Nevada Mining Townsite Conveyance Act

Mr. President, this morning the Senate returns to work on its bill creating and saving millions of jobs. As the leader said, and we all know, our work has rarely been more urgent.

Initial jobless claims have hit a 26-year high. I repeat: Initial jobless claims, 26-year high. Last week, 626,000 people, each of them mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, lost their jobs. That is two-thirds of the entire State of Montana--626,000 people in 1 week. The number of claims by people continuing to apply for unemployment benefits reached a new record. With 4.8 people applying for unemployment benefits, we need to respond. We need to complete this jobs bill.

This past November, our Nation conducted a historic and meaningful election. America voted for a new era. America voted for change. In keeping with the call of our new President, the Senate has, this week, conducted itself with levels of openness and accommodation not seen for years. I would like to underline that. This has been a very open Senate process. We have not seen this in a long time and I hope it continues and even grows. The managers have not filled the amendment tree. We have not sought to blur issues with second-degree amendments. No tree, no second-degree amendments. Senators have gotten votes on their amendments. The Senate has put in a long, full week and worked late nights. Yesterday, the Senate conducted six rollcall votes and adopted five amendments with voice votes and we considered and processed numerous other amendments.

We have now reached the point in this debate, in the adage familiar to most Senators, that everything has been said but not everyone has said it. I might underline that everything has been said many times but not everyone has said it. I now call on my colleagues to show restraint. I urge my colleagues to forgo offering amendments. I urge my colleagues to allow the Senate to bring this matter to a close.

Pending now are seven amendments: The underlying Finance- Appropriations substitute amendment; the Murray amendment, No. 110, to strengthen infrastructure investments; the Dodd amendment, No. 145, mitigating home foreclosures; the Coburn amendment, No. 176, on competitive bidding; the Udall amendment, No. 359, to expand the number of veterans eligible for the employment tax credit; the Coburn amendment, No. 309, on particular spending prohibitions; and the Sanders-Grassley amendment, No. 306, as modified, to require recipients of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring standards.

I hope that in short order the Senate will be able to come to an arrangement that will allow us to process the remaining Coburn, Udall and Grassley-Sanders amendments. After that, I hope the Senate will be able to address amendments by Senators Feingold and Conrad as well as the pending Dodd amendment on our side, as well as equal numbers of amendments on the Republican side. Then I hope the Senate will be able to address amendments by Senators Wyden and Menendez, as well as an equal number of amendments on the Republican side.

After that, we will seek, as much as possible, to allow a fair system for the consideration of other Senators' amendments. We will address, first, amendments of Senators who are here and willing to offer their amendments. But I renew my call for Senators to resist the temptation to offer their amendments. We are getting to that point where it is becoming a point of diminishing returns. The amendments are coming to the point where they do not need to be offered on this bill at this time. This is just February. There will be plenty of other opportunities for Senators to offer amendments on other bills. We have to get this bill finished today. There will be a conference committee. The managers will work with Senators in the conference to address their concerns. Not everything needs to be said by everyone on the Senate floor today. I urge Senators to forbear offering their amendments as much as possible.

We will continue to try to give Senators notice of what will be coming up. Abraham Lincoln appealed to the ``better angels of our nature.'' I renew that appeal today. Let us work together today in the spirit of comity and cooperation that reflects the better angels of the Senate. Let us finish this bill today. I thank all Senators for their cooperation.

So we can work out an orderly procedure, I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 11:30 be for debate only, to be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, the idea is then to have votes on pending amendments.

Well, obviously Senators can speak on those amendments, which includes the underlying bill. But I would hope we process those amendments and then do the next set of amendments after that.

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

I renew my request and ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 11:30 be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, I object. We are under an agreement where we speak on both sides and offer amendments later. So I respectfully object.

Under the agreement, we are going to alternate sides for speakers. I want to ask the Senator from New Hampshire how much time she wishes to speak.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 528

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate equally divided be extended until 12 noon and add in the other time to be equally divided, so on that basis, there is more on this side.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we may have to put off votes until 1 o'clock. That is not determined yet, but there is a high probability of that. Around noon, we will ask for an agreement to speak for another hour.

That will be the case.

Mr. President, I want everybody to remember these two numbers: 99 percent, 79 percent; 99 percent, 79 percent. What are those two numbers? If you take the Finance Committee bill, the bill that is in this stimulus bill that the Senate Finance Committee wrote--the Senate Finance Committee wrote the tax portion of the underlying bill and also the aid to States portion.

Ninety-nine percent of the spending and the taxes combined in the Finance Committee portion of the bill will be spent out in the first 2 years. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee bill will be spent in the first 2 years.

For those who didn't quite get it, it didn't quite compute, I will say it again. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years--99 percent. Actually, if you want to break it down, it is a little more than that for taxes only because some reach to future years. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years.

What is my authority on that? Some economists? It is the Joint Committee on Tax and CBO, if you look at their numbers and combine them, the Joint Committee on Tax and the Congressional Budget Office, that is what it calculates to: 99 percent of the Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years, according to the Joint Committee on Tax and according to the CBO, combining the two.

That is my first figure, 99 percent. What is my second figure? Does anybody remember it? What was my second figure? It was 79 percent. What does 79 percent represent? Seventy-nine percent represents the total spending of this bill in the first 2 years. The total spending, if you take the Appropriations Committee and the Finance Committee and add them together--79 percent of the total spending--in this bill is in the first 2 years, 79 percent. Now, what is my authority? The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. So I ask Senators to go look at the Joint Committee on Taxation data, go to the Congressional Budget Office data. It is right there.

There are a lot of allegations and a lot of statements that are made on the Senate floor by lots of Senators on both sides, and one of our goals, clearly, is to try to get the facts. One of our goals is to listen to the music as well as the words, to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to get to what is really going on. What are the right numbers?

Now, of course, no numbers are perfect, but what is close to being right or as close as we can tell as we seek the truth? I will tell you, the Joint Committee on Taxation is probably one of the most unbiased, most reputable bodies here. Now, some don't like their numbers. They wish their calculations would be different. But, clearly, they try their best. They do their best. It is a bipartisan organization that works for both bodies of Congress, and they work for both political parties. They work for the Congress. It is not biased.

The Congressional Budget Office is not biased, and the Joint Committee on Taxation is not biased. For those who are not familiar with Washington speak, the Joint Committee on Taxation is an independent professional group which advises the Congress on tax matters and does tax calculations for the Congress on tax matters. The Congressional Budget Office basically issues lots of reports and advises the Congress on spending items that are nontax items and calculations and so forth. Again, it is bipartisan. It serves both bodies--the Congressional Budget Office. It is a very reputable body, as is the Joint Committee on Taxation.

So, again, I want to repeat those numbers so it sinks in a little more. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Tax, add the figures together, 99 percent of the Finance Committee bill, which is a large portion of the bill--I think it is about 60 percent of the bill--is spent in the first 2 years. That is 99 percent--almost all in the first 2 years. If you take it all together, the Finance Committee bill and add in the appropriations portion of the bill, 79 percent--almost 80 percent or almost four-fifths--is spent in the first 2 years.

