fairly said is a job destroyer because there's so many people that are taking advantage of many provisions of this bill -- for example, the r&d tax credit, which you mentioned earlier, senator, there are others -- other provisions in this bill, like the teachers' expense, for example, there's deduction for tuition. let's take unemployment. let's send unemployment -- let's say unemployment insurance were not continued. that would be a huge drag on the economy. and if the provisions that we are seeking merely to extend were not passed, it would be a job destroyer. the president has often said, commentators have often said, you know, ow goal here is to save or create so many jobs. you know, it's kind of hard to say what's saved and what's created sometimes. but the point is we certainly want to save jobs, too. we don't want the recession to be worse. failure to pass this legislation is certainly going to cause

tremendous hardship on a lot of americans and it's going to not -- it would be a disincentive for the economy to turn around. it would be a disincentive for the unemployment rate to finally come down to levels that we find this. so failure to pass this is a jobs destroyer. i'i'd yield the floor. mr. kyl: i want to respond to my colleague. the point i was making is it is hard to describe this as a jobs bill because it doesn't create jobs. each year we extend these tax provisions, that's why we in washington call it the tax extenders bill, this isn't some new job creator. i agree with my colleague that to the extent that we continue this in practice, though everybody who takes advantage of it knows that it will be extended, so they haven't made decisions based on the prospect that we aren't going to do it. they know we're going to do it

retroactively. so it is not creating any new jobs. i support the extension. i think it is a good thifnlg but let's don't call it a jobs bill. by contrast, the health care legislation that my colleague supports is a job killer. and i pointed out just one provision -- 115,000 jobs per year lost just because of the one provision -- taxing the so-called passive income, the dividends, and we're not even sure whether capital gains are taxed in that, and so their estimates may even be low. so the relate city that if we're rulely talking about saving or creating jobs, let's forget this massive health care legislation that now adds two more job-killing provisions to it -- a 31% increase in the payroll tax and taxing for the first time passive income as a part of medicare. that's a job killer, and so if

we're going to talk about jobs with regard to the legislation we have before us, i think it's a fair point to also talk about legislation that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want very much to try to get passed. mr. baucus: mr. president, i don't want to prolong this too long but the fact is that the president's council of economic advisors has concluded that this legislation -- that the health care former legislation -- that's not before us right now, but the health reform legislation will actually create jobs, new jobs. that's the conclioof the council of economic advisors. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i have at the desk amendment number 3337, and i would ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from alabama, mr. sessions, proposes

amendment numbered 3337 to amendment number 3336. mr. sessions: mr. president, i'd ask that the reading of the allot be dispensed with. the presiding officer: -- that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: wowcts. mr. sessions: this is the sessions-mccaskill amendment. senator mccaskill, my colleague from missouri. this is a bipartisan amendment. it is one that i think is very, very important, and i hope my colleagues will give it serious consideration. we're close to enough votes to make it law, and i am absolutely convinced that it is one thing that will work to reduce the surging deficits in our country. last week i traveled -- i guess week before last now. six days of travel, and people continue rally expressed to me -- and people continually expressed to me the condition of

our country. they want us to do something about it. i heard some of my colleagues express things like, well, this is just populist anger. it will pass off. you know, we need to keep a cool head here. we don't really have to change how we do business. things are going to work out somehow, some way, although nothing in the numbers show that, and mr. bernanke, the chairman of the federal reserve, said last week in his testimony before congress, our path is unsustainable. not the first time he's said that. virtually every economist who's ever opined in the last six months or more on our economy says our spending levels are unsustainable and threaten the vibrancy of our economic system in this country. and it's just a very troubling thing, and we know that. so i -- we don't need to go into a whole lot of discussion about it. the growth debt that our country al-hassan grown to a-- that our

country has has grown to approximately $12 trillion, the high nest our nation's history, and the public debt, the amount of debt that this country owes outside its 0 own government -- some of this is internal debt. we owe social security and medicare and other trust funds that may be in surplus, but we owe trillions outside, and within five years our public debt will dull and in ten years the public -- will double and in ten years the public debt will triple. i would just show the chart on that before i go into the details of it. and one of the consequences of that public debt is that we pay interest, and we have to get nations or individuals to loan us their money by buying our treasury bills and bonds, notes, and when they give us their money, we have to pay them interest. this isn't free. all of our debt that we run up, this bill that's on the floor

today, it will add to the debt again. none of it is paid for.so ts isn stunning numbers, it shows that in 2009 interest on the public debt -- the debt we owe to people outside our government -- was $170 billion. the congressional budget office scores it based on the budget president obama gave to us, a ten-year budget he submitted. if his budget was affected for ten years, the deficit would go up every single year, not a -- the debt will continue to go up every single year, and in the out years, the annual deficits will be approaching $1 trillion each year again. and the interest 0 on the debt in one year would be $799 billion. now, that's well above the

current defense budget. i think aid to education is $50 billion to $60 billion. federal aid to highways last year, year before last was $40 billion. $8 billio00 billion in intereste year? it is a stunning number, breathtaking number. it is going to crowd out all kinds of plans some of my spending colleagues would like to effectuate in the coming years because we're not going to have the money. or else we're going to inflate the currency and damage the economy in the most systemic way. so i would just say, this disturbing trend of higher and higher deficits and deficit spending shows no sign of stopping. this year the -- as of september 30, our fiscal year, we ended with a $1.4 trillion deficit. that's about three times the highest deficit we've ever had. it's projected as of september

30 of this year we'll have about a $1.4 trillion, $1.5 trillion deficit -- this year, which would be the highest ever. again, in consecutive years. so it is a stunning thing, and we can't continue to spend like we're spending. between 19900 and 2002, however, congress took some steps that actually worked to help get us out of a spiral of spending deficits. it was successful. it resulted -- the result of what we did is we passed statutory caps on spending, discretionary spending only, not security and medicare and those kinds of programs, and we kept it to 1 pour t% to 2% growth evy year. as this chart would show, these caps led to a surplus. the chart is upside down really.

this is the surplus years and these are the deficit years. so during these years, we begin to show a decline in deficits, all the way through these surpluses. and then when it expires, it jumped back up again and this looks like a high deficit, and it is a very high deficit in 2004, but that was about the highest, at that point, $400 billion. and i just made the point that this past fiscal year it was $ $1,400 billion. and next year it will be $1,500 billion. so we lost some discipline when we allowed those statutory caps 0 or spending levels to be breached and go away. so this amendment that senator mccaskill and i are offering

both restores and strengthens the procedures that were proven to work in the 1990's. it would create a four-year discretionary spending cap or limit, and it would set those limits at the level of the fiscal year 10 budget resolution that congress passed last year. so last year we passed a budget resolution not ten years, as proposed by president obama, but five years that is in effect. one of the things you learn around here is the only part of the budget that really has any teeth is the year we're in. and discretionary spending last year on one omnibus bill that covers about half the appropriations bill was an increase of 12%. so we're not doing a very good job at that. and so it has no teeth in these outer years in the budget. and it proposes, though, a

fairly responsible spending increase of 2% or so a year over these four years. now, you were saying, senator sessions, your state is cutting its budget. my constituent state is having to reduce -- my state is having to reduce its budget. my city is having to reduce its budget. my county is having to reduce its budget. my family is reducing its budget. why can't you guys reduce the budget? the answer is, we can of course. and some have suggested -- and the president has suggested -- we should have a freeze on the budget, which i would support, but i am just saying to my colleagues, since last year our discretionary spending accounts were in double digits, that if we pass this so that we have a statutory limit of 1% to 2% on increases for the next four years, and it's subject to a

two-thirdsetwo-thirds point of e in the congress -- if there is a proposal to go above that on an emergency need -- i think we'll have a much, much better chance of making the kind of tough decisions in the congress to contain this ever-growing spending level than w we have bn doing in the last several years. so the omnibus appropriations bill that passed last year increased federal spending 12% in one year. that's a lot. at 7%, your money will double in ten years. at 12%, i guess the spending in those accounts would double in six or seven years. double in six or seven years, no doubt about it, unless something is done about those strendz z trends. so this legislation that senator mccaskill and i have offered, i think, would get us there. and i was pleased to see that 17

members of democratic senators voted for the bill because i think there's a growing bipartisan consensus that we can do better. a 2% containment in the growth in spending will not cause the united states to sink into the ocean. we're still going to exist. the american people are still going to have a government in washington. they are there is there are still going to be bureaucrats up here to take care of us if we just have a 2% growth in the discretionary account instead of 12% or whatever that number was last year. as i would note, the president suggested freezing some of the accounts and although there's some very significant, i have to say, gimmicks in that that make it much less tight than it would appear from his state of the union address, still it

indicates that the president himself knows that we've got to reduce our spending in, and in some of these accounts we could freeze them with no damage to our nation our sure. so i salute him for that, and this bill would create spending limits, not based on what jeff sessions said the limits should be, but these are the limits in the president's budget that first five years of it that he proposed and that congress passed last year. we would be simply saying this would be a hard limit on how much we can spend. and if we spend more than that on an emergency, we'd have to have strong support in the congress to create an emergency to spend above that. now, we've been able to do that many times in the past if a true emergency arises. now, some say, jeff, you're focusing too much on the discretionary spending.

entitlements are bigger. social security, medicare, those kind of things. they are a bigger problem than discretionary spending. well, there are three reasons i think we have got to act on discretionary spending. one is that while entitlements like social security and medicare are large, they actually have a net surplus right now. in fact, congress rated -- raided $137 billion from social security in fiscal year 2009 to pay for other things, such as the $800 billion thrus package that -- stimulus package that we passed -- that congress passed last year. of course, $137 billion social security surplus won't pay for the congress's $800 billion stimulus package, so where did the rest of the money come from? we borrowed it on the world market which we pay in interest.

what about the social security surplus? is that free money? no, it's not, because social security is heading to default. and when we take the social security surplus into the united states treasury and spend it on increasing discretionary spending by 12%, we give them back a debt instrument, an i.o.u., really a treasury bond. i'm told they're in some location in west virginia. i'm sure the chairman of the committee knows that. i want to go out and see them, but they have notes out there, treasury bills evidencing the debt of the u.s. treasury to the social security administration. and as soon as social security goes into deficit, it's going to call those notes. it would really not make much difference whether you borrowed it from the social security or you borrowed it from the public. the interest rates are very similar too. they pay interest to social

security and medicare. when medicare has a surplus. so, under the budget, it's projected that congress will raid another $90 billion in 2010 -- this year we're in -- to pay for things like this omnibus bill that's on the floor for increased transportation and h.u.d. funding that went up 23%, create more funding for the state and foreign operations accounts. that went up 33% this year. a record $1.4 trillion deficit last year and a projected $1.4 trillion-plus for fiscal year 2010. and all of that really was driven not by deficits in medicare and social security, but from a discretionary spending account. our appropriators are always saying the problem is all social

security and medicare. but the truth is almost without exception we've had surpluses in those accounts, and we're spending that to supplement our general funds spending, and we give evidences of debt back to our seniors from medicare and social security that actuaries tell us without any doubt will soon be in deficit, and we're going to call those notes. and the treasure's got to come -- and the treasury's got to come up with it. so there's no free lunch. nothing comes from nothing. if you spend money you don't have, you borrow it somewhere. you could print money, i suppose, and devalue the currency. but everybody has their values in -- money in their pocket devalued. there is no way you can do this in a free way and we've been

irresponsible. when i go to town hall meetings, what can i tell them? we didn't do anything wrong, the senate and the house. we've been handling your money just fine fellow alabamian. don't complain, don't get mad. you'll get over it. so we've got a $800 billion interest payment coming up in 2019, and our children and grandchildren are going to pay that. and when senator bunning asks that this unemployment insurance be paid for out of the unspent $800 billion stimulus and not add it to the debt, which our grandchildren would pay, he was able to say with some personal conviction, with 42 grandchildren, he wasn't going to vote for it. and he didn't. he didn't support it and didn't agree to let it pass without objection. he said we should have paid for

it, and we could have out of that. so, another reason i think we need to focus on discretionary spending is because, unlike the entitlements like social security and medicare, discretionary spending has overhead. there's very little overhead in social security and medicare. some. we can do better. i know chairman baucus has worked on medicare overhead. i don't know how much can be squeezed out of social security overhead. not a lot. because most of it is that check that goes out to seniors who count on it every month. but there is overhead in discretionary spending, all the that i think is we spend our money on. trust me. i've been in the federal government. i've worked there. i know it can be made more efficient. in this past year we increase spending on the department of interior and e.p.a. by 17%

total. i think the e.p.a. account went up 33%. one year, they get a 33% increase in their budget. this does not include any of the $800 billion stimulus funds that went out, some of which has gone out. about half of it has. doesn't include that. and e.p.a. got money out of that, interior got money out of that, highways got money out of that. large amounts. we're seeing unprecedented increases in spending in these accounts. department of agriculture, i remember people criticizing president bush for spending too much money on ag. if you look at his ag budget over the eight years he was president, it averaged less than 2% increase. last year our ag budget -- not counting the stimulus package, which a large amount of it went to agriculture -- increased 15%.

