[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11613-11631]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that 
we have gotten to this point on this very important piece of 
legislation that is before us, the tax extenders bill, the jobs package 
we have been trying to get passed. We have worked very hard to put 
together a bill that will provide much needed help to families and 
communities across the country. It is a bill that will make sure our 
recovery is not jeopardized. It is a bill that would extend tax credits 
to individuals and small businesses that both of our parties think are 
important. It provides incentives for clean energy companies to expand 
and create jobs at a time when we need them. It allows families in 
States such as mine to deduct local sales tax from their Federal 
returns, an important boost to the economy. It provides critical 
support for States that are struggling today to provide health care for 
their families in these very tough economic times. And it will extend 
unemployment benefits to support those in our communities who, through 
no fault of their own, have lost a job and now, as the economy is 
getting back on track, need support for a few months longer so they can 
get a job and go back to work. It is a commonsense bill to help our 
economy get back on track. When we originally brought this bill to the 
floor, every single Republican said no to supporting our communities. 
Instead of walking away on this side, instead of furthering their goal 
of partisan gridlock, we extended a hand to our minority colleagues and 
worked with them. We trimmed sections they wanted trimmed. We reduced 
the support we thought was important for our families, but we reduced 
it in order to get their support and brought it back to the floor 
again. But once again, they said no to American families. So we went 
back and a third time trimmed it back even further. We did exactly what 
they asked us to do.
  Now I am saying to our Republican colleagues, it is time to stop 
saying no. It is time to stop saying no to clean energy companies in my 
home State and across the country that depend on these tax credits to 
stay competitive. It is time to say stop saying no to the thousands of 
police officers and corrections officers and so many others who will 
lose their jobs in my home State and everywhere if this bill does not 
pass and our State has to further slash its budget. It is time to stop 
saying no to the men and women across the country who are desperately 
trying to find work today but need a little more help to keep their 
heads above water in these tough economic times. It is time to stop 
saying no to middle-class families across Washington State who depend 
on that sales tax deduction that would be extended in this underlying 
bill to help. They will be out hundreds of millions of dollars if this 
bill continues to be blocked.
  We have tried very hard. Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance 
Committee, deserves our gratitude for reaching across the aisle time 
and time again to work with the other side. We have compromised, and 
then we compromised again and then again. It is disheartening that the 
other side has refused to work with us. I say enough already. I go back 
home to Washington State every weekend. I talk to my constituents. I 
try to explain what we are doing here in Washington, DC. To be honest, 
I am having a heck of a lot of trouble explaining why when big banks 
and Wall Street were on the brink of failure and threatening to blow up 
our economy, Republicans immediately came together with us to help step 
us back from the brink. But now that Wall Street is fine, regular 
families and communities are continuing to struggle, those same 
Republicans are nowhere to be found. I don't have an answer for the 
families at home who ask me about this. Quite honestly, I don't get it 
myself. Because the fact is, we have had put together a bill that is 
fully paid for with the exception of unemployment benefits, that is a 
direct stimulus to the economy, that has been passed as emergency 
spending time and time again under both Democratic and Republican 
control, because that is exactly what it is. We have done all we can. 
If those on the other side say no again, it is pretty clear to me they 
are putting their interests before the interests of our hard-working 
families who are struggling today.
  I know in the State of the Presiding Officer and in my State families 
are hurting. They are fighting every day to stay on their feet. I am 
not going to stop fighting to be on their side. There is a tremendous 
lot at stake in this bill.
  I urge all of my colleagues to follow our example and put families 
and communities and States above partisan politics and goals and work 
with us to pass this bill so hundreds and thousands of American 
families can wake up tomorrow and know the Senate was on their side.

[[Page 11614]]

  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. WICKER. 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. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Elena Kagan

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the 
upcoming hearings the Judiciary Committee will hold on President 
Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to be a Justice on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. I am not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I do 
not envy the difficult task before the committee members. However, I 
would like to highlight a few things I will be watching, as a Member of 
this body with the constitutional duty to advise and consent, and 
listening for as Ms. Kagan's nomination hearings begin on Monday.
  First and foremost, I will be listening for indications on how 
closely Ms. Kagan will adhere to the Constitution and the laws of our 
Nation as written. The judicial oath requires judges to apply the law 
impartially to the facts before them--without respect to their social, 
moral, or political views.
  Although Ms. Kagan certainly has an impressive resume in academia and 
as a political adviser in the Clinton and Obama administrations, she 
lacks key courtroom experience as either a judge or as a private 
lawyer. Therefore, it is appropriate and vitally important that members 
of the committee perform their due diligence to question her judicial 
philosophy.
  This is a line of questioning that Ms. Kagan herself has endorsed. In 
a 1995 University of Chicago Law Review article, she wrote:

       The kind of inquiry that would contribute most to 
     understanding and evaluating a nomination is . . . discussion 
     first, of the nominee's broad judicial philosophy and second, 
     of her views on particular constitutional issues. By 
     ``judicial philosophy'' . . . I mean such things as the 
     judge's understanding of the role of courts in our society, 
     of the nature and values embodied in our Constitution, and of 
     the proper tools and techniques of interpretation, both 
     constitutional and statutory.

  I could not agree more with Ms. Kagan. I hope she will live up to her 
own measuring stick and provide the Senate with the open and 
constructive answers which she has herself advocated.
  In addition to her general judicial philosophy, I hope my colleagues 
on the Judiciary Committee will question Ms. Kagan on two specific 
issues important to many Americans and many of my constituents in the 
State of Mississippi; that is, her views on abortion and the second 
amendment.
  I am concerned that many of the documents from Ms. Kagan's service as 
a law clerk for the late Justice Marshall and as a political adviser 
during the Clinton administration reflect a troubling bias.
  Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in District of Columbia v. 
Heller, that the second amendment guarantees an individual's right to 
keep and bear arms. Ms. Kagan has said publicly that she views Heller 
as settled precedent of the Court. But as a law clerk for Justice 
Marshall, Ms. Kagan wrote a strikingly personal memo on gun rights.
  The case in question on that earlier occasion challenged the District 
of Columbia's handgun ban that was markedly similar to the Heller case. 
In her 1987 memo urging Justice Marshall to vote against hearing the 
case, Ms. Kagan stated:

       [The petitioner's] sole contention is that the District of 
     Columbia's firearm statutes violate his constitutional right 
     ``to keep and bear arms.'' I'm not sympathetic.

  The recommendation itself is troubling, but the personal note she 
employed is even more disturbing. Rather than pointing to text and 
precedent, rooting her analysis in law or looking to the Constitution, 
Ms. Kagan chose the personal pronoun saying: ``I'm not sympathetic.''
  This should concern Senators because it seems to indicate a personal 
aversion to the right to bear arms. I hope members of the committee 
will question Ms. Kagan on this issue.
  Ms. Kagan's work in the Clinton administration raises further 
questions about her views of the second amendment. According to records 
at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ms. Kagan was a key 
adviser to President Clinton on gun control efforts. She drafted an 
Executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic 
rifles and was involved in the creation of another order requiring all 
Federal law enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons. She 
advocated various other gun control proposals, including gun tracing 
initiatives, legislation requiring background checks for all secondary 
market gun purchases, and efforts to design a gun that would 
automatically restrict the ability for most adults to use it.
  In a May article, the Los Angeles Times put it this way:

       As gun rights advocates viewed it, there was one clear 
     message: The Clinton White House wanted to remove as many 
     guns from the market as it could.

  Records show that Ms. Kagan was a key player in this effort.
  I believe the upcoming hearings present an opportunity to hear more 
about Ms. Kagan's views on the second amendment--a right clearly 
enumerated in the Bill of Rights--and whether she views it as binding 
on all levels of government. I am confident I will not be the only one 
following her answers closely.
  With regard to the second issue, with regard to abortion, Ms. Kagan, 
having neither served as a judge nor spent any significant time in a 
courtroom, lacks a judicial record to give us insight into her views on 
abortion. But there are several red flags that show the need for 
pointed questions from Judiciary Committee members on this issue.
  First, Ms. Kagan has extensively criticized the 1991 Supreme Court 
decision Rust v. Sullivan, where the Court upheld the constitutionality 
of the Department of Health and Human Services' regulations that 
prohibit title X family planning funds from being ``used in programs 
where abortion is a method of family planning.''
  The rulings in that case and others like that case are absolutely 
vital to protecting the unborn. Congress has the constitutional duty to 
maintain the power of the purse. If, as Ms. Kagan argues, that 
authority should be limited in the name of free speech, then the 
American people will lose the ability for their elected Representatives 
to prohibit abortion funding and provide any balance to the executive 
branch.
  One of the most noteworthy issues on which Ms. Kagan advised 
President Clinton during her time at the White House was partial-birth 
abortion--a truly reprehensible procedure. Memos from Ms. Kagan to 
President Clinton indicate she believed partial-birth abortion is 
constitutionally protected. I have profound concerns about that point 
of view and believe this raises serious questions about how she would 
interpret the Constitution if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
  In closing, there is no doubt these are important issues deserving 
lengthy and deliberate consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
particularly for a lifetime position on the highest Court in our 
Nation.
  I hope Ms. Kagan will adhere to her own advice and be open and 
forthright with the committee as to her judicial philosophy and views 
on the specific constitutional questions I have mentioned. I look 
forward to joining many Americans in closely following Ms. Kagan's 
responses.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I rise to express my concerns about 
the pending tax extenders legislation that we are debating and will be 
voting on in the Senate shortly. As you know, we have had a series of 
votes on this particular question, to no avail. There is no substantive 
reason for the impasse

[[Page 11615]]

at which we have arrived on this package. It certainly could have been 
different. I have been involved in a number of discussions over the 
last 2 weeks with respect to how we could reach a resolution on some of 
these questions, so I think it is important to set the record straight.
  Frankly, I think it is the result of the yawning chasm that exists 
between the artificially generated political landscape in Washington 
and the actual real-world state of our economy that Americans have been 
experiencing on a daily basis beyond the Capital Beltway.
  If we are serious about creating jobs, we absolutely could identify a 
pathway to extend the expiring tax provisions in this legislation which 
are important to America's job generators, without simultaneously and 
inexplicably raising taxes on our small businesses--the very entities 
we look to in order to lead us out of this recession--in the name of 
increased spending and a more expansive tax extenders package. This 
approach simply makes no sense and lays bare the stark disconnect 
between Washington and the entire rest of the country.
  We hear the mantra of ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' as our No. 1 priority, as 
it should be. Concerns about the economy are foremost on the minds of 
the American people, rightfully. That is why there is so much anxiety 
across America today on Main Street. They do not think it is being 
replicated in the Senate and the overall Congress with respect to the 
actions we should be taking.
  Yet what is proposed for legislation today--which highlights the 
disconnect between here and the rest of America--is ``taxes, taxes, 
taxes'' and ``spending, spending, spending,'' which will do nothing to 
grow our economy. In fact, we still have not considered a small 
business jobs package, and it is now almost July.
  What is it that we do not understand? What is happening on the 
economic landscape and among small businesses upon whom we depend to 
create jobs? It is not exactly that we are mass producing jobs in 
America's economy today. In fact, I met yesterday with the president of 
the Boston Federal Reserve, Eric Rosengren, and as he pointed out, the 
growth the economy has demonstrated thus far is, for the most part, in 
inventory. This is not exactly real growth. It is drawing down 
inventory. But the economy has not demonstrated an ability to create 
jobs and real economic growth because there is uncertainty among the 
business sector and, in particular, small businesses that do not want 
to take the risk of investments or hiring additional people because of 
the uncertainty of the policies that are emanating from Washington.
  Last month, as we discovered with the unemployment numbers: of the 
431,000 jobs that were created, 411,000 were due to temporary 
government workers--that is why our national unemployment rate is not 
worse than it is. So, ultimately, our government is the only real 
growth industry in this country, and I challenge anyone to seriously 
argue that is a sustainable path to a brighter economic future.
  The fact is, growth is not occurring in our economy. I have heard 
that time and time again. I have heard that from small businesses, 
medium-sized businesses, large businesses, every organization that 
represents businesses in America. They are saying there is no real 
growth in our economy, and they are not going to be hiring, they are 
not going to be making the investments necessary because of the 
uncertainty coming from Washington with respect to taxes, with respect 
to regulation, with respect to the health care legislation that became 
law this year.
  So what will it require? In the Federal Reserve's analysis, it will 
require, in terms of reducing the unemployment rate in this country--
just in order to reduce the unemployment rate to, let's say, 5 percent 
by 2012--in the charts they gave me yesterday, it would require at 
least a 6-percent annual growth rate in GDP in order to equalize the 
losses in jobs we have already experienced and suffered.
  That rate would be slightly higher than the level of growth we 
experienced during the recovery from the 1982 recession and 
approximately double the growth following the 1991 and 2001 recessions.
  So when you think about it, in order to achieve a 5-percent 
unemployment rate by 2012, it would require approximately a 6-percent 
annual growth rate in 2011 and 2012. Would it be possible under the 
scenario that is occurring? Probably not because the growth is not 
occurring, and job creation certainly is not. That is disturbing, and 
it is deeply troubling.
  In fact, I was talking to someone today who is in the business 
community who said small businesses are not going to take those risks. 
You will not see the kinds of startups in America because of the state 
of the economy, because of the policies that are coming out of 
Washington that mean more taxes and more spending, which gets to the 
tax extenders package that is before us today. And that is my concern, 
with the detachment we have between what is happening in America on 
Main Street and what is happening in Washington, DC, in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate. There isn't that reality check, and 
that is obviously exemplified by the kind of legislation we are trying 
to ram through the Congress, once again, that means more taxes and more 
spending and that is going to cost more jobs. It is going to provide 
more risk in the economy. Therefore, we are not going to see the kind 
of economic growth the American people deserve.
  Somehow, we think there is not a cause and effect and a correlation 
between what we do here and what happens across America. I know that in 
speaking to my constituents and to small businesses, I hear it day in 
and day out. I go home and I talk to them and I listen, more 
importantly, and I hear what they are saying. They are uniformly saying 
the same thing: that the policies coming out of Washington cause them 
great pause. It causes them alarm. Therefore, they will not take the 
risk. They will not make the investments to increase the number of 
employees and to add to their personnel or to make the capital 
investments, because they do not know how much the Federal Government 
is going to cost them with respect to taxes, with respect to regulation 
and, of course, the new health care law, as well as all of the other 
tax consequences that have now resulted in this legislation that is 
pending before the Senate. Somehow, people think it won't matter.
  Then I am beginning to think that maybe people haven't read these 
provisions to understand exactly how they work, and that is why there 
is so much concern and apprehension across America. That is why 
Congress has such a low approval rating that has certainly crossed the 
historic thresholds in terms of how low it is, and understandably so, 
because there is no connection. There is no correlation between what we 
are doing and what is happening in America and in small businesses and 
in family households which have lost their jobs and are enduring 
anxiety and apprehension about where the next job is going to come from 
and how they are going to make ends meet.
  So we truly have our work cut out for us when we look at the low 
economic growth, the inability to create jobs and, frankly, the fear. 
When we think about what has been created in this economy, from their 
standpoint, it isn't so much the problems we are dealing with today, it 
is the direction Congress is taking with respect to the issues that 
matter most to them in order to take the risks we need them to take in 
order to reverse this economic cycle.
  Also, when we think about the projections for economic growth, this 
bill doesn't take into account the potential effects of what is 
happening in Europe and the economic turmoil that certainly could 
engulf our own economy or the potential fallout from the BP disaster in 
the gulf. That has not manifested itself in the unemployment numbers or 
economic growth. It is a travesty what is happening there, and it 
certainly is devastating a way of life and so many small business 
owners. So that is another dimension and component we will have to 
incorporate in our