Now, Mr. President, we have to get moving. Our country is in deep, deep, deep trouble. The American people want us to do something responsible about all of this. We all know there are three parts to the problem. One is the credit crisis--that is, credit is all frozen; banks aren't lending--and there are lots of ways to address that. The second part of the problem is housing. We are struggling to get even more stimulus to housing. But a third major part of the problem is demand and spending. There is about a $1 trillion gap between our potential economy in America and the real economy--$1 trillion. If we don't address that gap between spending and demand, we are going to find ourselves in such deep difficulty, with so many jobs lost, it may be equal to the Great Depression. We are not there yet, clearly, but we could get pretty close if we don't take some pretty important actions here.

Now, I have heard all kinds of speeches on this matter, whether the roughly $800 billion stimulus package is right or not right. I have been in rooms with conservative economists and liberal economists and middle-of-the-road economists, and they all agree $800 billion is about right, and it is needed--and it is needed. Some may quibble about some parts, and there have been a lot of Senators on the floor, respectfully, Mr. President, who have been quibbling. They have not been seeing

the forest for the trees. But I submit, if we keep our eye on the ball and keep our eye on the forest, we can get this bill passed and get it passed pretty quickly.

I just want to urge those Senators who say not very much is being spent out in the first years to go look at the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office and do the calculations. Again, 99 percent of the Finance Committee package is spent in the first 2 years, and 79 percent of the total underlying bill is spent in the first 2 years. I think that is pretty good. It is not perfect, but it is pretty good.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call, if there is a quorum call, be equally divided.

Frankly, I see the Senator from Tennessee is seeking recognition.

Mr. President, I wonder if anybody on our side is seeking time?

The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, seeks 5 minutes.

Would the Senator be OK with 2?

It is compromising toward the intentions of the other side.

Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Michigan, 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, I apologize, I think Senator Lincoln was here earlier. I didn't turn around far enough.

Mr. President, 5 minutes to the Senator from----

Unless Senator Alexander seeks recognition. We want to go back and forth to even things out.

I yield to the Senator on his time, on Republican time.

I understand Senator Enzi has comments regarding the provisions for comparative clinical effectiveness research included in The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which is being considered in the Senate this week.

I thank the Senator for his support of these principles. I agree with the Senator's summary of S. 3408, the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008, which would create a permanent institute to prioritize and provide for comparative clinical effectiveness research for the U.S. I support including short-term funds for such research in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I applaud the Appropriations Committee for clarifying that research should evaluate comparative clinical effectiveness, not cost- effectiveness. And I agree that the $1.1 billion should be used consistently with the principles in S. 3408 from the 110th Congress. Senator Conrad and I plan to reintroduce our bill because we still need a long-term framework for this type of research in the U.S.

I thank Senator Feinstein for pointing that out. I agree. The coordinating council should look across agencies to coordinate resources and activities of the federal government with respect to comparative effectiveness research. Its charge should not go beyond that. The language of the bill could be clarified to make that point clear. And I will support clarification of it in conference.

Workforce training

I agree with my distinguished colleagues that as we work to reform our health care system it is important to consider how the health care workforce fits into these efforts. Creating a strong, well- trained workforce is a critical part of adequately addressing the needs of older adults and individuals with disabilities. An estimated 69 percent of people turning 65 years old will need some form of long-term assistance as they age. Most individuals that need long-term care services and supports prefer to receive assistance in their homes or communities. This demand and the need for direct care professionals will only grow as the baby boom population turns 65.

Various studies suggest present and future shortages of paraprofessionals and health care professionals. Effective recruitment and retention strategies are needed. Training programs should be designed that address the competencies required of a 21st century

workforce. As part of this effort we also should look at the skills of those currently delivering long term care services.

The purpose of health reform is to achieve a high-performing health system. Achieving this goal requires an investment in our health professional and paraprofessional workforce.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed; that no amendments

be in order to these amendments prior to the vote; with 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, equally divided and controlled; with 10- minute vote limitations after the first vote in the sequence: Sanders amendment No. 330, as modified; Coburn amendment No. 309; Udall amendment No. 359; Coburn amendment No. 176.

Further, that upon disposition of the above-listed amendments, the Senate then consider the following amendments and that they be considered in rotating fashion back and forth to each side; that no amendments be in order to these amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendments: Conrad-Graham No. 501; Dodd No. 145, and that when a vote is scheduled in relation to amendments Nos. 501 and 145, the vote would occur first on 501; Cantwell amendment No. 274, with the modification which is at the desk; Feingold amendment No. 485; Grassley amendment No. 297; Enzi amendment No. 293; Vitter amendment No. 107; Bunning amendment No. 531; Wyden amendment No. 468; and Thune amendment No. 538.

I thank my good friend from Mississippi for that kind statement.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, I suggest that we agree to 5 minutes in rotating fashion for each side and that Senator Kerry be first recognized after the votes.

I will say 10 minutes. I want to hold it to four speakers until we get a better handle on what is going on.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, in order to clarify some confusion that may exist as to what the proceedings are after the first group of votes, let me ask unanimous consent that the request I further propounded with respect to that period be vitiated. Instead, I ask unanimous consent that following the next group of votes, there be 20 minutes available, equally divided in the usual form, for debate only.

Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa questioned State aid provisions in our substitute so I wish to take a few moments to explain them. When our country was founded, there was a great debate about the roles of the Federal and State governments, and our Founding Fathers debated which should be more powerful. Should it be the States or the Federal Government? Which should retain what privileges and how to ensure an effective union of the States? Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, advocated for the Federal Government to buy the States' Revolutionary War debt. The idea was controversial, but the merits of the proposal have proven sound.

In the year 1790, there were two main reasons he suggested the Federal Government assume State debt. First, the Federal Government was in a better position to issue and sell bonds to satisfy the debt. Second, the assumption of State debt would serve to rally local economic interests to promote broader national goals.

Many things have changed since 1790, but some things remain the same. During recessionary periods, State revenue suffers. Unlike the Federal Government, States must balance their budgets. Just as in 1790, the Federal Government was still in a better position to assume the debt.

These difficult times also call for unity among the States. Every State is suffering, but we must band together to help those among us who are worse off. We need to hold back our personal interests and focus instead on our national interests.

In addition to the arguments set forth by Hamilton over 200 years ago, modern economists tell us that State fiscal relief is an effective means to stimulate the economy. Economists also advise that targeted relief to those most in need--not based on circumstances of States' own making but based on true measures of distress--is the best measure of distribution. The bill before us today provides much-needed relief to every State with a temporary increase in the Federal match rate for Medicaid expenses. The bill also provides additional aid targeted to States facing the most precarious fiscal situations, measured by an increase in unemployment. This temporary assistance will help States avoid having to make tough choices, like whether to make significant budget cuts or raise taxes, both of which could make this economic crisis worse.