i always have tried to support the ag budget. i could not support that. that would double the entire agriculture spending in, what, five or six -- five years, i guess, at compounded interest, compounded increases. it's just not responsible. we've got to do better. and so the american people, i think, are upset. this recent cnn poll asks a tough question of the voters in america: "which of the following comes closer to your view of the budget deficit -- the government should run a deficit if necessary when the country is in a recession and at war, or the government should balance the budget even when the country is in recession and is at war?" 67% say balance the budget, you guys, because they've heard

these excuses before. they've heard all of it before. and what are they seeing? red ink as far as the eye can see, with record deficits above anything we've ever seen before. that's what i'm hearing when i go out and talk to my constituents. and many i, frankly, am glad i don't have to defend having voted for this stimulus package. i'm glad i don't have to defend the $700 billion wall street bailout, $182 billion going to a.i.g. they sold off one of the most profitable companies -- talking about it, i saw in the paper today, and they're going to bring in $35 billion. they're going to use a chunk of that to pay down some of that $182 billion debt. but if they keep selling off what they've got, how are they going to have any money to pay the rest of it? they're not going to pay the rest of it, i don't think. and finally, i would add that

spending billions -- adding billions to the baseline budget makes a big difference. i made this chart for the d.o.d. appropriations bill. it's an interesting little chart. i think my colleague, i hope he would pay a little attention to this weird fine-print charge. but it shows what happens when there was gimmicked up on the bill an $18 billion add-on all unpaid for, $18 billion to the debt. it was added to the defense bill. now if this gets in as baseline spending, which is what it tends to do, the next year when you advertise how much you increase defense spending, you've got this $18 billion in. it adds up. so the next year it's not just $18 billion. it's the $18 billion additional

money that's in the baseline from the previous year. then you add another $18 billion, let's say hypothetically. you jack it up each year by $18 billion. the net deficit is $36 billion. and the next year it's 36 plus 18. the next year it's 54 plus 18. the next year is 72 plus 18. you carry that out to the tenth year and it's 162 plus 18 or $180 billion extra for the defense budget in one year, which is about $990 billion over ten years. so an $18 billion addition or failure to contain the growth in the, a discretionary account has tremendous ramifications over the years. and it's this kind of psychology that has led us into this mess. and some of our appropriators and others in this congress, i think, have felt a thrill if

they can beat the limit on their account. so if they have been given an account and they get $80 billion or $100 billion, if they can figure out a way to gimmick it up about $18 billion or $5 billion or $7 billion and they can maneuver it through and tell you when the bill hits the tphraorbgs well, if you -- floor, if you don't vote for it sessions, you're against agriculture. and people back home are going to attack you because you voted against agriculture. i say, well, mr. senator, you put too much money in that. i can't vote for it. it's too big an increase. you're either for agriculture or you're against agriculture. what they said to senator bunning down here the other night was, when he said tphoeut insurance -- when he said unemployment insurance should be paid for, they said you're against unemployment insurance. you want people not to have any unemployment insurance. which was absolutely false. and they repeated it over and over again. but he stood like a solid rock,

and he didn't give in. he said, i'm not agreeing to it because you could pay for it. it's increasing the debt of my 42 grandchildren. he didn't agree to it. you know, that's just every now and then somebody stands newspaper this senate and says i've -- stands up in this senate and says i've had enough. i'm not going to say yes this time. and i respect him for the courage he showed. well, the committee for common sense -- for a responsible federal budget, which is a bipartisan group in d.c., issued a report not long ago that said that freezing all nonwar-related discretionary spending next year could save us $60 billion in one year and will set up a new baseline that would save us, sort of as this chart i just showed, creates a new baseline mentality that would save $60

billion over -- $600 billion over ten years. that's a lot. even in washington, $600 billion is real money. on the other hand, the committee stated that if we allow discretionary spending to grow at the projected rate of g.d.p. pwroegt instead of inflation -- growth instead of inflation it would cost us more over the next ten years. this is a nonbiased group. i don't think anybody would fundamentally disagree with that. so it does make a difference how much money we spend on every single account, every single funding and appropriations bill that comes through this senate. well, can we get bipartisan support for having a tougher line in containing spending? i think the answer is absolutely we can. why is that confident? well, the simple fact that the five-year binding companies that

were passed in 1990 had broad bipartisan support. in fact, ten of our currently serving democratic senators voted for them, and a number of the republicans did, including senator reid, our democratic leader, and senator inouye, the chairman of the appropriations committee. he voted for them in the 1990's. i have we have every reason to believe that if we think this through we can get there. the five-year spending gaps that passed in the 1990 deal had even stronger bipartisan support. it passed in 1997. i know senator baucus was here and it passed 85-15, with 44 currently serving senators supporting it. 26 of them were democrats. senators reid, durbin, conrad, inouye, all voted for them. so if we could do it in 1990 and another one in 1997, there's no

reason why we can't do it now. in fact, i -- my staff have met with numerous groups across the political spectrum, brookings institute, the urban institute, the progressive policy institute, the concorde coalition and the u.s. chamber of commerce, everybody we met with has said getting a handle on discretionary spend somethi something -- spending is essential. the a.a.r.p., the association of retired persons, initially expressed opposition to the amendment. i believe we've addressed their concerns. their chief concern was that we would not separate defense and non-defense spending which would let the non-defense spending raid non-defense accounts. however we have separated them, so that's not a danger. of course, one criticism some might give to the bill is that it raises the threshold for violating breaking the spending

limits from 60 senate votes to 67 senate votes. they say that's just too restrictive. but we've got to raise the threshold. because we've got a 60-vote situation now. and we've been able to muster 60 votes to pass every kind of possible emergency bill and some that clearly weren't emergencies. it takes 67 votes in this chamber to make a change to the senate journal. but we can max out the nation's credit card with 60 votes. something doesn't seem to be right about that. so i think with the seriousness of our situation, this would be a good steph. furthermore the fy 2010 budget retion liewtion accounted fo for $10 billion per year in military spending which we allowed to remain by this amendment. any emergencies that is inadequate -- that that is

inadequate for should be able to receive the support of 67 senators if we have an emergency. in fact, all of the disaster relief emergencies, those kind of emergencies, since the emergency designation was created in 1990 to try to contain spending has received support of more than 67 senators. isn't that interesting? all of our emergency designations for hurricanes and earthquakes and fires and storms and the like have received more than 67 votes. so it's just not a good argument, i think, to say that we can't respond to a legitimate emergency. well, the prospect of massive federal spending is hurting jobs an growth. stanford university economic said -- quote -- "in "the wall street journal," "the explosion of spenting, deficits and debt

foreshadows higher taxes on work saving investment and employment. that not only will damage our economic future, but is harming jobs and growth now." china and other countries may not be able to keep financing our debt in the future, even if they'd like to. professor allen meltzer, a well-known scholar on the federal reserve and monetary policy noted in a column in "the journal" that our current and projected deficits are too large relative to current and perspective world saving to rely on other countries being able to finance them for the next 10 years. in other words, there may not be enough surplus money in the world to buy these -- these debt instruments that we're going to be having to issue. in fact, a recent "washington times" editorial entitled "spending to a depression" notes

that since china and other countries are trying to reduce their holdings of dollars, we will have to rely more and more on u.s. banks to buy our bonds, which will decrease capital available for lending to businesses." on the airplane today coming back from alabama, there was an article made reference to the fact that when the federal government puts out this much money and the interest rates -- are -- become lower -- higher than they have been, extraordinarily low, that banks are now buying treasury bills at 3.67% interest for 10-year treasury notes instead of loaning to local businesses. they can get the money from the fed at -- at less than 1%.

they can buy a federal government debt instrument for 3.5%, 4%, and not have to loan it to some business person who might be a higher risk. we're crowding out resources necessary for economic growth. this is a reality. and a -- in a budget committee hearing on budget attempt, former comptroller of our currency, david walker, testified that by 2040, 30 years from now, we will have to double taxes just to keep up with current commitments. can you imagine that? the way we're spending we're going to have to double taxes in 30 years. he stated that in 12 years interest will be the single biggest line item in the entire budget even assuming interest rates don't change from today's low rates. but they are going to go up.

everybody knows that. some are predicting the kind of interest rates we had in the late 1970's. i truly hope that does not occur. but many -- many people believe we don't have any idea how high interest rates could surge at -- when the whole world, including europe and other places, are spending money they don't have and attempting to borrow the marketplace to have that happen. so he also said that deficits are the public's largest concern by 20 points in opinion polls. that's mr. walker. in a financial times editorial in may, mr. walker warned that the u.s. is in danger of losing its triple a credit rating. moody's made that clear. in a report just last week moody's stated that the united states is in danger of losing its triple a credit rating. the chief economist at moody's stated that unlike several years

ago -- quote -- "now the question of a potential downgrade of the u.s. is not inconceivable." under the most pessimistic scenario put forth by moody's, the u.s. could lose its top rating in 2013. two or three years from now. so i was really pleased that we had strong bipartisan support for this amendment previously by allowing us not to apply these budget limits that we passed last year to this year. that gives some relief to our -- our members of the senate who complain that, well, next year we'll start cutting spending, but not this year. so we will -- we will give a little bit there. and it will mean that we won't save as much money for sure. but i really believe we need to pass this legislation. i truly hope that we can. we only need three or four more votes to make it a reality.

i count now with the ones who voted for it before and -- and a new senator in the body, we'll have within 57 votes. we need 60. so the situation has not gotten any better. and i'm hoping that my colleagues will look at it afresh and that we might be able to reach that number. it will have a difference. it made a difference in the 1990's. it led to an actual surplus. i believe it could help us this time. we have a much more serious problem this time. we have more challenges this time. but it could -- could make a very significant difference in our spending level. and it would really be a statement to the entire financial world that we're beginning to take some steps. that we're not next year going to have 12% increases in -- in spending for discretionary accounts. but we're going to hold it to the 1% or 2% increase level.

and i think that might have some psychological approval. i thank the chairman of the finance committee for taking this long. i'm so hopeful that we're getting close and we can get the votes to take this positive step. i would yield the floor. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i appreciate the comments from the senator from alabama. he is concerned, as we all are, with the current fiscal situation, our debts and our deficits. i might add this is no excuse. it is clear that we americans have a problem that needs to be addressed. other countries are in the same fix. again, that's no excuse. our deficits are high primarily because the financial crisis and just working our way through all of that. the real test is whether we, as a country, when times get better, when incomes increase,

whether we live much more within our means. i certainly hope so. i know every senator in this body hopes so. more precisely, the senator from alabama seeks to place caps on the appropriate accounts. that's pretty much the amendment. the senator objected about a month ago, i think it was january 28. i believe the pending session's amendment addresses the matter in the budget committee and violates 306 of the congressional budget act. i believe the amendment does violate the budget act. furthermore this subject is really worth the purview of the appropriations committee. and i defer to the chairman of the appropriations committee to address this amendment in due course. i also note, mr. president, that the senator from minnesota has been waiting very patiently to speak and we're all anxious to hear from the senator from

minnesota. a senator: mr. president? mr. sessions: i would like to make a budget point of order? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, i wish to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. 50 years ago this month a group of athletes gathered in squaw valley, california, for the winter olympics. part of the u.s. contingent, the 1960 men's ice hockey team surprised the world and brought home the olympic gold medal by beating the soviet union, czech and canada. three were from my great state of minnesota. as anyone can see from watching this year's games, this outsized contribution from minnesotans continues to this day. 28 years after this forgotten

miracle, team u.s.a. defeated finland and the soviet union to genuine the gold medal. 13 minnesotans played for the 1980 miracle on ice team and the 14th was their coach. this year's olympic men's ice hockey team was considered by many not to have a chance for a medal. they were too young, too inexperienced, they hadn't played together before. and the u.s. men hadn't defeated canada in the olympics in 50 years. yet, a week ago, despite being the underdog, team u.s.a. defeated the canadians in their own arena. after soundly beating finland in the finals, team u.s.a. played canada a second time last night for the gold medal. although we found behind early, zack perse tied the game with

under a minute to play. sadly, for us, canada would end up scoring in overtime to win the gold medal. but that cannot take away from what was truly a golden performance by the americans, jamie langenbruner from minnesota, did an outstanding job, including eric from bloomington and eric baucus from blaine. the american women's ice hockey team was expected to be great and they were. before falling to canada they outscored their opponents 40-2, with natalie darwits as captain and jenny potter and deedee brought home a well-deserved silver medal.

