republican time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise today to speak in support of the nomination of justice barbara keenan to serve on the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. in the summer of 2009, my colleague and friend, senator webb, and i had the opportunity to interview number of candidates to serve on the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. we were enormously impressed by the quality of all the candidates being considered but one candidate rose to the top of the list because of her extensive experience, her judicial commitment, and her commitment to the law. that candidate was justice barbara keenan. president obama nominated justice keenan last september, and in late october, the members of the senate judiciary committee reported her

nomination by unanimous consent. justice keenan's nomination has been on the senate calendar for four months now. i believe it is time for this chamber to consider the nomination and give justice keenan an up-or-down vote. justice keenan has served with distinction at every level of state court in virginia. she served as a justice on the supreme court since 1991. she served on the fairfax county general district court, the circuit court of fairfax county and the court of appeals of virginia. every one of virginia's bars, including the state bar, the state bar's judicial nominations committee have all recognized justice keenan and recommended her with their highest approval ratings, either highly qualified, highly -- or highly recommended. i also might mention in passing that justice keenan is the first woman appointed to the bench in virginia and was one of the

original ten appointees to the virginia court of appeals during its creation in 1985. and lest any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle think this falls within the partisan divide that so often i think stymies this body, justice keenan not only has senator webb and my support, but justice keenan has the support of our new republican governor, governor mcdonald, and just keenan actually administered the oath of office to justice -- or governor mcdonald just six weeks ago. i am a new member in this body, perhaps sometimes don't always understand the rules and process. but it does seem strange to me that a justice as highly regarded and recommended as justice keenan, someone the president nominated months and months ago, someone who has received unanimous support at the senate judiciary committee and someone who has the support want only of both of -- both

senators from virginia but our republican governor has had to wait t so long to get a vote. so i'm hopeful that the senate will act on this nomination. i look forward to casting my vote in support of justice barbara keenan's nomination, encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for cloture so we can move to that very important vote and fill one more of these vacancies on the very important court of -- court in the fourth circuit. so, mr. president, i -- i thank you for your time and yield the balance of my time. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i ask that the current quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that all remaining time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the

clerk will report the motion to invoke cloturesenars in accordae provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of barbara milano keenan of virginia to be the united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of barbara milano keenan of virginia to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 99, the nays are zero. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president snp. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. a senator: move to reconsider. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the vote on the confirmation of the nominee occur at 2:15 p.m. and that postcloture time be considered expire at that time.

upon confirmation that the motion be considered made and laid on the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. after this consent is granted, the senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senate stands in recess until 2:15. >> joining us richard rubin

of congressional quarterly. what is the happening with the jobs related legislation in the u.s. senate? >> we just had some action this morning right when the senate opened. the senate is stalled over several jobs bills but most intense action has been over the smallest bill, which is a short term of extension of programs that expired on sunday, included expanded unemployment benefits and cobra health insurance subsidies for jobless workers. so what happened this morning, in addition to democrats blaming senator jim bunning blocking this. republicans susan collins of maine joined in that as well. in an attempt to get the bill passed. it already passed the house to get it through the senate. but senator bunning continued to object to move it quickly. >> what would he prefer to see instead? >> he would like the same bill but he would like to pay for it, about $10 billion. democrats and now senator collins say that is emergency and it shouldn't be paid for. other than through debt.

and senator bunning says, no. let's take 10 billion from the stimulus law from last year that hasn't been spent yet, use that to offset the programs. >> as the objection continues, what is harry reid's strategy going forward? how is he going to work around it? >> he has two strategies. one keep making what they call unanimous consent requests and seeking to pass the bill quickly, forcing senator bunning to come to the floor and object to it. democrats believe this is politically great for them to see a republican objecting to really popular programs. then reid's second thing he is doing he has got a bigger bill on the floor, about $150 billion bill, that extends a lot of these programs for longer times. unemployment insurance and cobra subsidies through end of the year. it extends so-called doc fix for physician payments and medicare for seven months. he has short sort of a short term track he is using politically and they have got the longer term bill on the floor for most of the

week. >> back to jobs for a second, the house passed legislation already but are they going to consider further jobs legislation in the near future? >> wealth house passed a bill in december that was 154 billion. that was much heavier on spending, on infrastructure than the senate's willing to take. so now the house is dealing with the senate's version that bill which is $15 billion bill includes some highway money and also includes a payroll tax holiday for firms that higher unemployed workers. so the house is struggling right now to try, democrats in particular struggling to figure out whether they should pass that senate bill or do they want to make changes? you have members of the transportation committee who are not particularly thrilled with the highway funding formula but they same willing to give on that a little bit at least at the moment. but you also have more conservative members of the democratic caucus concerned about pay as you go rules. more liberal members of the house democratic caucus who are saying it is not big

enough. it doesn't do enough on spending. it is too focused on tax cuts. >> so on the house side still in committee consideration, still in discussions? no indication when we might see something on the floor? >> i doubt it will goll through committee. i think this is, something that will come right to the floor but, they're going to, the big questions, it will come to the floor in some fashion. the big question house leaders are trying to figure out, when members get back today, really whether they should just pass the senate bill or make some changes to it and go to conference. >> an update from richard rubin, from "congressional quarterly." thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> and senators will continue debate on the legislation when they return at 2:30 eastern. a number of amendments are being offered. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2. economic stimulus money continues to go out. of $787 billion signed into law a year ago last month,

over $340 billion has has been given to state projects that sup $5 billion from the week left. but less than $200 billion has actually been spent. read more about the stimulus projects online at c-span.org.

>> a number of federal programs and tax breaks have expired over the past couple months. the u.s. senate is the considering a bill to extend them. a short-term extension bill was blocked last week by kentucky republican jim bunning. now, unemployment benefits are running out for many, and a number of highway projects are on hold. senator bunning defended his position today on the senate floor and senate democratic leader harry reid responds. >> i'd like to respond to the democratic leader. in particularly in view of what my leader just said about bipartisanship. seems that last week there was a bipartisan agreement between the members of the finance committee on the very issue that the democratic leader spoke on.

it was called the baucu baucus-grassley compromise bill. it never got to the floor of the senate. that was a bipartisan bill that was set aside for a very partisan bill that senator reid brought to the floor and rammed through. instead of the bipartisan bill which had all of these extended bone fits included in them. extended unemployment benefits, cobra health care assistance, flood insurance, highway bill assistance, the medicare doc fix, small business loans, network channel for rural satellite television and other things. it's really hypocritical of the democratic side of this

aisle passing a paygo bill, what does paygo mean? it means that you pay for the bills as they appear on the floor of the u.s. senate. and then, to present a bill that not only, not only is not paid for but just paid for a little bit. paid for a third of. and that was the reid bill on the jobs bill that he presented to us. five billion was paid for. 10 billion was not. and then immediate to follow with a uc, which is not, which is not a bill that we normally deal with on a unanimous consent like this. we have unanimous consents

that are much more different than this. this is a house bill that you have asked unanimous consent for. regular order could prevail and the leader of this senate could put this bill under cloture, and get his vote. he will get his 60 plus votes, and normal procedure will occur. that is the normal way to deal with this bill. now just so you understand that not everybody, all americans feel like my dear friend from maine and the majority leader of the senate. i'm going to read a letter and enter it into the record, please. so i ask unanimous consent to enter this letter from a

constituent of mine from lou willville -- louisville. >> without objection. >> i will read it also because it is important for people to understand there are other sides of this. dear, senator bun, i haven't work ad full 40-hour week in probably two years now. but i fully so support your decision to stand up to those in congress who want to do nothing more than to spend the taxpayer's money even the money they do not have, on unemployment extension benefits. so far this year i have worked a total of one week here in louisville kentucky. my employer is a sheet metal fabrication plant with its main headquarters based in cincinnati, ohio. normally the louisville branch would employ upward to 50 people on any given day if business were good.

recently that number has defend old to about four. this country is sooner or later going to implode because of the massive amount of debt run up over the past 40 to 50 years. selling the nation's soul to countries like communist china order to finance our lifestyle, and allow the government to further debase the currency is sure, sheer, lunacy. throwing hundreds of bills billions of dollars to executives on wall street can keep their multiit billion dollar bonuses while others in our society worry about keeping the electricity on and their children fed only helps to move this country closer to a long overdue revolution.

the problem is by then, we won't even own it anymore. politicians on both sides enjoy getting up in front of television cameras and talking about their it support of the pay as you go plan. but when it comes down to actually doing what they say, they all run for cover and vote for anything they think will win them another vote, or another term. your stance in holding them to their words and expecting them to actually do what they voted for is a refreshing concept in an otherwise corrupt and hip crock -- hypocrisy, based, power base known as washington, d.c. it is too badge bad that senator mitch mcconnell and some of the

elected officials on your side of the aisle do not have the backbone of your sense of decency when it comes to keeping their promises to the american people. and for security sake i'm just going to read his first name. sincerely, robert, from louisville. now there's no doubt in anybody's mind that i have supported extension of unemployment benefits, cobra health care benefits, flood insurance, highway bill. i was the one who proposed the medicare doc fix on a permanent basis in the finance committee. small business loans, network satellite and all the other things in this temporary bill. so i just want to set the record straight. the majority leader has all

the tools in his kit and he normally exercises them. i think he is about to do that on the bill currently before us. which we call the large job bill. he soon will invoke cloture to cut off debate. he normally doesn't even allow amendments. he will file cloture, fill the tree by filling the tree, that means the amendment tree, which allows the republicans no alternatives but just to vote for cloture or not cloture and then unfortunately we have 30 hours of debate immediately following cloture. so i'm going to propose one more time my unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent that

the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of hr 4691. that the amendment at the desk which offer as full offset be agreed to. the bill be amended as read, for a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. >> is there objection? >> madam president. >> the majority leader in reserving the right to object. madam president, i'm sorry my friend from kentucky has made this so personal because really shouldn't be the case. but let me just review history a little bit. the senator from kentucky talks about the bill we voted on and passed last week as being very partisan. that bill received 70 votes, a very partisan bill, a very

non-partisan bill i should say. it was a bipartisan bill. it received 70 votes. why did we receive 70 votes? because it did some great things for america. it extended highway bill for a year, saving a million jobs. it gave small businesses right to write off $250,000 in purchases of, stimulating small business all over america. it gave employers the ability to hire people who have been out of work for 60 days. and if they hired them, they wouldn't have to pay their fica tax. if they gave them 30 hours a week. not only that, they get a thousand dal tax credit at end of the year. a really good proposal. we also extended build america bonds which were so important in the american recovery act. democrats and republicans all over the country, governor, mayors, county commissioners loved that proposal. so, it was a, it was certainly not a partisan bill.

and he was right. the other bill he talked about was not brought to the floor. i would also say this. madam president, it was paid for. not a cent of deficit spending. not a cent. it's interesting that my friend would talk about paygo. he voted against paygo. he is talking about paygo. he voted against it. he voted against right here on the senate floor. if he is so liked paygo, why didn't he vote for it? he voted against it. the senator from kentucky voted so, my friend just is, he's throwing around words like hypocrite. people make their own decision as to who is a hypocrite. i'm not calling anyone a hypocrite although i'm just stating facts. someone boasts about good

paygo but votes against it. talks about the doc fix but votes against it. so i would think that my friend from kentucky should get a different historian to help him with his facts because they're simply wrong and i object. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: -- two minutes. why would you vote for a bill when you know it's not going to be honored? why would you vote for a bill that you knew was going to be violated in the first bill brought to the floor after you passed it? as far at doc fix is concerned, i have a history with the doc fix that i don't need to defend to the majority leader or to anybody in this body. just check with the kentucky medical association and all of

my doctors that i represent in kentucky. i think the gentleman's letter from louisville states the facts better than me. we want a country that my 40 grandchildren have the same abilities that i did growing up. we want a country that don't owe everybody in the world for our existence. and the question i've been asked mostly is, why now? mostly is, why now? >> and a question i've been asked mostly is why now? well, why not now? what better time for it than to stand up when the majority

leader has the ability to do exactly on this bill what he has done on 25 bills in the last five months. file cloture filled with tree, and vote you go or nay. get the 60 votes pass the bill, and extend these temporary benefits. rather than pass -- or we may be pass this other bill, i hope we do, that will extend them on a permanent basis for a year. to the end of the year, anyway. i think it's very important that people understand that i have the same right that he does. he was elected by people in nevada, with fewer people than people in kentucky.

