about the importance of transparency in our markets. without transparency, there is little hope for effective regulation. and without effective regulation, the very credibility of our markets is threatened. but i am concerned that recent changes in our markets have outpaced regulatory understanding and accordingly pose a threat to the ability and stability of our equities markets. chief among these is high-freak sill trading. over the past few years the daily volume of stocks trading in micro seconds, the hallmark of high-frequency trading, exploded from 30% to 70% of the u.s. market. in the past few years this trading is -- has exploded from 70% -- from 30% to 70% of the entire u.s. market. money and talent are surging into the high-frequency trade industry that is red hot, not just in the united states but in

global capital markets as well. high-frequency trading strategies are pervasive on today's wall street which is fixated on short-term trading profits. thus far our regulators have been unable to shed much light on these opaque and dark markets in part because of their limited understanding of the various types of high-frequency trading strategies. needless to say, i'm very worried about that. last year i felt a little lonely raising these concerns, but this year i'm starting to have plenty of company. on january 13, the securities and exchange commission issued a 74-page concept relief to solicit comments on a wide-ranging market structure issues. the document raised a number of important questions about the current state of our equities markets, including -- and i quote -- "does implementation of a specific high-frequency trading strategy benefit or harm market structure peformance in

the interest of long-term investors?" end quote. the s.e.c. also called attention to trading strategies that are potentially manipulative, including momentum, ignition strategies in which -- and i quote -- "the proprietary firm may initiate a series of orders and trades along with and perhaps spreading false rumors in the marketplace in an attempt to start a rapid price move." the s.e.c. went on to ask -- and i quote -- "does the speed of trading and ability to generate a large amount of orders render this type of strategy more of a problem today?" unquote. madam president, the s.e.c. raised many critical questions in its concept release, and i appreciate that the s.e.c. is going to undertake a baseline review. as its comment period moves forward, i'm pleased to report other regulators and market participants at home and abroad

have taken notice of the global equity markets recent changes including the rise of high-frequency trading. the united states, the federal reserve bank of chicago, in the march 2010 issue of the chicago fed letter argued that the rise of high-frequency trading constitutes a systemic risk, asserting -- and i quote -- "the high-frequency trading environment has the potential to generate errors and losses at a speed and magnitude far greater than that in a floor or screen-based trading environment." unquote. in other words, high-frequency trading firms are currently locked in a technological arms race that may result in some big disasters. citing a number of instances in which trading errors occurred, the chicago fed stated -- quote -- "a major issue for regulators and policy-makers is the extent to which high-frequency trading unfiltered sponsor access and

colocation amplify risks, including systemic risks, by increasing the speed at which trading errors or fraudulent trades can occur." end quote. moreover, the letter cautions about the potential for future high-frequency trading errors arguing -- and i quote -- "although algorithm trading errors have occurred, we likely have not yet seen the full breadth, magnitude and speed at which they can be generated." this is action ininternationally as well. on february 4, paul myers announced the british regulators were also conducting an ongoing examination of high-frequency trading practices stating -- and i quote -- "people are coming to me, market users and intermediaries, saying they have concerns about high-frequency trading." these developments come on the heels of another british effort targeting so-called spoofing or layering strategies in which

traders feign interest in buying or selling stock in order to manipulate its price. in order to deter such trading practices, the financial services authority, f.s.a., announced that it would fine or suspend participants who engage in market manipulation. noting that some market participants may not be sure what spoofing is wrong, the f.s.a. spokesman said -- and i quote -- "this is to clarify, it is." end quote. in australia, market participants are requesting clear did he definitions of mart manipulation particularly with regard to momentum strategies like spoofing. in review of algorithm trading published february 8 the australian exchange called on regulators to ensure that marketing provisions are drafted to provide a more gradual definition of market

manipulation." end quote. madam president, it is critical our regulators understand the risks posed by high-frequency trading both in terms of manipulation and at a systemic level. as the chicago fed stated, the threat an algorithm trading error wreaking havoc on our markets is magnified by naked or unfiltered arrangements which allow traders to interact on markets directly without being subject to standard pretrade filters or risk controls. robert colby, former deputy director of the s.e.c.'s division of marketing said the naked access leave the marketplace vulnerable to faulty algorithms. at a speech cited by the chicago federal reserve letter, mr. colby stated hundreds of thousands of trades representing billions of dollars could occur in the two minutes it could take for a broker dearly to cancel an

erroneous order executed through naked access. according to a report released december 14 by the research firm i.t. group, naked access now accounts for 38% of the market's average daily volume compared to only 9% -- compared to 9% only four years ago. that means in just four years this, what has been determined to be a risky enterprise has increased from 9% of the market's average daily volume to 38%. that's almost 40% of the market's volume being executed by high-frequency traders interacting directly on exchanges without being subject to any pretrade risk monitoring. in january, the s.e.c. acted to address this ominous trend by proposing a mandatory pretrade risk check for those participating in sponsored access arrangements. this move would essentially eliminate naked access and i applaud the s.e.c. for its

proposal. while i'm middle east that the -- while i'm pleased with this, there is much more work that still needs to be done in order to gain a better understanding of high-frequency trading strategies and the risk of manipulation they may create. in the last few months several industry studies aimed at defining the benefits and drawbacks of high-frequency trading have emerged. while these studies may not be the equivalent of a peer-reviewed academic study they have the credibility of real world market experts and begin to shed light on the largely unregulated high-frequency trading strategies that dominate today's market. in addition to the i.t. group study, reports by the research group quantative services group, q.s.g., the investment banking firm jeffreys and company all raise troubling concerns about the costs of high-frequency

trading to investors and reinforce the need for enhanced regulatory oversight of these trading practices. last november q.s.g. analyzed the degree to which orders placed by institutional investors are vulnerable to high-frequency predatory traders to sniff out large orders and trade ahead of them. specifically the constituted include investors placing large orders risk -- and i quote -- "leaving a statistical footprint that can be exploited. while traders have tried to trade ahead of large institutional orders, they now have the technology and models to make an exact science out of it. and the study put forth on november 3, the jeffreys company estimated high-frequency traders gained 100 to 200 milli second advantage by colocating their computer services next to exchanges and subscribing directly to market data fees. as a result, jeffreys concludes high-frequency traders enjoy --

and i quote -- "almost risk-free arbitrage opportunities." a white paper redecemberred in december elaborated on the conclusion asserting high frequency traders know with near certainty what the market will be milli seconds ahead of everybody else." madam president, the studies and papers i mentioned underscore the need for the securities and exchange commission to implement stricter recording and disclosure requirements for high-frequency traders under the large trader authority. as the chairman shapiro promised in a letter to me. we need and we need now tagging of high-frequency traeurgd orders -- traeurgd orders. for investors to have confidence in the credibility of our markets -- and that is key. america is great because of the credibility of our markets. if we don't vice president credible markets, we're -- if we don't have credible markets we're in deep trouble. regulators must vigorously pursue a robust framework to

maintain strong, fair and transparent markets. i would make five points along these lines. first, regulators must get back in the business of providing guidance to market participants on acceptable trading prabz and strategies -- practices and strategies. timely guidelines that bring clarity and stability to the marketplace. colocation, flash orders and naked access are just a few practices that seem to have entered the market and become fairly widespread before being subject to regulatory scrutiny. for our markets to be credible -- and that is essential that they remain credible -- it is vital that regulators be proactive rather than reactive when future developments arise. second, the s.e.c. must gain a better understanding of current trading strategies by using its large trader authority to gather data on high-frequency trading activity. just as importantly, this data, once masked, should be made