of the 12 members of the curling team, eight were from minnesota, natalie and allison were on the women's team. the men's team was an all-minnesotan affair. with john shuster and jayson smith and jeff isakson of duluth and ben, and their coach is from evelith, minnesota. tony is an olympic luger, dana was in her second olympics, wynn roberts was a competitor in the biathlon, rebecca valley, a speed skater, and katelyn compton and gary lezuzi each from minneapolis competed in cross-country skiing. and there are many other, like lindsey vawn vaughn,who have tio

minnesota but who reside now in other mountain states. yesterday marked the end of the 2010 winter olympic games in vancouver. i'm so proud so see that there were more athletes in this year's olympics from minnesota than from any other state. 21 minnesotans took part in thighs games. most were in their first olympics. a few others in their second games. natalie darwitz has been to three. jenny potter has now been to four, winning a medal each time. isn't that something? four-time medal winning olympian and mother of two. 21 athletes from all over minnesota who now will be going back to tending a bar or being a teacher or being an engineer or a mom. natalie nicholson will return to the red lake indian reservation as a nurse practitioner. the men's ice hockey players

will be going back to finish their nhl season. john shuster will be getting married. all will continue to inspire us. i want to congratulate every single one of these competitors. each has shown tremendous grit and determination to earn a place representing our nation in the winter olympics. whether you won a medal or you simply gave it your all and competed, each of you is a champion. olympians make the children of our state and of our nation dream of what they might do and grownups like me of what we wish we could do. all while fulfilling their dreams on the world stage and representing our nation so admirably. we owe them thanks for their hard work, their perseverance, and, most of all, for their heart. and i hope to have the chance in the coming weeks to meet with each of these minnesota athletes

so i can congratulate them in person. mr. president, i also would like to take a few minutes to speak on another topic, the extension of unemployment benefits and cobra subsidies. you know, i admire those in this body who take principled stands. the senate would get more done if all members were guided by their basic core principles and put principles ahead of political posturing, ahead of party, ahead of polling. to block a legislative measure because it's not fully offset, sure, that could -- that could be based on principle, and, believe me, i am concerned about our budget deficit. but principles are something that you consistently stand behind. what makes it a principle?

something you care about, something that guides you throughout your career. that's what makes it a principle. and principles can't be ignored. even when it's expedient or advantageous to do so. and yet that's exactly what's happening now. a principle is being invoked only now that it's convenient. you might remember that when george w. bush entered office, it was with a $200 billion budget surplus. he also entered office with projections of nearly a billion in future surpluses over the next decade and a glide path to paying off the entire national debt. but instead of doing the sensible thing and paying down our debt when we had the means, the bush administration racked up massive deficits at a record

pace. vice president cheney even said that deficits don't matter. and fed chairman alan greenspan testified that we might pay off our debt just too quickly. we were told that we might have too much money. really, he did this, he testified to congress saying that was a real worry. then we paid for an unnecessary war in iraq without offsets, we passed medicare part-d without offsets, we passed three different sets of tax cuts totaling trillions of dollars, most benefiting the wealthiest people in the nation. without offsets. yet last thursday night, the senator repeatedly -- senate repeatedly attempted to extend benefits for america's

unemployed workers and these efforts were blocked supposedly because it wasn't fully offset. now, for some reason, benefits to the wealthiest americans, they didn't need to be offset, but keeping unemployment benefits flowing to those families who have been hardest hit by this recession, now suddenly they, they need an offset. if this is a matter of princip principle, it seems to me to be a very, very bizarre principle. one principle we should all stand behind is supporting american families when economic times are tough. last week, half a million

americans applied for unemployment benefits for the first time. despite what some might suggest, our nation's unemployment crisis is not over. we know that unemployment can persist long after a recovery begins. this downturn will continue affecting american families for months and years to come. that is why we need to extend federal unemployment benefits now. without an extension, over 1 million americans, including thousands of minnesotans, will lose their benefits this month. without those unemployment benefits, many families will have no other way to keep paying their mortgage and buying groceries. even with some economic

progress, there are still six applicants for every job opening. in some industries, there are simply no jobs to be found. our obligation to america's working families is a serious one. when there are jobs to be had, working and middle-class families keep our economy running. after wall street's inscretionz -- indiscretions were the cause of an economic collapse and our government bailed them out, we're in no place to tell america's families that there isn't enough of help to go around. their interests should have been placed ahead of the big banks from the start. further, the provisions that are currently being blocked will also provide for the vital cobra subsidy. right now the cobra subsidy is

helping american families retain their health care coverage while they continue to look for work. facing a medical crisis while being unemployed and uninsured is a burden most families simply cannot withstand. we should not be putting americans in that position when it's due to no fault of their own. we should not be driving them to a place where they simply have run out of options. this procedural stalling is unacceptable. i've heard from minnesota's employment commissioner that the expiration and subsequent agreement on an extension will be an administrative burden on our state, not to mention an inefficient use of state resources. the delays are also stressful and disruptive for minnesota's families. this is a case in all 50 of our states.

so i call on all of my colleagues to come together today and stand behind the principle -- the principle -- of supporting american families when times are tough. this is the principle on which we should all be focused and all be judged. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the natofrom south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i would like to call up amendment number 3338 and ask for its immediate consideration. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. is there objection? mr. baucus: mr. president, is the senator asking unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment? mr. thune: i'd like to ask to have this amendment be made pending, yes.

mr. baucus: you wish to set aside the pending amendment? mr. thune: correct. mr. baucus: no objection. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south dakota, mr. thiewrntion proposes an amendment numbered 3338 to amendment numbered 3336. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, as we all know, our economy is sufficing. we have unemployment rate that is currently at 9.7%. furthermore, we've got large portions of the population that are either underemployed or have dropped out of the work force because of limited job prospects. now, where there are a variety of factors that have contributed to this recession, the government's response so far has been largely ineffective, particularly with regard to employment. and i would argue, mr. president, that the best thing that we can do to address the issue of unemployment and having to extend unemployment benefits and cobra and other types of benefits, all of which

are considered in this underlying bill, is to get people back to work. that is fundamentally the very best thing that we can be doing is focusing how -- on how do we create jobs, how do we grow this economy, how do we provide fiewnts for those who have -- opportunities for those who have lost their jobs, who are underemployed, to get back into the work force? that to me, mr. president, ought to be the focus of our efforts here in the united states senate. now, the bill that was passed about a year ago, the stimulus legislation, which we now know is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $862 billi $862 billion, without interest, with interest, well over a trillion dollars, was all borrowed money. it is going to add a trillion dollars to the national debt. now, despite that amount of spending, only $6.2 billion was spent on tax incentives for small businesses and another $730 million was spent in funding for the small business administration. so i want just to think about for a moment what that means in

terms of the dimensions of the bill that was passed last year. we had a trillion-dollar bill. together, the incentives for small businesses in that bill represented less than 1% of the total cost of the bill. now, we all know that small businesses have a much greater impact on the economy and on employment than that number represents. small businesses employ more than half of all the nation's private-sector employees. they create nearly two-thirds of all the new jobs and create a disproportionate number of the patents that are issued in our nation. i believe that the time -- at the time that we voted last year on the stimulus bill, mr. president, and i believe now that this was just one example of the priorities in that legislation that were misplaced if we are intent on and focused like a lazer on -- like a laser on creating jobs and getting this economy drogue again. i made the argument at the time, as did many of my colleagues -- and we offered amendments in support of that belief -- that the best way to get the economy growing again isn't to focus on a lot of government spending on

new government programs but, in fact, to provide incentives for small businesses, the engines of our economy, to get out there and to start investing and to start creating jobs. and so i offered an amendment that was an alternative to the stimulus bill a year ago which, according to the economic model developed by the president's economic advisor, would have created twice as many jobs and it would have cost half of what this stimulus legislation is going to end up costing the taxpayers of this country. again, all of which is borrowed from future generations. now, while the senate passed a smaller jobs bill last week, the senators -- senators here in the chamber were blocked from offering amendments. i wanted to offer this amendment a week ago when we considered the other jobs bill that passed through here. it was a $15 billion jobs bill, which is now pending i think action in the house of representatives, but i'm offering this amendment now because we have this underlying

tax extenders bill and i think it's important that we discuss and debate how best we can stimulate the economy, how best we can grow the economy, get it expanding again, and how best we can create jobs to get people back to work. it seems to me, again, madam president, that that ought to be the first priority that we as a united states senate get focused on. now, what my amendment would too doe is for the year 2010 it would extend bonus depreciation. it would permanently increase -- or it would permanently increase the section 179 deductions that allow small businesses to expense more of the investments they make as opposing to having to depreciate those. and by lowering the cost of new capital expenditures, these provisions would encourage companies to invest in these new -- new equipment, make capital purchases, capital investments, that would increase both growth and employment t would also

increasreduce capital gains tax. this was supported by the president in his state of the union speech and would increase investment in small businesses. this amendment also would allow a 20% deduction for small business income. we currently have a lot of small business owners in this country who pay their taxes at the individual level. it is called flow-threw income. they have their small businesses. the income flows through to the individual tax return. they pay an individual income tax rate. those tax rates are set to rise on small businesses beginning in 2011. in fact, a lot of our small businesses in this country -- i think about half of our small businesses -- are going to be impacted by those increased in marginal income tax rates that will occur in 2011. so this would help mitigate and limit the impact of those increases on the 20 million people who are working at small businesses, those small businesses which would be taxed rat a higher rate under the president's tax proposals.

finally, madam president, this bill would prevent davis-bacon prevailing wage requirements from raising the cost of projects under the stimulus bill. while i understand the importance of good wages, floodges comply with davis-bacon restrictions see labor costs that are on average 22% higher than market rarity rates. waiving these provisions will help in eliminating the confusion and stretch taxpayer dollars so we get more bang for our buck in the amount of dollars that are currently out there, hopefully trying to create jobs. now, my amendment would be paid for, madam president, by redirecting unspent or unobligated stimulus funds from the bill that was passed past year. out of that $862 billion in spending, about drg accordin--

