Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the amendment I want to speak on is No. 3353. This amendment is extremely simple and it is extremely straightforward.

At a time when millions of senior citizens, veterans, and persons with disabilities have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty; at a time when the cost of prescription drugs, medical care, and heating oil have gone through the roof in many parts of our country; at a time when millions of seniors have seen the values of their pensions, their homes, and their life savings plummet; at a time--and here is the important point--for the first time in 36 years, seniors will not be receiving a COLA in their Social Security benefits.

The amendment I am offering today with Senators Dodd, Leahy, Schumer, Kerry, Whitehouse, Mikulski, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and Begich will provide over 55 million senior citizens, veterans, and persons with disabilities $250 in much needed emergency relief. This $250 emergency payment is equivalent to a 2-percent increase in benefits for the average Social Security retiree, and it is, as you will recall, the same amount seniors received last year as part of the Recovery Act. In other words, what we are doing now is exactly the same as we did last year with the Recovery Act.

I do not know about New Mexico, but I do know that in Vermont, a lot of senior citizens and disabled veterans are wondering this year why they are not receiving a COLA. They have written to my office and they are saying to me: Hey, I don't know what you are talking about because my costs have increased over the last year. That is because, in fact, while inflation may not have gone up in general, those areas elderly people and people who have health problems utilize--prescription drugs, health care, other health-related issues--those costs have gone up very substantially. I think there is an awareness all over this country that we cannot, in the midst of this recession, turn our backs on disabled veterans and seniors.

This amendment has widespread support from organizations representing tens of millions of Americans. Among the organizations that are supporting this amendment are the AARP, 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 Disabled American Veterans; AMVETS and OWL and many other organizations.

Money directed to this population will go almost immediately into the economy. So when we talk about stimulus, I don't know of a better way to get money out into the economy than passing this amendment.

I am also very happy and delighted that President Obama is very strongly supportive of a $250 emergency payment to seniors. As you know, the President has spoken out on this issue, he has also included it in his budget, and he has also recommended that it be included in the underlying legislation we are debating today.

Here is what President Obama has said about this issue:

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 for seniors, veterans, and people with

disabilities to help them make it through these difficult

times. These payments will provide aid to more than 50

million people in the coming year, relief that will not only

make a difference for them, but for our economy as a whole,

complementing the tax cuts we've provided working families

and small businesses through the Recovery Act. This

additional assistance will be especially important in the

coming months as countless seniors and others have seen their

retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of

this economic crisis.

That is the end of the quote by President Obama. I very much appreciate the President speaking out and fighting for senior citizens and the disabled with regard to this issue.

I can tell you that just on Monday I had a meeting with senior citizens and senior citizens organizations in the State of Vermont. It was a very distressing meeting. When we talked, for example, about nutrition programs, the Meals on Wheels program or the congregate meals programs by which seniors come to senior citizens centers to get a decent lunch, what people are telling me is that for the first time in many years, when seniors are asked to put money into an envelope--and very carefully, the senior centers don't want to know what people contribute. They ask for, say, $2 or $3, but people can contribute whatever they want. What they are noticing now is that more and more seniors are putting nothing into the envelope or maybe just $1. They are seeing the same process when people get out in their cars and they deliver Meals on Wheels to very fragile and frail people, often in rural areas, and people don't even have the money, now, to even pay $2 for a lunch.

All over this country, seniors are hurting. I think they are upset and distressed that they are not getting a COLA this year. Essentially, what this payment is about is a substitute for a COLA. It is a 1-year payment, and it is the equivalent of about a 2-percent COLA.

Let me mention the response of some of the veterans organizations. This amendment, importantly, will be helping our disabled veterans. Here is what the VFW said in support of this amendment:

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 million Social Security recipients, and 5.1 million SSI

recipients. We believe that this will provide some relief to

those veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes who rely

on a COLA to keep up with daily living expenses. The VFW

commends you for concentrating on changes that can positively

impact the lives of others and looks forward to working with

you and your staff to ensure passage of this legislation.

I thank the Veterans of Foreign Wars for the great work they do and for supporting this amendment. We appreciate their support.

Let me quote a letter I recently received from another organization that has been very strong for many years in fighting for senior citizen rights; that is, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. This is what the national committee says:

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. Seniors have been especially hard

hit by the 20 percent to 30 percent decline in the value of

employer pensions, IRAs and 401(k)s, as well as the steep

drop in housing values. And, unlike younger Americans, the

elderly are much less likely to recover their savings losses

due to their shorter economic horizon.

That is from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. We very much appreciate their support for this amendment.

Here is a quote from the AARP, which represents over 40 million Americans, and we very much appreciate their support. This is what the AARP says:

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 for 2010 the $250

economic relief provided to older Americans last year. The

65-plus population is facing extreme financial hardship.

Older Americans are paying more out of pocket for medical

care, have experienced a real decline in their retirement

accounts and in housing values, face longer periods of

unemployment for those who need work, and low returns on

interest bearing accounts. Without relief, millions of older

Americans will be unable to afford skyrocketing health care

and prescription drug costs as well as other basic

necessities. AARP will continue to work with Members of

Congress from both sides of the

aisle to provide $250 in economic relief to millions of

seniors who count on Social Security to pay their bills.

Here is the point, the point the VFW has made, the national committee has made, the AARP has made. Some people may say $250 is not a lot of money, but the truth is, if you are a senior in the State of Vermont or in any other State in this country and your health care costs are going up and your prescription drug costs are going up and your heating bills are going up and you are not getting any COLA this year, you are in trouble. You are in real trouble. I do not want to give any illusion that this $250 is going to turn people's lives around. It is not. But it is going to make a real difference in giving people a little bit of support, making their lives just a little bit easier.

This is extremely important legislation, and it is important legislation that I hope can have widespread bipartisan support.

Once again, I thank all the organizations that are supporting this amendment; that is, the AARP, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and OWL as well.

The bottom line is, we are in the midst of a very serious recession. We are doing our best to try to figure out ways to create the millions of good-paying jobs working people need. We are going to pass COBRA to make sure when people lose their jobs they do not lose their health insurance. We are going to extend unemployment benefits. But in the middle of all of that, let's not forget our parents and our grandparents. Let's not forget senior citizens and disabled veterans. Let's pass this amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment which is pending, No. 3353, be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Menendez of New Jersey be added as a cosponsor.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, as senior citizens and disabled veterans all over this country know, this is the first year since 1975--36 years ago--that there will not be a Social Security cost-of- living adjustment or COLA. In my view, the fact that people in need-- seniors, disabled veterans, people who have disabilities--will not be receiving a COLA this year is wrong and it is an issue we have to address and I hope we will address it successfully this afternoon, in terms of the amendment I will offer.

The reality is, in recent years, senior citizens, veterans, and persons with disabilities have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. That is a reality--out of the middle class and into poverty. The reality is, today prescription drug costs are soaring, medical care costs for seniors and disabled people are soaring, and heating oil has gone through the roof, especially relevant to those of us in cold- weather States.

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 back on some of the most vulnerable people in this country. They are hurting and they need our emergency support and that is why I am 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 one-time payment--in much needed emergency relief. This $250 emergency payment is equivalent to a 2-percent increase in benefits for the average Social Security retiree, and it is the same amount seniors received last year as part of the Recovery Act.

Two percent is not a lot of money, but it will, in fact, provide much needed help to millions of people who are demanding we not turn our back on them. This amendment is supported by a wide array of seniors and veterans organizations representing tens of millions of Americans. Let me give some of the organizations that 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 other organizations.

One of the side benefits of this amendment is that funds directed to this population will go almost 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. President Obama is strongly supportive of this $250 in emergency relief to seniors. The President has included it in his budget, and he has also recommended it be included in the underlying legislation we are debating today.