available to the public or others to analyze. i'm concerned academics and independent market analysts do not have access to the data they need to conduct empeer cull studies on questions raised by the s.e.c. and its concept release. absent such data, the ongoing market structure review particularly receive mainly self-serving comments from high frequency traders themselves and other market participants who compete for high-frequency volume and market share. evidence-based rule making should not be a one-way ratchet because all the evidence is provided by those in whom the s.e.c. is charged with regulating. we need the s.e.c. to require tagging of disclosure of high-frequency trades or objective analysts are given the opportunity to study and discern what effects high-frequency trading strategies have on long-term investors. they can also help determine which strategies should be

considered manipulative. third, regulators must better define manipulative activity and provide clear guidance for traders to follow just as britain's regulators have done in the area of spoofing. regulators can create a system better able to prevent and prosecute manipulative activity. fourth, the s.e.c. must continue to make reducing systemic and operational risks a top regulatory priority. the s.e.c.'s proposal on naked access is a really good first step but exchanges must also be directed to impose universal pretrade risk tests. if left solely in the hands of individual broker dealers, a race to the bottom might ensue. we simply must have a level playing field when it comes to risk management that protects our equities markets from the fat fingers or faulty algorithms. regulators must, therefore, ensure that firms have appropriate operational risk controls to minimum tphaoeuz

incident -- minimize incident and magnitude of errors while stemming a tidal wave of copycats wreaking havoc on our markets. fifth, the s.e.c. should act to address the burgeoning number of order cancellations in the markets. while skepbss are not inherently bad, they can enhance liquidity by informing traders greater flexibility on posting quotes. their use in today's marketplace is clearly excessive and virtually a prima facie case that battles between competing algorithms. they overload the system and regulators alike. according to the high freak sill trading firm t-3 live, in a recent trading day only a little more than 1 billion of the over 89 billion orders on nasp did --

nasdaq's book were skao*us executed meaning 9% of orders were not filled. cancellations by high frequency traders responsible for the bulk of these unfilled orders. the high-frequency traders that create such massive cancellations rates might cause market data costs for investors to rise making the discovery process less efficient and complicate the traders' kwrupbgd standing. rely on the ability to rapidly cancel order in order to profit from changes in price. perhaps excessive cancellation rates should carry a charge if traders exceed a specified ratio of canceled orders, it is only fair to pay a fee. it could be set high enough to not ail fect long-term investors and should apply to all trading platforms including a.t.s.'s as well as the exchange. the high frequency traders who rely on massive cancellations are using up more bandwidth and

putting more stress on the data centers. imposing charges are not without precedent. they've been implemented in derivatives markets where overall volume is a small fraction of the volume in the cash market for stocks. the chicago merc deal exchange and the london international bandwidth usage policy represent teams to rein cancellations and might provide a helpful model for regulators wishing to do the same. finally, the high frequency-trading issue must resolve the current issues in the marketplace. in order to maintain fair and transparent markets and avoid unintended consequences, market participants from across the industry must contribute to the regulatory process. i'm pleased that a number of responsible firms are stepping forward in a responsible way, i

look forward to continuing to work with these industry players. madam president, we must all work together in the interest of liquidity, efficiency, transparency and fairness to ensure that our markets are the strongest and best regulated in the world. we cannot have one without the other. for markets to be strong, they must be well regulated. so with this reality in mind, i look forward to working with my colleagues, regulatory agencies and people from across the financial industry to ensure that our markets are free, credible and the envy of the world. madam president, i ask consent that my remarks be printed in their entirety. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: and suggest the 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 maryland. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: madam president, i come to the floor of the senate to say to my colleague from kentucky, let the unemployment bill go. let's free the unemployment

compensation bill, the bill that will fund cobra health insurance benefits, put people back to work building highways, and let's pay the doctors the fees they deserve for saving lives an improving lives -- and improving lives. why of all of the bills in the united states of america are we holding this one up? i think it is outrageous and i think it is egregious. my lord, look at this. right now in the united states of america 400,000 american citizens are not receiving their unemployment benefits. they've been laid off. they've been pushed around. they've been pushed out. and now the united states senate will not act to extend their benefits. then there's the health insurance benefits called cobra. 500,000 americans aren't getting those. who gets a cobra benefit? no, it's not a snake.

though will are a lot of snakes around. it means that if you were laid off from a company, you have the opportunity to, with your own money out of your own pocket, be able to buy insurance and get a modest subsidy to help you through this. my gosh, why can't we do this? and then there are the thousands of doctors that are not being paid. and there's the highway people that are not being paid. madam president, i gave you national statistics, but i'm the senator from maryland. and i just want you to know that tonight there are 4,700 unemployment workers in my state who are not going to get their unemployment benefits. 4,700 unemployed workers. money that they could use to be able to provide their family with a safety net for food, for housing, for heat, for the

expenses of the activities of daily living. this isn't a number. it's not a statistic. we're talking about 4,700 families who won't have a source of income to get them through this very, very difficult time. oh, and then there's cobra. that, again, cobra pays 65% of the cost of health insurance for people who have lost their jobs. in maryland this is 9,282 people. again, close to 10,000 families who have lost their benefits. cobra makes sure they have health care. we're talking about someone who worked for a company all of his life. then he was laid off because it was part of the great layoff that's going on in my state. he went to buy health insurance and he's buying it through cobra. it cost almost four times what

it cost when he worked. at the same time he's got health problems. he's a diabetic. he's a father. he wants to work. and, most of all, he wants to have health insurance for himself and for his family. but, oh, no we're holding it up. we're holding it up because of something called paygo. and then what else are we doing? we're not paying our doctors. now, regardless of how one feels about health insurance reform, you can't have health reform without doctors. and the opposition to health care reform have said, like mr. boehner, we have the best health care system in america -- in the world. well, if we had the best health care system, why aren't we paying our doctors what they deserve? highly skilled people who work sometimes day and night to be able to save lives or improve

lives. they assume the risk of medical management. of highly complex cases. why are we cutting their pay for 21%? i don't see those guys over there cutting their pay 21% until we figure out how to pay for the -- for our salaries. why are we cutting doctors 21%? i'm so frustrated about this. whether it's job reform, whether it's health care reform, whether it's mortgage reform, when in this body when all is said and done, more gets said than get done, and the american people are as mad as they can be, and they don't want to take it anymore, and i feel the same way. i am sick and tired of all this

obstruction tactics that prevent people from getting the benefits they need to take care of their family or fund the programs that create jobs. now, if we're going to have job reform and health reform, i think we need senate reform. i'm old-fashioned. i believe that the majority rules. i think 51 ought to be a magic number. i am so tired of the tyranny of the 60. oh, we need 60 votes. 60 votes, a supermajority every time, except for the pledge of allegiance. i come back to wanting the majority rule. this is why i stand four square for filibuster reform. madam president, i'm heart and soul a reformer. sometimes a little too mouthy. some people say i'm a little too feisty, but i want to get the job done. and i'm ready to duke it out in

the arena of ideas, present our best arguments, present our best cases, take a vote and see how it turns out. i hope when i offer amendments i win, but if i lose -- if i lose because i get less than 51, i feel that i have gotten a square deal, but if i have to go after 60, i feel that i'm inhibited by the tyranny of 60. i believe that the filibuster is a dated, arcane tactic that belongs to another century and another senate. i want to see the filibuster rule either ended or modified. now, there are those on our side of the aisle who say don't do that. what happens if we lose control? we might not need it. well, maybe if the majority ruled, we wouldn't lose control, but most of all, maybe the american people would see us actually debating, discussing, amending and voting on ideas.