--according to what we hear from the administration's web site, recovery.org, i think -- about 30% of that money has been spent as of the end of this last year. bear in mind, a lot of that money is obligatedment but we need that the unobligated amounts, unspent, unobligated amounts on the spending portion -- not on the tax portion -- there is still money that has not been obligated. it would seem to me that our efforts are to create jobs, we ought to think about who creates jobs. two-thirds of the jobs in our country are created by small businesses. why shouldn't we be focusing our efforts on creating incentives for small businesses to invest? frankly, as i said earlier, that was the -- would have been the way that i would have gone about the stimulus bill that was passed last year and many of my colleagues here offered amendments and many of them sported my amendment. i think i had 37 votes here for

my amendment that would have focused the stimulus bill of a year ago more on small businesses whereas the bill that ultimately passed, as i said earlier, only spent about 1% -- under 1% of that total amount, almost $1 trillion, on small businesses, which are the economic engine, the job creators in our economy. so if week figure out way, madam president, to get -- so if we can figure out ways, madam president to get small businesses some relief so they can start hiring again, we address all of these other issues, 9.7% unemployment, which incidentally the promises that were made when the big stimulus passed last year was if we didn't pass this stimulus bill, unemployment was going to go up to 8%. well, we've blown way by that. it's at 9.%. we were told that it would create millions of jobs. we know now that since its passage last year we've actually lost 2.7 million jobs in our comu. the spription that was put in place is not -- the prescription that was put in place is not

worked. it was misdirected towards creating new bureaucracies in washington, d.c., perhaps some government jobs. but the good-paying government jobs in our economy are created in our private economy. the biggest creator of those jobs are our small businesses. so frankly, madam president, we ought to be looking at what types of policies can we put in place that will create an environment in which small businesses can go back out there, make those investments, put people back to work, and then we can start hopefully bringing this unemployment rate down, give people back -- get people back employed again and a lot of these measures that we're now having to take with regard to unemployment benefits hopefully would cost the taxpayers a lot less because the best thing we can do for people who are without a job in this economy is to get them back to work. and the best way to do that is to get small businesses in this country hiring again. i want to make one final point, madam president, because i think that one of the things that i hear repeatedly from small

businesses in south dakota and across the country is that the -- there is a sort of a -- just a paralysis, if you want to call it that, about investors looking at investing 0 money in different areas and different projects, but looking at washington, d.c., and seeing all of this policy uncertainty. they see this cloud over our economy. it's creating a lot of economic uncertainty, a lost economic anxiety, and frankly what i hear from a lot of small businesses and people who create jobs is the reason nor that is they're word about the policy uncertainty in wawshtd. -- the policy uncertainty in washington, d.c. is washington goe going to passs massive new tax bill? is washington, d.c., going to pass a climate change bill that is has punishing energy taxes particularly on areas in the midwest? i've got couple of power plants in my state that are on ice

right now because of your honor certainty about what's going to happen with regard to coal-fired power in our future. there is a lot of uncertainty out here swirling around washington about what congress might do or what -- worse yet, when the e.p.a. might do on their own. and there's uncertainty about what's going to happen with tassments are we going to -- what's going to happen with taxes. are we going to see taxes go up in the year 2011? for small businesses -- about half of our small businesses who do allow that you are income from their small business to flow through to their individual income tax return are going to see those tax increases, those marginal rate increases when they go from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6%, significantl significx increases. which is why i've got this deduction for small business income as part of this amendment of but we need to bring some certainty to small businesses in this country, in the area of taxes, some certainty with regard to regulation, some certainty with regard to the litigation environment. we've got so much uncertainty

swirling around washington, it is creating this huge cloud and now we have a situation where small businesses in this crun making decisions based on poll factors rather than economic factors. we want them making decisions based upon economic factors, not worrying about what has become the new center of gravity in this country and that's washington, d.c. because washington, d.c., cannot create permanent, good-paying jobs in our economy. those can only be created in the economy in this country as we unleash small businesses and entrepreneurs and provide incentives for them to do what they do best, and that is to grow their businesses and to make capital investments and to create jobs. so, madam president, i hope that my colleagues will support this amendment. as i said, it is paid for. it is offset. this doesn't add anything to the debt. we don't have to borrow money to do this. we redirect unspent, ununletted stimulus moneys, moneys that are left over from last year's stimulus bill, toward small business tax incentives which

frankly i think many of us argue -- and i would argue -- and i i argued at the time. h. -- should have been a greater focus of th stimulus bill at th. the economic engine in this scun our small businesses and so what my amendment does is creates tax incentives for them to go out and create jobs and disco it in a way that doesn't -- and does it in a way that doesn't add to the deficit, allows the small businesses in this country to do what they do best. i would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and with that, i would yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: skilled to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. americamark i rise to address the republican filibuster, attacking the american worker. mr. merkley: i rise to address the republican filibuster attacking the american worker and the republican filibuster attacking america's small businesses. i had the chance to go home this

weekend to start my trip home in central oregon. 14% unemployment. next door to that county, cook county, 16.8% unemployment. that's only counting the workers that are officially unemployed as opposed to those who have given up on finding jobs. went down to plamouth county, 12.6% unemployment. i went to hood river and the columbia gorge, i went to washington county in the metropolitan area and everywhere i went in oregon, whether it be eastern or western or north or south, i was in every quarter this weekend, citizens wanted to know why are the republicans attacking the american worker and the american small business? because, you see, across this

country our working families are in trouble. and they're look fog this body right here for help. they want to know when are we going to get it done. and by "it," they mean extension of unemployment benefits. they want to know, when are we going to get extended the cobra health benefits? they want to know when we're going to fix the medicare rates that changed today? and dropped more than 20%. so it's that much harder to get into the door of a doctor if you're a senior. they want to know why transportation projects are grinded to halt across this country even though we need those jobs. the answer lies in this chamber. so this attack on the american

worker by the republican filibuster, it's unacceptable. this attack on the american senior is unacceptable. this attack 0 on the american small business is unacceptable. not only does this directly impact working americans and retired americans, but it also affects the economy. unemployment insurance, cobra extensions are g.d.p good for te economy. they help put food on table. they help pay the rent chefntle all of that money stays in our economy. all of it goes from those families because they have bills to pay to our businesses in the communities, and those businesses can then pay their workers and pay their contractors. so one of the best bangs for the buck in terms of economic growth

is right before us in unemployment insurance and cobra extension. now, i'm puzzled -- i've puzzled over this challenge. because behave a observed is this -- because what i've observed is this: when it comes to giving away money out of the treasury to the wealthiest americans, my colleagues across the aisle are delivering it on a silver platter. a silver platter to the wealthiest and best off. but bh it comes to a plan to assist working americans and seniors and small businesses, my colleagues across the aisle through this republican filibuster are taking the hatchet to it. they're saying, working americans don't count. we only want to have benefits on the silver platter for the

wealthiest. i have to tell you, it's working americans that made this nation great. it's american middle class that created the strongest economy in the world. it's american public school system and our working families that have come up with the industriousness to take this nation forward. now, when i'm talking about the silver platter that the republicans have for the wettiest in america, let's examine the details. -- unfunded republican program 2001 tax cuts, $1.35 trillion giveaway, borrowed from the next generation, from our comirn. -- from our children. that's quite a gift. that's quite a silver platter.

2003 tax cuts -- $350 billion delivered on the silver platter for the wealthiest americans. medicare part-d, unfunded program: $400 billion on a silver platter. iraq and afghanistan wars: almost $1 trillion. $944 billion through june of 2009. the total this year will exceed $1 trillion unpaid for, unfunded, borrowed from our children. now there's been some colleagues rising to say how this is a matter of being consistent on paying for american programs.

but when you check the record, they voted time and time again for unfunded giveaways to the wealthiest americans, the 2001 tax cuts, the 2003 tax cuts. and they voted for other programs that i like, but they weren't funded. and i'd include in that medicare part-b. you know, it made me think, when i heard a colleague talking about fiscal responsibility, it's a little like listening to bernie madoff talking about tough accounting rules. it's a little bit like talking or hearing from brett favre about promising he'll retire. it's a little bit like listening to saoeupl co-- simon cowell delivering a lecture that people shouldn't utilize sarcasm

because after these unfunded giveaways my colleagues put together a republican filibuster to attack the american worker in a completely inconsistent manner. so, i would say i have a different outlook. i think many of my colleagues here have a different outlook that we should be here to make america work for working americans. and that means that when they're hurting, we're going to assist them with unemployment insurance. we're going to help with the kpwa extension. we're going -- with the cobra extension. we're going to help with loans to small business and we're going to help seniors by fixing that medicare provision. we're not going to take the hammer to those programs. we're going to assist our working families. because of this republican filibuster, nearly 1.2 million americans will lose their benefits. and by june, this number will grow to 5 million unemployed workers will be left without

vital benefits if congress doesn't act. now, let's talk about that small business provision. small business owners have been hurt because of congressional budget small business administration's general business loan expired yesterday. my colleague from south dakota was just up speaking on the floor about the importance of helping small businesses. and i say to him, and your -- end your republican filibuster attacking small business in america. come to this floor and say enough is enough, i'm going to stand with our workers and our seniors and our small business. so it is time to end the political posturing, take our eyes off november and put our eyes on the challenge of american families and pass this legislation right away. thank you, madam speaker.

the presiding offic: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank, first of all, the senator from oregon for those very passionate comments. we've had the opportunity to join together in a number of forums to speak out about the importance of creating jobs in america and of helping those through no fault of their own who have lost their jobs. i want to thank you for your eloquence and passion again this evening. i come to the floor to also add my voice to what i believe to be an outrageous situation. i say this with all due respect to my friend from kentucky. we work together on a number of issues. and i look forward to continuing to do that. but on this, i believe that what is being done is absolutely

wrong. it is outrageous, and we are in a situation right now where nearly 135,000 michigan residents will lose the unemployment assistance that they need by the end of this month if we don't take action immediately. that's just in one month, madam president. people who have been hit by nothing less than an economic tsunami. we have a sense of urgency when an earthquake happens, when storms come and the floods come. well, to families across this country, the storms have come. they have been here, in our case for years. and we need to have the same sense of urgency as any other disaster would call us to in

focusing not only on helping people who have lost their job but in creating jobs. and i'm proud to be a part of a caucus that has placed jobs at the forefront and a president who has last year, starting right out at the beginning of the year with a jobs bill, a recovery act and moving on, and this year an entire jobs agenda. but the reality is that until jobs are created, we have millions of people in this country who played by the rules all their lives, paid their taxes, care about their families, give back to their communities. and their only sin is the fact that they lost their job through no fault of their own. they're trying to keep a roof over their head, keep food on the table, keep the heat on, trying to make sure that their kids have what they need.

most of them are receiving $200 or $300 a week just to try to hold it tock while they go back and go to job training, while they look every day for work. people want to work. this is not about people who don't want to work. people want to work. we have six people applying for every one job in america. so while we focus on job creation and partnering with the private sector to make that happen, we have millions of people in america who do not understand how something like merely extending unemployment benefits could be held up. last night the unemployment benefits stopped that process now, this month; people getting notices, afraid about what's going to happen to themselves

and their families. and what we have is a misuse of the rules, in my judgment. what we have is an objection, and it's one -- we've been down here many times. we've got the charts now. we're at over 116 times this session where we've seen objections bringing to a halt the will of the majority, blocking the democratic process of voting, of simply voting and being able to solve problems and move things forward. madam president, i received an e-mail from a woman in lavonia, michigan, who lost her job last year. she took the opportunity to go back to school, to get new jobs skills to become a registered dietitian. but now she's doing that, because of this obstruction, this woman is going to lose the help that she needs to allow her to make it and keep a roof over

her head while she's turning the corner and gaining new skills to get a new job. the rug is, frankly, being pulled out from under her, and i think that's outrageous. she's not alone. as i indicated before, we have nearly 135,000 people in michigan who will lose the help that they need under unemployment benefits by the end of this month if we don't act, and act immediately. i received another e-mail from a woman in green bush, michigan. she and her husband both worked at the same manufacturing plant. it's a common story in michigan. they both lost their jobs. she writes "we're both seeking work and schooling for new careers. we've both received a letter from the unemployment office that our benefits will end. we have no other source of income, and we fear we will lose

our home." this is real for millions of people across this country. millions of middle-class families who tsunami that in a disaster, an economic disaster, that their government, that the people of the country will step up to help. and that's what unemployment benefits are all about. so it's time to act. it's time to stop blocking democracy. if my friend from kentucky has an amendment to offer, offer it, debate it, vote it. vote. but just blocking us from exercising our right to vote is not the american way. the american way is to vote, to act, to make decisions.