It is important we strike a balance in this bill between spending too little and too much. Some of my colleagues are worried that we are spending beyond what is needed and will end up passing along too much debt to future generations. This package is significant, but the risk of doing too little has been overlooked. In fact, I think the risk of too little is worse than the risk of too much. During times of economic distress, Medicaid suffers from the blows of a one-two punch; that is, when State revenues are lowest, the demand for Medicaid is the highest. If we do not give States enough money, States won't be able to protect their Medicaid programs against the blows thrown by the economy. That means fewer services will be available to fewer people at a time when the need is increasing. We are talking about low-income health care. This is about people who are thrown off Medicaid because States are finding that is the best way to balance their budgets. That is not right.

Giving States more money than they need won't stimulate the economy. In order to stimulate the economy, this money must be spent quickly, and it must go toward job creation or protection of vulnerable populations. To be stimulative and get the economy moving again, State fiscal relief must prevent any exacerbation of an already bad situation. By preventing Medicaid cuts, this bill does that.

This bill makes sure we will not see a big increase in the number of Americans without health insurance. We must remember that having so many uninsured Americans is not without cost, let alone the personal tragedy. Instead, the cost of caring for the uninsured has shifted to the insured. It is in all our best interests to prevent more Americans from losing their health insurance. This package, I believe, has the right balance--it is not perfect, but it is pretty close--giving States enough support without giving them too much.

The State fiscal relief provisions will not eliminate State budgetary difficulties. That is for sure. But they will provide a cushion, not a full cushion but a partial cushion. This package will not fix everything, but it is a big step in the right direction.

While not all States have responded to the economic downturn in the same way, no State is immune to the impact of a national recession. Looking back on past recessionary periods, we can see that some States, often those with large commerce-based economies, feel the blow faster and earlier than others. The impact on States with commodity-based economies, on the other hand, is often delayed. The difference between commerce-based States and commodity-based States is more delay in commodity-based States. Because no two States will experience the impact of the recession at precisely the same time or to exactly the same extent, it is important the relief be targeted to those States that are most in need and when they need it.

In 1790, some States had already paid off their Revolutionary War debt. But it was important to the Nation as a whole that all States be relieved. On top of a generous across-the-board increase for all States, this package provides additional aid to those States with high unemployment. The basic formula is based upon the wealth of the State, but the bonus on top of it is based on unemployment.

If a State's unemployment continues to increase, the State may qualify for even more relief. Unemployment is an effective measure of a State's fiscal condition. Often when people lose their jobs, they also lose their health insurance. This places a higher demand on Medicaid. It is estimated that a 1-percent increase in unemployment increases enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by 1 million people. Let me repeat that. A 1-percent increase in unemployment increases enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by 1 million people. Increasing the FMAP percentages--that is the Federal share--is the quickest way to get relief to the States. In addition to preventing cuts to Medicaid, this aid will provide for much-needed economic activity. People will be more productive. Jobs will be saved. Industries that rely on and contribute to the strength of our health care system will remain sound. This provision will not only improve the health of Medicaid beneficiaries, but it will also improve the fiscal health of each State. This is a key element of any attempt to pull the national economy out of its recession.

We have done this before, and we know it is effective. In the year 2003, we provided $20 billion in State fiscal relief, evenly split between grants and an FMAP increase. That is the Federal Medicaid share. The FMAP increase proved successful in preventing planned Medicaid cuts and restoring some previous cutbacks. However, an analysis by the Urban Institute found we could have done a better job back in the year 2003.

I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 2 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes, evenly divided.

However, an analysis by the Urban Institute found we could have done a better job back in the year 2003. Despite the immediacy and complexity of the situation, the fiscal relief was delayed and uniform. Some States were forced to take action before relief was available. Because the economic downturn of each State varied, some States didn't get enough assistance, and some States got assistance at the wrong time.

Let's learn from our mistakes. The partially targeted approach of this package will be better. It will give all States some assistance, a method that is effective and simple. But it will also give more money to States with the greatest need, which will help ensure we get the biggest bang for our buck.

These are difficult times, but our country is resilient. We are proud as Americans of our resiliency. We must draw on the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and stick together. We are more than a country. We are a union of States. Let us remember the good judgment of Alexander Hamilton and come together as a nation to help each of our States.

Over the Presiding Officer is our national motto, ``e pluribus unum.'' It could not be more appropriate than at this moment.

Mr. President, I do not see any speakers here. I will yield back that time, unless the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak.

I yield back that time so we can get to the vote.

I yield back the time.

Amendment No. 306, as Modified

Mr. President, I urge Senators to accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Mr. President, we have looked at this amendment and think it is a good one. We are prepared to accept it.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, the next Senator to speak is on his way here, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. Is there someone on the other side who wishes to speak? We have 10 minutes equally divided.

After the 20 minutes, there then is a period during which Senators can call up their amendments, but they are only amendments that have been agreed to by an earlier UC.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts. Actually, I prefer they use the remaining 5 minutes on the other side.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I wish to speak to amendment No. 390 which would hold recipients of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, funds accountable for the promises they have made to American taxpayers. This amendment would require that financial institutions, without major capital shortfalls, that receive TARP funds, must increase lending to individuals and businesses--including small businesses--above their lending levels at the time they received Federal assistance.

This is a timely and vital amendment for those who are still unable to get financing for home and car purchases, business expenses, student loans and credit lines, including credit cards. Despite an investment of $700 billion in taxpayer funds for the purpose of addressing our country's major capital shortfalls, our citizens are still struggling to access capital. Recent reports from the Government Accountability Office and TARP's Congressional Oversight Panel have indicated that banks are not using TARP funds for lending, and more specifically, that lending to businesses and individuals has not experienced a noticeable increase since Congress passed TARP late last year. Further, the Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Survey for January indicated that U.S. lending institutions have further tightened their business lending stance in the past 3 months.

Congress's intent was for TARP to restore credit and liquidity to the financial system so that individuals and businesses can access the capital upon which our system of commerce depends. It is vital to our country's economic recovery that TARP funds be used to spur lending and get capital flowing through our economy quickly, effectively and transparently.

On January 29, 2009, I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to express my concerns about TARP recipients not using Federal funds for its intended use. I also expressed to Secretary Geithner my disappointment in the Department's opposition to explicitly requiring firms that received Federal funds in the first tranche of TARP distributions to increase lending above baseline levels. The Treasury Department has refused to apply these conditions to TARP fund recipients retroactively, despite an assurance by National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers in a January 15, 2009, letter to Congress that, ``As a condition of federal assistance, healthy banks without major capital shortfalls will increase lending above baseline levels.''

By taking Federal dollars and not adhering to Congress's intent, recipients are adding to an already dire economic situation. We must demand that TARP funds be used to spur new lending. Our amendment will mandate that as a condition of receiving TARP funds, financial institutions without major capital shortfalls must increase their lending above baseline levels. Additionally, the amendment contains a provision requiring such financial institutions to immediately repay assistance provided under the TARP if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that they have not made sufficient progress toward achieving these requirements.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to have this amendment included in the stimulus bill to help ensure that taxpayer funds

are used to judiciously rebuild our Nation's economy.

