vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the vote -- on this vote, the yeas are 76, the nays are 20. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn, having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the majority leader. may we have order in the senate. the majority leader is now

speaking. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of senator demint, that his vote and the next vote be ten minutes in duration. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. demint: mr. president? the presiding officer: the cloture vote having been invoked, the motion to refer -- under the previous order, all postcloture time is ewes yielded back and the senator from south carolina, mr. demint, may be recognized for up to 10 minutes. the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: mr. president? the presiding officer: will the senate be 0 in order! please, senators, be in order. thank you. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i know many here are very anxious to start a new government agency, and i won't hold you up for very long. but it's important that we recognize some things that are happening, and there's probably one good thing we could do tonight maybe to stop the

landslide -- the presiding officer: will the senate be in order, please. mr. demint: -- of more government control. colleagues, in the last year, a little over a year, we've seen this federal government take over two of our largest auto companies, our largest mortgage company, our largest insurance company, expand its control on america's domestic energy sources, and of course a debate on trying to expand control on health care. we're getting ready -- the presiding officer: will the senate be in order. take your conversations out of the senate. senators! take your conversations out of the senate! thank you. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. we're expecting very soon a new financial reform package that will expand federal control from everywhere from wall street to the local pawnshop.

but while these big things are coming in front of you there are things happening in the executive branch that are circumventing congress that should concern us. a lot of you have heard from industries back home of what the e.p.a. standards are doing. businesses don't know what to expect. local communities don't know what to expect. i had an engine company in my office today that said orders were on hold until they found out what the e.p.a. is going to do. i also have had some people in my office in the last week talking about the f.c.c. and the coming ruling of expanding control over the internet. one place in our economy that continues to boom with innovation. but, folks, there's one thing that was just leaked out that i want to bring your attention to that we need to try to halt tonight before it is too late. a whistle-blower at the department of interior has leaked a document that shows that they're considering using the antiquities act to grab ov r

10 million acres of land in nine western states and basically take them off-line for jobs of mining, forestry, energy. and this includes nevada, utah, montana, new mexico, california, arizona, oregon, colorado, and washington. it's important that we stop this and at least have some senate hearings on what they're trying to do. and this is a priority for what we're talking about today because the president and the congress has said our top priority is jobs. this action by the interio inter department will hurt jobs. it will dry up tax revenues in local communities and states and it will restrict energy supplies in this country. all i'm asking that we do is suspend the rules, which requires 67 votes, and vote on this amendment to stop the department of interior from taking over over 10 million acres of land and hurting our

economy and hurting jobs. so i promised the leader i would keep it to less than 10 minutes, but i encourage everyone to support this motion that i'm getting ready to make. mr. president, i move to suspend the provisions of rule 22 including germaneness requirements for the purpose of proposing and considering my amendment, which is at the desk, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the question is on the motion to suspend. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are 58. two-thirds of the senate voting, a quorum being present, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.

under the previous order, the motion to concur with amendment 3326 is withdrawn. the question is on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment h.r. 1299. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are called for. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding offir: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? in that case, the ayes are 78 and the nays are 18. the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate, the house amendment to the senate amendment is agreed to. mr. reid: move to lay that on the table. the presiding officer: mr. leader.

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that on monday, march 1 at 3:00 p.m. the finance committee be discharged from h.r. 4213, an act to provide for certain extenders and that once the committee has discharged, the senate proceed to its consideration. that after the bill is reported to senator baucus or his designee be recognized to offer a substitute amendment. once the amendment is reported by number it is be considered read, prior to, mr. president, a ruling on this i would like to express my appreciation to the republican leader and those who worked so hard to get us to this point we are today and next week. we should have a very good week next week. everyone should be ready for some legislating. there's going to be a number of amendments offered, some of which i know, most of which i don't know what they're going to be. but we have a lot of work that's very important legislation. i, again, express my appreciation to the republican leader and others who worked so hard to get us where we are. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4691, the 30-day extension of provisions which expire on sunday, february 28, unemployment insurance, cobra, flood insurance, satellite, home viewer act, highway funding, s.b.a. business loans and small business provisions of the american recovery act, s.g.r. and poverty guidelines received from the house and at the desk, that the bill be read three times passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from kentucky. objection is heard. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, the senator from kentucky has just objected to extending unemployment benefits across the united states of america which will expire on sunday night. he's also objected to extending cobra benefits, which is health insurance for the unemployed people across america. now this has been done regularly

now that we're in this recession because millions of americans are out of work. we know that there are four or five, maybe six people for every available job. folks have depleted their savings. they run the risk of losing their homes. they're trying to keep their children in school. they're trying to provide the necessities of life. and the senator from kentucky objects to their having unemployment benefit checks. what does it mean to me? well, in the state of illinois, it means that as of sunday night, 15,000 people in my state will stop receiving unemployment benefits because of the senator from kentucky's objection. it means that every week thereafter another 15,000 will lose their unemployment benefits. it is a harsh reality that many of these families have been looking for work for a long,

long time. the senator has also objected to providing assistance to small business. the request that i made would extend for 30 days provisions of the small business act, the recovery act lending programs for small businesses. so what the senator from kentucky is doing as of sunday night is shutting down the availability of credit for small businesses across america through this small business administration program. in the midst of a recession, when we are told that small businesses are the engine that will bring us out of this recession, when they are desperate for credit to keep their doors open, families that have spent a lifetime building a small business are going to be denied an opportunity to borrow money through the small business administration because of the objection of the senator from kentucky. and let me say a word about cobra. one of the first casualities of unemployment is health insurance. and sadly, many of these people

are in a position where they don't qualify for medicaid, health insurance for the poorest people. so they find themselves without health insurance for the first time because they're unemployed. we said under president obama's recovery act, we're going to help you pay for those premiums so that you can continue to have health insurance for your family. that expires sunday night too. and the objection of the senator from kentucky means that thousands of people across america will lose their health insurance because of his objection, they'll lose it on sunday night. workers who lose their jobs count on cobra, and cobra, frankly, is expensive. on average, cobra coverage consumes 84% of unemployment benefits. it's not cheap. the average monthly unemployment benefit in illinois is just over $1,300. the average monthly family cobra premium is over $1,100. through the recovery act, we said we would pick up 65% of

that. well, because of the objection of the senator from kentucky, if these people want to maintain their health insurance through unemployment, they're basically going to have to turn to savings or just give it up. why? why would we want to heap this kind of suffering on people who are already going through such misfortune? it isn't just illinois that suffers. virtually every state. as of december, there were 221,000 people in kentucky unemployed. 10.7% of the kentucky workforce. 63,000 people in louisville, 18,000 people in lexington, 6,000 in bowling green, 5,500 in elizabeth town, 5,000 in owens boro. as they are desperately looking for work, many are just getting by on unemployment checks.

they are just trying to get by. last month the state of kentucky had the sharpest increase in unemployment claims in the country, in the entire united states. 2,510 more claims than the month prior due to the automobile industry and manufacturing job cuts. unfortunately, many of these people will lose their unemployment benefits in kentucky because of the objection of their senator. if senator bunning has his way, more than 14,000 kentucky residents will lose their unemployment assistance in march, and 60,000 by the end of june. why? why are we doing this to these families in kentucky and illinois and every state? everyone acknowledges there's only one objection -- everyone in this chamber acknowledges we are a caring and compassionate country and we will on an emergency basis extend a helping hand to those who have lost their jobs. now, most senators have left for the evening, but some stayed on

the floor. i asked them if they'd like to say a word on this issue. they're going to go home and tell the people back home there are going to be some terrible things happening as of sunday night because of the objection of the senator from kentucky. 15,000 people in my state, thousands in his own state, and all across the country. i'm staying here tonight to talk about this because, frankly, i don't think this ought to be business as usual. i just don't think one senator ought to be able to heap this kind of suffering and misfortune on people who are already struggling in this economy. if you want to take it out on somebody, take it out on a colleague or a debate, but these are helpless people out of work. senator reid offered to the senator from kentucky an amendment. bring to the floor your theory on how to pay for this. he has a theory. he wants to pay pour it with unexpended stimulus funds, as i understand it. developed had his chance on the floor to make his case. he would have had a roll call at

the end of the day. he might have won. he might have lost. but he came to the floor yesterday and said, i am not going to fall for that. i may lose this amendment. therefore, i'm going to object. well, that's the nature of things. it's like when you pitch a ball game. sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. and on the floor, sometimes you win, sometimes -- i've never pitched a ball game. i know you have. i am a very proud of what you've done in your baseball career. but let me tell you, one, this is a wild pitch you're throwing tonight because it is a pitch that's hitting somebody in the stands. it is hitting an unemployed worker in illinois in the stands, and that's a wild pitch which shouldn't have been thrown, senator. i really believe that when you look what the this is going to do across america, this is unforgivable, that we would do this to these unemployed people. the senator michigan? ms. stabenow: thank you. i appreciate so much -- mr. durbin: i yield for the pups after question. ms. stabenow: yes. i appreciate the senator from illinois, my friend, your

comments and i guess my question would relate to the state of michigan, because i'm -- you listed off some very important statistics, but i'm wondering if you're aware that in fact in march 62,000 people in the great state of michigan, where we have the highest unemployment rate -- we have 14.6% unemployment rate, over 700,000 people that are unemployed, people looking for work, people trying to put a roof over their head, put food on the table, just hold things together as they're looking for a job, and yet we have 62,000 great people from michigan that are going to lose their benefits in march. and, in fact, if this continues -- and i know that all of us are working very hard to get a year extension on unemployment benefits, but i'm wondering if my friend is aware of the large numbers -- by may, 225,000 people in michigan will be out

of their benefits, people who are looking for work. we know that for every one job available, there are six people right now that are fighting to get that job. and we have a jobs agenda and we're working very, very hard to make sure there are more jobs and partnering with the private sector. but in the meantime, i'm wondering if my friend would agree with the fact that this is a disaster, in fact? this is as much a disaster for families as anything else. we do emergency spending for floods and hurricanes and all kinds of disasters and for families -- would my friend agree that this is as much of a disaster and warrants immediate attention, as anything else we do? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from michigan, this has been characterized as an emergency because it is an emergency. and it's been acknowledged by the budget committee. it will be treated as an emergency spending situation. it is an extraordinary situation, just like a drought or a flood or a hurricane or a