not to block. and we've seen way too much of blocking democracy from our republican colleagues in this last months and months. now i also want to speak to other things in this bill because, madam president, i find it interesting that within hours of the health care summit last thursday, the blocking of this bill showed us what the health care plan is by republicans. cut people off of help with cobra. cut doctors' benefits. that came within hours of the health care summit. we're now getting calls from people who are concerned about whether or not their doctor is going to be available. senior citizens under medicare, are they going to be able to see their same doctor because of the cuts that will happen if we do not act immediately? people who one day lost their

job, next day lost their health care. we've been able to help them through the jobs bill that we passed last february, be able to continue their health insurance through work. it's expensive to do under something called cobra, but we've been able to help them do that by helping to pay in a short-term basis for part of that cost. so the health care summit happens on thursday. hours later there's an objection that will stop health care for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of americans, and stop the ability for doctors to be reimbursed at a fair reimbursement to be able to care for their patients. this is, in my judgment, an absolutely outrageous situation, and it has to stop. i want to thank our chairman of

the finance committee for his work and advocacy in being here on the floor calling for us to vote. i'm hopeful that people around the country will speak out loudly between tonight and tomorrow and that we will be able to come to the floor and stop what is effectively blocking the democratic process and blocking our ability to vote, to make decisions, and to move forward. we have millions of americans that are counting on us to understand what's happening in real people's lives, not political games, not all the partisanship. but real people's lives every day that are going to get up tomorrow morning and say, okay, what do i do now? what do i do now? how am i going to keep my roof over my head, and how am i going to continue to go to school to

get that new skill that i need? how am i going to put food on the table for my family? that's what's affecting people across this country. and the final thing i would say is that we have, in addition to people, millions who have lost their jobs and are on unemployment, we have millions of others who are one paycheck away from being in the very same situation. people that could be spending in the economy now to be able to help move things forward, who are afraid of what happens next. and part of that fear is not only will they have a job, but what happens if they don't? and what is the message that is sent if we don't make it clear that we will be there for them if that happens, and they will be able to continue to be able to have the basics to keep their family going? i would strongly urge that we do everything possible. i know that we will -- to stop

this obstruction, to allow the democratic process to go forward, to allow us to vote, to solve problems, to move this bill forward and send a very strong message that we understand what is happening to millions of families in this country who have faced a disaster of economic -- of epic proportions. that is truly as much a disaster as anything else any community has ever felt in terms of losing their job and fighting and working to get another one. thank you very much. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, we are here to do the people's business. folks in our home states elected us to do what's right. most folks don't care too much about the process as long as we get our job done and so long as

it's reasonable, so that boundaries of reasonableness and as long as they think that we give the subject considerable thought. i think if we agree it's true, and i think it's largely true, i think most people would think why don't you go ahead and pass that stimulus thing you're talking about back there. it is the right thing to do. people need to collect unemployment checks. they need health insurance. some of these tax provisions need to be continued. otherwise, madam president, this a job killer, actually, that the other side's taken. as it job destroyer not to continue these provisions actually destroys jobs. and that's not what we think we want to. madam president, on another matter, the senator from south dakota, proposes an amendment to make a series of tax cuts for small business. i might say that some of these tax cuts, the ones that he

proposes, actually has merit. we in the finance committee hopes to address tax cuts in the writeup. this is part of the jobs agenda. it is additional legislation to help create jobs, preserve jobs, and help the recovery come along a little more quickly. the -- what the senator from south dakota proposes is another matter. the senator from south dakota seeks to pay for his amendment by cutting funding from the recovery act. and that idea does not have much merit in this senator's judgment. the last thing we should do is to cut the recovery act. the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the independent organization that we rely upon around here, both sides of the aisle in both bodies, say that's the recovery act is working. the congressional budget office says that in the third quarter of last year, for example, the recovery act cost betwee

between $600,000 and $1.00 -- 1.6 million people who have jobs. that sounds like it's working to he me. the c.b.o. also said that these people who have jobs who would not otherwise have had jobs. i, therefore, think that we should not cut back on the recovery act, rather, we should let it work its also. the investment that's the senator from south dakota seeks to cut are largely within the jurisdiction of the appropriations committee and thus i will refer to the chairman of the appropriations committee, who i think at the appropriate time will have quite a bit to say about this thune amendment. an he'll speak to it at greater lengtd and i suggest -- lengtd and i -- lebtsd and i suggest that is the appropriate time for a more lengtdy discussion on this matter. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from montana

mr. baucus: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today that it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, march 2, follow the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the senate proceed to a period of morning business for one hour with the time equally divide and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. that following morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of barbara keenan as provided under the previous order. under a previous order the time following morning business and until 12:15 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between senators leahy and sessions or their designees. at 12:15 p.m. the senate will proceed to a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on

the nomination of barbara keenan to be the united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit. if there is no further business to come before this senate, i ask that it adjourn under a previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

spokesman p.j. crowley outlined steps the u.s. is taking to help chile in the wake of this weekend's earthquakes. he also addressed secretary of state hillary clinton's plan to be on the ground in chile on tuesday. this is about 35 minutes. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon and welcome to the state department, sorry the briefing happen later today but one of my duties as assistant secretary is to meet with the department's historical advisory committee which plays a leading role in in the periodic release of a the foreign relations of the u.s. series. a. discussion about the vietnam war. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> and certainly before you return to normal program we probably should congratulate canada on their. victory yesterday, what a wonderful olympics, we would

have preferred to bring in gold medals particularly in hockey but we will await -- fine the stanley cup wails of but a couple of things just started. secretary clinton released a statement a short time ago wishing a happy 49th anniversary to the peace corps paying tribute to the 200,000 americans to have answer the challenge for a slowdown by john f. kennedy a half century ago. the deputy secretary of state john steinberg accompanied by nsc director for agent of paris departed today for china and japan. they will be in beijing and tomorrow and wednesday in tokyo thursday and friday discussing bilateral and regional and global issues. the secretary is in montevideo as we speak, she had meetings

this morning with the president-elect and outgoing uruguayan president vasquez about to participate in observing the inauguration of president that the new uruguayan president. she will also have a meeting this afternoon with paraguay president before departing for buenos aires where she will have dinner tonight with argentine president fernandez. she will one as planned make a stop to ma in santiago but obviously because of the situation there her meeting with the chilean president allied to an outgoing president will occur at the airport. in terms of our support for chile today, chile has requested our help in terms of providing

field hospital, communications support, and water purification systems and so we are mobilizing those capabilities as we speak and will be moving those down to chile in as quickly as possible. obviously i think a major earthquake in major disaster, chilean authorities continue to assess the damage. by way of scale, roughly six of chile's 15 regions were affected by this and the chilean government reports more than 700 casualties our condolences go out to the people of chile. but you are also seeing a robust response in the face of a this adversity but we stand ready to assist our friends in chile with whenever they need. >> it's pretty modest, are there any signals that they will be asking a lot more in the future?

>> well, whatever they think they need to we will provide. i think there are still in the assessment phase. but let's remember that chile has a great deal of experience with earthquakes. if you compare it to haiti for example, chile went through their a mega disaster in 1960 and from there they learned a great deal about earthquakes, they're building standards for strengthens over the past decade and i thank you have a population that clearly was a very well prepared which i think counsel for the relatively low death toll at this point. but i think this will be a significant disaster end as chile identifies requirements we will stand ready to support in any way necessary and i think that's exactly what's secretary

clinton will communicate when she meets with the president to ma. >> will the meetings at the airport -- will that be the life and she will do in chile? pitch to take a helicopter tour of damaged areas? >> that's a fair question. i think right now the activities will be centered around the airport but we will take our cue from chilean authorities. >> can you be specific about their requests, military hospital in the water per vacation, coming from the military? >> i think we will be identifying those assets, they exist within the private sector and also do exist within the military. but in terms of sourcing that will be worked through the united states agency for national development but specifically for those assets, by acting part of it will be if the military has that capability relatively close to the chilly,

perhaps they will be the ones that provided but i think i can say with a specific source will be. likewise in terms of field hospital you want to be sure that you are equipping the field hospital with specific capabilities based on the needs of the population so we are tailoring that to make sure it is to address the injuries that we think the chilean people have suffered and will be best for those medical professionals to be able to address. >> and i have asked for search and rescue help and then can you say. is that correct when today actually -- >> this was something were done a short time ago and the conversation of chilean officials and our ambassador in santiago. i would say we still have a search and rescue teams from fairfax county in the dc area and from los angeles on standby. so as we work to the day again

if chile asks us for additional support we will, of course, provided. >> it seems to me there was mentioning the secretary her self-worth the staff about to some of the communications equipment already been on board the plane? >> i think we do have some satellite phones that appear prepared to provide. that is one of the capabilities i think we're also looking at, imagery that might help the chileans assess the damage across the country and how to best respond. >> aside from the phones, and nothing has been mobilized, things on standby. >> i think we have received the formal request from chile so now we are mobilizing meaning we're going to identify a source and move its into chile as quickly as possible. obviously -- this has been a

conversation we've been having with chile horror -- since the disaster on saturday and they have just of this lay -- doing their initial damage assessment, determining what they have within their own capabilities and chile has a formidable capability within their own government but as they've been able to identify things that they need to to more expanded capabilities they might assess that come forward with a formal requests. >> can you update the u.s. citizens there, and casualty's? >> we have accounted for all of our personnel and we are not aware of any american casualties. i think we are aware of two minor injuries, two american citizens who have -- you are in chile. we estimate there are roughly

18,000 americans in the sense in chile. and maybe want about 1,000 and then harvested area in chile and we are obviously looking to let them know that we are available if they need help. all americans in chile obviously can register with the consulate's, chile did to u.s. embassy/service. they can also contact the consulate to santiago, as state.gov. and you would be very kind to publish the number 184-07-4747 for any american citizens who are speaking information on whereabouts of u.s. citizens in chile. so we're doing the same thing in this case that we did in the

heat the tragedy which is just going about over time which expect that american citizens than your help. >> you have a task force or not? >> we had a watch over the weekend. but i don't think we have a task force. we have a akin to the haiti crisis. >> of the embassy personnel accounted for, do you know how many there are? >> 118 was the number on saturday. now in some cases we're also some great foreign service nationals also were damascene, not all of them are accounted for but it may just be the difficulty of communications in the aftermath of the earthquake but we haven't accounted for all the foreign service national. >> [inaudible] they reported that china propose to have a median to discuss the resumption

of the talks and can you confirm if there is a chair proposal on the table? what is your response to that? >> i think as ambassador was worth said in tokyo before he. >> to the united states, five of the six parties are prepared to move quickly and would hope that dprk will decide to move ahead. this will be discussion, an item of discussion in secretary steinberg's trip to beijing when he arrives tomorrow. but the decision as to whether they're going to come back remains with north korea. >> [inaudible] is there such a proposal on the table? >> to repeat, we're anxious to see talks resume and we have made that clear to north korea. we have the chinese -- the chinese have a south koreans have. but the decision rests with north korea and on not aware

that they have yet said, yes. >> [inaudible] >> i do not. i'm sure it will be a pretty high level of discussion but as to the particulars i don't have them. >> change of subject. >> yes. >> the median that the secretary had it on friday with the city ambassadors and what about the timing of this meeting that came one day after the syrian and iranian side? >> i would point in a slightly different direction, it came seven days after an important visit to damascus by undersecretary bill burns who was the first opportunity for assistance secretary jeffrey feldman to follow-up on the particulars that were discussed as part of that visit. and syria's relations with iran

is one of those items that is a part of ongoing discussion with syria. we want to see syria play more constructive role in the region and also want to extend the ability to talk with iran directly and ensure that syria is communicating to iran, its concerns about -- it's a role in the region, and the direction, the nature of its nuclear ambitions, but the primary purpose for having the syrian ambassador was just kind of a follow-up on that meeting in damascus and chart the way forward. >> [inaudible] >> it wouldn't surprise me. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know, that's a good question. >> [inaudible] >> i don't think it has been confirmed, that would be -- i

know until you are confirmed you are not at a business meeting. >> iran supreme leader has some pretty strong words for the iaea over the weekend. alleging the repoire the nuclear report was biased and took a lot of the criticism on the head of the iaea, the new guy, so are you encouraged by this more tenuous relationship that iran has with the iaea now? and you have anything. >> up the nuclear --? >> have encouraged by the relationship? >> it is a shift i would say and do you have more backup of the nuclear report like the anything to suggest there on the right track? >> i think we have lots of questions and information that backs up the iaea report and, of course, they've had inspectors and iran and if there are the

ones who raised the concerns about the inability to answer the questions that we all have about iran's programs, its facilities, its lack of transparency, on the nuclear issue. i think it's a very important that this was a report by it the iaea but it represents not just concerns of the united states but the concerns of the national community, so it's unfortunate the ayatollah may try to once again create this satanic trama, this is about questions of world at large has about iran, the role its plant in the region and its nuclear concerns. no one wants to see a nuclear arms race developed in the middle east. but it would be better for iran rather than protesting this report to come forward in a constructive way and an answer the questions that the iaea has

on behalf of the international community as a whole. >> you may have been asked before but does the na amy that we haven't seen yet this is support the basically what the nuclear report that has come out? >> the key word is we have not seen yet. >> what is the whole of it? is a down? >> those are fine questions to ask member. >> [inaudible] >> i would think that the deputy secretary steinberg will clearly talk about iran but also will clearly talk about broad u.s.-china relationship, where we are at this stage, where we have gone through a bit of a bumpy path here and i think there's an interest both within the united states and china to get back to business as usual as quickly as possible. >> last week the secretary for western hemisphere affairs