[[Page 11616]]

calculations for the future. Certainly, that will have an impact on the 
bottom line with respect to job creation and our ability to see the 
kind of growth we require in order to reverse the declining growth in 
America.
  We certainly have our work cut out for us. That is what makes me 
wonder exactly what world we are living in here in Congress as we pay 
lip service to job creation, when in reality we are instead on a 
glidepath toward higher taxes on America's job generators and at 
precisely a moment in time when we should be providing the kind of 
relief I have been advocating for through small business legislation. I 
have been championing it for 6 months now--6 long months. I started in 
January. I thought it was going to be on the front burner. It is still 
languishing on the back burner. So much for jobs being a priority. So 
much for depending on small businesses to create those jobs. So we have 
paid no deference to the greatest issue that is facing America today, 
and that is job creation and the economy. That is the No. 1 priority of 
the American people. But here we are approaching July and it is yet to 
be on the legislative calendar, even though I have been promised. I 
know the Presiding Officer, who serves on the Small Business Committee, 
has been a great advocate and a champion for small business tax relief 
and creating jobs and how vital it is. We have had numerous hearings on 
that question before our committee which underscores the imperative of 
passing a small business tax relief program so they can generate jobs 
because they are the one entity that creates jobs in America. But we 
have yet to consider the small business tax relief jobs package. It is 
approaching July. I had a package prepared in mid-March and I was asked 
to defer because we were promised that we will be considering a small 
business jobs package before the April recess. Well, April has come and 
gone. May has come and gone. June has come and gone. Obviously, July 
will come and go, before it becomes law--so it is regrettable.
  It is a red herring to suggest that a potential $12 billion small 
business jobs bill might mitigate the damage of some of the initiatives 
that are incorporated in this tax extenders bill that is now pending 
before the Senate and that we will vote on shortly with respect to 
cloture. That is my point here today. Because when we do consider a 
small business jobs relief package, and we provide the billions of 
dollars that are necessary to jump-start our economy to small 
businesses with tax relief, at the same time we are imposing additional 
taxes on small businesses in the tax extenders package, that will not 
neutralize the circumstances for small businesses. It only makes it 
worse. So on one hand we could provide some benefits and on the other 
hand we take them away.
  Let us remember that those increases will be in addition to the tax 
increases on the small business flow-through income that is expected to 
increase from the current rate of 35 percent to 39.6 percent, as well 
as a tax on capital gains that is scheduled to rise from 15 percent to 
20 percent at the end of this year. Astoundingly, the tax rate on 
dividends 6 months from now will rise from 15 percent to as high as 
39.6 percent, which is a 264-percent increase. That is not even taking 
into account some of the marginal tax effects such as the phaseout of 
itemized deductions that will raise the rate even higher, or the tidal 
wave of uncertainty headed toward the business community as they 
evaluate and grapple with, as I said earlier, the health mandates 
resulting from the legislation that was passed in December. It doesn't 
even incorporate the Medicare payroll taxes that were imposed on small 
business in the health care reform law: $210 billion worth of taxes 
that were inserted in the health care legislation that became law in 
December, that imposes a payroll tax on small businesses. It also taxes 
unearned income and investments for the purposes of the Medicare 
payroll tax that also will affect small businesses to the point that 
there will be a net increase of 67 percent in capital gains on small 
businesses as a result of that legislation that became law in December.
  So the cumulative effect of all of these tax increases is going to be 
pronounced on the ability of small business to create jobs, let alone 
make investments in equipment that is so essential to expanding and to 
growing.
  As my colleagues see on this chart I have on display that was issued 
in May of 2010 by the National Federation of Independent Business, the 
foremost organization that represents small businesses in America, 
small business optimism at an unprecedented low. It is not surprising, 
given the status of the economy today. In fact, there is virtually no 
economic growth occurring, because we don't have a growth strategy. We 
have a tax strategy, we have a spending strategy, but we don't have a 
growth strategy. The administration doesn't have a growth strategy. 
Congress doesn't have a growth strategy. There has been no regard or 
deference to a growth strategy that ultimately would encourage small 
businesses, or any size business in America today, to take the risks to 
make those investments, because there is too much uncertainty, in 
addition to all of the potential tax increases that will occur at the 
end of this year, not to mention those that have already occurred and 
the ones that are pending in this tax extenders legislation we will be 
voting on shortly with respect to cloture.
  In the tax extenders bill, we are imposing a $9 billion tax on small 
businesses and $13 billion of retroactive new taxes on global 
businesses. On companies that do business abroad, there are retroactive 
taxes as well. Retroactive tax increases are a bad habit. It is a bad 
practice. It is bad policy to reach back and now tell businesses: Oh, 
by the way, we have changed our mind. Let's reach back and tax you. You 
might ask: Well, how far back? Because that is the question I have 
asked. How far back do you tax? Well, guess what. Back to the first 
event that represents a capital gains event, as far back as it goes 
because we have changed our mind.
  Well, it is very difficult, when you have to meet a bottom line--
which is anathema to Congress because we don't have to meet a bottom 
line. We don't have to balance our budgets. We don't have to worry 
about how much we spend and how much we tax, because we don't have to 
balance it out, but businesses do, in a very challenging and fragile 
economy. Yet we are suggesting, oh, by the way, let's have retroactive 
tax increases.
  It is regrettable that we have to go that far, exhibiting a total 
disregard for the effect it is going to have ultimately on the average 
person in America who is seeking to get a job and can't find one 
because businesses aren't hiring. They are virtually at a standstill, 
and rightfully so, in their hesitancy and their reluctance, because 
they don't know what is coming next out of Congress. We don't even 
know, because a lot of these provisions were sort of dumped in there 
that we didn't have hearings about. So by the way, we have changed our 
mind and we are going to reach back and tax you. Maybe it is a year, 
maybe it is 2 years. Whenever you have that first event that is taxable 
under this provision, we will reach back and we will tax you.
  The tax offsets in this bill are worse than the lack of an extension 
of the existing policy. That is why the provisions in the bill are too 
high a price for any major business or organization, from the Chamber 
to NFIB to Business Roundtable, to support it in its current form.
  It didn't have to be this way. I certainly laid out a blueprint. I 
want to be very clear about this. I laid out a blueprint of how we 
could proceed to a consensus solution to passing a responsible tax 
extenders package. I worked diligently. I answered every call. I went 
to every meeting for the last few weeks since this became an issue, in 
good faith, to attempt to extend the unemployment benefits that I think 
people rightfully deserve, as well as to help with the reimbursement 
for doctors that, by the way, we have known has been a problem for more 
than a year. I know I stood on this floor last fall, during the time we 
were considering the health care bill that was pending before the 
Senate, and after which $210 billion worth of Medicare taxes were

[[Page 11617]]

inserted in the health care bill--$210 billion that was a tax on small 
businesses.
  I said: If you are going to take that route, if that is the policy 
you are going to embrace, then why not defer it and pay for the doctors 
reimbursement to avert the 21-percent reduction. Why not use it for 
that purpose? If you are going to raise Medicare payroll taxes, at 
least use the revenues from Medicare, within the Medicare system--
knowing this was a serious problem.
  With a 21-percent reduction in doctors reimbursements in the Medicare 
Program that was scheduled for January, we knew we had a problem. Yet, 
on one hand, we raised Medicare taxes on small businesses, and we used 
it for other purposes--to expand other programs--rather than targeting 
it to the very problem and issue that existed in the Medicare Program 
that we knew about. How practical is that? Of course, it is not 
practical.
  We knew with that $210 billion we could have arrived at a permanent 
solution at least for 10 years on the doctors reimbursements--for 10 
years. We would have had a decade solution, rather than this ad hoc 
approach, where we are reconsidering it every 6 months or every year 
and putting the patients as well as the doctors through this endless 
cycle, which has almost become perpetual, as to whether we are going to 
provide for the reimbursements or allow the cuts to go forward. It 
becomes gamesmanship that is, unfortunately, at the expense of Medicare 
patients, because they hear from the doctors: We don't know what we are 
going to be able to do. We hear it from the providers who are 
challenged, because Medicare rates are hardly reflective of the true 
cost of delivering that care. My State has the second lowest rate of 
Medicare reimbursements in the country. We know doctors are dropping 
Medicare patients. So it has a pernicious effect. We could have taken 
care of that proactively and done something reasonable and pragmatic. 
We could have funded a 10-year solution that we knew was in the area of 
$200 billion, because we had another bill on the floor that said let's 
do the doctor fix but let's not pay for it. It was in the approximately 
$200 billion range. But that wasn't to be. It certainly didn't have to 
be this way.
  I have sought to balance the necessities by identifying tax offsets, 
urging that the stimulus money be reprogrammed so these funds are spent 
in a timely manner, as was the intention when this body passed the 
stimulus bill.
  With respect to the unemployment benefits extension in this 
legislation, I have long advocated for this, and I voted for them in 
the past, obviously. I think we have a responsibility to pass 
extensions until the economy improves and until we can demonstrate that 
the economy can create jobs. I understand and appreciate some of my 
colleagues who believe these extensions should be fully offset. I just 
don't happen to be in that category, until we can turn the economy 
around and produce jobs--particularly at this time of high 
unemployment, which is at the rate of 9.7 percent, and that has been 
the status quo with minimal changes. That means Congress has to enact 
economic policy to foster job creation. I would not impede unemployment 
benefits by insisting they are not emergency spending and should be 
fully paid for. I believe there is a majority that supports that 
policy.
  I recommended, why not separate the unemployment benefits and move 
that along? Why put people at risk who are unemployed? We could have 
done that and separated this out several weeks ago, which I proposed 
and recommended, and we could have separated the doctor fix and paid 
for it. Actually, we ended up doing that. That is what we did 2 weeks 
later. We could have done the same with unemployment benefits--
separated it and moved it along, assuming that, of course, we had 
unanimous support on the majority side for that. We could have done 
that. I certainly would have supported that.
  It is important so that people aren't kept in turmoil, wondering 
whether they are going to have additional benefits. I thought we should 
have addressed it as a separate matter, rather than entangle it with 
other muddled policies being swallowed up in this legislative morass 
pending today.
  I supported State aid for Medicaid. As I said, this program should be 
offset by unobligated stimulus funds. In the stimulus bill, we provided 
for additional funding for Medicaid. Had we known then what we know 
now, we could have provided an additional year, instead of lower 
priority, longer term, less effective spending. After all, stimulus is 
supposed to be timely, targeted, and temporary. If the money hasn't 
been obligated, obviously, it is none of those things at this point. So 
why not redirect it for more stimulative purposes? And certainly doing 
it for the Medicaid Program is highly stimulative, along with 
unemployment benefits. That is the maximum stimulus you can provide in 
the economy today. I said let's redirect those funds and spend them on 
FMAP.
  In the substitute extenders package proposed last night there was a 
breakthrough on that issue that became a consensus item for a brief and 
shining moment. Apparently, some on the other side objected to the 
overall package on several of the other issues I will get to in a 
moment. I have had some serious concerns with some of the proposals 
that small businesses in this legislation have, particularly when it 
comes to subchapter S corporations. There was an indication that, as I 
was told last week, those new taxes would be removed because of the 
punitive effect they would have primarily on small businesses, again, 
the group we are depending on to create jobs. Yet, last night, the tide 
turned again, and I was informed that they would in fact remain in the 
tax extenders legislation.
  These revenue provisions that have never been the subject of 
hearings, have never been seen by the public, would significantly 
damage the business environment for businesses both large and small, 
just at a time we should be creating businesses, not curtailing them. 
The egregious provision regarding subchapter S corporations would harm 
millions of small businesses in their ability to create those jobs. 
Under section 413, a new burdensome payroll tax of 15.3 percent is 
imposed on subchapter S corporations on the dividend distributions paid 
to employee owners, to family members, who are shareholders or 
partners, and unbelievably, retained earnings in the business when 
distributions are kept in the business for reinvestment. At a time of 
festering high unemployment, this is exactly the wrong prescription for 
job creation.
  The provision is aimed, as I have been told, at a specific abuse of 
the S corporations wrapped in a partnership, which is a business format 
that allows a business owner to inappropriately divert more money than 
is justified to nonsalary distributions that are not subject to payroll 
taxes. Unfortunately, in order to prevent this specific abuse, the 
authors had to write a very expansive anti-abuse provision causing 
collateral damage to taxpayers who are not abusing the system and 
imposing payroll taxes on retained earnings on small businesses. This 
is a job killer, because retained earnings are the most reliable form 
of capital available to small businesses. While there have been clear 
abuses of existing law regarding reasonable compensation, it should be 
noted that the IRS successfully prosecutes cases where business owners 
inappropriately divert salary income to dividend distribution.
  In fact, the ruling as recent as May 27 of this year in David E. 
Watson PC v. United States proves that the ``reasonable compensation'' 
standard can be workable. Yet, it is not a clear bright line test that 
is either easy for the IRS to enforce or for taxpayers to understand.
  That is why I worked diligently, along with my staff, to find a way 
to address this abuse and agree that if we could find a way to improve 
upon and make clearer the ``reasonable compensation'' standard, we 
should do so. In fact, my staff, last week, was at Joint Tax to do just 
that. Then I was informed that the subchapter S provision would be 
removed in its entirety from the tax extenders bill, so we