right now, the other side hides behind procedure. it hides behind process. it muddies the water, and the people are starting to catch on. i'm calling upon our institution to seriously consider tom harkin's legislation. i think senator harkin is on to something. plus senator harkin and i are great respecters of the senate and its traditions. we understand the filibuster and when it was used for great and grand debates on, for example, the expansion of civil rights in our country. under the harkin proposal, you would get four shots at it. i think my colleague from kentucky would like it. he's a baseball icon. you know how you get three strikes, you're out. well, maybe we would get four bites at the apple. the first time you would vote, you would need -- if you don't

get 60, it would fail. the second time, you would need 59 votes or it would fail. the third time, you would need 57 votes or it would fail. the fourth time 53 votes, and then we would come back to 51. so we're not for throwing away the filibuster, but we are for modifying it. and hopefully it would bring us to a senate that wants more -- that once more functioned as the greatest deliberative body in the world. now we're the greatest delay body in the world. we don't deliberate. we delay. we don't do constructive things. we do obstructive things. this is not the senate that the american people want. they want us to debate ideas. they want us to do due diligence on those ideas, to make sure that they are sensible, that they are affordable, that we are doing something that accomplishes the great missions

of our country. but i want again the majority to rule. so i call upon the senator from kentucky and the other party, let this bill go. bring it out. please, let us have a vote on it so that tonight when the families in maryland go to bed, they can make sure that tomorrow they can wake up and their safety net of unemployment compensation is there, that they can make sure that they can buy their health insurance through cobra, that gifted and talented doctors will know they will be paid and reimbursed and acknowledged for the great services they are performing. i think that's what the united states should be doing. there is plenty of money for other things, and when they talk about how they want this to be pay as you go, i voted for paygo, i really did, but we are in an emergency situation, and i believe this really calls us to

act now and i hope it acts tonight. madam president, i would hope we could all work together and when more is said, less gets said and more gets done. i yield the floor. mr. kaufman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: i rise again today to recognize one of our nation's great federal employees. the davis creation is the first executive department in 1789, the state department has carried out the important work of american diplomacy. pursuing peaceful relations between the united states and other nations around the world. when our role as a world power grew in the late 19th century, our diplomats became peacemakers among nations. since the end of world war ii,

we heavily invested our time, treasure, and human capital in the preservation of global peace during a time wrought with potential for war and mass destruction. today, in the aftermath of the cold war and september 11 attacks, our state department personnel and our foreign service officers in particular worked tirelessly to promote the american values of liberty and international cooperation. stationed in every region, they daily endure risks to their health and safety. they leave behind family and a familiar culture. these talented and dedicated men and women are the living embodiment of president kennedy's declaration that while we should never negotiate out of fear, we must never fear to negotiate. those in the foreign service must pass a rigorous examination and be prepared to serve at any of our 250 posts around the world. they have jobs as counsel lor

offices, assisting americans abroad, political or economic offices analyzing trends in foreign countries and promoting u.s. interests, management officers running our embassies, our public diplomacy officers who share the story of america with foreign audiences. the most senior and successful diplomats may become ambassadors, the public face of our nation and the president's personal representatives abroad. one distinguished ambassador whose career exemplifies the work of our foreign service is ann patterson. a native of arkansas, ann studied at wellesley college and the university of north carolina. she first joined the foreign service in 1973 as an economic officer. her initial postings overseas included saudi arabia and the united nations offices in geneva, switzerland. from 1991-1993, ann served as the state department's director

of indian countries and later was a-- appointed deputy secretary for inter-american affairs. in 1997, ann was nominated and confirmed as ambassador to el salvador where she served for three years. she became our ambassador to colombia in 2000 while escorting the late senator wellstone to visit that year to a rural town, an explosive device was found nearby by local security forces. that incident underscores the reality of the many dangers our foreign service officers face while serving overseas. ann returned to washington in 2003 where she served as deputy inspector general for the state department. the following year, she was appointed deputy representative to the united nations in new york. after u.n. ambassador john danforth resigned in january, 2005, ann became acting ambassador, representing the united states at the united nations. she continued to serve in that role for six months.

from 2005-2007, ann led the state department's bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement affairs. in may, 2007, after ambassador ryan crocker left islamabad, taking his post in iraq, president bush nominated ann to serve as our ambassador in pakistan. she continues her work in islamabad to this day, representing our nation at a time of great importance with the u.s.-pakistani relationship. during the times i had the honor of visiting her and our embassy officials in pakistan, i have been impressed by her dedication to furthering americans' priorities in that country, to protecting our national security interests and to managing our talented team on the ground. the life of a foreign service officer is not easy. ann, her husband, and their two sons and stepdaughter can attest that foreign service families face many challenges during a career of living overseas and

moving frequently. in addition, foreign service families must make significant sacrifices to serve in dangerous locales like pakistan, afghanistan and iraq where there are restrictions on bringing spouses and children to post. these officers serve in the face of great hardship, not for financial reward but for the satisfaction of serving the united states of america, protecting its interests, and promoting peace among nations. madam president, i hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the enormous contribution made by ambassador ann patterson and all those who serve in the foreign service and the state department. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i wish to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the national is in a quorum call.

mr. sanders: i would vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, tomorrow i intend to call up an amendment within the discussion of the jobs bill which i think will have significant impact on the lives of many, many millions of our fellow americans. as you know, madam chair -- madam president, the -- this year, for the first time in many decades, our senior citizens are not going to be seeing a cost-of-living increase, and i think in this very severe recession, that is unfortunate. and seniors in vermont and around the country have told me that, because of rising health care costs, because of rising energy and heat costs, because

of rising prescription drug costs, all issues which seniors and disabled veterans are particularly prone to, that it is really unfair that they not get a cola this year. i am very happy to inform you and our colleagues that president obama, in his budget, has made it very clear that he understands the need for a $250 emergency payment to go out to over 55 million seniors, veterans, and the disabled. and i very much appreciate his support for this concept, and he is actual right, in these very difficult times. we cannot forget about some of the most vulnerable people in our society, a lot of lower-income seniors out there

just struggling -- disabled veteranses, disabled people in general. this amendment, which essentially does this year what we did last year in the stimulus package would provide a one-time $250 payment. and this amendment has very widespread support all over this country. and let me just mention to you some of the organizations, some of the organizations that are supporting it. the largest senior group in america is the aarp, and they are very vigorously supporting this concept. the american legion and the veterans of foreign war are supporting this $250 payment. the national committee to preserve social security and medicare are supporting it. the disabled veterans of america,d.v. a, are supporting it. the older women's league are supporting it. and many, many other organizations representing seniors, disabled people and our

