It 
is an intellectually honest debate. It is the kind of debate that can 
inform fiscal policy judgments. But my friends in the Democratic 
leadership are not content to have the debate on that basis. Instead, 
we have seen a pattern where they want to change the subject. Instead 
of focusing on the present and the future, my friends on the other side 
want to revisit the past. In veering away from current choices and 
future fiscal consequences, my friends on the other side take the 
discussion in a whole different direction. My friends on the other side 
claim they cannot deal with these problems in a fiscally responsible 
manner because of Republicans. Republicans only left them with fiscal 
problems.
  People watching C-SPAN witnessed this back and forth last Thursday, 
and around lunchtime the Senate voted on Senator Thune's alternative to 
the Democratic leadership's extender bill. The Thune amendment took the 
exact opposite approach to the Democratic leadership's substitute. It 
cut taxes by $26 billion by extending current law. It cut spending by 
over $100 billion and reduced the deficit by $68 billion. Those are not 
this Senator's numbers. They come from the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office and the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last version of the 
Democratic leadership's extender substitute would have increased direct 
spending by about $105 billion through the year 2020, and raised 
revenues by about $50 billion over that period, resulting in a net 
deficit increase of about $55 billion. As an aside, last Friday 
Chairman Baucus and I prevailed on the leadership to clear the deficit-
neutral bill that extended the so-called Medicare doctor fix. That 
action will cut those numbers a little bit.
  On the larger bill, however, the contrast could not be clearer. The 
Republican Conference, along with one member of the Democratic caucus, 
voted to change the bottom line fiscal effects of the Democratic 
leadership's extender substitute. If Senator Thune had prevailed, his 
amendment would have reduced the deficit by $13 billion more than the 
amount the Democratic leadership's extender substitute would have added 
to the deficit. The Thune amendment reached this better fiscal result 
by simple common sense of restraining Federal spending. All but one 
Member of the Democratic caucus then in attendance, 57 Senators, voted 
against the Thune amendment. One of the Senators who voted for the 
Thune amendment came to the Senate floor to highlight the differences 
between the Democratic caucus and the Republican Conference in the 
approach to this extenders bill.
  A Member of the Democratic leadership also made some comments on the 
current fiscal problems. Instead of focusing on the question of whether 
to offset the policy or not, that Member decided to change the subject. 
As we saw this morning, that Member of the Democratic leadership wanted 
to go back several years and talk about fiscal history.
  This morning, like last week, there was a lot of revision or perhaps 
editing of the 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 
is a lot of revisionism in the debate.
  The revisionist history basically boils down to two conclusions: One, 
that all of the ``good'' fiscal history of the 1990s was derived from a 
partisan tax increase bill of 1993; and, two, that all of the ``bad'' 
fiscal history of this

[[Page 11307]]

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--do you know what--support tax increases. The 
same crew generally supports spending increases and opposes 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 $2.5 
trillion. That is not Senate Republicans adding that up. It is the 
official congressional scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, 
nonpartisan as they are. In fact, the deficit effects of the stimulus 
bill passed a year ago March--passed within a short time after the 
Democrats assumed full control of the Federal Government--roughly 
exceeded the deficit impact of the 8 years of bipartisan tax relief.
  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.
  It is 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 is 
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. America has been recovered 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 is where the revisionist history comes from. From the 
perspective of those on our side, it seems to be a strategy to divert, 
through a twisted blame game, from the facts before us. How is the 
history revised? 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 1993 partisan tax increase accounts for 13 
percent of the deficit reduction in the 1990s--13 percent. That 13 
percent figure was calculated by the Clinton administration's Office of 
Management and Budget.
  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 buildup 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 freetrade 
agreements President Clinton, with Republican votes, established.
  The savings from the policies I have pointed out translated to 
interest savings. Interest savings account 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 is 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.
  Remember the government shutdown of late 1995, my friends on the 
Democratic side? Remember what that was about? It was about a plan to 
balance the budget. We are constantly reminded of the political price 
paid by the other side for the record tax increase they put in the law 
in 1993. Republicans paid a political price for forcing the balanced 
budget issue in 1996. 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. After that 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 close, the projected 
surplus turned to a deficit. But it is wrong to attribute the entire 
deficit occurring during this period to the bipartisan tax relief. 
According to CBO, the bipartisan tax relief is responsible for only 25 
percent of the deficit change, while 44 percent is attributable to 
higher spending, and 31 percent is attributable to economic and 
technical changes.
  At just the right time, the 2001 tax relief plan started to kick in. 
As the tax relief hit its 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 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. I have a chart that tracks those trends.
  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 1990s, 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. I have a chart that shows what the 
President inherited from a Democratic Congress and a Republican 
President.
  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.