tornado. these people have had their lives disrupted and we are trying to keep these families together. if there is ever a family value issue, this is it. and i would like to at this point on behalf of the people of michigan and illinois and kentucky, mr. president, ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions which expire on sunday, february 28, unemployment insurance, cobra, flood insurance, sat lie home viewer act, highway funding, s.b.a. business loans, and small-business provisions of the american recovery act, s.g.r., and poverty guidelines received from the house and at the desk, that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. bunning: the senator from kentucky objects. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. durbin: mr. president, i yield to the senator from rhode island for the purposes of a

question. ed ared are i am wondering if you can confirm that we have routinely extended unemployment benefits over many decades, under both republican and democratic presidents and republican and democratic congresseses. and we've always done it when the unemployment rate was above 7.4%. i think the lowest unemployment rate in which we suspended -- extended unemployment benefits was 7.4%. i say that because in rhode island we're at 12.9%. and there are other states that are equally disadvantaged. this not only is sort of -- sort of upsets the -- what i think is the logical way to proceed on this tonight, but it rejects the decades and decades of the common sense and common decency of the congress. and i think and i hope you can confirm that understanding. mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from rhode island, he is

correct. and he is in these extraordinary times -- in these extraordinary times when people lost so many jobs, we set politics aside and we say we're going to help these people, whether it is victims of an economic disaster or a natural disaster and i just cannot imagine, if i were going 0 home to rhode island facing 12.4% -- it is 11.9% in illinois -- you have a larger percentage of your population already going through this. aim sure that you have examples of -- i'm sure that you have examples of friends and folks who have contacted your office who are at their wit's end in terms of what they are he going to do to keep their families together. i've seen it, mr. president. i went to the unemployment offices in chicago. and i hope that the senato senam kentucky has visited with unemployed families in his state ands how desperate they are. these are people that will do anything to get a job, will do anything to get an interview. some are taking training courses, trying to figure out anything to get a job.

and they're really up gunshot it when it comes to health insurance. it is one of the first casualties. and this objection by the senator from kentucky will make it next to impossible for these families to have health insurance as a result of his objection. i just don't understand why we would do this. i mean, we are a caring people. on a bipartisan basis, we step up as an american family when people are in need. i wouldn't ask twice if someone came to me with a disaster in another state because i know i've needed help in my own state. and this is a real disaster. it is one that has affected virtually every state. when you take a look at some of the provisions in this bill -- incidentally, beyond unemployment, some people, particularly those living in rural areas, are act ifed by this satellite -- are affected by this satellite home viewer act, which will noted be extended because of the senator's objection. that's a minor ink convenience for some. maybe more of an inconvenience

force others. but why would codo this? why would we object to the extension of these basic provisions in the law for 30 days? that's all we're asking for. i would think that that is very basic and something that we should be doing. i also think that the idea of helping the doctors who are treating medicare patients -- not an unreasonable thing to do -- these are people that are taking care of the elderly in america, our parents and grand parentses, and this so-called s.g.r., the sustainable growth rate or doc fix, is also one of the provisions which the senator from kentucky has objected to. it doesn't make sense. we want to make sure that patients across america receive the care that they are entitled to, that medicare patients are go visit their doctors and doctors can receive adequate compensation for doing that. i don't think that's an unreasonable thing for us to ask. and i would hope that my colleagues who are on the floor here, if they have similar situations in their own state

with unemployment or if they're dealing with small businesses needing credit, would join me in this conversation on the floor about how really unfair it is to be objecting to this extension of unemployment benefits. the senator from missouri. i'd yield to the senator from missouri for purposes of a question. ms. mccaskill: i'm not prepared with some of the questions i'd like to ask because, frankly, i'm surprised. i would like to be able to ask you and compare the numbers in missouri of the number of families that are going to find out tomorrow morning that even though we have appropriately extended unemployment benefits, that now we're not going to. and i think they're going to be as surprised as i am.

it is -- it is easy to get out of touch in this place. people are really deferential to you around here. you open doors -- they open doors for you and bow and scrape. it's really easy to forget what people are going through. , what families are feeling right now, how hard it is for them to look to the future and still see that american dream on the horizon. and really 30 days of unemployment? really? have we got is ton that? have we gotten to the point that's that's going to be a political football? i really think that we got to take a hard look in the mirror, if it comes to this. 30 days of unemployment insurance for families that are -- want to work, that deserve to

work, that are trying to work, and, by the way, i mean, let me ask you, the senator from illinois, if the unemployment runs out, where do those families go? what happens then? where do they go? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from missouri that for many people there's almost no plieplace to turn. there's something called township assistance in my hometown. this is a fraction. amount of money which you receive from unemployment. it will barely provide money for food thor these people. ms ms. mccaskill: assuming that it gets to the point that they're at wit's end, then it is food stamps, right? mr. durbin: right. ms. mccaskill: there is other governmental assistance that will be rabel to them. maybe they will lose their homes, have to go to homeless shelters. what i'm trying to get at, there is a cost to this.

it isn't like all of a sudden the government isn't going to have any cost if these people quit getting unemployment insurance. they lose their health insurance, it's not like they're not going to get treated in the emergency room if they get hit by a car on monday. we're going to take care of them in an emergency p. we're all going to pay for it. this is wrong. and i hope that you stick around and renew this motion for a while. and i hope some of us stick around and help, because the american people need to realize how out of touch this place has gotten. thank you, mr. president. mr. durbin: mr. president, on batch of the unemployed people in kentucky, in rhode island, in michigan, in illinois, and missouri, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4691, the 30-day extension of provisions which expire on sunday, february 28, unemployment insurance, cobra, flood insurance, satellite home viewer act, highway funding, s.b.a. business loans, and

small-business provisions. american recovery act, s.g.r. and poverty guidelines received from the house and at the desk, that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. bunning: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator reserves the right to ofnlt. mr. bunning: the people have not been listening, particularly the senator from illinois. he's been through two of these are with the leader. he heard the arguments on both sides. unfortunately, he has one-side-only view of this situation. i've offered the same cobra, flood insurance, unemployment insurance, satellite home viewing act, highway funding, s.b.a. loans, small-business provisions -- i've offered to do

the same thing for the same amount of time. the only difference i have -- and some of my good friends from the other side of the aisle -- is that i believe we should pay for it. there is a right over the last three years of the democratic-controlled congress. we have run up $5 trillion in debt. there's got to be a time to stop that. now, we just passed last week pay-as-you-go. the first bill up -- and i've said this before earlier -- was the small-business bill that just passed. now, $5 billion of that bill was paid for, $10 billion was not.

now, this is the second request, after we passed the small-business bill that the leader proposed. this also adds $10 billion to the deficit. that's $20 billion in just two small bills. what i have proposed is a pay-for. my gosh ..., we've got over $400 billion in unspent stimulus money. i also work -- or tried to work with the leader and his staff. i know he had -- he was busy at the white house. but i tried very hard to work with his staff to get other pay-fors and cut the time down to two weeks, to make sure that these people were taken care of.

i didn't get any support from my good friends on the democratic side of the aisle. i don't think it's fair to do what you are proposing to do, senator from illinois, and i'll be here as long as you're here and as long as all those other senators are here and i'm going to object every time, because you won't pay for this and you propose never to pay for it. and event ually -- and eventually, by tuesday, when we do have another vote, you'll get a vote and you will get this done. so i'm trying to make a point to the people of the united states of america. we have a debt of

$14 trillion-plus. i listened to the head of the federal reserve speaking to me in the banking committee today, and he looked straight at me, and he said, that debt and the proposed budget of the obama administration make the debt unsustainable. we can't sustain it. i have a family of nine children and 40 grandchildren and i'm as concerned as all of those good senators sitting overhere and me give these benefits to these people. but that is not the case. so it's their way or the highw highway, and i'm not taking the highway. mr. durbin: mr. president, would the senator --

mr. bunning: i object. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. bunning: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: mr. president, i wanted to give the senator from kentucky an opportunity to explain his position on this and i didn't assert regular order until he'd had an opportunity to do it, but i'd like to remind him that on november the 4th of last year, you issued a press release entitled "bunning supports extension of benefits for kentucky's unemployed, the legislation including bunning's net operating loss amendment." it passed by a vote of 98-0, and you said, "kentucky's been hit hard by the current economic downturn. this legislation will lend a helping hand to working families across the commonwealth who are in search of a job." it wasn't paid for either. the point is, we're in the same recession. it's gotten worse in some areas of the country, particularly in your area of the country, as i reported earlier. unemployment figures are growing in kentucky. the situation is just as dire and just as serious. i share the senator's concern about our deficit situation, but

virtually every reputable economist you'll talk to will tell you that in the midst of a recession, you need to really insert into this economy economic activity and spending and the money that flows through the fastest is unemployment benefits to those out of work because they spend it instantly. it goes right back into the economy. this idea of somehow we're going to hold back on unemployment benefits and balance the budget on the backs of unemployed people in illinois and kentucky, you couldn't pick a worse strategy or a worse time to do it. and the stories coming out of kentucky and the stories coming out from illinois are as graphic as can be. samantha who lives in kentucky writes, "i'm in desperate need of help. i've been unemployed since january 31, 2007, cannot find work anywhere. i was laid off after ten years of employment. i was able to get 26 weeks of u.i. benefits. after these ran out, i thought i needed to just take whatever job

i could find. i took a job that i was told would be full-time at minimum wage. i never got more than 20 hours a week. when i asked my employer, i was told i would get more hours. i was forced to quit due to not being able to afford child care and transportation. i still cannot find work. i've been forced to sign up for government assistance. this is not enough to live on. i have three children" -- talk about 40 grandchildren. this lady has three children -- "i'm trying to support and we've already lost our home. is there anything i can do to try and qualify for unemployme unemployment?" i mean, for goodness sakes, why would we want to make this deficit battle on the backs of samantha from kentucky? let's have this battle out on the budget resolution. let's have it out on appropriations bills. but on unemployment benefits? for someone in this circumstan circumstance? that to me is pushing it too far. this is a national emergency. it should be treated as such.