Here is what the President has said about this issue:

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.

I very much appreciate the President's support for what we are trying to do here today.

In Vermont and all across this country, ordinary people believe the Congress is way out of touch with the realities of their lives. They believe that we just do not get it, that we do not understand that all over this country millions of people are hurting and that sometimes they are hurting desperately, that people are frantically trying to keep bread on their tables. People are trying to make sure they and their families can live with dignity, and they wonder if we in Congress get it. They know we are there for Wall Street. They know that. They know we are there to take care of big banks and insurance companies and drug companies, but they are not quite sure we are there to take care of vulnerable people who are elderly and who are disabled veterans.

Let me read some quotes from organizations and individuals on this issue. This is what the VFW has to say in support of this legislation:

This year veterans and seniors will not receive 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 million Social Security recipients, and 5.1 million SSI

recipients. We believe that this will provide some relief to

those veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes. . . .

We thank the VFW very much for their support.

Let me quote very briefly from the National 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.

Here is a quote from AARP, a group that represents over 40 million Americans age 55 and older, in support of this amendment. This is what they say:

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 for 2010 the $250

economic relief provided to older Americans last year.

Let me quote again from another statement by AARP which I think makes this case very cogently. I think they nail it, and they tell us why it is absolutely imperative that we pass this legislation.

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 is the point--

the costs of the things seniors depend on most--prescription

drugs and health care--have continued to increase above

inflation. Seniors spend an average of 30 percent of their

income on health care costs, 6 times greater than what those

with employer-sponsored health care coverage spend, and these

prescription drug costs, premiums, and copays have

skyrocketed.

I think that is the main point to be made today. That is why we should support this one-time payment.

AARP, of course, is a large national organization.

Let me give some quotes from letters I have received from Vermont and from around the country.

A gentleman from central Vermont writes:

As you know, Social Security has not given a COLA increase

on benefits in 2010, based on the CPI. I did some research

and found these increases from January 2009 to January 2010.

This is what he has calculated.

Power rates are up by 7 percent; heating oil up by 15

percent; propane up by 24 percent; property taxes up 3.7

percent; gasoline up 16.6 percent; food up, conservatively

speaking, 3 percent.

Here is where he said:

The CPI was obviously done by statisticians on vacation in

Jamaica while sipping some tropical concoctions that impaired

their judgment. These things above add up to nearly $3,000.

To cover this, I would require a 12 percent increase in my

disability benefits.

This is from central Vermont. I do not agree with the writer of this letter that the statisticians came to their conclusions by sipping tropical concoctions in Jamaica. I don't think that is the case. But I do believe he is correct in suggesting that the methodology by which COLAs for seniors are established is not right. Here is why. COLA increases are determined by a look at the purchasing practices of the entire population--all of us--and that is not fair to seniors today, whose purchasing needs are very different from the average person's. As the AARP 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, GPSs, flatscreen TVs, 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. 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. I do believe that is the direction we have to go.

I have received many letters. Let me read one more.

This comes from New Jersey. This is Claire from New Jersey:

I am 82 years old. Having been widowed and bankrupt at age

37 to raise my 3 young children alone, I thought that with my

Social Security and my small pension plus by savings, I would

never have to depend on my children to care for me in my old

age. But now that my savings have been depleted by 30 percent

and my health care insurance is costing me $3,200 a year, I

am very worried if my savings will last me much longer.

Elizabeth in Spur, TX, writes:

Social Security is my main source of income. I have bills

that 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 manufacturers 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 little raise? I wish that some Members of the

Congress and the Senate had to live on the income that we

have to and see how they can manage, like the saying goes, if

the shoe was on the other foot.

Let me conclude by pointing out that there is bipartisan support for the concept we are talking about today, especially in the House of Representatives. In that body, in the House, Congressmen Walter Jones, Rodney Alexander, Phil Gingrey, and Roscoe Bartlett--all Republicans-- have introduced legislation which, frankly, goes further than the amendment I am offering. Instead of a one-time payment, they are proposing a 2.9-percent COLA for Social Security, which ends up, obviously, costing a lot more than a one-time payment of about 2 percent.

Here is 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 and prescription drugs. It is evident

that the current Social Security system is not keeping up

with our seniors' basic needs. Congress must take action

today so that our Social Security beneficiaries are protected

tomorrow.

That is from Congressman Alexander, a Republican from Louisiana. I agree with the Congressman, and I hope all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, will agree that seniors need emergency relief and they need it now.

Over 90 percent of the individuals who will receive this emergency relief make less than $75,000 and over 8 million who will receive help under this amendment make less than $14,000 a year.

That is where we are. Millions of people are wondering whether, in their times of need, when their costs are going up, when they are struggling to maintain their dignity--they are wondering whether 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 same Congress will be there for disabled veterans and our seniors. I hope and believe we will be, and I ask for support for the amendment that will be voted on soon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the first time in 36 years, seniors and disabled veterans and persons with disabilities will not be receiving a cost-of-living adjustment, a COLA on their benefits. The argument for that is that they are not seeing inflationary costs. Go back home and talk to seniors, talk to disabled veterans. They will tell you they are paying sky-high costs for prescription drugs and health care. This amendment is supported by AARP, the American Legion, the VFW, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security, and a wide number of veterans organizations and senior citizens organizations that know it is wrong to turn our backs on seniors in this moment of economic difficulty.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1964 and section 4(g)(3) of the statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I understand we will have two amendments we will be voting on shortly; they will be 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 paid, reimbursed for Medicare services, by 3 more months. The underlying bill, in the formula known as sustainable growth rate, otherwise known as SGR, extends it for 7 months. Frankly, it is my preference, strange as it may sound, that the extension be not 7 months but 3 months, but when we negotiated out these provisions, it turns out the extension was 7 months.

You might ask why I favor a 3-month extension rather than 7 months. There are two reasons. The main reason is that I firmly expect health care reform to be passed within 3 months. If the formula, the sustainable growth rate, is extended for 3 months, that enables us, as soon as health care reform is passed, to then address how we then get a much better solution to the SGR, the sustainable growth rate, and my preference would be a permanent solution. I am afraid if we extend this for, say, 10 months and then health care reform is passed, fixing the permanent formula will not have the same urgency as it otherwise would.

So I do very much believe what we have now in the bill--7 months--is better than a 3-month extension. Another way of saying it, as much as I admire my good friend from Iowa, it would not be appropriate to adopt his amendment. In fact, I do not favor his amendment.

The second reason is probably more compelling, and that is, although he does pay for his amendment by extending the formula for 3 more months, he does so by taking the funds out of a fund which is used for Medicare. It is called the MIF, the Medicare Improvement Fund.

The Medicare Improvement Fund is very--it is almost essential so that we have funds to pay for the underlying health care bill. It is very important that the underlying health care bill be deficit neutral. We are working on certain modifications to the health care reform bill, the bill that has passed the Senate. As we know, it is over in the House.

As the President announced just a few minutes ago, he wants us--I think it is the right thing to do--to pass a modification to that bill by a majority vote. If we are going to do that, we have to make sure it is deficit neutral. In fact, I would like it even better than deficit neutral; that is, that it would reduce the deficit. This Medicare Improvement Fund can help very much toward assuring us that the underlying bill, the health reform bill, is in fact deficit neutral.

So for those two reasons: One, I think it is better for us to pass health care reform using some of the funds in the Medicare Improvement Fund so we can make it deficit neutral, pass it, and then we can work on improving and finding a permanent solution to the sustainable growth rate formula, a formula that has bedeviled us for many years.

For those two reasons, I very much urge us to--as much as I appreciate the efforts of my good friend from Iowa, discretion is the better part of valor here. It would 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.