[[Page 11308]]

  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.
  We took a small, bipartisan step last Friday. The Senate unanimously 
approved a paid-for Medicare doc fix bill, led by my friend, Chairman 
Baucus. That was the way we need to go.
  There are more bipartisan fiscally responsible efforts underway. 
Senator McCaskill's and Senator Sessions' amendment, which calls for a 
timeout 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. It is right in front of the 
Democratic leadership. Efforts to change the subject and blame 
Republican Congresses of many years ago won't answer the questions 
about what needs to be done now.
  Efforts to blame every fiscal problem on a Republican President who 
retired a year and a half ago is no answer. It is a strategy that 
avoids responsibility for the trillions of new spending that the 
Democratic leadership and this President have muscled through with 
large majorities. It is time to match the power with responsibility. 
The American People expect no less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
Republican time has now ended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Ms. STABENOW. We have 15 minutes to wrap up. Is that my 
understanding?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Ms. STABENOW. First, as a courtesy to my colleagues, I will offer a 
unanimous consent request at the beginning of our comments, and this 
relates to the nearly 1 million people who have lost their jobs who 
have now lost their unemployment benefits because of the inability to 
move this forward in terms of extending unemployment benefits through 
the end of November.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3520

  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of S. 3520, the Unemployment Extension Act 
of 2010, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or 
debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
Republicans have offered a bill, and it is fully paid for. We have the 
same concerns. We think, though, we should not be adding to the debt 
and the deficit. We know the President's budget doubles the national 
debt in 5 years, triples it in 10. The recommendation here being 
offered is one that would add to the burden of the debt on our children 
and grandchildren.
  As a result, Mr. President, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to now speak both in 
response to some of what my friends on the other side of the aisle have 
said and also to talk about why we are here this evening, why we 
started this whole discussion this evening.
  I remember when we, in fact, balanced the budget. We passed a 
balanced budget under President Clinton. I was against deficits then 
when I voted, for the first time in 30 years, to balance the budget. I 
was against deficits when I supported a different way to go with the 
largest surpluses created by the policies of President Clinton, when I 
said just focusing on the wealthy in this country and tax benefits for 
the wealthy not only was not fair, but it was going to balloon the 
deficit; that not paying for two wars was going to balloon the deficit; 
that not paying for really any major policy during the 8 years of the 
Bush administration would balloon the deficit. I was against deficits 
at that time as well, and I am still against deficits.
  When we talk about what happened in the last 8 years, it is not to go 
back, but it is to learn from what did not work for the American 
people. One of my friends on the other side of the aisle said they were 
for private-sector jobs and we were for public-sector jobs. Well, the 
reality is, during the last 8 years, when deficits did not matter--I 
will never forget the former Vice President saying deficits did not 
matter. When they were trying to pass their policies that affected the 
wealthiest in the country, at the expense of the middle class, deficits 
did not matter.
  But we lost 6 million private-sector jobs during that time--6 million 
manufacturing jobs--when there was a focus on cheap products instead of 
American jobs. We lost jobs. Well, deficits mattered to me at that time 
too, as well as deficits in jobs, which is the main engine of our 
economy: middle class jobs.
  Well, it is true. When we came into the majority and President Obama 
came into office, after that time of losing 750,000 jobs a month, we 
took a different tack. We did. We said: Do you know what. Instead of 
focusing on big bailouts for Wall Street, and losing 8 million jobs 
because of that, or people losing their pensions or 401(k)s, we think 
we ought to have a different set of priorities. We think we ought to 
focus on the middle class in this country and working people and people 
who spend all their lives playing by the rules who are saying: What 
about us?
  So we did something different. We put in an investment jobs plan that 
our colleagues have spent the last year and a half trying to talk down, 
trying to make sure it did not work. But we put in place a jobs plan to 
begin to turn things around. And that 750,000 jobs that were lost a 
month that President Obama inherited went down to zero by the end of 
the year.
  As shown on this chart, this is where we were on jobs in the Bush 
administration. If their approach had worked, I would say great. If 
people in my State had not been hit by an economic tsunami during this 
time, I would say great. I would be out here promoting it. I would be 
promoting what they are talking about--if it had worked for the 
majority of Americans. The problem is it did not work.
  Now, people listening I know get very confused because there are all 
kinds of back and forth and different versions of what happened in 
history. I would ask people just to think about their own lives.
  As shown on this chart, it did not work here, starting in 2002, 2003, 
2004, 2005. I can tell you, in my State, where we lost a million jobs, 
these policies