i'm supportive of the commission which we voted for here. it had 53 votes but i believe it's a step in the right direction toward resolving our deficit difficulties. the majority leader has appointed me as a member of the presidential commission on deficit and debt. it's not an easy assignment. i take it seriously. but i'll tell ya, if the belief is that we can somehow deny enough unemployment benefits to people to balance the budget, i don't want to see what america will look like and i can't imagine what it will look like with samantha and her three children if that becomes our national strategy. a senator: would my friend yield for a question? mr. durbin: i would be happy to yield to the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. i would first ask if i might ask a question, because would the senator from illinois agree that we need choices here every day about what, in fact, we're going to do and there is no question that the deficit is a huge issue. but i, along with you, have a reaction this evening listening

to my friend from kentucky, who is my friend. we've worked together on a number of different issues. but to hear that somehow, when there hasn't been a concern about rising deficits deficits e were talking about tax benefits for the wealthiest americans that didn't have to be paid for but now we're talking about those who find themselves through no fault of their own without a job, who are trying to hold it together in one of the worst economies certainly of my lifetime and that somehow we are now, now we're going to worry about balancing the budget and the deficit on the backs of the least of our brethren. i mean, that's really what is being talked about tonight. and i find it outrageous that we'd be having this kind of discussion. and would my friend agree that, in fact, there are other choices

and -- and that, in fact, when we have the debate about extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, i want to hear the same debate and the same objection coming as is coming to people right now who are trying to hold it together for $200 or $300 a week and keep food on the table for their families. would my colleague agree? mr. durbin: i agree with the senator from michigan, and i will tell you that because the senator from kentucky has noted our current national debt, which is $14 trillion, i think it is worth a moment to explain that debt and how we reached that astronomic figure. when president george w. bush became president of the united states, we had a national debt of $5 trillion and handed him a surplus. as president clinton when he left off gave to president george w. bush a surplus. at the end of the george w. bush presidency eight years later, we were knocking on the door of

$12 trillion in debt. we had more than doubled the national debt in eight years. how did that happen? some of it from circumstances beyond president bush's control. 9/11 devastated the economy and that devastation cost us dearly in terms of jobs and services and businesses and revenue lost. but conscious decisions were made by the george w. bush administration to enact tax cuts in the midst of a war. that has never happened before in the history of the united states. it is counterintuitive. in addition to your ordinary budget of your country, you have a war budget on top of it. when you desperately need revenue to pay for that war and the ordinary expenses of your government, this administration -- the previous administration under george w. bush said let's give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the midst of those two wars. and they were voted on by the other side of the aisle, who

supported the idea, driving us deeper in debt as a nation. and, of course, we waged the wars under president bush without paying for them. that, too, added to our national debt. another $00 billion -- another $400 billion added to the debt with the medicare prescription drug program, which was not paid for. so when this president came to office, he inherited not only a recession but $12 trillion in national debt brought on by the previous administration. the recession has taken -- added another trillion dollars to that debt in this last year and we are trying to claw our way out of it. now, that's the reality and the history of how we reached this point of $14 trillion in debt. and to suggest it's the democratic side of the aisle that doesn't take the deficit seriously, i would say we produced a surplus under president clinton, a surplus that was handed to president george w. bush and quickly mushroomed into the biggest debt in the history of the united states of america.

mr. sessions: mr. , would the senator yield for a question? mr. durbin: i would be happy to yield for a question to the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: the senator from illinois is very eloquent in his add assess, but i think he's -- advocacy, but i think he's avoiding the question posed by senator bunning, who simply says he's prepared tonight to fund the programs that you wish, to have them be -- go forward, as i understand it, isn't it true he said that if you take this $10 billion, i think it is, that's required to fund this program and you fund it out of the $400 billion unspent from the stimulus -- a large part of it was supposed to be for this very purpose -- that he would let the bill go tonight. and what he objects to is not doing that and which, in effect, means, does it not, that the debt will be increased again tonight by another $10 billion? mr. durbin: in response to the senator from alabama, there's

one element that he's forgotten to include and that is that the majority leader, senator reid, offered to the senator from kentucky a vote, an up-or-down vote as to whether or not these unemployment benefits and cobra benefits would be paid for out of stimulus funds and he rejected it. he said, i don't want to agree to that because i may lose the vote. and he may. i still hold the floor. regular order. regular order. mr. bunning: regular order. my quotes -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois has the floor. mr. bunning: thank you. mr. durbin: and would the senator from kentucky would not agree to a vote on that question, he said, i may lose it. well, he may. he may win it. but the fact is he wouldn't agree to a vote. he said, you have to put in this unanimous consent request a provision that says this will be paid for. now, i would say to the senator from alabama -- let me complete it and i'll be happy to yield to another question -- understand that the remaining stimulus funds, most of which are already

committed and obligated, will be spent this year on projects in alabama and illinois and kentucky to create jobs. so the money we take out of that stimulus fund now unspent is money that will not be spent to create jobs across america. now, that, to me, would be a misfortune, because we want to create jobs. i will concede to you that this money for unemployment will add to the deficit, as previous emergency spending for unemployment has as well. what we're asking for tonight has been the ordinary course of business which the senator from kentucky supported as recently as november. mr. sessions: well, the question -- mr. durbin: i yield for the purpose only of a question. mr. sessions: we're well aware that the democrats have a sizable majority in this body, and if the democratic leadership, including yourself, are committed to paying -- not paying for this and taking care of this appropriation by borrowing additional money from

the world, on which we pay interest, then it's likely to be a futile act to have this vote. he's asking you to step up to the plate, as i understand it, is he not, and say join with me, and let's pay for it, either through the stimulus or some other way, and let's not keep asking debt? because that's what the american people are asking me, and i ask you, are you not hearing that from your constituents? mr. durbin: i'm hearlg from my -- hearing from my constituents that they want jobs and they're unemployed. i will yield for a question as soon as i finish my response here. and i would say to the senator from alabama, we may have 59 votes but you know, as well as i do, that 60 votes are the coin of the realm in this body. and you also know that with very little parliamentary effort, you can drag out this whole question through motions to proceed and cloture and filibusters. it could go on literally for days, if not weeks. and i ask the senator from alabama, why would we do that in a situation where these people

desperately need help for unemployment assistance and for health insurance? why do we want to -- why do we want to heap this misery on them? we said to the senator from kentucky, you can have a vote. you may win, you may lose, you'll have your day on the floor of the senate. and he said no, unless you accept my way, go to the highw highway. did i hear that earlier? as farm concerned, that is not a reasonable approach. i've called amendments opbd floor, and you have too, and lost them. but the point is you make your best case, and the senate decides whether to support your position or not. and, so i -- mr. sessions: i thank the senator from i will now for allowing me to ask those questions. i just think the senator from kentucky is speaking on behalf of the conscience of a lot of americans. a lot of americans, a majority of americans if they heard this debate. and i think he's doing it as a matter of principle. and i know he has no desire to see people not receive

unemployment compensation. he's willing to support that. he's simply saying enough's enough, as i understand it. don't you agree? mr. bunning: i have a question for the senator. mr. durbin: i yield to the senator from kentucky for a question. mr. bunning: the press release that you read from was about an unemployment insurance extension that was fully paid for. fully paid for. so don't compare apples to oranges. mr. durbin: i say to the senator from kentucky, i will verify. i was given information it was not. if i'm incorrect, i will state so in the record. we have extended unemployment benefits -- mr. bunning: i agree with that too. i understand that. i have voted for that occasionally. but this one that you read from was fully paid for. mr. durbin: i will check on

that. if the senator is correct, i will make that point in the record. i would also like to notify the senator from kentucky about joann in a from ferguson, kentucky, who wrote i've been laid off since 2008. when i was laid off i lost my health insurance coverage. the cobra plan offered cost so much, i could not keep the insurance. i was told if business picks up in the spring, i could get called back to work. since i was laid off from the concrete company there have been two other personnel laid off this past january, so i do i'll be called back to work. i'm 58 years old. i have a high school education, finding it extremely difficult to find a job even though i applied for work and registered with the local unemployment office. i'm not one to seek after handouts. however i've worked all my adult life and paid taxes as most everyone else has and i do not expect favors from anyone. i'm completely down and out and can hardly pay bills, buy food, et cetera, let alone medical expenses. my husband has insurance through

his employment but the cost to add me on to his plan is so high we can't afford it. also, he makes $10 an hourbgs so it isn't -- an hour, and so it isn't as if we have an abundance of money to live on. i'm a very economic person. it's hard to imagine why we would say no to unemployment benefits to joetta. it seems to me if we want to fight this budget battle and deficit battle, why would we put her in the cross-fire of this conversation? why wouldn't we extend these unemployment benefits for her and for thousands like her in illinois and kentucky and other states? i would say -- i will be happy to yield to the senator from oregon for a question. a senator: have we paid for the tax cuts offered to the wealthiest americans?

mr. durbin: under george w. bush, no. mr. merkley: as a new senator, been here over a year now, but i don't recall in january of 2009 when i arrived any member stood up and said i'm going to hold up everything right now until we pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest. did that happen in january? did i miss that? mr. durbin: it did not happen. i don't think it ever happened. it is an indication that when it comes to giving relief to those who are in a pretty luxurious state, we don't pay for it. mr. merkley: it sounds like you share my memory because i don't remember it in january of 2009. i don't remember it in february of 2009. i don't remember it in march 2009. i don't remember it in april or may or june or july or august or september or october, november, december or january of this year or this month. now, i'm confused. i'm confused that the principle

has been put forward tonight that there is a reason to hold up a program that hasn't been paid for. even if we haven't been here late into the evening having to discuss about paying for those tax cuts, are there members of this body who have held up affairs over these last few months saying it's time to take care of paying for those tax cuts for the wealthiest americans? mr. durbin: tpho*ep. there are some who are -- no. there are some trying to extend estate tax benefits to even the wealthiest of the wealthy and to give them additional assistance and argue that tax cuts should not be paid for. mr. merkley: the principle being presented tonight is that if you are fortunate to be among the wealthiest americans, that we will give you additional benefits, and it doesn't matter

if we pay for them. but if you are among the most unfortunate of americans who have lost their jobs -- and when you lost your jobs, you might well have lost your health care that went with your job -- if you are struggling, then it matters that it's paid for immediately. mr. durbin: i would agree with the senator from oregon. it is a double standard and it's one that benefits those who are wealthy as opposed to those who are out of work. mr. merkley: it's a double standard that bothers me a great deal. we here in this chamber, we're fortunate enough to receive a paycheck. but back home, i have a tremendous number of families, working families in oregon who are not going to get a paycheck. i have unemployment in crook county of 16.8%. i have unemployment in douglas county of 14.9%. in harney county, 15.5% and

schutz14.5%, jefferson county 14.1%, in josephine county, 13.6%. these are counties where more than one in eight people are out of work. and am i to say to my good citizens back home that if you are among the most fortunate, we will give you additional benefits unpaid for. but if you're down and out, that it's just too bad that there's -- we're going to hold up everything and say we're not going to help you? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from oregon, that is exactly what's happened with this objection. objection to extend unemployment benefits for 30 days. that's all we're asking for -- 30 days. mr. merkley: if i understand right, there is complete opportunity to have a debate 30 days from now. we could have had the debate tonight. there could have been a vote tonight. it was offered, but turned down.

