businesses to create jobs would have been a much better use of stimulus money. what my amendment does, very simply, it says that of those unspent, unobligated funds -- and that universe of funds, mr. president, represents about $160 billion that has only not spent, but not obligated -- that we use some of those funds to do what we should have done in the first place, and that is to create incentives for small businesses to hire new people, to put people back to work and to make capital investments. so i guess the only thing i would say is that i take issue with what was said yesterday on the floor is that somehow my amendment was going to cut the recovery -- economic recovery act short. it doesn't do that at all. in fact, what this does is simply -- it simply says that those funds that have not been spent, not been obligated in the stimulus bill that was passed last year be redirected toward these particular provisions that will provide incentives for

small businesses to create jobs. and just very simply what are those? extends by one year the bonus depreciation that allows small businesses to accelerate the way that they write off equipment purchases, accelerated depreciation schedule so they can take more of that cost upfront as a deduction. it makes permanent the section 179 deduction and increase that's as well so small businesses are able to expend more of those types of investments. again, an incentive to invest more and hopefully create jobs. it eliminates the capital gains tax on investment in small businesses. and, by the way, that is something that the president in his state of the union speech came out in support of. this is something that the white house has already endorsed. and, finally, it provides for a 20% deduction for small businesses against their income. now, why is that he's in? many small businesses, ant, fact, -- and, in fact, half of small businesses, we're told,

when tax rates go up next year, would be subject to that higher tax. if a small business that passes through their income, their individual tax return is currently paying at the 33% tax rate, they're going to see that tax rate go up to 36% of rain that come. if they're currently paying up to 35% tax rate they going to see their tax rate go up to 39.6% starting next year in 2011. so this allows them to take a 20% deduction against their income that will help in some ways limit or mitigate the impact of the higher tax rates that they will be subject to beginning in 2011. and so, again, i think it is a fairly straightforward amendment, mr. president. and i would simply argue gwen ifill to my colleagues that it makes -- again, to my colleagues that it makes sense to put policies in place that will incentivize job creation in this country and that occurs in the private economy with small

businesses, small businesses, we're told, create two-thirds of the jobs in our economy. and, in fact, about half of the people in this country that work, are employed currently, work for small businesses, so they have a tremendous impact on our economic well-being on job creation and it's important, in my view, that we'll take steps here that will add to the ability of our small businesses to get out there and do what they do best and that is to make investments an create jobs. i would take issue regarding this amendment that it would cut short of economic recovery act. it doesn't do that at all. these are not funds that have been currently spent or object gaivmentd these are funds that are unspent, unobligated out of the trillion dollar bill that was passed last year which we all know to date has not created the jobs that was promised. since the bill passed last year we lost 2.7 million jobs in our economy and i think, frankly, one of the reasons for that is

that it was misdirected in the first place. we should have been focused on job number one and that is helping those job creators in our small economy which are small businesses. i want to point out, mr. president, that the national federation of independent business, which is the largest trade organization representing small businesses in this country or the largest small business advocacy organization has written a letter in support of my amendment. it says that the thune amendment is a necessary step in helping to provide more certainty to small businesses about their future tax liability whether to make long-term capital expenditures and hire more workers. we hope this amendment will provide momentum to clear other obstacles in the path to job creation. and so, mr. president, i guess what i would say by way of closing is that although there is a great debate here about how best to create jobs, i think we can all agree that the trillion dollar stimulus bill that passed

last year -- a lot of that has not been spent. the argument that it would be timely, targeted, and temporary, i think all of these criteria have not been met. and, more importantly, the ultimate metric by which we judge whether it is a success or not has not been met either. and that is job creation. if you look at the economy today, the unemployment stands at 9.1%. if we pass this stimulus bill, we will hold unemployment below 8%. we all know that it's well past that. if you look again at the job numbers and the amount -- the number of people in this country still looking for work, still struggling, still struggling with a loss of income, want the best thing that we can do is to get them back to work and the best way to do that is not to create jobs here in washington, d.c., or invest in government programs, it's to get the creators of jobs, the engine that drives this economy forward, liberated in a way,

providing certainty with regard to tax policy so they know in 2011 when their tax rates go up that they're going to have some relief, allowing some relief with regard to capital gains taxes by exempting small business investment, allowing for bonus depreciation so they can write-off equipment purchases more quickly and increasing section 179, expensing that deduction that currently exists in the tax code, making that permanent. those are all steps. small steps, but at least important steps, in my view, that will move this economy forward and do what many of us want to see done here and that is to create the conditions and the economic climate where jobs can be created and we can get people back to work. so we're going to have a vote on in this afternoon, mr. president, and my colleagues here who were debating an underlying bill that has tax extenders, cobra extension,

unemployment benefit extension, all sorts of things, all of which i understand is important, particularly right now when you have a lot of people who are out of work. but, again, the best remedy that he we can offer to the american peep -- that we can offer to the american people is to create jobs and get people back to work and that will make it he's necessary for us to act on the legislation that we're addressing today that addresses the economic dislocation and the hurt that the american people are experiencing as a result of this economy. mr. president, i, again -- a year ago when the stimulus bill passed, less than 1% of the money was directed toward small businesses and we can fix that today with this amendment by directing these tax incentives, using unspent, unobligated stimulus money. it's all paid for. it's all offset. it doesn't pass debt on to future generations. it doesn't add to the deficit. it's all paid for. it puts the money where it should have been put in the first place and it directs in a

way that will be additive to the job creation. i ask that my colleagues support this amendment. i believe it will be voted on here in a couple of hours and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. webb: mr. president, i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: mr. president, i have introduced an amendment to the pending legislation, it's amendment number 3342. it's my intention to call that amendment up after the votes on the pending amendments this afternoon, but i would like to take a few minutes and explain to my colleagues the nature of this amendment and why i believe that it is important. this amendment basically says that if you are an executive at

one of the companies that received more than $5 billion in the tarp bailout, the financial bailout that occurred when we began our economic crisis and if you received in addition to your compensation a bonus in excess of $400,000, then that amount above $400,000, which is the proximate compensation of our president, will be taxed at 50% and that the amount that it is taxed will be returned to the american taxpayers for deficit reduction. and it's a very simple amendment. it's a one-time amendment based on a unique situation in this country when the american taxpayers had to bail out our major companies in order to stablize our economy.

this is not class warfare. it is not a continuing windfall profits tax. but i believe it is very proper for us to institute this on -- on a one-time basis and estimates that we have had when i introduced this amendment as independent legislation a short while ago, along with senator boxer, was that you could recoup in the neighborhood o of $10 million back into our economy by this very fair tax assessment. i want to go back to two opinion pieces that have been written over the last couple of years from people with great standing in the financial community and great philosophical differences, and then i want to remind my colleagues of the process that we had to enter into when the tarp legislation was first voted on. in july 14, 2008, paul crudman,

noble prize winning economist, wrote a piece in "the new york times," i came to the floor at that time and quoted from his piece. he was talking about the beginning of what became our crisis. and he'd made the point -- and i'm going to -- quote -- "that it's the belief of investors" he was talking at this point about the situation with fannie mae and freddie mac, to quote his article -- "is a belief that if they fail the federal government will come to their rescue. the implicit guarantee means that profits are privatized where lowses are socialized." now what he meant by that and what we have seen play out as our economy, thankfully, has begun to recover, is that with the situation that we entered into with the tarp program, risk

was socialized. that means that the average worker in this country -- the person out there driving a truck, the nurse working in a hospital, the people doing the day-to-day work had to put their tax dollars i in this order to stablize these banking systems. but that the reward from the stablized has become personalized to the executives who were running these companies who then have benefited through these large bonus systems once our economy began to stablize. and it's my strong belief, as someone who is a supporter of people who are willing to take risks and -- and create the right kind of environment for growth in our economy, that they should be happy once they have reached a point where they've been compensated and they've had

a $400,000 bonus, they should be happy to take the money beyond that $400,000 bonus and divide it up with the average worker out here who may not even own stock who had to put their tax dollars in this order to stablize the economy. the second article that i would like to quote from is from "the financial times," which, as all of my colleagues will recognize, is one of the most conservative newspapers in the world when it comes to capitalist enterprise, risk taking, rewarding the people who get out and lead in -- in our business sector. morton wolfe wrote an editorial on november 19, 2009. not that long ago. where he said -- i'm going to quote from this article and i would ask unanimous consent that the entire article be included in the record after my remarks. martin wolfe said this,