Amendment No. 525

Mr. President, I rise today, at this most consequential of times, in support of the amendment that I have submitted, together with Senator Pryor, on behalf of our Nation's struggling communities that are negatively affected by base closures or realignments. During even the best of economic times, the closure or realignment of a military base can devastate a local economy. With the gravity of our economic circumstances--the most dire we have witnessed since the Great Depression--it is more difficult than ever for these communities to redevelop and stem job losses.

My amendment would recognize that communities affected by base closures and realignments face particular challenges in this dismal economy and therefore special consideration should be given to provide assistance and relief under this stimulus act to those communities. I must point out that this amendment would not create a preference or entitlement, but would remind all of the critical need to help communities impinged by the closure or realignment of military installations.

For instance, with the closure of Naval Air Station Brunswick, NASB, in my home State of Maine, the entire midcoast region of Maine will experience profoundly negative economic consequences attributable to an estimated loss of 6,500 jobs and $140 million in annual income. Given these challenging economic times, it is imperative that we make every effort to foster redevelopment in communities affected by base closures.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about an issue of regional equity with regard to the recovery package and specifically about our forestry programs. I strongly believe that in order for our forest economies to work we must collaborate on national forestry whether it is Federal lands, or private lands. I am concerned that this proposal will strongly benefit one region with Federal lands over those with private lands and strongly urge leadership to overhaul the structure of this proposal with regard to our forest economies.

Our Nation's forests are a strategic national resource which span from Maine to California and Alaska to Puerto Rico. Over 60 percent are in private ownership. In order to provide regional equity, it is important that within the broad categories of construction and wildland fire management, flexibility will be provided to address a wide range of actions all aimed at stimulating the Nation's economy. These include maintaining and enhancing the Nation's forest products industry; hazardous fuels reduction; improvements in forest health; wood-to- energy grants; rehabilitation and restoration activities on Federal, State, and private lands; assisting State and local fire agencies responsible for wildfire preparedness and suppression, and urban and community forest enhancements.

These activities can be accomplished through existing State and private forestry authorizations and programs. In order to address current economic conditions, I believe this economic stimulus bill should not require any matching funds and shall seek to maximize economic activity, job retention, and creation.

I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee chair on this critical issue.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I wish today, with Senator Landrieu, to file this bipartisan and commonsense amendment that would strengthen the innovative opportunities of small businesses who participate in the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs and help them receive funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, H.R. 1.

Our amendment would require that any qualifying participating Federal agency allocate a percentage of its research and development funding gained from this economic stimulus bill to their respective SBIR or STTR programs. The SBIR and STTR programs award Federal research and development funds to small businesses to encourage them to innovate and commercialize new technologies, products, and services. These programs provide more than $2 billion in Federal research and development funding each year to small businesses, and the benefit to my State of Maine cannot be overstated. According to the most recent data, in fiscal year 2005, Maine's technology-based small businesses received more than $4.5 million in SBIR total awards.

Since the SBIR program was created, small hi-tech firms have submitted more than 250,000 proposals, resulting in more than 60,000 awards worth approximately $19 billion. At a time when our national economy is flagging due to failing financial markets and a correcting housing market, the SBIR program is more essential than ever, if we are to capitalize on the groundbreaking capacities of our Nation's pioneering small businesses.

Now, more than ever, we in Congress must do everything within our power to help small businesses drive the recovery of our economy. It is imperative that we do everything we can to stimulate our economy and the small-tech firms of this Nation can help lead the way.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and to provide all innovative small businesses with opportunities to grow our Nation's innovative infrastructure.

Mr. President, the Tax Code currently requires small business owners to prepay their income taxes on a quarterly basis. To determine what is owed, the owners calculate 110 percent of the previous year's tax liability and then pay one-fourth of that amount each quarter of the following year.

The purpose of requiring businesses to pay 110 percent of the previous year's tax liability is so that the government is sure to collect the taxes owed, even when businesses are growing. Unfortunately, our economy has been in a recession and climbing out of it is not likely to be quick. We are in a credit crunch and the cash flow of American businesses is slow. Because of the recession and the credit crunch, the overpayment of quarterly income taxes by America's small businesses is both unnecessary and harmful.

It is unnecessary because in this recession there will be few businesses that meet the hurdle of a 10-percent rate of growth to match a 10-percent overpayment of taxes. Perhaps bankruptcy lawyers will be able to meet or exceed this growth target, but having the Tax Code push more customers their way is what I would like to avoid. Having small business owners pay 110 percent of their 2008 tax liability imposes one more cash flow burden that I fear could push small businesses into dire straits.

Paying 10 percent more taxes than were owed for 2008 imposes a significant cash flow burden on small business. This additional tax is likely to end up as an interest free loan to the U.S. Government because the excess tax will be refunded after the 2009 return is filed. It makes no sense for small businesses to be floating the government an interest free loan at a time when we are trying to find ways to alleviate their cash flow troubles and find ways to create or maintain jobs.

I will offer an amendment to help small businesses with their cash flow and not require them to give the government an interest-free loan in 2009. The amendment is written so that on a quarterly basis, individuals who earned less than $500,000 in 2008 and, earned more than half of their income from a business with 500 or fewer employees, would certify to this information on their quarterly return. Then they would be allowed to make quarterly payments of only 75 percent of their 2008 tax liability, rather than 110 percent. There are small business owners who make less than $150,000 who are required to prepay 100 percent of the previous year's liability who will also be allowed to make quarterly payments of 75 percent of the previous year's liability.

Small business owners are most often taxed as sole proprietorships, subchapter S corporations or partnerships. In any of these forms of ownership, the business income is reflected on each individual owner's taxes. The amendment helps small business cash flow by not forcing the business to make bigger distributions to help pay bigger quarterly tax bills. Not every investor in a partnership or a subchapter S corporation is making their living running the business but this amendment tries to get to those who need it most by requiring more than half of a taxpayer's income must be from businesses that have fewer than 500 employees.

For businesses, like bankruptcy lawyers, who know they are having a banner year, my amendment is silent. I do not require that they withhold only 75 percent. They are free to continue voluntarily sending more to the IRS to cover their expected good earnings and increased tax liability.

I do not have an estimate of the cost of this amendment from the Joint Committee on Taxation. However, I

would expect the revenue estimate to be modest since this is a 1-year cash flow difference between taxes due quarterly during 2009 and the final tax bill that is due in 2010. Since the 110 percent payments would have likely resulted in tax refunds in 2010, I wouldn't expect there to be much revenue lost.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 539 I am offering which could help to steer our economy toward economic recovery. There is no question that America's small businesses are the engine that drives our Nation's economy, constituting 99.7 percent of all employer firms, employing nearly half of the private sector workforce, and create three-quarters of net new jobs annually over the last decade. If an economic stimulus plan is to succeed, it must include a sharp focus on job creation by small businesses. To that end, I humbly request that my colleagues support this noncontroversial amendment that will ensure small businesses--our Nation's true job generators--will not be shortchanged at a time when the economy is struggling to grow and create jobs.