and there will be opportunities throughout this next month. but we're going to cut people off at the worst moment here in the united states senate because one senator says "i'm happy about unfunded gifts to the most fortunate. but i'm determined not to help people who are down and out"? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from oregon, that is exactly what happened. when it came to the tax cuts, they weren't paid for. and they went primarily to the wealthiest people in america. now unemployment benefits, not paid for, are objected to. mr. merkley: i want to say to the senator from illinois, i am deeply disturbed that one could be so disconnected from the challenges of working americans as to have us in a situation we're in at this moment. mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from oregon, this is a comment from sharon who is also from kentucky. she writes "i've worked since the age of 15.

i hold two m.a. address and worked a full- and part-time job for 15 years. i entered the private sector until my position was eliminated approximately 14 months ago. gas prices almost prevented my seeking kphroeuplt very far from home -- employment very far from home. at 55, i never thought i'd be without health care or have difficulty finding a job. my spouse was also employed by the company which downsized twice in one year. he is also unemployed. we live in rural, which is a more rural -- we live in kentucky. our state typically has a high unemployment rate as well. an extension of unemployment insurance would be a lifeline." that lifeline has been cut off by the objection of the senator from kentucky. i yield to the senator from vermont for purposes of a question. mr. sanders: i thank the senator for yielding. we have talked about the fact that unemployment today and economic suffering is probably

greater than any time since the great depression of the 1930's. but i wonder if the senator from illinois is aware that the problem is not just high unemployment, but long-term unemployment. that in fact i believe we are, have never seen in modern history the length of time in which people are unemployed as is currently the case. would the senator concur that what we're looking now is a modern tragedy in terms of the length of time that people are experiencing unemployment? mr. durbin: i would agree with the senator from vermont. you have to go back 70 or 80 years to the great depression to see this long period of unemployment in this country. mr. sanders: i wanted to ask the senator another question. you just mentioned a moment ago, my recollection is that a number of months ago there was a vote here on the floor of the senate regarding the repeal of the estate tax.

my understanding is that that vote to repeal a significant part of the estate tax would have benefited, as i recall, the top .3% of our population. 99.7% of the people would not have benefited at all. my understanding is -- my memory, and i could be wrong, but my understanding is if that legislation, that bill, that amendment had passed, it would have cost our government about $1 trillion in a ten-year period. $1 trillion in benefits to the top .3%. can my friend from illinois remind me as to how many republicans voted against giving $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top .3% that was not paid for? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from vermont, i do not recall but i think he might recall. does he? mr. sanders: my suspicion -- i

won't swear -- is that every republican. i don't recall that any republican did not. my recollection is that all republicans voted to repeal the estate tax, voted for that legislation. some democrats did as well. but i find it remarkable, picking up on the point that the senator from oregon made a moment ago, here we were talking about $1 trillion over a ten-year period to benefit the top .3%. i don't recall hearing anybody saying, hey, we have a huge national debt. we can't afford another $1 trillion. but somehow when it comes to desperate people who are hanging on by their finger nails trying to keep their families afloat in the most serious economic moment since the great depression of the 1930's, somehow, aha, right now that has got to be paid for. got to pay for $10 billion, but

somehow you don't have to pay for $1 trillion over a ten-year period. now, i don't quite understand that. maybe my friend from illinois can elucidate me on it. mr. durbin: i would say in response to the question from the senator from vermont, i do not understand it. it is hard for me to follow the logic that we need to reward those who are the most comfortable in america and punish those who are suffering. that is what this objection does, by denying unemployment benefits and cobra benefits to those who are out of work, it literally makes their lives more difficult. yet, the same -- many of the same people have argued that thaoers tax breaks that -- that these are tax breaks for the wealthy that should be considered as part of our future even if they're not paid for. i don't follow the logic behind that position in any way whatsoever. mr. sanders: for the record, i was corrected. the sum was $350 billion over ten years, not $1 trillion.

nonetheless, $350 billion benefitting the top .3% is a sizable chunk of cash. and i am -- it is somewhat in amazement that we recall that nobody at that point was terribly worried about how that was going to be paid tpofrplt i thank the senator from illinois. mr. casey: would the senator from illinois yield for a question? mr. durbin: i will. skaeus this is the national -- mr. casey: this is the national kphroeuplt law project, february 2010. one of the columns highlights the total number of individuals exhausting their unemployment benefits in the month of march. i don't know if the senator from illinois quoted this number earlier. i don't think he did. but the total for the month of march would be, in illinois, 65,431 people. in my home state of pennsylvania, the total would be not quite that hikers but 62,599

people. maybe didn't know those numbers, but it leads me to a second question. i had the opportunity a couple weeks ago to sit with 8 of the 560,000 people in my state who are out of work. in pennsylvania, that 560,000 adds up to 8.9% of the workforce. an incredibly high number. maybe not a record but very close to a record. those eight individuals were like every one of the people in this country who lost their job, didn't lose their job through anything they did. through no fault of their own, they're out of work. i'd ask the senator from illinois about what he has seen and heard from individuals you've sat down with in illinois that have lost their job and are going to job centers in and places like it to fill out

unemployment forms, fill out job applications. i'd ask you about that. mr. durbin: i've been to -- i'd say to the senator from pennsylvania in response to a question through the chair, that i've been to unemployment centers in chicago and down throughout the state. i'm always heartened by the fact that these people are just not going to give up. they really keep trying. but you can tell that many of them are beat j down. some of them tell me about how many times they now alie now a e internet. they consider it a victory to get a response they just keep trying every singles day. mean bhil they're trying keep their families together. and the only lifeline they have is unemployment insurance checks and it isn't a lot of money. $1,100 a month. imagine trying to live on it -- that's a very meager amount of money, particularly for someone who's used to a larger paycheck and more comfort in life. why would i would cut off the

$1,100 a month to those people at this moment in time when the economy is so weak? i don't understand why we'd to be providing unemployment benefits to these people, whether they're in pennsylvania or kentucky or illinois. i mean, in my way of thinking, many of these foams are in this situation through no fault of their own, and they are trying their best to turn their lives around, and it is not an easy circumstance for any of them. mr. casey: they call it career link, the job center, those eight individuals -- all but one, but maybe even the one of those eight people were in their 50's, 60's, or 70's. never -- in most instances, maybe five out of the eight, maybe six out of eight, had never lost their job, had never had to depend on unemployment insurance, food stamps, any kind of help. one woman felt ashamed that she has to apply for food stamps. never had to be that reliant on anything.

one woman -- another woman by the name of debbie t said to me, we just want to get back to work. there was no complaining. but i want to ask you as well, you referred earlier to another part of this discussion, which is we focus on those who need this unemployment insurance and we're talking here just about a 30-day extension -- we're not talking about providing this for years or a long period of time -- but you mentioned about the economic impact of the spend of these dollars. i don't know if you're familiar with what mark sedan -- the economist had -- what mark zandi, the economy, had talked about. mr. durbin: i am aware that economists -- i am aware that the c.b.o. recently reported that the one thing we could do to generate more economic activity in our economy that's better than anything else is

unemployment assistance. number one on their list. they talked about tax credits for new jobs in small businesses. but number-one was unemployment assistance. as we cut back on unemployment assistance, the economy starts to go into a stall. we're not putting money back into the economy. we're pulling it out. at a time when the federal reserve is trying to keep interest rates low to generate more economic activity and move us forward, we are pushing against t we are taking unemployment assistance out because of the objection of the senator from kentucky, one senator who has objected. and so from an economist's viewpoint, we're doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing to get this economy moving again. mr. casey: the reference to the congressional budget office, who has been the referee or the arbiter of what is used as a number for health care, what pproximatelies are for spending -- what projections are for spending, i heard the summary of that same report on the house

side at a joint economic committee meeting. but the reference i made earlier is a very similar analysis by mark zandi. mark zandi is an economist for moodys.com. he happened to be an advisor to john mccain's presidential campaign. he is not some partisan in this debate. he sid going back a year ago when we were debating the recovery bill, whether to enact it or not, he said if you spentdz $1 on unemployment insurance, i think it was $1.60 to the $1.70 range back. so this isn't only a question of whether so we help people who've lost their job through no fault of their own. the secondary benefit is it can help people who are out of work and need a stimulated economy, need an economy that is junch started by the -- that is jump-started by the spending that we would provide through unemployment insurance. so it makes no sense. there are lots of, as the senator from illinois said

earlier, there are lots of ways to make the argument that our friend from kentucky is making. but this is not the time or the place when all we're talking about is a 30-day extension of unemployment insurance for people who through no fault of their own lost their job. it makes no sense. and as i look at these numbers in pennsylvania of 62,599 people losing -- or will lose, if he prevails -- losing their unemployment insurance in the month of march, it makes no sense. mr. durbin: i thank the senator from pennsylvania. the senator from alaska, i yield for a question. mr. begich: i. thank you very much. i have a couple with regards to the bill. i will probably have more later. remind me what the unemployment rate is for the country now? mr. durbin: on a national basis? i believe it is now just slightly below 10 important a national basis. in my state it is over 11%. mr. begich: in your state it is 11%. in my state it is 9%.

similar, i would ask you, in your state -- and i will lay out a couple points here. in my state, 9%, which is one of the largest in years for us, the highest numbers for us in a long ways. but when you look at it by region -- and i'm curious in your state if it has similar impacts. 9% is a lot. but at the aleigh lou shan east burrow, it is 20.2%. in bethel it is 14.8%. in aleutians west burrow, it is 13.7%. northwest arctic burrow, 12.8%. the key eye burrow, 12.3%. matsu, 10.4%. even though the number is large for our state, one of the highest in many, many years, it really doesn't tell the story. is your number in your state -- do you have similar circumstances that are regionally higher than theage of for the state?

mr. durbin: the senator from alaska, rockford, in the north end, it was as high as 15%. it doesn't tell the whole story because as they say, some people get discouraged when they're out of work and they don't get counted on these rolls any more. so the actual unemployment rate is much higher. now, these people won't affected by our action tonight because they're not in the program, they're not receiving unemployment assistance. but the actual misery index of people unemployed over a long period of time is even higher. mr. begich: they've lost faith. mr. durbin: they've lost faith and they've stopped trying. i would say to the senator from alaska that when i look at the state of kentucky, here is allen county with 13.9% unemployment. bath county, 15.7% unemployment. carroll county, 13.8% in kentucky. clay county, 13.3% unemployment.