[[Page 11618]]

didn't proceed any further, because I was told it was not going to be 
in this legislation. Obviously, that all changed last night when it 
summarily was reinstated.
  Unfortunately, the new regime that would be created in this 
legislation is less effective for either compliance by taxpayers or 
enforcement by the IRS; it is the current reasonable compensation 
standard.
  One week ago, the majority leader offered to remove the provision 
from the bill and I accepted this. Unfortunately, negotiations must not 
have been as clear, because last night that offer to drop that 
provision was fully rescinded. The provision in S. 4213 replaces 20 
years of law with wholly untested, expensive, very difficult to 
administer new standards that attempt to address situations that, under 
current law and practices, are already not permitted. Specifically, 
this provision would impose Medicare and Social Security taxes at a 
rate of 15.3 percent on the first $106,800 of both wages and dividends, 
as well as 2.9 percent on amounts retained in the business, even when 
distributions are kept in the business for reinvestment. Retained 
earnings are the most reliable form of capital for a small business 
because the owner doesn't need to go to a bank to apply for a loan or 
to investors to seek infusion of equity.
  This tax would appreciably reduce that capital at a time when other 
sources remain exceedingly difficult to access. At a time of high 
unemployment, this is exactly the wrong direction for job creation. In 
fact, this new levy would kill jobs and discourage hiring throughout 
the economy.
  While I commend the authors of the bill for attempting to rein in the 
game playing that can take place, this bill is extraordinarily more 
broad than addressing just that problem. Unfortunately, in their 
critique of my efforts to address these problems, neither the 
Washington Post nor the New York Times editorial pages have taken into 
account anything but a pithy one-line description of the effects of 
these provisions. It is unfortunate because this new tax on small 
businesses and medium-size businesses is a broadside attack on what has 
been for decades a job-creating engine of the economy.
  The substitute pending before the Senate would create vague new terms 
and tests for the IRS interpretation and taxpayer confusion as to 
whether payroll taxes are owed. These new terms and tests would replace 
the reasonable compensation standard for a list of specific service-
based businesses. The new test would impose payroll taxes on certain 
professional service businesses, if 80 percent of the income of the 
business is attributable to three or fewer shareholders of the firm. 
While these terms are certainly less onerous than an earlier version of 
the substitute, each of these new terms will be subject to IRS rulings 
and inevitable litigation.
  I will start outlining my concerns with the ``attributable'' to 
shareholders'' concepts. This standard is no easier for the IRS to 
inform or taxpayers to understand than is the current ``reasonable 
compensation'' standard. Does ``attributable'' mean that if a law firm 
partner brings another partner and an associate to meet with a 
prospective client, that the income generated is ``attributable'' three 
ways? Or does it depend on who performs the most billable hours? If the 
associate performs the majority of billable hours with only sign-off 
from the partner, to whom is this income ``attributable''?
  Frankly, this new proposed standard is no clearer than the current 
``reasonable compensation'' standard that is also very dependent upon 
specific ``facts and circumstances.'' Why would we replace one standard 
with something no more enforceable by the IRS and is just a trap for 
taxpayers?
  Another component of the bill that is no clearer than ``reasonable 
compensation'' is the test of ``substantially all of the activities'' 
of the firm. Two issues arise with respect to this phrase. First, this 
is clearly not an objective revenue test; it is a subjective 
``activity'' test, meaning that these employers would now be required 
to keep timesheets of all their employees, even if a firm or profession 
doesn't currently track billable hours. This would create a whole new 
expensive paperwork morass with no point other than compliance with 
mindless tax rules.
  Further, whether ``substantially all'' means more than half, three-
quarters, or 90 percent of ``activities'' is not defined in the 
statute. We simply do not know the definition of ``substantially all.'' 
Neither would the IRS or the business owners. This doesn't advance 
compliance or enforcement to a level any better than the existing 
``reasonable compensation'' standard.
  Turning now to the additional provisions, I want to point out that 
the list of ``professional service businesses'' in the legislation is 
at best obtuse, and at worst, it is simply a quagmire for litigation. 
Professions targeted for this tax include services ``in the fields of: 
health, law, lobbying, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial 
science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, investment advice or 
management, or brokerage services.''
  While it is sometimes clear which businesses are included, for other 
businesses and professions the new definition is not so clear-cut. We 
can only assume that with the expansive regulatory authority granted in 
this bill that other service providers would be ensnared. Years of 
regulatory effort and litigation will eventually sort out whether the 
following would be subject to this provision: Web designers, who are 
not software ``engineers;'' interior designers, who are not 
``architects;'' tax preparers, who are not ``accountants;'' real estate 
or insurance agents, who are not ``brokers;'' writers, who are not 
``performers;'' beauticians, who are not in ``health.''
  Then there are other service providers who would be ensnared the next 
time Congress is seeking additional revenues, including plumbers, 
electricians, hairdressers, construction contractors, heating oil 
distributors, car mechanics, recruiting and staffing firms, and 
professional fundraisers, just to name a few.
  Every day this provision has been public--and that is a total of only 
1 month 4 days--we seem to find another unintended consequence of the 
provision. Five days from now, we are likely to find five more 
unintended consequences.
  I wish to specifically raise two additional unintended consequences 
that have been brought to my attention. The first of these, of which my 
colleagues may be unaware, is that this provision would reduce the 
Social Security benefits of early retirees who invest in a family 
member's business. This issue was raised by the American Institute of 
Certified Public Accountants and results because the shareholder would 
be deemed to have additional wages through the proposal's family 
attribution rules, which then reduces Social Security early retirement 
benefits. I am disappointed that the sponsors of this provision have 
not addressed this problem despite having known about it for at least 
two iterations of their bill.
  If a parent invests as a shareholder in the business being set up by 
their adult child, then this legislation would count the dividend 
distributions as earned income subject to a payroll tax, which reduces 
the early retirement benefit of the parent. This tax would either be a 
shock to investors who had no idea about this complication or 
invariably, to the extent it is known, it would reduce investment by 
family members in entrepreneurial businesses. Of course, this would 
reduce a critical form of capital for startup businesses. Why does the 
majority feel the need to starve young entrepreneurs of the ability to 
get startup capital from their parents?
  A second specific unintended consequence concerns the complex web of 
anti-abuse rules that is created to prevent ``leakage'' from the S corp 
shareholder provision. It ensnares limited partners of partnerships. 
The bill imposes payroll taxes on the limited partnership income of 
employees for whom these limited partnership shares are like an 
employee stock purchase plan. Employees are not subject to payroll 
taxes on stock purchase plans distributions. Further, limited partners 
are not

[[Page 11619]]

subject to payroll taxes because this is investment income. But to 
combine the two and for some reason to impose a 15.3-percent payroll 
tax on the investments of middle-income employees is inexplicable. 
Despite this known problem, it was not addressed even in the version of 
the bill that was released last night and pending before the Senate.
  I want to be clearly understood that this provision was publicly 
released on May 20 and was adopted by the other body on May 28 with 
virtually no debate on an $11 billion tax hike. There have been no 
hearings on this proposal in either the House or the Senate. While the 
chairman has modified his initial proposal and it is now a $9 billion 
tax, significant concerns remain. Notably, the number of groups that 
are supporting my amendment to strike this provision sent a letter to 
both the chairman of the committee and the ranking member about that 
earlier version, emphasizing that ``this new tax is an excellent 
example of what happens when the legislative process is short 
circuited.''
  This chart is an illustration of the number of organizations that 
have written letters to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley of 
the Senate Finance Committee about this legislation. It says new taxes 
would hurt job creation, would reduce the capital these employers have 
to create jobs and invest in their businesses--an excellent example of 
what would happen when you short-circuit the legislative process.
  That is exactly the end result of this legislation. It is ill-timed, 
and it is poorly targeted. I appreciate the support from Senators Enzi 
and Ensign, who joined me in offering an amendment--unfortunately, we 
have not had the ability to offer it--to strike it in its entirety so 
we can take a step back and address only the abusive situations without 
capturing everybody else. That is going to affect job creation in small 
businesses and entrepreneurs in America at a time when we desperately 
need them.
  We are now making a broadside attack on job generators. Regrettably, 
this will affect small and medium-size businesses. They are not in a 
position to shoulder this enormous burden as we look to them to create 
the jobs our economy so desperately requires right now.
  I have been asking for months on end, as I said earlier in my 
statement, for a small business tax relief and jobs package that is so 
central to what we require in our economy today because of virtually no 
economic growth, no job creation. We are nearly into July, so 6 months 
into this legislative calendar and there is no legislative package on 
small businesses yet. What are we doing? More taxes and more spending--
that is exactly what is represented in the tax extenders bill.
  I attempted to address these issues over the last few weeks and to 
reach a consensus and solution. As I said, removing the doctor fix and 
paying for it separately--eventually that happened, and that was 
important; removing unemployment benefits to move that along so people 
can get their unemployment benefits without having them lapse and 
expire during this challenging economy; and then, of course, address 
all the other issues to make sure we are getting it right. That is what 
it is all about.
  It is a matter of practicality and reasonableness that we get it 
right and not force more taxes on the very entities we depend on to 
create the jobs people deserve in America today to go back to work and 
to support their foundation of financial security rather than removing 
it.
  At a time when we should be encouraging and nurturing small 
businesses, we are stifling the entrepreneurial spirit by adding $9 
billion more in taxes with an ill-conceived provision that has had no 
hearings, no examination, no evaluation. It is a terrifying template 
for additional taxes on small businesses when they are already facing 
more taxes as a result of the health care bill. No wonder small 
businesses are bewildered and are unwilling to hire new employees.
  In the final analysis, America's small businesses would benefit 
greatly from the extension of myriad tax provisions, but they do not 
want this bill at any cost, not when they are going to have to be 
paying some very onerous and punitive taxes under this legislation. 
Because it will be virtually all small businesses that are going to 
face and bear the brunt of the consequences of this legislation and the 
taxes it represents. It is going to continue the stagnation with 
respect to job creation. It is going to further that and the 
deteriorating trend within our economy with respect to job creation and 
with the lagging economic growth that is reflected in today's economic 
environment.
  For all those reasons, I will not be voting for the tax extenders 
package. I regret it because I thought we had reached a consensus. 
Obviously, that was not to be. Hopefully, we can continue our 
discussions at a time when we can reach a consensus.
  But I think it is important in the final analysis to state the fact 
that these impasses and the stalemate and the deadlock that result time 
and time again that require cloture votes are really not necessary if 
we are willing to listen to one another, to reach across the political 
aisle, and to build a consensus on the issues that are so important to 
America and so crucial to reversing the economic direction of our 
country, where more than 70 percent of the American people believe 
America is moving in the wrong direction with respect to the economy 
and yet we have failed to address it satisfactorily because we are not 
willing to listen, not willing to work, not willing to do the things 
necessary to create the right kind of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request which 
the Senator from Arizona will appreciate. I ask unanimous consent that 
the cloture vote on the Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213 with the Baucus amendment No. 4386 
occur at 5:14 p.m. today, with Senator Kyl recognized to speak for up 
to 2 minutes and Senator Baucus recognized to speak for up to 2 minutes 
prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I will not take 2 minutes.
  First let me say that I associate myself fully with the remarks of my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Maine. Her analysis and criticism of 
the so-called S corp provision and retroactive tax provisions should be 
heeded by all of us.
  I thank my colleague from Maine for her indefatigable work on this 
bill and her leadership to reduce its costs and fix its bad policy. She 
has spent countless hours working in a bipartisan way to develop an 
approach that will extend unemployment benefits, ensure physicians are 
paid properly for caring for Medicare patients, and reduce the fiscal 
impact of the bill. It is certainly through no fault of her own that 
the product before us remains unsupportable. No one has fought harder 
to support the small businesses that create jobs in America than 
Senator Snowe.
  We need to extend the tax provisions in this bill and achieve its 
other objectives. Like my colleague, I hope we can reach the right 
result, one that responds to our constituents' pleas that we stop 
spending and taxing and focus on job creation and economic growth.
  The other side has offered several versions of the so-called tax 
extenders legislation. Unfortunately, each version has had at least two 
things in common with the previous versions--an increase in taxes and 
spending that leads to increased deficits. The provisions raising taxes 
are permanent changes even though they are being used to offset short-
term tax cuts. I would like to focus on one of these tax increases that 
will be particularly harmful to many of our Nation's small businesses, 
which are incorporated as S corporations.
  Currently, limited partners pay payroll and other employment taxes on 
payments received for the services that they provide. Partners in small 
businesses organized as S corporations pay