There is another amendment we will be voting on soon. It is No. 3338, the Thune amendment. I support many of the small business tax relief concepts outlined by Senator Thune. In fact, many of these will be discussed as part of the small business jobs bill to be introduced quite shortly. By that I mean in the next maybe week or two. I am not sure exactly when, but quite soon the Finance Committee will be marking up a small business jobs bill.

I spoke with Senator Landrieu, who is the chairperson of the Small Business Committee. We put together a small business jobs package which we think will be quite effective in helping small business people be more prosperous and have more people 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 wave of evidence is that the stimulus funds in the recovery package have had a significant positive effect. The Congressional Budget Office has said so.

Over the last 6 months of 2009, for example, the overall economy grew at an annual rate of 4 percent. I am quite confident that had we not passed the stimulus measure, 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 percent. 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, it was actually declining at an annual rate of more than 5 percent.

Manufacturing in 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-Shiller index of home prices has now risen 7 months in a row.

Unemployment is improving. According to the Congressional Budget Office, last year's Recovery Act added between 1 million and 2.1 million people to our country's payroll. The Recovery Act--that is the stimulus bill I am talking about--lowered the unemployment rate by between .5 percent and 1.5 percentage points from where it otherwise would have been.

In addition, the Federal Reserve and 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 percent. The CBO estimates that 8 million jobs have been lost over the course of the ``Great Recession.'' They also say unemployment may not be in its natural state of 5 percent until the year 2016.

Revoking stimulus funds now would send exactly the wrong signal to the American economy and to 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. The stimulus program is working. We take that away, just think of the signal that would send across our country.

We passed stimulus to give a needed boost to our economy. The bill is designed to work over 2 years--2 years. We are in the second year now, just beginning the second year now. We have successfully started down the road to recovery, and the economy would falter if these funds were withdrawn.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Amendment No. 3338, as Further Modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 p.m., 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 this vote; that prior to each vote there be 4 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form: Thune amendment No. 3338, as modified, and that prior to the vote it be further modified with the

changes at the desk; and the Grassley amendment No. 3352.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, will the Senator tell me the content of the amendment?

Reserving the right to object, tell me the content.

I appreciate that. This is something that I do not like doing. I am constrained to object, however, because we have had requests from other Senators who wish to bring up their amendments, and, frankly, we have asked them to defer temporarily so we can set up a reasonable order back and forth of Senators.

Regrettably, I do not like objecting, but I do feel constrained to object to the Senator's request.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3342 offered by Senators Webb and Boxer.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the first two votes will be on the Thune amendment and the Grassley amendment. The Thune amendment has its heart in the right place. It is trying to help small businesses and provide jobs. But, frankly, it has two very significant problems. Therefore, I urge it not be adopted.

First, it makes permanent many provisions of the tax law that actually should be considered in tax reform. This is not the place to be writing tax reform. Our code is riddled with inconsistencies. Many of the provisions in the code fit together. Some don't. There are loopholes. There is a lot of overhaul needed, if we are going to have significant tax reform. We should address those issues at the right time and the right place but not here. It does not make sense to make certain provisions in the Tax Code permanent.

The second flaw is, to pay for his provisions, Senator Thune uses excess stimulus funds, funds out of the Recovery Act. The CBO says the Recovery Act is working well.

Last month CBO issued its report on the effects of the Recovery Act in the fourth quarter. In that report, CBO said:

CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year

2009, the [Recovery Act] added between 1 million and 12.1

million to the number of workers employed in the United

States, and it increased the number of full-time-equivalent

jobs by between 1.4 million and 3 million.

They say the Recovery Act created or saved between 1 and 3 million jobs. That is why we need to defeat efforts such as those of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. The Recovery Act is working. Most economists say it is working. If it is working, we should let it continue working. We should not take away dollars from it.

I urge the Thune amendment not be adopted.

I don't see Senator Thune. It may be a bit presumptuous, but I ask unanimous consent that the time be yielded back, although it is not my place to make that request.

Mr. President, I understand he is on his way.

No, it has not been locked in, but I will do so right now. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, be recognized to speak immediately after the next series of votes and that the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, be recognized to speak thereafter.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending Thune amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, I oppose the Grassley amendment for two reasons. I oppose it reluctantly. Senator Grassley is a very decent man. His heart is almost always in the right place. It is in the right place here, but I oppose this amendment.

First, the amendment seeks to extend a stopgap measure for the payments of doctors under Medicare, but we should not prolong stopgap measures. We should pass a short-term stopgap, and then we should make meaningful payment reform for the payment of doctors under Medicare. That is what doctors want. That is what would be very much in the best interests of seniors, and that is the responsible way to govern.

Second, the Grassley amendment takes its offsets away from the underlying health care bill; that is, the bill we are trying to pass in this next several weeks. Thus, it would undercut health care reform. We need the savings 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.

How much time do I have remaining?

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 we can get. Ten billion dollars is a lot. Right now, as we are trying to put this bill together, we are very close to making sure this budget is deficit neutral. In fact, we would like it to be better than deficit neutral. This $10 billion counts. We should not rob health care reform in order to pay for an extension of the doc fix that is not needed at this time. We will take care of the doc fix after we take care of health care reform.

Mr. President, for all those reasons, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I don't know that we are in that position yet at this point.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the substitute amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this is a killer motion the Senator from Florida is making. This amendment kills jobs. This amendment tells people who are currently unemployed: You are not going to get an unemployment check. This amendment tells people who are trying to get health insurance under COBRA: Sorry, no more. This amendment tells doctors who are trying to take care of patients, Medicare patients, that they are not going to get paid what they should be paid.

Let me give a few numbers. Our legislation will help half a million workers who lose their jobs get help under COBRA. That is the health insurance substitute provision for those who have lost their jobs. But the amendment of the Senator from Florida says to those half a million workers who lose their jobs today that they will not get insurance benefits under COBRA.

This amendment also will have the effect, if adopted, of preventing nearly 40 million Medicare beneficiaries and nearly 9 million TRICARE beneficiaries from getting access to their doctors--40 million seniors and about 9 million military personnel under TRICARE.

This amendment will also prevent 400,000 Americans from getting unemployment insurance benefits.

That is just for starters. This motion, if adopted, is not a poison amendment, it is a killer amendment. It kills the bill we are trying to pass in a short period of time. The bill is basically to extend unemployment benefits, to extend the COBRA benefits, and to make sure that people who should get relief under current law are able to maintain that.

This is very similar to the situation we faced because of efforts of the Senator from Kentucky not long ago. We finally resolved that. That was a 30-day extension, and the Senate voted 78 to 19 to continue those benefits under that 30-day provision. The Senator from Kentucky tried to stop it. Finally, the Senator relented and the Senate agreed by a vote of 78 to 19 that we should proceed, and it passed that 30-day continuation.

This is an emergency. We are now in an economic emergency. Unemployment is close to 10 percent. This economy is still in a recession. It is slowly getting better, but if this amendment were to pass--if the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida were to become law--then, frankly, think of the signal that would send to Americans who are now relying upon COBRA benefits and unemployment benefits.

This point of order is a killer, and that is why we need to waive the budget point of order so we can vote for a bill that would come before us later on this evening. I urge Senators, when the vote comes on this waiver, that we waive the budget point of order, because otherwise the provision of the Senator from Florida will send a terrible signal to millions of Americans.

I hope we can vote on this fairly soon. Basically, let's remind ourselves this is an emergency. We have lost over 7 million jobs in this recession. We are not out of the recession. Unemployment is close to 10 percent. We hope it comes down. This is an emergency and in emergency situations you take emergency action and that is why this legislation is necessary now.

I hope when the economy does recover we have the fortitude to start to live within our means, as we should. Nobody debates that. But we are in a situation now where we have to make sure we extend those benefits and that Medicaid dollars go to the States right now because we are still in an emergency.