cumberland county in kentucky, 13.4%. edmondson county, 14.3%. elliott county, 13.0%. estel county, 12.7%. flemming county in kentucky, 12.4%. floyd county, 12.3%. fulton county, 14%. galeton county, 13%. jeer prard county, 12%. grant county, 11.2%. graves county, 10.6%. grayson county, 16%, one of the highest. greene county, 12%. harden county, 10.1%. harlin county, 12.5%. jackson county -- this is even higher -- 17.8%. on this page as i look through here, the highest appears to be -- and i may mispronounce this in kentucky -- mcgoughin

county, 121%. the list goes on and on. mccareerry county, 14 boy 1%. mead county, 14.3%. minefy county, 17. 5%. metcalf county, 14.4%. morgan county, 15.1%. powell county, 16.9%. trigg county, 16.5%. wolf county, 16.6%. the senator from alaska is right. the average doesn't tell the story. there will be pockets in kentucky, illinois, and alaska of much higher unemployment. so when we cult off the benefits because of the objection from the senator from kentucky, as of sunday night, some of these counties will be hit harder than others. there's no question about that. mr. begich: i will ask -- if i could read something toward a question and as you drill down, that's what beer doing here little bit. your answer to my question is what i wanted to ask and make

sure i was clear on. that it is not just the average that we should always be thinking about, but how do we drill down. when i got back from my break, i received this e-mail -- i'm sure you have; that's going to be my question -- about what kind of response have you gotten from those that are unemployed. "i implore you as your first order of business upon your return from the snow" -- which i thought was very interesting -- in recess to extend the emergency unemployment benefits until the end of 2010. they are due expire at the end of the february." "thank you." thanking me in advance for something that this gentleman believes we'll do, because it is right. this gentleman who is 46 years old, a professional in the legal field, has tried 30 different jobs. has had two interviews, still unable to get a job. jeff from eagle river. i won't use his last name. but just to ready this letter tells me, why are we not doing this i am a new member. i am like the senator from oregon. i.f.r. been here a little over a year. just the same question he had on

the literally $1 trillion that was unfunded given to the richest of the rich, has never been revoked or changed but funded by -- and who? -- not by this body but on the backs of people like my son who is 7 1/2 years old, who will pay for the richest of the rich -- i call it a tax scheme, not a tax cut. that is outrageous when i think about it. and i associate my comments with the senator from oregon, as a new member. you know, this is -- i want to say, not necessarily new to me, but being here in the chamber and wasmg this process over the last year and a half, this to me seems so simple. these are the people that are hurting the most. and yet bh it comes time to do a small item, a $10 billion extension to allow them to to make sure come monday they know they can provide, as this gentleman here that's 46 years old is just shocking to me and unbelievable. i guess d.c. -- i'm assuming the

senator from illinois receives these same kinds of letters every day from people who are stressed and concerned and they're not out there looking for a handout. they're looking at someone in our position to assist them in this unbelievable rescission that we're facing. is that similar to what you receive? mr. durbin: it is exactly what i've run into. here is a letter from a man from yorkville, illinois, on bailout after bail jut for businesses. my tax dollars have been used to save companies that should have planned better in the first place. now i am unemployed, not because i made some poor decision like a.i.g. or citigroup but because in today's comirks the company i worked for folded. if the senate cannot preach an agreement to extend unemployment, myself, my wife and our two young children will have nowhere to live other than our car. talk about bailout for those of us americans that have worked all our lives and can't get a decent job. i'm begging you to stand up in front of the senate, demand that congress work harder for those

of us who put you in office. the next time you need our vote, hopefully the 10% of unemployed americans will not have had their cars repo ssessed so we'll be able to make it to athe local polling place." kephe kept a sense of humor. this is an example of a man who now is contemplating living in his car. and now we are saying because the objection of one senator that we're not going to provide unemployment benefits to thousands of people in similar situations as of sunday night. why we are doing this to these poor people at this moment in time is impossible to explain. mr. begich: i thank the senator. i i have other questions, but i notice there are other others sg to ask questions. and there's the medicare component. i'll hold and ask these questions in a few minutes. mr. durbin: i thank the senator from alaska. the senator from rhode island, i yield for a question. mr. whitehouse: thank you. i appreciate the senator from

illinois yielding for, if you wouldn't mind, a series of questions. the first question has to do with the -- i guess i'd say the sense with which we on this side of the aisle should receive the protestations of intense concern about the deficit that come from the other side of the aisle. and it relates back to when the previous republican administration first took office, as the senator from illinois mentioned. the last democratic administration left an annual budget in surplus, and a nation that had a $5 trillion debt. but my recollection is that in addition to a nation in annual budget surplus, what president clinton also left the republican administration that followed was a budget trajectory projected by

the nonpartisan congressional budget office to eliminate the national debt of the united states of america. we would be a debt-free nation if the democratic policies of president clinton had been followed according to the nonpartisan professional congressional budget office. and if i additionally recall, there were actually economic debates that were provoked by that, wondering whether it was actually a good idea for the nation to be, for the first time the president andrew jackson, to be debt-free. so my question is, is it not true that it was not just a surplus that was left by the democrats to the republicans, what was left was a trajectory that would have left the nation debt-free had he extended those

democratic policies? mr. durbin: the senator from rhode island is correct, and the senator from kentucky, who's talked about our nation's deficit and debt, should realize that when president clinton left office in january of 2001, the gnash budget was in better -- my the national budget was in better shape than it had been in a generation. in fiscal year 2000, the final year in which president clinton had full responsibility for the national budget, our nation's budget surplus was $236 billion. budget surplus. that year the dealt held by the public declined for the third consecutive year. as president clinton left offi office, budget surpluses were projected to continue throughout the next ten years. the c.b.o., congressional budget office, in its january 2001 budget and economic outlook, projected surpluses of $5 trillion from 2001-2010, including nearly $800 billion in 2010 alone. those surpluses were so large, as the senator from rhode island

indicated, that the congressional budget office told us that the debt held by the public would be entirely paid off by 2006. now, fast forward eight years and the end of the president george w. bush presidency, administration, and that national debt had climbed from $5 trillion that he inherented to more than double that amount. mr. whitehouse: the question that i was asking is: is it not fair to ascribe to that republican administration and its policies responsibility for more than just the difference between $5 trillion and $12 trillion, because if those policies hadn't changed, according to the nonpartisan, newt rag, professional congressional -- neutral, professional congressional budget office, during the term of president bush, we would have actually been a debt-free nation and, therefore, responsibility for the entire federal debt that was inherited by president obama can fairly be said to be put at

the responsibility of the policies of the other side of the aisle? mr. durbin: the senator from rhode island is correct. i don't know how the senator from kentucky voted when it came to the tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't know his volt so -- voo i won't presume to state it on the floor. i don't know if he voted for the annual budgets to pay -- to prolong the wars in iraq and afghanistan without paying for them. i don't know how he voted on the medicare prescription drug benefit that was not paid for, at least a $400 billion cost. i will acknowledge he was correct that the unemployment that i referred to in november was paid for. i want that clear on the record and i stand corrected and acknowledge that to the senator from kentucky. but i would say that his party -- mr. bunning bunning: will the sr from i will he will yield? mr. durbin: i will yield after one more question from the senator from rhode island. but i will say, when it came to his party position, tonight we hear this idea of fiscal conservatism, strict spending, punish those who are unemployed,

take money away from those who have been out of work in order to bring down this budget deficit. but, boy, for eight years under president george w. bush, you certainly didn't hear this sentiment expressed when it came to people who were so well-off across our country. the senator from rhode island, i yield for a question. mr. whitehouse: in evaluating this concern about the deficit, and we've just determined that the policies of the other side of the aisle contributed to virtually all of the national debt that we now carry, ten let's look to the -- then let's look to the situation now, because i think we understand that we have to fix this deficit problem. and the distinguished senator from illinois earlier mentioned a vehicle for trying to do this which was the establishment of a statutory deficit commission. and my recollection is that the votes were inadequate for that

in significant part because on the republican side of the ais aisle, seven of our colleagues whose names were on that plan as cosponsors of it voted against the bill that they had cosponsored for a mechanism that would potentially at least have provided a vehicle for resolving some of our deficit concerns. my question is, is that also the recollection of the senator from illinois, and how in the light of this debate about the budget deficit and the fact that the budget deficit is so important that it is worth forcing honest, hard-working, when they can find work, americans into their cars to sleep -- as the senator from illinois has said -- out of their homes, into peniary, why

is it not important enough for our friends on the other side of the aisle to support legislation of which they were cosponsors and what was the motivation for that? mr. durbin: i would say in response to the senator from rhode island, for those who have not been following this debate from its beginning, tonight we are speaking to the fact that the senator from kentucky, senator bunning, has objected to extending unemployment benefits for 30 days in the united states to those who are out of work and he can tending cobra benefits which helps pay for health insurance for 30 days, in addition to other items, and has stated as his reason his concern about the budget deficit. and i don't know how the senator from kentucky voted on this commission but i do remember it well, because senator kent conrad, the chairman of the senate budget committee, came to me and said that he had worked out an agreement with senator judd gregg, a republican, that they would try to create a commission which would take a look at our national deficit and

make recommendations to congress which we would then have to vote on. and it was controversial, that's for sure. but when it was called for a vote, it ended up with i believe 53 votes and fell short of passage because seven republican senators who had cosponsored the measure initially voted against it. cosponsors and voted against it. they're -- and it included the republican minority leader. their determination to deal with the deficit and the debt withered away and disappeared when they had a chance to vote for it on the floor. i don't know how the senator from kentucky voted so i won't characterize his vote on it. but here was a chance for the republicans to join the democrats and deal with deficit and debt and they walked away. seven of them turned their back on a bill they had cosponsored and walked away from it. mr. whitehouse: will the indulgence of the senator from kentucky, if i may ask my final question, if we have established that it was the bush administration, republican policies that created virtually

all of the national debt that we now carry and if we've established that when the mechanism that many believe would be the best vehicle to address the deficit was abandoned by our friends on the other side in significant measure, even those who had cosponsored it, thus preventing it from passing, what am i supposed to tell carol tamasian from north providence? she is unemployed. she's a rhode islander. she has worked hard all her li life. she went to work first as a teenager. she eventually got married, she started a family, she got a college degree to increase her earning potential, she bought a home, her family lived in the home, and she did everything right pursuing the american

dream. two years ago, when the rhode island economy collapsed -- and it collapsed in rhode island sooner than in other states. we've been in recession for a long time now. she was laid off from her job as a construction project manager. and she hasn't been able to find work since. she is struggling to keep her family together. she's a single mom now. she's raising a 12-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter. she has all those responsibilities of teenager parenthood. she's also trying to care for her disabled mother. she's got a bachelor's degree in business administration, she's got an associate's degree in architecture. she's a capable, trained, hard-working woman. and because she's out of work, her car has been repossessed, making it so much more difficult to try to find work, and it is unemployment insurance that is keeping her family together.