so i have the same right as any other senator here on the floor. and it's not a filibuster when you object, and that ought to be brought out clearly. a filibuster is when you stand on this floor and you talk and talk and talk. i have not done that. i yield the floor. >> majority leader? >> i know my friend from tennessee and texas wish to speak what i do have to respond, because i was mentioned again. madam president, i can't match now or ever in the past, my friends fastball or his curveball or his 40 grandchildren. but i do have 16 grandchildren. but i do think it's important to

understand that the reasoning is a little unusual. he said i wouldn't vote for a bill that i thought would not be upheld at a later time, or procedures in the bill not followed. i don't know why anyone is entitled to being the judge and a jury. we passed legislation, and if it's the law, then there are ways of upholding the. now, madam president, with paygo we have some experience. we know it works. it worked during the clinton years. we pay down the national debt as a result of what happened during the clinton years. paygo was dismissed during the bush years. now, my friend talks about the debt. he wants to make sure that the debt doesn't go up. where was he during the bush years? unpaid wars, two wars unpaid for. taxes unpaid for. running up billions of dollars

of ready for the american people. i say this also, madam president. we've tried to address that. we asked for a debt commission to be established. we did that by legislation here on the floor. my friend didn't vote for that. he didn't vote for paygo. so we are trying on the floor. we have legislation that will resolve this issue. now, what my friend says is a little unusual. he says, why doesn't the leader of file for cloture, use up a week or 10 days, wasted that time, and then hold off getting all the other things? that doesn't make sense, madam president. it just is without any sense. when, in fact, with his withdrawn his objection we could get it done just like that. we wouldn't have to waste a week or 10 days.

but he has made his stand. i think it is wrong, as does the american people, as does i'm sure the people of kentucky. inspite of the letter from robert. >> and that exchange from earlier today on the senate floor. senators currently at their weekly political party lunch meetings. they will return at 2:30 eastern to continue debate on the legislation with a number of amendments being offered. meanwhile, more reaction to a kentucky republican jim bunning's blocking of the extension of unemployment benefits and a number of highway projects. we will hear first from maryland democrat senator ben cardin, and then reaction from the white house. >> madam president, i take this time to first think the democrat leadership for bringing forward a bill that would extend

unemployment insurance, cobra protection which allows unemployed to be able to get health insurance, and to extend our highway program and the reimbursement structure for positions under medicare so our seniors can continue to receive the healthcare that they need. we have a short-term extension that many of my colleagues have been talking about. that would extend these programs. so that they would be no gap in the unemployment insurance protection that americans are currently receiving as a federal 28th, to be able to continue to get the cobra protections, to be able to continue our highway program. and as been pointed out one senator has exercised his right to object. which has caused major problems for this country. and i feel compelled to talk about this, because there are real people being hurt by that decision. we need a short-term extension

so that we can continue the orderly process. it's the right thing to do. we all talk about jobs. we need jobs. and each of us are committed to bring up legislation that will create more opportunities for americans. and the bill that will be on the floor will help us in that effort. by extending important tax provisions so that businesses can invest and more jobs for americans, extending the unemployment insurance. and here, madam president, let me point out for every dollar we spent that unemployment compensation brings back $1.9 to our economy. it's the best stimulus of dollar that you can put out there. it is the immediate. and this is an insurance program. where employees and employers but money away during good times to pay for benefits during recessions. and tough times. so we are in a tough time. there are millions of americans who can't find jobs, who are looking for jobs. americans want to work, but

can't find work. many have been looking for work for a long time, for over a year. and now because of the objection of the senator, the benefits that should be paid this week cannot be paid this week. mutt in my own state of maryland, 16,405 people were cut off as of monday. from the unemployment compensation. each one of these individuals represent a family, represent how they will be able to feed their families, how they will be able to keep their house out of foreclosure. it's wrong. they can't find work. because there's not enough jobs out there. and we're going to extend unemployment compensation. i feel confident we will. but it is wrong for us to have this gap, because the objections of one senator. it's hurting our economy. that's money that should be in our economy where the people who receive this unemployment insurance will use it to buy food, to make purchases to help

our economy. those dollars are being lost. because of the objection of one senator. the same thing is true with the cobra protection. cobra protection says to a person who is unemployed, who lost their jobs that we're going to help make sure they can maintain their insurance for their family. and now because of the objections of the senator, that health is no longer available. to those who are unemployed. as of january, there were 6.3 million americans who have been unemployed for six month or longer. think about that, madam president. how can you afford to pay your insurance premiums for healthcare if you've been unemployed for six months? that's why we passed cobra protection for those who have lost their jobs. so that they can maintain their health insurance for their families, to keep them out of bankruptcy.

to make sure that if they have an emergency, their family can get the needed healthcare and make sure that it's properly reimburse. well, we all agree that should be done, and the underlying bill that would be taken up later today will extend that throughout the year which is what we should do. but in the meantime it expired on monday, that protection. because of the objections of an individual senator. and then there is a short-term extension of the highway program, i want to mention that because 2000 employees and the department of transportation just got furlough notices. because of the failure to extend that program. i could to you what it means, i could play what it means in my own state of maryland. it halted work on federal lands. we had a project at great falls interests, road construction, a $3.1 billion project in montgomery county. stopped as a result of the failure to pass this short-term

extension, and could talk about the situation in medicare. now, cms is doing everything they can to make sure that the physicians, the 600,000 physicians who treat our seniors every day will continue to participate in the medicare system. but as of monday, there was h1n1 .2% cut in physician reimbursement rates. that's unconscionable, unreasonable. and it will deny our seniors access to care. we need to do this in an orderly way. the extensions that the majority leader and the majority, assistant majority leader have made repeatedly on the floor to allow for the short-term is to jen, that the overwhelming majority of members of congress strongly support. we need to move forward with that, and then let's come to the floor and debate the longer-term extensions. i've got a thing when that bill comes up on the floor of this

body, you're going to see an overwhelming number of members voting in favor of extension of unemployment compensation. and insurance protection for the unemployed. because it's the right thing to do. it's the right thing to do as a nation in a recession. it's the right thing to do in order to strengthen our economy, and to create more job opportunities. does that money is spent in our community, and keeps jobs and expand jobs. it must be part of our strategy in creating more jobs for opportunities for americans. so madam president, i take the floor to encourage my colleague to withdraw his objection. let us move forward in a way that is in answers of the american people and interests of our economy, so that we can continue to see the types of improvements for job opportunity and america. that should be our priority. it's not a partisan issue. shouldn't be a partisan issue. we need to work together. democrats and republicans, and

it starts by removing the objection. let us get the short-term extension and then come to the floor, and let's debate the bill that is on the floor that will extend through the end of the year, as we should. that's a we should be doing today to help the people of maryland, the people around this nation, and to help our economy grow. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. >> madam president? >> senator from rhode island. >> madam president, i would like to echo the remarks of my very distinguished colleague from maryland, who i know feels so passionately about this, and his own state will suffer really dire individual consequences as the failure of unemployment insurance and cobra and other things begin to hit home in the personal lives of people in maryland, people in my home state of rhode island, people

across this country. with so many americans struggling to pay their bills, why, why did thousands of the worst off, including hundreds of rhode islanders, have to wake up on monday morning to find that their unemployment benefits and cobra subsidies had expired? why are people being kicked out of these essential, humane, lifeline programs before the economic storm that put them in that predicament has passed? the answer is, that we have failed to do what is right for the american public. in part, because one republican has chosen this time of great despair for millions of americans to make a political point. to make a political point about the deficit, by hurting hard-working americans who are

struggling to get by. and it appears that it is actually more than just one republican. others have come to the floor to support him. but on the homefront, the cost is high. many of rhode islanders, through no fault of their own, struggled to find work. for many of them, unemployment insurance and cobra are the lifeline for their ability to support their families. to keep food on the table and to keep the family covered by healthcare. this is no abstract issue. it has had a serious impact in rhode island. we are in a state of just over 1 million. in that state, of just over 1 million people, there are 75,000 people at least unemployed and looking for work.

these are hard-working people. many of whom have worked all their lives, but because of the recession, their struggles to find work so far are unavailing. margaret from north providence is 61 years old. and she is six months away from being eligible for social security. she is years from medicare eligibility. she has now been unemployed for 18 months. and her unemployment benefits are expiring. cobra, for her, has run out as well. so her healthcare is at risk. she's never been in this situation before in her life. and she is quite understandably scared of where our a responsibresponsible action leads her. gretchen from cranston is a

laid-off teacher who is receiving cobra benefits that help her pay for her healthcare. because of a single republicans are structured, apparently supported by others, her premiums have increased from roughly $500 a month to over $2000 a month. she wrote to me, saying how horrifying that i should work hard all my life, paying for my entire education, dedicate my career to helping children in poverty, and find that my own children may be among them. gretchen did not expect to be in poverty. she expected that are cobra benefits would continue.

but, no, we have cut those off. richard and warren wrote to me, asking for us to move quickly on cobra. richard's wife has cancer. so they have no choice but to pay for healthcare coverage. since he lost his job, richard has been paying $400 a month for the health insurance. but the cost has tripled, tripled with the expiration of cobra subsidies. richard should be able to worry about his family, to be able to help his wife through her cancer treatment. you should not have to worry about the political games being played here in should do, and the skyrocketing costs that he is looking at. he and his wife should be focusing on her care and her treatment.

but no, sadly, obstruction and political point scoring now come first here for some of our colleagues. margaret, gretchen, and richard, and all those across the country are facing similar situations are wondering why they have to pay the price for republicans to make this point about the deficit. why democrats when it was halliburton's no-bid contracts in iraq, for which money was borrowed to fund them. where was the concern about the deficit then? for how the burdens and no-bid contracts, the deficit is no problem, evidently. when it was part d. colossal handout to the pharmaceutical industry, borrowed money, where was the concern then?

about the deficit. not when it's the big interests. when it was the tax cuts for ceos, big tax cuts for ceos, for big bankers, for derivatives traders, for hedge fund managers, where then was the concern about the deficit when those tax cuts were passed under budget? when the bush administration inherited from the last democratic president about its budget predicted to yield of zero national debt during the course of the bush administration, as their national debt during the course of the bush administration, and instead the republicans left us with $12 trillion in national debt, were then was the concern about the deficit? as one of my colleagues have

said, this has been described as a point of principle. the way of principle is defined is that you always stand by it. if it is chose a sometime thing, it may be a lot of things. it may be an opinion, it may be a maneuver, it maybe even an honestly held opinion. but it's not a principle if you only follow it selectively. if the only time you follow it is when struggling, working people are in the crosshairs, but when it is halliburton's no-bid contracts, when it is tax cuts for ceos and big bankers and fancy derivatives traders, and when it is the pharmaceutical industry, then it is all fine. well, that's not a principle. it may be a lot of things, but it is no principle. so i urge my colleagues to put politics aside to do what is

right and to help the millions of americans who are so badly in need of a little help through this economic downturn that was no fault of their own, hard-working people trapped in this recession through no fault of their own. i implore my republican colleagues to start working constructively with us to in this unemployment crisis, to put people back to work, and to help those who are in such dire circumstances now through no fault of their own. that's what we are sent here to do, and that is what i will keep fighting for. i think the presiding -- thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. >> madam president, right now families across my home state, and the entire country, want nothing more than to see us come together and pass meaningful help for the people that they see struggling every day. they want to see help for people like their neighbors and friends and family members who, through

no fault of their own, have found themselves out of a job and who, despite their best efforts, are just unable to find one today. they want help for the seniors and their committees are being turned away from doctors because of devastating cuts in medicare reimbursement rates. or all those who are struggling to afford healthcare, because they lost a job and are now facing the impossible task of affording care on their own. americans understand that during these difficult times we are in, people need help to make ends meet. they understand that there needs to be a lifeline for people, who never thought they would get assistance from the government, but who now have nowhere else to turn. but what americans and those in my home state of washington don't understand, is why washington, d.c., can't seem to deliver. why, when they make our choices every day in their own lives to support their families and help

those in need, washington, d.c., can do the same. why, at a time when needs have never been greater, are the only words they hear out of washington, d.c., is gridlock, stalemate, and standstill. well, madam president, today we have a clear-cut example to show the american people just what's wrong with washington, d.c.. and that's because today, one single republican senator is standing in the way of the unemployment benefits of 400,000 americans. one single republican senator is blocking an extension of cobra benefits for 500,000 americans. one single republican senator is forcing doctors to take h1n1% cut in medicare reimbursement rates that could for for seniors

to be turned way for the medicare coverage that they rely on. spake again one single republican senators blocking critical highway funds that has construction workers and transportation employees at home today and that is cut critical payments the struggling states. one single republican senator has but posturing before people. politics before families. and point scoring before the needs of struggling americans. madam president, the legislation we are trying so hard to pass is very straightforward. it is aimed at helping real families with real problems that they face every day. and the consequences of it being blocked by one single republican senator are just as real. the bill we are trying to pass includes an extension of unemployment insurance which, by the way in my home state,

hundreds of thousands of individuals rely on to buy groceries and to pay the mortgage and to help pay for school for their kids. for years, these benefits have been routinely extended in tough times. and times, by the way, have rarely been tougher than they are now. but today, families and every single one of our states are sitting around their kitchen tables trying to figure out how they're going to make it through the weeks and months ahead without these payments. madam president, this package were trying to pass also extends, includes an extension of cobra, healthcare for workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, and healthcare benefits that come with it. in my home state, thousands of unemployed workers have the ability to see a doctor, solely because we are provided to this important assistance. is a provision that is critical, because healthcare is often the single biggest cost that unemployed workers face. in fact, you should know that on

average, a monthly healthcare premium payment to cover a family cost over $1000, which represents about 80 percent of the average unemployment check. another vital healthcare measure include in this bill we are trying to pass is a provision that would overturn a staggering 21% cut in payments to doctors that except medicare patients. just yesterday, my officer from a doctor in a small community of my state, who is one of a very few in his region now that are taking new medicare patients now. he said he feared just what this cut would mean for him and his practice. he told my staff that this cut would limit his ability to continue serving the needs of seniors in his area. and he is not alone. in washington state, that cut will affect over 60,000 employees, 700,000 medicare patients, and nearly 350,000 try care patients.