veterans are supporting it. madam president, this recession has forced more and more seniors out of the middle class and into poverty. in fact, according to a national academy of sciences formula, the poverty rate among americans 65 and older is close to 19%, almost double the official poverty rate of 9.7%. and one of the problems that i have had in dealing with social security colas for many years, including when i was in the house, is i have long believed that it is an error, statistic problem, that we love -- that we lump everybody together when we formulate what a cola is. if you lump everybody together,

i think you can probably make the argument that there is no inflation and, in fact, in some instances there is deflation, and we sea that every day. young people go out and buy a laptop computer, will probably pay less for that laptop today than they did a year ago. prices may be going down. or wide-screen tv's, prices may be going down. thite many items that people buy, prices may be -- the many itemitems that people buy, prics may be going down. but seniors have a different set of needs that ordinary americans and 16-year-old kids have. seniors are much more dependent on prescription drugs. the cost of prescription drugs is going up. seniors are much more dependent on health care. the cost of health care is going up. seniors are dependent, at least in the northeast where i live, in vermont, in keeping their homes warm. the cost of fuel has gone up. so i think if you take a hard look at the needs of seniors, the needs of people are

disabilities, the needs of disabled veteranses, you will find that they have seen increased costs over the year. and if we say to those folks, there is no cola in social security, and we're not doing anything for you, they're really going to find the themselves in substantially worse shape than they were last year. so, madam president, i did just want to say that this amendment, as of now, is supported by senator dodd, senator gillibrand, senator leahy, senator whitehouse. we look forward to more support. this concept is in the president's budget, and the president has been very clear about the need to go forward with a $250 payment. this amendment -- again -- this amendment that we'll be 0 offering tomorrow is supported by the aarp, the american legion, the veterans of foreign

war, the national committee to protect social security and medicare, the disabled veterans of america, older americans league, and many, many other organizations. so we will be offering an amendment which simply says we are not going to leave america's seniors out in the cold. we're not going to leave america's disabled veterans out in the cold. and while there is no cola this year, we are at least going to do what we did last year and provide them with a $250 emergency payment. not a whole lot of money in the great scheme of things but, trust me, having just met with seniors on monday, a lot of seniors in this country today are finding it very difficult to feed themselves, take care of their basic needs. and while this is not going to solve all of their problems by any means, it is going to help. so i would hope that my colleagues tomorrow will be supporting this amendment when we bring it forth. madam president, with that, i would yield the floor.

mr. baucus: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. i object hoff: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask

that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i can't express how frustrated i am with the washington politics and as a result of i believe irresponsible behave on the part of democrats and republicans in the house and in the senate. the federal highway administration shut its doors on money, furloughing 2,000 employees, putting projects across the country at risk and stopping the highway program from paying states the money they are -- they are owed. now, i've been in constant communication with gary ridley, he's oklahoma's transportation secretary -- i think the best one in the country. he flew here this week to help resolve this crisis. he told me that if this is not worked out by friday, there will be very serious consequences in my state of oklahoma. there will be jobs that will be shut down. there will be work that has already been contracted out that will be under default. and i understand that some of

the democrats are trying to make political hay out of this, but i want to set the record straight. a lone republican senator is being singled out for the blame when in reality there's plenty of blame to go around. last week, the senate passed a jobs bill that included a number of tax cuts and a long-term extension for the highway program. the house democrats were divided on the bill and their leadership couldn't pass the bill. now, given the chaos in their caucus, they passed a 30-day extension of the highway bill -- highway program late last week. now, because of this 30-day extension, it would add about $10 billion to the outrageous $13.2 trillion national debt. a republican senator said he'd only agree to it if it was offset. senate democrats refused to offset the package. nobody was willing to back down. we find ourselves in this situation today. not only is there ample blame to

go around on why congress allowed the highway program and fhwa to shut down, i think there's equal blame to go around on why it has taken us six months to pass a long-term extension. now, we tried on numerous occasions to pass the extension. the -- frankly, this shouldn't be coming as a surprise to anyone. i've been sounding the alarm for this ever since last july. we learned in july that there are a couple of senators who a are, frankly, opposed to the federal highway program and want to see it underfunded. as has been the case in this -- this fiscal year. and i often said -- and there's no secret to this even though i'm considered to be quite a conservative -- in some areas i've been a big spender. one's national defense, the other is infrastructure. that's what we're supposed to be doing here. well, on the last day of the fiscal year before the 2005 highway bill expired, senator boxer and i were out here on the

floor, attempted to pass a long-term extension of the highway program. unfortunately, we were not successful. the same group of senators that opposed a highway program demanded that the bill be offset. they suggested unobligated stimulus funds but the democrats objected to this. the chairman -- that's barbara boxer -- and i were working hard to find an offset. senator boxer got democratic leadership to agree to use tarp as an offset. and i was very excited about this. i remember, i thought that night -- that was on a wednesday night. it was getting close to midnight. we had to do something or everything was going to fall apart. but i thought when he it resolved. unfortunately, many of the republicans and some democrats, senators, objected to this offset. as a result, we were stuck with a 30-day extension on the continuing resolution that funded the program at a billion dollars a month lower than the 2009 levels. now, i have to say that -- and i blame republicans for this --

i've often said that one of the really bad things that happened to the senate happened on october 1 of 2008. it was when we passed the $700 billion bank bailout bill, and that's the tarp funds we're talking about, and a lot of conservative republicans objected to offsetting with tarp because that would be an admission that that money probably wasn't going to be repaid anyway. i think a lot of republicans are trying to tell people back home -- i didn't vote for this, by the way, but they did, the ones who did -- that, don't worry, it's all going to be paid back, everything's wonderful and -- and i think we all should have known better. all you had to do is read that bill and that would have been the case. so then it was the republicans that refused to use that. the money was there, could have been used, and we wouldn't be facing this dilemma. we would have the one-year long extension. when he time to put together a highway program which is what we -- we -- want to do. unfortunately, some do not. so it's clear the only way to get a long-term highway extension done was for senator reid to dedicate a week of floor

time to overcome the objections of two or three republicans that opposed the highway program. to that end, all the chairman and ranking member -- chairmen and ranking members of the committees involved in the transportation bill sent a bipartisan letter to senator reid pointing out that the problem we were facing in asking for floor time to overcome the objections. senator reid ignored this request until two weeks ago, when he abandoned the bipartisan baucus-grassley jobs bill in favor of his own bill that included a long-term highway extension. i'd like to point out that this maneuver cost the highway extension the bulk of republican support. i'd like to caution that it's very dangerous to turn a bipartisan issue like this into a partisan one. and because the highway bill was included with a number of other issues, it got caught up in the house democratic and second stimulus bill politics unrelated to the highway program. this just reinforces it should

have been done as a stand-alone measure. let me conclude by reading an skperpt of the tul -- an excerpt of the tulsa world editorial. "what's up with those geniusness congress? first they scurry around to get massive stimulus funding in the pipeline in an effort to quickly skwrufrpb -- jump-start the economy. not a good recipe for ensuring that the recovery will continue." the editorial concludes -- quote -- "inhofe blamed the tphupbgd snafu -- funding snafu on politics which comes as no surprise. apparently it was too much to ask for our leaders to put politics aside for once in favor of rescuing the economy and thousands of jobs." let me tell you that editorial was from october of last year. it's amazing that congress has allowed the months to go by since that time. right now what we're facing in