and this will cut 309 rhode islanders in our small state right off, and in another few them this principle that they months to will cut up to 1,500 people right off. how am i supposed to explain to need to suffer because of our budget deficit when the party that is forcing that suffering on them did more to run up our national deficit than ever, has obstructed the vehicle that would have started to work to fix the deficit, and is absolutely silent about the deficit when millionaires and multimillionaires and billionaires are given tax breaks? how can i explain that? what did i tell her? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from rhode island, there is no explanation because it doesn't make sense. you certainly couldn't explain to this woman, who has worked so hard throughout her entire life and now faces this misfortune,

that we are heaping additional misfortune on her because of this objection to extending unemployment benefits. in your state, i know it's small in comparison to so many others, but you're likely to meet some of these 309 people or hear from them when their unemployment benefits are cut off. i'm sure my office will hear t too. and i wouldn't know how to explain to them that the senator from kentucky has objected to a 30-day extension of unemployment benefits. it just -- i mean, if we're going to fight this war on the deficit and debt, why fight it on the backs of unemployed people such as the one we've just heard described in the state of rhode island? mr. bunning: will you give me a chance to respond? you've had the floor for an hour and a half. mr. durbin: i would be happy to yield for a question from the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: question, okay. if all the other things that have been said on the other side are true, all of the programs

that you have talked about could have been extended and for much longer periods if senator reid, your leader, had not blown up the bipartisanship job bill agreed to by the secretary -- by the head of the finance committee and the ranking memb member, baucus and grassley, and jammed through his own bill, which we talked about. and all the spending portions of that compromise -- of those programs that you're talking about -- were paid for in that bill. now, explain that to the american people. mr. durbin: i would be happy to. the senator from kentucky has not stated 100% accurately what

happened. mr. bunning: oh, he has. mr. durbin: because in the original proposal from the finance committee, the unemployment benefits were extended for three months, as i understand it. the tax -- mr. bunning: they were paid for. mr. durbin: well, let me explain. there was a source of revenue for the bill but it wasn't enough to pay for the entire bill. the source of revenue was enough for those who wanted to say, well, this will pay for unemployment, to point to it, and those who wanted to say, no, it pays for another part of the bill. so it did not pay -- mr. bunning: that's your interpretation. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois has the floor. mr. durbin durbin: no, it -- mr. bunning bunning: he yieldede for a question. mr. durbin: i yielded for a question and i answered the question, but i yield for another question. mr. bunning: okay. it's been brought up in this debate that the balanced budget amendment and the balanced budget is a product of the

clinton administration. now, you know that to be false. do you know anything about how the balanced budget bill was brought to the floor of the u.s. house of representatives? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from kentucky, i was not serve on the senate -- mr. bunning: i was serving on the budget committee. mr. durbin: what has been said on the floor and i stand behind is the fact that when president william clinton left office, he left a budget in balance and in surplus. mr. bunning: yes. that's only because -- mr. durbin: i yield for a further question from the senator. mr. bunning: that's only because representative john kasich and the budget committee that he chaired in the house for three years in a row brought a balanced budget bill to the floor of the u.s. house of

representatives -- and i was a member of that budget committee. the first two years, the clinton administration rejected the balanced budget bill. and in the third year, instead of getting run over by the train, president william jefferson clinton got on the train and agreed that the balanced budget bill should be passed. and then the senate concurred, and we balanced the budget. it took a little bit, but we did. and that's where the surplus came from. a republican's idea. john kasich of ohio who brought a balanced budget to the floor. mr. durbin: is it clear -- mr. bunning: the questions i've got are -- i wanted to

straighten my good friend from rhode island out. mr. durbin: if that was a question, it is a clear instance of bipartisanship, and we could use a little bit more of it around here. mr. bunning: correct. even the fact that our president -- somebody talked about extending tax cuts to the wealthy and talked about extending tax cuts and the fact that nobody on the floor of this senate explained to me. we're 60 democrats and 40 republicans. why someone on the democrat side of the aisle didn't make a bill that would rescind those tax cuts. your president, our president, wants to extend 85% of those

same tax cuts without paying for them. he's got a bill in this budget to do just that. you explain that -- one more. your president also wants to pass a $250 billion estate tax bill also without paying for it. that's right. well, it is right. just look it up. i'm on the budget committee, so i see these bills. are you on the budget committee? mr. durbin: no, i'm not. i yield further for a question. mr. bunning: the gentleman in the chair is, so he knows what's been proposed. yes. mr. durbin: do you have a question? i yield for purposes of a question. mr. bunning: the question i asked you about the 60-40, i didn't hear anybody answer that. the gentleman from oregon's gone, and he was the the guy who

posed the question. mr. durbin: this is a great debate. i think we ought to continue this debate. but can we remove from the audience the millions of americans who will not have unemployment checks as of sunday night because of your interest in this issue? i mean, when you think about this for a minute, we ought to really be engaged in this, and you and i ought to stay up late if we have to to talk it over and talk about what we should do. but why are we leaving these unemployed people in kentucky and illinois in the middle of this debate? these people have nothing to do with what happened with john kasich of columbus, ohio, or what happened with president william jefferson clinton. they are trying to provide some food for their families in the morning. and instead, we have dragged them into the middle of this deficit and debt debate. for those who have just tuned in to this conversation, the senator from kentucky has objected to extending unemployment benefits for 30 days and cobra benefits, which

pay for health insurance for the unemployed, for 30 days. and because of his objection, the only senator to object, i will find 15,000 people in my state of illinois as of sunday night losing their unemployment benefits. if you wonder why i'm still on the floor at 10:20 p.m. here in washington on thursday night, after a pretty long day, it's because i thought to myself how in the world can i walk away from this chamber, go home and relax, realizing that 15,000 people come sunday night in my state of illinois are going to get cut off from unemployment benefits. i'll be happy to yield to the senator from missouri for a questions. mrs. mccaskill: we've been talking about whether tax cuts were paid for or not. let's talk about some other things that weren't paid for. and that's what this is really about. as the senator knows -- in fact, i know the senator from illinois gets irritated at me sometimes because i am constantly trying

to figure out ways that we can be more fiscally responsible around here. i sometimes swim upstream on some of those things. in fact, i was one of the cosponsors of paygo. in fact, paygo was in place in the 1990's, and it was allowed to expire in congress. in 2000 or 2001, 2002, in the early years of the bush administration when the republican had the majorities, they let it go. they said they didn't need paygo anymore. and this is probably the most glaring example. and it really just gets in my craw because i now hear so much about fiscal responsibility. and as we struggle with this

health care bill, making sure that we pay for it, i look back at medicare-d. now that's a lollapalossa right there, medicare-d. i'm wondering if the senator from illinois remembers what the vote was on the budget to waive the budget act on medicare-d. mr. durbin: i do not. mrs. mccaskill: it was interesting. it was a big majority to waive the budget. i've got the vote right here. there were 61 votes to waive the budget act, including our friend from kentucky. and i think the c.b.o. score on that was somewhere around $450 billion, as i recall. not a dime for it, of it paid for. not one dime. all on the credit card, cha-ching, cha-ching, one big

blob of red ink. are you aware how many of our friends on the other side of the aisle that have religion, new religion? this is new religion about balancing a budget. how many of them actually voted for brand-new entitlement program, a massive government entitlement program, a government-run health care-related entitlement program, not one dime of it paid for. do you know how many of our friends on the other side of the aisle that are still serving today voted for this new entitlement program? 24. do you know who the senators were that voted for this massive new unpaid for entitlement program that added hundreds and billions of dollars to our debt. not tax cuts. we can argue about tax cuts whr-rbgs they create jobs. -- whether they create jobs, clearly they didn't because we kind of inherited a big mess in terms of job creation. do you know who the senats are

that are serving on that side that now want to preach about fiscal responsibility and paying for programs? how many of them are willing to put that program on a credit card? there was senator alexander. there was senator bennett. there was senator bond, senator brownback, senator bunning, senator chambliss, senator cochran, senator collins, senator cornyn, senator crapo, senator enzi, senator grassley, senator hatch, senator hutchison, senator inhofe, senator kyl, senator lugar, senator mcconnell, senator murkowski, senator roberts, senator sessions, senator shelby, senator snowe, and senator voinovich. all of it a government massive entitlement program run out of washington. big government, big bill, not paid for, and not one word about

it needing to be paid for. and we fast forwarded. that's a big part of our deficit. by the way, we've now figured out on medicare-d that we transfer a whole bunch of taxpayer money straight to the bottom line of pharmaceutical companies. i wasn't here then, but i'm sure the senator, maybe you can enlighten me. my recollection is that the biggest people in favor of medicare-d was pharma. mr. durbin: i say to the senator from missouri, she is correct. it was their belief they would make a lot of money -- mrs. mccaskill: they have had made a fortune on the backs of taxpayers. mr. durbin: those who formed some type of competitive bidding, some type of government buying in bulk to reduce costs were defeated. mrs. mccaskill: that is my recollection, senator, that in that bill they even outlawed the ability of the government to negotiate for lower prices based on volume. that's good business practices. make sure that we can't get a

good deal based on how many drugs we're going to buy. we can't even lower the cost of this big government massive government entitlement program, not paid for, by negotiating for lower prices. they outlaw that in this bill. mr. durbin: as the senator from missouri made clear, this cost over $400 billion. and many republican senators, including the senator who objected to unemployment benefits for the millions of people in america out of work, voted for this program unpaid for. now they tell us that we can't extend unemployment benefits to people in kentucky and illinois and missouri because we haven't fade for them. clearly a double standard. i might add the senator from missouri, that when it came to the estate tax, a.k.a. the death tax, according to some, that on june 7, 2006, the senator from kentucky took the floor and said mr. president i rise today in strong favor of abolishing one

of the most unjustified taxes we have in america today. the death tax. americans should not have to talk to their undertaker and their tax man on the same day. small businesses and family farms should not be forced to close down in order to pay the government money because a loved one has passed away. and then when the death tax repeal permanency act was called for a vote, the senator from kentucky voted to repeal this tax, costing the government over $300 billion. costing the government over $300 billion of adding to our national debt. now, this tax affects less than .1% of all the people in america. the wealthiest people in our country. and to provide $300 billion in tax relief to them, the senator from kentucky said we can add that to the deficit and that's okay. but when it comes to providing