finally, madam president, this bill also includes an extension of the federal transportation funding act which is known as safetea-lu. allowing safetea-lu to expire, which has now happened, not only hurts construction workers and contractors who are working on these major federal highway projects in my state and across the country, it leaves our state governments bearing all the burden for the cost of these projects. in washington state, our reimbursement payment of $13.5 million for federally sponsored project that is due tomorrow, tomorrow, is now in limbo. again, all because of one single republican senator. last october i was out on this floor fighting for extension of unemployment benefits, and i told the story of a woman from seattle whose name is christina cruz. at the time, christina had been unemployed for 20 months after spending 10 years in human

resources. christine had just written to my office and talked about going above and beyond in her job search. a skill by the way that she picked up in her career in h.r. but even with all of her experience, interviews for her had been few and far between. christina talked about how she was not interested in living off the government long-term, and how in the midst of this economic crisis, she just didn't have any other choice. well, since i talked last october, christine has stayed in touch with my office. and unfortunately today she still having a hard time getting back to work. and she recently wrote an e-mail to my office and said, and i quote, is truly devastating to me that i've made choices in my life, like getting good grades in school, getting my education, building a professional experience, only to find that i'm unable to find a job. i thought i had made decisions to help ensure success in my life, and many times i barely had enough money for food.

my family isn't rich, they can't afford to support me. i literally do not know what i'm going to do. and then, christine went on to voice their frustrations felt by so many about the needless holdups in getting this bill passed on providing assistance to struggling americans. she said, and i quote, i find it to be really be egregious that we live in a democratic society, and yet a few misguided outlined voices, despite overwhelming bipartisan majority support, can hold up and block a much-needed unemployment extension. it really flies in the face of all the things i've learned about in my history books. i'm not sure how i can survive many weeks and weeks of needless holdups when i have rent and bills to pay. sometimes i feel that if some of the senators were forced to walk a day in our shoes, then maybe they would have a sense of how it is to try and survive in this economy.

now, madam president, that opinion is not unique to my state. to one political party or to an issue. every evening families turn across the country, turn on the nightly news and hear another story about gridlock in our nation's capital. oftentimes, they have spent their days scanning to the classifieds, going to another job here along with long lines and few job opportunities, or working many times multiple jobs to meet their families most basic needs. and when they get home, they wonder just how we spent hours. what they see is this. an entire congress forced to spend time fighting with one republican senator. a congress that is forced to jump through procedural hoops and endured endless delay tactics to get meaningful, and by the way, largely bipartisan legislation passed. the of instruction of a single republican senator who, by the way, voted to extend the same

benefits in 2008, but who is now suddenly changed his own mind. and the entire republican party, except for a few who have been out here this morning courageous the, sit idly by as one of their members brings this entire body to a halt. american people are sick of this, and the backlash to the blockage of this bill is evidence of that. it's time for all of us, all of us to stop and think. think about christina and all the other americans who sent us here to go to work for them. the people who watch the news tonight and think, what about me? what about all of us? you know, christina wrote to me again recently to say, it seems like government is broken. and i know that sentiment is something we hear all the time now. but the truth is, it is only broken if we allow it to be. it's only broken if we allow styles like is happening here now to rule the day.

is we can come together and put an end to shortsighted political point scoring that sets up structure is good politics and partisanship, trumps progress, then we can help a struggling families. if we can join together, the way we did to pass the children's health insurance program or fair pay for women in the workplace, we can then restore the faith of the american people. but until we put an end to delays like the one we face by one republican senator today, americans are going to continue to have every right to be fed up. so, madam president, i come to the floor today to ask the senator from kentucky to allow us to finally move forward with consent on this bill, so that americans can get access to the health of can help they desperately need in these very tough economic times. this is critical. families across our states are hurting. through no fault of their own, through an economic recession

that they did not make happen. we all want our country to get back on its feet. we all want to be strong again. we all want this lifeline for our families, so that when our country gets running strong again, that they can use the skills that they've been holding in advance and go back to work. so that they can get the healthcare they need for their children and their families, and to they can get that job and get moving again. and so these construction projects across our country don't come to a slamming halt causing more americans to sit at home without a paycheck, more americans who can't go to the store and buy things, so more stores start to fail because they don't have the income they need and restaurants where people can't go because they don't have a paycheck. madam president, we are asking that the republican colleagues who have worked with us on this bill come to the floor and urged one republican senator to work with us to get consent so we can move past this and get to the

job we've come here to do. to get people back to work, to make sure that families have healthcare, to make sure that we do the business of this government in a way that works for american families. naked, madam president, and i healed before. >> thank you. and the senate will continue debate this afternoon on that 147 billion-dollar bill extending tax breaks unemployment benefits and a number of other federal programs. senators are currently at their weekly party lunches, and they returned at 215 thymic eastern to vote on a judicial nomination. with debate following that. >> president obama sent congressional leaders a letter today saying that he is open

tough for new proposals on healthcare legislation, all of which were raised by republicans at the president's bipartisan healthcare summit lastly. he also called for eliminating a special deal for medicare advantage beneficiaries in florida and other states that the proposals president obama mentions in the letter include sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and come expanding medical malpractice reform pilot programs, increasing payments to medicaid providers, and expanding the use of healthcare savings account. the president stressed in the letter he was convinced that republican and democratic approaches to healthcare have more in common than most people think, and he ended the letter to congressional leaders sang after decades of trying, we are closer than we have ever been to making health insurance reform a reality. i look forward to working with you to complete what would be a truly historic achievement.

now president and ceo of the philadelphia federal reserve, charles blosser. he is head of the filter be fed since 2006 and recently spoke at the world affairs council of philadelphia. for about 45 minutes. >> thank you, chris, for that nice introduction. everybody doesn't have to believe it, but it sounded anyway, right? you read what i wrote very well. [laughter] >> anyway, thank you very much and good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to speak before the world affairs council here in philadelphia. for more than 60 years of this organization has discussed some of the world's most challenging issues. i think my topic today falls into that category quite well. in the aftermath of this financial crisis, some have asked whether the governance and structure of the federal reserve system should be overhauled. so i'd like to take this opportunity to explain i believe

that the system that congress created nearly 100 years ago still serves the public interest, and why some of the proposals to change the federal reserve's structure are both misguided and even pose a serious risk to our economy. president woodrow wilson and congress intentionally structured the federal reserve system with checks and balances. checks and balances to protect and serve a diverse nation. now americans have a long history of suspicion towards concentration. so our unique version of a central-bank strikes a balance, balance between centralization and decentralization. between public and private sectors. and among washington, wall street and main street. the result of that is a central bank that achieves a delicate balance. it permits policymakers a good

deal of independence when conducting monetary policy, but in return it requires transparency and accountability to the american public. yet, recently the been cost of restructure the federal reserve. this is not too surprising in the aftermath of this economic turmoil in global financial crisis we have experts in the last two years. we are emerging from a global financial crisis led to one of the deepest, most severe recession since world war ii. and in response, central banks around the world took some very extraordinary and unprecedented actions. in the united states federal reserve aggressively ease monetary policy by reducing the target federal funds rate, it actively to zero. and has left that short-term interest rate at these extraordinarily low levels for more than a year now. the fed and other central banks around the world took a number of other actions intended to

provide liquidity and credit to frozen financial markets. fortunately, financial market conditions are considerably better today than they were a year ago. and the worst of the financial crisis appears to be behind us. in light of this improvement, the fed allowed most of his temporary special liquidity facilities that it created to expire on february 1. although we have yet to see robust growth in economy there are signs that labor market conditions are slowly start to approve it rig appears a moderate recovery is under way. policymakers and lawmakers are now turning their attention to ways to avert future crises. legislators, both here and abroad, are considering revisions to financial regulations. the roles a central bank should play in the financial

supervision, as well as the structured in governments of the central banks. unfortunately some of the initiatives i think strike at the very foundations of what i consider to be sound and responsible central banking. my folks today would be on what i regard as the most important of all principles of sound central banking. the independence of monetary policy. threats to this independence appear in several forms. for example, the quote on the fed movement amendment passed by the u.s. house of representatives in the center will allow any legislator to demand the government accountability office, or the gao, to quote on the fed monetary policy decisions. this amendment does not refer to an audit in the usual accounting sense of the term. since the fed financial statements and controls are already subject to extensive audit by outsiders, both the gao

and a public accounting firm. rather, this proposal is an attempt to reduce the independence of the central bank through the threat of a political action. in particular, the gao could be called on to investigate a monetary policy decision to change interest rates, whenever any member of congress disagrees with that decision. this would undermine the fed credibility and its ability to conduct monetary policy and the long-term interest of the american public. another way out of the federal reserve bank president such as myself or members of our board of directors. both the threat of policy audits and a political appointment of presidents or directors are in my view not-so-subtle efforts to politicize the federal reserve.

these changes run counter to history, and to the principles of sound and responsible central banking. it's interesting to point out that over the past 30 years, many countries around the world, in fact, most countries around the world have acted to increase the degree of independence of their monetary policymaking. particularly from short-term political influences. these moves reflect empirical and historical research that generally shows that developed countries through central banks have greater independence form monetary policymaking can do have lower, more stable inflation rates, without sacrificing employment or output. and thus of those countries benefit for more stable economies and better overall economic performance. now the assault on central banks is not confined to the united states. it is showing up in a number of countries, and from recent news reports, here are some examples. argentina's president fired the

governor of the central bank when he refused to transfer $6.6 billion in foreign exchange reserves to the government's coffers to meet fiscal expenses ahead of next year's election. south korea's president, not surprisingly, has urged the bank of korea to go slow on its exit strategy from accommodating monetary policy. however, to underscore that urging he sent a vice minister to attend a monetary policy committee meeting for the first time in over a decade. japan's new legislation is put increasing pressure on the bank of japan to increase lending. and this month, the new finance minister said he was looking forward to even more cooperation from the bank. mexico's president has appointed a new governor for the bank of mexico after clashing with the former governor over the central bank's reluctance to further cut interest rates.

now these efforts, along with proposals that would politicize the federal reserve here in the united states, are deeply troubling. while many have tried to interpret these efforts as logical, or perhaps inconsequential, they are not. they are misguided and potentially damaging to the nation's economic well being. so why is central bank independence so important? now despite research that indicates countries with independence and central banks generally produce more desirable economic outcomes, it strikes many people as awed that any democratic society we live monetary policy decisions in the hands of non-elected policy makers who can act with independence. think this you stands apart from confusion about what independence really means to the central bank. central bank independence means not that the central bank can make monetary policy decisions

-- excuse me said the bank independence means that monetary policy decision-making comes without the fear of political interference. it does not mean that the central bank is unaccountable towards policies. it's important to remember that the federal reserve does not select its own goals. instead of congress sets the goals it once the fed to pursue with monetary policy. the federal reserve act states that the fed should conduct monetary policy to quote promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates, end quote. said they are generally result when prices are stable, when the economy is operating at full employment, it is often said that congress has given the fed a dual mandate. what the central bank independence it does mean is that congress has left the decisions of how to best achieve those mandates that fed

policymakers. so why did the congress do it this way? there are two very good reasons. first, monetary policy affects the economy with sometimes long and variable lags. but elected politicians and even the public at times often have much shorter time horizons. monetary policy actions taken today will not really have their full effect on the economy for at least several quarters. and then in some cases, several years. is what monetary policy choices today must focus not so much on the short-term as on the intermediate to longer-term, trying to anticipate what the economy might look like over the next one to three years. in addition, there can be conflict between monetary policy -- between what monetary policy might be able to achieve over the short run versus its impact over the longer run.