[[Page 11309]]

did not work. So we tried something else, when we started focusing on 
people, investing in innovation, partnering with manufacturers--
private-sector jobs.
  Yesterday, I went to a facility groundbreaking for a battery 
manufacturing plant. We have 16 different battery manufacturing 
facilities in Michigan now because of the Recovery Act that are 
creating private-sector jobs. The manufacturing tax credit we put in 
for alternative energies is creating private-sector jobs. Now, they are 
not as fast as we want. They are not as fast as we need. But we are 
beginning to turn this huge economic ship around. The ship that was 
going down, down, down--we are beginning to turn it around. We are 
beginning to turn it around.
  My colleagues say we should help people who are out of work by taking 
money away from this. Let's stop this. Let's take money away from 
creating jobs to help people out of work.
  Well, that does not make any sense. What we have said is we want to 
continue this. That is why we are saying no to the proposals. That is 
why I objected to proposals tonight on the floor that sound great on 
the surface. They sound great. Well, why not just pay for it? Well, you 
are talking about taking money away from jobs in order to be able to 
put it into something that is desperately needed as well--both are 
needed--helping people who are out of work.
  We say no. Keep investing. Keep moving it forward, and at the same 
time--at the same time--let's help people who are out of work in the 
same way every President--Republican and Democrat--for decades has 
done; that is, we call it an emergency. It is an emergency in this 
country when over 15 million people are out of work. And the reality 
is, from an economic standpoint, we will never get out of a deficit 
with over 15 million people not working and contributing to the tax 
base and contributing to the economy, buying things as consumers. We 
will never get out of debt.
  So, yes, we do have a different view. We do. We have a view that 
worked under President Clinton when 22 million jobs were created. We 
have that same view now, that same view that says we are going to move 
ourselves out of this by investing in the middle class of this country, 
working people. We are going to invest in innovation. We are going to 
partner with our businesses. They are competing with countries around 
the world right now to create good private-sector jobs.
  And, yes, to support small business, we have done more in tax 
policies related to small business, and we intend to do even more than 
I think at any other time I can think of in terms of support for small 
business. All of that is true.
  Mr. President, in order for my colleague from Pennsylvania to speak, 
will you please tell me when there is 5 minutes left of our time. I do 
not want to lose the opportunity for the Senator from Pennsylvania to 
be able to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a minute and a half.
  Ms. STABENOW. Before the 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank you very much.
  Let me conclude by saying we are moving in the right direction, but 
we inherited a huge hole. By the way, the folks who created the hole 
want us to give them more shovels to go back and create another hole, a 
deeper hole. We are saying, do you know what. Take away the shovels. 
Take them away. We need to fill in the hole, not dig a deeper one.
  So that is what we have been doing. But here is the reality. It was 
six people out of work for every one job. Now it is five. OK, it is 
moving in the right direction. We have a long ways to go. But five 
people are looking and trying to find every one job. That is what this 
debate is all about.
  Millions of people--most of them worked all their lives, never been 
out of work in their entire life and are humiliated at the idea they 
have to ask for help from anybody--find themselves in a position where 
they are going to lose their house, they are not going to be able to 
care for their kids, unless we give them the dignity of temporary help. 
That is all this is, the dignity of temporary help, and the dignity of 
saying, yes, this is an emergency; yes, we are not changing the rules 
just for you. We are not going to have a different set of rules for the 
wealthy in this country and separate rules for somebody who is out of 
work who is 55 years old who has worked all their life.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. That is what this is about, and it is my great pleasure 
tonight, as we end, and as we continue to fight for these Americans, to 
turn our final 5 minutes over to the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has 
been a real champion standing up for working families in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator, there are now 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first of all, I commend Senator Stabenow 
for her words tonight to put in perspective what this debate is all 
about. It really is a question of jobs--not only creating jobs, as we 
have been able to do, and still have a long way to go to get out of the 
ditch, but also preserving jobs. Also, I commend the Senator for her 
stamina tonight. She has spent a lot of time on the Senate floor.
  I want to make two points. One is about unemployment insurance and 
one is about COBRA premium assistance for health care.
  First, with regard to unemployment insurance--the debate we are 
having on the bill this week and last week, for a number of days now--
one of the real points of contention is what we do about those who are 
out of work through no fault of their own.
  I can just tell you what it means for Pennsylvania. Here is the 
reality in Pennsylvania--and I will ask consent that the following 
document be made a part of the Record: Estimated Exhaustions of All 
Available Unemployment Compensation Benefits, calendar year 2010. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that document be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               ESTIMATED EXHAUSTIONS OF ALL AVAILABLE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS (UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 99 WEEKS) CALENDAR YEAR 2010
  [These estimates reflect the total number of individuals in each month projected to exhaust all available state and federal unemployment compensation
    (UC) benefits under current law--Regular UC, Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC), and High Unemployment Period Extended Benefits (HUP EB).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               YTD
                                             Through      May        Jun        Jul        Aug        Sep        Oct        Nov        Dec       Annual
                                              April                                                                                              Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUC/EB phase-out beginning June 2\1\......     30,000      5,200    111,000     94,000     65,000     41,000     32,000     25,000     26,000    429,200
EUC/EB phase-out extended to Dec 31\2\....     30,000      5,200      4,800      5,600      5,900      6,600      9,100      7,300     64,000    138,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These projected exhaustions are based on current law, whereby the phase-out of EUC begins on June 2, 2010 (last payable week of EUC is week ending
  November 6, 2010) and the last payable week of HUP EB is week ending June 5, 2010.
\2\These projections reflect the estimated number of exhaustions that would occur if the phase-out of EUC and EB was extended to December 31, 2010.