my state of oklahoma is about $15 million a week. we have contracts that are already let, and we're in a dilemma now to know what to do. we're going to have to resolve this problem by i'd say thursday or friday or it's going to be chaotic. i'd suggest it is not just my state of oklahoma that's got this problem. many other states do. i'm hoping people would set everything aside and do one of the things we're elected to do, and that is do something about the infrastructure. right now it's a crisis and we're going to have to resolve it. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

otherrish quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, i suggest further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to calendar number 278, h.r. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions expired on sunday, february 28. that the bunning amendment regarding offset which is at the desk be the only amendment in order, that there be 60 minutes for debate with respect to the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between senator reid and senator bunning or their designees. that upon the use or yielding back of time, the time until 8:30 p.m. be for debate with respect to the bill, that the time equally divided and controlled between senators baucus and grassley or their designees. that at 8:30 p.m. the senate proceed to vote in relation to the bunning amendment. that no further amendments be in order. that upon disposition of the

bunning amendment, the bill as amended be amended -- the bill as amended, if amended, be read a third time and that prior to passage it be in order to raise an applicable budget point of order against the bill. further, that if the point of order is raised, then the motion to waive the applicable point of order be considered made with no further debate in order. provided that if the point of order is waived, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill as amended if amended. further, when the senate resume consideration of h.r. 4213, the next two democratic amendments be offered by senators murray and stkarpbdz -- sanders, the next two republican amendments be bunning amendments. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me just say briefly, i'm pleased that senator bunning will have an opportunity to offer the amendments that he thinks are important and that he has been stressing for the last few days. and i'm glad we were able to

work this out and move on with the business of the senate. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the measure. the clerk: calendar number 278, h.r. 4691, an act to provide a temporary extension of certain programs and for other purposes. mr. bunng: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. bunning: i call up my amendment that is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. bunning, proposes amendment number 3355. strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following section 1 -- mr. bunning: i ask that the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bunning: mr. president, in a minute i'm going to speak about my amendment to pay for this bill. but first i want to talk about how we got here. last week i objected to the majority leader's request for unanimous consent to pass a

30-day extension of several expiring programs that was not paid for. i offered to pass the exact same bill that was paid for, and unfortunately, he objected to my request. now, there was nothing stopping him from using the tools at his disposal to overcome my objections. the leader could have filed cloture on the bill and brought it to the floor last week. instead of the travel bill, that is a great giveaway to his state. if he had done that, this bill would have been signed into law already. he also could have filed cloture on the bill and worked through the weekend, and it would already be law.

or the leader could have proceeded to the bipartisan baucus-grassley bill that paid for these programs, and it would have been signed into law by now. or he could have accepted my request to pay for the bill, and we would not be here tonight. instead, the leader decided to press ahead with a bill that adds to the debt and violates the principles of paygo everybody claims to care about. just over a month ago, the majority in this senate passed paygo legislation that supposedly said we are going to pay for what we spend. i support the idea, but i knew at the time the legislation would be ignored. and, unfortunately, i was right.

barely one week after president obama signed the paygo law into effect, the majority leader proposed a bill that was not paid for. the bill passed and add $10 billion to the deficit. that is $10 billion your children and my children and grandchildren will have to pay for. that is $10 billion on top of a $14 trillion national debt. after passing $10 billion more debt on to the future generations, the majority leader proposed to pass another bill to add another $10 billion to the debt. that's when i said enough is enough. we cannot keep adding to the debt and passing the buck to

generations of future workers and taxpayers, my children and your children and our grandchildren. as we all know, the national debt has grown at a record pace in recent years. a large part of that has been a result of a downturn in the economy a decade ago and then during the last few years. but increased government spending has been a major factor too. over the last few days several senators on the other side of the aisle have blamed republican spending for the debt and asked why we did not pay for things when we were in charge. well, mr. president, they have a point. i wish we had -- would have spent less and paid for more of it when we were in charge.

there are some votes i wish i could have back and i'm sure many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle feel the same way but it's not fair to blame republican spending for all the drastic increases in our national debt. our side has not controlled the congress for more than three years. and the current congress is spending more and faster than ever before. for example, last year the majority pushed through a so-called stimulus bill followed quickly by an omnibus spending bill that combined -- that contributed -- excuse me -- that contributed to the government ending the year $1.4 trillion in the red.

the largest one-year deficit in the history of the united states of america. clearly we are not headed in the right direction. i do not want to turn this into a partisan debate because it isn't a partisan issue. i only make these points to show that neither side has clean hands. and what matters is that we get our spending problems under control. as every struggling family knows we cannot solve a debt problem by spending more. we must get our debt problems under control and there is no better time than now. that is why i've been down here demanding that this bill be paid for. i support the programs in the bill we are discussing. and if the extension of those programs were paid for, i would

gladly support the bill. the unemployment rate in my state is well over 10% right now. many rural families get their television through satellite providers in kentucky. more than half of our state is boardered by rivers. and flood insurance is vital to the people that live near those borders and any of the major minor rivers in the state. in fact, i wrote the law that enacted the current version of the flood insurance program. so i care about it deeply. i am concerned about all the other programs in this bill as well as every other member of this body. that is all the more reason to pay for this bill.

if we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 senators support, how can we tell the american people with a straight face that we will ever pay for anything? that is what senators say they want. and that is what the american people want. they want us to get our budgets in order just like they have to get their budgets in order. -- in order every day. but that is not what the majority is doing. so tonight, tomorrow, and on every spending bill in the future, we will see whether they mean business about controlling our debt or if it is just words. we will see if paygo has any

teeth or not. tonight i am offering a substitute amendment that pays for these important programs with democratic ideas. tomorrow i will offer amendments to the offset, the longer-term extender bill that was on the floor earlier today. and i will be back on future spending bills demanding that they be paid for so future generations of americans will not be burdened with our overspending. as i said, my amendment pays for this bill with democratic ideas. mr. president, the 10-year cost of this exempt extending these programs for one month i is $10.26 billion. the offset i am offering will

more than pay for this cost. and the offset should be familiar to many. it has been proposed by senator baucus in his substitute amendment to the long-term extension bill. it was also proposed in the obama administration's budget. the offset would prevent black liquor, which is a by-product of the pulp and paper process from being eligible for the cellulose biofuels tax credit. this will save the treasury almost $24 billion over 10 years according to the joint tax committee the. -- committee. as i said, this will more than

pay for the cost of the bill. and there will be almos almost $14 billion leftover. under the paygo rules, that $14 billion will be available to be used to pay for the next bill that congress passes. i think we all expect that the next bill will be the long-term extension bill. some might say i'm creating a $24 billion hole in the next bill by using that offset now. that's not true. first we are removing ove over $10 billion in costs from that larger bill by enacting the one-year or one-month extensions now and we are also makin making $14 billion available for that bill. and members on this side of the aisle, including myself, have

offered and will offer ways to completely pay for the cost of that more expensive longer-term extension bill. this pay-for is a proposal made by the majority. and i hope and expect every one of them to support my amendment. anyone who does not, should be prepared to answer why the senate does not have to make the tough decisions to balance the government's budget while every american family does. we must bring an end to the out-of-control spending. and there is no better time than now. i urge my colleagues to join me in saying enough and restoring some discipline to washington.