"windfall taxes are a ghastly idea. no sensible person should support them. so why do i now find the idea of a windfall tax on banks so appealing? because this time it really does look different." mr. wolfe goes on to point out -- quote -- "ordinary people can accept that risk takers receive huge rewards, but such rewards for those who have been rescued by the state and bear substantial responsibility for the crisis are surely intolerable. the public finances will be devastated for decades. taxes will be higher, public spending lower. meanwhile bankers are about to reap huge rewards. this damages the legitimacy of the market economy." mr. wolfe went on to support the very concept that i am putting on the table today, and that is a one time windfall profits tax

on moneys that were earned in 2009 when this american taxpayer rescue of our financial system occurred. when earnings that occurred through work in 2009, which are paid in 2010 -- this is not a retroactive tax -- one shot, the balance of playing field and reward the people who helped to save our economy. sometimes it's hard for us to remember the circumstances that took place when we were asked to vote for this tarp program. back in september of 2008. because so much has happened to our economy and to the debate in this country since then. but we should remember that in september of 2008, secretary paulson, chairman bernanke put us all on a conference call and

they told us if we did not put $700 billion of taxpayer money into a program to assist our major financial institutions that the world as we knew it economically was going to fall into cataclysm. we voted in support of this $700 billion -- i voted for it -- in order to help these financial institutions solve the problems, undo their systems of bad assets which had taken place, quite frankly, through a lot of bad judgment in their -- in their leadership, free up our economic system and get credit going again. and we did it with the explicit understanding that it was the american taxpayers who were putting the money in and who, when the system righted itself, would get their money back. so this one-shot deal is designed to help do that.

it's -- it's fair to all parties. it allows the executives in these 13 companies that received more than $5 billion each of taxpayer money to still reward their executives and at the same time share these profits or these -- these benefits that go beyond the $400,000 bonus with the people who basically pull their fat out of the fire. i hope that we can get a vote on this amendment, and i trust that my colleagues will understand the care with which it was designed and the equities with which we are trying to deal with. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i want to thank senator webb for offering this amendment which is the same text as our bill that we introduced about a month ago. i think senator webb has made an excellent case for this very important amendment which will reduce the deficit.

it's an amendment that i believe reflects fairness and justice and the american way. in 2008 and 2009, the financial sector, as well as the automobile industry, received generous and unprecedented aid from taxpayers. it was done in order to stave off another great depression. it was a tough, tough vote to make, and we did it because we believed we were on the bring of another great depression -- brink of another great depression and, frankly, financial collapse f. we remember back to those days, credit was frozen, businesses couldn't borrow and we were hearing predictions that this could be the end of capitalism and we heard that from republicans and democrats alike. so what we did has worked. we have avoided a great depression.

the economy is growing, although we are very worried about the slow pace of job creation, which is why we're working so hard to continue to create new jobs. but if we take a look at the financial institutions who received this huge bailout, what we see is that they showed a resounding economic recovery in 2009 thanks to taxpayer assistance, many of these companies are posting record profits. so you've got these companies posting record profits who benefited when times were bad by taxpayer help and now they are paying out multimillion-dollar bonuses to their top executives. mr. president, the united states pays its president, our highest-paid federal official, $400,000.

these company leaders are earning millions of dollars and then on top of that bonuses. so what senator webb and i are saying is this: if you have received a bonus of $400,000 or more from one of the top recipients of the taxpayer bailout, we're saying you should pay a special fee one time. 50% of that bonus, which is on top of your salary, 50% of a bonus of $400,000 or more should go back to the taxpayers and reduce our deficit. it's hard for me to imagine how these financial companies who were bailed out by taxpayers could have such a deaf ear to

the plight of america's workers and why they would embark upon these enormous bonuses. especially since they're not lending the moneys that we think they ought to lend to businesses, to -- they're actually cutting back on lending to qualified businesses, and i think it's a 15 -- 18% reduction in loans to businesses, and yet they're paying out these enormous bonuses. so what senator webb and i are saying, we want a one-time 50% fee paid on the bonus that exceeds $400,000. and this fee would only affect bonus recipients at the largest and most major companies who received this bailout.

i want to reiterate this, the fefee is paid on the bonuses tht exceed $400,000. we don't touch the bonuses $400,000 or less. we're making a point, and even though we've been fair on this, it will return to the treasury about $10 billion is our estimate over time. now, it is only fair that these institutions which were so greatly assisted in 2009 should help our nation with our fiscal problems, we inherited those problems from this economic collapse. we know that when president bush handed the keys over to president obama, there already

was a huge deficit in place, but president obama had to act, we had to pass an economic recovery act, we had to make sure credit was flowing, so it added still more to the debt. and it seems to me only fair that people who are at those institutions that were bailed out -- they only exist because of the generosity of taxpayers, because we knew if they failed, there would be big trouble -- that if their bonuses are over $400,000, they ought to pay this special one-time fee. back to taxpayers. so reducing the deficit is important. fairness is important, and i want to thank my colleague from virginia for working with me on this legislation, and i urge the senate in a bipartisan way to join us in supporting this

commonsense measure. we hear a lot of talk around here about the deficit, the deficit, the deficit, and that's a very important priority for us to reduce this deficit. here's a way to do it that's totally fair and just. people who work at the institutions that got the biggest bailouts from uncle sam to save them and those people who are now getting those enormous bonuses ought to make a contribution to deficit reduction. we need it. we think it's right, and we hope there will be a big bipartisan vote in favor of the webb-boxer amendment. i thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: mr. president, i rise to speak in opposition to the amendment submitted by the gentleman from colorado, mr. thune. mr. president, this amendment

cloaks itself in the guise of fiscal responsibility, but nothing could be further from the truth. the amendment would rescind funding from the american recovery act, the so-called stimulus bill, to pay for the costs of program increases for small business. mr. president, we can all agree that we should do more to support small business, but it's nonsensical to rescind funding from the recovery act which is also creating jobs. i understand all too well that some on the other side of the aisle have argued that the stimulus bill was a mistake. but, mr. president, the facts are proven just the opposite. just last week, the congressional budget office, the

c.b.o. released a report on the impact of those stimulus funds which have already been spent. the congressional budget office report notes the extremely beneficial impact from this act. the report states that the stimulus funds are responsible for an increase of somewhere between 1.5% and 3% in the gross domestic product during the last quarter of 2009 and with estimated increase in this first quarter of up to 3.9%. moreover, the c.b.o. states that the stimulus bill accounted for an increase of at least 1 million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2009 and possibly as many as 2.9 million jobs.

this is something to ponder over. mr. president, the one thing that the american people all agree upon is that we need to be doing more to create jobs. the american recovery act is doing just that. c.b.o. estimates that the level of jobs created through 2010 from stimulus funds could be as high as 3.4 million jobs. that would mean a decline in unemployment of 1.8% in this country. no other action by this congress has provided this kind of positive impact on the job market. so, mr. president, what possible logic is there in rescinding funds from this act which is providing so many benefits to the american people.

why would we support an amendment to cut funding from the act which is clearly helping to reduce devastating job losses? no one can argue that the stimulus bill isn't working. the proof is at least a million jobs created last quarter. it has had an immensely favorable impact on our economy. i know some of those who oppose the bill don't want to hear it but that's reality. the numbers from c.b.o. tell the story. mr. president, the thune amendment fails to offer any guidance to which programs it would cut. that's a rather strange amendment. clearly, it is more politically expedient to simply cite a dollar figure to cut rather than identifying which specific programs the amendment would

impact. the thune amendment offs no direction as it to -- the thune amendment offers no direction as to which covered programs it would shut down. the result could be cuts to the highway funding, new energy technology, or reversing efforts to make government buildings and low-income housing more energy efficient. moreover, this amendment doesn't even allow the congress to determine how the funds should be reduced. instead, it directs the office of management and budget, o.m.b., to determine where to reduce funding. i just cannot believe the authors of this amendment really want the senate to give up the power of the purse to the bureaucrats at o.m.b. to determine where we should spend our taxpayers' funds. but this is what this amendment would do.

mr. president, for many reasons, this is a bad amendment. it is exactly what the country does not need at this time. we all know that the number-one malady facing the country today is unemployment. we now have proof from the congressional budget office that the stimulus bill was the exact right medicine to treat this illness. and so i urge my colleagues, mr. president, to reject this amendment and allow our stimulus funds to work as planned, making wise investments in america and putting our people back to work. i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, as we all know, yesterday the

president issued a letter that said that he was agreeing on four policy priorities identified by republican members at the meeting that we had. he said that -- quote -- "i am exploring --" i quote from the president's letter, "continue to draw on the best ideas from both parties. and i'm open to these proposals in that spirit." so he mentions several of them. in it, he talks about the four areas that he would be considering. one by senator coburn, a proposal; another one that a number of people had discussed concerning demonstration projects through the health and human services, according to

medical malpractice, and then one on medicaid reimbursements. he said -- quote -- "that is why my proposal does not include the medicare advantage provision mentioned by senator mccain at the meeting which provided transitional extra benefits for florida and other states. my proposal eliminates those payments, gradually reducing medicare advantage payments across the country relative to fee-for-service medicare, et cetera." and then he says, "in addition, my proposal eliminates the florida fmap provision, replacing it with additional federal financing in all states." well, of course this raises, i think, first of all, the legitimate question: how did the stuff get in there to start

with? how did it take weeks of examining a 2,400-page bill? what about the other sweetheart deals that were included behind closed doors in this 2,400-page legislation? what about the deal for vermont, 2.2% medicaid bonus for six years for their medicaid program? what about the massachusetts deal, .5% medicaid bonus for three years? hawaii, adds money for hawaii hospitals. michigan and connecticut -- hospitals in michigan and connecticut have the option to benefit from higher payments. connecticut, $100 million for a university hospital, the senate beneficiary of this provision was not originally known.