mention an three objectives about clinton's trip to latin america and the third one was how the rest can partner with regional countries on issues of democratic governance, two days before that there was a summit in mexico where they want a regional bloc excluding the u.s. and canada. because they mention the u.s. interests overlap america with even some leaders saying the region is trying to move away from u.s. influence in governance. so i'm wondering is hillary clinton facing many of these concerns from a lot of these countries and if so how was she tried to remedy those concerns? >> let's take those in turn. i think what you have seen in the oas in recent months a very constructive been a very healthy debate and a cornerstone of the oas is the promotion of

democratic governance. in the hemisphere, but say go back to the debate we had last spring about more than notional idea that what would be the circumstances under which cuba would potentially be offered free admission to the oas. and there was a very strong affirmation at the end of a very healthy debate that one of the preconditions for membership in the oas is, in fact, democratic and constitutional rule. and then pressed for from there to june and a crisis in honduras and, once again, you had countries in the region that took different paths, sama -- some have different views on how to interpret what happened in honduras, but you have seen now a growing consensus now that you've had a free pair legitimate election in honduras. now we are about turning a path

to reintegrate honduras back into the inter-american community. so it's hard to suggest that somehow given an these healthy debates of the differing points of view, this is an organization that somehow the united states dominates. i think that is cold war thinking. this is an indication of a bit different kinds of relationship and a different partnership we want to have an hemisphere so secretary clinton is going in the region to consult on regional issues, but also global issues recognizing the growing in a brawl that countries like chile, argentina and brazil playing not only in the region but well beyond in guatemala, later in the week with the opportunity to confer with the president of the central american country is and they

will talk more specifically about honduras among other issues that we have in common. ..

not to try to impose a solution on honduras but recognizing that the action to the move of doing elected leader came in the middle of a presidential campaign. we didn't try to impose our point of view in other countries. we had our point of view, some agreed with that point of view and some is agreed. i think what you see now is coming together now that you've seen the election of the president in honduras where do we go from here, but i think maybe the answer to the question lies in the center of the question which is we are not trying to impose our will or

view on the region. but there is the opportunity here for a healthy debate. we can respectfully disagree from a common set of facts. some countries have agreed with the approach that we took. some countries disagreed with the approach but we were all part of that debate centered as a significant important institution to promote democracy in the hemisphere. we saw for example a report last week by the oas by what it sees for democracy and concerns we all of about this attrition and venezuela, so i think at heart what you're seeing is the obama administration working aggressively to have a different kind of relationship than the one that is based on the mutual interest but also a joint partnership. >> would you mind if i asked a question, it's not really to latin america.

>> sure. >> egypt. he returned last week and there's been he's kind of amplified the movements and opposition and such. what do you make of his return back to egypt and the opposition coming out in full support of him for the 2011 election even though he's not -- he wouldn't be considered under the egyptian constitution. >> these are decisions that have to be made by egypt. i think we would like to see the emergence of a more inclusive political process in egypt and one that is competitive and provides the opportunity for more citizens in egypt to or to participate in the process and have faith an opportunity to shape the future of governments in that country but these are decisions ultimately that have to be made by egypt.

yes. go ahead. >> last week we also talked about the human rights dialogue between the u.s. and china. the date hadn't been set yet. is there any movement on that? >> i think we are still looking for a mutual date. i don't think we have our i did a mutual consensus. >> and also, on north korea reduce still denied a visa to kim kye gwan, the north korean nuclear negotiator to visit the u.s.? >> i don't know that we are denying a visa. i'm not sure that we've been requested to grant one. >> the secretary had some comments about the falklands to speak today, saying among other things that the u.s. would be happy to act as an intermediary of the countries wanted one. has there been any indication that argentina or the u.k. are looking -- >> i think actually to go back and look at her precise language, she said we have strong friendship with both britain and argentina and we are willing to help.

i think or view remains that this is an issue that should be resolved bilaterally between the two countries, but as she said on the flight down, if the united states can be helpful we will be happy to see what we can do. >> thank you. going back to latin america. i'm sorry. >> that's ok. >> did you see that editorial of the washington-based today regarding the oas, kind of the organization fell short regarding democracy in the region and specifically with venezuela? and if you can make comments on the agenda of secretary clinton? she's staying in argentina to beat could you please talk about that? >> well, sure. >> what will be agenda before her? >> she made a change to her schedule, given the earthquake in chile. she was planning to spend the night in santiago. but given the year earthquake, she has switched to buenos aires. she had a meeting planned for

this afternoon with president kirchner, and that meeting will now take place this evening as part of the dinner. but obviously, we continue to have our concerns about venezuela's activity in the region as a -- not being a particularly constructive player. and we will address those in our relationship with venezuela as we go forward. >> just to pick up on that -- we were talking about the drug issue at the other briefing, but i mean, in the last kind of week or so, the venezuelans have been making the case that, you know, it's not that they are and on constructive person in the region, they just -- country in the region -- they just don't agree with your world view and -- you know, that there's not an -- you know, president obama said that he was calling to

engage countries that had a different world view and that, you know, this is not an example of doing that. he said that there are ustc ambassador in particular said last week that there are to prison obama. one that says he wants to engage and then one that doesn't engage, and venezuela says that -- you know, it is making efforts, you just use the fact that you don't -- they don't agree with their world view as a political tool and it's not a kind of objective assessment of what they are trying to do in the region. >> well, i think we have a very valid concerns about venezuela and some of the activities that it has conducted, particularly with respect to its neighbors, colombia being one. we have no earthly idea why venezuela feels that it needs to bring in and purchase some of the military equipment that it has at least announced. whether they -- actually follows through or not is a separate

issue. we have great concerns about the state of space institutions inside venezuela, and concentration of power by the president. that said, there is engagement and there is engagement. we are engaged with venezuela. we have a diverse relationship with venezuela. we have a significant economic relationship with venezuela. we have an embassy that's fully staffed and caracas kuhl and we deal with this venezuelan government every day. so, you know, what i am seeing here is should be no mystery to the leaders in venezuela. we've expressed concerns many times. but, you know, as to high level dialogue at eight leader level obviously that is something referred to the white house, but if venezuela wants to have a more significant engagement

again as i said in answer to another question this is not a one-way street. it is a two-way street. the countries in the regions have whites but the have responsibilities as well, and venezuela itself can help to shape the future direction of its relationship with the united states if it so chooses. >> to follow-up on the oas at tebeau didn't answer my question on the oas regarding the "washington post." but secretary clinton was having a meeting on friday with the general secretary. could you update what happened in this meeting? is the u.s. important in the reelection? >> i.t. we will defer on how we see the future leadership of the oas. but i think the secretary used

her meeting with the general to reflect on his tour as secretary-general and she was inquiring about his ideas for the future of the organization and from that the united states will judge -- as far as i know the cabinet for another term as the secretary-general but i'm not plan to announce the position here. >> do you think you can have another meeting in korea because [inaudible] >> if we are going to have another bilateral meeting with north korea in the near future we will let you know. >> is the u.s. government seeking for the fall of the bilateral issues?

>> i wouldn't use those as the correct term. we have a very broad and deep complex relationship with china. there are many areas where we have achieved consensus view. north korea would be a great example of that. there are some areas where we do not yet have a convergent view. iran might be in the example of that. we have different perceptions of our national interest. when you talk about a dialogue with the dalai lama for example you talk about regional security issues perhaps involving taiwan. i expect that deputy secretary steinberg will talk about the full range of these issues. but we have a common interest in stability in the region and we have a common interest in working together on issues like climate and the environment. we have a common interest in working on issues such as piracy in and around the horn of africa. so this is a very detailed

relationship but to the extent that there have been issues that have crept up recently the relationship i think this would be an opportunity to kind of refocus on the future and get those views, express our views in a straightforward way from china we will also receive the perspective as well. >> recently the news about the new electronic u.s. visa application for which becomes mandatory today -- can you confirm lummis? >> i will take that question. >> back on the columbia-venezuelan country, that came from over here, chavez says that he's working with countries that tend to be adversaries to the united states for military buildup -- not to build up but to threaten to leave to purchase weapons because they feel threatened with the u.s. military bases that have popped up in colombia. and on top of that he is

concerned because in 2002 there was a coup against him and there is substantial evidence that the u.s. was involved in that group. so i'm just trying to understand what you said. you don't want -- you're not encouraged by -- venezuela with these groups? >> venezuela has nothing to fear from the united states. the -- >> you don't want them to -- can't work with other countries? >> -- but the equipment that venezuela has brought in does not seem to be consistent with what would be needed given the current security environment in the region. the u.s.-based -- or not the u.s. based -- the colombian these that columbia has allowed the u.s. access to strictly a part of the u.s.-columbia bilateral relationship. it is focus on very specific missions. it is not there to be -- at a regional perspective at all. but again, that is just part of the u.s.-columbia bilateral relationship. it is not something that as we

let our other countries in the region should be concerned about. >> but you don't like the fact that venezuela is arming itself and working with iran and russia to purchase weapons and trade and such like that? >> well, i mean, as the secretary has said, we have -- and we have expressed our views to any country that seems to be expanding its military or commercial ties with iran. and even venezuela, like other countries around the world, have the same vested interest in global stability that the united states does, and should carefully evaluate its -- their contacts with and their commercial ties with iran. thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

now a look at president obama's recent speech before the business roundtable association and the administration's plan to spur job growth. the group's president was a guest on today's washington

journal. it's 45 minutes. >> host: jongh joins us, the president of the business roundtable, the group representing several chief executives of the leading u.s. companies. president spoke to your group last week. what did you hear from that? >> with the president's message was and it was important that he believed in the free enterprise system, that he believes the private sector was important to bring in the economy out of recession. that he was not opposed and he wanted to work with us. to get the economy going and to create jobs, so it was a good message. it was important that business leaders here it and it's important that we follow-through and get policies that will help the economy growing and overcome uncertainty we are facing right now. >> host: we are going to show the viewers some of the comments the president made last week to the roundtable. but a meeting like that, the president speaking to your group -- how is that organized? is that something you say you

would like to hear from and they come to say we have a message we would like? >> guest: we invited the president, as we always invite presidents to our meetings. we've met with the president since the history of the organization business roundtable, the ceos of 160 leading companies in the united states, the largest companies. so the a very good perspective on what is going on in the country and how to grow the economy and create jobs. as we want the chance to hear from both the president and what was on his mind as well as tell him what we were seeing in the economy and how the different policy proposals were affecting it. >> host: we spent the last 45 minutes talking to reporters from couple held the white house. largely about health care. among your 160 ceos, what is their biggest concern about the country and about how the administration is approaching health care whatever? >> guest: the biggest concern is weak eliminate uncertainty. we need regulatory reform in the financial sector so we know what rules are and we can ensure the

financial sector is operating efficiently. it is our source of capital. it's how we do business both in the united states and around the world. we need to reduce the cost of health care. every one of the business roundtable companies provide health care for and louise, cover more than 35 million americans. it's the biggest cost pressure we face. we need meaningful health care reform so that we can improve the quality and reduce the trajectory of the cost because where we are now is understandable. we need a certainty around cap and trade. we need to know whether or not there's been to the price of carbon and what it is and how it will be, how it will be allocated. we need to know what the tax structure is going to be. so there was a lot of discussion about -- there's a lot of in the air right now. that uncertainty is inhibiting investment and that in turn and have its job creation so we need to get the right answers but we need to get some answers. >> host: the president made comments on government intervention and businesses failed, when banks fail and i want to please some of three

earmarks and get your further thoughts on this. here he is. >> guest >> we should meet easier for the small businesses to get loans and raise wages. we should invest in infrastructure projects that lead to new jobs and the construction industry and other hard-hit businesses. we should provide a tax incentive for large businesses like the worst to invest in plants and equipment. that would make a difference now. and we need businesses to support these efforts. the business roundtable supported the recovery act and for that i'm grateful. but i think one of the reasons businesses haven't been as vocal about their support is the belief that extraordinary measures like the recovery act were our financial stability plan. somehow represent a lasting increase and government intervention. so let me assure you and be clear they do not. >> host: so the president's comments on the stimulus.