i urge everyone in this body to support this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i rise in opposition to the bunning amendment. the senator from kentucky has decided after one week to accept exactly what was offered to him last week. last week we said to the senator from kentucky, if you want to come up with a pay-for for unemployment benefits an health care benefits, offer an amendment. you'll have your chance on the floor. and the senator from kentucky said, no, because i may lose. therefore, i'm not going to offer the amendment. i will only object to moving forward with temporary benefits for unemployment insurance and health care and several other things and i stand by my objections. the senator from kentucky just came to the floor and found four different ways to blame the

democratic majority leader for his objection. he made the objection. i think he was the only senator out of 100 who object jebtd. -- objected. i don't question his motive or his sincerity. but i think in all candor let's understand where we are at this moment in time. during this one-week period of time while the senator from kentucky could have offered an amendment, he didn't. and, as a result, on sunday night unemployment benefits were cut off for thousands of people across america, assistance for health care insurance was cut off all across america, thousands of federal employees were furloughed, federal contracts for construction were suspended. why? because he didn't want to offer the amendment that he's offering tonight. well, i'm glad he's offering it.

and i'll tell you why i'm going to oppose it. he knows and i know that if we don't pass this bill as it passed the house of representatives -- if we make a change in it, we are destined to send it over to the house to at a minimum wait several days or even longer for a conference committee to resolve his amendment. and what happens to those unemployed people during that period of time? they don't receive checks. 15,000 people in illinois have their unemployment insurance cut off sunday night because of senator bunning's objection. in addition to that thousands in my state lost the helping hand to pay for their health insurance. so the senator from kentucky tonight is suggesting, just take this little amendment. it won't hurt a thing. it's something you should like. and while we mull over his change and move it between the house and the senate, those people will continue to go without unemployment insurance and without health care

assistance. 2,000 more each day are added to those rolls of unemployed people who are going to pay the price for this procedural move by the senator. i know that there is also pain in his own state. i know that many people are aware of the fact that there's high unemployment across the united states. millions of people who have lost their unemployment insurance. i know that it's affected his state. i've seen the numbers. as a result of the senator from kentucky objection, 4,300 unemployment insurance claimants will lose their unemployment insurance by march 13th, if we don't complete action. what he's done tonight is to delay it. what's even worse -- what's even worse about this amendment and the reason why it should be defeated is not just because it will once again delay unemployment benefits to people

across america. it will once again create problems where people will lose their health insurance that they may never be able to obtain again because of preexisting conditions in their family. what's worse, these -- these federal workers who can't go to work are going to suspend construction projects that create jobs across america. while the senator from kentucky offers this amendment to change. but let's look at the heart of this amendment. where did the senator from kentucky come up with the resources to pay for this unemployment insurance? he came up with it from the bill that is pending on the floor where these revenues are already being raised to pay for unemployment insurance. he's not reducing our deficit. in this situation we have already taken this source of money, put it in the next bill related town employment insurance to defray the cost of unemployment insurance. so he doesn't reduce the deficit.

he just adds a procedural hurdle that delays the payment of unemployment insurance to people across america. this could have been done last week. he was offered this chance last week. he wouldn't take it last week. and as a result a lot of people have suffered and a lot of them have gone through hardship. it is his right to do it as a united states senator. but i think the reaction on the floor of the united states senate, i might add from both sides of the aisle, is a demonstration that sometimes just because we have the power to do things, we ought to think twice before we use that power. i have the power to put a hold on every nomination that this president or any president seeks. i have the power to object to any unanimous consent request that comes to the floor of the united states senate. but people elect us here not just to make political judgment, but to make good judgment.

in this case the political judgment was made that the unemployed people involved here were expendable. they can just wait. wait for days, if not weeks, until we get around to a political debate about the deficit. i'm troubled too by the argument that the senator believes he's one of the few stall warts on the floor of the senate when it comes to deficit reduction. test. the record suggests that he's voted for two wars under president bush that were not paid for costing the united states almost a trillion dollars adding directly to our debt. the senator also has supported eliminating the estate tax on the richest people in america. certainly that's going to blow a hole in any budget and add to the deficit. same was true with the medicare prescription drug program. the senator voted for that without paying for it, adding at least $400 billion to the deficit. you know, those of us who've

been here for awhile have cast many votes and my critics will find plenty of things to criticize about my voting reco record, but before i come to the floor and stop unemployment insurance for people who are wondering where their next meal's coming from, i'd think twice about saving that debate so that the victims aren't the most helpless people in america who've lost their job through no fault of their own. i urge my colleagues when this amendment comes for a vote later this evening to think twice. if you vote with the senator from kentucky, who takes his fml that we'll vote on tomorrow, if you do that, you're going to delay the unemployment checks again. we will have come up with another excuse to say no. the senator from kentucky's made it clear that he doesn't believe unemployment compensation is an emergency need in america. i disagree. i think we're in emergency -- in

an emergency situation in our economy. i've met with these unemployed people in my state and other states. these are desperate people. some of them have been out of work for two years. they may lose everything before it's all over, and i hope they don't. they're training for new jobs. they've exhaust the their -- exhausted their savings, trying to keep their families together. a family i read about today said they put everything they own in one of those storage lockers because they lost their home. they moved from homeless shelters to live in the back of their car. is that an economic emergency? maybe not to members of the senate, because our lives are pretty comfortable, but it's certainly an emergency for those families. the real question on this debate is who we are as a nation. do we care about these people, these breadwinners who are now down on their luck, these folks who've worked for years and now are out of work through no fault of their own, doing everything

they can legally to find a way to survive? or is this just another political debate, another political issue, another chance to score a political point at the expense of some people who really aren't in a very strong position to defend themselves? i just hope tonight that we will defeat the bunning amendment. tomorrow we'll have a chance to put a substantial down payment on unemployment benefits and cobra benefits in the bill that chairman baucus brings to the floor, and i hope we understand that that is the right way to do this. what an question victory if we end up voting for the bunning amendment -- what an empty victory if we end up voting for the bunning amendment and stop unemployment benefits as a result while we try to work out differences between the house and the senate. there's a lot more than we can do here to help get this economy moving again. one of the things that holds us back is when we get embroiled in

these procedural parliamentary tangles that eat up day after day and week after week, which leave us frustrated on the floor of the senate and people across america angry that we aren't dealing with the real issues that count, issues like creating jobs, issues like making sure that there's affordable health care for everyone in this country. we should be dealing with that. the senator from kentucky said, you know, the majority leader, he could have filed cloture, waited 48 hours, waited another 30 hours, then we could have gone through the weekend. for what purpose? for what purpose? we have reached the point that was offered to the senator from kentucky from the start. he's going to get his vote. but a week has passed, a week has been wasted, a week where we should have rolled up our sleeves and done things that these people of america sent us here to do. what about the deficit and the debt? it is serious. the majority leader has asked notice serve on the deficit commission with senators baucus and conrad. it's a tough assignment. i don't think it's going to be

easy to figure out how to deal with a $14 trillion debt in this nation. but i will tell you this, we'll do a lot better with that national debt if we have a strong national economy and people back to work. we'll be a lot better off as a nation if families can keep their kids in school and folks can get up and go to work. this notion that we're somehow going to balance our national budget on the backs of unemployed people, please, aren't we better than that as a nation? i think we are. twice last year the senator from kentucky voted to extend unemployment benefits without paying for them. tonight he insists we pay for them. everybody's entitled to change their mind. when abraham lincoln, who was born in kentucky, raised in illinois, was accused by his critics as president of changing his mind, he said, yeah, i did change my mind. but i'd rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the