Mr. President, my amendment builds upon this initiative to underscore the economic value of small businesses in Federal agencies across the board. This measure would mobilize existing Federal loan guarantee programs by requiring the heads of key agencies, including the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Energy; the Department of Homeland Security; the Department of Labor; and the Environmental Protection Agency, to work with the Administrator of the SBA to the maximum extent practicable, to guarantee robust small business participation in each agency's respective loan programs.

As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I wholeheartedly believe that small businesses play a central role in our economy and that the Federal Government should foster a nurturing entrepreneurial environment that fully equips our small businesses with the tools not just to mitigate and stem this economic crisis, but to be a catalyst for helping to address and ultimately solve it.

That is why Senator Landrieu, the new chair of the Small Business Committee, and I have called on President Obama, in a joint letter we sent on January 29, 2009, to sign an Executive order to elevate the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, SBA, to Cabinet- level status within the first 100 days of his administration.

This designation will send a clear signal that small business will drive our Nation out of this recession. The SBA is the primary agency within the Federal Government tasked with the responsibility of assisting small businesses, and it should have a seat at the table when it comes to revitalizing the economy, a top national priority. Frankly, in the past, the Federal Government has neglected to place enough emphasis on the resources and programs that could benefit America's 26 million small businesses.

The present economic crisis presents an opportunity to get capital now to small businesses so they can create jobs now. This amendment would take the swiftest path by mobilizing presently existing, presently funded Federal programs that have already been authorized by Congress, to include the interests of small business in their loan programs.

I respectfully ask my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle to support this amendment to facilitate the strength of small businesses in helping our Nation create jobs and grow during this economic crisis.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Health Information Technology

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what would the manager contemplate at 11:30?

And then would it be agreeable to go back to some more debate? There is a number of speakers who want to talk about the entire bill as well.

I do not object.

Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, on this side we have Senators Thune, Graham, Sessions, Coburn, and Alexander waiting to speak. I would imagine that, given that, between now and 11:30, hopefully, we could get most of those in between now and the time for voting, of course observing the protocol of those being recognized on the other side of the aisle.

While we are here in the Chamber discussing this issue, we all know discussions are being held behind closed doors between two or three or four Republicans in order to try to get 60 votes in order to pass this legislation. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of Republican Senators are opposed to the legislation. That same overwhelming majority of Senators are in favor of stimulating our economy and creating jobs.

How did we get here, and where do we go? We got here by the Speaker of the House saying: We won, so we wrote the bill. In the years I have been here, that is not called bipartisanship. Without the votes of 11 Democrats and without the vote of a single Republican, the bill emerged from the other body and came over here. Again, through the Appropriations and Finance Committees, the bill was written without significant input or with negligible input from Senators on this side of the aisle. There is an old saying: If you are not in on the takeoff, you will not be in on the landing.

We are up to approximately $1.2 trillion in the piece of legislation in front of us. The Congressional Budget Office yesterday said that this legislation would increase employment by the end of the fourth quarter of 2010 by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. I did the math. So $1.2 trillion, 3 million jobs, is $923,997 for each job. For 1.3 million jobs, which is the low end determined by the Congressional Budget Office, it is only $307,092 per job.

The American people are figuring out that this is not a stimulus bill. It is a spending bill full of unnecessary spending, unexamined policy changes or policy changes that have been examined and rejected in the past, and, of course, tax cuts which do not stimulate the economy.

I ask to have printed in the Record examples of the House spending provisions and the Senate spending provisions which I find not only questionable but obviously, in the view of any objective observer, unnecessary, unwanted, and, indeed, wasteful.

The distinguished majority leader mentioned that economists like Marty Feldstein said we need a stimulus. He certainly did. He later said this was not the stimulus we need. There are a large number of economists saying that what we are doing is what I know we are doing, and that is to lay an unacceptable multitrillion-dollar debt on future generations. If the purpose of this legislation is to create jobs and get the economy going, why did we reject the trigger amendment yesterday which got 44 votes which said: Once we have two quarters of positive GDP growth, we are required to embark on spending cuts to stop mortgaging our children's futures.

If we keep running up these debts, history shows that we will have debased the currency, printed more money. Hyperinflation takes place, which is, obviously, the greatest enemy of the middle class.

There are provisions such as the ``Buy American'' provision, Davis- Bacon, a number of other provisions in the bill which have nothing to do with jobs, nothing to do with stimulating the economy. In fact, Davis-Bacon and ``Buy American'' mean additional costs to the taxpayer.

The President, last night, speaking to the Democrats, said:

So then you get the argument this is not a stimulus bill.

This is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is?

That's the whole point.

The whole point is to enact tax cuts and spending measures that truly stimulate the economy. There are billions and tens of billions of dollars in this bill which will have no effect within 3, 4, 5 or more years, or ever. We are talking about a lot of money.

I used to come to the floor and object to provisions that were thousands of dollars, then hundreds of thousands of dollars, then millions--$50 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. All of us are for the arts. Tell me how that creates any significant number of jobs. An afterschool snack program is probably a good idea. Do we really want to spend $726 million on it?

Here we are. My other colleagues want to speak, and so I will be speaking later on. It is important that others do as well. But here we are. We are in a situation where the overwhelming majority of Republicans--in fact, all--voted for both the trigger amendment and for our alternative, which was $421 billion in spending. There are behind- the-scenes negotiations going on so that they can try to pick off two or three Republicans. You cannot call a bill bipartisan if it has two or three or four or even five Republicans out of 535 Members of Congress. You can call it an agreement, but you cannot call it a bipartisan agreement. That is not what the American people want today. Yes, unemployment is up to 7.6 percent. The American people expect us to sit down together.

I see the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota. He probably knows as much about budget issues and spending as anybody. My recommendation is that he and others be appointed by both leaders to sit down in a room so that we can come out with a bipartisan agreement. That means leadership. That means involvement, not just of a couple or three who may be in some respects not reflective of the whole 41 Republican Members of the Senate.

Maybe we have to go back to square one. Maybe we should go back to the beginning because it was flawed when it began, when the authors of this legislation from the House said: We won, so we wrote the bill. That is not bipartisanship.

I urge both Senator McConnell and Senator Reid to appoint a group of Senators to sit down together and hash this out. We share the same goal, the same goal of stimulating this economy and creating jobs. We realize we have to spend money to do it. But we also realize--most of us should realize--that if we mortgage our children's future, they already have a $10 trillion debt; this is another trillion. There is going

to be an Omnibus appropriations bill coming down the pike. There is going to have to be a TARP 3. We are looking at spending as far as we can see for which we do not have revenues.

We can have a modest--I say modest, I take that back. We can have a bill that is $400 or $500 billion. We can have a bill that truly stimulates this economy, with tax cuts that, in the view of economists, do create jobs, not a one-time injection of sending people a check. That didn't work the last time we did it under the previous administration.