for example, in the short run might seem expedient or even desirable to try to spur economic growth and employment by setting excessively accommodated auditor policy. very low interest rates. that this will only lead to very beta out comes and the, including higher inflation, higher interest rates and and eventually a tightening of monetary policy to control that inflation that may be detrimental to the economy. those outcomes would be inconsistent with the long-term goal set forth by congress. delegating the decision-making to an independent central bank that can focus on long-term policy goals is a way of limiting the temptation for short-term gains at the expense of the future. the second important reason to give monetary policy decision-making to an independent central bank is to separate the authority of those in government responsible for making decisions to spend and

tax from those responsible for printing money. this lessens the dedication for the fiscal authorities to use the printing press as a means to fund public spending. thereby substituting a hidden tax called installation in the future for the more difficult choices of spending decisions and taxing decisions now. this can be especially important when governments face huge deficits. and they may turn to the printing press to him properly fund those fiscal needs. as argentina is actually facing today. the fiscal authority should not think of a central bank as a source of funds or as a piggy bank, simply to avoid the difficult choices of cutting spending or raising taxes. efforts to politicize central banks is a way for the fiscal

authorities to strengthen their influence on the printing press. and avoid difficult fiscal choices. history is replete with examples in which central banks became agent for a nation's fiscal policy, or a means for a political party to remain in power. just in the 20th century, think of the hyperinflation in germany between world war i and world war ii. think of italy before the euro. think of the numerous financial crises in latin america, and the current economic chaos in zimbabwe, just to name a few. the consequences in each of those cases, higher inflation, currency crises, and economic instability, are not good. indeed we live in a world of highly mobile capital and financial markets that are constantly assessing the

credibility of governments and their central banks to maintain price and economic stability. in such a world of mere threat that monetary policy might become politicized and damaged the nation's credibility. it can raise fears and inflation, said interest rates higher and currencies following. as to my with thinking, they are airy sound reason for monetary policymaking to remain independent of the political process. here in the united states and central bank independence has been an important part of our history from the very founding of the federal reserve system in 1913. as former vice chairman allan explained, congress designed the fed this would because it knew the temptation to interfere with monetary policy was great. and that such interference would be detrimental to society. so congress tied its own hands, just as ulysses had himself tied

to the mast of his shift as it sailed past of evil and tempting but deadly sirena's. now the federal fraud structure is one important mechanism that preserves its independence. congress to step to the federal reserve system with 12 regional reserve banks of which philadelphia's one, that were overseen by a board of governors in washington, d.c.. data structure grew out of a frustration with the centralized nature of our nation's two previous attempts at a central bank. both of the first and second banks of the united states, whose last messages are not far from where we sit today, were highly centralized institutions, located in what was then the political and financial center of the nation, right here in philadelphia. as congress debated the creation of the federal reserve, it did not want to invest too much authority in a single

institution. so we created a more decentralized structure. with 12 regional reserve banks, each independently chartered, each with its own nine-member board of directors, chosen from citizens within their respective districts. among the responsibility of these directors, this is like the bank president, but with a selection subject to the approval of the board of governors in washington. this structure is designed in tension only to insulate presidents and directors from short-term partisan politics. unlike reserve bank presidents, members of the board of governors in washington are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, and are thus a directly connected to the political process in the public sector. congress provided those governors to serve 14 year terms, intently to insulate them from short-term political

pressures. and to encourage them to take a longer-term perspective on the economy and the financial system. congress also entered a decentralized approach to the charter of the federal open market committee, or the fomc, which is a primary body responsible for setting and implement monetary policy. in 1935, congress gave votes to the seven governors in washington, along with five of the 12 regional reserve bank presidents on a rotating basis. with a seven governors, the board retains a majority votes on the fomc, even though all 12 presidents always participate in the discussions. the 12 regional reserve banks give the federal reserve deep roots in the nation's communities, which allows the system to better understand various aspects of our economic diversity, of our country and to stay in touch with mainstream, not just wall street.

reserve bank -- reserve banks have councils and other mechanisms to keep them abreast of events going on in their regions. president bring a rich array of information and views from around the country to help formulate national monetary policy. congress also made the fed independent of the treasury and the administration. the fed receives no government appropriations from congress. again, as a way of depoliticizing the central bank. in fact, the system turns over any excess earnings on its portfolio of securities and loans above the cost of its operations to the united states treasury. in 2009, the federal reserve system returned $46 billion to the u.s. treasury. now being independent however does not mean that that is unaccountable. nor should it. the fed is ultimately accountable to congress and the american people.

haven't the requirement required to implement effective monetary policy, on behalf of the country, the fed i believe has a duty to explain and be held accountable for its policy decisions to congress and the public. the fed chairman frequently appears before the house and senate committees to answer questions. he testified before congress on monetary policy at least twice a year, and of course, the chairman's recent confirmation hearings is part of that accountability and public process. the reserve bank of structure also helps increase the transparency by communicating economic and monetary policy objectives, and actions through educational outreach, speeches like this would've as well as discussions with their boards of directors, and other groups. as a matter of fact the fed is increase the degree of transparency regarding monetary policy decisions dramatic and over the last two to three decades. some of you may remember that in the 1980s, in the late 1980s

the fed even announce what its policy decision was. we've published weekly balance sheets, monthly and quarterly reports, detailed annual financial statements, audited by an independent public accounting firm. the gao also frequent audits many of the fed's functions, including its supervisory and regulatory functions, and its services to the u.s. and treasury. so why is the fed opposed to the audit the fed amendment? since 1978, congress has specifically, specifically exempted monetary policy decisions from these gao audits with good reason. if we politicize monetary policy by removing that exemption, individual members of congress would have the ability to challenge monetary policies decisions, and will. as i noted earlier, such an attempt to politicize monetary policy, i believe, is

wrongheaded. it would result in less effective monetary policy for the american people. another frequently mentioned proposal on consideration, politicize the governor of the 12 reserve banks as i mentioned earlier. making pictures of the board of directors or the reserve bank presidents political appointees. on the federal open market committee by reserve bank presidents. such changes would weaken their regional and decentralized rector of the federal reserve and lead to a more centralized and political institution with less effective policy. or regional reserve bank presidents or chairs to become political appointees, they might become more attuned to the political process in washington that selected them, rather than having the public interest in the broad economic health of the nation and their reserve districts.

>> let's hope they remain rare. but quite frankly, some of the action that the fed took in response of the crisis in order to assure financial stability blurred that line between monetary policy and fiscal policy. thereby, risking our own independence. the fed lifted some firms that were deemed to be too big to fail. many of which were justified, the lending programs, under 13-3 authority. part of the federal reserve act which allows the fed to lend to

corporations, individuals, and partnerships under quote, unusual and exgent circumstances, unquote. it hits the balance sheet and change the competition, such as securitied back by mortgages from fannie mae and freddie mac. these policies have veered towards deciding how public money should be allocated across firms and across sector of the economy. >> i believe the government must intervene. such decisions belong to the fiscal authorities not to the central bank. by taking the unprecedented lending decisions and at time

being a little less transparent, the fed has opened himself up to criticism and has encouraged the idea that monetary policy decisions may be influenced by political or other special interest. this is truly not a healthy development. to promote a clearer distinction between monetary policy and fiscal policy and to help safeguard the feds independence, i advocate we implement monetary policy using a portfolio that contains only treasury securities. preferably treasury securities dominated in bills and short term coupon bonds. like the sirenes, the fed can help by limiting the scope of it's ability to engage in monetary and fiscal policy. thus, i believe the economic recovery gains strength and

monetary policy begins to normalize, i would favor our beginning to sell from the portfolio rather than relying only on deredemptions of these assets. it would help the fiscal policy and currently in it's particular housing finance. my perspective explicit for housing finance should be in the realm of fiscal policy decisions. now we'll take some time for the feds portfolio. but we should begin taking those steps in that direction sooner rather than later. i also believe that the feds 13-3 lending authority should be either eliminated or secure veerly curtailed. such lending should be done by the fiscal authorities. if the fed is involved, only

upon written request from the fiscal authorities, namely the treasury. in such case, any nontreasury securities or collateral required by the fed under such lending should be promptly swapped for treasury securities so that it is clear that the responsibility and accountability for such lending rest explicitly with the fiscal authorities, not with the federal reserve. to codify this arrangement, i believe we should establish a new fed treasury accord. a step that i begin to sublyically advocate a year ago. this would bailouts of individual firms or sectors and place much of the responsibility with treasury and congress squarely where it belongs. finally, i think we must talk about -- work hard to enhance and work hard to improve the transparency of the federal reserve. we have come a long way. but some the actions i just

mentioned, adopting a treasury only policy and eliminating or vastly curtailing 13-3 authority include the new fed treasury accord can help restore the public's confidence and trust in the institution and help preserve our own independence to conduct sound monetary policy. in closing, nearly a century ago there were valid reasons for creating an independent decentralized banking system. i believe those reasons remain valid today. upsetting the current structure checks and balances put at risk the feds ability to deliver on the monetary policy goals set for it by congress. price stability and maximum employment. recent proposals that remove the gao exemption would poa lit size the decision. -- politicize the decisions.

make the boards of appointees would reduce the public and private sector. and weaken the independent voices from the fred federal reserve and limit the input of main street views. the independence of the fed or any central bank does not guarantee that all choices they make will be wise or perfectly. particularly in hindsight. i will be the first to acknowledge that the fed has made it's share of mistakes and no doubt will make mistakes in the future. the great inflation of the 1970s is a perfect example. indeed, the cause of the great inflations stems directly, directly from political pressured on the fed to help finance the vietnam war with the creation of money. which it did. pressure to provide excessive and prolonged accommodations in the face of the oil shocks of

the 1970s, which it did. thus the great inflation from my point of view was a failure by the fed to exercise the independence it had to resist the political pressure. not one of our prouder moments. the economic theory and historical record that turning monetary policy and thus the turning of money over the fiscal properties or the political process could be much worse. indeed, i would ask those who think the fed kept interest rates too low, perhaps feeding the crisis that we see today to imagine the outcome at that process been more politicized. i doubt that that would have led to interest rates rising faster or sooner. in fact, it's probably likely that in that environment, rates would have been kept lower for

longer. strict limits on outright prohibition of the feds that engage in 13-3 lending under a new fed treasury would help restore some separation between monetary and fiscal and help preserve the public trust. and committing to traders only policy would reduce the pressures on the fed to use it's balance sheet to engage in fiscal actions. the answer would ask the crisis that the fed still faces significant channels. i believe we can exit from the extraordinary stimulus we provided without generating severe risk to inflation in the intermediate to longer term. but doing so will require some very careful and difficult policy choices. monetary must have the courage

and the independence to make those difficult choices. politicize in the decision making process will not deliver the desired outcomes and runs counter to sound and responsible practices in central banking. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have about 15 minutes forker questions. so if you would have a question, we appreciate that. we'd also ask if you be so kind, we have microphones, if you just pause and we'll bring the must have been to you so you can ask your question in the microphone. that would be very helpful for the media friends that are here. >> simon with wells fargo advisers. we seem to have concerns, you know, the weakening of the u.s.

dollar and the peg and what's going to happen with the currency become stronger, china may be going off the dollar. as one the fed bank presidents i'd like to hear your comments on that. >> exchange rates are always a good thing, all right? i think the u.s. government has exchange rate regime along with most of the countries around the world like mostth of things. i have think it often delivers differently depending on which country you are comparing it to. i think that so in that sense, i think the dollar is going to do what it's going to do. there are thing that the federal reserve is responsible that primarily influence the dollar. more than anything, i think, ultimately, price stability is the important key. what we know is if inflation gains steam and inflation raises

rise in the united states relative, then our currency is going to depieceuate. one the ways you keep a strong or stable dollar is to keep inflation rates low. that's certainly responsibility of the federal reserve. it's also true that keeping the economy strong is important for the health of the dollar. but the dollar is not a specific target or goal to the federal reserve, per se. okay? and it's not by law. or by practice. but we do as policymakers look at what's happening to the dollar and try to ask ourselves, okay, what is that telling us about the state of economy, expectation, the state of our trading partners and so forth. and that becomes a useful signal or input broadly speaking to our policy objectives.

we do not have any specific policy objectives nor should we, i don't think. and, you notice that after, in the heart of the crisis, having falling for a dozen years or so, it's spiked up, why? that reflected a rush to quality and safety whereas the international global financial crisis grew, people flocked to dollar that caused rise to the value of the dollar. they didn't complain about it rising or didn't serve any headlines. when it reversed course after the financial crisis, the dollar fell back done to sort of where it was before. it was all of the sudden made into a crisis. when really it was just the washing out of the flight to quality and flight to safety we saw during the crisis. the dollar is useful information. one has to be careful not to

read too much into the day to day swings. >> doctor, in yesterday's news it was reported that china and japan had actually reduced their u.s. treasuries as of december. at least to in some statistics. my question to you is to what degree can fed monetary policy in setting interest rates be upset by foreign governments deciding not to buy our debt? >> there are a lot of links in that chain, okay? so first of all,ing monetary policy, if our goals set by

congress are stable economic growth and price stability. those are our goals. how foreign governments conduct their modifier policy has relative to do with that as long as we are on a exchange rate regime. the big danger, i think, of course, there are two kind of effects you can have. if monetary policy or fiscal policy if you will leads to a perception on the part of both domestic and foreign -- domestic citizens and foreign governments or foreign central banks where they fear inflation, then that will drive up nominal interest rates down real rates and, in fact, those governments may be concerned about holding on to u.s. government securities if they have fear that great inflation is going to occur.