montana, south dakota, north dakota, wyoming increased medicare payments for those states. what's unique about those states? libby, montana, medicare coverage for individuals exposed to environmental health hazards, asbestos mining. that may be a worthy cause, but shouldn't it be the subject of an authorization and debate and appropriations? then, of course, we had the special deals that were cut with the special interests, such as pharma. the white house negotiators -- the white house negotiators, not congressional negotiators -- extracted an $80 billion deal to gain more offsets from the drug industry, and their $2 million-a-year lobbyists confirmed the deal in news reports in exchange for pharmasupporting the democrat

senate bill, pharmaspends $150 million until -- in advertising support. the white house and senate democrats agree to impose shorter drug verification. to sum all this up, there's no better description of it than what's by the majority leader of the senate, who on christmas eve, when these deals became known, as we examined the 2,400 pages, senator reid, the majority leader, said -- quote -- "-- and this really, really i think summarizes the entire process that they went there. and i quote -- "a number of states are treated differently from other states. that's what legislation is all about. that's compromise." i want to repeat that. i want to repeat that.

quote senator reid -- "a number of states are treated differently from other states. that's what legislation is all about. that's compromise." my friends, that's not compromise. that's not the right word. compromise is an agreement between two parties on both sides of the aisle that reach an agreement. what this is is back room wheeler dealing, special interests influence and vote buying. that's what this was. why would a state be treated differently from another state? why would we have disparate impact on different states? one of the reasons why i have focused a lot of my attention on the 800,000-person carveout in the state of florida, as the

president has said that would be changed, is because there's 330,000 medicare advantage enrollees in my state. why should it ever happen that the residents of one state that are in the same program, exact same federal program, have different advantages over another state? so, i want to say i'm pleased at the president's letter concerning the issue of the 800,000 people in florida who will receive different coverage, that that would be fixed. but i also want to point out that that, as i just chronicled, that's one of many sweetheart deals, many backroom deals. and this has to be put in the context of the fact that the president of the united states

promised the american people that we would change the climate in washington. eight times the president of the united states said all of these negotiations on health care reform will take place with c-span cameras in the room. so my understanding of the process now is that there's going to be a vote in the house on the senate bill, and then there will be a -- quote -- "reconciliation" of 51 votes, which of course is really offensive to the american people. but i assume then that the senate bill as passed will have all of these provisions in it that are these secret backroom unsavory deals that were made. so let me just say that it's

disappointing, the contrast of the president's statement when we've learned that last week's health care summit was not really a true effort. in other words, the summit at the blair house did not reflect what the overwhelming majority of the american people are demanding, and that is we start over and we stop what has been done. one of the reasons why they want it stopped is because they've become aware of these special deals for special interests and vote purchasing. that's what they have become aware of. and so that's one of the major reasons why they want us to start over. at the town hall meetings i have, people are as upset about the process we went through as they are the actual legislative outcome, although they're very unhappy about that.

so, let me just say that i know a bit about working in a bipartisan fashion. i know that people want us to get things done together. i know that the approval ratings of congress are extremely low and there is a great disconnect between the people of this country and what we are doing here in washington. and they want us to work together, adhering to principle and addressing the enormous challenges that face them. but that means starting over. we did identify areas that we could agree on. we did identify the fact that there are some areas. but unless we start over, then how in the world can we put lipstick on a pig? it's still a pig. it is still a bad and unsavory

process that we went through in order to reach the legislative package we have now. , what we really need to do is start over, and then we can get rid of all of these. we can get rid of the louisiana purchase and vermont and massachusetts and hawaii and michigan, connecticut. connecticut twice. one $100 million for a hospital and then higher payments. montana, south dakota, north dakota, wyoming. we could get rid of all of these if we start all over. so, i just want to point out finally, because we're going to be talking a lot about this, and i know other colleagues of mine are waiting to speak. i just want to point out again this whole issue of reconciliation. a lot of americans have never heard that word before, certainly not in this context before this came up. but the word "reconciliation"

means that we would reconcile differences on small issues between the two bodies. and it was the product of senator robert byrd who has said unequivocally that health care -- that medicare and health care should not be included in this process. it was senator robert byrd who specifically exempted social security from being a part of reconciliation. and he said -- and i quote from senator robert byrd -- "i was one of the authors of the legislation, the legislation that created the budget reconciliation process in 1974, and i am certain that putting health care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through congress is an outrage that must be resisted." that was the author of the, of

this. and, of course, all during the time when the other side of the aisle was in the minority, they complained bitterly and, i think, with some justification that reconciliation was used as a means of getting legislation through this body, bypassing the 60-vote requirement. i would like to point out, and it may be a bit self-serving, but i would like to point out that when the so-called nuclear option was up, that we would only, that we would move to a process that only 51 votes would be required to -- in order to confirm judges in this body. i and 13 others joined together in a bipartisan fashion, and we said, no. we will have circumstances that will attend our votes on confirmation. for the good of the body, we

preserved the 60-vote majority rule that has been the custom here in this institution of the senate in modern times. so, the american people are watching very carefully, very carefully what we are doing. there may be some belief that a lot of americans are not appreciating of what apparently is the plan, and that is to move serious legislation through the senate with a 51-vote majority, legislation that would affect one-sixth of our gross national product. i urge our colleagues, as i did when we were considering the -- quote -- "nuclear option on judges," that this nuclear option also be rejected and go back to the 60-vote, and

maintain the 60-vote majority requirement that basically governs our proceedings here in the united states senate. so, let's start over. let's listen to what warren buffet, a strong supporter of the president of the united states, he noted that this legislation includes nonsense backroom deals for special interests. he said -- quote -- "democrats should cut off all the kinds of things like the 800,000 special people in florida or the cornhusker kickback as they called it, or the louisiana purchase. and we're going to get rid of the nonsense. we're just going to focus on costs, and we're not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things." i hope that we will heed the words of warren buffett, which basically is that he and the american people want us to start

over. and they certainly don't want to have legislation enacted by a bayer majority. and, again -- bare majority. and again, i want to remind my colleagues, every major legislation enacted by this body, whether it be medicare or other major reforms, it has always been done with an overwhelming bipartisan support. so it's not too late. let's go back to the beginning. let's start over. we've identified areas that we can work together on and certainly we ject this idea -- reject this idea of 51 votes. i think it poses great danger to the future of this institution that all of us who have the privilege of serving here love so well. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my amendment, which is pending, number 353, -- 3353 be modified

with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is so modified. mr. sanders: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senator menendez of new jersey be added as a cosponsor. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. sanders: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

poverty. that's just a reality. out of middle class and into poverty. the reality is that today prescription drug costs are soaring. medical care costs for seniors, disabled people soaring. and heating oil has gone through the roof, especially relevant to those of us in cold-weather states. mr. president, at a time when millions of seniors have seen the value of their pensions, their homes and their life savings plummet, we cannot turn our backs on some of the most vulnerable people in this

country. they are hurting, and they need our emergency support. and that is why i'm offering today, along with senators dodd, leahy, whitehouse, gillibrand, lautenberg, begich, stabenow and menendez, an amendment which will provide over 55 million seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities $250, a onetime payment, in much-needed emergency relief. this $250 emergency payment is equivalent to a 2%, 2% increase in benefits for the average social security retiree. and it is the same amount that seniors received last year as part of the recovery act. 2% -- that is not a lot of money, but it will in fact provide much-needed help to millions of people who are demanding that we not turn our

backs on them. mr. president, this amendment is supported by a wide array of senior and veterans organizations representing tens and tens of millions of americans. let me just give you some of the organizations who are supporting this amendment. the aarp, which is the largest senior group in america; the american legion, the largest veterans group in america; the veterans of foreign wars, the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, the american federation of teachers program on retirement and retirees, the disabled american veterans, the alliance for retired americans, easter seals, the military officers association, the vietnam veterans of america, the national council on aging, amvets, and many, many other organizations. mr. president, one of the side