I urge, frankly, the motion to waive the point of order. I hope it is successful.

Mr. President, I think we will soon be entering an order to vote on several amendments. I would like to point out the theme of these amendments, most of which are offered by the other side, are to cut back Recovery Act dollars, cut back stimulus dollars, take away stimulus dollars.

We know the stimulus program has created millions of jobs. At least that is what CBO says. Certainly, it has created a great number of jobs. When these amendments come up, I would like all Members to know the basic theme of these amendments is to pay for them by cutting stimulus dollars, which I think is a bad idea. We should not be cutting stimulus dollars. We should be maintaining the Recovery Act and stimulus program. We will soon get an order so we can start voting on amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:55 p.m. this evening the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments and the Baucus motion to waive in the order listed, that prior to each vote in the sequence, there be 2 minutes of debate divided and controlled in the usual form, and after each vote in the sequence the remaining votes be 10 minutes' duration.

I might say the 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled, be amended to 4 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled, with respect to the two Bunning amendments. Those two Bunning amendments are Nos. 3360 and 3361.

Mr. President, just to make it clear what the amendments are, it is Burr amendment No. 3390; Sanders amendment No. 3353, as modified; Bunning amendment No. 3360; Bunning amendment No. 3361, and Baucus motion to waive the Budget Act.

I thank the Chair.

For the information of all Senators, the first vote will be on the Burr amendment, which is similar to the Sanders amendment. One big difference, that Burr amendment takes stimulus dollars to pay for the Sanders amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Senate voted yesterday, 53 to 43, against the Bunning amendment to cut back Recovery Act funds for the 30-day extension bill. Earlier today, the Senate voted 61 to 38 against the Thune amendment to cut back Recovery Act funds to pay for tax cuts, and now we have the pending Burr amendment to cut back Recovery Act funds. In all three cases, we turned away those efforts to cut back Recovery Act/stimulus funds. I think we should do the same here, so people can get their benefits--excuse me, so the Sanders amendment gets passed.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the emergency provisions in the amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending Burr amendment violates the pay-as-you-go provisions, of S. Con. Res. 21, 110th Congress, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.

Mr. President, this Bunning amendment is the fourth attempt in 2 days to pay for emergency safety net programs by cutting back stimulus spending, by cutting back from the Recovery Act. This is the same amendment. We have voted on this basic topic four times.

Yesterday the Senate voted 53 to 43 against the Bunning amendment to cut back Recovery Act funds for the 30-day extension bill. Earlier today the Senate voted 61 to 38 against the Thune amendment to cut back Recovery Act funds, and just a few minutes ago the Senate voted down the Burr amendment. Now we have the Bunning amendment to cut back Recovery Act funds again to pay for the pending bill.

CBO does say the Recovery Act has added jobs. Between 1 million and 2.1 million jobs have been added to our economy because of the Recovery Act. Just to repeat, the CBO says the Recovery Act added between 1 million and 2 million to the number of Americans employed in the fourth quarter of last year. CBO also says the Recovery Act increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by between 1.4 and 3 million jobs. The Recovery Act is creating jobs, so I think the last thing we should do is scale back something that

is working. If it is working, don't change it. If it is working, let's continue with it.

I move to table the Bunning amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this is a killer point of order. This point of order would kill the underlying substitute amendment. It would prevent people from getting COBRA benefits. It would prevent people from getting their unemployment checks. It would cause doctors to have their payments

for Medicare patients cut 21 percent. It endangers access for 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. It will kill unemployment insurance benefits for 400,000 Americans. This is a point of order that will, in effect, kill the bill. That is why it is vitally important that Senators vote to waive the point of order so we can pass the bill.

Mr. LeMIEUX addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider that vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, my understanding is that following my presentation, Senator Gregg is going to be recognized, or a Republican speaker. I ask unanimous consent that following the Republican speaker, Senator Stabenow be recognized on our side. I do that with the consent of the chairman of the committee.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss two amendments, one of which I have filed and one of which I will file shortly. Before I do that, I have spoken with Senator Inouye, Senator Feinstein, and some others about something that is very important. It is the settlement of the Cobell lawsuit. The Cobell lawsuit has been in the Federal courts for 13 years. After a long period of negotiation between the Secretary of the Interior, other parts of our Federal Government, and the plaintiffs in lawsuit, there is finally an agreement that has been reached. The agreement would provide $3.4 billion to settle outstanding claims and address issues going back well over 100 years in which the Federal Government was supposed to be taking care of the trust accounts of American Indians. Some of those trust accounts were fleeced, stolen, and mismanaged.

This lawsuit has been going on for a long period. The agreement settles the claims of American Indians who lost their money, lost their assets, and lost their income. Many American Indians have died during the process of this lawsuit.

Now that a settlement has been reached, there is an April 16 deadline. The parties to the settlement agreement set an end date by which the Congress must act, or the parties may return to litigation. My hope is that the Congress will 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. For over a century we have mismanaged the property, income, and royalties of American Indians. All of this resulted in the filing of a lawsuit.

I commend the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Salazar, who has worked so hard to reach this agreement.

Having said that, let me describe two amendments I wish to offer to this legislation. One is an amendment I have offered on a number of occasions over the years. It is 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. It is painfully simple. My amendment says when an American business 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 should not get a tax break. Yet, under today's Tax Code, they, in fact, are rewarded with a tax break.

This amendment would end that ill-advised tax break and say: You are not going to be rewarded anymore in our Tax Code by shipping jobs overseas and then selling the product back into our marketplace. This should have been corrected long ago. It should be corrected now.

The amendment I filed is amendment No. 3375. My hope is we will be able to debate and vote on this 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 are going to spend today looking for work and not be able to find it. We are trying to find ways to incentivize the creation of jobs. That bill is the faucet, trying 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 some of them, if I might. These are well known. I have told other stories on the floor many times.

Levis, the product of America. America invented Levis. People wear Levis all around the world, except Levis are made virtually everywhere in the world except the United States. They are all gone. We do not make one pair of Levis in the United States. Fruit of the Loom underwear; gone to Mexico; gone to Asia. Samsonite went to Mexico, then to China. Maytag now makes their appliances in Mexico and Korea. Hershey's chocolate. You know, 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 have mentioned often the cookies made by the Nabisco Company--Fig Newtons. If somebody says to you: How about going to have a Mexican dinner, just buy a package of Fig Newtons. They left New Jersey and went to Mexico. I don't know if it is cheaper to shovel fig paste in Mexico than it is in New Jersey, but it is made by a company called Nabisco. 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--a privately held Kansas City, MO, company, founded by a high school dropout who started the company in 1910 with a shoebox full of postcards. He made a living by selling them while working out of a YMCA in Kansas City, and it became an unbelievably successful greeting card company. All of us know that. Under its current management, despite annual revenues, I understand, of over $4 billion, they started to move jobs from Kansas City to three plants in China. You know, the company who cares enough to send you the very best? In this case, it sends you the very best from China.

My point is that I understand there are a whole lot of companies going to search for people who work for 50 cents an hour and whom they can work 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a day, and that is better for their bottom line. It enhances their profit when they can do that. But when they leave America, deciding they are going to produce Etch A Sketch in Shenzhen, China, and then ship it back to a Walmart here in the United States to sell--when that happens, and that town in Ohio that was known for producing Etch A Sketch, the little toy that all of us have used as a child--we ought not be saying good for you, we will give you a tax break.

When the Radio Flyer little red wagon--the wagon we have all ridden in, started by a guy in Chicago, and for 110 years they 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, you are not going to get a tax break for that.