$1,100 monthly unemployment check to someone in illinois struggling to find a job, he says no, that adds to the deficit. so for the wealthiest in america on the estate tax, there is no accountability, no reckoning for the poorest in america, the most struggling families in america, we are going to hold them to the hardest economic standard. that, to me, is at least inconsistent, if not inexplicable. a senator: would the senator yield? mrs. mccaskill: i have a couple more questions. i wasn't here when the major tax cuts went through in the republican congress with president bush, the tax cuts that were supposed to bring about great prosperity and job creation in our country. and, of course, they didn't. we had record job losses as president bush left office. my recollection is as he was

leaving office we were having somewhere between 600 thousand thoup and 700,000 job losses every month. clearly the plan that these tax cuts were going to be a time of wine and roses for all didn't quite work out. my recollection is that tax cut was actually done by reconciliation; wasn't it? mr. durbin: sreuld tos --ck wouk my notes. mrs. mccaskill: i think that's why they're running out. reconciliation only lasts for so long and then they sunset. i think that was one of those things where a massive amount of government liability was incurred through reconciliation at that time. let me also ask you a couple of questions about the stimulus. i know that the senator from kentucky was offered a chance to have an amendment to pay for this out of the stimulus. i don't think that we have talked enough about what is left of the stimulus money and what

it's for. and it's my understanding -- and correct me if i'm wrong -- that it's my understanding that a big chunk of the stimulus that's left is in fact for tax cuts for working families. that that is in fact, because the tax cuts were a two-year period. that was about a third of the money, and only half of that has been paid out because we've only been through a year of the stimulus. so we still have phoepbl waiting to go out -- money waiting to go out in the form of tax cuts to 95% of america. in fact, the exact opposite folks that got the tax cuts under george bush. is that my understanding abou at what remaining in the treasury? mr. durbin: i think the senator is correct. it's interesting interesting that those who are objecting never acknowledged that a third of that whole package was in tax cuts which is the holy grail for

the republican side of the aisle, tax cuts to working families. ms. mccaskill: for working folks now. these were working folks these weren't those folks at the very top -- these weren't like frankly my family is very blessed. it wasn't the tax cuts that were passed that helped my family. it didn't help some of the families that are out there that are now struggling with unemployment. and the rest of the stimulus that's out there. i've been interested in missouri -- in fact, i wrote a letter to the budget chairs in missouri, because they were kind of puffing up about how they were going to be able to balance the budget this year. and i looked into it and realized that the only way that they were balancing the budget this year was because of the stimulus money. it is in fact the stimulus money that has gone to kentucky and gone to illinois and gone to missouri and gone to oregon, gone to alaska, gone to rhode island -- that is what is allowing these state legislatures to keep from

massive layoffs of public school teachers. there would be massive cuts in education in missouri this year, and frankly no cuts in public education would be popular in missouri. so i ask the missouri legislatures, i said, now, some of you have been talking about how we need to do away with the stimulus, in fact, some more friends across the aisle say, well, we should get rid of the rest of the stimulus. so i asked the state legislators, what will you cut if we pull the stimulus? tell me how missourians will be hurt if we decide to pull the rest of the stimulus and maybe spend it on other things like perhaps this emergency bill dealing with unemployment insurance? and you know they won't tell me. they want the people of missouri to think they're balancing that budget with ferry dust. they don't want the people of mo to know that -- of missouri know

that in fact the stimulus is what's out there helping these states balance these budgets because their revenue has dropped off the charts. just like our revenue has, which is causing some. deficit. certainly contributing to some of the debt with an increase in unemployment expenses and then the programs that have been passed in the previous administration, not paid for. i am -- i have -- i have 20,000 missourians, 20,000, that are going to find out sometime in the next 48 hours that they're done. -- they're done with unemployment. and i can't help but believe that if we had this kind of crisis at the other end of the income scale that all of a sudden we wouldn't have this newfound religion that this is

the moment, this is the hour, this is the day that we are going to find new religion about deficits. it is the wrong time. i'm a cosponsor of paygo. i am a cosponsor of the fiscal commission. i don't take earmarks. i have voted against the omnibus. i have voted against many budget bills because i thought there was too much fat in them. i voted against a lot of fiscal measures in this body, but this is not the time to do this on the backs of these families. it is the wrong time. thank you, mr. president. mr. durbin: i thank the senator sphra missouri. and for those who are following this debate -- mr. bunning: you said you would yield. mr. durbin: i will. -- for those following this debate, we have asked to extend unemployment benefits for those out of work in america for 30 days and to extend cobra benefits which helps them to pay for their health insurance for 30 days, and we were prepared --

it passed the house of representatives. we were prepared to pass it this week so that when the benefits expire for many people on sunday night, they would continue. one senator from kentucky, senator bunning, who is on the floor, objected, and as a consequence we have taken the floor to make certain that the people who are following this debate understand the gravity of this decision. it is not a casual decision. it is a decision made by one senator that will literally affect the lives of a lot of people. i'll give you an example of stan leposky, who lives in rockford, illinois, an area hard-hit. stan is pretty nervous. he is 60 years old, lives in love's narc rockford. lost his job in june and relies on his unemployment check to keep his household afloat. this is from the rockford up in where he is quoted as say, it is not sufficient but without it i would be in real trouble. i am already borrowing against my thousands put my daughter

through college -- i am already borrowing against my house to put my daughter through college. the senator from kentucky's objection is going to cut off the checks to people just like him. i can't understand why we would do this. i am going to renew my unanimous consent request. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions which expire sunday, february 28, unemployment insurance, cobra, flood insurance, satellite home viewer act, highway funding, s.b.a. business loans, and small-business provisions of the american recovery act, s.g.r., and poverty guidelines received from the house and at the desk, that the bill be read three 250eu8s, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. bunning: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: there are some things that i would like to say in response to so many senators,

but before i do that, i want to straighten a few things out. first of all, the prescription drug part-d -- i want to help my good friend from missouri out and my good friend from rhode island. i want them know that the $400 billion that was spent has not been spent yet. just for their information. and the democrat alternative proposed by representative pete stark on the ways and means committee in the house of representatives cost over $1 trillion to fund. that was the alternative to the

republican $400 billion. i know the senator from missouri was not here, so she would not have represented -- probably doesn't know representative stark. but i served with him for eight years on the ways and means committee. and the same thing goes, if you don't like part-d of medicare, you've got 59 senators, and you can repeal it anytime you want, or at least try to. if you think it's misspent mon money. and c.b.o., by the way -- somebody complained about h.h.s. negotiating drug prices.

our own scorekeeper, c.b.o., said we would have -- because i was on the committee -- we would have no savings if they negotiated directly with the drug companies. so those profits that my good friend from illinois talked about are not profits that go to the drug companies because of -- any of the medicare facilities that we use, whether it be a hospital or a doctor or medicare part-b or part-a or part-d. all of those moneys go to doctors, hospitals, and people who get prescription drugs to pay for those prescription drugs.

so the benefits, you have to look at, see if they outweigh the complaints. so i object and would like to make a motion to ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator asks for regular order. is there an objection to his request? he said he did not object, as i understand it. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, -- [inaudible] mr. bunning: i object. the presiding officer: say -- the senator from kentucky objects? mr. bunning: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from objects. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i thought maybe we had gotten through to the senator from kentucky. it's interesting, he wants to

talk about everything except the unemployed people who are affected by his objection. and i would say to the senator from kentucky that we can prelitigate all you want. the fact is the medicare prescription drug program costs $4 billion over a ten-year period of time. it's not paid ford and you voted for it. so when it comes to deficit reduction, you pick and choose those issues that you will spend money on. tonight you're making it clear that you will not spend money to help unemployed people, people across kentucky and across illinois. some of these stories that i received from my state, i'm sure that you've received from your state. here's one from a woman in bow bowlhead stirks illinois. "my husband an and i a in our 5s and lost our jobs in 2008. we took our savings and moved to a state park where rent is $4 a month including -- is $400 a month. they were plifg in a cairn. my husband has gotten sick and not able see a doctor.

our unemployment benefits ran out in august. we have no income. the 400 rent that seems tow cheap a year ago is now a struggle to pay. to keep our phone and internet on is a struggle, yet imperative because that's the way we look for jobs. neither of us has ever been without work until now. i found that it's more and more difficult and our spirits are rat an all-time low. i write this with tears in my eyes, not so much for myself but for the thousands who are facing these difficult times alone. could i not do it alone. when my husband left the house this morning to look for work, i slipped a baggy of cereal in his pocket so he wouldn't go hungry. we had no milk. materially to offer ramon noodles or macaroni and cheese. i have always been proud to be an american yelt i can't seem to hold my head up these days. i barely have enough known make it. i wait and pray for an extension of unemployment benefits to buy us more time. i implore the republicans to

quit dangling carrots in our faces and do the right thing." that's what this is b that's what this is about, senator bunning. this woman and people like her all across america who will be turned down for unemployment benefits because of your objection. why are we doing this to these people, whether you live in tennessee or kentucky or any other state? i mean, we are a caring people. and i know the senator from tennessee feels that way. i do, too. mr. corker: i'd like to speak to that, if i could. mr. durbin: i would yield for a question to the senator from alaska. mr. begich: i know we've talked about the unemployed, which is a piece and a significant piece of this bill that's in front of us. but i also want to point out there's other pieces. i want to make sure i'm correct on this and maybe you could clarify this. i know you mentioned in the very early hours when we started this discussion, there's issues that deal with small business, seniors, it has two other major components of this.