I urge colleagues not to send a message to the American people that we have come out with a bill with 3 or 4 Republicans out of 535 Members of Congress. Let's try to sit down one more time, all of us, and come out with something that truly creates jobs, truly stimulates the economy, and restores the faith and confidence and trust of the American people in the Congress, which has badly eroded and is at historic lows. These are tough times. Let's act tough for a change and get something done, rather than have some partisan result which the American people--certainly a significant percentage--will resoundingly reject because it does not have fiscal responsibility.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if the distinguished manager would agree, for 5 minutes for the Senator from South Carolina, or we will go after the vote.

Reserving the right to object, I wish to thank the manager of the bill for his generosity. I do not object.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Am I correct that, for the benefit of our colleagues, now the votes will be put off until 1?

I thank the manager. I tell my colleagues that if it looks as if we will not vote until 1, there will be time to come over and speak.

If the other side is granted 2 minutes.

How much time do I have?

Mr. President, I wish to return to the Congressional Budget Office report in response to the remarks of the Senator from Montana again to the Congressional Budget Office. It says the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product. It said it would increase employment at the end of the fourth quarter of 2010 by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. I urge my colleagues to do the math. This is a $1.2 trillion bill. If it creates 1.3 million jobs, that is $923,000 per job. If it creates 3.9 million jobs, that is $307,000 of taxpayer dollars.

As the President stated last night, this is a spending bill. He is right. I agree with him. It is a spending bill. Most of us were under the impression that what we wanted was a job creation and economic stimulus bill. We can pass spending bills all the time. We do it all the time. We have laid a $10 trillion debt on future generations of Americans. Very interestingly, the report continues:

Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long

run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The

principal channel for this effect is that the legislation

would result in an increase in government debt. To the extent

that people hold their wealth as government bonds rather than

in a form that can be used to finance private investment, an

increased debt would tend to reduce the stock of productive

capital. In economic parlance, the debt would ``crowd out''

private investment. CBO's basic assumption is that in the

long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a

third of a dollar's worth of private domestic capital.

This is something that has been abundantly clear for years and the reason why we don't have socialism in this country, because the Government is less efficient in using dollars than the private enterprise system is. Perhaps more alarming than anything else, the reason why it was so disappointing is we did not pass the trigger. That was an amendment we voted down, actually with a couple of Democratic votes, that provided that once the economy recovers, we have to be on a path to a balanced budget. CBO estimates that by 2019, the Senate legislation would reduce gross domestic product by .1 percent to .3 percent. In other words, we will not grow the economy in the long run unless we get our fiscal house in order.

Why are the American people unhappy? Why is it that my office and others are inundated with phone calls? Because we put in unnecessary and even wasteful and nonproductive programs to the tune of billions and billions of dollars: $300 million dollars for Violence Against Women Act grants to the Department of Justice because ``as job losses loom and the economy worsens, service providers across the country are reporting an increase in calls related to domestic violence.'' I am glad to fund any program that would help address the issue of domestic violence. But it is not creating jobs. We will hear from the other side about how worthwhile this long list of porkbarrel projects is, but the fact is, they don't create jobs. That is what we are supposed to be doing in a ``stimulus'' bill.

I want to comment again: We all know there are negotiations going on now of the called ``Gang of 18.'' I was one of the Gang of 14. That was 7 Republicans, 7 Democrats. That is bipartisan. Now it is 15 Democrats, 3 Republicans. That is not bipartisan. If they come up with an agreement, then it will mean 3 Republicans out of 535 Members of Congress have supported this unnecessary, wasteful bill that could have been so much better.

It started out wrong, when the Speaker of the House said: We won, so we write the bill. And it is ending up wrong because we have not done what we need to do and has been the product of a true bipartisan agreement, and

that is to sit down together, Republican and Democrat.

Mr. President, I want to close by pointing out, again, we want to have legislation that stimulates this economy. But we want it to stimulate the economy and not mortgage the future of our children and our grandchildren by the kind of fiscal profligate spending that is embodied in this legislation to the tune--it goes higher as we speak-- of over $1 trillion.

I am told Monday we are going to have another TARP proposed--another one. How many trillions? We are setting some kind of record, and there is no fiscal discipline.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider carefully--consider carefully--this legislation. The American people have figured it out. Let's figure it out.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

For my side?

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma the remaining 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska, followed by the Senator from Iowa, will have 5 minutes. If I can ask the distinguished manager, my understanding is that after the 20 minutes, there will then be a period for filing amendments and debate.

Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I am going to ask unanimous consent to print in the Record some recent op-eds. I would like to quote from some of them because they reflect the emerging consensus of experts around the country as to what this so-called stimulus package is all about and what the results of it will be.

A couple of these I wish to talk about because they are from unlikely sources in the political spectrum. One might assume, for example, that the Washington Post would be very supportive of moving forward with a so-called stimulus bill. But this morning in the Washington Post, there is a pretty significant question raised and a concern raised about whether the bill should move forward as it is.

I am advised that because of the division of the time, rather than 15 minutes remaining, the Republicans have only 1 minute. That probably means I have about 30 seconds. What I will do, if we do extend the time as the manager indicated after noon, I will conclude my remarks at that time, or if the Senator has some time now.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Democratic whip getting that cleared for everybody's sake and also for permitting me to continue to speak. I appreciate it.

This Washington Post editorial quotes the President, first of all, contending that the opponents of this bill are peddling the same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis.

I am one who is very skeptical about this bill. I am not quite sure what the President is accusing me of. What we asked is that a program be built from the bottom up that would be targeted at helping people who are in need, that would be targeted at helping to create jobs in a quick way, that will actually quickly create jobs that could stimulate the economy and that will not put a burden on future budgets and on future taxpayers by creating new permanent programs and mandatory spending that takes a long time to spend out.

The Post then goes on to criticize the attempt of the President to pin on all

of the opponents some ideological objection. As it notes:

. . . Ideology is not the only reason that senators--from

both parties--are balking at the president's plan. As it

emerged from the House, it suffered from a confusion of

objectives.

Here is the point I wish to emphasize. When the President talked not merely of a prescription for short-term spending but a strategy for long-term economic growth, here is what the Post says:

This is precisely the problem. As credible experts,

including some Democrats, have pointed out, much of this

``long-term'' spending either won't stimulate the economy

now, is of questionable merit, or both. Even potentially

meritorious items, such as $2.1 billion for Head Start, or

billions more to computerize medical records, do not belong

in this legislation, whose reason for being is to give U.S.

economic growth a ``jolt,'' as Mr. Obama himself has put it.

All other priorities should pass through the normal budget

process, which involves hearings, debate and--crucially--

competition with other programs.

I think that is right. That is one of the things Republicans have been saying. Some of the spending in the bill may be perfectly meritorious, but since this is emergency spending, it does not have to be accounted for in either reduced spending elsewhere or new tax receipts. It is simply added onto the budget deficit.