  Mr. CASEY. What this says is if we don't act to extend unemployment 
insurance, to give people some help, to get from joblessness to a job, 
to get across that long bridge, 111,000 Pennsylvanians will be out of 
unemployment insurance by the end of June. Unfortunately, that number 
goes up by another 94,000 at the end of July if we do nothing. By the 
end of this year, 429,200 Pennsylvanians will have no unemployment 
insurance.
  We have to act on that. It makes all the sense in the world when we 
are recovering--and we are in recovery,

[[Page 11310]]

thank goodness, but we have a way to go--that we give people the 
opportunity to at least have the peace of mind to know they have 
unemployment insurance.
  Secondly, with regard to COBRA, if anyone has any doubts as to what 
this means to real people, I would submit one part of one sentence from 
a single Pennsylvanian by the name of Lisa. She sent a letter to me 
talking about chemotherapy treatments she needs and the COBRA premium 
assistance. She said: ``COBRA benefits have kept me alive.'' That is 
exactly what we are talking about here--about life and death. Why 
should a family--as they are trying to get a job, trying to find their 
way out of joblessness--why should they have to worry and have the 
additional nightmare of having no health insurance? We can help so many 
Americans as we did in the Recovery Act. Two million households across 
the country were helped by the COBRA premium assistance program in 
2009. In our State, over 107,000 Pennsylvanians had the benefit of 
that.
  So as we wrap up this debate about preserving jobs and creating 
jobs--and I think in a sense getting a sense of whose side you are on--
are you going to be on the side of slowing things down and playing 
games or are you going to be on the side of helping the unemployed get 
a job and help them with their family's health care. As we wrap up this 
debate, it is about saving jobs and preserving jobs and literally, in 
some cases, saving lives, not only by way of health care but also by 
way of the additional debate we are having on Medicaid and what that 
means to vulnerable people as well as what it means to public safety 
and other priorities. We can get this right, but we need to have our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize that this is a high 
stakes game they are engaged in and that the loser here in the end is 
not going to be some political party. Those who will be left out are 
very vulnerable people who, in addition, are without a job.
  With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 seconds remaining.
  Ms. STABENOW. On that note, I will simply say again that we are here 
and we will continue to be here fighting on behalf of people who are 
counting on us to do the right thing. We remember what it is like for 
too many families right now whose breadwinner cannot bring home any 
bread because there is no job. We want to remember them and we want to 
help them and support them as they are looking for work, as all 
Americans want to be able to have a job and the dignity of work, and 
that is what we are fighting for.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________