Let me give an example of two companies, and two companies that make bicycles; all right? They are made in factories that are on the same street corner but on different sides of the street. One is called Huffy Bicycles. Most people have known the Huffy Bicycles and ridden them in their youth. The other is ABC Bicycle, hypothetically. Huffy Bicycles decides they are paying $11 an hour to their American workers, plus benefits, and they think that is way too much to pay an American worker so they leave America and go to China. And by the way, that is true. They did. The other company stays here and says: No, we are going to keep our American workers and keep our American plant open and keep these jobs in America. What is the difference between the two? When they are competing at Sears or Walmart or Kmart in this country, what is the difference between the two bicycles? Well, one was rewarded with a tax break because their production was sent overseas, and the other has a competitive disadvantage because it was made here by American workers. And that 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 are on your side. We are not going to give a tax break to companies that ship their jobs overseas and sell their products back in America.

It is a very simple amendment. I don't know anyone who would wish to vote against this amendment. Yet, interestingly enough, I have offered it for many years and have not been successful for a number of reasons. Occasionally, we have had a vote, but most often it gets thrown off in a parliamentary procedure of some type. But this is a bill that is open to amendment on revenue issues, and my hope is that at last--at long, long last--at a time when so many millions of Americans wish they had a job and don't, at a time when we still have so many companies moving their jobs away from our country to other countries only to sell back into our country that which they made in China or elsewhere, my hope is that finally we will say we won't allow this to happen any more 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--and we said hello to each other. I said: Where are you headed? He said: Asia. That is why I am dressed this way; I have 25 more hours of flying. I said: What are you going to do when you reach Asia? He said: Well, I am going to Thailand, Singapore, and I am going to China. He said: What we are trying to do with my company is we are trying to move our jobs from the United States to Asian locations and save some money in the production of these products we make. So I am going out now to Thailand and Singapore and China to scout out locations for our new manufacturing plants in Asia because we are 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, are 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 to try to find a way how to move their jobs to Singapore or to China or to Thailand. And isn't that a shame?

Some will listen to this and say: Well, that is 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 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.

That is one amendment. The second amendment deals with an issue that most people, I am sure, can hardly believe their ears when they hear about it. This is an 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 am talking about something called SILOs and LILOs especially SILOs, or sale-in/lease out transactions. Most people don't know what that means--sale in, lease out. It doesn't mean they aren't smart. It is a title in the Tax Code that describes an activity that was created by some people who wanted to avoid paying U.S. taxes. They want everything America has to offer, they just don't want to pay taxes to their country.

Let me describe what has been happening in the last couple of decades, and 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 Dortmund, Germany's streetcars--a company called First Union Bank, which is now something else because it has been bought two additional times. So First Union Bank in America wants to lease streetcars in Germany. Why would it want to lease streetcars in Germany? Because it wants to run German streetcars? No, because from a German city it can lease the city's streetcars and take those assets in a lease-in/ leaseback transaction and get tax breaks so it can avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Transactions involving streetcars is one thing, but here is a tunnel that 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. Why? Because they like tunnels, know something about tunnels? They don't have the foggiest idea about Belgian tunnels. It is a sale leaseback transaction used to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

But here is one that really 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 landed in the belly of this bank--Wachovia Bank? But 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 who are experts in German sewers? I don't think so. Do we think maybe they have hired a new class of MBAs who are specialists in sewer valuations in Germany? I don't think so. An American bank wants to buy a German sewer system for the fact that it is a sale and leaseback. The German sewer system is sold to an American bank. Does this bank ever go over and seize possession of a sewer pipe? They never even see a sewer pipe. All they want is a paper transaction so they can depreciate the property to avoid paying U.S. taxes. And in this case it is reported on Frontline that Wachovia Bank saved $175 million by this scam of buying a German city's sewer system. Unbelievable.

By the way, this has been going on for some while before we were able to shut most of it down. I would also say that I often speak of the fact that there are some companies that are now stepping forward to the IRS--I believe about 45 companies have now stepped forward--and said they are willing to pay for the benefits they received, even prior to the time this was shut down. But there are some transactions that were allowed to continue, and we have American companies that continue to get the benefit of those transactions. My position is simple: This is abusive, it is unmitigated greed, and it should have been shut down-- all of it shut down. 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 court. 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 town, and the auditor in that town said: Well, we don't understand it, but

if that is what the Americans want to do with their money, God bless them. It wasn't their money. What they were doing was 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 obligations. Yes, they want all the benefits America has to offer, except they don't want the obligation of paying their full measure of taxes, as most people do.

Most people who go to work in the mornings work an honest day, they come home, and at the end of the year, when it is time, they file their tax return. They have had their withholdings and they pay their taxes to our country, to our government. But there are a whole lot of interests that are much bigger 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 pick up a sewer system to boot so they can avoid paying U.S. taxes. That way they can move your job overseas and avoid paying taxes at the same time, because you get a tax break for shutting your American plant down and moving your American jobs overseas, which I hope to shut down with my first amendment; and then you get a tax break by buying a German sewer system and depreciating it and getting a tax break under the Tax Code.

Both of these amendments deserve to be passed. Both would raise money for the Federal Government, both would reduce the Federal deficit and both have substantial merit. Will I get a vote on these? I hope so. One is now filed and the other will be filed in a short period of time. 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 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, and there are a lot of businesses, large, medium, and small, that are struggling every day to try to navigate through this deep economic abyss. Boy, I give them great credit. Many of these owners 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 businesses.

So, look, what I want to have happen is for us to recognize good businesses in this country that do the right thing every day--that 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 to the business across the street: Move to China and produce these products in China and, by the way, we will give you a tax break for doing it. And we say to those who stay here: You know what, you shouldn't have stayed here, because you would have gotten a tax break if you had left. That is exactly the wrong message. What we should do for those who stay is to reward them. They are the heroes. They make up the economy, the foundation, the strength of what America is, instead of rewarding those who do exactly the wrong thing for this country.

These are my two amendments that I would like to offer.

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 more than 5 million manufacturing jobs. By the way, the loss of 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 am jobless. I don't have a job anymore. I used to make furniture but that furniture manufacturer is gone. I used to make tool and die 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 is happening in this country. Governor Wendell did everything he could to keep this great furniture company in Pennsylvania. They use Pennsylvania wood, so Pennsylvania House furniture was known as an upscale furniture manufacturer that used special wood from Pennsylvania. Then they were purchased by La-Z-Boy. By the way, La-Z- Boy is also leaving, but that is a different story.

They were purchased by La-Z-Boy, and La-Z-Boy decided they were moving Pennsylvania House furniture to China and just going to ship the Pennsylvania wood to China and put together the furniture and ship the furniture back. Governor Wendell did everything he could to prevent that from happening, but it happened.

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 plant in this country.

That pride of production and contribution to this country is by workers who just want a job, who want a country that does not move its manufacturing jobs elsewhere but values its manufacturing jobs in this country.

In 2008, La-Z-Boy said in the next 2 years it would move 1,050 employees in Dayton, OH, to the plant in the Mexican State of Coahuila. They previously moved other jobs to China, but they did say this:

We regret the impact the moves will have on the families

and lives of those employed affected, and greatly appreciate

the contribution each of them made with their dedicated

services.

So 1,050 people discovered their jobs were gone. But the same company, then, is the one who moved the Pennsylvania House furniture long before that.

We have a lot to fix in this country, but we will. I am convinced our country's better days are ahead if we make the right judgments. If we pass both of these amendments I have offered, it will make a contribution significantly toward things that matter a lot in American families: good jobs that pay well that give them some confidence in the future.