he said some concern there about whether business leaders, that means a permanent presence of government intervention. >> guest: and he's right to point out that concern. what we know is the markets work best. clearly we had extraordinary circumstances one year, two years ago with the collapse of the financial system of not only just in the united states but around the world, and we recognize that was quick to take extraordinary measures to stabilize that. those measures were taken. this administration from the previous administration and congress deserve credit for acting quickly. now it's time to withdraw that government intervention and allow the markets to work so that they can efficiently begin creating jobs and efficiently begin creating the kind of activity we all ought to seize of the economy gets moving forward. that was the gist of the discussion. it's another part of the discussion that was important. this president, this congress stressed very much with the small business can do for the economy and small business is very important but one of the

points or members made is it is not just small business. small business are suppliers, our vendors, we need big business to get moving for small business to get moving so that was part of the message. >> host: and the president mentioned tax incentives for big businesses in that comment of his. >> guest: that's one of the interesting debates going on right now. the senate and house are considering a jobs bill but still right now there are provisions in the tax code, research and development tax credit, bonus depreciation, small business expensing that have expired, and one could argue, and our members would argue the fact they've expired and they have not been extended and acted again into the law is probably a more than detrimental an attack on the economy than any jobs bill that congress might be passing would provide new jobs so we need to get that certainty in the tax code that allows us to continue. >> host: in terms of small business versus big business, do you think sometimes it's easier

-- politically easier to remember to save everybody's in favor of small businesses rather than let's help of big businesses? >> guest: yeah, it is and that is a political reality but to have to keep in mind as one of our members pointed out at the meeting, jim mcnerney, the ceo of bunning, every time they sell a triple 72 china let's say there are 12 small businesses that rely on the wings of the plan. 12,000 of the supply are the small business vendors and suppliers that depend on that big company, boeing or caterpillar were general electric or any of the big companies for their livelihood. >> host: the lines are open for john castellani of the business roundtable for your calls. 202-737-0002 for the democrats. 202-737-0001 for republicans and independent, your line is 202-628-0205. mary ann and syracuse is first. go ahead. >> caller: hi there, good morning. i was watching c-span last week

and watching the hearings on for $30 million that could -- i'm sorry, maybe billion dollars, that could be going to either -- going in to help credit for businesses. and i was wondering about the guests opinion on whether the argument that the sba should be having that money so that they can do direct funding or whether it should be going to the banks. in my opinion, just quickly, is that the banks already had a chance at this and the small business is a big deal in this country and sba is setting up to be doing more assessment for the small businesses. so i would prefer to see it go to the sba but i was wondering what you folks were thinking. thank you. >> guest: it is a very good point. by the way i grew up in the syracuse area, a little time in new york, so i hope that you are enjoying a the winter.

one of the biggest problems the economy faces right now is the lack of liquidity, lack of capital for small businesses. one of the problems we have seen in the wake of the financial crisis is new rules that were really intended for large banks, rightly intended to realistically value their assets but having a consequence that i don't think anybody intended and that is it made the banks much less willing to loan. so what we have seen in the big business sector is we have had to bankroll our supply chain, our vendors and suppliers to make sure the have access to the capitol so getting small business access to capital is something very important. ideally the best thing that could be done is getting the banking system workings of the private sector can provide that capital. those provisions we are talking about are the so-called mark to market provisions. we would like to see relief in that so the banks are able to land and until that can happen

and this system is working the kind of things like have been proposed, the $30 billion to be proposed in the sba will be helpful but it is a stopgap measure eventually it meets to get back to the private sector. >> host: john castellani, the business roundtable, the top companies employ more than 12 million employees. total companies employ more than 12 million generating 6 trillion in annual revenues comprised nearly one-third of total value of the u.s. stock market. an example of some of the companies that are ceos that are represented in the route to? >> guest: verizon, american express, wal-mart, general electric, boeing as i mentioned, caterpillar, we cover the broad spectrum. microsoft, everything from the manufacturing sector to the high-tech sector to the service sector. >> host: you're the head of the organization of ceos. have you been a said ceo yourself? >> guest: i have been a director but not a ceo.

>> host: rall on the republican line, go ahead. >> caller: this morning, gentlemen. kudos to c-span. i don't know where we would be without you guys. what i want to say is this: barack obama is out over 25 years in the so-called church that spoke out very aggressively against capitalism, liberation theology is a belief that poverty is caused by sin and the plan of the sin is not tall on the center's, drug addiction, alcoholism, it places the blame squarely on capitalism. so when barack obama goes to the business roundtable talking about how he is for the free enterprise i have grave doubts. of liberation theology is eaten with a spoon and he tequila effect since barack obama roldan

to town here, you saw 30% in one year 50% of private business taken over by the government. if this bill were to go through as drafted it's another 18% so that's half of private business in america taken over by the federal government. that is not america. that is what this country is. one last thing i would like to say is that when are going into economic downturn as a president you have one of two choices, either do as reagan did when he inherited the upside down world of jimmy carter and throw the money to the people and indeed restore the economic engine or and george bush did that. we inherited the position from the bubble burst. hundreds of billions of dollars of the richest country so a handful of men and women, some of them jackals on capitol hill and once you do that they take control over the people and that is what i see happening here and i take everything barack obama

says in support of the free enterprise and capitalism. not a grain of salt a bag of it. >> guest: one of the most important things is to get the private sector working. the private sector is where the jobs are created, the private-sector creates a lasting job well beyond what any government action can do. one of the things we've been stressing particularly important is what drives us is business committee and for products and services. we don't meet demand for our own products and services. it's the consumer that has to be, and right now the consumer is very leary of the united states as well the should be but there's something else that's going on in the world and that is something different than we've seen in the past and it gets right to the caller's point, and that is we are seeing other countries particularly india and china, brazil, other countries around the world whose economies are growing. we need access to the market so we can sell u.s.-made goods and services in those markets and

that has been something that's been missing. this will be an economy that may be led by the developing countries and we need to aggressively do with the rest of the world is doing and that is getting the trade agreement with the countries so we can sell our goods and services. something the president recognized but it's something that can't be done just by pushing it from here in washington. we have to be able to get into those markets. >> host: the administration announced they want rapidly increase the forget the number -- >> guest: they want to double exports. >> host: double in five years. how does that happen if the president is behind capitol hill has to get behind, too. >> host: you have to have access to the markets. you can't sit here and put it in a box and ship it somewhere and hope people will buy it. you have to have the ability to access to markets and be able to have reduced tariffs and be able to invest in those markets so you can service debt and finance it and markets it are out of the world. that is what we see the rest of

the world doing. they are negotiating free trade agreements to open up markets for their own goods and services while the u.s. hasn't been able to move forward relatively, panama and colombia both of which would give u.s. tremendous advantage because panel and columbia, and duty free we have to pay the duty going into panama, important but very small scale of things of economies. you can't just say we want to double exports without access to those markets where we want to sell goods and services without a tax code that supports us or makes us competitive around the world. something we don't have right now. >> host: a quick thing that call or commented on, the figures of the obama administration has come in the taken over the government has taken over 30% of u.s. businesses. is that accurate? >> guest: i think it is smaller than that. clearly through the tour program they supported a substantial section of the financial sector. remember some of those didn't need that support and paid it back right away and most all of payback.

obviously there has been significant investment by the government to the automotive industry barely general motors and chrysler that hopefully will get turned around but i don't think 30% would be close to 700 or $800 billion or i'm sorry, seven or $8 trillion. so we didn't spend anything like that. >> host: curious new jersey, jeanette democratic call, go ahead. >> caller: yes, good morning. this business would not exist in this country if we did not have government. if there were of rules and regulations and oversight corporations exist for the bottom line and they would wind up eating their own and that's pretty much what we have seen in the course of the last 30 years with mergers and acquisitions and creations and monopoly and as far as tax codes go people

can rant and rave about having the highest corporate tax rate at 35% but the truth of it is ideally one and others like me their stock being that 35%. corporations are sure they take their profits and sent to a six story building in the cayman islands and they pay virtually nothing of that 35%. why we feel most of our jobs to come from small business, corporations, the large businesses have been squeezing production is certainly not the problem and i think you will agree with me. the american worker which i think you and the republican party feel nothing but disdain for have been squeezed and are now working the job of low wages than they did in comparison 30 years ago. >> host: we will get a response. thanks for your call. >> guest: three quick things

and it's important to make these points frigate first and foremost, sure there's a legitimate role for government. no business would say otherwise. we need good regulation and smart regulation of the markets. we need the kind of protection and security the government provides and nobody is asking and certainly not our members are asking for the government to disappear. we want the government to be here and be efficient and we want it to be effective. secondly american workers can compete anywhere in the world, the are the best educated, they have the resources. we think with the right rules and access american workers can make products and services that can compete anywhere in the world and we have seen tremendous productivity improvement. you mentioned business roundtable companies employ 11 million workers. one of the things and fell a third point i would like to make is people lose sight of when they talk about trade and how trey affects the american work

force is that there are 26 million jobs in the united states that depend on international trade that work for the multinational companies and those jobs are increasing. more companies can participate in the worldwide market. more products and services can be decided finance here, and manufactured here. the of the interesting thing is a worker who works for a company involved in the international marketplace 625% more than a worker who does not so the best paying jobs, the jobs growing and they are the jobs think we can grow in the future because we think with the right set of rules american workers can compete anywhere. >> guest: >> host: the financial times reports about the manufacturing sector their stories an aging work force great skill shortages for u.s. manufacturers. what can you tell about this? >> guest: one of the things we face a shortage of in the future is high skilled workers. this is the one issue democrats, republicans, the president, the

congress, business all agree in fact a couple weeks ago i testified in front of the house science technology committee along with other counterparts in business on the importance of revamping the system so we have workers who are better able to or dissipate and compete in the global marketplace in fact there is no disagreement this administration previous administrations worked hard proving the case through 12 system. we need to work to make sure our teachers and students are able to both teach and understand math and science. it's not just getting a degree in engineering or science it's getting his receipts degree from a community college so that you know how to develop and work and utilize your analytical skills. when we look at our leaders look for the long-term future the thing we are most concerned about is a shortage of high skilled workers both aging population and retirement and fact we are not producing as many scientists and technology

engineers and mathematicians from our colleges and community college is something that concerns us and concerns everybody both parties, both sides of pennsylvania avenue. we need to work on it. >> host: baltimore next up, darren independent. go ahead. >> caller: hi, am i on? >> host: you are. go ahead. >> caller: wonderful. thanks for c-span. it's great to talk to the leaders in the business world. the question is are americans going to do as far as manufacturing? a lot of what i was talking about manufacturing jobs being donner but a lot of those jobs gone are old industries. textile, all of them. what are the industries of the feature? what should we be concentrating on? >> guest: sure. and that goes to, bill, but you and i were talking about. but the u.s. needs to

concentrate on are those kinds of activities. those kinds of businesses that create a lot of the value because those are the ones that create the highest-paid jobs in the future so whether we are talking about manufacturing will be part of it we can manufacture in the united states. good to a texas plant and see some of the latest cutting edge technology being developed right here in the united states and in texas, go to intel, go to a caterpillar plant, you will see high-technology equipment being manufactured and continued to be manufactured in the united states. but one of the keys for the future is to be able to design the next generation of any technology here in this country because if you can design a here you can make it here you can sell it around the world saw it is a combination of both services and manufacturing. they're going to be part, both are going to be part of the future but it's making sure we have the high end of the

value-added chain. that is why the scientists and technologists and engineers. >> host: rockford illinois on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead with your comment. >> caller: why the question of the extension for unemployment benefits. something that's cui to happen or should i start signing up for others? >> host: the unemployment extension ran out yesterday. what is the view that your organizations view on unemployment and secondarily about jobs legislation. >> guest: the unemployment insurance extension did run out yesterday and that is quite frankly the fault congress that needs to be extended. we need to provide that kind of safety net to our americans who through no fault of their own through the fault of this economy have not been able to find jobs. and were laid off and hopefully congress will get to that very

quickly because that's important for people's basic needs and i hope the caller will have good news leader in the week but it's clearly something that got caught up in the politics. the jobs bills and focusing on jobs bill as i spoke about earlier has to be divided into with the public sector can do that is creating government jobs and with the private sector should do. the private-sector jobs are the ones history is shown are the longest lasting. the highest paid in the most enduring and valuable for the economy. we need the kind of rules, the kinds of policies that allow the private sector to be able to invest so that what i was talking about earlier, the tax certainty we need to extend those provisions. we need to modernize the tax code so that it's also a level playing field with our foreign competitors. that's been very difficult and

we need the tax code that allows for the capitol generation. we haven't been talking about the financial regulatory reform but we need financial regulatory reform, we need a system to be modernized. those are the kind of things if we take those steps among others that would allow both the private sector to be put to invest in better jobs and in capital to create better jobs and the public sector to have its traditional role providing those things of the private-sector and not having to step in where the private sector shouldn't be a breeding. >> host: texas max, democratic call. >> caller: yes, thank you. i want to comment on health care the street i live on is mostly on social security paid for in come and this health care