and in turn, they will take capital losses on those securities that they choice to sell them. so fear of inflation could be one mechanism that would induce those foreign governments -- >> and we will leave the last few minutes of this now as the senate has returned from the weekly party lunches. senate will continue to debate this afternoon on $149 billion bill extending tax breaks and unemployment benefits. also a vote scheduled, now to the senate for live coverage here on c-span2. consent that each side be allowed one minute before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, as with so many other nominations before the senate, justice keenan has waited an extraordinary amount of time to be confirmed. her nomination was reported without dissent by the judiciary committee more than four months ago.

the unprecedented pattern of delay and obstruction by senate republicans on issue after iss issue -- over 100 filibusters last year -- has affected 70% of all senate action. we have to file cloture just to bring up a noncontroversial matter. in addition to the keenan nomination, ten judicial nominations received bipartisan support are being delayed. the senate can almost double the total number of judicial nominations confirmed by stopping the filibusters, by not requiring that and vote up or down. americans elect us to vote yes or no, not to vote maybe. and when you have a filibuster, you vote maybe. we ought to have the guts to vote yes or vote no. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama.

mr. sessions: mr. president, after all we've done to work with the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee, he still complains. i'm amazed. this nominee seems to be a solid nominee. the president is due deference on nominees and i think she should be confirmed and i will support her. but president bush's nominees, for example, to the circuit courts waited an average of 350 days from nomination to confirmation and that was just the average. president obama's circuit nominees have been confirmed on average a hundred days faster. indeed, some of the nominees to the circuits of president bush's nominees never received a hearing despite being highly qualified, highly rated nominees. the majority of president bush's first nominees waited years for confirmation, the first group that he put up. but beside that, as i told the chairman, i hope to end the tit-for-tats on this issue.

he's having a good record of moving nominees that are good. the ones that are -- are opposed on this side will be vigorously opposed. but this nominee i think is qualified and i support the nominee and urge my colleagues to. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:# vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing or hearing none, the yeas are 99. the nays are zero. and the nomination is confirmed.

the motion to reconsider is considered and made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i understand that we're currently in morning business. is that correct? it's not correct? the presiding officer: that is not correct. mr. baucus: mr. president, what's the pending business? mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business much. the presiding officer: without objection. buckingham palacobjection. mr. baucus: this urgent

legislation would prevent millions of americans from falling through the safety net. it would extend vital programs that expired sunday. it would put cash into the hands of americans who would spend it quickly, boosting economic demand. it would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs. let me be specific. just today we received detailed estimates from the national economic council on what would happen if we failed to act. unless we act, half a million workers who lose their jobs nationwide, including nearly 1,060 in montana, would be ineligible for help paying for their health insurance under cobra. unless we act, the average doctor in america would stand to lose more than $16,600 in payments from medicare. the average doctor in montana would lose $13,000.

unless we act, nearly 40 million medicare beneficiaries and nearly 90 million tricare beneficiaries nationwide would be affected. that includes nearly 144,000 montanans with medicare and nearly 33,000 montanans with tricare. and unless we act 400,000 americans would be ineligible for expanded unemployment insurance benefits. this is urgent legislation. we must extend this legislation and soon. now we had a productive day on the bill yesterday. senator sessions offered his amendment to impose discretionary spending caps. this is essentially the same amendment that the senate rejected on january 28th. a point of order lies against the amendment under section 30 of the congressional budget act.

at the appropriate time i plan to raise that point of order against the sessions amendment. as well senator thune added his amendment proposing business tax cuts, offsetting stimulus funds in the recovery act. this is essentially the same argument that the senator from kentucky, senator bunning, has been raising on the narrower short-term unemployment and cobra extension bill. the senator from south dakota and the senator from kentucky both seek to cut back the recovery act. i believe these efforts are mistaken and let me tell you why on issues relating to the budget and the economy, we turn to the nonpartisan congressional budget office for the straight story. they are the neutral referees. and the c.b.o. says that the recovery act is working. that's why it would be a mistake to cut back on the recovery act. last month the c.b.o. issued its report on the effects of the

recovery act in the fourth quarter and in that report this is what c.b.o. said -- quote -- "c.b.o. estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, the recovery act added between one million and 2.1 million to the number of workers it employed in the united states. it and -- and it increased the number of equivalent jobs by between 1.4 million and 3 million." that's what the c.b.o. said. they say that the recovery act saved between one million and three million jobs. that's real job creation. that means the recovery act is working. and that's why we need to defeat efforts like that made by the senator from kentucky, the senator from south dakota, to cut back on the recovery act. cutting back on approving job creator is the last thing that we would want to do right now. we are working to line up votes on the pending amendments and on

amendments that the senator from kentucky seeks to offer on the short-term unemployment and the cobra bill. i'm hopeful that we'll be able to reach an agreement on those matters this afternoon and i thank all senators for their cooperation. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: i would like unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. as a freshman member of this body, i have a great deal of respect for those who have been a part of this institution for many years. on both sides of the aisle veteran senators lend their experience and their invaluable knowledge to procedures to the debate that take place in this chamber every day. and as anyone who knows the history of the senate can tell you, this has always been a

friendly place no matter which party is in control. this has always been a place where political leaders could disagree without being disagreeable no vast the differences happen to be. the senate has always been governed by mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual friendship. but of these key ingredients it is impossible for us to work together. such was the genuineness of our founding fathers who framed this system of government. they knew that partson politics would rage outside these walls, so they created the senate to be a refuge for those who prepare to move forward together to solve national problems. the history of this chamber is filled with legacies, legendary store brings of promises, --

stories of promises that drove senator from different backgrounds to find common purpose. now, mr. president, our degree friend, the senator from kentucky -- i'm sorry -- senator kennedy, the last lion of the senate was one of the greatest of forcing mutual respect with the other side. these stories remind us of the value of citizen discord. they speak to the necessity of working with one another, not against one another to confront the challenges we face. now, mr. president, i'm beginning to wonder if these stories are just stories. though i've served in this chamber for only a short time, i recognize that the atmosphere in this body is not what it once was. i hear the accounts of bipartisan cooperation in the

past. but i see fewer and fewer examples of it today. in fact, just last week the country watched as two centuries of -- of the senate procedures and privileges were abused on partisan game. my colleagues and i were trying to move forward with a bill that extended unemployment benefits the, health insurance for the unemployed, lending assistance for small businesses and other important programs, and also medicare fix. no part of this bill was new or controversial. no part of it would significantly change programs in a were in place which were due to expire at the end of this week. we all knew that this -- if this senate failed to take action, all these programs would grind to a halt element immediately. ordinary americans across the country would stop getting their

unemployment checks and their cobra health benefits. small businesses would see credit dry up literally overnight. in the middle of the worst economic crisis in decades, this would be a disaster. it would be the last thing that america needs as we try to help people get back on their feet. but that's exactly what happened. and my friend from the state of kentucky decided to raise objection. in an instant a single republican senator slammed the door on the american people and left thousands of ordinary folks out in the cold. he cut off the assistance of those who need it the most. he denied unemployment insurance for those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. just when folks were beginning to feel a bit more optimistic, my good friend from kentucky held up his hand and said, and i

quote -- "not so fast." as a result, on sunday night 15,000 illinoisans lost unemployment benefits. another 15,000 will lose their benefits next week and the week after that until my republican friend drop his objection and allow us to pass an extension. these are folks who have felt the worst effect of the economic crisis. they are ordinary people. ordinary american families who can't afford to miss a check, mr. president. they need the money to keep their households going. but the senator from kentucky has objected to continuing these programs. he has prevented the government from putting these checks in the mail to help these families. he has frozen the credit that will allow small businesses to create jobs and put more people

back to work. the senator from kentucky has done that, mr. president. he has sent thousands of federal workers at home without pay. he has shut down important highway projects across america. mr. president, i have been in public service for almost 30 years. and in all that time, i have never seen anything like this outrage abuse of a senatorial privilege. we can argue about policy. we can debate legislation. we can discuss procedures and disagree with political tactics. i believe it's wrong to play politics with people's lives. and i urge my friend from kentucky to stop and withdraw his objection forthwith. my colleagues and i are able to over come these objections and pass this bill in the next few days, we have to be able to restore these benefits

retroactively. the damage has been done. these programs are not designed to help people get by without unemployment insurance for a few days here and there. these programs are targeted for those who are badly surviving from check to paycheck. they live from paycheck to paycheck. therefore people need help keeping food on the table until they have the opportunity to get back on their fee. these are for -- feet. these are for people who do not have the luxury of waiting for a few more days to pay the bills as my colleague seems to think. the senator from kentucky has brought our economic recovery to a grinding halt. he has -- he is playing politics with hard-working americans and he's wasting the time of this distinguished body. mr. president, what has happened to the senate of our forefathers? what has happened to the atmosphere, the friendship that

drove past senators who worked together to solve big problems? my colleagues and i have offered a solution that is acceptable to almost every member of this chamber. there are 99 senators who either support this measure or would like to see an up and down vote on the measure. but my friend from kentucky doesn't mind taking advantage of the rules of this chamber to make a political point. even if it means adding to the misery of thousands of americans across this country. including his own state of kentucky, mr. president. there are people in kentucky that are outraged because of his action on the floor of this body. perhaps we shouldn't be surprised, afterall, we have seen this kind of destruction time and time again from our republican colleagues, even on issues that are critical to the well-being of more than 30 million americans. so maybe it should come as into

surprise that a republican senator would once again choose to manipulate the senate procedure for partisan gain. in many ways i suppose that's all we can expect from the party that has refused to offer solutions of their own. mr. president, i believe the american people deserve much better than that. i believe regular folk expect us to help make their lives better, not worse. i believe that they're tired of obstructionism. that they're tired of hearing that their representatives in washington can't get things done. i would urge all of my colleagues to reach for the generous spirit of our forefathers which define this chamber as a friendly and inclusive place for so many decades. i would urge my colleagues to debate the issues honestly and without resorting to obstructionism.

no legislation will ever be perfect, mr. president, but i believe it is irresponsible to hold up an important and fundamental good bill for political reasons. i ask my friend from kentucky to drop his objection as others in this chamber have asked him many times over in the last few days. let us move forward together. let us be constructive. let us recapture the friendly atmosphere that helped our predecessors rise above the partisan politics and achieve great things. this is not how the senate was intended to function, madam president. so let us prove to the world this is still the greatest deliberative body op the planet. let us reject these tactics and move forward together. let us without delay, mr. president, stop the obstruction of this important

legislation. madam president, i would like to speak on another issue as if in morning business. thank you, madam president. we live in a world divided. international tension, mistrust, and even wars too often separate nation from nation. but every two years, thousands of athletes from countries all over the world come together to celebrate human spirit. they meet in competition, arriving on the world's stage from all five inhabitant continents. each of these five continents is represented by a single colored circle, a ring intertwined with four others to form the familiar symbol worn by the olympic athletes. madam president, the olympic games are a powerful force for world unity.

and this year for the 21st winter olympics, the eyes of the world turned to vancouver, canada, just across the border where we share our -- that we share with our good friends to the north. as always, the competition was fierce in every sport. the greatest athletes in the world tested their skills on some of the most challenging courses in history. records were set and broken. the world witnessed many triumphs such as success of the young canadian figure skater only days after the sudden death of her mother. we came together in the face of great tragedy, mourning the shocking death of a young athlete from the republic of georgia. such olympic moments with triumph and tragedy are blind to

region or nationality. they remind us of the qualities and the limitations we share in every field of human endeavor and that every moment from the opening ceremony until the olympic flame was extinguished, these winter games served as a testament to all that we have in common. in a divided world, they served as an affirmation of the human spirit and the value of friendship through sport. madam president, i'm proud to note that the united states olympic team ended these games with a total of 37 medals, more than any other country and a new record for the most medals won at a single winter's games. i would especially like to recognize and congratulate the olympic athletes who hailed from my home state of illinois. these young men and women had the great honor of representing

this country on the world stage, and they did us proud. in fact, eight of the 37 total u.s. medals were won by illinoisans, from champaign to chicago, from wheaton to glenview, from plainfield to glencoe and napierville. these athletes took the ski slopes and the bobsled rink and they gave it their all. some came home with olympic gold and some fell short at the finals, but they are all olympians, madam president, and they all represented our country, our state, with honor, integrity, and sportsmanship. so i take pride in thanking the following illinoisans for their dedicated and hard work at this year's olympic games. nina garry, katherine ruth

rutter, brian hansen, shonny davis, jonathan cluck, lisa chester, evelyn lysecek, james mariori and ben augusto. and i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these ten illinoisans along with their teammates and their coaches, parents, and supporters who contributed to the success of the team u.s.a. i thank them for all their accomplishments in vancouver and wish them nothing but continued success in the future. madam president, these are a few international spectacles as singular and as inspiring as the olympic games. a force for unity in a world divided, these competitions have

the power to bring us together as one people celebrating the human spirit with one voice. thanks to the world-class athletes who took part in the united states and more than 80 countries in every corner of the globe, this year's winter games in vancouver were no exception, and i hope that as the world athletes return to their respective countries and as we turn our attention back to the challenges we face in our daily lives that this olympic spirit of unity will persist until we meet again on the world stage in london for the 2012 summer games. congratulations to the illinoisans and all of those who participated from the great united states of america in these games. thank you, madam president, and i would suggest that there is an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: and ask if i could speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. last week, senate leadership reached an agreement on a short-term extension of federal benefits and other critical programs that were set to expire, but when we tried to pass the bill, sadly, one single senator objected. because of that one senator and his filibuster, federal unemployment benefits and health care subsidies for people who have lost their jobs have now expired. this senator also single-handedly halted highway projects across the country and put workers' futures in jeopardy. the obstruction of this bill has brought to a standstill small

business lending programs that have been successful at boosting the number of s.b.a.-guaranteed loans since the recovery act was passed. and because of this senator's actions, physicians will see their medicare reimbursements slashed by over 21%, threatening the health care of too many seniors in new hampshire and across this country. now, there may be some people who don't realize the damage caused by these lapses, so i'm here, as so many people have been here on the floor over the last several days, talking about what is happening to too many people because of this filibuster. first, this is about the struggles faced by individual workers and their families. right now, with a record number of unemployed workers competing for each job, it's become harder than ever for people who lose a job to get back to work. of the 16 million americans who

are out of work today, nearly 6 million -- more than one in three -- have run through the benefits provided by their states. these 6 million people are the ones served by federal unemployment, which is a critical safety net that helps families buy gas and groceries, helps them heat their homes and pay their mortgages and their rents while thee look for the next job -- while they look for the next job. now, because of the actions of just one member of this body, actions that i believe are irresponsible, more than 1.2 million people will get their last check during the month of march. my office has heard from hundreds of constituents in the last week who are on the verge of losing their benefits, and their stories are heartbreaking. i want to tell you about just one. a woman named linda wrote me. she said, and i quote, "i've been unemployed for the first time in my life since august. i'll be 60 on march 14.