I suspect I can't ask unanimous consent to pass both pieces, both amendments at the moment, so I will negotiate with the chairman of the committee to see if we can't get votes on both in the days to come.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that is intended to chart what I believe to be the proper course for the future of the nation's human space flight programs. This bill would provide an alternative to the Administration's proposed course of ending the government role in Human Space Flight and avoid the complete reliance on other nations or an as-yet-unproven commercial capability to launch American astronauts and scientists into space. It would also reaffirm the goals of moving beyond low-earth orbit and restore the kind of exciting vision that will help inspire young people to excel in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The bill echoes the decision of the Obama administration to support the International Space Station, ISS, through at least the year 2020, as we endorsed in our NASA Authorization Act, passed in 2008. But the administration's proposal does nothing to ensure that we can fully maintain and utilize the space station, especially during the next 5 years. This bill would correct that, and ensure that full use of the space station is not an empty promise.

Since the release of the fiscal year 2010 Budget last year, the future of human space flight programs has been in question. As part of that Budget Request, the administration announced it would establish an independent review panel, chaired by my good friend Mr. Norman Augustine, to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans and provide options for how those programs should proceed in the future.

The Augustine Panel completed its review in late August of last year, and provided its Summary Report to NASA, the White House, and the Congress on September 8, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the report with Mr. Augustine appearing as our witness. The Augustine Panel released its full report at the end of September, and we have all been awaiting the response of the Obama administration to the report.

When the fiscal year 2010 Budget was submitted in 2009, the budget request for Exploration Systems included a notation that the amount requested was a ``placeholder'' number, and that, once the Human Space Flight Plans Review Committee completed its work, the Administration would submit an amended budget request to support the programmatic decisions made as a result of that report. That never happened. Instead, the response to the Augustine Panel Report was left to the fiscal year 2011 Budget request, which we received on February 1st. Because of the administration's failure to offer a budgetary blueprint until the fiscal year 2011 budget, we will now experience yet another year's delay in undertaking the steps necessary to advance beyond the uncertainty about the future of human space flight programs that prompted the review.

The Augustine Panel provided five basic options for consideration, with an additional two options that were modifications of these five basic options. The Augustine Panel thus provided a total of seven approaches that could be taken to ensure America's continued leadership in space--to establish a space program ``worthy of a great nation,'' as suggested by the title of their final report. None of those options leapt out as the obvious, consensus answer to the mix of vehicle development options and strategies necessary to meet the challenges of the next generation of human space flight. There was, however, a clear consensus on two important points.

First, the Panel found that, without a significant increase in the total amount of funding made available to NASA, none of the options presented could be expected to succeed--including the current plans and programs for developing the Ares 1 and Ares V launch vehicles and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. The Panel's conclusion underscored what we in the authorizing committees have been saying for the past five years, and which formed the basis for the funding levels that we authorized in both our 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization Acts, which would have led to a more timely and successful level of development for the vehicles to replace the space shuttle systems. The Bush administration, however, simply never requested that level of funding. In fact, the prior Administration even reduced the level of funding for those programs that had been projected in the run-out estimates included in the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request, which initiated the ``Vision for Exploration'' announced by President Bush on January 14, 2004.

Second, the Panel recommended that a decision be made to formally extend U.S. plans to operate and utilize the ISS through at least the year 2020. This was also consistent with guidance the authorizing committees provided in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act, where we directed NASA to take no steps to preclude operations of ISS through at least 2020, and directed the Agency to provide a plan which would outline how they would prepare to support and utilize the space station for that extended period of time. Up to that point, NASA's internal planning--and budget guidance from the Office of Management and Budget--was to cease operations aboard the space station in 2015, just five years after its assembly and outfitting would finally be completed by the remaining space shuttle flights.

Some of the good news in the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request is that the Obama administration agrees with the need to continue supporting the space station to at least 2020, and to expand and increase its utilization for research. That is welcome news. The problem is that the request does not provide the means to ensure that the extension and full utilization of the space station can be realized.

It is worth noting that after the budget reductions were made for Exploration in the 2006 Budget Request, the number of flights planned to complete space station assembly were reduced--at the direction of OMB for purely budgetary reasons--from 28 remaining flights to 17 flights, plus an optional added flight to conduct a final mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. The effect of those reductions was to force NASA to change the planned payloads for those remaining 17 flights to try to accommodate the most important spare parts and replacement parts from the 10 ``cancelled'' flights, for ensuring the safe and effective operation and utilization of the station. Ten flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging between 40,000 to 50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated to storage warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly, ready to use, but with no guaranteed ``ticket to ride'' to be of any use to the station. Over 1,400 parts and pieces of equipment, Mr. President! What is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.

The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of those ``grounded payload'' items might actually be needed in order to ensure the station can be supported and maintained until 2020. Not only that, we do not know which, or how many, of them are simply too large or too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other than the space shuttle. And finally, we do not know what additional items might need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future, or what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to the station.

This is not the way a great nation should conduct its civil space program. This is not the way to ensure that a decision and pronouncement to continue operations through 2020 will not become an empty gesture due to the deterioration, damage, or failure of equipment and systems vital to providing the oxygen, water, power to make the ISS habitable and to support scientific research in the period following 2015.

This is just one example of the type of considerations that preparations that the Obama administration appears to have ignored while preparing its response to the Augustine panel Report. It is an issue I propose to address, among many, in the legislation being introduced today.

Since last May, when the President announced the appointment of a Committee to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans, we have all been waiting for clear policy direction based on the report of that Committee, which was released in late September. Throughout that time, at my direction, my committee staff carefully followed the public meetings and briefings of the Augustine panel, and considered the implications of the various options discussed and eventually included in the panel's final report.

In the course of that ongoing review, as well as our Committee hearing last September, I began forming my own conclusions about the correct path for the future of U.S. human space flight programs, as is my responsibility as the Ranking Republican on the policy and oversight committee for NASA. The key factors driving my position regarding that path forward have been: the need to maintain U.S. leadership in space exploration, which I believe is essential to our economic and national security; the need to ensure we do not lose the skills, expertise and industrial capacity that are necessary to conduct space exploration; the need to ensure, as our Committee has in the previous two NASA Authorization bills we have developed and seen enacted into law, that NASA has both a balanced range of activities across its full mission responsibilities, and was authorized the funds needed to carry out that range of activities; and the need to protect--and capitalize on--our massive investment in the ISS, which, along with our international partners, is close to $100 billion. Now that it is almost completed and has a six-person permanent crew, we can begin to conduct the research that we have anticipated all these years during its construction. Research that has the potential to fundamentally change and enhance our understanding of physical processes, vaccine development, and a whole host of other research.

In order to meet those needs, we must first take steps to ensure we do not have an extended period of time during which there is no capability within the United States to launch humans into space, whether to the space station or any other destination. The easiest, most logical and obvious answer in the short term is to continue to use the one launch vehicle that already exists, has a proven history of 98.7 percent probability of success for each mission, and upon which the space station was designed, assuming the shuttle's availability throughout the station's on-orbit lifetime to provide support and maintenance.

Prematurely and voluntarily ending the space shuttle program without a near-term U.S.-built alternative on the horizon simply seems irresponsible, and that is an issue that I believe the Congress must address. While the Space Shuttle will never be completely safe, just as with any vehicle that must carry humans into the harsh environment of space, it is currently flying as safely, if not more safely, than it ever has.

The legislation I am introducing today would ensure that a final decision on the timing of the space shuttle retirement, or even the number of missions it might still be required to fly, would not be made until the issues involved are fully considered and resolved and we are fully convinced that the shuttle's capability is no longer needed. In particular, we must answer the question of how we support, maintain, and fully utilize the ISS, not just in 5 or more years, when any new commercially-developed vehicle might be available, but right now, as we are about to cut the ribbon on it as a finally completed research facility.