time. so we do change our mind on these issues, but let's not change our mind at the expense of innocent, helpless americans who are looking for a helping hand. if a tornado swept across the state of kentucky, god forbid, in the weeks of ahead, and the senator from kentucky came and said we have an emergency on our hands, i would stand up to help him, as i believe he would if it happened in my state. we do that because we care for one another in this nation. and we may have political differences -- and there have been plenty of them -- but they shouldn't be at the expense of our basic need to deal with the problems that we face. the governor of kentucky sent senator bunning a letter today and a copy to me and he said that "facing an unemployment rate of 10.7% in kentucky and 9.7% across the nation," he said to senator bunning, "i urge you to allow passage of h.r. 4691, a vital extension of unemployment benefits to 1.2 million americans, including tens of

thousands right here in kentuc kentucky." he went on to say, the governor of kentucky wrote to senator bunning, "there are 119,230 kentuckians currently receiving benefits through the federal extension program. without a further extension, 14,206 claimants will exhaust all extension benefits within two weeks." it would take us two weeks if the bunning amendment's adopted to finally get this done, if we get it done in that period of time. the governor went on to write, "by the end of march, a total of 22,797 kentuckians will exhaust their benefits. by mid-april, 31,521 will exhaust their benefits, and by july 31, the remainder of those receiving benefits will exhaust them. beyond the number of those receiving extension benefits, another 90,000 kentuckians currently on unemployment insurance will not be eligible for the federal extension program at all. these unemployed kentuckians come from hard-working families that have struggled for months

to find new employment in the greatest economic recession in our lifetime. they are mothers and fathers who are trying to put food on the table for their children and seniors who are trying to pay the rent. in addition to the extension of unemployment benefits, this bill also includes important extensions of federal subsidies to pay health premiums for those unemployed people who lost health insurance with when they lost their jobs -- insurance when they lost their jobs, current medicare payments for doctors, flood insurance and small business loans." the governor closed his letter to senator bunning saying, "i urge to you reverse your position on this bill and would welcome any opportunity to provide you with further information on its tremendous necessity. signed sincerely, steven l. bashier," governor of kentucky. that governor could have come from any governor in our nation. that is the employment picture and the economic picture in my state and so many other states across the nation. please, when we get down to these budget debates, we should

be sensitive to the fact that there are helpless victims to some of the procedural moves made on the floor of the united states senate. it is time for us to stick together, both parties, i hope, in a an effort to stand up for e unemployed and get this economy back on its feet. i urge our colleagues to defeat the bunning amendment. it will only slow down the unemployment benefits these people have been waiting for and are worried that they may not receive. it will mean that more and more people will fall out of coverage in health insurance and it will mean that medicare services wouldn't be available to seniors across the nation when doctors decide that they're not being reimbursed enough. those are some of the basics in this bill. the revenue source that senator bunning uses is included in the jobs bill that is before us as soon as this matter is over. if you believe that helping to pay for unemployment benefits we should use this source, as the finance committee has

suggested -- and i certainly agree with it -- you'll have ample opportunity to do that immediately after we pass this bill. in the meantime, let's waste no time, waste no effort in making sure that these needy people across america get the helping hand they deserve. and i yield the flo. mr. bunning: mr. president, how much time -- the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: mr. president, how much time do i have reserved? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky has 17 minutes and 25 seconds. mr. bunning bunning: thank you. as the good senator from illinois knows, there is no need for a conference since the house has already passed this bill and has already passed the language in this amendment. i am very sure that they would be willing to accept their own bill back paid for. he mentioned the fact that i objected four times. i objected more than four but

the majority leader objected four times to my request. that was nowhere in his statement. and talking about medicare part-d premiums and the cost of medicare part-d, the majority party in this senate has had three years to repeal medicare part-d. if it was a bad idea at the time we passed it, then certainly with 60 full votes in the u.s. senate, they could have repealed what they consider a bad bill. the fact that it was not paid for was not to my liking. the fact that we were going to take care of medicare senior citizens who couldn't afford their prescription drugs took

precedent. he spoke about the letter from the governor of kentucky. i didn't receive it. i have no knowledge of the letter until it was brought up by the senator from illinois. it's amazing to me how many misstatements and how the governor, democrat governor, of the commonwealth could bring all these facts out to the senator from illinois and not the senator from kentucky. there are so many things that i can say and i guess i have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 --

11 constituent either phone calls or letters, usually e-mails, i'm just going to read a couple of them because i want to reserve some time in case the senator from illinois gets up again. just so -- just -- this is from randall in bardestown, kentucky. "just want to thank you for your principled stand against the squandering of our country's wealth. yes, we need to help those out of work but, no, we do not want to print more money to do it. i have two sons on unemployment at this time, yet we realize we cannot continue to spend money that doesn't exist. thank you very much, senator bunning, for having the guts to stand up for your principles and oppose further spending of money

we simply do not have. in particular, i am glad you stood up against extending unemployment benefits which would put us just further in debt. regards. " bob, from burlington, kentucky. and another, "i just want to send you some encouragement to hold your ground in the senate on renewing unemployment extension benefits. as a kentucky taxpayer and a federal taxpayer, i am tired of seeing unfunded and underfunded programs pass by congress and aim glad you are taking -- and i am glad you are taking a stand. as an american and a kentuckian, i believe the government has failed the american people almost totally, but at least in this instance, you are not failing us. please keep your resolve and don't let pressure and influence sway a good decision."

that's from william in flemings flemingsburg, kentucky. "i'm surprised you don't have more support when you are 100% correct, that if a hundred men in agreement can't find a way to pay for a program, they will never pay for anything. our deficit has got to stop and now is always the best time to start. thank you for standing up for us. mark from independence, kentucky." this will be the last one because i still have about three more pages. "thank you for holding firm last night. you are very much appreciated for being willing to say "no" to extended benefits that no one knows how to pay for or who will foot the bill. it takes a very special

individual to stand firm when everyone around you seems to be caving in." and that's from debbie from somerset, kentucky. these are just a few. there's more. but there are a lot of really good people in the commonwealth of kentucky, 4.2 million that want their senators, their members of the house to stand up for themselves. and i appreciate hearing from each and every one of them. i thank them for their support and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, i also received some e-mail and letters from kentuckians. it's a great state, the ancestral home of many durbins,

one hailed from sunfish, kentucky, which is a pretty tiny town i'm told, came up north to illinois. so i think it's a beautiful state, and i've enjoyed visiting there many times. a lady named joy from florence, kentucky, contacted me and said i'm 50 years old. i got let go a year and a half ago from my job because i was getting older and they could pay less for younger workers. most places i applied to won't hire by experience. they want a college degree. i have an elderly mother and a handicapped child. i'm behind in all my bills. and if there is not another extension, i'll not be able to pay my bills. aoeup hoping -- i'm hoping you'll put through another extension. hopefully things will improve come spring. another one from j.r., said he's from kentucky. i won't read some portions of

this letter but i will read this part: "i would like to say i'm unemployed and unemployment insurance has allowed me to keep my home. there still are no jobs that will allow me to live on. i have cut back to just the basic needs and have to give up the internet next. then i'll start selling my belongings to get by. i sit and wonder if everyone on unemployment gets cut off. do the senate and congress realize the war here in the united states will be worse than the one overseas. there will be so much stealing and no telling what else just for people to try to survive and feed their families. god help us all." that is a letter of desperation. it is an unimaginable scene that we would reach in any community here in this country, in any state. but i think it reflects the fact that some people who write and say "cut them off and so what" are pretty fortunate people. they probably have a job.