[[Page 11620]]

employment taxes on their compensation even if the earnings are not 
distributed. The Baucus substitute filed last night would essentially 
require partners providing ``professional services'' to pay payroll 
taxes on their investment income as well.
  The intent of the provision is to prevent cases of abuse as when 
former Senator John Edwards used the organization of an S corporation 
to avoid paying the 2.9 percent Medicare tax he owed as a lawyer on his 
wages. Edwards earned $26.9 million during the late 1990s while only 
reporting $360,000 in salary.
  However, the IRS has the ability to go after firms and individuals 
who do not pay themselves a reasonable wage using the reasonable 
compensation test. The service has already successfully litigated cases 
where compensation was considered less than reasonable. A few examples 
are Radtke v. US, 712 F.Supp. 143 (7th Cir., 1990) and Spicer 
Accounting v. US, 918 F.2d 90 (9th Cir., 1990).
  Furthermore, Congress just gave the IRS another anti-abuse tool when 
it codified the economic substance doctrine as part of the healthcare 
bill. Consequently, if the structure of the business is designed solely 
with the intent of avoiding the Medicare payroll tax, it would lack 
economic substance and the IRS could disallow it.
  Not only does the IRS already have the ability to go after those who 
try to avoid paying taxes through S corporation revenue abuse, but the 
provision as it is currently drafted will create uncertainty, cause 
additional compliance problems and unfairly hit those it is not 
intended to impact.
  One problem with the current proposal is that it will be very 
difficult to trace the hours of work for certain shareholders and link 
it back to the firm's revenues. Lawyers and CPAs can track their hours 
because that is how their businesses operate, but other service 
professionals such as engineers and architects do not.
  As such, this will be especially burdensome for a number of the 
covered businesses at a time when we are counting on these same small 
businesses to generate jobs.
  The provision also does not define what amount of participation in 
professional services activities determines if one must pay the new 
tax. The House version says ``substantially all.'' The Senate version 
seems to suggest that even very limited participation in any of the 
activities listed under the new definition of professional services 
would be subjected to the tax. Is that the intention?
  Finally, the family attribution rules would appear to hit inactive 
family members who are solely shareholders and do not actively 
participate in the day-to-day operations of the business by subjecting 
their investment income to payroll taxes.
  The bottom line is that this provision unnecessarily treats the 
income of 4 million small businesses organized as S corps all as wages, 
which undermines the entire rationale for having flow-through entities: 
to avoid the double taxation of entrepreneur's income. How are small 
businesses suppose to grow and hire more workers to get us out of this 
recession if we keep creating impediments to expanding investment 
opportunities?
  The most galling aspect of this debate is that if the extenders bill 
passes with this roughly $10 billion tax increase on small business, 
the next tax bill we expect to consider is a bill to help small 
businesses with just $5 billion in tax relief. So the net effect of 
these two bills would amount to a $5 billion tax increase on small 
business. I just don't understand the logic. Of course, the real logic 
is simple: Supporters of the bill need more offsets to pay for the 
increased spending. I support the efforts of the senior Senator from 
Maine to strike this tax on small businesses, and I commend her for 
leading the effort to solve this problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, let us remember what this bill is all 
about. This bill will help American families face this great recession. 
This bill works to strengthen our economy and put Americans back to 
work. This bill would create jobs. That is what people want. It would 
cut taxes for businesses. That is what people want. It would facilitate 
small business loans. It would foster investment in highways and other 
infrastructure. This bill would cut taxes for families paying for 
college. It would cut taxes for teachers. It would cut taxes for 
Americans paying property taxes and sales taxes. It would extend 
unemployment insurance, health care tax credits, housing assistance for 
people who have lost their jobs. It would help States cover the cost of 
low-income health care programs.
  This week, 900,000 out-of-work Americans have stopped receiving 
unemployment insurance benefits. Why? Because Congress has failed to 
enact this bill.
  This has been a difficult fight, but it does not have to be 
difficult. In previous recessions, in previous Congresses, it was not 
this hard. But for months now, we have addressed Senators' concerns.
  Senators expressed concern about the size of the bill. So we cut the 
total size from $200 billion, then down to $140 billion, then down to 
$118 billion, now less than $110 billion. We cut spending on health 
care benefits to unemployed workers under COBRA. We cut spending on the 
$25 bonus payments to recipients of unemployment insurance. We cut 
spending on the relief to doctors in Medicare and TRICARE. We cut 
spending on help to States for Medicaid by one-third. Senators asked 
for more spending cuts. We came forward with more spending cuts. Since 
the first time the Senate passed this bill, we found $77 billion in new 
offsets. This bill is now 70 percent paid for.
  I just want to say that there is a great need for this bill. 
Americans want this bill passed, and, frankly, I very much hope this 
bill does pass. We do need the 60 votes.
  We do not need the 60 votes; the American people want us to pass this 
legislation.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII, 
the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative 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 Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, with a 
     Baucus amendment No. 4386.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Patrick J. Leahy, Al Franken, 
           Patty Murray, Richard J. Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Roland W. Burris, Kent Conrad, Daniel K. Akaka, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Jeanne Shaheen, Edward E. Kaufman, Jeff 
           Merkley, Jeff Bingaman, Mark L. Pryor, Sherrod Brown, 
           Carl Levin.

  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. 4386 in 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd

[[Page 11621]]


     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Murkowski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 57, the nays are 41. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I indicated to my friends on the 
other side of the aisle I would be propounding a consent agreement. Let 
me make a few brief observations and then I will do precisely that.
  The majority wants to make this debate about Republicans opposing 
something. Let me be perfectly clear: The only things Republicans have 
opposed in this debate are job-killing taxes and adding to the national 
debt. We have offered ways of paying for these programs and we have 
been eager to approve them.
  What we are not willing to do is to use worthwhile programs as an 
excuse to burden our children and our grandchildren with an even bigger 
national debt than we already have. So the biggest reason the cloture 
vote we just had failed is because Democrats simply refused to pass a 
bill that does not add to the debt. That is the principle we are 
fighting for in this debate, and let me suggest that I can prove it. In 
a moment I will offer a 1-month extension of the expired unemployment 
insurance benefits, COBRA subsidy, flood insurance program, small 
business lending program, and the 2009 poverty guidelines. This 
extension would be fully paid for using the very same stimulus funds 
that our friends on the other side just voted--almost unanimously--to 
redirect for these purposes. Let me repeat that. We would pay for the 
extension with a Democratically approved stimulus offset.
  If the Democrats object to extending these programs using their own 
stimulus offset to pay for them, then they will be saying loudly and 
clearly that their commitment to deficit spending trumps their desire 
to help the unemployed.
  Let's be clear about the principle that is at stake here. Are our 
friends on the other side willing to extend these programs without 
adding to the debt? That is the real question in this debate.
  So, in that regard, I ask consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 4853; that all after the enacting 
clause be stricken and the McConnell amendment at the desk 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?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, for 8 
weeks Senator Baucus and Senator Reid have negotiated with Republicans 
in an attempt to pass this important jobs bill. They have been asked to 
make the package smaller, which they did. They have been asked to pay 
for portions of the package, which they did. And still Republicans 
continue to filibuster and stop this bill.
  What the Senator from Kentucky wants to do would be virtually 
unprecedented, that we would pay for the emergency spending for 
unemployment compensation by removing money from our jobs program, the 
stimulus program. So he is going to kill jobs on one side to pay for 
the unemployed on the other side. It makes no sense economically and it 
is certainly not within the tradition of the Senate, and I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I would only briefly offer that the 
offset I offered was one that the majority just voted for. Obviously 
they did not find it offensive in the context of the measure that was 
defeated.
  We will continue to work on this in the hopes that we can pass this 
worthwhile measure without adding to the national debt.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. The filibuster that has been waged by the Republicans in 
the Senate has gone on now for 2 months to stop unemployment benefits. 
What the minority leader just offered was a 1-month extension. We have 
been limping and dragging our way from one short extension to another, 
and that is not fair.
  It is not fair to 80,000 people in Illinois, unemployed, who just 
lost their unemployment benefits because of the Republican filibuster. 
Why do the Republicans oppose this bill? Well, the good reason they say 
is the deficit. But let me tell you the real reason. The real reason is 
because this bill pays for virtually all of the programs except 
unemployment by making changes in the Tax Code, changes to which the 
Republicans object.
  Let me give you an example. One of the changes would eliminate the 
loopholes in the Tax Code which allow American businesses to relocate 
American jobs overseas. We know what that means to manufacturing in 
this country. We are losing good-paying jobs right and left, and the 
Tax Code rewards the companies that make those bad decisions. We want 
to eliminate that, and the Republicans want to protect it.
  Secondly, this bill provides help to small businesses across America, 
and we pay for it. Third, this bill will provide money to governments 
so we would not have to lay off teachers, policemen, firefighters, and 
nurses. That is going to happen. We are trying to send emergency money 
back to the States to avoid that.
  The Republicans continue to filibuster it and to say no--no to 
plugging up the loopholes so jobs will not move overseas, no to the 
assistance for small businesses so they can create jobs, and, no, so 
that we can help to protect the jobs of the people who protect us in 
our homes and communities and schools.
  I do not understand the Republican sentiment. There used to be a 
bipartisan sentiment that when America faced a disaster, we would pull 
together, whether it was the flooding and hurricanes in Louisiana or 
the disastrous situation in the Gulf of Mexico. We have a national 
emergency with this recession and 14 million Americans out of work.
  We are asking only--only--to extend them an unemployment check so 
they can feed their families--literally feed their families for the 
next few months. The Republicans continue to filibuster and continue to 
say no.
  The record is clear. It is a party of no which is hoping the voters 
will vote yes in November. I hope they will remember that the 
Republicans had no alternative when it came to this disastrous economic 
situation, and we are doing our best to create jobs and help those who 
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                             Gulf Oil spill

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to show the Senate 
Pensacola Beach yesterday. It has hit us full force. That white is the 
natural sugary sand of the northwest Florida beaches. You can see as 
far as the eye can see down to the beach. It is covered with this black 
tar-like sludge.
  This was yesterday. More rolled in last night. There have been 
attempts to get out and scoop this up. This, as you can see, is not the 
tar balls, the little quarter-sized or dime-sized tar balls that have 
hit the beaches before.

[[Page 11622]]

No. What this is showing is when you have 60,000 barrels a day gushing 
into the Gulf of Mexico now for more than 2 months, and that very 
likely will continue to gush for the rest of the summer--that is 
another 2\1/2\ months. It shows you what is the potential that is being 
portended.
  Another picture here from yesterday, Pensacola Beach. This is where 
the pier is. Here is the gulf. Here are the waves crashing in. This is 
far over this sugary white sand that you can see how much oil has 
collected.
  In the middle of the day when the Sun is beating down, it stays 
almost fluid like this. As the Sun goes down and it cools, this will 
start to become a more viscous consistency. As much as we want the 
people to come and enjoy our beaches--and this is the height of the 
season on the world's most beautiful beaches--is this going to be an 
incentive for them to come? You can imagine the lost income from the 
hotels, the restaurants, and all of the ancillary businesses.
  So this is a saddening reality, but it is a glimpse of what it is yet 
to become with that much oil out there in the Gulf of Mexico.
  Let me just give you a couple of iterations. They have said by 
putting this top hat--that is like a funnel to siphon off a lot of it 
until they can finally kill the well. They are saying it is going to be 
the end of August, the first part of September before they can get down 
to the bottom, the 18,000 feet below the seabed, intercept the well 
pipe, and then put cement down in it to kill the well.
  Until that point, they are trying to siphon it off at the well head, 
which is where the blowout preventer failed. Remember, they went in 
with one of those big shears and they clamped off the pipe called the 
riser pipe, and they put this kind of funnel over it called a top hat, 
and they are siphoning off.
  They said they have been able to siphon off 25,000 barrels a day. 
Well, that is very good, except 60,000 barrels a day are gushing. So as 
much as they can continue to siphon that off, at least maybe, certainly 
not half but at least some is being siphoned off and taken up to a 
tanker on the surface 5,000 feet above the seabed.
  But you know, check the Weather Channel. There is a tropical wave 
that is now developing in the South Caribbean. If you look at the 
National Weather Service projection of where it is going to go, it is 
going to intensify. It is going to become a tropical depression. Then 
it is going to likely become a tropical storm. Who knows, it may be a 
hurricane. And its projected path is to go right up in the Gulf of 
Mexico toward this damaged well. What happens? The ships cannot stay 
out there if a hurricane is coming. They have to go in and find safe 
port. So some 5 days before the arrival of the hurricane, the ships 
would have to decouple, stop the siphoning off of the 25,000 barrels, 
and, therefore, the entire 60,000 barrels a day would be gushing.
  Well, for how long? It would be 5 days before the hurricane and 
another 5 days after the hurricane passes before they can get back out 
there, reposition their ships, reattach the top hat. We are talking 
about a total of 10 days with no siphoning that 60,000 barrels a day 
and 600,000 barrels will have gushed into the gulf. That is three times 
the amount of oil that was spilled by the Exxon Valdez just in that 10-
day period.
  So, of course, what I am asking is that the U.S. Navy preposition 
ships so we can have a surge of ships to come to the site after a 
hurricane has passed, so that extra 600,000 barrels of oil that has 
gushed from when they had to shut down would be skimmed.
  Now, let me tell you about the skimmers. Still today there is not a 
sufficient command-and-control structure as much as this Senator has 
continued to ask the incident command and the unified command: How many 
ships do you have out there? What kind are they? What are their 
positions? I still cannot get a straight answer to that. What is more 
is that the Navy has a series of smaller boats that are skimmers in 
port. That is pursuant to the law. Where you have a port, under the 
Clean Water Act and under the Oil Spill Act, and all of those existing 
laws, you have to have the capability, if there is a spill in port, to 
go in and clean it up. The Navy has some 45 vessels that can do that.
  Out of those, only six have been deployed to the gulf. These are 
boats that are basically 30 feet long. We cannot use them out in the 
gulf, but we can sure use them in the bays. When the oil goes through 
the pass or the inlet into the bays, we can have those additional 
smaller boats that skim up the oil before it gets into the bays.
  Out of those 40 boats, the Navy has identified another 27. Would you 
believe that until 2 days ago they still had not approved getting those 
27 boats which the Navy has identified that they can put on trailers 
and bring to the gulf coast to preposition them in those bays to 
protect the estuaries?
  This Senator has called the head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson. 
Fortunately, on that very afternoon, she had approved the EPA signing 
off with a waiver for those boats, to allow those boats to leave those 
ports to get to the place where the big oilspill is. It has only been 
going on for over 2 months now. But at least that approval is in.
  But as of this afternoon--that was over 2 days ago. But as of this 
afternoon, this Senator cannot get those boats on trailers and on their 
way.
  Let me give an example. All along this beautiful beach there are 
several passes. Others call them inlets. At the State line, the 
Alabama-Florida State line, is Perdido Pass. That goes into Perdido 
Bay. That is shared by Alabama and Florida.
  Further to the east is Pensacola Pass. That goes into Pensacola Bay, 
the cradle of Naval aviation, at Pensacola Naval Air Station. It is 
right there on Pensacola Bay. That is where 2\1/2\ years ago, in a Fish 
and Wildlife boat in Pensacola Bay, that orange mousse that looked so 
awful was flowing in and flowing right toward downtown Pensacola. We 
gave a longitude and latitude position, and I think somebody got it 
before it got downtown. That is where the smaller boats can help and 
need to be prepositioned.
  Go further east. We have an interesting different kind of pass. It is 
called Destin Pass. It is the only inlet going into a huge bay that 
borders Eglin Air Force Base, called Choctawhatchee Bay. It is huge, 
with a lot of wetlands.
  This pass, unlike Pensacola Pass, is shallow. But because it is 
shallow, the incoming tide rushes through. You can imagine the force of 
that current, that once the oil gets to that point it is going to carry 
it into the bay. It is all the more reason we need the small Navy boats 
in the bays to skim it up before it gets into the wetlands.
  Because of all of the booming we have done--and I was just there 
Monday inspecting the booming--when that tide comes rushing in, a lot 
of those booms are not going to hold it. They even have sophisticated 
systems that we are trying to get. Since it is a shallow pass, you put 
on the bottom a pipe that shoots air up and therefore would get oil 
suspended below the surface, shoot it to the surface so you could 
collect it with booms, if the booms will hold in that onrushing high 
tide.
  Go further to the east, it is the pass going into Panama City, St. 
Andrews Bay, again, a deepwater pass, a similar situation. We need the 
skimmers in there. And then go further to the east, to a place where my 
grandfather came on a boat, my great-great-grandfather, 181 years ago, 
when my family came to Florida in 1829 to Port St. Joe, inside a 
natural bay that is created because of the arm of a cape called Cape 
San Blas. From the tip of that cape to the mainland is only about a 
mile and a half. It is hard to boom that. There, again, is why we need 
additional skimmers in that bay. If the skimmers out in the gulf can't 
get it all--and with so much oil in the gulf, that is going to be a 
chore--then at least we have a fighting chance of getting it in the 
bay.
  It is with a heavy heart that I show a picture from yesterday in 
Pensacola Beach. It is a fact. This isn't the only time. We are going 
to be faced with this for months, indeed, probably for years. It is not 
only going to be the gulf coast, because when this oil shifts to the 
south and gets in a current