benefits of this amendment is that funds directed to this population will go element immediately into the economy. these are folks who will spend that money providing the quickest possible stimulus to local economies and thus creating jobs in every community in our country. mr. president, president obama is strongly supportive of thi this $250 in emergency relief to seniors. the president has included it in his budget and he has also recommended it -- recommended that it be included in the underlying legislation that we are debating today. and here's what the president has said about this issue, and i quote -- "even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession. that is why i am announcing my support for an additional $250 in emergency recovery assistance

to seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities to help them make it through these difficult times." end of quote. and i very much appreciate the president's support for what we are trying to do here today. mr. president, in vermont and all across this country are ordinary peep -- ordinary people believe the congress is way out of touch with the realities of their lives. they believe that we just don't get it. that we don't understand that all over this country millions of people are hurting. that sometimes they're hurting desperately. that people are frantically trying to keep bread on their table. people are trying to make sure that they and their families can live with dignity and they're wondering whether we in congress get it. they know that we're there for wall street. they know that. they know that we're there to bail out big banks. they know that we're there to take care of drug companies an

insurance companies. but they're not quite sure if we're there to take care of vulnerable people who are elderly and who are disabled veterans. let me just read you some quotes from organization and individuals on this issue. this is what the v.f.w. has to say in support of this legislation. and i quote -- "this year veterans and seniors will not receive a cola. this could not come at a worse time. your legislation would provide a one-time check of $250 to 1.4 million veterans, 48.9 social security recipients and 5.9 million s.s.i. recipients. we believe this will provide some relief to those veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes.

and we thank the v.f.w. for their support." let me quote from the committee to preserve social security and medicare. the national committee strongly urges you to pass legislation to provide a $250 payment to our nation's seniors who did not receive a cola this year. it is vitally important that we provide help for seniors of modest means who have been adversely affected by the economic recession and rapidly rising health care costs. end of quote. and here is a quote from a.a.r.p. -- aarp who represents 55 million americans aged 55 and over in support of this amendment. this is what they say and i quote -- "for over three decades, millions of americans have counted on annual increases to help make ends meet. in this economy having this protection is even more critical for the financial security of all older americans.

aarp applauds the president for urging congress to extend the tf provided to older americans last year." end of quote. let me quote again from another statement. -- statement by aarp which i think makes this case very -- i think nail it and they tell us why it is absolutely imperative that we pass this legislation -- quote -- "last year the social security administration announced that for the first time since it began in 1975 seniors will not receive an automatic cost-of-living adjustment for 2010. although the lack of a cola was triggered by low overall inflation" -- and here's the point" -- "the cost of the things that seniors depend on

most, health care and prescription drugs continue to increase. seniors spend an average of 30% of their income on health care costs. six times greater than what those with employer-sponsored health care coverage spend. and these prescription drug costs, premiums, and co-pays have skyrocketed." end of quote. that is the main point to be made today and that is why we should support this one-time payment. aarp, of course, is a large national organization. let me just give you some quotes from letters that i've received from vermont and from around the country. a gentleman from central vermont writes -- and this is what he says. he says -- quote -- "as you know social security has not given a cola increase on benefits in 2010 based on the c.p.i. i did some research and found these increases from january 2009 to january 2010" --

and this is what he has calculated ""power is up, propane is up by 24%, property taxes up 3.7%, gasoline up 16.6%, food up, conservatively speaking, 3%." an here's what he said, "the c.p.i. was done by stat -- stat is titions while on vacation that impaired their judgment. these things above add up to nearly -- up to $3,000. i would require a 12% increase in my disability benefits. this is from central vermont. mr. president, i do not agree with the writer of this letter that the stat is titions came to their conclusions by sipping

tropical concoctions in jamaica. but i believe he is correct in suggesting that the methodology by which colas for seniors are established just is not right. and here's why, cola increases are determined by a look at the purchasing practice of the entire population, all of us. and that is not fair to seniors today. -- today whose purchasing needs are very different than the average person. as the aarp just pointed out, seniors spend a very disproportionate amount of their limited incomes on health care, prescription drugs, et cetera. those costs have gone up. in other words, while costs may have gone down for younger people who may be purchasing laptop computers, ipods, g.p.s.'s, flat screen tv's, cell phones, and other products, they have not gone down for millions

of seniors who are dependent and spend a whole lot on health care. and, by the way, that is why when i was in the house, i offered legislation which received very strong bipartisan support to create a separate index for seniors in determining their colas. and i do believe that is the direction we've got to go. mr. president, i've gotten many, many letters. let me read you one more from new jersey. this is claire from new jersey. "i'm 82 years old having been widowed and bankrupt at age 37 to raise my children alone. i the thought my small pension plus my savings i would never have to depend on my children to care for me in my old age. now that my savings have been depleted by 30% and my health care insurance is costing m me $3,200 a year, i'm very worried that my savings will last me much longer.

"end of quote. elizabeth in spur, texas, writes, "social security is my main source of income. i have bills i couldn't pay if it wasn't for this income. i think that it is a disgrace that the government will bail out the banks and car manufacture he but not sure if the elderly will get a cola. the elderly are the people that have kept this country together for years and they are considering not giving them a living -- a little raise? i wish that some members of the -- members of the congress and senate have to live on the income that we have to and see how they can manage. like the saying goes, if the show was on the other foot." end of quote. mr. president, let me conclude by pointing out that there is bipartisan support with the concept that we are talking about today. especially in the house of representatives. in that body, in the house, -- congressman walter jones, rodney

alexander, phil gingrey and congressman bartlett have introduced legislation that, frankly, goes further than the amendment that i have offered. instead of a one-time payment, they are proposing a 2.9% cola for social security which ends up, obviously, costing a lot more than a one-time payment of about 2%. and here's what congressman alexander, a republican from louisiana, said about his legislation. "although the annual adjustment is a small increase, it is a much-needed benefit for our nation's seniors to help them compensate for inflation and to sustain the skyrocketing prices of health care prescription drugs. it is evident that the current social security system is not keeping up with our seniors's basic needs. congress must take action today so that our social security beneficiaries are protected

tomorrow." and that is from congressman alexander, a republican from louisiana. i agree with the congressman, and i hope that all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, will agree that seniors need emergency relief and they need it now. mr. president, over 90% of the individuals who will receive this emergency relief make less than $75,000 and over eight million who will receive help on this amendment make less than $14,000 a year. so that's where we are. millions of people are wondering whether in their times of need when their costs are going up when they're struggling to maintain their dignity, they're wondering if a congress that was there for wall street, a congress which over a period of years has been there for the wealthiest people in this

country whether that congress will be there for our veterans and our seniors. i hope and expect that we will be and i ask for support on the amendment that will be voted on soon. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor, and -- i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana's recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed floor privileges during consideration of the pending bill, mary baker, ivy english, sam cone, scott matthews, pheta . the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: i understand that we have two amendments that will be put on shortly, the thune amendment and the grassley amendment. let me say a few words about

each. first, the grassley amendment. the grassley amendment essentially extends the formula under which doctors are wade -- reimbursed for medicare services by three more months. the underlying bill, the formula that's called sustainable growth rate, known as s.g.r., is extended for seven months. frankly, it's my preference, strange as this might sound, that it not be seven months, but three months. we negotiated out these provisions, it turned out that the extension is seven months. now, you might ask why do i favor three month extension rather than seven months? the main reason -- there are two reasons. the main reason, mr. president, is that i firmly expect health care reform to be passed within three months. and if the formula, the

sustainable growth, is extended for three months, that enables us after as soon as health care reform is passed, it then address how we get a much better solution to the s.g.r., the sustainable growth rate. and my preference would be a permanent solution. i'm afraid, mr. president, that if we extend this for, say, 10 months, and then health care reform is passed, then we'll not have -- fixing the permanent formula will not have quite the same urgency as it otherwise would. i do very much believe that -- that what we have now in the bill, seven months is better than the three-month extension. it's just another way of saying, as much as i admire my good friend from iowa, senator grassley, i do not think it would be appropriate to adopt his amendment. i don't favor the amendment. the second reason is probably more compelling. and that is although he doe pay

for his amendment by extending the formula for three more months, he does so by taking the funds out of a -- a -- a fund which is used for medicare. it's -- it's called the -- if i can get it here. it's called the medicare improvement fund. the medicare improvement fund is very -- it's almost essential so that we have funds, mr. president, to pay for the underlying health care bill. it's very, very important that the underlying health care bill be deficit neutral. we're working on certain modifications to the health care reform bill. the bill has passed the senate, as we know, it's over in the house. as the president announced just a few minutes ago, he wants us -- i think it's the right thing to do -- to pass a modification to that bill by majority vote. and if we're going to do that,