they probably have a home. and they may not be worried where the next meal's coming from. but for millions of americans, that's not the story. and i understand the senator from kentucky and i just see this differently. but i think the issue of health insurance is an example. if you have ever had the experience as a parent of having a sick chimed and having no -- sick child and having no health insurance, it's something you'll never forget as long as you live. it happened to me when i was a law student. my wife and i were newly married and we had no health insurance and a baby with a medical problem. i try to imagine what it would be like -- ours was a temporary experience -- but what it would be like if that's what you had to face day in, day out, week in, week out, month and month, year after year. that's what these folks are up against. the only chance they have to hang on to health insurance is this cobra program.

the cobra program, let me add parenthetically, that was created through reconciliation, this process that has been condemned by some created the cobra program and said we're going to provide health insurance for the unemployed people in america. and the president's stimulus package said we'll help them pay for the premiums. and the objection of the senator from kentucky cut off those cobra payments for thousands of people across america. i don't know what's going to happen now. i don't know if some of them lost their health insurance and tried to get it back, whether they're going to be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. i hope that doesn't happen. but it will mean this just wasn't another political debate for them. it will mean that they've lost coverage, which all of us want to have for all of our families. cobra coverage consumes merely 84% of unemployment checks if you don't get a helping hand from the government. in illinois, monthly unemployment benefits are just over $1,300.

the average monthly family cobra health insurance premium is over $1,100. you can see it's impossible for a family with $1,300 a month to pay a $1,100 premium. that program was stopped because of the objection by the senator from kentucky. he said we should have faced his filibuster head on and taken all the time it took to resolve our way through it. and each hour of each day that we did that, more and more people would fall out of coverage of health insurance. we don't here -- we have as members of congress, a pretty generous health insurance plan. we share it with all the other federal employees, 8 million of us and our families. it gives us the very best coverage with the government picking up about two-thirds or three-fourths of the cost. we don't have to worry about gaps in coverage. as we receive our checks, we're

going to be able to protect our families. but for the folks who are unemployed, that isn't the case. the senator from kentucky's objection also affected, as i mentioned, transportation across the united states. federal rekpwrurplt to states for -- reimbursement to states are stopped because of senator bunning's objection, forcing halts in construction work and layoffs of construction workers in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the great depression. taotd the -- today the secretary of state of transportation ray lahood called to tell me the need for urgent response to get these people back to work so that they can inspect projects and folks working for contractors and working across america can get back to work. they're stopped cold dead in their tracks because of the objection by the senator from kentucky. now he wants to let this go on a little further. amend this bill and send it over

to the house. let's see if they accept it. maybe they won't. maybe there will be a conference. maybe in a few days or few weeks we can get it done. it's a 30-day extension, and it defeats its purpose if we accept this amendment and delay it because of those possibilities. he can no more guarantee that it won't happen than i can guarantee that it will. but why do we want to create that uncertainty for people who have been facing this uncertainty? the senator from kentucky's objection also stopped small business administration assistants to small businesses in illinois and kentucky as well. the s.b.a. has an outstanding loan waiting list totaling $140 million. because of the senator from bunning's objection, 3,000 small businesses this month will be denied access to loans they need to run their businesses, to pay their employees and to create new jobs in the middle of a reserbgs can we think of -- recession, can we think of a

worse thing to do than to cut off small businesses? it didn't have to happen. if senator bunning would have taken the offer that he had last week from the majority leader, and offered this amendment last week, we could have avoided all this. a week later he's decided, all right, i'll take the offer. a lot of people have paid the price in the meantime. we will not stop until we provided the assistance that unemployed americans need and families in illinois and kentucky and across america tkes participantly -- desperately want us to bring. eventually we will prevail and we'll care for those who are struggling. in the meantime, i urge my colleagues, please, do minority support the amendment of -- do not support the amendment of the senator from kentucky. it is unfortunately a way to delay even further this critically needed assistance. i reserve th balance of my time and yield the floor. mr. president, before do, i make a unanimous consent that the last five minutes on the democratic side be reserved for the chairman of the senate finance committee, baucus. the presiding officer: without

objection. i will note the senator from illinois, there are 5 minutes and 30 seconds left. objection is heard. mr. bunning: what the senator has proposed in plain english. mr. durbin: how much time do i have stphraeuplg the presiding officer: 5 minutes and 20 seconds. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the last five minutes on the democratic side be reserved for senator baucus. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. bunning: reserving the right to object. what five minutes is he talking about? his time or the time that is already reserved for the chairman of the finance committee and the ranking member of the finance committee? mr. durbin: all the time of debate on your amendment has been equally divided between democrats and republicans. i'm not asking for your time. i'm asking that of the democratic time the last five minutes be given to senator

baucus. mr. bunning: on the time -- so i understand, on the time that is reserved for the senator from montana and the senator from iowa? mr. durbin: yes. mr. bunning: thank you. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president? mr. bunning: i yield whatever time the senator from alabama will consume. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. president, well, it's always an easy way to get something done in this body, and that is to spend money and not pay for it. and i'm sure that gets a lot of democratic votes, and they can just pass this bill right through the body. i'm sure our house members, the majority in the house will just pass this legislation, and we'll just add $10 billion more to the

debt. that's what we're talking about. is this necessary? senator bunning has made a number of suggestions about how this bill could be paid for, but it's not a question of delaying it, in my view. it's just simply a question of not wanting to use any of our existing moneys to pay for the extension of unemployment insurance. and if we don't do that, if we don't pay for it as we in the senate are want to say, where does the money come from? well, we borrow it. an interesting article in "the washington times" today, front-page article talking about how much of our debt china owns. they say they own a good bit more of it than we have understood. that a lot of their money goes

to other institutions, and then they buy u.s. treasury bills. really the amount owned by china is larger than we expect. well, so be it. i don't know what that number is, but it is not healthy for the united states of america to incur the amount of debt we are now incurring. it is not healthy. and just a few weeks ago this very senate, a democratic majority, with great pride passed the paygo legislation saying if we have additional expenditures, we'll pay for it, unless of course we deem it an emergency and we get a supermajority. and then we don't have to pay for it. well, here we are just a few weeks later. we want to spend some more money to help out on unemployment shurpbgs and i think that's -- insurance, and i think that's a worthy goal and i think it's something we need to do.

but where do you get the money? i would suggest several places. senator bunning has a place that i think my democratic colleagues have supported. a tax credit account. i would say that that's got possibilities. i know he's also supported out of the unspent stimulus money, that that could be a source of it. all of these things apparently are just being rejected. why are they being rejected? i assume it's because my colleagues want to spend that money on something else, an additional new spending program that's not clear to us at this time. otherwise, why would there be an objection to it? so i think the thing that comes to my mind is we can't keep going on like this. we really can't. we just had a hearing in the budget committee,