[[Page 11623]]

called the Loop Current, that will carry it south to the Florida Keys, 
which becomes the gulf stream, which will take it up the east coast of 
not only Florida but the eastern seaboard of the United States.
  I remember after Hurricane Andrew that valiant emergency operations 
center director who said, when there was no Federal resources coming 
in: Where is the cavalry?
  I am asking now: Where is the cavalry? The cavalry is all these extra 
skimmers for the bays. The cavalry is the extra surge capacity of 
additional skimming, when a hurricane comes through and all that extra 
oil is gushed out. I am asking for the cavalry.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the senior Senator 
from Florida, for his comments, bringing the proper focus to the issue 
of skimmers. It is something I have been talking about for weeks. I 
have been coming to the floor for the past week to talk about the lack 
of response from the Federal Government in keeping oil off our beaches, 
out of our intercoastal waterways, out of our estuaries in Florida. I 
said earlier this week that I would come to the floor every day until 
we had good answers as to where the skimmers are. It makes absolutely 
no sense that we do not have a more robust effort from the Federal 
Government to keep the oil from coming onshore. Right now we have not 
only tar balls on our beaches, we have large swathes of brown oily slop 
that have come ashore in Pensacola. It breaks one's heart to see it.
  When I was there last week meeting with the President, I talked to a 
woman who was working at the dock, right on the pier. She is a woman 
who sells food to folks coming to the pier. I asked her: Are people 
coming out since we have had the oilspill to see the beach?
  She said: Yes. The folks who are coming haven't seen the beach in a 
long time. They are coming to see the beach one last time, as if they 
are visiting a family member who is on his or her deathbed.
  We know BP is responsible. We know they cut corners. We know they are 
responsible for ultimately paying for all of the economic damages. But 
there is another part of this equation, and that is the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government is here to do what local and State 
governments cannot do at a time of disaster, and that is to marshal 
unbelievable resources to prevent harm to the people, to the 
environment, and to the economy.
  As I have come to the floor over the past week, I have talked about 
the fact that we can't get a straight answer as to how many skimmers 
are actually off the coast of Florida. These are ships that suck the 
oil off of the water and keep the oil from coming onshore. Today we 
still don't have a straight answer. The Federal Government tells us in 
their shore operations report from the National Incident Command that 
there are 118 skimmers. But yesterday they told us these reports are 
not accurate and that there are, in fact, 86 skimmers. So we have the 
number 118 and we have the number 86. We have a number from the State 
of Florida that is different. The number from the State of Florida was 
31, 25 plus 6 additional skimmers that the State of Florida had to go 
out on their own and get. They took the initiative to get the skimmers 
on their own because they were not getting them from the Federal 
Government.
  Today the report is different. It is shown in a different way. When 
we called to ask the State of Florida, they couldn't tell us how many 
skimmers there were. Yesterday it was 31. The Fed said 118. But then 
they say the number is really 86. Whether it is 31, 86, or 118, it is 
not enough.
  Why is it not enough? There is a huge area between Pensacola and 
Panama City that needs to be treated by the skimmers, let alone the 
rest of the area that goes all the way over to Louisiana. We know there 
are about 400 skimmers in the Gulf of Mexico, but there are 2,000 
skimmers in the United States.
  Before I talk about domestic skimmers, I want to talk about the 
offers of assistance that have been made by foreign countries to help 
us. We are the greatest country in the world. When there are disasters, 
whether they be in Southeast Asia with the tsunami or Haiti with an 
earthquake or Central or South America with an earthquake, we send 
resources, volunteers, teams of people, aid. We are there to help them. 
The world community has been offering us assistance--some of it free, 
some of it they want paid for, but assistance nonetheless. We are 
coming to find out that we are not responding to their offers of help. 
The State Department has reported as of last week that we had 56 offers 
of assistance from 28 countries or international groups. But we have 
only accepted 5 of these offers, 5 offers of assistance out of 56. We 
have a lot of great skimmers that are working in the Gulf of Mexico, 
but some of them are pretty small, to be honest. We are happy they are 
there. A small skimmer is better than no skimmer.
  But let me show a skimmer that was offered to the United States that 
is not a small skimmer. In fact, it is a huge vessel. This was offered 
to us by a Dutch company called Dockwise. This ship is called the Swan. 
It could be outfitted with skimming arms. It was available to go to the 
gulf. The U.S. Government didn't return the call. It was offered on May 
6. Now some 50 days later, it still has not been responded to. It is 
still under consideration. This ship is able to take up 20,000 tons of 
material, whether it be oil, or an oil/water mixture, 20,000 tons. This 
is not some skimmer that can go on the back of a train or on a boat or 
an airplane and be flown down to the gulf or trucked or trained down to 
the gulf. We are happy to get those too. This is a serious piece of 
ship equipment. We haven't called them back.
  Guess what. This is no longer available. Instead it was replaced by a 
ship with one-twentieth of the capacity, a U.S. ship. I am all for 
America first. I am all for using U.S. assets. But this is not an 
either/or situation. We should be using American ships and 
international ships. We gave up a ship with 20 times the capability 
that could be out there in the gulf sucking up this oil, perhaps 
keeping it off the beaches of my State, off the beaches of Pensacola, 
and we didn't return the phone call. Nor did we return the phone call 
to the other 51 offers of assistance. It is beyond belief.
  Let me go back a second and talk about the domestic skimmers. This 
map I have in the Chamber is going to be a little hard for you to see, 
but I want to walk through it. This shows different parts of the 
country, broken up by districts. In each of these districts, there are 
skimmers.
  Where did we get this information? We got this information from the 
U.S. Government, from the Coast Guard because Admiral Allen said, a 
week ago, there are 2,000 skimmers in the United States.
  Why are not the vast majority of those skimmers in the gulf right 
now? What is the holdup? We hear about legal entanglements. Is it the 
Jones Act, is it Federal law, is it local law, is it EPA restrictions 
that are keeping skimmers in different parts of the country in case 
there is an oilspill?
  I asked the President of the United States about this last week in 
Pensacola, and he said: Well, we are trying to get all the skimmers we 
can. Obviously, Admiral Allen wants to get all the skimmers we can, but 
some of those skimmers need to stay in place in case there is an 
oilspill.
  Well, Mr. President, there is an oilspill. It is in the Gulf of 
Mexico. And saying we are not going to bring skimmers because of legal 
entanglements or constraints from other parts of the country because 
there might be an oilspill there is like me saying we are not going to 
send the fire engine to your house that is on fire because there might 
be another fire someplace else. This is the worst environmental 
disaster in the history of this country and every available resource 
should be used.
  As shown on the map, this is district 8 right here, which is the 
Texas area. This is district 7, which is Florida,

[[Page 11624]]

Georgia, South Carolina. The number of skimmers in the Texas area is 
599. The number of skimmers in the Florida district is 251. So between 
these two areas, 850 skimmers, just between Texas and all the way up to 
South Carolina.
  How can it be that there are 850 skimmers in, basically, the Gulf of 
Mexico States--with the exception of going around to South Carolina; 
but we are talking about Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, Texas--how can there be this many skimmers--850--but we only 
have 400 in the gulf right now, if that number is correct? How can that 
be? How can we be 65-plus days into this and not have those skimmers in 
the Gulf of Mexico, when they are virtually there anyway, according to 
this report, or right next door?
  Beyond this 850 in the district that encompasses all the way from 
North Carolina up to the mid-Atlantic, we have another 157 skimmers. Up 
here, in the New England area, there are another 160 skimmers. Up near 
Michigan, there are 72 skimmers. If you go over to California--and we 
can bring these things through the Panama Canal or, if they are 
smaller, they can be flown in--in this California district, there are 
227.
  So we are literally talking about more than 1,000 skimmers that are 
available, but we only have 400, if this number is correct, at work. It 
is hard to believe the response is this anemic. It is hard to believe 
there is this lack of urgency or sense of purpose in getting this done.
  I see my colleague from Louisiana is in the Chamber. Her State has 
been impacted worse than any other so far, and I know she wants every 
available resource off the coast of Louisiana to stop this oil from 
coming ashore, just as our friends in Mississippi, in Alabama do, and 
just as we do in Florida.
  This is not a partisan issue. I want the President to succeed. I want 
the Coast Guard to succeed. But right now it is not just oil washing up 
on the shore of Florida, it is failure. We have to do more. We have to 
get focused and get passionate and get something done about this issue.
  I will keep coming to the floor to talk about this issue as long as 
it is a problem, as long as we keep refusing foreign help, as long as 
we have thousands of available skimmers in this country to do the job 
that should be done. I should look off the coast of Pensacola and see 
an armada of skimmers doing the job that needs to be done to keep this 
oil off our beaches, out of our waterways, and out of our estuaries. So 
I promise to be back until the problem is solved. I hope I do not have 
to come back because I hope I can report in a positive way that the 
Federal Government has gone into action and we are doing what we should 
be doing for our people and for our environment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, before I speak briefly about the subject 
I came to the floor to speak about, which is small business--I am chair 
of the Small Business Committee--I want to thank our colleague from 
Florida for his advocacy for the gulf coast, as we struggle as to how 
to stop this gusher in the gulf and to clean up what has been done.
  We have recently seen some terrible photographs from the beaches of 
Florida. We have photographs equally as troubling from the marshes of 
Louisiana. I want to thank the Senator for his leadership, and we are 
all going to double our efforts to get this job done, and to do it in a 
balanced way.
  As upsetting as this oil is, in trying to clean it up, and keep it 
from our shores--both the beaches and the marshes--we also have to find 
a balance as to how to let this industry at some point move forward 
with these 33 rigs or we are going to lose the entire deepwater gulf 
drilling, which will put thousands--tens of thousands--of people out of 
work, some of whom live in Florida; and some of the businesses benefit, 
as well as so many in Louisiana.
  But I thank my colleague for his continued effort, and we will look 
into some of the issues he has raised and push as hard as we can from 
Louisiana as well.
  Mr. President, I know my colleagues are on the floor to speak about 
job creation. That is why I am here as the chair of the Small Business 
Committee.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, you have had a great deal of 
experience in your own role, before being a Senator, as a bank 
president and as a lender for small business. You know how important it 
is.
  I start by sharing this graph I have in the Chamber that shows that 
from 1993 to 2009, 65 percent of the net new jobs created were created 
by small firms with 1 to 500 employees--65 percent of the jobs. Large 
firms created 35 percent of the jobs. So I suggest this is a very 
important topic for us to be discussing, and I am very pleased the 
leader wants to bring this small business bill to the floor next week.
  We have been--many of us--clamoring to get to this debate, and I want 
to see this bill move forward if we can work out a few minor 
differences. This package has been put together with very good 
bipartisan cooperation, from my view as the chair of the Small Business 
Committee, both from our committee and then the Finance Committee has 
done its part as well. But there are a few items I wish to highlight 
because there are some agreements that must be reached and some points 
I wish to make briefly.
  First of all, let me briefly describe the small business provisions. 
One is the increase in 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million; 504 
loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million; and microloans from $35,000 to 
$50,000. If I could, I would lay an amendment down to raise that to 
$100,000.
  We have had testimony from business advocates--from conservative to 
moderate to liberal advocates--saying this is one of the most important 
things we need to do to stimulate lending to small businesses through 
the Small Business Administration, to give capital, to give credit to 
these small businesses that can create the jobs I am talking about. We 
must get credit into the hands of small businesses from Maine to 
California to Texas to Louisiana to Washington State, and these small 
businesses, if we can strengthen the SBA programs, can, in fact, begin 
to turn this recession into a job creation era and opportunity. That is 
in the bill. It passed our committee 17 to 1--a great bipartisan vote.
  The Small Business Export Enhancement and International Trade Act, 
which Senator Snowe has worked so hard on--and I want to commend her 
for her work; and I have worked with her on this as well--this is a 
challenge for us. Less than 1 percent of small businesses in America 
are exporting. I want to say that again. Less than 1 percent of 
America's small businesses are exporting.
  The market is overseas. The population growth is overseas. If we do 
not help our small businesses with technical assistance and support to 
be able to allow them to position to market, particularly with the 
ability of the Internet today--an extraordinarily exciting tool--with 
broadband, high-speed Internet, there are opportunities for a person, 
whether they are in Chicago, IL, or in New Orleans, LA. If they have a 
product, they can go on the Internet, show the product, and it can be 
shipped to China or India or any other country in the world, and the 
profits can come home right here and jobs can be created. That is in 
this bill, and it is extremely important we move to it and figure out 
the few problems we have with it.
  There is the Small Business Contracting Improvement Act that has not 
been completely worked out, but I want to take a moment to speak about 
it. The Federal Government is one of the largest purchasers of goods 
and services in the world. If we are going to try to help businesses, 
we most certainly, in my view, should strengthen the opportunity to 
contract with small businesses so the Federal Government can purchase 
goods and services. We want to allow small businesses to do that. There 
is a problem we are trying to work out that Senator Thune has