What the Post and what we and others have been saying is that spending with long-term consequences is nothing more than the kinds of items we pass every year in the appropriations process, and it should be subjected to that process.

The so-called stimulus bill should be reserved for those items that stimulate quickly. We have all heard the phrase ``timely, targeted, and temporary.'' Part of the problem with the bill is that because it creates new mandatory spending and it creates new permanent programs, it is not temporary. In the discretionary account, more than half the money does not even begin to be spent until the year 2011. I know all of us hope by 2011 we are out of this recession.

I think the Post's criticism is very valid. I urge my colleagues to look at this a slightly different way. Rather than spending on programs that seem like a good idea and may have long-term, positive consequences, let's remove those items from this bill and focus strictly on the items that would actually stimulate the economy.

There is a second op-ed piece that was written in my hometown newspaper, the Arizona Republic, on February 6, by Bob Robb, a columnist there who is very erudite and a good economist. He criticizes both Democratic and Republican ideas. He is an equal opportunity criticizer. We all benefit from that critique of his from time to time. Here is what he says about the Democratic proposal:

The Democratic stimulus proposals are based upon a false

premise and a deceit.

The false premise is that all Americans are construction

workers.

The Democrats propose that the federal government build new

stuff for virtually everyone.

The Congressional Budget Office has already noted the

constraints that exist on government's ability to get

hundreds of billions of dollars of construction money out the

door quickly. But even that ignores the constraint from those

who would need to do the work.

Residential construction is, of course, in a deep slump.

Commercial construction not so much. And residential

construction workers are not easily redeployed to do

commercial and heavy construction. The skill sets are

different.

The deceit is that all this spending requires suspending

ordinary budget constraints to jumpstart the economy. Most of

the spending is actually in pursuit of long-term Democratic

economic growth strategies.

Democrats believe that the economy will perform better

long-term with significant additional government investments

in alternative energy sources, education, health care and

social welfare programs.

And we have heard that during this debate.

He goes on to conclude:

Democrats won the election and certainly have the right to

try to advance their long-term strategies. But there is

nothing about fighting the recession that justifies exempting

these long-term strategies from the most basic of budget

considerations: How are you going to pay for them?

Even without the stimulus package, the federal government

has already reached post-World War II records for spending

and the deficit as percent of GDP.

The primary economic effect of the Democrat's stimulus

proposals will be to inflate private sector commercial

construction costs and give the country an even more severe

fiscal headache.

That leads into the third op-ed by George Melloan in today's Wall Street Journal that I will have printed in the Record. He is a respected commentator and economist in these matters. I am not going to quote very much of his op-ed. The title of it is: ``Why `Stimulus' Will Mean Inflation.''

He concludes, as did Bob Robb, that will be the result of all of this spending which is declared emergency but is not distinguishable from most of the spending that we do in the ordinary appropriations process. But his concern is that as we inflate the currency of our country, it will be more and more difficult to get people to buy our debt, and the net result could be increasingly costly debt financing.

As he notes, too, the credit for the rest of the economy will become more dear as well and entitlements will go up instead of being brought under control under this legislation. He predicts this will require the Fed to create more dollars, and the end result will be severe inflation in our economy.

That is borne out by the fact that even though the legislation purports to end some of the mandatory spending programs after 2 years, the cost of 10 years for these programs that will supposedly expire is well over $1.3 trillion. I don't think very many of us believe that after 2 years we are going to stop this mandatory spending. My colleague, John McCain, offered a proposal. In fact, there were two. The Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, offered another one. The idea was, once we are out of the recession, once we have had two quarters of economic growth, then surely that is the time to stop all this so- called stimulus spending. That is, in effect, what the proposal said. It was rejected by our Democratic colleagues. The reason is very clear: They don't intend to stop. They intend to continue it, and that is another $1.3 trillion that is not even factored into the cost of this $1 trillion-plus bill.

Take the $1 trillion deficit we have now, $1.3 trillion on the bill before us, another $1.3 trillion, and as Everett Dirksen said on this floor a long time ago, pretty soon you are talking big money. We are talking trillions of dollars, and we should not be in that position today.

Recently, the President spoke to some of our Democratic colleagues. He said the Republicans criticize this bill as a spending bill. I am paraphrasing. He said: Of course, it is a spending bill; that is the whole point. I understand what he was getting at. Many believe Government spending can stimulate economic growth, and I suspect in certain ways that can be done. A lot of us believe those benefits are limited and that there are better ways to stimulate economic growth. But that is the Keynesian theory.

When the President says: Of course, that is a spending bill, that is the whole point; he is acknowledging what we have been saying on this floor for a week now, which is that this is a spending bill.

He would say: But it also stimulates. What I said yesterday was that is kind of a trickle-down theory. The Government spends $1 trillion, throws it against the wall, and hopes some of it trickles down to actual families who need the support so they can then get their own budgets in balance and, hopefully, have something left over to spend. That is where ideas, such as those in the alternative proposed by my colleague, Senator McCain, come into play because they actually help families in a way that could also have a way of stimulating economic growth. That is what this package should be all about.

I will summarize it this way. This bill spends far too much money for far too long a period of time without any requirement that it be offset in any way by reductions in spending or tax receipts, which is the normal appropriations process and will inevitably result in inflation which robs every American and, in particular, retired Americans who have to rely on their savings.

We have to consider the long-term consequences, and I hope the better Republican ideas that have been, so far, pretty much rejected by our colleagues

on the Democratic side can be brought to the floor as amendments and will be supported so there can be broader support for this legislation. If it is adopted on virtually a party-line basis, that is not going to be good for the country, and the end result will not stimulate the economy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record three items. The first is an editorial in the Washington Post, February 5, called ``The Senate Balks.'' The second is a column in the Arizona Republic, dated February 6, ``Bad Stimulus Ideas All Around.'' The third is a Wall Street Journal, February 6, George Melloan column, ``Why `Stimulus' Will Mean Inflation.''

Mr. President, again, I thank the manager of the bill and my colleague Senator Durbin for allowing me to give these remarks.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senator Reid's amendment 525, which I cosponsored.

This amendment will improve renewable energy permitting and give renewable energy companies grants to replace the renewable energy tax credits.

Specifically, Senator Reid's amendment would appropriate $25 million to the Department of Energy and the Department of Interior to assist in renewable energy permitting; establish pilot offices in Western States to focus on renewable energy permitting, to be funded with oil and gas royalties; allow projects utilizing new renewable energy technology, not just ``commercial'' technology, to apply for Federal renewable energy loan guarantees; and establish a DOE grant program for renewable energy development, to substitute for the solar investment tax credit and the renewable production tax credit.

Let me explain why this amendment is needed.

First, let me discuss permitting.

First, Senator Reid and I propose $25 million to assist in renewable energy permitting. In California, BLM has more than 200 solar applications pending, and it has yet to complete a single application review.

The Bureau is overwhelmed, and it needs a relatively small investment in resources to ensure that it can quickly analyze how these project proposals impact water resources, endangered species habitat, and wilderness areas. Without these resources, we simply will not build the renewable energy projects that we need in the West.