I have already mentioned the lack of complete information regarding the ability to adequately ensure the availability and deliverability of spare and replacements parts needed between now and 2020 to keep the space station fully and safely functional. All this is to underscore that the issue of whether to continue flying the shuttle, and the number of additional shuttle flights that are needed, is not simply a matter of shortening the gap between shuttle retirement and the availability of its replacement, or protecting a vitally important workforce. This issue also requires policy makers to understand what the space shuttle can do--and possibly do exclusively in the case of large, heavy replacement systems and structures--to ensure that the promise to extend the ISS to 2020 can actually be fulfilled. We must be certain the ISS can be kept alive and fully functioning over the next 10 years. Again, the administration's Budget Request offers no answers to how we will be able to deliver all the equipment necessary to extend the life of the ISS if the shuttle is not available.

I am also very concerned about the proposal to simply cancel the Constellation programs of Ares 1, the low-earth orbit crew launch vehicle, the Ares V Heavy Lift vehicle for enabling flights beyond low- Earth orbit, and the

Orion Crew Exploration capsule to carry the crews for both of those missions. It is very clear that many of my colleagues are also deeply concerned about this part of the President's budget. I simply believe any decision to terminate those projects needs much more consideration than I believe it has gotten during the preparation of the Obama administration's proposal for NASA.

The approach of the administration--their so-called ``bold new initiative''--is to turn to an entirely new approach based exclusively on the development of commercially-developed crew launch systems. There appears to have been little thought given to how we might leverage the $9 billion already spent on the Constellation vehicles in the identification of potential providers for those commercial systems. I believe that is wasteful and irresponsible and all but guarantees that commercial developments will start from scratch--and therefore take much longer to develop and be much more costly, in the long run, to the American taxpayers.

Another concern with this new approach is that we do not yet have any details about how the $6 billion proposed in the Budget Request for commercial space flight over the next 5 years will be allocated and what it will be expected to support. We don't know whether this will be a collaborative program, creating incentives for matching funding from the private sector, or whether it will represent more of a government subsidy to develop systems for which there may not be a sustainable market for those services beyond what NASA would purchase. I am philosophically and fundamentally opposed to such government subsidies, particularly when it is not clear that taxpayer funding for an approach like this won't have to be followed by even more taxpayer dollars to keep the systems available to meet the needs of the space station, or other government space projects.

The legislation I am proposing will address that issue by directing NASA to consider ``commercial'' options that include the possibility of agreements not only with the ``entrepreneurial'' start-up companies like SpaceX, which represent an exciting but still unproven set of vehicles designed to service a still non-existent commercial market, but also with other, longer-standing and experienced commercial companies. The key aerospace companies with whom NASA currently has development contracts might well be able to jointly develop a new launch system as a modification of their existing contracts under the Constellation program. They could combine their expertise and capability to transition their efforts toward developing a new launch capability based on existing shuttle main engines, external tank manufacturing capability, solid rocket motors, and the Orion crew vehicle. Something like that has been, I am told, a subject of informal conversations among those companies for some time. I believe we need to ensure through legislation that such an alternative will be fully evaluated and considered as one possible approach to the new ``commercial'' space systems development. We have not been given details of this possible approach, because those discussions are apparently still ongoing. But I believe we need to make sure there is a legislative underpinning that would at least allow the full consideration of that approach.

I would not view such an approach as precluding the continued pursuit of the current COTS, Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems, activities being pursued with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation for cargo delivery services for the Space Station. I have consistently supported that development and believe we should continue to do so. My concern, one I know that of a number of my colleagues share, is to ensure we have redundant and alternative means of providing U.S. human spaceflight capability. If one of those can be more fully commercial in nature, and something that can stand on its own without the taxpayers being responsible for their success, so much the better.

I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate, and reaching out to our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to ensure all of these issues are put on the table for discussion, using the vehicle of this legislation to provide an alternative view to that proposed by the Obama Administration.

This legislation actually tracks closely with the President's request, in terms of the amounts authorized for NASA. It authorizes programs largely at funding levels already enacted for fiscal year 2010, with some very minor exceptions, and at the same base account levels requested by the administration for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.

What my legislation adds is the authorization levels necessary to implement the potential continuation of space shuttle flights, at a greatly reduced annual level of flights and associated costs, as well as modest increases in the short-term for the establishment and support of an enterprise to be developed to manage and operate the U.S. National Laboratory.

The greatest difference, as I have indicated, is that this legislation points the way to what I believe is a more measured and reasoned approach that ensures the best use of investments we have already made, provides the Congress and the administration with necessary information to inform our judgments on alternative launch vehicle developments, and provides a means of avoiding severe economic dislocations in the aerospace industry and the highly skilled and dedicated workforce that has provided the capability for this nation to be the world leader in space exploration.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, are we now on the pending legislation?

I ask unanimous consent--and I think this has been cleared with the other side--that the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of my offering an amendment and giving short debate on my amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, a couple of days ago I stated that I had worked in early February to put together a bipartisan package with my colleague, Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, to address some time- sensitive matters that needed to be considered. So I find it surprising we are taking up a package this week that, as was last week's exercise, is still a partisan product belonging to the Senate Democratic leadership. We are not taking up the bipartisan package I put together with Finance Committee Chairman Baucus.

The Senate Democratic leadership arbitrarily 2 weeks ago decided to replace the Baucus-Grassley bipartisan bill with one that is dramatically different. That partisan package is almost three times the size and significantly greater in cost than the bipartisan bill Senator Baucus and I announced on February 11. It is unfortunate that the Democratic leadership failed to ensure that these critically needed Medicare provisions were extended at the end of last year, and then they failed to extend the provisions that had expired in 2009 for over 2 months.

So, today, this present situation I just described brings me to the offering of this amendment. This amendment would ensure that Medicare provisions are fully offset, and my amendment would also extend the physicians update through the end of this year. The words ``physician update'' are directly related to the formula used to determine Medicare payments to physicians. On February 28, the extension expired and physician payments were scheduled to be cut by 22 percent under the existing formula, except just recently that was extended so that doesn't actually happen. But this on-again, off-again situation that doctors are put in

ought to end, and this amendment I offer will make sure that doesn't happen through all of 2010.

I wish to make very clear this isn't just for doctors, even though it affects just doctor payment. These provisions are also essential to the health and well-being of every Medicare beneficiary. This is the fiscally responsible way to extend them. We ought to pay for them.

These Medicare provisions have been routinely supported by both sides, fully offset, and passed repeatedly in recent years. Now, of course, it is March 3. Medicare beneficiaries around the country are suffering from the Democratic leader's decision to abandon the Baucus- Grassley bipartisan package my colleagues and I had worked out weeks ago.

First, there is the urgently needed physician payment update, and sometimes around this town we refer to this as the doctors fix for short, to fix the formula, to bring the formula up to date so those 22- percent cuts don't go into effect. There was a doctors fix at the end of last year through a 2-month extension that expired, as I said, on February 28. So as of March 1, physicians and nurses and other health care professionals were subject to these severe cuts of 22 percent. Then, because we get a lot of calls--and my office got these calls as well--from doctors concerned about how they are going to keep their offices open, we now have a 30-day extension passed last night so these physician payments that would have been a 22-percent cut now, for 3 days, won't take place until, unless we act, the end of March. That is not a very good way to do business if you have to worry about a doctor, particularly in rural America, keeping their offices open and paying their help, so we ought to do it on a more consistent basis instead of running month to month.

These cuts to physician payments cannot be allowed to occur, and as damaging as these would be to beneficiary access to care anywhere, these cuts are even more disastrous for access to care in rural America such as in Iowa where Medicare reimbursement is already at least 30 percent lower than in other areas.

I am appalled that seniors' access to physicians and needed medical care has been handled this way because of political games that are being played by the majority leadership. Should these cuts remain in place, they will have a truly devastating effect on the ability of seniors to find doctors who take Medicare patients. Many beneficiaries have already been affected by Medicare provisions that the Senate Democratic leadership allowed to expire even last December.