[[Page 11625]]

raised, and I look forward to working with him over the weekend to work 
through that.
  The fourth section of the bill is the Small Business Community 
Partner Relief Act. This would allow SBA, upon request by a woman 
business center or a microloan intermediary, to waive or reduce the 
non-Federal share. Why is this important? We have also added $50 
million to the small business development centers. Small businesses 
cannot necessarily create the jobs they want to create without help and 
support. We have a great network. We have a great backbone, a great 
reach through women business centers, through university-based centers, 
and this bill we are going to bring to the floor next week has support 
for them so they can then reach out and help small businesses on Main 
Street.
  This bill is not about Wall Street. I have heard as much about Wall 
Street as I want to hear and so have the people in my State. We want to 
start hearing about Main Street at home, businesses that are struggling 
and need our support and our help.
  We also have some additional sections for the 8(a) improvements, and 
I have offered a section of the bill that I think is very important to 
help the 11,700 businesses that, unfortunately, on the gulf coast are 
still paying off loans from the last disasters 5 years ago, Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita.
  As you heard Senator LeMieux from Florida and as you have heard 
Senator Nelson from Florida, now we have another catastrophe along the 
gulf. I have asked, in this bill, for some interest relief for these 
businesses. Some of these businesses are paying $1,000 a month--$700 in 
interest, $300 on principal. And that is the example that Jaimie 
Bergeron of Fleur de Lis Car Care in New Orleans presented to our 
committee. This bill would allow the owners, the Bergerons, right now--
where their sales are down; the region is threatened--to go from paying 
$1,100 a month down to $300 or $400 a month.
  We can afford to do this now. We have to be able to give these small 
businesses some relief. There is some opposition to this provision. I 
hope people will think about how important this is for these gulf coast 
businesses. We have had support not only from our local newspaper, the 
Times-Picayune, but even the New York Times has said the people of the 
gulf coast deserve a break. We need a little help, and we need it now. 
Giving these small businesses some interest relief would be a great 
help.
  Finally, in this bill, the White House has put forward, and I 
support, $30 billion for small business lending. We have the estate 
small business credit initiative developed by Senator Warner, Senator 
Levin, and others. We have $1 billion going to community development 
finance institutions that are not banks but lend money to neighborhood-
based, grassroots organizations that then turn around and lend money to 
small businesses. So there are some great provisions to include in this 
bill.
  We have a few things to work out over the weekend with my colleagues 
from the other side. I just want to say that no one could be working 
harder than our committee, both Democrats and Republicans, to try to 
bring a consensus to this floor.
  In good faith, I come to ask my ranking member, Senator Snowe, please 
let's work hard over the weekend to work these final provisions out so 
we can provide to the American people not only a bill that works for 
them--and Senator Stabenow helps us grow small business--but a bill we 
can actually enthusiastically support in a bipartisan way. I think the 
American people deserve our best efforts. I am going to work double-
time over the weekend, even doing some other things I need to do in my 
home State to get this work done, and I look forward to being here on 
Monday to see if we have been able to achieve that.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, would my friend be willing to yield for 
a question?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
  Ms. STABENOW. First, if I might, I wish to take a moment to say thank 
you to the senior Senator from Louisiana for her leadership on small 
business. Her efforts in terms of job creation and availability of 
capital and so on is right on point.
  My question would be, is it the Senator's desire to have this done by 
the end of next week so we can move this forward and hopefully have 
these benefits take place as quickly as possible for our small 
businesses?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely. It is my desire to have many conversations 
over the weekend. There are just a few points that need to be worked 
out. The Finance Committee has done its portion of the work, and I 
thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. Senator Snowe and I have a 
few other things to work out.
  The Senator from Michigan is correct. This effort on the part of the 
Small Business Administration is crucial to change these programs, to 
lift their limits, provide some support for them to be able to help 
reach out and support our small business growth throughout the country.
  The White House has worked very hard on this $30 billion capital 
infusion to the banks. The Independent Bankers of America supports the 
$30 billion in additional capital that would be available to them, 
again, not for lending on Wall Street or Fancy Street but on Main 
Street where the Senator from Michigan and I come from, to get money 
into the hands of small businesses. It is imperative particularly for 
women-owned and minority-owned businesses that have been particularly 
hard hit by this recession. Some of the provisions reach right to those 
disadvantaged neighborhoods in our country that need the most help 
right now in creating jobs for people of every different walk of life.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from 
Louisiana again because she is focusing on jobs. That is what we are 
focusing on every day here, with every bill: jobs, putting people to 
work, supporting small businesses, supporting manufacturers, and 
getting this economy going. So I thank her for her leadership.


         AUTHORITY TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
majority leader be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills and joint 
resolutions on today, June 24.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this evening we had a vote that I find 
to be extremely concerning. Once again, after 8 weeks of trying to work 
out some kind of an agreement with our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to overcome a Republican filibuster--changing our jobs bill 
over and over and over again, and every time there was a change, then 
there was something else and something else--we finally hit a brick 
wall tonight, when we didn't know what else to do. Once again, we did 
not have one Republican colleague willing to vote with us to overcome a 
filibuster. We have the votes on the floor to pass this jobs bill, 
which includes incredibly important benefits for people who are 
currently out of work, to extend unemployment benefits.
  People who have worked hard all of their lives, through no fault of 
their own, find themselves in this situation, and they are asking us to 
simply help them be able to keep a roof over their head and food on the 
table for their families and maybe a little bit of gas in the car so 
they can go look for work, while we can continue to focus on creating 
jobs in what has been a terrible economic crisis for our country.
  We have the votes. If we were doing a majority vote, we would have 
the votes. We have more than enough votes, but what we don't have is 
enough votes to overcome a filibuster. That takes at least one 
Republican colleague, and we don't have that. We don't have any at this 
point. So, therefore, it is estimated that by the end of this month, 
over 87,000 people in my great State of Michigan will lose their 
unemployment benefits, the little bit of help they get to be able to 
help them keep going. A lot of people are going back to school, but 
unemployment benefits are paying for the rent or food. People are 
trying desperately not to lose their houses on top of losing their

[[Page 11626]]

jobs. This is a desperate situation for almost 1 million people across 
this country.
  All we get over and over again is, no. We are creating jobs in this 
bill, putting money and partnerships in with manufacturers to create 
capital for manufacturers, and all we hear is no; capital for small 
businesses to be able to invest and grow their businesses and hire 
people, and all we are getting is no; the ability for States and local 
governments to keep police officers and teachers and firefighters on 
the job, and all we hear is no.
  The resounding no has been to help anyone who currently finds 
themselves out of work because of no fault of their own and needs to 
count on the ability for us to have unemployment benefits. This is an 
outrageous situation.
  Before turning it over to my colleague from Ohio, who I know shares 
my deep concern about what has been happening, let me remind people 
that despite the fact that we are beginning to grow the economy, we 
have turned the corner. When President Obama came into office, we were 
losing 750,000 jobs a month. With the Recovery Act, we got that down to 
zero. We are turning the corner, but we still have five people out of 
work for every one job opening. What happens to them, while we are 
working as hard as possible to turn this economy around? What happens 
to them? Those are the people we are fighting for every single day. 
They are the people we care about here on the floor of the Senate, and 
we are going to keep coming back and fighting because they deserve to 
know there are people here who understand what they are going through.
  I will now turn it over to my colleague from Ohio for a few moments. 
Then I will make a few more comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan. 
I think the Senator said it exactly right. She talks about statistics 
and so many people being laid off. Yes, 750,000 people a month were 
losing their jobs when President Obama started in office. We are seeing 
job growth now but not as much as we would like.
  In Ohio, in April, we had the largest job growth in the country, with 
37,000, which is not great, but it is better than when President Obama 
inherited this economy from President Bush. I think when you speak to 
individual people, you understand it.
  I want to share a handful of letters from constituents. I know 
Senator Stabenow gets letters like this from Lansing, Grand Rapids, all 
over Detroit, and everywhere in her State, from people who have been 
affected by the failure of the Republicans to want to extend 
unemployment benefits.
  It seems to me that our Republican colleagues--the people who 
consistently voted no on something as simple as extending unemployment 
benefits--some of them view unemployment as welfare, when it is called 
unemployment insurance not unemployment welfare. When you have a job, 
whether you live in Detroit or Columbus or whether you live in Dayton 
or Toledo, you pay into the unemployment insurance fund when you are 
working, and you get assistance when you are not. That is the whole 
point of unemployment insurance. You hope you never need it, like you 
hope you never need your car insurance, to cash in your car insurance, 
or you hope you don't need your health insurance. You want it to 
protect yourself. That is what unemployment insurance is. I think some 
of my colleagues, who are so ultra conservative, think it is welfare. I 
don't understand that because very few people in the public think that.
  Too many colleagues--the people who vote no on extending unemployment 
insurance--don't know anybody who lost their job or they don't know 
anybody who has lost her insurance or anybody who has lost their home.
  Senator Stabenow is out all the time in Michigan. She is all over the 
State. I will be in Columbus tomorrow, and I will also be in Lorraine 
and Cleveland tomorrow. I think a lot of colleagues who vote no on 
extending unemployment insurance simply don't meet with people who 
might have lost their job. They hang around with other Senators and 
with people who are pretty privileged. Do they look somebody in the eye 
and say: What is it like to lose your insurance or your home?
  Try to imagine somebody--a parent or a husband and wife or a mother 
and father--who lost their job and lost their health insurance and are 
about to lose their home, and they have to explain to their 12- or 13-
year-old child: We are going to have to move and don't know where we 
will be living, and I don't know what school district we will be in 
yet. Just think of the uncertainty and sadness of that. I don't think 
they think about that.
  Maybe we can help by sharing a few real letters from people in Akron 
and Lima and Cleveland and Urbana, around Ohio. I will share these.
  Ellen from Summit County, in Akron, writes:

       I am writing to make you aware of my situation, which I 
     fear is very similar to that of many other people.
       If an unemployment insurance extension is not passed, it 
     will in essence destroy my family. We are struggling to keep 
     our bills paid and have come to the point of alternating 
     months on paying our mortgage and utility bills.

  Think of that--one month you pay your mortgage and the next month you 
pay your utility bills, hoping that neither will your utilities be cut 
off nor your home foreclosed on.

       We need this extension. Until my husband lost his job, he 
     worked over 20 years in the banking industry--he has more 
     than paid into the system to receive his fair share of 
     compensation.
       We are nine years into our 30-year mortgage and are at risk 
     of losing our home. We are fighting just to stay above water.
       A UI extension will in no way guarantee our future, but it 
     will at least give us a chance.

  Like most people who have worked for years, people don't ever choose 
to lose their jobs. They are not getting rich on unemployment. It is a 
bridge until they find a job. As you know, unemployment insurance 
allows you to receive the benefits you need to keep looking for work. 
You send in resumes. I get letters from people all the time saying: I 
drive in a five-county area looking for a job, I apply more, and I send 
in resumes and nobody answers half the time because they are buried 
with resumes.
  Aaron, from Allen County, near the Indiana border in Lima, writes:

       I worked at a company for 19 years before it was closed and 
     moved to Mexico.
       Since then, I went back to college to earn a mechanical 
     engineering degree, while working part-time.
       But I recently lost my unemployment benefits, which means I 
     won't be able to support my family.
       There are so many people in my situation. If unemployment 
     benefits are extended, it would help thousands of dislocated 
     workers and their families.

  Mr. President, it is not just the individual help for these families, 
it is their next-door neighbor because if Aaron's house is foreclosed 
on, the next-door neighbor's home drops in value. If he gets his 
unemployment, the local hardware store will get some of that money, as 
will the local clothing store and the local restaurant or grocery store 
where they are spending this money. The unemployment insurance that 
people receive--according to former Presidential candidate, John McCain 
and one of his top economic advisers--has the biggest multiplier effect 
of any stimulus. It doesn't stay in the pockets of the unemployed 
workers very long. It immediately goes into the community and is spent 
and respent.
  Here are the last two letters I will read. This is from Elizabeth 
from Cuyahoga County, the Cleveland area:

       I turned 60 this year and have spent the last 30 years as a 
     computer programmer. Since losing my job, I have tried to 
     learn new programming skills to make me a stronger applicant.
       In the meantime, I apply for every single job that I can 
     possibly perform. I have hoped beyond hope for jobs at 
     grocery stores, home health care agencies, and retail stores.
       I am now at the end of my rope. I don't have any other 
     ideas of what to do. I have worked for 42 years, since high 
     school, and even full-time while attending college.
       Those who are not unemployed or have no one in their family 
     who is unemployed, don't understand what it feels like. I 
     have other friends who are losing their unemployment benefits 
     now and in the coming weeks. I am not out here by myself.