and i've not been able to find another full-time job. i own an older mobile home in epping. i don't have a retirement plan, a nest egg or anything of that nature. the prospect of my unemployment benefits going away very soon," she says, "i may only have two or three weeks left, because of one senator digging in his heels makes me feel sick. please, please, do everything you can to get an extension for unemployment benefits passed. god has a plan for us all," she says. "i just pray that i don't lose everything, as many others have, and that one senator isn't playing the partisan card just because he can. i'm not sure that america is the land of opportunity that it used to be." that's the end of her quote. now, while some may think that

it's no big deal to make people like linda wait a week or two weeks to get another unemployment check, even short-term expirations have damaging results. when state workforce agencies are forced to shut down and restart, complicated federal benefits programs, they experience huge backlogs in their systems that delay getting checks out the door. phone lines at call centers are jammed with claimants holding up others from filing for benefits and lines at one-stop centers get longer and longer. in the best of circumstances, individuals who see their benefits lapse while this filibuster continues will have to wait weeks before they begin receiving checks again. that's a long time when you're living on unemployment. then there's the uncertainty and the fear that comes when someone opens the mail to find a notice that this check is the last one

they'll receive. families can't make responsible budget choices when we abruptly interrupt safety net programs. so this filibuster isn't just holding up benefits to those who are already out of work. it's causing more americans to lose their jobs. by cutting off highway funding, one senator has put thousands more americans at risk of losing their jobs. for the first time in 20 years, construction projects across the country have halted. without an extension of highway programs, construction companies in new hampshire can't plan ahead. workers in new hampshire don't know whether there'll be a job for them when construction season starts back up in the spring. and due to the actions of just one senator, the future of these workers is uncertain. this filibuster is especially egregious because it abuses the senate rules. but, unfortunately, abusing the

rules in order to prevent us from addressing the needs of families and small businesses has sadly become too routine. that's why i believe we need to take a very hard look at change the senate rules. it's time to stop playing political games with the lives of the american people. i hope that, at least on this bill, every member of the senate can come together to support the millions of people who are counting on our leadership. thank you very much, madam president. and i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. demint: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor just to make a few comments -- the presiding officer: senator, the national is in a quorum call. mr. demint:, oh, pardon me. i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. demint: you'd think after five years i would remember to

do that. but, thank you, madam president. i know the senate has been dealing with a difficult issue and i want to make some comments relative to the senator from kentucky, senator bunning, who i think has taken a lot of unfair criticism for asking our democratic colleagues to abide by their own rules. much has been made here in the senate and the congress and the white house over the last year about the unsustainable level of spending and borrowing and debt that we have as a nation. yet it seems that almost every week we create some government program or extend spending in some areas. i think it is time that we expose the see abovencc that is going on here because we know that the level of debt that we have here is going to bring our country down. yet we don't seem to have the willpower to stop any spending. last week we created a new government program, a new travel

promotion agency, and now we're going to extend unemployment and cobra benefits which are a good thing and certainly in a down economy we need to consider those who are suffering around the country and make sure we do everything we can that's fair to take care of them. but when we borrow the money to do it, we threaten the futures of our children and grandchildren, diminish their quality of life, and likely cause their unemployment in the future. so we can hardly pat ourselves on the back for our compassion and generosity when we're really not making any sacrifices or even any hard decisions here in the senate to pay for those things that we say are a priority. instead of paying for this extension of unemployment benefits and cobra, the democrats are just -- just want to pass it without any debate, without any vote, and they don't

want to pay for it. they're not even considering ways that we can pay for this extension. instead, we classify it as "emergency spending" at the last minute and try to force congress into spending money we don't have, brought it up at the very last minute, the end of last week, and said, if we don't pass it now by unanimous consent, the people will go without their unemployment and their cobra. this is not emergency spending. it was entirely predictable when these funds would run out, when impissing funds would run out. -- when existing funds would run out. and instead of acting prudently to extend these benefits in ways that we could pay for them -- the way we democrat colleagues said we could with this "paygo rule" -- they're declaring an emergency at the last minute to ram it through, without any debate, without a vote.

moreover, they want to do this anonymously, through the process that we call "unanimous consent." that means they don't want a roll call vote. why don't they want a roll call vote? because it shows who means what they say. it shows who really believes in this idea of pay-as-you-go that we call paygo. and it would certainly damage prospects for november elections. senator bunning from kentucky has taken a courageous stand to hold the democrats -- in fact, all of us -- accountable to the things that we say we believe. i, like senator bunning, believe if we're going to renew these benefits, we should pay for them. we should look at areas of our government that we don't have to do and reduce them or eliminate them so that we can pay for the things that we feel like we have to do. and i think the naiments of the senators-- --and i think the names of the senators who want to borrow the

money to do this, who want to add to our debt to do this, the names of those senators should be recorded for the public to see. this bill will cost $10 billion. we could find the money to pay for this bill. we could repeal a very small part of the stimulus plan. we could repeal the tarp or the bailout money. we could cut some earmarks, some local parochial projects. or we could cut other government programs that have been deemed unnecessary. or wasteful. the congressional bug office says the government would save -- the congressional budget office says the government would save $12 billion if we just allow health insurance companies to compete in an interstate commerce fashion. we've talked about it a lot as part of the health care debate. if all we did, no taxpayer funds at all

allowed interstate competition for health insurance, the government could save $12 billion and more than pay for this bill that we're talking about here today. we could help people get insured, lower the cost of health insurance, help small businesses create jobs and pay for the bill that extends unemployment benefits. but we're not even willing to talk about a responsible way to pay for a bill. and yet when senator bunning says, wait a minute, we've been talking about paying for these things as we go and the first two bills that we brought up since we passed paygo have not been paid for. so he said, at least let's bring it to the floor and have some debate and a vote. i think that's pretty reasonable. senator bunning was right to address this problem and i commend him for it, and i hope our colleagues will stop the hypocrisy, to stop trying to create a crisis of our debt while every day we make that crises worse.

and adding to the debt almost every week, now we've got members of this body looking at new ways to raise taxes or to create new taxes on americans. this is not the way to help our country. it's not the way to lead. and it certainly is hypocrisy. so i thank senator bunning for his stand and i would ask all my colleagues to join us in looking at what this federal government has to do and to do those things well, to fund them properly, but to take those things that don't have to be done at the federal level and move them to the states or back to the people, as the 10th amendment says. we clearly cannot move forward as a nation with the federal government doing more than it's doing today. if we're going to survive, if we're going to thrive as a nation in the future, the federal government will have to

do less. that needs to begin here. it needs to start today. we can't keep expanding government, borrowing money every week and complaining about the debt. only in politics would that happen, and we've got to stop it here this week. so, again, i want to thank senator bunning for his courage and clarity, and i yield back. and note 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: madam president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, i just heard the senator say that, in defense of senator bunning, that -- or implying that our side will not allow senator

bunning to have a vote. i want to clear the record here. that is not the case at all. as far as i'm concerned, senator bunning can have his vote, have his vote on his pay-for, and the point is, does senator bunning want assurance that he has enough votes from the democratic side so his vote passes? well, of course not. we vote here. that's what this senate's for. those in favor vote aye. those not in favor vote no. and i think it's -- that's the democratic process, and that's the -- that's the process most americans understand. and so i -- i ask senator bunning, if he wants his vote, he can come up on the floor and ask for his vote and he can have that vote. i'm not going to prejudge whether he's going to win or lose, but as far as this senator's concern, he can have that vote. now, my expectation would be that after that vote is concluded, one way or the other, then we could vote on the underlying 30-day amendment so

that finally get people their unemployment checks that they're due, finally get people their cobra benefits. there's health premium subsidies that they're due. finally enable doctors to get paid so they can see medicare patients. i mean, there's a very simple solution here. we can just vote. and so if senator bunning wants to vote, i say, fine, let's vo vote. if senator bunning says oh, no, i want to make sure that i win, that's not -- i don't think that's entirely proper. but i do think it's very proper to have the vote, senators can vote their -- their wishes and their views, have that vote and when that vote's concluded, if we can get on to the 30-day resolution, the 30-day period so that people can get their benefits that they're due. that's the only responsible, reasonable way to deal with all this, and i just very much hope that we do that. i'm just waiting for the senator from kentucky to indicate that he'd like to vote so we can

vote. pretty simple. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold your quorum call? mr. baucus: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. balkser: thank you very much, i -- mrs. boxer: thank you very much, i say to senator baucus. madam president, i've come over here in the hopes that as we begin work on this very important bill that is going to help reinvigorate our economy, i hope that we're making progress on getting senator bunning to step down from his objections to a short-term extension of a number of programs that are essential to the well-being of our nation. senator bunning says that he's objecting to an extension of unemployment benefits and health subsidies for the jobless, and,

by the way, highway and transit programs and other programs because he wants to offset that extension with cuts in funding from the economic recovery act. and, madam president, i want to make the point that at a time when jobless rates are soaring, certain of these actions that we take are emergency actions. they're actions we take because the long-term unemployed are in big trouble. and if we pay for this by slashing economic recovery funds that have already been obligated, they're about to go out, they're about to start hiring people, then, it seems to me, we're taking one step forward and two steps back.

so i'm willing to vote on this and i hope that senator bunning will lift his objection if he gets a vote on this. it's not a problem. let's vote on it. but i have written to senator bunning on a couple of occasions on behalf of the 201,000 californians who have already seen their unemployment insurance benefits expire if we don't renew them. and this is a very dangerous precedent to set. i noted to him that not only is he hurting people who are doing everything in their power to get work, but he's also shutting down transportation projects in california and 16 other states because he will not agree to

reauthorize the highway trust fund for just 30 days. this is an impossible situation. and i ask unanimous consent to place into the record the states that have already been impacted by senator bunning's objection to a 30-day extension for the highway trust fund. may i put that list in the record, madam president? the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i want to note that in california, we're already seeing layoffs because department of transportation had to lay off and furlough, they furloughed, temporarily, i trust, but they furloughed 2,000 federal inspectors who are overseeing in 17 of our states a number of important projects. for example, in alaska, the tongass national forest road

cleanup, and another project in arizona, the coronado national monument main park entrance. in arkansas, there's a shutdown. in california, three projects: sequoia, national park main entrance to the south fork smith river, and the golden gate national recreation area road construction. in the district of columbia, t theth street bridge replacement. imagine, one senator stopping these important construction projects. they're safety projects, they're crucial projects to our economy, have been stopped in their tracks because one senator decided that it's his way or the highway. you know, we have got to stop bringing this senate to paralysis around here. we all have our opinions. i have mine and i know the senator from montana has his and

the senator from new york has hers and the senator from michigan has her opinion, and we think we're right and we make our case. but once we've argued our case, the will of the senate has to move forward. now, senator bunning doesn't seem to think it's an emergency that the highway trust fund has run out of funds. he doesn't think it's an emergency that the long-term jobless americans, that that is an emergency. he doesn't agree. he doesn't agree that it's an emergency, i gather, that people can't pay for their health care extension. and, by the way, he also stopped -- and this is very important. i know the senator from montana knows this well -- a 21% to our doctors who take medicare. and i met with my doctors from california today. they can't believe this is happening.