[inaudible] they pay the premiums and by the time they buy their prescription medicine i don't have much to live on. >> host: where do you get your health care through? >> caller: well i'm 76-years-old, part of the national guard, i can afford 96 >> host: do you have a pension or social security? >> guest: >> caller: i do but i've seen people down my street that don't have one and they are just barely making by on this bill and they are not even making a bite to be honest with you. i don't know where the poll was coming from the people don't want to respond but i don't see how people are going to keep on living like this. >> host: any thoughts? >> guest: it is with an economic tragedy and as the caller indicated a personal

tragedy. health care costs again keep in mind with the business roundtable companies do. we provide health care for every single one of our employes he's and pay for health insurance for every one of our employees and families, some 35 million americans. it is the biggest single cost pressure the ceos .2 year after year they face over which they have no control. three years ago the head of the aarp and national federation of independent business divided we fail which we felt was designed to move the political system and the united states so that it would address health care and get meaningful reform. we still believe that is necessary. we spend too much for too little in this country. at the highest end of the best health care system in the world but it's not one that reaches everybody. we need to reform the delivery system so that we paid for out comes, we value quality and

consumer directed and health care systems that we pay as much for prevention and wellness as we pay for treatment so that we can avoid some of the high costs. we need a health care system that brings everybody into the system because right now our members be for anybody who goes in the hospital doesn't have health insurance. those hospitals shift the cost to those who pay the private sector and we need medicare that works as well as medicaid that works. we think it is achievable. it's been a tragedy that the politics of this unfortunate circumstance have caused us to be diverted away from what the country really needs which is modernizing, improving its health care delivery system to drive the on necessary costs out at the same time improving the quality. >> host: that may put you on the spot here a second can you give an average what your company's pay per employee for health care? >> guest: it typically runs an individual employee between ten

to $13,000. that the company is paying for their family. we issued a report a few months ago kuwait did that said right now if nothing is done that cost will rise to nearly $30,000 an employee by ten years and that is unsustainable. we can't compete around the world if we are going to face that could cost. the nation can't afford is the emphasis needs to be on improving the delivery system is giving everybody covered but if we cover everybody and the inefficient system we have now the whole country want people to afford and we will end up with costs that make us uncompetitive. >> host: jongh castellani entel 9:15 eastern three will also want to let you know president obama is speaking as one of that education and we will cover that live just after 10:00 or so and in education yvette with former general colin powell live this morning at 10 a.m. on c-span. pleasant hill california. david on the independent line.

good morning. david, i'm going to put you on hold. i can he beat could hear the feedback back there. florida let's hear from bureau of the republican line. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for letting me call. i tried to call two or three times a year and i have for about the last 15 years on c-span trying to explain you cannot fix health care or anything until you fix the tax system. the tax system is broke. everybody admits it. neither party will deal with it. senator conrad is starting to talk about it the finance committee but if you believe that 70,000 pages of tax codes and 350 billion to $400 billion a year spent on tax trying to take care of complying with the tax code you can do these programs. next year we will be talking about the same thing until the country falls we won't change, we've got to fix the tax code.

>> guest: we've got to fix the tax code. the caller is right. it is complicated and in fact it acts in some perverse ways to inhibit economic activity when we want to promote economic activity. it is on competitive wind we compete around the world with companies that come from countries that don't penalize their businesses when they try to compete around the world so the caller is absolutely right the tax code is complicated. one of the year earlier calls said we have the highest corporate tax rate. it's the second corporate tax rate in the world. corporations don't pay taxes. we have the second highest or one of the highest effective tax rates so whether it is the statutory rate or effective rate the united states unfortunately leads the world taking money out of the system that could otherwise go for investment and job creation. it's too complicated and sends the wrong signals and the caller

is absolutely right we need to reform it and some day i hope we are able to. >> host: is a dense complex for individuals as it is for business? >> guest: it is more for business. most particularly large businesses over three, four, five, six years with the irs before they could even close out the tax returns for one particular year. it's an incredibly complex and it distorts behaviour. here is a distortion in the health care taxes if a business case for health insurance for its employees it is deductible. you don't have to pay taxes on that. if an individual pays for their own health insurance it's not. individuals we believe individuals and corporations ought to be treated the same way. incentivizes one group and is incentivizes other. >> host: now we get pleasantville california, david, go ahead with your comments.

>> guest: >> caller: i would like to mention health care and solve the problems for you. first of all in canada, safeway and canada it is the parliamentary government, socialism and there is no insurance companies, the canadian government takes care of the health care for the people of. but capitalism is to the companies in canada and that new zealand and to take insurance companies out of health care and let the government like dee dee kuran like they do in canada then you wouldn't have that extra cost. number two, the insurance companies are saying let's give them a choice companies can speak competitive but they should ask the 1945 make insurance companies' monopoly because they couldn't take care

of this racial flood so the answers are right there you don't need insurance companies that an entrepreneur charging the small business. why don't we have national health care like they do in canada australia and new zealand? we just saw the olympics. they are way ahead of us. >> guest: 33 code to in hockey. the u.s. won more medals than canada. it was an exciting game yesterday. the question is a good one and that is something the nation faced several times and that is should we scrapped the private-sector health care system and move to a nationalized health care system, so-called single payer system like they have in canada and a many nations in europe and around the world. america is unique because for all of the faults in our health care system it is at the highest and still the best. it is where people come when they're very sick and what the best treatment in the world and what we are trying to find what

we need to find is that ability to cover everybody but keep that kind of innovation and quality that is made at the best and not for everybody would get the best health care system in the united states come the best in the world. the insurance companies really provide us with a tremendous benefit. we use insurance companies to manage our health care systems. they are repository of a lot of data and have the capability to do what we don't want to do as a company and that is be able to manage all of the claims and organize the coverage for a employees and families. the caller is right in terms of the market and that is in a lot of places in this country there are no choices, you have a choice of one, health insurance company. one of the things the we've called for is changing the market so that there's a national market, there is competition everywhere in the united states some people, small businesses, individual, big businesses when we find an

insurance company for our employees and their families with eight, ten, 12 come 14 companies to choose from. we get it very efficiently. if you're an individual in california or florida and to maybe have one if you are lucky you have to. we've called for a change in the insurance market some of which is included in the senate bill which provides for exchanges where you can create markets to go outside of just the state boundaries as the exist right now and get more competition, more choice for the individual for small business. >> host: when the president spoke to your group last week the roundtable also addressed the issue of executive compensation both dealing with financial industry and more broadly. i wanted to show you some of his comments and get your thoughts. >> most americans including myself do not regret reasonable words for a job well done. what is outraged people is outsize bonuses in firms that recently require massive public assistance.

one said the money is fully repaid i don't believe it is appropriate for the government to be in the business of setting compensation levels. i do believe shareholders should have a say in packages given the top executives and those packages should be based on long-term performance against that short-term profits. and i think that is particularly important in the financial industry where reckless risks in pursuit of the game helped create a crisis that engulfed the world economy. >> host: what did you hear that you agree or disagree with? >> guest: we certainly agree that compensation ought to report a long-term performance. it ought to reward performance and it ought to reward results. our own principles of executive compensation say first and foremost a should be balanced and focused on results. it should not emphasize long-term or short-term too much. it should be balance between the long and short-term not relying

on one vehicle cash or stock option but the diversified not reward failure, not report failure and should be appropriately sized. we think the best way shareholders are represented or through the independent directors shareholders elect to serve on the committees. we think the compensation should be determined by those independent directors, the committees that have no ties to the company that our elective by the shareholders. we promote the majority of voting for shareholders to elect those directors and give them the right to but said the compensation and make sure that its transparent, make sure that it's understandable and make sure it's appropriate so we absolutely agree it should be based on long-term results that should be appropriate and that the government should not be involved in setting it is what the shareholders should be. >> host: a couple more calls. tony on the democrats' line. >> caller: good morning. first the leedy from new jersey that called i think i'm in love, we think so much alike.

[laughter] she and fred heels, if we would google a word called ad busters, it is a critical and canada that exposes a lot of corporate shenanigans. has anyone ever done a study on what the ratio the man working all line versus the ceo has changed since the 50's? because i believe that it's gone out of whack and you can blame at this and that but agreed is a major part of the whole problem and anyone that believes it is appropriate to make a huge profits of of suffering -- because that is what all health care corporations are doing, they are creating profit off of suffering. we will get a response.

thanks for the call. >> guest: there's a couple issues you have and let me reiterate. we think that compensation should be sent by independent directors representing the shareholders that it should be balanced and should be transparent and it should reward results. and we can't say what the company, what one person, one company should make compared to another. it is really needed to be set by the market and those independent directors for what's appropriate for that company at that time. but one of the things that we've been doing over the last 12 months that is disturbing to us as purchasers of health insurance is the lobbying the health insurance industry. the health insurance industry, health care delivery system whether we're talking for miscible companies, hospitals, they have a very important role to play in delivering high-quality affordable health care to all americans. instead of vilifying we ought to find what works and capitalize

what works because the same people who stand up and say i think this company or that company is doing something or somebody in their family's life may be dependent on that company's product or service. we've really have some remarkable science and remarkable outcomes in this country. the key is to focus on bulwarks instead of the will lead the industry. >> host: many of the ceos must have concern over the rise of health care cost. >> guest: absolutely. absolutely but again it is the rise and cost of the system. we have a system that is fundamentally broken. we pay for activity not for results. we don't have everybody in the system so that when somebody comes in without insurance into a hospital, into an emergency room the hospital can't get any more money out of the government for that person so they shift the costs to those of us to pay. again every one of the 35 million americans who were associated with our companies, the family members and it will use its health insurance.

we are paying for it. we see the cost and want to bring the costs down and improve the quality. >> host: michael raleigh north carolina, go ahead. >> caller: i appreciate you taking my call. i just have a question with mr. ogle and koln chris were giving away all this money if they were instead of giving it to the big corporations for the trickle-down effect if the had come out with some kind of a voucher like people in my case years back i was able to pay off my mortgage i don't need a new hull but if you give me a voucher to buy a new american aid car for people who don't own their homes, give them a voucher to buy a new home or make additions to their home or get a voucher to buy farm equipment or upgrade livestock housing and it just a great everything it seems to me if they did that instead of giving the money to the actual people who spend instead

of to get 2 feet high corporations, they would pay off their ceo and high bonuses we keep hearing about. >> host: more broadly if he would respond to what your group thinks about the fact of the stimulus spending. >> guest: the stimulus package had its place. in the short term stabilize the government sector jobs primarily teachers' police, fire, state employees but if the economy is going to grow for the long term we need to create private sector jobs. the caller is right in the sense that the long term, the way jobs are created is when they have demand for products and services. now we do use the tax code to help to some of the things that he suggested to be done and vouchers. there is home buyers tax credit which provides 8,000, $8,500 for first-time home buyer. it's limited for a period of time, there are tax credits for the cash for clunkers program had limited effect. the better long-term affect is to get demand and the caller is

absolutely fried and that is what drives this economy is demand for goods and services to have the demand we have to have money in the consumer product. >> host: we have an e-mail about an issue we haven't talked about. from new jersey corporate sponsorships such as those recently lost by tiger woods raised the price of goods that the consumer level once such sponsors ceased the bottom line is why do corporations not pass such savings along to consumers? >> guest: corporations to pass savings to consumers. that's what is going on with productivity increases all across the country in fact around the world. there's not a lot of pricing leverage in the world. there isn't anything you can point to. i know things go up and down from time to time but there's not a lot of products you can point to that you can say well i can raise the price of that product in fact what's happening is the consumer is looking for better and a greater bargains so the pressure on companies is to rece