[[Page 11627]]


  I simply cannot imagine someone voting against extending unemployment 
to Elizabeth or Aaron or Ellen or if they know people who have lost 
their benefits, who have lost their jobs, their health care, or their 
homes. I cannot imagine anybody standing on the floor of the Senate, 
when their names are called, saying Mr. Burris, Ms. Stabenow, or Mr. 
Brown, and saying no.
  Lastly, Jane, from Champaigne County, west of Columbus near Dayton, 
in Urbana:

       I am an unemployed mother of two children. I will lose my 
     unemployment benefits by the end of the month.
       I go above and beyond the minimum requirements to receive 
     unemployment benefits. I apply to 4 to 10 jobs per week.
       It's not that I don't want to work, as some people are 
     implying. I worked in the same job for ten years, since I was 
     19 years old.
       I lost that job through no fault of my own, which is the 
     story of most unemployed Americans today.
       I have lost my house and my car. My family's American dream 
     has been crushed. If this bill doesn't pass, my family's 
     nightmare will be just the beginning.
       Please do whatever you can to urge your fellow Senators 
     that this extension is needed. This vote shouldn't be about 
     anything else except the American people.

  Mr. President, they could not have said it better. I can read their 
letters and meet with people like this, but I cannot understand because 
that has never happened to me. I wish my colleagues--those people who 
walk down in this well when their name is called and vote no on 
extending unemployment benefits to these workers--these people live in 
every State and, frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves for 
voting no.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio. There are 
many things we share in common: a love of the Great Lakes, and we have 
a rivalry in football and baseball and our great universities, and so 
on. But we also share a tremendous passion for what is happening to our 
people. I thank Senator Brown for his fight on behalf of manufacturers 
and the people who, in fact, need a voice. I thank him very much for 
that.
  It is so hard to know what to say when you read these letters or e-
mails or take phone calls. Most people cannot understand what in the 
world is going on around here. But what is going on? Don't we get it? 
What is going on here?
  Unfortunately, I think the Senator from Ohio, when he says that maybe 
it is that folks have never met someone who lost their job or had it 
happen in their families--it has happened in my family. About half of 
the families in Michigan have somebody who has lost their job. We 
certainly get it, and we understand what is going on now. We know 
people are lining up for work. Whenever there is an announcement for 
jobs, 50 jobs are hiring at a business or 100 jobs, literally I have 
seen people lined up around the block--hundreds and thousands of 
people--because people want to work.
  The people who are out of work now are people who have worked all 
their lives. They have played by the rules. They are now trying to 
figure out what happens and how they can turn it around for their 
families and keep going.
  The bill in front of us, like many things we have put forward in the 
Senate this year, has been all about jobs. That is where we are. It is 
not a slogan to say jobs, jobs, jobs. That is what we are focused on. 
Next week, we are going to focus on small business jobs. We will see 
what happens in the Senate.
  The jobs bill that we have been focused on for 8 weeks has major 
provisions to help manufacturers. I was pleased to include provisions 
that helped manufacturers be able to get some refunds on their taxes if 
they put it back into equipment and hiring people, and there are other 
provisions in the bill. It is about jobs.
  Frankly, we have two different views of the world, two different 
beliefs that I think are reflected in what has happened to our country. 
I look back only because we are debating the same values, the same 
choices that got us where we were and where we are today. Those are the 
same kinds of choices that our friends on the other side of the aisle 
are suggesting we make for the future.
  It is important to look at what has worked and what has not worked. 
Under the previous administration, they looked at the world very 
differently. They said: All right, we are going to stimulate the 
economy and keep things going by focusing on the wealthiest Americans. 
We are going to give them big tax cuts and it will trickle down and 
everyone will benefit and there will be jobs.
  Well, it didn't work. It didn't work. If it had worked, I would be 
celebrating because an awful lot of people in my State would be doing 
much better than they are today. What we saw was an economic policy 
that said we are going to focus on the privileged few, and then it will 
help everybody else; it is going to trickle down.
  What we saw was--these are job loss numbers--down, down, down under 
that policy.
  I will also say those job numbers come from the fact that the same 
people said: You know what. We believe corporations, corporate 
interests can police themselves. So we are going to back up. We are 
going to let Wall Street go to town. They are going to make a lot of 
money, and it is going to be good for the economy.
  They backed up. They let Wall Street police itself. They let mining 
firms police themselves and oil companies police themselves. We lost 
lives. We lost 8 million jobs because of what happened on Wall Street. 
People lost their savings, 401(k)s, their pensions because of a set of 
ideas, because of what they believed. They believed that by backing up, 
corporate America would police itself and everything would be OK: Let's 
give to those at the top. It will trickle down, and we will get jobs.
  Those two things combined to create the largest number of crises that 
I certainly have seen in my lifetime that have brought down the middle 
class of this country. We saw jobs go down, down, more and more job 
loss. When President Obama came into office, about 750,000 jobs a month 
were being lost. It was an economic tsunami. If that is not a crisis 
and an emergency, I don't know what is. If over 15 million people being 
out of work right now is not an emergency, I don't know what is.
  We went to work and we focused on a different set of ideas, a 
different approach. Where they were focusing on the privileged few, we 
said we are going to focus on middle-class Americans, on working 
people, on investing in manufacturing jobs.
  I am very pleased to say we are beginning to feel that in Michigan. 
Sixteen companies have benefited from the battery manufacturing money 
we put into the Recovery Act, the stimulus. I was at an opening on 
Monday in Midland, MI, a new manufacturing facility, that is going to 
put 1,000 people to work in construction and 800 people to work at the 
facility. That is a different approach. We said: We are going to invest 
in America, invest in the American people. We are going to invest in 
opportunity, and we are going to help the people who are out of work 
because we know we are not talking about people who are lazy. We are 
talking about people who lost their jobs, a lot of them because of 
either lack of accountability and oversight of what was going on on 
Wall Street or people not paying attention when our jobs were going 
overseas.
  Through no fault of their own, people were caught in this economy. We 
decided on a different approach. President Obama came in and the 
numbers began to change. I would prefer they were much faster, but they 
are moving in the right direction. We have gone to zero job loss into 
the positive column. We are gaining jobs every month.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying: Wait, stop, 
stop. I know if things are going to turn around, maybe in an election 
year people do not like that and they want to be sure things continue 
to be bad, that somehow it benefits them. That is a pretty cynical 
view.
  These folks who are gaining jobs, as well as the people who lost 
jobs, are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. This is not a 
partisan issue. We ought to be rooting for America and

[[Page 11628]]

rooting for what is getting people back to work instead of fighting 
along partisan lines. The policies we put in place are beginning to do 
that. They are not done. They are beginning to do that. We are putting 
back the oversight and the accountability and commonsense regulation on 
Wall Street and on the oil companies and the miners. We are putting 
back in place middle-class tax cuts instead of just the privileged few. 
We are focusing on jobs, investing in private sector jobs, partnering 
with the private sector, with businesses to help create investment in 
innovation, and we are beginning to turn things around.
  The problem we have is, we still have too many people caught because 
the changes we have been able to make have not caught up to them, and 
there is much more to do.
  The bill that was on the Senate floor, the bill we are going to 
continue, we are going to put it aside. We are going to be ready if one 
or two Republican colleagues say: Yes, we want to stop a Republican 
filibuster. We can come back to it and get this done.
  But what we have seen is a continual effort for 8 weeks to block us 
from the next step in the recovery, from investing in jobs, from 
keeping people employed--police officers, firefighters, teachers--and 
from focusing on those who have lost their jobs, to be able to help 
them keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables until they 
can get that next job.
  I see my friend from Rhode Island on the Senate floor, and I will 
turn to him in a moment. He has been a real champion and fighter on 
this issue. We should also know that in this bill there are some 
important provisions that have been opposed by the other side of the 
aisle to make sure wealthy investors actually pay their fair share--not 
somebody who is middle class but wealthy investors pay their fair 
share.
  We also put in place provisions to take away incentives for shipping 
our jobs overseas. I could go on for an awful long time about why we 
have lost a lot of jobs in Michigan because of unfair trade practices 
and losing our jobs overseas. This bill takes away incentives to ship 
our jobs overseas.
  This bill also added a few more cents to an oilspill trust fund to 
make sure the oil companies are actually paying for the cleanup in the 
gulf.
  On one side we have jobs, investing in jobs and partnering with 
manufacturers and small businesses and helping people who are out of 
work to keep things going. That is our side. On the other side we have 
wealthy investors who do not like this, and oil companies that do not 
like another 41 cents on every barrel of oil to be put toward the 
cleanup. We have people who ship jobs overseas who do not want us to 
close those loopholes. That is on the other side.
  Which side did our Republican colleagues pick? They picked the 
wealthy investors, the oil companies, and the people who ship jobs 
overseas.
  The American people are counting on us to understand what is going on 
in their lives, to get it, to be willing, as in any other time in our 
history--Republican or Democratic President, any other time in our 
history when unemployment has been this high; this Congress has stepped 
forward to extend unemployment benefits for people who were temporarily 
out of work, Democratic or Republican Presidents. Now we have a 
situation where after 8 weeks, we cannot get even one of our colleagues 
from the other side of the aisle to come forward and help us break this 
filibuster.
  I don't know what to say beyond the fact that we are going to keep 
fighting. We are going to keep doing everything we can to get through 
this logjam. We are going to keep doing everything we can to keep this 
economy recovering and keep creating jobs. But there is something wrong 
with the system right now that has gotten so divided, so warped, so 
partisan that we cannot come together on behalf of almost 1 million 
people in this country who are counting on us right now because they 
may have no other option for themselves and their families.
  There is one job for every five people who are unemployed. Prior to 
the Recovery Act, that number was six people. It is a little bit 
better. There is a lot more to do, but we cannot just say to somebody: 
Why don't you get a job, when there are five people out there for every 
one job opening.
  I see my friends on the floor. I see my partner from Michigan on the 
floor. I will turn to him if he wishes to say a few words because he 
and I understand what we have been through in Michigan. We have been 
hit harder, longer, and deeper than anyplace else in this country. When 
we look at the fact that over 87,000 people in Michigan will lose their 
unemployment insurance benefits by the end of this month because of 
what has happened--inaction, the constant naysayers blocking, 
obstructing, saying no--it is more than I can tolerate.
  I yield to my friend from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Stabenow for her 
tenacity and her efforts. I join them with a full heart at a very sad 
moment when we see an unconscionable Republican filibuster succeed 
again today against the extension of unemployment benefits and the 
other parts of this American jobs bill.
  I asked Senator Whitehouse if he would yield to me for a moment. He 
was on the floor before me. I will not take advantage of his good 
nature and good grace other than to say we are not going to abandon 
this effort. We are going to proceed with every tool we have at our 
disposal to make sure people who desperately need the extension of 
these benefits are protected, as intended by this program.
  The financial crisis and resulting recession that continue to trouble 
our Nation have called for sustained action on the part of the 
Congress. From passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to 
the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act to the Wall Street 
reform legislation now taking its final shape, we have sought to reduce 
the harm this recession has caused our fellow citizens. Passage of the 
legislation that we were denied the chance to consider today would have 
been another significant step in fulfilling that task.
  The legislation we failed to take up would extend unemployment 
benefits through November of this year. For the more than half a 
million residents of my State who are receiving unemployment benefits, 
and millions more across the country, this extension is crucial. For 
many families, these benefits are all that is keeping food on the table 
and a roof over their head. The income they provide is important not 
only to families receiving the benefits, but to the communities in 
which they live and to the businesses for whom those families are 
customers.
  But now opponents of extending unemployment insurance are, once 
again, filibustering this legislation. So under Senate rules, 60 votes 
are required to invoke cloture and bring an end to debate.
  The opponents of this extension say they are concerned about deficit 
spending. This would be more convincing if not for two factors. First, 
many of these same opponents were in favor of massive, unpaid-for tax 
cuts benefiting the wealthiest Americans, tax cuts which, according to 
independent analysts, made a far greater contribution to our deficit 
than any of the measures we have taken to address the financial crisis 
and recession.
  Second, concern about long-term deficits in the middle of a continued 
recession is the equivalent of pulling out fire hoses in the middle of 
a flood. The catastrophe we face today is that millions of Americans 
are without work and will not be able to find work until we can 
generate real growth in our economy. The danger to them and to our 
economy today is not deficit spending; it is recession. It is the fact 
that factory floors remain silent, that shops lack shoppers, that 
businesses are without customers. Failure to pass this measure does 
nothing to address that shortfall.
  Surely my colleagues understand that assistance to families in need 
is not just an aid to those families. It helps all of us by helping us 
pull out of the recession. Direct assistance to

[[Page 11629]]