is that correct in this bill also deals with sarnsdz small business? mr. durbin: yes, that is correct. mr. begich: and again, we've dish appreciate your constant reminder that this debate is about real people. now, i don't know what the debates are over the years past. i wasn't here, like senator mccaskill and senator merkley mentioned. i think people read and watch what's going on right now and they see right through what's going on. that again the wealthiest of the wealthiest get the privileges of this body and the people who are working in and out every single day and those that are now unemployed ask for a little bit of help to make sure they can make it through these tough times and the other of the aisle just turns their back on them. you used the example of the seniors. in alaska, the medicare reimbursement rate is critical. we have less doctors today than yesterday, the year before, the year before. we have very few. i bhet our community hospital or clinics today. i think it is down to one in

anchorage that accepts new medicare patients. and now we say, well, we are not going to make sure these reimbursement rates are the right rate. so now we'll have more doctors not serving our seniors. really, it is not only about the unemployed, i think the other side is about to throw seniors over the cliff here. at least in my staivment is that -- is this bill -- does it bill deal with seniors and making sure the reimbursement rate is the right rate so doctors can perform the services they want to perform that these seniors need? mr. durbin: i would sty the senator from alaska, he's crects. according to the 2009 medicare trustees report on january 1, 2010,physicians were specked to face an across-the-board cut of 24.5%. by 2014, the cuts were to physicians treating medicare patients would be 40*%. we've averted these cuts are short-term extension because at those reimbursement levels, many drrs would stop treating medicare patients. mr. begich: the answer is,

they will. this is a significant problem even at the 21% reimbursement. so not only do we have the unemployed now that the other side seems to have a problem with and implete it comes to the richest of the richest, they have no problem dealing with them and making sure they're taken care of, funded. but bh it comes to the unemployed, a whole different story. now the pharmaceuticals -- i know this debate a little bit. i don't know how the talk that i just heard from the senator from kentucky sure did go around and around around but the bottom line was, the pharmaceutical company got those moneys, made extensive profits. on the back of taxpayers and now it's time to help our seniors make sure they get basic care and they're going to be thrown over.  it's amazing to me when i look at this bill, it seems -- i thought it was so simple. and, again, maybe i'm naive as a new member here,ic these simple things -- i think these simple things, the biggest crisis we face in this country, the biggest recession

since the great depression, and give them a little bit of assistance to make sure we can move them through this tough time, that we're not willing to assist them? but yet the rich of the rich get taken care of every time? and i want to just ask one question about that so-called bipartisanship bill that was earlier. and i'll -- i have a question for the senator and i -- i have a question, and i know earlier there was a discussion of the -- i don't know if he has a question but i have a question and i hope i can ask it. mr. durbin: i'm sorry. mr. begich: no, no, not your fault. but the -- quote -- "bipartisanship bill" that was talked about earlier. i know i flipped through the index and saw all these extenders. and longer, correct me if i'm wrong, but the unemployed had a very short extension but all these businesses got big, long extensions for their tax

benefits. and yet, again, it's a swap of who do we support here and who we're going to help. am i mistaken by that so-called bipartisanship bill that really wasn't -- that bipartisan bill that clearly wasn't bipartisan and had a lot of issues with it. am i correct that there was some imbalance there that people were concerned about? mr. durbin: the senator from alaska is correct. mr. begich: i'll stn on until the senator from -- continue on this until the senator from oregon has a question or two, one of the things i've heard over and over again, and that's why i think it's being approached, very simple, don't cloud it with a lot of junk. the public has spoken. they want it clear, transparent, they want to understand what we're talking about, without us putting in the old business of the past, jamming in things left and right. and here it's a simple unemployment, for the unemployed, taking care of our seniors. and yet i'll ask you later, i'm on alaska time so, you know, i'm four hours back so i'm -- this is early for me, so i've got plenty of time here, and when it's midnight here, it's 8:00 in

alaska. so i got plenty of time here. but when i think about these issues, it's seniors, it's the unemployed. that's who we're trying to help here. the other side doesn't want to help them, it seems. the next issue, and i'll wait my time here, and ask you about small business, the people who are the backbone of this crlt -- this country who are trying to help those unemployed be employed, isn't that correct? that's another piece of this bill? is that correct, that small business is another piece? mr. durbin: it is. the s.b.a. programs, which would provide credit for small businesses, we're looking for a simple 30-day extension so these programs will be available and this objection has stopped that 30-day extension and is going to close down some of those programs as of monday that would be available to small businesses across the nation. mr. begich: and small businesses who are probably in the process of applying with their dreams and hopes in this recession to create a new business, a new opportunity to help those unemployed and others, to build our economy.

in alaska, 52% of our employment is small business. they're the backbone of this country. and they were kind of left out last year. and this is a moment to continue to help them. is that a fair statement? mr. durbin: the senator from alaska is correct, and i want to make it clear for the record because the senator from tennessee came and asked me why we didn't offer to the senator from kentucky an opportunity to have an amendment to pay for these unemployment benefits out of the stimulus package and that was offered to him, and he said no, he didn't want to have an amendment offered on the floor because he wasn't sure that he could pass the amendment. so he was offered the same chance that every senator has to take his idea before the senate and to get a majority vote. that's not an unreasonable thing that. is how the senate works. i would also say to the senator from kentucky that if he believes that we have surplus funds in the stimulus or reinvestment and recovery act that can be spent on unemployment and the like, i'm

afraid he's wrong. it's important to note that of the $166 billion in funds remaining to be obligated, almost every dollar has already been spoken for, even if not yet obligated. so if he thinks that the money that has not gone out the door of the stimulus act is not spoken for, it's not true. it is spoken for and that would have been part of the argument when his amendment could have come to the floor. an amendment which he did not care to offer. i would tell him there are two projects in your state that will be affected if you cut the balances in this. and i know you may not care but some may. it is a milton madison bridge replacement in milton, kentucky, to madison, indiana, asked for by the kentucky transportation cabinet. total cost of $131 million. tiger funding, $20 million. a vital link, i'm told, between two towns. if the bridge it taken out of

service, the resulting detours will create hardships for residents on both sides of the river. there's also another project under this recovery and reinvestment, which i know you voted against, but it's the appalachian regional short-line rail project, location, kentucky, west virginia and tennessee. and the tiger funding there is some $17 million. the fact is that many people believe these will create jobs in kentucky, put people to work. they've been spoken for and obligated. and if that money was taken out of the stimulus package, it may affect that project or some other project. but the fact is, the money is just not sitting in the stimulus fund waiting to gather dust or interest. it is money that has been spoken for to put people to work in kentucky and illinois and all across america. the fact is, the senator from tennessee came and asked me, why didn't we offer the senator from kentucky a chance to offer his amendment? we did. and if he would have taken that opportunity, he might have won, he might have lost but he would have had his day on the floor of the senate, which is all that

any of us can ask for, an up-or-down vote. instead, he said if you don't pay for this out of stimulus, then no one's going to get unemployment benefits. and that i think is an unreasonable position, and that's why we've taken the floor this evening. i'd be happy to yield to the senator from tennessee for purpose of a question. mr. corker: mr. president, i -- i've been working in an unusual way across the aisle on an issue that i think is important to this body. for the last two weeks. and i had planned to spend all day tomorrow, saturday, sunday, monday, whatever it takes, to get a bill that i think is important to this country and important to this body. it's 10:50, 10:55, and whether you agree or disagree with the senator from kentucky, i'm here

because i think this is a broadside. the fact is that we here in the senate give each other notice. i understand the frustration with my friends on the other side of the aisle. i talked to many of you after the lunches that take place. i know there's a lot of frustration. i understand the concerns of the people on my side of the aisle, especially after we just voted for a pay-for -- and my guess is that everybody on the other side of the aisle that's here tonight voted for it -- and yet we're continuing to pass bills that are not paid for. and i'm not going to debate the merits. i know you can talk about taxes for the rich, tax reductions and all that. the fact is, you did not give the senator from kentucky notice this was going to occur.

mr. durbin: i -- mr. corker: that is not -- mr. durbin: i'd like to respond to that if that's a question because it's incorrect. i want the record to be clear. i'm sorry, regular order, i have the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois has the floor. mr. corker: that also is -- this also is not -- mr. durbin durbin: i will yielda question after i respond. mr. dog,er: thaafter i respond. and the senator is incorrect. after the senator from kentucky rejected this evening, the senator was notified that i was going to come to the floor and renew this unanimous consent request. the senator from kentucky knew it. he was notified in advance. we then had three subsequent roll call votes and a unanimous consent request and then i came to the floor. so the senator from tennessee is not correct. he was given prior notice. i would be happy to yield further for a question. mr. corkerer: i appreciate the explanation.

i believe we'r we're stooping ta low level. mr. durbin: i'm sorry, i didn't hear the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i believe we're stooping to a new level. the senator from kentucky and i agree on a lot and we disagree on a lot. and i'm not here really at this moment to debate the merits of either side. what i'm saying is, this is not the way the senate functions. everybody in the country now knows the senator from kentucky has a hold on this bill. that is something that is honored -- not a hold on the bill but he's objecting to unanimous consent. that's something that we honor in this body. and if the attempt to me tonight is going to be to -- to keep a man 20 years my senior here without the knowledge that this was going to happen --

obviously, other people had this knowledge; you can see that nobody on our side did -- i was getting ready to go to bed and get up in the morning and resume my talks with senator dodd, which, regardless of what you-all do tonight, i'm going to continue, because i think our country has serious problems that need to be dealt with. but this -- this, in my opinion, is beneath the senate. and while i might be weary, i will stay here the entire night to defend the senate and defend the fact that the senator from kentucky did not know that this was going to happen. now, i'm tired. i've been working hard for a long time on a bill that i think is important. i'd rather go to bed. i'd rather be fresh. i'd rather deal with the issues that this country has to deal with. but i'll stay here all night because this is not the way the united states senate functions.

and i'm disappointed. and i know that we have a lot between us. i have felt actually recently that we were beginning to sort of make things click. i've seen people stepping out and doing things that i feel like are the right things to do on behalf of the country, and i've talked to my good friend, the presiding president tonight, about those kind of things. i have a lot on friends in this body on both sides of the aisle. this is not the way the senate functions. mr. durbin: i would say i yield for a question and i don't believe the senator has a question but i respect him and respect his point of view. mr. corker: my question is, is this the way the senate functions for someone -- mr. durbin: i would say first that i've said to the senator, we gave notice to the senator from kentucky after he had made his objection. so this was not a sneak attack. as soon as he made his objection, we notified the republican side of the aisle

what i was going to do. secondly, i would say that i think those of us who either put a hold on a bill or a hold on a nomination can do that. i think they ought to step forward and say publicly when they do that and why they do it. in this situation, in fairness to the senator from kentucky, he's been very public and open about his objection to this. and i certainly respect that we have a different point of view. but i would say to the senator from tennessee, here's what i faced and what other senators faced. after we completed these roll calls here, we would have walked out of the door, gone home and relaxed and headed home for the weekend and then come sunday, somebody might have noticed that the unemployment benefits for 15,000 people in my state were cut off, eliminated, people out of work cut off.