madam president, in ventura county, our doctors are saying because of this 21% cut that they're facing in their reimbursement, they're only going to see emergencies. they're not going to see someone who has a nonemergency. this is gamesmanship, and i call on senator bunning to remove his objection to the extension of the highway trust fund and the transportation programs and the unemployment benefits and the cuts in medicare reimbursement to our doctors. each week that senator bunning maintains his hold, each week that he insists that he will stop this, 6,000 california families will lose their unemployment benefits. let's end this today. each week that senator bunning maintains his hold, many

california small businesses won't be able to get access to needed loans from the s.b.a. because the flood insurance program was held up. and californians and americans from every state will lose their health insurance coverage. i can only marvel at this turn of events and not marvel in a good way. it takes obstruction to the next level. it's a bridge too far. and i think there are members on the democratic side here who are willing to stand on our feet for as long as it takes and try to get in done today. and we hope that the senator, senator bunning, will back down. now, if he continues and he

keeps this up, if the highway program is shut down for just one month, tens of thousands of jobs are at stake and i want to say what those jobs would be. in arizona, it would be 1,400 jobs. in california, it would be 6,000. in florida, 3,000. in illinois, 2,000. in kentucky, the home state of senator bunning, who is stopping the highway trust fund from getting funded, is would be 1,198 jobs if he keeps this behavior up for a month. now, senator bunning says he has every right to do this. sure, he does. sure, he does. he's a senator. he can do it. but it's wrongment but it's wrong. and if each us decided to throw a fit every time we didn't like

something around here, who gets hurt? not senator bunning. he's got a job. he's got his health care. he's not worried. he's not a physician that's getting held up here either. he's fine. i'm fine. it's the people of kentucky, his state. it's the people of california, my state. if this keeps up for a month, there will be 6,000 job losses in texas, 1,300 in wisconsin. and if this keeps up and we don't get our work done and we don't reauthorize the highway trust fund as we did in the higher act -- that is the h h-i-r-e-r act -- we'll lose 1 million jobs in america. and that gets to be inexplicable in terms of the world of hurt. i ask unanimous consent to place into the record a chart prepared

by ashto listing the impacts of reductions in funding in all 50 states. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and so, as i stand here today, it would be pretty easy to solve this problem. senator bunning needs to stand down. he just needs to stand down. he made his point. he argues that we should pay for emergency funding. the one thing, i voted for paygo, but we do have a clause that says if it's a real emergency, we don't have to pay for it. and the reason that's important is if we do what senator bunning wants and we extend this jobless help and we extend height way trust fund -- extend the highway trust fund and we cut the economic recovery moneys which are all obligated and work's about to start on them, we're not really doing anything for

the country. let's do this right. you know, many of us who are standing here saw terrible deficit and debt problems during the clinton years. and you know what we did? we fixed it. we fixed it. and we had room for emergencies. but we fixed it by going to paygo. and when there are emergencies, you know, we step back. but i think it's fair to note that senator bunning is very agitated about the fact that we would extend jobless benefits without cutting spending in job creation. yet, when it was time for him to vote for tax breaks for the wealthiest people who earn over $1 million, he could care less that it was put on uncle sam's credit card. when it was time to pay for the war in iraq, put it on the credit card of the country. but all of a sudden it's help to our families who need it so desperately, well, we're going to have to cut other programs that are providing jobs.

it just doesn't make sense. it's just not fair and it's not consistent. so i would renew my request that i've made twice now to senator bunning. and i'd ask unanimous consent to place my letters to him in the record. i wrote to him on february 26 on behalf of the 201 californians who were going to see their unemployment insurance benefits expire, and telling him that the benefits will expire on sunday, which was two days ago, and that unemployment insurance is a lifeline to the long-term unemployed whose families have been hit hard by this recession. and i thanked him for his immediate attention, which i hope that he did in fact read this letter. and i hope he read my letter of march 1. i wrote to him as chairman of the environment and public works

committee. i wanted to make sure he knew that he also objected to reauthorizing the highway trust fund expenditures. and that means that the department of transportation is starting to lay people off. they laid inspectors off, furloughed them. they'll go back to work when we fix this mess. but what a mess. you know what it is to shut down construction jobs midway? and by the way, these are private-sector employers. private-sector workers who are doing this work. it's unacceptable. and i told him, it's hurting people in your state, in my state, and all across the country. these federal inspectors will be removed from critical projects across the nation. work is shutting down. and i attach to him the

department of transportation's list of the affected projects. and i said we can't have an economic recovery if people can't make ends meet and if transportation projects grind to a halt. we all know the housing sector is so weak, that construction is not going well. we need to construct the infrastructure of this nation. these are not make-work projects. these are projects fixing bridges and highways and making sure that our roads are safe. and so i asked him to stop his gamesmanship and remove his objection to the extension of the transportation authorization and the unemployment benefits. and as i said today, i add to that the extension of the funding for our physicians who are relying on us not to allow a 21% cut for medicare to go into place. the fact that we don't have a lot of leadership down here says

to me that they're working on this now. it says to me they're reaching out to senator bunning and my republican colleagues to see if they'll stand down. and i just want to say that i hope he does. these are real people. these are real people who are suffering. and there's no need for them to suffer. we're not going to turn our backs on the long-term jobless. we're not going to turn our backs at all. this is just a political maneuvering here which is making life very, very difficult for people whose lives have been pretty much shattered if they're longterm unemployed and look for work and trying desperately to get it. hopefully senator bunning will back down.

my republican friends will agree that we can move forward. if they want a vote on senator bunning's plan to cut economic recovery funds that have already been obligated to put people to work to pay for an emergency, i'm willing to take that vote any day of the week. i hope to be back later and be have some comments. and i hope those comments are good. we got past this crisis. but at the moment we have -- it's 4:00 in the afternoon, and we're not through yet. and i'm hopeful that maybe later we'll get through this and extend these vital, vital programs to the people who really need it. i also -- i am going to close. i wanted to thank the people who have worked so hard with me on getting this highway reauthorization done. it's a republicans and democrats, it's the chamber of commerce, it's ashto, it's the

general contractors, it's the construction unions. this is an amazing team of people. it's the triple-a. it's the car writers association, it's everyone -- republicans, democrats, tph-pbds. -- independents. they want an end to these games. and i hope that today we'll see the end. if we don't, we're going to have to have a long, long night ahead of us to make the point that it's wrong for one senator to stop our people, our american people, from getting the help they deserve, from getting the jobs they deserve to have in the highway fund and the help they need while they're looking for work. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. first, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to morning business with senators permitted to speak for

up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. before my friend from california leaves the floor, i first want to thank the senator from california for her leadership in bringing together a bipartisan effort to create jobs and for coming to the floor to speak about what are the important elements that are being held up right now. by senator bunning and other republicans that have come to the floor in support of his efforts. so i want to thank senator boxer for her leadership and her ability to bring people together to get things done and to speak to the fact that this is about jobs and we have a sense of urgency about what needs to happen going forward. i want to speak to that sense of urgency, madam president, and speak first about what is happening for real people. then i want to talk a little bit about the process as well. how could we can be here because

people are asking how can one group or the minority continue to hold up our ability to solve problems? that's a very good point that we need to talk about. first i want to share just some comments from a distraut woman from grand rapids who just called my office just a little bit ago in tears because her unemployment benefits had expired. this has been her only source of income for over a year now. she has about two months left in savings before she loses her home. so first she loses her job, and now she's about to lose her home. my guess is she's been struggling with health care as well. she kept repeating, "i was a productive member of society but now i have nothing." she spoke about doing various temporary jobs since losing her full-time job as an

administrative assistant in 2007. having 18 years of work experience, and she still hasn't qualified for a new job. her search continues. she was pleading for the senate to pass an unemployment extension before she loses her home. madam president, in michigan, and all across this country, this is not a game. this is real. people are in a position today when they don't know if they're going to be able to keep their home, if they're going to be able to put food on the table at the end of the week, next week, be able to pay their rent, be able to keep the heat on with the small amount of money that comes in from unemployment and the average of about $300 per week, that right now is the difference between whether or not people are on the street, in

the cold with their families, or whether they have a roof over their head. that is the reality of what's happening for people in this country. not people who are lazy. not people who don't want to work. but people who have found themselves caught in this huge economic tsunami that has hit our country. we have over 15 million people currently receiving unemployment benefits. who want to work, who are losing for -- who are looking for work. on average there are 6 people looking for work for every job available. watch what happens when you announce there are jobs available in a community. people line up around the block because they want to work. people are going back to school to gain different kinds of skills to fit in the new economy. they're doing everything they

can piecing it together with part-time work, two jobs, three jobs, trying to hold it together we also have people who are one paycheck from being in the same situation, who are holding back on the spending they would normally do that would generate economic activity in the economy, because they don't know what's going to happen. so this is critical to families. people today who have been nothing but play by the rules like the woman who called my office, played by the rules all their lives, and they want to know when is their government going to be there for them? you know, somehow, as has been said before, the senator from kentucky didn't manage to make it to the floor when 1% of the public, the wealthiest in america was given huge tax cuts. didn't manage to make it to the floor when we were talking about wall street and bailouts.

but somehow can come to the floor and hold up the ability for people who are unemployed to be able to get some temporary help and put the entire weight of the federal deficit on the backs of people who are out of work, who have lost their breadwinner in their home. that's stunning to me, absolutely stunning to me. whose side are we on here? what is this about if it's not to make sure that when disaster hits, that we are willing to step up on behalf of american families and support them and do something about it. now our colleague has said that we shouldn't add to the deficit. we should make sure, while other things have certainly added to the deficit, that we should make sure this is paid for. what we've said is of course.

we are the party that balanced the budget in the 1990's, mr. president. as a matter of fact, we don't need a lecture from people about solving deficits. we're the ones who created the balanced budget and surpluses that then went right out the window in the last eight years under a previous administration. so we don't need lectures on how to deal with deficits. but we also know when there's a disaster. and we also know whether it's a flood, whether it's a hurricane, whether it's another kind of disaster, the reality is people in this country have been hit by a disaster. and so it's appropriate to treat this as a disaster with disaster funding. i don't know what's a disaster right now if more than 15 million people that we just know about, not counting the other 10 million or 15 million people that are aren't being counted. i don't know what's a disaster if that's not a disaster. and so we find ourselves here,

and i want to talk just for a moment about the process. because we find ourselves here because of a situation where we have seen abuse of the democratic process over and over again. -- here in the senate by our minority party colleagues that has been now rocked to a point -- brought to a point where one person, although supported by others on the republican side, has come to the floor, is objecting, put us in a situation where we're going to have to either shut down the work of the senate for a week to vote to override or to do something else. put us in a situation where people are being hurt because of partisan games. the leader comes to the floor and says, if you have a concern, you should offer an amendment. we should debate that amendment. you can have an up or down vote on that easmed that's the democratic process.

and then we will vote. and up until this point the senator has said, no, because he doesn't know if he'll win that vote. well, mr. president, we don't know at any given time when we offer an amendment if we will win that vote. when you run for election, you don't know if you're going to win that vote. this is the democratic process. and so i would challenge our colleagues to stop blocking democracy, to stop blocking the democratic process and just vote. just vote. majority vote. that's what the founders created was a process for the majority to govern with spirited debate -- spirited debate, up or down votes. don't block democracy. that is exactly what's happening right now. it's time to vote. it's time to get things done. it's time to show the american people that we get it about what's going on in their lives.

let's just vote. now, what's happened? -- what's happened in the last couple of years? we've seen a process that in 1919 -- 1919 and 1920 was used two "new york timestwo times inn the first senate was used zero times. we've seen a process that in the last number of years has gotten to a point where in the last congress the process of blocking and obstructing the filibuster was used 139 times by our republican colleagues. and that was the most ever. look at that. look, it doubled more than any other time in the history of the country. well, they're going to double it again. because as of today we have a situation where -- if we can move this up here, mr. president.

as of today we have a situation where we have seen the party of no -- of "no" object, filibuster 118 times. we're barely in one year of a two-year cycle. we're on the road to see it double and create a time of amazing historic obstruction that we have never seen before. and this is an example today of what happens when that process, which is a legitimate process, is abused. people get hurt. so i would call on colleagues to stop blocking democracy. to simply come and debate and vote, decide, and move on so that we can get things done for the american people. the underlying bill that's in front of us -- the underlying

bill that's in front of us is a bill that will extend unemployment benefits for a year. and that's the right thing to do. it will extend help for health care for cobra for a year, and that's the right thing to do. it will extend help for states to pay for health care for the next extended beyond the next six months of when we put in place help under the recovery act. it will make sure that our doctors can continue to get paid a fair reimbursement to be able to serve our seniors under medicare. and it will allow us to keep jobs going and allow us to be able to extend important investment tax credits. the reality is we have a lot of work to do here in the united states senate. we need to dispose of this

immediate situation of helping people. we need to make sure that we put in place the short-term help on unemployment and health care and other positions that we have talked about and move quickly to the broader jobs bill. we know in the end everyone who is holding their breath right now about what we're going to do on unemployment is not saying to us, gee, i hope you extend unemployment for years and years. gee, i really want -- i really want to live on $300 a week. they want us to focus on jobs. the integrity of work. the ability to bring home a -- a paycheck, to be a breadwinner, to be able to care for your family and all of the dignity that comes with that work. so we need to get on about the business of focusing on jobs as we have been. but the first thing we need to

do, mr. president, is to make sure that we understand what is happening to people across our country right now who are panicked about the obstruction that is going on here in the united states senate. 135,000 people in michigan will lose their unemployment help by the end of march if we do not take action. that is an economic disaster if i've ever heard one. it's time to act. it's time to stop blocking the democratic process. it's time to vote to be able to get things done and let people know that we're on their side and this we understand what's going on in their lives. and that we're going to be here and work hard and get things done for them. thank you, mr. president.