In addition to adding financial resources, the amendment would establish pilot offices in Western States to focus on renewable energy permitting.

Senator Tester and I introduced legislation to establish these offices, and BLM established them administratively in January. The offices would be funded with oil and gas royalties, to assure that they have the resources necessary to process the rapid influx of applications.

Second, let me discuss financing.

The amendment would also modify the title 17 renewable loan guarantee program so that it may guarantee loans for emerging renewable technology, not just ``commercial'' technology.

Solar thermal facilities, the most advanced wind turbines, and enhanced geothermal projects are often the most economical renewable projects available, but they are considered emerging because they are the first of their type in the world.

The loan guarantee program in this legislation would exclude them. This change allows them to compete with wind projects.

Finally, let me explain the need for a grant program to replace the current tax credit system.

The amendment would establish a DOE grant program for renewable energy development. Grants would equal the value of the solar investment tax credit or the renewable production tax credit, which it would replace. For the next 2 years, renewable projects could claim the grants at a time when tax equity markets simply cannot support significant renewable energy production.

Last year Congress made a significant investment in solar and other renewable energy by passing a long term extension to the renewable energy investment and production tax credits.

But renewable energy companies must go to big banks--JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, or Bank of America--in order to use these tax credits, and today those banks don't have profits and are sending renewable developers away emptyhanded.

The ``tax equity'' market has gone from $5 billion to $2 billion in 1 year. One good wind developer recently told me he went to 42 banks and couldn't find a partner.

The few banks still in the business are increasing their profit margin. This is all transaction costs, benefiting the bankers and the lawyers who write these contracts but not renewable energy development. As the bank's cut goes up, the cost of renewable energy goes up as well.

As a result, solar and wind companies are contracting. Some have shut down, some have scaled back, but no one is building renewable energy infrastructure. We are losing both green jobs and the fight against climate change.

The DOE grants program in this amendment would replace the tax credits.

The shrinking tax equity market would no longer harm renewable energy developers, who could get back to the business of shifting the United States away from coal and gas towards renewable energy.

According to a study by Navigant Consulting in 2008, the 8-year extension to the solar investment tax credit should produce 276,000 jobs by 2016.

Mr. President, 150,000 of these jobs were forecast to be located in California. If the freeze in the available credit for solar project development is allowed to continue, not only will these jobs not materialize, but current ``green jobs'' will be lost.

This legislation provides some assistance to renewable energy, but without this amendment, I fear the bill will not have its intended effect of spurring immediate construction of renewable energy projects.

Right now renewable energy projects--which are massive capital investments--are not being built. Developers face a series of problems: Many projects await permits from DOE, the Forest Service, and the Department of Interior. Developers cannot use tax equity markets in order to utilize Federal tax credits, and without these tax credits, projects cannot secure private financing.

This amendment--put simply--addresses these three major challenges that prevent us from building renewable energy projects in the United States.

To address permitting, it establishes offices at BLM whose only job will be to evaluate and issue permit decisions.

To address the tax issue, this amendment creates a DOE grant program that should cost the Treasury nothing we didn't already expect to spend. But it will allow projects to proceed that would not be able to without it.

Finally, to address the credit crisis, this amendment modifies the loan guarantee program to assure that innovative ideas also qualify.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.

I thank my colleagues for their efforts on this issue. I agree that comparative effectiveness research holds great promise to improve medical care by giving physicians and patients valuable information on treatment options.

It is my understanding that the new Federal coordinating council included in the language is intended to coordinate the comparative effectiveness research efforts taking place across Federal agencies and with funds we are providing in this bill. However, there is some concern that the language, as currently written, allows the council to expand its activities beyond mere coordination. I think my colleagues would agree that the purpose of the council is to coordinate comparative effectiveness research activities with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.

That is accurate. The $23 million in funding for trail maintenance could be used for any of the eight National Scenic Trails in this country. Many of these trails are in disrepair, have unsafe crossings and uncompleted sections that could be repaired with this funding, creating jobs and generating economic value for surrounding communities.

Yes, that is our intent. All of the National Scenic Trails would be eligible for this funding, which would create jobs, generate economic value, and provide healthy recreational opportunities.

First, I would like to commend my colleagues for bringing this important matter before the Senate. EPA estimates that combined sewage overflows are responsible for releasing more than a trillion gallons of untreated and undertreated wastewater into our Nation's water bodies every year. I believe that additional funding provided through the Recovery Act for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds program will help alleviate the combined sewage overflow problem. I share the Senator's belief that the EPA should strongly encourage the completion of combined sewage overflow projects and I look forward to working with the Senator to address this serious problem in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I have had very little to do with this bill in the sense of writing it. I think most of us feel somewhat the same way. I am growing increasingly concerned about the bill, as to whether it is really going to be a stimulus. I come from a State which has more people unemployed today than the population of a dozen States; a State where the breadlines are growing, where the need for assistance is growing, where the State has a huge deficit, where counties are unable to fund their operating maintenance, where all capital projects have stopped, and where the State is now furloughing employees. I think while we dither, Rome burns. This crisis is so multidimensional and the dominoes are falling so much more rapidly than any of us thought and they are pushed from so many different points.

The fact is that people cannot get credit--credit for your big corporations to open a new hotel; credit, if you are a small employer, to pay your payroll. Credit remains frozen. The housing crisis continues to work its problems.

What, in my view, a stimulus is not, candidly speaking, is a tax package. I do not believe in this economy tax cuts are stimulus. The current state of the package, as I understand it, is that tax cuts are roughly 40 percent of the package; 20 percent is local assistance, State and local assistance; 15 percent is safety net spending; 15 percent is infrastructure spending--that is all--and 10 percent is other spending.

I do not know how many jobs are going to come out of this because it is my belief that people's buying patterns have changed.

This morning, a number of my colleagues talked about a report from the Congressional Budget Office, and what they did not do is they did not quote from certain parts of it. I would like to quote on what they found. Here it is:

A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a

smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct

purchase or transfers, because a significant share of the tax

cut would probably be saved.

As a matter of fact, we have evidence of that. Last year, we approved more than $130 billion in tax cuts, primarily through a $600-per-person tax refund. After all of that money was spent in two tranches going out, there was little or no perceptible impact on the economy.

But we do not learn. In fact, study after study shows that upper income taxpayers are less likely to spend the refund checks they receive than those with low incomes.

According to a recent CRS analysis, tax cuts are likely to have a ``diminished stimulus effect.''

I point out that at the end of the day, I think there have been some significant layoffs. All along the retail industry, whether it is Starbucks or whether it is various retail establishments; like Gottschalks department stores--38 stores in California--going into bankruptcy; whether you have banks closing; whether you have Macy's laying off 10,000 people, buying patterns have changed. I read a study where people are not buying as much toothpaste. That is an indication that there is an angst out there, a worry about this economy.

The point of this package is to get jobs out to people. I reserve the right, at the end of the day, to vote against a package that I don't think puts those jobs out there. That is my point.