mr. president, we have to make sure that it's deficit neutral. in fact, even better than deficit neutral, that it reduces the deficit. the medicare improvement fund, dollars from that fund can help very much toward assuring us that the underlying bill, the health reform bill is really, in fact, deficit neutral. so for those two reasons -- one, i just think it's better for us to have passed health care reform using some of the funds in the medicare improvement funds so we can make it deficit neutral, pass it and then we can then work on the -- on improving and finding a permanent solution to the sustainable growth rate formula, a formula that's bedeviled us for many, many years, and for those two reasons, i very much urge us to -- as much as i appreciate the efforts of the good friend from iowa, that discretion is the better part of valor here, it would really be better for us not to adopt that amendment, because we do need those dollars

to help make sure we can pay for the underlying health care reform bill. mr. president, there is another amendment that we will be voting on soon. it's number 3336, the thune amendment. the small business tax relief concepts outlined by senator thune, i support them. in fact, many of these will be discussed as part of a small business jobs bill to be introduced quite shortly. by that, i mean in the next maybe week or two. i'm not sure exactly when, but quite soon. the finance committee will be marking up the small business jobs bill. i spoke to senator landrieu, the chairperson of the small business committee. we're going to put together a small business jobs package which we think will be quite effective in helping small business people be more prosperous and more people being able to work for small business firms. i might say, however, that senator thune's amendment is problematic for two reasons.

first, his amendment makes several provisions permanent. this is not the time for that discussion. making these provisions permanent is expensive and therefore permanent provisions need to be discussed as part of comprehensive tax reform. second, senator thune's amendment would be offset with unspent and unallocated mandatory spending of stimulus funds. i might say there is growing evidence that the recovery package is working. there has been some debate over that proposition, but i think the way of evidence is that the stimulus funds recovery package has had significant positive effect. the congressional budget office has said so over the last six months of 2009, for example, the overall economy grew at an annual rate of 4%. i'm quite confident that had we not passed the stimulus measure, that the growth rate would not be at that rate, it would be

lower. in the fourth quarter of 2009, the gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 5.7%. now, that might be somewhat artificially high because of inventory, but nevertheless that was the number. one year earlier, in the fourth quarter of 2008, gross domestic product was actually declining at an annual rate of more than 5%. manufacturing, the united states expanded in august for the first time in 19 months. just think of that. manufacturing in our country expanded in august for the first time in 19 months. housing prices in many parts of the country have stabilized. some are even increasing. the case showed the index of home prices have not risen seven months in a row. and unemployment is improving. according to the congressional budget office, last year's recovery act added between one million and 2.1 million people to our country's payrolls. the recovery act -- that is, the stimulus bill i'm talking

about -- lowered the unemployment rate by between .5% and 1.5% from where it otherwise would have been. in addition, the federal reserve. many independent economists have credited the stimulus with playing a role in stabilizing the economy, but we still have work to do. the national unemployment rate stands at 9.7%. the c.b.o. estimates that eight million jobs have been lost over the course of the great recession. they also say that unemployment may not be -- may not be in its natural state of 5% until the year 2016. revoking stimulus funds now would send exactly the wrong signal to the american economy and to the unemployed people in our country. just think of that. revoking stimulus funds now, just think of the signal that would send. we know there are more funds in the pipeline. we take that away, the stimulus program is working. we take that away. just think of the signal that would send across our country.

we passed the stimulus to give a needed boost to our economy. the bill was designed to work over two years, two years. we're in the second year now, just the beginning of the second year now. we have successfully started down the road to recovery and allow the economy to -- we have successfully started down the road to recovery and allow the country -- the country would falter if these funds were withdrawn, and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 p.m. today, the senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes. that prior to each vote there be four minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form. that would be the thune amendment numbered 3338 as modified, and that prior to the vote it be further modified with changes at the desk, and the grassley amendment numbered

3352. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. baucus: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent to call up h.r. 3358, make it pending, and then set it aside. mr. baucus: mr. president, reserving the right to object, could the senator tell me what the content amendments are? mr. coburn: i'm sorry? mr. baucus: would the senator tell me the contents? mr. coburn: this is an amendment that just discusses the amount -- the secretary of the senate will put up on our website the amount of -- the new programs that we publish, the total amount of discretionary and mandatory spending by the senate that has not been paid

for. mr. baucus: i appreciate that. it's something i do not like doing. i'm constrained to object, however, because we have had requests from other senators who wish to bring up their amendments. frankly, i would ask them to defer temporarily so we can set up a reasonable order back and forth of senators since i just readily don't like to object but i feel constrained to haveo object to the senator's request. mr. coburn: all right.

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: i would ask again a unanimous consent to call up amendment numbered 3355 and then immediately after it's called up, it be set aside. the presiding officer: is there

objection? mr. coburn: 58, 3358. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn -- mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: thank you, and i thank my colleague from montana. mr. baucus: mr. psident? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up amendment 3342 by senators webb and boxer. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. baucus, for mr. webb and others, proposes an amendment numbered 3342. at the end, insert the following -- mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana.

mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, there will now be four minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 3338, as modified, offered by the senator from south dakota, mr. thune. who yields time? if no one yields time, time will be charged equally. the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, the first two votes will be on the thune amendment, the second is on grassley. i think the thune amendment has its heart in the right place. it is trying to help ensure --

its heart in the right place. it's trying to help small businesses and help provide jobs. frankly, it has two very significant problems with it. therefore, i urge it not be adopted. first, it makes permanent many provisions in the tax law that actually should be considered in tax reform. this is not the place to be writing tarm tax reform. our code is riddled with inconsistences. promise of the provisions in the code fit together, some don't. there are loopholes, a lot of overhaul needed if we're going to have significant tax reform, and we should address those issues at the right time, the right place, but not here. this is not make sense to make certain provisions in the tax code permanent. the second flaw here is to pay for his provisions, senator thune uses excess stimulus funds

-- that is, funds out of the recovery act. i'd say the c.b.o. says the recovery act is really working well. last month the c.b.o. issued its report on the effects of the recovery act in the fourth quarter. in that report, c.b.o. said -- quote -- "c.b.o. estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar number 2calendar -- o 2009, it increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by between 1.4 magic and 3 million." that's what c.b.o. says. they said it created between 1 million and 3 million jobs. that's real job creation. that's why we need to defeat efforts like the amendment from the senator from south dakota who wants to cut back on the recovery. the recovery sact working. all economists say it's working. let me rephrase that: most economists say it is working. if it's working, we should let it continue to work. we shouldn't take dollars away from it, so i urge that the

thune amendment not be adopted. the presiding officer: who yields time? favor of the amendment? -- who yields time in favor of the amendment? mr. baucus: i see senator thune here. it might be a bit presumptuous that the time be yielded back, although it is not my place to make that request. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. baucus: no, mr. president. i do understand he is on his way. so he can speak in favor of his amendment. mr. gregg: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from h.r. is recognized. -- the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mr. gregg: i was going to inquire of the chairman if he had locked in the speaking order after the votes? mr. baucus: i might respond to my friend, ite it has not been locked in. while we're waiting for senator thune, i ask that senator dorgan be recognized to speak immediately after the last vote -- the next series of votes -- and that the senator from new hampshire, senator gregg, be recognized to speak thereafter. the presiding officer: is there objection? wiout objection, so ordered.

the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: i raise a point of order that the pending amendment thune amendment violates section 311 of the congressional budget october. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: i move to waive the applicable section of the budget act with respect to the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there a senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? hearing none, on this vote the yeas are 38. the nays are 61. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the point of order is sustained, and the amendment fails. mr. baucus: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. please take your conversations outside.

under the previous order, there will be four minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment 3352 offered by the senator from iowa, mr. grassley. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, the senate is still not in order. the presiding officer: the senate is still not in order. please take your conversations outside.

mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. please carry your conversations outside. mr. baucus: the senate really is not in order, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. baucus: mr. president? thpriding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i thank the chair. mr. president, i oppose the grassley amendment for two reasons. i oppose reluck tabtly. -- reluctantly. senator grassley is a very decent man. his heart is almost always in the right place but i oppose this amendment. first the amendment seeks to extend a stopgap measure for payments of doctors under medicare. we should pass a short-term stopgap, and then we should make

meaningful permanent reform for the payment of doctors under medicare. that's what doctors want. that would what would be very much in the best interest of seniors and that's the responsible way to govern. second, the grassley amendment takes its offsets away from the underlying health care bill. that is the bill that we're trying to pass in this next several weeks. his amendment would undercut health care reform. we need the savings that we included in the health care bill, especially the health reform bill. we should not be robbing the health care bill of its offsets. for those reasons, i oppose the grassley amendment. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: two minutes? the presiding officer: two minutes, yes. mr. grassley: first i want to add bond and bennett as cosponsors. a senator: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. please take your conversations outside the chamber.