Americans in need is the single most effective tool we have in boosting 
our economy. Aid such as unemployment assistance has a greater bang for 
the buck than any other stimulus effort we can make. If we abandon the 
drive to extend these benefits, we abandon a key effort to strengthen 
our economy.
  The stakes are enormous. The people who need these benefits are not 
abstractions. They are real people, flesh and blood, who are paying the 
price, who have been paying the price for months and months, for a 
crisis bred on Wall Street. More than half a million of them live in my 
State, which was suffering in recession even before the crisis hit. 
These are people who desperately want to work, who want to provide for 
their families, who want to give a better life to their children. They 
have done so in the past. They want to do so again. What they ask from 
us is a small measure of assistance so they can continue to feed and 
shelter their families while they search for work.
  Literally thousands of emails and letters have flowed into my office 
from people asking us to extend these benefits. One from Waterford, MI, 
from a worker whose benefits expired in April, reads: ``Our life 
savings are gone! At some point we will be homeless, no doubt about it. 
We need help from Washington.'' Another, from Burton, MI, wrote to me: 
``I know things will get better but we need help to make ends meet 
until then.''
  Those stories, those pleas, have come in by letter and email by the 
thousands. The many months of on-again, off-again extensions of 
unemployment benefits have added painful anxiety and uncertainty to 
what is already a tragedy for hundreds of thousands of Michigan 
families. Time and again, we have delayed and debated on whether to 
extend these benefits. On more than one occasion, a single Senator--
just one--has obstructed our consideration of legislation to extend 
them. Now it appears that our colleagues across the aisle, despite 
enormous effort by the majority leader and Senator Baucus and others, 
have decided they simply will not allow an up-or-down vote on the 
extension.
  We will have failed a basic responsibility to our constituents if we 
abandon the effort to approve an extension of unemployment benefits. 
Millions of Americans ask only that their government provide the safety 
net that keeps them from falling deeper into tragic uncertainty and 
debt. The Republican filibuster of that help is unconscionable. It 
leaves millions of families all across this country without help in 
their hour of need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we lost this important vote today 57 
to 41. For people who are watching who may not be familiar with the 
peculiarities of the Senate, you might think to yourself: How on Earth 
did you lose 57 to 41? It sounds to the ordinary person like you won by 
16. What do you mean you lost 57 to 41? How could that have happened?
  That happened because the other party, as it has done throughout the 
Obama administration, has used an arcane Senate procedure called the 
filibuster more times than ever in the history of this country to block 
progress for this administration.
  The rule requires that the majority get to 60 when the minority so 
demands, and they have been demanding that 60 on everything over and 
over. There have been years when it was almost never used. There have 
been years when it was used two or three times. In really bad years, it 
might have been used 14, 15 times. This group of Republican colleagues 
has set the record. They use it on everything.
  I think we are over 100 acts of obstruction and delay around this 
filibuster rule as a result. If one is wondering why we lost 57 to 41--
if that sounds strange--we got the 57 votes, they got the 41, and we 
lost--it is because they are pulling out of the rule book this 
procedural trick so that the majority does not rule, so they can block 
progress.
  They are doing it for what they claim is concern about deficits. I 
have to say, being lectured by our Republican colleagues about deficits 
and debt is like being lectured by Evel Knievel about safe driving. 
They should have a little sense of, at minimum, irony about that.
  They say the past is prologue. Let me review a little bit of the 
past.
  When George Bush took office, President Clinton, a Democrat, and the 
Democratic Congress at the time had left an annual budget that was in 
surplus. It was returning more money to the Federal Government than we 
were spending. It was an annual budget in surplus. We had a national 
debt at the time, but with the annual budget in surplus, our 
Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan, not Republican, not 
Democratic, professional Congressional Budget Office--had estimated 
that, when George Bush took office, we would be a debt-free nation by 
2009. We would be a debt-free nation by 2009. That was the trajectory 
that Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress 
left, along with those annual budget surpluses, when George Bush and 
the Republicans took office.
  So 2009 came and went. How did we do? Did we get to a debt-free 
nation? Are we at zero debt? No. Something changed when the Republicans 
took power, and when the Bush administration left, it left $9 trillion 
in debt--not a debt-free nation but $9 trillion in debt and an economy 
in which Americans were losing 700,000 jobs a month. They left $9 
trillion in debt and families losing 700,000 jobs a month. That is the 
situation President Obama inherited--a little different from what 
President Bush inherited.
  So have we spent since then? Yes, because every economist worth their 
salt knows that when family spending is contracting, when business 
spending is contracting, when municipal and State spending is 
contracting, the entire economy can contract to the point that it 
seizes up unless the Federal Government does what an economist would 
call countercyclical spending. If the economy is dying for lack of 
spending, if it is seizing up, the Federal Government can put money 
back into it to try to bring it back to life. As Senator Stabenow's 
graph has shown, it has brought it back to life. We have gone from 
losing 700,000-plus jobs a month to losing no jobs a month--actually 
gaining a few. So it worked.
  In that context, to say to the people who are still out of work--the 
ones who lost their jobs back when 700,000 jobs a month were out the 
window and going overseas; the Bush legacy--to say that we can't help 
those people any longer, to say that we are cutting off their 
unemployment insurance, their lifeline, because we are concerned about 
the debt, I have to ask: Where was the concern about the debt when they 
were taking a trajectory toward a debt-free America and turning it into 
a $9 trillion debt? Where was the concern then? Where was the concern 
when it was tax breaks for billionaires?
  We just had our first billion-plus-dollar estate pass under the Bush 
tax cuts, where the estate tax was eliminated. As a result, a $9 
billion estate of a Texas tycoon went to his heirs tax free. How much 
tax? Zero dollars. Zero dollars. At the prevailing tax rate that has 
stood for most of this time, you would have paid $4 billion in estate 
taxes and your heirs would have had to suffer through with only $5 
billion to divide amongst themselves. That $4 billion in lost revenue 
added to our debt and deficit doesn't bother our friends on the other 
side at all. They couldn't be happier. That is their plan. Those are 
the Bush tax cuts. America loses $4 billion, and they smile. It is 
their plan. But when we are talking about people who lost their jobs 
because of those very policies, because of letting Wall Street run 
unregulated and having that financial meltdown, and now regular 
families across this country who got hit by that tsunami of misery are 
out of work, now they are concerned about the debt. Now they are 
concerned about the deficit. They were OK with the billion-dollar 
family passing its estate tax free, but they can't have ordinary 
working Americans keep that unemployment insurance lifeline.
  I think those are backward policies. I think those are upside-down 
policies,

[[Page 11630]]

and they hit very hard in my home State. My home is Rhode Island. For 
over a year, we have had double-digit unemployment. We have been in the 
top three or four States every month for unemployment. I know Michigan 
has suffered immensely, and that is why Senator Stabenow and Senator 
Levin were here. But I have to say that my small State of Rhode Island, 
with only 1 million people, is not far behind. We have 70,000 families 
out of work, and because it has been a long recession in Rhode Island, 
those families--all their assets, everything they had salted away, they 
have gone through that. What is left is the unemployment insurance 
lifeline. It is the basic lifeline. To cut that off, frankly, I think 
it is disgraceful.
  This is a low moment in this body--70,000 families missing a 
paycheck, 70,000 families with a provider who is out of work, 70,000 
families with kids wondering where the income for mom and dad is coming 
from. This money would go right into the economy. It would be spent 
instantly. It would be spent on shoes. It would be spent on food. It 
would be spent on paying the electric bill. It would be spent on 
putting some gas in the car to get out to the job interviews. It would 
have been spent immediately on the necessities of life.
  But that is not good enough. That is not good enough. Those are the 
families in the toughest circumstances whom our friends want to cut off 
because of the debt, because of the deficit. The billionaires can go 
untaxed, but the working families who have lost jobs through no fault 
of their own are the ones who have to bear the brunt of this. And it 
hits home to real people, real families, with real fears, who, late at 
night, sitting at the kitchen table, with the bills laid out in front 
of them and the kids asleep upstairs, are adding them up--adding up 
what they have and what is coming in--and realizing they are not going 
to make it that month, that something is going to have to go. That is a 
cold and lonely moment for a family. When families are having that cold 
and lonely moment, that late night at the kitchen table with the bills 
they can't pay, that is the time when we are supposed to provide the 
insurance to protect them against unemployment. That is the policy of 
this Nation.
  It is discouraging. It is discouraging to Dan, a Rhode Islander, in 
East Greenwich. He has worked in sales. He has been unemployed since 
April of 2009. His wife is disabled. He is looking for work, but in 
Rhode Island, as in Michigan, people can look as hard as they like and 
they are lucky to find a job because there are more people looking than 
there are jobs. The jobs just aren't there, and Dan has not been able 
to find one. Without unemployment insurance, he has let my office know 
that he and his wife are likely to be evicted from their apartment. 
That is the human consequence of today's decision for one person in 
Rhode Island--Dan.
  Bill, from North Kingstown, contacted us. He is 56 years old. He has 
been unemployed for a while now--since January of 2009. This has been a 
persistent recession in Rhode Island. He used to work in the 
engineering field. He is a talented man, but he has been twice faced 
with eviction as his unemployment insurance has been put at risk. He 
received only $200 over the last 3-week period, as his benefits have 
expired. He is in that first leading group for whom the benefits have 
expired. He has lost his COBRA benefits. He needs heart medication. 
Without COBRA benefits, how can he pay for his health insurance that 
will provide the heart medication? The real cost of today's shameful 
decision comes home hard to somebody like Bill.
  Nancy, in Portsmouth, RI, is 59 years old. She has been unemployed 
for a while, too--21 months. She has been looking for work for 21 
months, looking through the classifieds, going online, reaching out to 
all her friends and contacts to try to find somebody who has a job for 
her. She has a bachelor's degree, she has several different industry 
certifications, and she has an extensive background in sales and 
marketing. She is somebody who, in an ordinary economy, would have no 
trouble finding a job. But after the Wall Street meltdown sent that 
tsunami of misery across our country, she got caught in it. For 15 
years, she worked in the insurance industry, and now she can't find a 
job. She will soon lose her unemployment benefits if we don't continue 
to fight for it.
  So behind all the big brave talk about how we have to fight the 
deficits--ironic talk coming from the people who were responsible for 
virtually all of these debts and deficits--are the human stories that 
are just being ignored here, and it is wrong. We have to change our 
direction and start putting people first instead of the big 
corporations.
  Let me mention one other topic. There were winners today and there 
were losers today. The people who lost today were Dan and Bill and 
Nancy and many, many others like them in Rhode Island and across the 
country. The people who won today--among them--were the big Wall Street 
financiers, the hedge fund hotshots, the ones who have been earning 
millions of dollars every year and through clever legal tricks have got 
their million-plus-dollar salaries treated as if they were capital 
gains. So the hedge fund superstar out there in his private jet, 
getting ready to fly down for a weekend in the Caribbean in the private 
jet, looking out the window at the fellow stuffing his luggage into the 
hold of the private jet, the guy in the jet is paying a lower tax rate 
than the guy outside with the earmuffs on and the jumpsuit stuffing the 
luggage in the hold. The guy in the private jet is paying a lower tax 
rate than the guy outside working day-to-day and putting his luggage in 
the hold. The guy being driven around in his car is paying a lower tax 
rate than the man behind the wheel who is driving him around.
  Who is the biggest, best, most prominent capitalist in America? I 
would submit that it is Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is a legendary 
investor, a spectacular investor. He is one of the great success 
stories of American capitalism. He has come to lobby us about this 
issue. He has come to lobby us about the fact that he pays a lower tax 
rate than his secretary. He has come to lobby us about it because it is 
wrong, because he finds it embarrassing that, in a country like ours, 
somebody who has been as successful as he has, who has received such 
remarkable benefit from his talent and his energy, ends up paying a 
lower tax rate than the secretary who does his mail and takes his phone 
calls. He knows that is wrong and we should know that is wrong.
  We could have corrected that. That was one of the ways that the 
benefits for regular working folks in this bill could have been paid 
for.
  That is who won and that is who lost: Dan and Bill and Nancy lost. 
Tonight when they get word about this they are going to sit in their 
homes and they are going to worry. They are going to be anxious. They 
are going to be heartsick. They are going to be looking at a future 
that is filled with uncertainty.
  Our friends on the other side will say no, once they get off 
unemployment insurance that is just a spur, that is an incentive to get 
out and find a job; get off the dole and get back out in the workforce. 
Not in Rhode Island, not with a 12.3-percent unemployment rate. At a 
rate like that Dan, Bill, Nancy--the three of them might go out looking 
for a job, but there will only be one for the three. These are people 
who have been looking for work for over a year. These are people who 
have had a lifetime of work experience. These are people who want to be 
back to work. Their character, their sense of self is that they are 
people who work and support themselves. They want to be back to work. 
The argument that they are going to fritter away their time on 
unemployment insurance until it ends and then they will get serious and 
get back to work is nonsense. It is nonsense. The suffering they are 
going to face as a result of this is real.
  Those are the people in the column who lost today. In the column of 
the people who won is Warren Buffett. Based on what he said when he has 
come here to lobby us, I will bet you dollars against Dunkin' Donuts 
that he is embarrassed to be in the winners column. But he knows that 
it is not right,

[[Page 11631]]

in this great country of ours, for the people who have been most 
successful, who have earned financial rewards beyond what ordinary 
people can dream of, to be able to pay a lower tax rate than the 
regular working people who come to their offices everyday and serve in 
their businesses. It is wrong. It is topsy-turvy.
  I cannot tell you how discouraging a day it is. First in the real 
regular world you would have thought we had won today, 57 votes to 41. 
But, no, there is this procedural trick. So because we did not get to 
60, we lost. Because we lost, Dan and Bill and Nancy lost. And the 
wealthiest people in our country won in a way that embarrasses probably 
America's greatest capitalist, Warren Buffett.
  I see the majority leader is on the floor. I will inquire to see if 
the majority leader desires the floor? If so, I will gladly yield.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I so 
appreciate his advocacy for the people of Rhode Island, but in speaking 
for the people of Rhode Island he is speaking for the people of this 
country. We are United States Senators. The States of Rhode Island and 
Nevada are having a very difficult time.
  As I heard my friend say when manipulation of Wall Street finally 
caught up with them, it wrecked our two economies. I have so admired my 
friend and his colleague, the other Reed in the Senate, Jack Reed, and 
their wonderful presentations explaining that these are not just 
numbers that we talk about. These are people who have no jobs.
  I was looking at the headlines from the Boston newspaper a few 
minutes ago in the cloakroom, after this failed vote. One man said: I 
hope politicians understand what I'm going through. My unemployment 
benefits will run out in 2 weeks. I have a wife who is working part 
time. I have two children. I lost my job 2 years ago.
  These are not deadbeats out there looking for a handout. These are 
people who are desperate, looking for a job. So I do say to my friend, 
I appreciate his speaking--I repeat, not only for the people of Rhode 
Island but for the people of Nevada and the rest of the country.
  Mr. President, I was going to ask consent that we proceed to the 
Small Business Lending Fund Program but I have been told by my friends 
on the other side of the aisle are not here and they would object 
anyway, so there is no need that I propound that request.

                          ____________________