One of the most urgent situations involves limitations that Medicare places on the amount of certain kinds of treatments for beneficiaries. Medicare places annual limits on the amount of outpatient physical therapy, speech language pathology therapy, and occupational therapy that a beneficiary can receive. In other words, the government is saying, regardless of how much health care you need in these areas of therapy, you can only get up to so much dollar amount.

Well, laws that have lapsed have allowed special cases to be taken care of contrary to what the law specifically says on dollar limit. In 2005, the law was changed to provide an exception process to these therapy caps for situations when additional therapy is medically needed, and that needed protection for beneficiaries then expired when the doctors fix expired on December 31. Medicare beneficiaries who have suffered strokes or serious debilitating injuries such as a hip fracture have significant rehabilitation needs.

So we are in this situation of extending this doctor fix from month to month. Situations where patients need this rehabilitation have already exceeded the caps for 2010.

Those with the greatest need for therapy will be the hardest hit. Here, again, with the 30-day extension bill having passed last night, this problem has been only temporarily fixed. This is another case where Congress is playing political games with Medicare. These should have been taken care of at the end of last year, and they could have already been resolved if the Senate had taken up the original Baucus- Grassley bill instead of replacing it with a cutback, partisan piece of legislation that the Senate handled last year or, one might say, being handled right now with this legislation now on the floor of the Senate to which my amendment is being added.

Other essential provisions we need to be looking at for extension are additional payments for mental health services. This benefits Medicare beneficiaries in need of mental health counseling, as well as veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress and other disorders since TRICARE is based on Medicare rates.

Another issue concerns additional payments for ambulance services that many ambulance providers need to keep their doors open. Those provisions also expired at the end of last year, but they were not extended in the 30-day bill voted on last night.

Another important issue affects community pharmacies. Pharmacies that have not gone through the accreditation process will soon be forced to turn away Medicare beneficiaries. A provision in my amendment would ensure that beneficiaries who need vital medical supplies, such as diabetic test strips, canes, nebulizers, and wound care products, can continue to have access to these products through their community pharmacy.

Many eligible professionals, such as physicians, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and others, have been specifically exempted from this accreditation requirement. This provision would also exempt community pharmacies under certain conditions.

A number of other expired provisions are extended in this package. They include improved payments for hospitals, especially rural hospitals, that rely on these provisions just to keep their doors open. Like many others, these problems are not fixed in the simple 30-day bill passed last night. These problems remain.

The impact of a hospital shutting its doors would be especially hard on rural and underserved areas where hospitals offer the only access to health care.

We need to pass this critically needed and fiscally responsible amendment now. I urge my colleagues to support it. That is what I have to say on my amendment.

I would like to take a couple minutes to respond to a couple issues that Senator Durbin brought up. I am not here to refute anything he said but to give an addendum to what he said on a couple points.

One is the use of reconciliation and the opposition that I think is pretty unified on this side of the aisle that the name of the game should not be changed. He did not say anything inaccurate. But when it comes to reconciliation on a massive 2,700-page bill that we call health care reform--that is a partisan bill--the same bill that passed Christmas Eve in this body, never has reconciliation been used to reorganize one-sixth of the entire economy. In other words, about $2.5 trillion out of a $14 trillion economy is being reorganized by that health care reform bill.

I say to Senator Durbin, that is quite a bit different than using reconciliation for a tax bill or for a Medicare reform bill or to save money on certain entitlement programs. It is like peanuts compared to a massive restructuring of one-sixth of the economy. That is why we say reconciliation should not be used.

A second point for not using reconciliation is the fact that this bill has been turned down by the vast majority of the American people. There is overwhelming opposition to this 2,700-page bill, albeit not overwhelming opposition to the issue: Is the present health care system adequate and should it be changed. I think a slight portion of the American people would say yes, and I think most of the 100 Senators would say yes to that. But for this 2,700-page bill, 70 percent of the American people have said it needs to be started over again with a clean sheet of paper.

Then on the issue he brought up of extending Medicare for 10 years, that is true if you use the double accounting in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that it is using double accounting. That is not the way you can intellectually count money twice. The Congressional Budget Office, in a paper I read to the President at the summit last week, claims it is double accounting. That is not the way to do business.

You can extend the viability of any program by a lot if you are going to count money twice, but you cannot do

that. Some of the problems with the 2,700-page bill, the American people understand. That is why they rejected it. That is why we say reconciliation should not be used, and that is why we say we should start over and do things incrementally.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Bond and Bennett as cosponsors.

Mr. President, 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 3 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.

My friend from Montana said that is not the place to take the money from, but his substitute amendment takes money from the very same fund. I take a little bit more, yes, but I don't think a few billion in funding needed here will make much of a difference when it comes to the $2.5 trillion cost of health care reform, as was suggested earlier. So I don't 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 ensured 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. President, do I have some time?

Good. I am glad I have 26 seconds. His amendment takes $8 billion away from the Medicare improvement fund, mine takes $10 billion away.

Mr. President, in October of 2008, the Social Security Administration, SSA, announced that beneficiaries would receive a 5.8- percent COLA in 2009, the biggest increase since 1982.

This increase was primarily due to record high energy prices. Energy prices have since declined resulting in a 2.1-percent year-over-year decline in the consumer price index, CPI, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Because current law precludes a negative COLA, the SSA announced this past October that there will be no COLA in 2010.

It was also announced that there will be no increase in Medicare Part B premiums for current beneficiaries, except for those with incomes greater than $85,000--single--and $170,000--married.

I understand the concerns about Medicare Part D and Medigap premiums. Unlike Part B premiums--which cannot go up when there is no COLA--these other premiums are not subject to such a restriction.

However, beneficiaries have other options to reduce these premiums. For example, there may be a competing drug plan with lower premiums. I always encourage people to reevaluate their coverage on an annual basis to see if there is another plan that offers the benefits they need at a lower price. Or, there may be a Medicare Advantage plan that covers both prescription drugs and provides coverage similar to a Medigap plan for a lower premium.

As an aside, senior citizens at my town hall meetings frequently ask about congressional COLAs. I remind them that Congress did not receive a COLA this year either. I have consistently voted against automatic COLAs for Congress.

However, I recognize the financial need of many seniors who rely on Social Security. A $250 check would be roughly equal to a 2 percent COLA for the average beneficiary.

Congress enacted the automatic COLA in 1972 in order to provide an objective, nonpartisan way to determine benefit adjustments. The annual COLA has been based on the CPI calculations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics ever since.

Any decision to change, or override, the current process needs to be carefully vetted. History shows Congress has often played partisan politics with Social Security without regard to the solvency of the program or the burden placed on future taxpayers.

I understand the desire to send $250 checks to current Social Security beneficiaries to compensate for the lack of a COLA. But, we are also facing an annual budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion for the second year in a row.

We cannot continue to add to our deficit without any regard to the consequences.

The Sanders amendment fails to include an acceptable way of offsetting the $13 billion cost of this proposal.

The amendment offered by Senator Burr would offset the cost by reducing unspent stimulus funds.

Last year, CBO scored the stimulus bill at $787 billion. But earlier this year CBO revised its estimate to $862 billion.

CBO estimates that we have already spent $200 billion in 2009 and we will spend $400 billion in 2010. That leaves more than $250 billion for future years.

This amendment would simply reduce the unspent balance by $13 billion.

It has been suggested by some on the other side of the aisle that we should not use stimulus money to pay for other things.

They insist the stimulus money is needed to create jobs. Given the fact we have lost nearly 4 million private sector jobs since last year, I doubt the stimulus money has created any net new jobs. But for those who choose to believe government spending can create more jobs than it destroys, CBO says payments that can be made quickly are more effective than those that take a long time.

By that standard, using less effective stimulus dollars to pay for more effective stimulus dollars is the best alternative.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which is fully paid for, and reject the amendment of my colleague from Vermont that needlessly increases the deficit.