the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: my amendment extends critically needed medicare provisions for all of 2010, not just part of it. it replaces the provisions that are not fully offset with fully offset provisions, and it adds an additional three months for the physician update through the end of 2010. this amendment draws additional funds from the medicare improvement fund to ensure these provisions are fully offset. now, my friend from montana said that that's not the place to take the money, but his substitute amendment takes money from the very same fund. i take a little bit more, yes, but i don't think that a few billion in funding needed here will make much of a difference when it comes to $2.5 trillion cost of health care reform as was suggested earlier.

so i don't really see that as a valid argument for not paying for these medicare provisions. going back to the situation at hand, the 30-day extension that passed last night only prevents payment cuts until the end of march. physicians and medicare beneficiaries need to have certainty and be insured access to care. this is the fiscally responsible way to pay for these important medicare provisions. we need to pass this very essential amendment now. so i urge my colleagues to support it. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: 57 seconds. mr. baucus: 57? thank you. mr. president, this is very simple. $10 billion is $10 billion. this amendment takes $10 billion away from health care reform. we must pass health care reform this year, and we need the dollars that we can get. $10 billion is a lot.

right now, as we're trying to put this bill together, it's to make sure is this is deficit neutral. i say to my colleagues on health care reform, this $10 billion really counts. we should not rob health care reform the senate is not in order to pay for an extension of the doc fix. it is not needed at this time. we'll take care of the doc fix after we pass health care reform. mr. grassley: do i have some time left, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa has 26 seconds. mr. grassley: good, i'm glad i've got 26 seconds. his amendment takes $8 billion away from the medicare improvement fund. mine takes $10 billion away. so ha-ha. mr. baucus: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: for all those reasons, mr. president, i move to table the amendment.

i ask for the yeas -- the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the vote is 54 yeas and 45 nays. the motion to table is agreed to. under the previous order the senator from -- mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i move to reconsider that vote. and i assume that senator dorga. mr. dorgan: lay that on the

table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, let me ask consent -- my understanding is following my presentation, senator gregg is going to be recognized or a republican speaker and i would ask consent that following the republican speaker, that senator stabenow be recognized on our side. and i do that -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: mr. chairman, i wanted to discuss two amendments, one of which i have piled and one of which i will file shortly. but before i do that, i do want to say that i've spoken with senator inouye and senator feinstein and some others about something that is very important. it's the settlement of the cobell law suit, the cobell suit has been in the court system for 15 years. after a long period of negotiation with the interior secretary and other parts of our

federal government and the plaintiffs in the cobell lawsuit there is a settlement that has been reached, $3.4 billion going back well over 100 years where the trust accounts were supposed to be taken care of for the american indians. some of this has been flushed and mismanaged. those who lost money loss their assets, lost their income. american indians, many of whom have died during the process of this lawsuit. now that a settlement has been reached, there is a -- an april 15th end date -- i believe the court determined an end date by which the congress must act. my hope would be that the congress would be able to meet that deadline. we really do need to put this issue behind us. it is a sorry chapter in this country's history that we have so mismanaged for over a century the property and the income and

the royalities and all of the other issues that resulted in the filing of a suit and i -- i commend the interior secretary, secretary salazar, who has worked so hard to reach this agreement. so, having said that, let me describe two amendments that i wish to offer to this legislation. one of them is an amendment that was -- that i have offered on a number of occasions over the years. it's important to offer it again this year and get it done. president obama mentioned during his state of the union address that he wanted this legislation passed by the congress. and it is painfully simple. it says -- my amendment says that when a manufacturing plant or an american business shus down its manufacturing -- shuts down its manufacturing plant in this country, locks the doors, fires the workers, and then moves the jobs overseas someplace for the purpose of selling the product they produce overseas back into our country, they shouldn't get a tax break. yet, under today's tax code, they, in fact, are rewarded with

a tax break. this amendment would withdraw that tax bernanke and is a that you're not going to be rewarded in our tax code by shipping the jobs overseas and shipping the product back in our marketplace. this should have been corrected before. my amendment, amendment 3375, my hope is that we'll be able to debate and vote on that amendment. i described the other day this issue we have of trying to find new jobs and seeing how we can incentivize the creation of new jobs in our country. about 17 million people woke up this morning in this country without work, without a job and wanting a job and going to spend today looking for work and not able to find it. 17 million people. so we're trying to find ways to incentivize the creation of jobs. that's the faucet, try to put more jobs in this economy. what about the drain? what about all these jobs leaking out of this economy to china and elsewhere? let me describe just some of them, if i might.

these are well known. i've told other stories on the floor many times, but levis. the product of america. america invented levis. they wear levis all around the world, except levis are made virtually everywhere in the world except the united states. they're all gone. we don't make one pair of levis in the united states. fruit of the loom underwear. gone to mexico, gone to asia. samsonite, went to china. maytag now makes their products in mexico and korea. hershey's chocolate. hershey's chocolate advertises york peppermint patties, and they say the cool, refreshing taste of mint dipped in dark chocolate will take you miles away. well, apparently, so many miles it ends up in mexico. mexico. i've told often about the

cookies by nabisco company, fig newtons. if somebody says to you how with about going to have a mexican dinner, just buy a package of fig newtons. they left new jersey. they went to mexico. i don't know whether it's cheaper to shovel fig paste in mexico than it is new jersey, but it is made by a company called nabisco. do you know what that stands for? the national biscuit company, except the national biscuit in this case is made in mexico. well, the list goes on and on and on. hallmark cards. hallmark cards was here for a century. privately held, kansas city, missouri. founded by a high school dropout who started the company in 1910 with a shoe box full of post cards. he cold them -- made a living by selling them while working out of a ymca in kansas city. it became an unbelievably successful greeting card

company. all of us know that. but under its current management, despite annual revenues, i understand, of over over $4 billion, they started to move jobs from kansas city to three plants in china. so cares enough to send you the very best. in this case, sends you the very best from china. now, my point is i understand there are a whole lot of companies going to search for people who would work for 50 cents an hour. you could work them seven days a week, 12-14 hours a day. and that's better for their bottom line. it enhances their profit when they can do that. but when they leave america, decide you know what, i'm going to go sell -- i'm going to go purchase -- i'm going to produce, rather, etchh-sketch in china. we're going to produce it there in china and then ship it back to a wal-mart here in the united states to sell. when that happens and that town in ohio that was known for producing etch-a-sketch, the toy

that all of us have used as a child, when that happens, we ought not be saying good for you, we'll give you a tax break. when the guy who started radio flyer, little red wagon, the wagon we have all ridden in, the guy in chicago that for 110 years made radio flyer little red wagons in the united states, when they moved the production of little red wagons to china, we shouldn't give a tax break for those that are sold back into this country. a company that moves their jobs elsewhere in order to produce and then sell back into our country, we ought to say you know what? we're not going to give a tax break for that. let me give you an example of two companies, two companies that make bicycles, all right? they are made in factories that are on the same street corner on different sides of the street. one is called huffy bicycle, and most people have known the huffy bicycles and ridden them in

their youth. and the other is abc bicycle, for example, hypothetically. and huffy bicycles decides we're paying $11 an hour to our american workers, plus benefits. we think that's way too much money to pay an american worker. we're leaving america and we're going to china. by the way, that's true they did. and the other company stays here and says no, we're going to keep our american workers. we're going to keep our american plant open, we're going to keep these jobs in america. what's the difference between the two? when they are competing at sears or wal-mart or kmart in this country, what's the difference between those two bicycles? one was rewarded with a tax break because their production was sent overseas. the other has a competitive disadvantage because it was made here by american workers. it ought not stand. this president asked during his state of the union address for us to plug this hole. it raises money, reduces the federal budget deficit, and

finally says to american workers we're on your side, we're not going to give a tax break to companies that ship their jobs overseas and sell their product back in america. it's a very simple amendment. i don't know how anyone would wish to vote against this amendment. and yet interestingly enough, i have offered it now for about five years and have not been self-for a number of reasons. occasionally, we have had a vote. most often it gets thrown off on a parliament procedure of some type, but this is a bill that is open to amendment on revenue issues, and my hope is at last, at long, long last, at a time when so many millions of americans wish they had a job and don't, at the time when we still have so many companies moving their jobs away from our country to other countries to sell back into our country that which they made in answer or elsewhere, my hope is finally we won't say we will allow this to happen anymore with a reward in our tax code for those that do it.