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. ms. klobuchar: i ask the quorum

call be vitiated. the presiding officer: yes, without objection. ms. klobuchar: i stand before the senate to call for the passage of the temporary extension act of 2010, mr. president. this legislation would extend a number of very important programs that families across the nation rely on to get them through difficult economic times. this bill includes an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work families, including hundreds of thousands in the midwest, an extension of cobra benefits for those who lost their health care along with their jobs, and a number of important tax credits for businesses and individuals which are vital as we seek to generate economic activity. i can't tell you how many times i heard about this when i went around our state and spoke with small businesses. however, there is one program that as i know our colleagues have focused on how important it is to get this bill done, how important it is that one person shouldn't be allowed to hold up something that is so worthy and

expected and necessary for the american people, but there is one thing that hasn't been discussed as much, and that is the national flood insurance program that is also included in this bill. homeowners insurance covers damage from various sources, but it does not cover damage that results from flooding. sadly, in too many cases, unknowing americans learn of this hole in their policy only after it is too late. in recognition of this major gap in coverage, congress created the national flood insurance program in 1968 to give home and business owners a chance to financially protect themselves, their property, and their families. for over 40 years, this program has helped communities recover after devastating national and natural disasters. i have been at some of these disasters. the flood in rushford, minnesota. no one will forget grand forks. no one will forget how close woe got last year with fargo and the minnesota city of morehead.

the floods in iowa in the last two years, these are real disasters. all regions of america are susceptible to flooding, whether it's torrential seasonal rains, hurricanes, thunderstorms, or even the recent tsunami across the pacific social that struck after the tragic earthquake in chile. we can't escape the powerful force of nature. flooding by its nature is unpredictable. families and businesses need to know that if the worst happens they will have the tools to help them get back on their feet. in my state, the flood insurance program is vital to those who live in any area susceptible to flooding. however, at this time of year, our attention is focused on families living across the red river basin in northwestern minnesota. last spring, above-average rainfall, compounded by an untimely melting of snow, resulted in, as we all saw on tv, devastating floods along the red river which hits the highest level ever recorded. i was there with the people. it was an extraordinary effort as you watch grandmas taking

these frozen sandbags and putting them in place. as you saw people that were up for 48 hours to protect their homes. as the waters receded, president obama declared 15 counties as disaster areas and communities throughout the region began the lengthy cleanup process and solemnly faced the devastation. this is not the first time the red river has overflowed its banks and it certainly won't be the last. we are working at this moment on a long-term plan so that this doesn't happen in the future, but for now we are again facing a threat in the red river. this winter's heavy snow pack has led to a gloomy outlook for flooding this spring which does not bode well for these communities. volunteers in morehead, minnesota, have already begun filling sandbags in preparation for this year's floods. although the red river runs between morehead, minnesota, and fargo, north dakota, when it comes to this calamity, the area is one community. in a testament to the people of northwest minnesota and eastern north dakota, the rising river doesn't divide us, it unites us. as honorable, tireless, and commendable these efforts are,

they can't do it alone and they need and deserve our help. facing the heartbreaking loss of a home, the national flood insurance program at least provides participants the peace of mind that their livelihoods will not be equally destroyed and they will have the financial resources to start over. sadly, the actions of one member of this body has not only put in jeopardy this program but has endangered all the community and residents along the red river, those who have not yet purchased their flood insurance, and believe me, there are still some people because they are calling our office. sherry, a resident of morehead, minnesota, contacted my office, trying to understand how this legislative paralysis caused by one member of this body will impact her neighbors and her community. as of monday, this program has come to a halt. certain policy renewals may move forward, but those seeking a new policy to protect their homes may be left out in the cold. because of this body's inability, because of one person's decision to extend the

authorization of this vital program, residents in the red river valley do not know if they are going to be able to get flood insurance by the time the waters begin to rise in late march and early april. the intricacy of this program complicates matters more, mr. president. new policyholders must wait 30 days before they take effect. there is no time to spare for minnesotans seeking to protect their families from the upcoming floods. they may come at the end of the month. they may come at the beginning of april. we don't know. there are other parts of this country where flooding comes later, and those people will be interested in purchasing policies. they don't know if their business is going to be able to survive another flood season or whether they will lose everything with no second chance to start over. it is important to note, mr. president, that the national flood insurance program saves taxpayer dollars. when communities implement flood plain management requirements and residents purchase flood insurance, the federal emergency management agency estimates that

flood damage is reduced by by $1 billion each year. in fact, fema estimates that the federal government saves between $3 and $4 for every dollar spent on flood mitigation in advance of a problem. the flood insurance program also provides building standards which when followed leads to 80% less damage annually than those structures not built according to these standards. but this isn't the only program that is being threatened by this stalemate. because of senator bunning's objections, yesterday roughly 2,000 department of transportation staff were furloughed largely at the federal highway administration which is responsible for highway, bridge, and road construction projects across our nation. i know a little bit about those projects, mr. president, bass i live six blocks from the bridge that fell down in the mississippi river in the middle of a beautiful summer day. eight-lane highway down in the middle of the mississippi river. we know how important these projects are, rebuilding safety. can you just have one member of the united states senate decides to stop these types of projects in their tracks.

highway projects are financed by state departments of transportation and federal funds reimburse the states for their work on projects. with furloughed staff, these reimbursements will come to a halt which will force state departments of transportation across the nation to halt work. the reimbursements amount to to $190 million per day. in addition, senator bunning's actions will prevent the department of transportation from making vital grant awards. i'm a member of the environment and public works committee which deals with roads and bridges so i find the stopping of these programs particularly troubling. ironically, on wednesday, the committee will hold a hearing on the importance of transportation investments in the national economy. if we're going to move forward to the next century's economy, mr. president, we need to have the next century's transportation system. i respectfully request that the senator from kentucky allow an up-or-down vote on his amendment, that he stop stalling, that he let us vote so the people in the red river valley can buy flood insurance,

so the people that want their bridges built and their highways built can go ahead and have those things done, so the people waiting on their unemployment benefits can have that unemployment compensation. i request that he stop stalling so the united states senate can resume work and extend these programs for a stop-gap emergency basis on which so many programs and so many americans depend. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i note the absen of quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. landrieu: madam president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president.

i do need to disexpense with the calling of the roll or are we in morning business? i'd like to speak as if in morning business for ten minutes. the presiding officer: we have to lift the quorum call. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. president, i rise to speak for just a few minutes while we're in a quorum call in trying to decide how to proceed -- the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call is terminated. l.a.n. -- with how to proceed -- ms. landrieu: with how to proceed on this bill, to speak about a very important bill that hopefully at some time, as this debate moves forward it could be considered. it is an extremely important amendment, not just to the people of louisiana but to the people of mississippi and alabama as well. three states that were very hard hit by a natural disaster four and a half years ago when katrina, one of the largest hurricanes ever recorded, slammed into actually the gulf coast and hit the state of

mississippi directly and then parts of louisiana, and then three weeks later we were hit by another category 4 storm hurricane rita. we are four and a half years into that disaster, catastrophe, and the gulf coast is still struggling to recover. now, people are very familiar with the scenes they're seeing in haiti. unfortunately, we're getting very familiar with the scenes that we're seeing in chile. it wasn't that long ago that we were seeing similar scenes along the gulf coast, not as desperate a situation as haiti. we're not clear about how the situation in chile is playing out, but we can all remember the terrible videos and slides of destruction and having represented that state how for all this time, let me tell you, mr. president, that our work is still going on. and that's what brings me to the floor today.

in the underlying bill, there are some big issues that have gotten a lot of coverage, unemployment, cobra, et cetera. those are all very important. there are also some smaller pieces of this bill that are very important: irk the extension of some tax credits that help with historic tax credits in the region, a one-year extension. there is a one-year extension for low-income housing, tax credits for the whole country. but what's not in the bill, what's missing, is the piece that i want to talk about and ask my colleagues to consider adding to this bill when we get to a position where some amendments might be considered. this amendment that i offer is not just offered by myself but offered by senator cochran and senator wicker and senator vitter, so it is a bipartisan amendment, and something the four of us feel very strongly about.

in addition to the support that it has from the four of us, it also happily has the support of the administration and the secretary of h.u.d. and at this time i would like to submit to the record a very strong letter of support from secretary geithner and secretary donovan, and without -- the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: -- i would like to submit this to the record. they have written a very lengthy letter saying why the amendment that i'm offering is so important, and, in addition, i'm happy to say that today we got a very strong editorial in "the new york times" which doesn't always write favorably about some things that we request, but they have looked at this and have indicated that this is something that should be done. so let me take a minute to explain what we're asking for. right after katrina and rita, the congress, in its wisdom,

said your situation is so bad down there, you've had so many houses destroyed, so many low-income houses destroyed, that we're going to give you some extra low-income housing tax credits. we normally get a formula, about $2 per person, in the country. well, they gave us like $18 per person in the country, which was wonderful. we needed the help. we needed those extra low-income housing tax credits to build housing for the very poor but also to build housing for the working middle class, people that we rely on to help our hotels get started up, our restaurants get started up, our schools to run, our teachers, our firefighters, our police officers. so the city and the region -- this happened in new orleans and in lots of other pair issues, also it happened along -- and in lots of other parishes, also it happened along other areas.

developers stepped up and said, we will use these low-income tsm credits to build housing. think about haiti right now. think about the scene you just saw at cn this. this morning. i was just looking at the screen. there's no plan. the rainy season is comsmght a million people have no shelter and all they have are those sad old little blue tarps that we had along the gulf coast. but congress, in its wisdom, instead of keeping in tents in the mississippi gulf coast said, okay, private sector. here's some tax credits. go out and build houses for these people as fast as you can. society developers, of course, had to scramble. we all had to scramble because it was very could i chaotic. but we put plans together and we decided how. it would takes some time but we figured out how to build good housing, smart housing and not just the same, old terrible housing that we had, but new

housing. that's wonder fcialtion the good part of the story. the bad parlt of the story is, mr. president, weaver a run out of time. but it's not our facility fault that we ran out of time. we worked as hard as we could. but as soon as we were ready to go to the market with these tax credits, what's's what happens? the market collapses. and so then our developers couldn't even get the tax credits and the problem for us, which is a big problem, is that now if we don't have all of these units what they call in service, by the end of this year, we're going to lose over 7,000 housing units. that's a lot. not 70, not 700, but 7,000 -- all through the city of new orleans, all through the gulf coast, and people -- seniors, policemen, firefighters, teachers, workers in the restaurants -- will have no place to live. now, everybody says, oh, landrieu, landrieu, you are crying wolf again. i am not crying wolf. this is really going to havment

and so that's why this amendment, i've biologic asking for it for a year -- i've been asking for it for a year. the team has been very supportive, but it's not in the bill. appeared so i'm here on the floor to shake the bells, rattle it a little bit to say, please consider this amendment because we're not asking for any new credits. we're not asking for any special credits. we don't -- you know, we don't -- well, we need some new increased credits but we're not asking for any new credits.  we just need to have the credits that we have that have already been put into place. we can't lose them. this amendment is going to cost about $300 million. it's got a cost to it. i'm asking the finance committee to please see how we can pay for this. it is an emergency, but i understand we want to try to pay for things as we go on things like this. so i'm asking the finance

committee to think about how this can be paid for. again, i submit in conclusion, the letter from the administration supporting it, the letter from secretary donovan, the editorial we got in "the new york times," the articles i'm going to submit from our newspapers that clearly say that this is an important thing. and i thank the members of this body for at least considering this amendment. i thank senator cochran, senator wicker and senator vitter for joining in a bipartisan way to ask for it. and i most certainly hope we can get this done, mr. president. because if not, we're going to shut down these projects that are underway. we will lose 13,000 jobs as well as lose the opportunity for over 7,000 families in the gulf coast to get good, affordable housing. and so, that is our argument. and i don't think there's any opposition. i hope not, because it would be very important for us to get this amendment on this bill. and i suggest the absence of a

quorum if there is no one here to speak. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: madam president, i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: madam president, i ask to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: thank you, madam president, madam president, i've