i was on an airplane a while back and i sat next to a guy who was wearing casual clothes, sweat pants and so on. we said hello to each other. i said where are you headed? he said i'm going to asia. he said that's why i am dressed this way. i have 24 more hours of flying. i said what are you going to do when you get to asia? he said i'm going to china, singapore, and he said what i'm trying to do with my company, we're trying to move our jobs from the united states to asian locations and save some money in the production of these products that we make. so i'm going out now to thailand and singapore and china to scout out locations for our new manufacturing plants in asia because we're going to move our jobs. i was sitting next to this guy thinking, you know, there will be hundreds and hundreds of american workers who that morning instead of getting on an airplane, as he and i did, they're going to a manufacturing plant somewhere to make a product for his company, but they don't know yet that he is

on an airplane designed to try to find a way of how to move their job to singapore or to china or to thailand, and isn't that a shame. now, some will listen to this and say yeah, yeah, that's just protectionism. listen, closing a tax break that rewards people from moving jobs overseas isn't protectionism. keeping that tax break open is, in my judgment, ignorance. standing up for fair play and standing up for american jobs is not protectionism. it is doing everything that we ought to do to be supportive of the kind of economy we want and the kind of good jobs we want in this country's future. now, mr. president, that is one amendment. the second amendment deals with an issue that most people, i'm sure, can hardly believe their ears when they hear about this. this is the issue i have spoken about previously, and some of this issue has been resolved but not all of it, as is usually the case when something abusive is

happening, it gets shut down in part but not in total because you say, okay, let's stop it as of this date. i'm talking about something called silos and lilos. sale in leaseout. meese poem wouldn't know what that means. sale in leaseout. it's a title in tax code that describes an activity that was created by some people that want to avoid paying u.s. taxes. they want everything america has to offer, but they just don't want to pay taxes to their country. so let me describe what has been happening in the last few decades. and you know what? this is almost a perfect description of the perversion in our economy and the greed in our economy by some, not all but by some who steered this place into the ditch. here it is. a cross-border lease of dortman, germany streetcars. first union bank in america wants to buy streetcars in

germany. now, why would it want to buy streetcars in germany? because it wants to own german streetcars? no. because from a german city it can buy the german streetcars and take those assets in a sale and leaseback and depreciate them and it can avoid paying u.s. taxes. so buying streetcars is one thing. here is a tunnel. one of our american companies bought a tunnel in antwerp, belgium. think of that, an american company deciding to buy a tunnel in antwerp, belgium. they like tunnels? they don't have the foggiest idea about belgian tunnels. it's a sale leaseback in order to avoid paying u.s. taxes. but here are the ones that struck my interest. wachovia bank -- which, by the way, has now been purchased by someone else. they ended up with a belly full of bad assets. and we ought to ask the question

how did that happen? how did it happen that a massive amount of toxic bad assets land in the belly of the bank, wachovia bank? so wachovia bank bought a sewer system in bochum, germany. why would wachovia bank want to own a sewer in germany? because they have people on the board of directors that are experts in german sewers? i don't think so. do we think maybe they have hired a new class of m.b.a.'s who are specialists in sewer evaluations in germany? i don't think so. an american bank wants to buy a german sewer system for -- in fact, it's called sale-lease back. the german sewer system is sold to an american bank -- now, does this bank ever go over and take -- seize possession of a sewer, a sewer pipe? no, they never even see a sewer pipe. all they want is a paper transaction so they can avoid paying u.s. taxes. in this case, it's reported on

frontline that wachovia bank saved $175 million by this scam of buying a german city's sewer system. unbelievable. and by the way, this was going on for some while before we were able to shut most of it down. and i would also say that even as i speak, there are some companies that are now stepping forward to the i.r.s. -- and i believe 45 companies have now stepped forward and said we're willing to pay for the benefits we received even retire to the time -- prior to the time that this was shut down, but there are some transactions that are allowed to continue, and we have american companies that continue to get the benefit of those transactions, and my position is simple. this is abusive. it's unmitigated greed. it should have been shut down,

all of it shut down, and the internal revenue service, by the way, is still going back even beyond that date which was in the federal law and challenging these in courts. in fact, there are a couple of very large companies at this point that are still disputing this and saying these are perfectly reasonable transactions. shame on them. this doesn't meet a third grade laugh test. an american company picking up a german sewer system. in fact, one american company bought a city hall from a german country, a germantown. the auditor in that town says well, we don't understand it, but you know what, if that's what the americans want to do with their montana, god bless them. it wasn't their money. what they were doing is sucking money out of the coffers of this government because in many cases they are companies that are trying to find every way possible to avoid their federal tax obligation. yes, they want all the benefits america has to offer except they don't want the obligation of

paying their full measure of taxes like most people do. most people who go to work in the mornings and work an honest day come home. the end of the year when it's time, they file their tax return. they had withholding. they pay their taxes to our country, to our government. but there are a whole lot of interests that are much, much bigger than that that find ways to send people around the world, not only to move their jobs to where they can find 50-cent an hour labor, but perhaps while they are there, they might take a look at a sewer system to see if they can pick up a sewer system to boot to avoid paying taxes. that way you can move your job overseas and avoid paying taxes at the same time because you get a tax break for shutting your american plant and moving your american job overseas, which i hope to shut down with my first amendment, and then you get a tax break by buying a german sewer system. both of these would raise money for the federal government. both would reduce the federal budget deficit.

and both have very substantial merit. now, will i get a vote on these? i hope so. one is now filed. the other will be filed in a short period of time, and i hope very much that i will be able to get the opportunity to have a vote here in the senate and close these tax breaks. let me say that i -- there are a whole lot of businesses in this country that are working very hard to make it. many american businesses have had to steer through very difficult times. this is the deepest recession since the great depression. there are a lot of businesses, large, medium, and small who struggle every day to try to navigate through this deep economic abyss. i give them great credit. many people have risked their entire life savings to run their business. they get up in the morning and put the key in the door and open their business. look, what i want to have happen is for us to recognize good businesses in this country that do the right thing every day to

hire american workers, produce products and strengthen this country's economy. my point is those businesses are at a significant disadvantage if we continue to say the business across the street moves to china and produces these products in china, and, by the way, we give them a tax break for doing it. we say to those who stayed here, you know what? shouldn't have stayed here because you would have gotten a tax break if you would have left. that is exactly the wrong message. what we want to do to those who stay here is say we want to reward you. you're the heroes. you're the people that make up this economy, the foundation, the strength of what america really is instead of rewarding those who do exactly the wrong thing for this country. so that is -- that is my two eemenamendments that i would lio offer. mr. president, let me just finally say this: i know i get upset sometimes when i talk about the abusive pieces of this tax policy and

the abuse, i think, of trade policy that has resulted in the loss of 5 million manufacturing jobs. and, by the way, the loss of nearly 1.5 million manufacturing jobs in the last 12 to 15 months. think of that. think of 1.5 million households in which someone wakes up and says, i'm jobless, don't have a job anymore. i used to make furniture, but that furniture manufacturer is gone. used to make tool-and-dye machines, gone. you name it. i told the story the other day on the floor of the senate about pennsylvania house furniture which is such a great example of what's happening in this country. governor rendell did everything he could to keep this great furniture company in pennsylvania. they used pennsylvania wood and so pennsylvania house furniture was known as an upscale furniture manufacturer that uses special wood from pennsylvania. then they were purchased by lay

z-boy. they decide they're moving pennsylvania house furniture to china and we're just going to ship the wood to china and put the furniture together and ship the furniture back. and governor rendell did everything he could to prevent that from happening, but it happened. and so the last day of work at the factory where they had spent a century, the craftsmen who put that furniture together got together and the last piece of pennsylvania house furniture that came off the manufacturing line, every employee in that company gathered around, they tipped it upside down and every one of them signed the bottom. somebody in this country, perhaps, has a piece of furniture they don't quite understand. it has the signature of every last craftsman to work in that

manufacturing company. and that pride of production and contribution in this country by workers who just want a job, who want a country that doesn't move its manufacturing jobs elsewhe elsewhere, but values its manufacturing jobs in this country -- i'm just looking for, if i can, what happened to lay z-boy. in 2008, they said, in the next years it'll move employees from dayton, ohio, to the plant in the mexican state of conchill lavment they previously moved other jobs to china. they did say this. "we regret the impact the moves will have on the employees and families of those affected and greatly appreciate the contribution each of them have made for their dedicates services." and so 1,050 people discovered their jobs are gone.

but the same company is the one that moved pennsylvania house furniture long before that. we've got a lot to fix in this country. i'm convinced that this country's better days are still ahead if we make the right judgments. if we pass both amendments that i offered, it will make a contribution -- good jobs that pay well that give them some confidence about the future. i suspect that i can't ask unanimous consent to pass both amendments at the moment, so i'll negotiator with the chairman of the committee to see if we can get votes in the coming hours or days. so, mr. president, i yield the floor and, mr. president, i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. i realize that senator gregg was next up to speak. i don't see him on the floor, so i will be only a few moments and then i would ask unanimous consent that he be recognized after me. when he comes to the floor. okay.

mr. president, i'm very pleased in a few moments i'm going to be offering an amendment that is strongly supported by members on both sides of the aisle to focus on jobs and investments in equipment for companies that are currently not making a profit, which unfortunately is too many across the country right now. we want to make sure they have an opportunity to have the capital they need to be able to grow as well. so i want to thank senator hatch, senator schumer, senator crapo, senator snowe, senator arrish for working with me on an amendment that would provide companies with an immediate source of capital to make increased investments in our country and spur job creation. since the start of the recession in december of 2007, the nation has lost more than 8 million jobs, as we know. it's really an economic tsunami, what has happened to families in this country.

and the national unemployment rate skyrocketed from 5% to 10%, as companies are forced to cut costs and to lay off workers, to remain viable, just to keep the ship afloat. in our state, of course, the great state of michigan, it's much worse since we are at about a 14.6% unemployment rate right now, and we certainly are feeling the brunt of what's been happening. these companies also continue to face significant challenges in raising much-needed capital for new investments, to be able to keep people working. and this amendment would allow struggling companies, of all kinds, who don't benefit from other similarly designed incentives like expanding th exe n.o.l. carryback period, and other things, to utilize their existing credits based on new investments they make in 2010.

so if they make new investments, we would allow them to use credits they can't use right now because those credits can only be used against a profit, and they don't have a profit. in addition to encurlinging companies to increase investments, to maintain and expand jobs, the amendment also makes available a badly needed source of capital. we've all been talking about access to capital. this is an important way we can make this available, at no real cost to the federal government. and i think that's what's important about this amendment. a.m.t. credits are actually prprecredits of tax. so these are prepayments. normally if they were making a profit, they would be able to offset their taxes and maintain additional revenue and capital. but they're not in the position to do that right now. so at some point we in fact

would be giving them credit, and they would be able to use these credits and to be able to keep capital, but they can't right now. so in a sense we're just moving up the date by which they can access the capital that's available with a.m.t. credits. since the credits never expire, the proposal merely accelerates when the credits are used. this amendment would allow companies to be able to get their built-up tax credits so they can build factories, buy equipment, and create jobs. specifically, it would allow companies to utilize their existing credits, up to 10% of a new investment that they make in a manufacturing facility or in equipment purchased this year in 2010. no company would be able to claim more than 50% of the value of the credit. to accelerate the economic impact of allowing companies to

be able to access this capital and use the credits, the proposal would allow for an expedited refund process similar to current law rules for net operating losses. a company that elects the five-year net operating loss carryback enacted into law earlier this year, which i supported strongly, would not be eligible to claim the benefits of this proposal. so it would be only those who cannot access other proposals that we've put forward because of the critical nature of helping companies not making a profit, be able to help them access capital. the amendment would be offset by improving tax compliance from individuals who receive rental property, from properties. the provision originally proposed in the president's fiscal year 20* 2009-2010 budgets would require people who receive rental income on real estate to be subject to the same

information reporting requirements as taxpayers who receive income from a trade or business. this proposal would benefit a broad range of companies, mr. president, including airlines, manufacturers, energy companies, high-tech companies across the board, companies large and small that currently find themselves in the position where they are not making a profit but have built up these prepaid credits. we have support from the u.s. chamber of comerks th -- the u.. chamber of commerce, the association of manufacturing technologies, the association of equipment manufacturers, motor and equipment manufacturers associations, some of the many u.s. employers that support the proposal -- american airlines, applied microdevices, arch coal associated builders and contractors, bos clvment, cliffs natural resources you c.m.s.

energy, console energy, daimler, general motors, goodyear, national mining, owens illinois, peabody energy, t-mobile, xerox. these are all corporations employing hundreds or hundreds of thousands of people that are needing access to capital. they've prepaid these credits. they need access to capital now so that they can maintain their workforce and hopefully expand it and invest in the equipment that will allow them to grow. and so this amendment, again, mr. president -- and this is one that has broad bipartisan support. it will alloy us to essentially move forward the ability for companies to use these a.m.t. credits that they have already paid into, the dollars they've already paid. and this is something that will allow companies to get the

equipment, the tools, that are necessary so that as they're using that job credit that we passed and hiring people or continuing to be able to grow and invest in the business and keep the employees they have, that this will a.b.a. able to get some assistance -- that they'll be able to get some assistance within the legislation that we are passing. so, again, let me just indicate that i very much appreciate colleagues who have joined in this: senator hearchtion senator schumer, senator crapo, senator snowe, senator rhode island -- senator are much isch, and we have others who are very interested in joining us as well. and i believe at this point -- i haven't heard for sure if we're in a position to actually call up the amendment at this point. at the moment i guess i would -- if we are in a position to call up the amendment, i'm looking to

staff to determine whether or not we're in a position to do that at this point ... we are. all right. then i would, mr. president, ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and i call up amendment number 3350, as poddified. -- as modified. mr. baucus: mr. president, i don't know if we're in that positionett this point. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would ask that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and i call up amendment 3382. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from michigan, ms. stabenow, for herself and others proposes amendment 3382 to -- ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: if there is no further business at the moment, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the purposes of calling up and modifying one of my own amendments.

the presiding officer: the senate's in a quorum call. ms. landrieu: let me ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. president, now i'd like to just set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment number 3335 for purposes of modification only. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. ms. landrieu: let me withhold for just one moment, please.

ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. as we're waiting for the clerks to present the right form, let me just speak for just a moment about what this amendment is. i've already spoken about it at length. i've already submitted a lot of documents to the record about the importance of this amendment, so just to recap. the amendment that i'm offering actually on behalf of myself, senator vitter, senator cochran, is an amendment -- and senator wicker -- is an amendment that will help the recovery effort of the gulf coast particularly as it relates to louisiana, mississippi and alabama as well. the situation is this, mr.

president, if we do not get this amendment on this bill or the next bill -- i'd prefer it on this bill -- we will literally shut down 7,000 units that are under construction today of low-income and moderate housing along the gulf coast from mobile to waiveland to gulfport to cameron parish. the entire gulf coast. as you know, mr. president, as many of us witnessed the terrible catastrophe that happened in our state just 4 1/2 years ago will be marking the fifth anniversary of katrina. i guess the wounds seem a little bit fresh, mr. president, watching the scenes from hate andy the scenes from chile. the situation in haiti is much more disastrous than what happened in the gulf coast. but we most certainly went through our own horrors. and five years seems like a long time. but, mr. president, when you

were digging out of rubble like we see happening right now, and when the floodwaters don't recede in some places for three months and people can't even return to their neighborhoods for nine months -- can't even return, you can understand why it's taken us a little time to rebuild some of this housing. it's just take longer than we ever imagined. in addition, despite the fact that we've worked as fast and as hard as we can, in the middle of rebuilding some of these multifamily units, we're trying to bill them better, smarter, more energy efficient in a much better way than they were before for both public house and low-income housing. in the middle of all of this, mr. president, the market collapses, which is not louisiana's fault. we don't work on wall street, we don't live on wall street, we're trying to build our communities

back. wall street collapses, these tax credits that congress was so generous to give us a few years ago to do some work, if we don't get an extension on the placed in service date, the developers, including developers like the catholic church, nonprofit developers, not just for-profit developers will lose their credit in the marketplace for the financing necessary to complete this construction. that's the long and short of it so i'm not here asking for additional credits. we are grateful, those of us from the gulf coast states what the congress has already given us. but if this amendment, a two-year extension -- a two-year extension, not one year, but two years, if an extension is not attached to this bill, 7,000 units currently under construction, and we estimate about 13,000 jobs along the gulf coast will be lost. so since this is a jobs bill, i thought it would be a good

amendment to put this amendment on a jobs bill because it's going to save 13,000 jobs building great apartments for rent and for purchase that our people need in the gulf coast. so that is what the amendment does. if you've got it at the desk, i would ask now for the clerk to either read or report the -- the modified amendment. for the modification. okay. i'd like to ask unanimous consent for it to be modified. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment modified. ms. landrieu: thank you very much, mr. president. and at the appropriate time we'll call the amendment up for a vote and further debate. but i wanted to make sure that we got the modification in. because it is now paid for or suggested to pay for it. and, again, i want to thank the

members for being very, very helpful to us. we thought actually these units would be finished by now. of course the people who are trying to move into them really want them to be finished but between us trying to get organized after the catastrophe and with the market collapsing, we just need additional time. i thank you. yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: