Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010

Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague from California. I am somewhat amazed to think she would imply we don't care about the unemployed. The fact is, we do. I went through the list of the things she mentioned, as did the Senator from Vermont. I was not here in 2001. I was not here in 2003. I was not here when both the wars were initiated. I had no part in any of that. But even had I been, the fact is, we can help two groups of people with this unemployment insurance. There isn't anybody on our side of the aisle who doesn't think we ought to pass extended unemployment benefits. To state or imply that is absolutely absurd. It is not about stalling. The majority leader did not allow one amendment to allow us an opportunity to have a vote on whether we ought to pay for it.

The question isn't whether we help the unemployed. Every time we have offered ways to do so--as a matter of fact, five times it has been rejected that, in fact, our grandchildren should not have to pay for the unemployment benefits of the people who are unemployed today. Five times it has been rejected. Multiple times we have chosen to not do the responsible thing for two groups of people. It is easy to come to the Senate floor and throw darts at people who have a drastic disagreement on where we stand in this country. But to imply that they don't care is out of bounds. The people in Oklahoma who are not getting unemployment checks today I care about just as much as the people who don't have a job who aren't getting one. But there is another group of people whom I am pressed to serve in Oklahoma as well; that is, their children. The assumption that this body can't make the hard choices to eliminate things that are much less important, much more wasteful, an absolute waste of Federal dollars and eliminate those things to pay for unemployment insurance is out of the bounds of reality.

My colleague from California mentioned several times that all the people who are getting these extended benefits have paid into a fund. They paid zero. This is extended benefits. The extended benefits are 100 percent paid for by Federal tax dollars. It is the 26 weeks, the routine unemployment, that is paid for through the unemployment fund. The extended benefits, long-term benefits, don't come from any pot of money except the pot of money of our grandchildren's future.

Let's put that to rest. There is not a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent in this body who does not want these folks to get extended unemployment benefits. We do. The question is, at a time when we are going to borrow $1.6 trillion this year alone against the future of our children, whether maybe we can find $30 billion, that doesn't come anywhere close to the priorities of helping people who are unemployed today. I reject out of hand the idea that we don't have any compassion. The fact is we do.

As a matter of fact, our compassion is both short term and long term. We are thinking about the habits of Congress that continually put the credit card into the machine and borrow against the prosperity and well-being of generations that follow. Let's not have any more talk about the fact that we don't want people to have unemployment. We do. We do want them to have unemployment. Multiple times we offered ways for that. It may, in fact, pass this afternoon or early this evening that we are going to extend them and not pay for it. But as the Senator from California said: It is a defining moment. It certainly is. Is the Federal Government, in this difficult economic situation, going to at least make some small attempt to rein in the $300 billion worth of waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication in the Federal Government? The answer we get is no. Discretionary programs over the last 2 years, not counting the stimulus--we can have the stimulus debate some other time--have risen 19.6 percent, when the average wage went up less than 2 percent. The Federal Government is now twice as big as it was in 1999, not counting the stimulus. We have 6,400 sets of duplicative programs that the body will not touch. They are all designed to do good things for people. They are highly inefficient, highly ineffective. Yet what we will do is not that hard work to get rid of the things that aren't working. We will just charge our children so we can say we took care of unemployment.

Hard times require hard decisions. What we are seeing is the easy way out. The easy way out is to not pay for this. The easy way out is to charge it to our children and grandchildren. There is no difference in the level of compassion. Everybody wants to take care of those who are unemployed. The easy way is to put it on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

The question is, Will we do the right thing for the country? Will we do the best right thing for the country or will we do the easy thing, the politically expedient thing, class envy, ``I am going make somebody look bad because they don't agree with me on the timing of something'' or will we act as a body that will ensure both caring for the now and ensuring the future? It is easy in the Senate to spend money you don't have. The bias is for it. The hard thing is to take and do the best right thing. My colleagues, many on both sides of the aisle, in numerous cases over the last 5\1/2\ years, have too often done the easy thing. We have all these fingers pointing at this administration did this and this administration did this. There are plenty of problems for every administration and every political party to be considered guilty on because too often both groups have done the short-term politically expedient thing rather than the best right thing for the country.

I had, at one of the events that my staff attended this weekend, an individual in Oklahoma who lost his unemployment insurance. He said: You tell Dr. Coburn to be sure and continue to pay for it. I want my unemployment insurance. I need my unemployment. I will not be able to make my house payments unless I get that. But I don't want that to come from my children and grandchildren. I want it to come from the excesses and waste in Washington today.

So there is another viewpoint, even though we hear it is a critically nonpertinent viewpoint. This isn't a partisan issue. This isn't a delaying tactic. This is a real philosophical difference on how we get out of the mess we are in.

A lot of my colleagues are not happy that I am a Republican a lot of times because I go after my party just as much as I go after anybody else's. But the fact is, core principles matter. Go look at the history of republics. The Senator from California talks about a defining moment. The defining moment for the Athenian Republic was when they decided to start spending money they didn't have on things they didn't need.

Here is our option today. The reason we are going to have motions is because we were given no opportunity to amend. That is the only reason we will have motions to suspend the rules. It has nothing to do with a delaying tactic. It has to do with a debate and a Senator's right to offer amendments. The Senator from California would be doing the same thing if the shoe was turned the other way. If she was precluded from offering amendments, she would find a way to offer an amendment, if she believed from a position, a conscientious position that can be defended on the basis of facts. You don't have to agree with it, but you can't deny there are economic factors that should play in how we pay for unemployment insurance.

You can demean us. You can say we are mean. You can say we don't care. But the fact is, none of that is true. It is an absolute untruth.

The defining moment is, Will we embrace the quality that built this country in the first place? That is, being responsible for the problems that are in front of us and not shifting that responsibility to generations that follow. That is what this debate is all about. When we left here for one break, we had agreed with Senator Reid and Senator Levin about extending unemployment insurance. We were told by the Speaker of the House that she wasn't about to set the precedent of starting to pay for unemployment insurance. Why not? When we have a $1.6 trillion deficit, when we have $13.3 trillion worth of debt, when we are mortgaging the future of our children, we are stealing opportunity away from them as we do it, why not? Why not meet the challenges that are in front of us by responding in a way that says meeting people's needs today is important, and it is important we not take away from the needs of the future as we do so. Yet we are lectured that it is a partisan debate.

There is nothing partisan about this. In my soul, I want to help everybody out there who is unemployed and facing the tough times. But also in my soul is that I do not want to mortgage the future of any more American children, when we have tremendous amounts of waste, fraud, and duplication that can easily be eliminated.

One of the motions I am going to offer is to cut $40 billion from the Federal Government. America, tell me what part of this you do not agree with. The fact is, we are going to ask that we quit wasting money on real property. We spend $8 billion a year maintaining property we do not want. We have $80 billion worth of empty buildings. It is costing us $8 billion a year. Should we continue to spend that $8 billion or should we not spend that $8 billion and take that $8 billion and pay for unemployment insurance?

How about collecting unpaid taxes from Federal employees and Members of Congress. That is $3 billion. As to currently hired Federal employees, it is already adjudicated they owe $3 billion. I think we ought to pay it back. I do not think we ought to borrow from the future of our children and grandchildren because we do not have the guts to say: Pay up. Quit cheating the Federal Government, employee of the Federal Government. That is a small number in terms of the number of employees, but that is a big number: $3 billion. Let's have them pay up.

Why is it we are not going to eliminate $8 billion in bonuses to Federal contractors who did not meet the requirements to get a bonus, yet we gave the bonus anyway? Why not eliminate that rather than charge this to our children? Tell me why you will not vote for that? Do you think we ought to be paying bonuses to people who do not deserve them, contractors? It is $6 billion over a 4-year period in just the

Defense Department alone. But you do not want to get rid of that? You would rather charge the money to our kids than make the hard choice of alienating some defense contractor or some government contractor because they got something they did not deserve in the past, when somebody is unemployed who deserves to get unemployment insurance? I do not understand it. Or eliminating nonessential government travel--one of the things President Obama wants to do. We spend billions--$14.8 billion, in excess of that--on Federal travel. We are some of the worst abusers. Yet we will not discipline ourselves and set an example that we can use a teleconference rather than getting on an airplane and going somewhere--a video teleconference. At a time such as this, when we are having an economic problem, we will not make the hard decision to make tough choices that are maybe not as fun, maybe not as easy. What I have found is a video teleconference is a whole lot easier than travel, but we will not make that hard choice. We are not going to tell the agencies they are going to have to do it.

We will not even put on a Web site all the times we violate our own rules on pay-go. On February 12, we passed a law. It used to be a rule in the Senate, but now we passed a law. It is called pay-go. It says you cannot have new spending unless you pay for it. Since February 12, when the President signed that law, we have violated it to the tune of $223 billion, where we said: Oh, time out. The pay-go statute does not apply. We don't have to pay for it. We don't have to eliminate all the inefficiencies, all the duplication. We don't have to go after any fraud. We are just going to charge it to our children and grandchildren.

Where is the integrity in that? Where is the integrity? Where is the character in that? Where is the courage to do the tough thing that accomplishes both helping the people who are unemployed but helping our kids and helping our Nation? There is not any. There is none. It is the easy way out.

Lest you think I am making up this stuff, let me give you some examples of Federal duplication. I will just give you four easy examples. We have 70 different government programs--70 different sets of bureaucracies--that spend billions of dollars a year, and on none of them is there a metric to measure whether they are effective to help people with food who are hungry. Why 70? Why across six or seven different agencies? Why not one or two programs keenly focused with metrics on saying: Are we feeding them or not? Why not eliminate 68 sets of bureaucracy and overhead? That is a small one.

We have 105 different sets of programs to incentivize our young people to go into math, engineering, science, and technology. It costs $3 billion a year, for 105 different programs, in 9 different Federal agencies. They are not in the Department of Education. They are everywhere.

Nobody knows the data, but nobody will vote to make them accountable, make them transparent, eliminate the overhead, streamline the bureaucracy. No, we do not want to do that. This body has voted against doing that multiple times when those amendments have been offered.

We have a total of 78 job training programs outside the Department of Labor, costing billions of dollars a year, none of which have a metric on them. Yet we do not want to streamline that, eliminate it, get it down to two or three that are focused--some on the chronically unemployed, some on the new workers coming in, some on those who are handicapped who might need special assistance. No, we are going to keep the 70-plus programs we have because they are somebody's baby, all of which are highly inefficient and none of which can prove effectiveness when you measure them with a metric because they do not have a metric. They cannot demonstrate they are effective.

So the debate is not about whether we want to help people who are unemployed. The debate is about whether we want to help the people who are unemployed as well as the generations that follow us.

I am amazed, and continue to be so, how easily this body can abandon common sense. I do not know if we do not have it to begin with or if we are similar to a magnet, and it is two positives, so we repel any common sense. But nobody would run any organization--private, public-- business or anything else the way we run the agencies in the Federal Government.

When you start wanting to do something about it, the only thing you get is: We can't. Well, the American people are asking us today: Please, do what you can. Do what you can. What we can do is we can pay for unemployment for the next multiple periods of months by eliminating things that are absolutely unnecessary.

Do you realize we can save $4.5 billion over the next 10 years by not printing stuff that people do not want. It is all online. We can save $450 million a year just by putting common sense into the Government Printing Office. It has been voted down three times on this floor this year. Why not? Why do we continue to take the easy task when the future of our country is going to be determined on whether we take the hard road and do the hard thing that benefits both the coming generations and those who are experiencing problems today?

I tell you why it is. It is because we say we care, but we do not. We play the game, but we do not get in the game. Getting in the game means that you get criticized, that you offer ideas, some of which may work and some of which may not, but you are not afraid to change the game because our kids' future, our country's future depend on changing the game.

What we have heard today is the resistance to changing the game. We do not have a future if we do not start making hard choices. It is an easy choice for me to vote with the Senator from California to pay for unemployment benefits. I want those people to get it. It is a hard choice for me to vote against it and say: Let's pay for it. If, in fact, you will pay for it, I will vote with you. It is not like we cannot find $40 billion. Every third grader in this country can find $40 billion in this budget. There is no rocket science to it. There is so much waste, so much duplication, and so much fraud that anybody can find it.

The question is, Do we have the will to do the best right thing for this country? One of the things I have learned in 5\1/2\ years in this body is that when people use straw men and people use half-truths, it is usually because they are hiding something. What is being hidden from the American public today? What is this debate truly all about? Is it just about unemployment or is it about we like the way things are?

We do not want to change the way things are, we do not want to get out of our comfort zone to solve the real problems of America, so, therefore, we will use all sorts of tactics to deflect what the real issues of the day are.

What are they? The Senator from California rightly outlines that millions of Americans need unemployment compensation right now. I am all for it. What is the other truth about where we are? The truth is, this country is on an absolute unsustainable course. The American people have awakened to it. They know it.

As the Senator from California knows, this is not new for me. I have been doing this for 5\1/2\ years. So it did not matter if it was the ``bridge to nowhere,'' which a Republican authored, or unemployment compensation today, I think we use common sense and do the best right thing for America, not the politically easy thing.

So the challenge before us today is to go home and explain, when this bill passes, why we charged it to the least of us. That is whom we are charging it to: to the least of us.

I told a story not long ago. In my profession as a physician, I have delivered nearly 4,000 babies--maybe over that. I quit counting. But the thing that has always gotten me, when I am delivering a baby--and I have a mother there and a father there and that baby comes out--is to see the glow on the face and in the eyes of those parents. The glow is about hope and promise for the future and about what things can be and the potential that is unlimited when that new life is here. You see it in the parents, and you see them puff up and say: Wow, what a phenomenon.

As I think about what we do today, we are stealing that. We are taking it from those kids because we refuse to have the backbone and courage to do the hard, yet the best right thing for this country.

We will hear a lot of speeches about how bad we are because we want to pay

for it. We will be talked down. It will be said that we want to obstruct. I honestly admit I don't want anything to go through this body that isn't paid for. You can count on it every time. Everybody on that side of the aisle, and most on my side of the aisle, have run in cross-wise with me on things that aren't paid for. They know. It is not a fetish; it is that I actually recognize the long-term future of this country depends on us getting our fiscal house in order.

So it is a defining moment, as the Senator from California said. But it is not the defining moment she thinks it is. It is the defining moment of whether this body is going to grab onto and truly accept the responsibility given to us by the American people. Will we truly accept it? How we act on it determines our commitment to this country.

I don't disagree with those who just want to get it through and get people paid. They have a right to have that position. I am not demeaning that position. I am just saying the country can't last if we keep doing it. Our kids don't have a future if we keep doing it. If we look at the budget projections for our country, we will run--even with the tax increases that are coming at the end of this year--we are going to run $1 trillion deficits until 2020.

Let me close with one final thought. We have a $4 trillion budget. We are going to run a $1.6 trillion deficit this year. That means we are going to borrow that from our children. The deficit by this time next year will be close to $14 trillion.

Have my colleagues ever thought about what $1 trillion is? My colleague from Georgia explained it to me. I didn't believe him, so I did the math.

If we spend $1 a second, so that means we spend $60 a minute, or $3,600 an hour--$3,600 an hour, the wealthiest in our country probably don't spend that, but let's say we did--how long would it take us to spend $1 trillion? The answer is 31,709 years spending $3,600 an hour before we ever get to $1 trillion. We get $1 trillion deficits $30 billion, $40 billion at a time, which is the cost of this bill. The way we start getting out of debt is to stop adding to it.

If we go back to February 12 when the law went into effect on pay-go, and we add this bill to it, we are going to be at $\1/4\ trillion since February 12 that this body will have added to our children's deficit. It is not our debt. Nobody in this room and probably very few people listening to this debate are going to pay one penny against it. It is all going to be borne by the children coming.

So what is pay-go about? Pay-go is about this, America: You pay and we will go spend. We are seeing evidence of it today on the Senate floor. It is not just that we pay; We pay, our children pay, and our grandchildren pay. We are going to pay with real dollars, but our grandchildren are going to pay with lost opportunity, lower levels of education, lower levels of everything in the future.

There is not one problem in front of this country we can't solve. We can't solve them by borrowing money that we don't have to spend on a good thing, let alone a bad thing, but on a good thing while we allow hundreds of billions of dollars to be wasted every year in this country.

So when we hear the cry that somebody doesn't care, we have to ask the question, What do they care about? Can we care for those who are unemployed today as well as care for our kids? Yes, we can. It is really not all that hard, with the examples of waste and duplication. There is $100 billion worth of fraud in Medicare that we can document. So there are all sorts of things we can do. The question is, Do we have the courage? Will we step to the line? Will we do what is best for our children and the unemployed? That is the question. It is not that somebody doesn't have compassion for the unemployed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to suspend provisions of rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering my motion to commit with instructions with respect to H.R. 4213, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I move to suspend provisions of rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering my amendment No. 4493.

Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment. It is a re-vote where we voted 100 to 0 to make sure we are transparent with the American people about when we change and go around pay-go. All it does is create a Web site so the American people can see when we have done that and how often and what the total amount is. We voted 100 to nothing for it the last time it was presented to this body.

I yield back my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont speaks in very clear words. When he says this debate is about whose side are you on, he could not be more on target. We have a situation where we know that when President Obama took office and the Democrats were increasing their majority, we inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. Those are not just words; that is a fact.

We inherited the worst deficit ever, because under the Republicans, the hugest tax cuts ever to people earning more than $1 million a year, $1 billion a year, went right on the credit card; two wars went right on the credit card; nothing paid for.

Then at the end of George Bush's term, when we started to see jobs being lost, 700,000 jobs a month, that is when we took over, and we took some tough votes. We said to the American people: We are going to focus like a laser beam on jobs and this economy, and we are going to get back on our feet. Yes, we are going to tackle that deficit.

I happen to have the privilege of having been sent here by my State when Bill Clinton was President of the United States. You know what. He inherited huge deficits, and he inherited a tough economic time, and we proved that we could both balance the budget and create 23 million jobs. When George W. Bush took the keys to that Oval Office, it took him a matter of minutes, figuratively a matter of minutes, to turn surpluses into deficits, and to bring down the jobs market until we got to a point where we were losing and hemorrhaging jobs at 700,000 a month.

This is important for us to remember, because it is this date where we say to our Republican friends, if you care about the people who are trying desperately to get jobs, if you care about people who have been hit by this great recession, then come with us. Work with us. Let's make sure we are there for those who deserve to have this help.

By the way, if I could say, the rules that go along with getting this unemployment extension, people do not talk about that much. You have to prove you are ready and willing to work. You have to prove you are actively seeking a job. You cannot have been fired for cause. And, by the way, you have to have paid into the unemployment insurance fund as well. This is unemployment insurance that the workers have paid into.

These are people who are actively seeking work. Guess what. When they get there, they find out there are five job seekers for every job. So we say to our friends on the other side of the aisle, where is your heart? Where is your heart?

A couple of them proved that. They stepped up and voted with us. That is all. When history is written, I think this time is going to go down as a time when right triumphs over wrong, because we did get these votes.

But guess what. Even though the other side knows we have those votes, they are stalling and stalling and having us vote on amendments that would give the wealthiest Americans their tax cuts, without paying for it. So when a deficit is caused by helping those who earn $1 million a year, $1 billion a year, oh, they are happy with that. But when you are trying to help mainstream America, middle-class America, the hard- working people, oh, my goodness, where are they? They are not here. Only to delay they are here. They are here to delay.

This is an important moment in history, because we always had bipartisan support for extending unemployment compensation. My God, we had it when George W. Bush was President in 2003. The Republicans joined with us and extended unemployment. No problem. So I do not know where this is coming from.

You are going to hear: Oh, the deficit. That is hogwash. They admit it. They admit it. They do not care about the deficit. When they are cutting taxes for their friends, they said: It does not matter. I have chapter and verse, quotes from their leadership. So this is about values. It is about whose side are you on? I am on the side of the American people, the working people. Most of us. Bernie Sanders is on that side. The Republicans who are joining us in this vote today are on that side today. This is a history-making day. It is the first time we have ever had a standoff on this issue. It is the first time we have ever seen the Republican Party walk away from working Americans like this. Again, when I was here and we balanced the budget, we created surpluses. The Republicans were not with us on that. I can honestly say, I voted to balance the budget. We did it, and we know how to do it, and we are going to do it. But do not turn your backs on people who paid into the unemployment compensation funds. It is insurance. They paid into it. And they have to be actively seeking work.

I wanted to read to you a couple of stories from my State, of real people. But before I do, I want to talk about Mark Zandi. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's, was one of the top economic advisers to then-Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. He says that every dollar invested in unemployment benefits, such as we are going to vote on today, produces $1.61 in economic activity. The CBO estimates it is $1.90.

Why is that? It is because the people who are getting those funds to survive are going to spend it in the local economy. They are going to go out to the supermarket; they are going to go to the local gas station. Economists of all stripes agree that there is an actual return on investment here, let alone the morality of standing up for people who, through no fault of their own, cannot find a job.

Let me read what a Sacramento woman said to me.

Days go by when I hardly sleep at all, worrying about our

bills. Since my benefits were cut off on July 1 at the end of

my first extension, we have had to concentrate all of our

income on paying the rent and buying food and gas. I have not

been able to pay any of our other bills. I don't know how

long we can make it like this.

I don't know how long we can make it like this. And our friends are stalling and stalling and stalling. Two months already they have stalled.

A city planner from Los Angeles writes:

The effects of the recession were especially acute for

anyone whose industry was decimated by the financial crisis.

Since municipalities are struggling and real estate

development is frozen, jobs in my industry are few . . . my

unemployment checks stopped abruptly last week before the 4th

of July. I

called my benefits office thinking this must be a mistake,

only to find that the benefits ended because Congress didn't

pass the Federal extension.

Another Californian said:

I am very scared of what might happen if I lose the

unemployment income. We don't want to lose our home. My

children catch me crying at times and ask me why are you

crying, mom? I can't tell them . . . Please pass this bill

until this economy strengthens and more companies start to

hire again.

If people on the other side of the aisle can have a good night's sleep knowing this is what is happening in the greatest country in the world on our watch, then fine for them. But I have to tell you, this is a defining moment of who we are as a Nation. As a Nation.

I actually had the experience of a political analyst, someone who comments on politics, say, well, you could understand why people might need two yachts, one on each coast. You know what. We better get back to the basics here: people who need to feed their families, people who need to pay their rent, people who do not want to lose their home.

We have to do everything we can to revitalize the jobs market. We have taken it from 700,000 jobs lost a month under the Republicans, and we have turned it around, but not fast enough, not far enough.

That is why the bills we passed here are so critical. But we have no cooperation on that. It would be one thing if the other side said, you know, let's not do unemployment, but let's work on jobs bills. Oh, no, they do not want to work on jobs bills. We have got a small business jobs bill. We are praying to God--I am--that we get one or two Republicans. This is a bill that is supported across the board by chambers of commerce, everybody. I know, Mr. President, how hard you have worked to make sure our community banks can start lending again to small businesses.

I have been through nine cities in my State. I have met with small businesses. They want access to credit. This small business bill is a terrific bill, and we can leverage it without it costing the Federal Government a dime, these loans to qualified small businesses through qualified and strong community banks, and leverage all of this to be a huge stimulus, and it actually has. Because of the paybacks to the government, we even make a little bit on it.

But we do not have our friends helping us with that. After they stall this unemployment bill, they will stall into the night. Hey, it is their right. It is their right. But it is my right to talk about how I feel about it.

They will start stalling small business just as they stalled the tax breaks that they claimed they wanted. They stalled the bill that would have given the research and development tax credit to businesses all over this great nation that need that tax break.

They have stalled a lot of other tax breaks to businesses. There are huge tax breaks to small businesses in the small business bill they are stalling. So this is a moment in history. This is a moment when partisanship is way ahead of the needs of the people of this great Nation.

I think it is a sad day when some of my Republican friends come down here and start to demean the people, the people like the one who wrote to me, the woman who said: I am scared of what might happen if I lose this unemployment income. We do not want to lose our home. My children catch my crying and ask me why are you crying, mom? I cannot tell them. Please pass this bill until this economy strengthens.

Well, I make this commitment: if we have to stay here through the night, until 1 or 2 a.m.--I do not know what the other side wants; they have got their plan of delaying this--fine, then we will stay here until we get it done. But we are getting this done, because it is the right thing to do, because it is the right thing to do to people who are actively seeking jobs, who have lost jobs through no fault of their own, who have paid into the unemployment compensation fund.

We are going to keep on working to create those jobs so we do not have to be here again and again doing this. There are things we can do to set the stake for economic recovery. We have done some of them. I have met the workers. I have met the workers in my State who are working on the 405 freeway, the 215 freeway, the 805 freeway, the Sacramento Airport, the Caldecott tunnel extension, the Doyle Drive extension, all up and down my State.

I have met those workers who have those jobs because of the Economic Recovery Act. Our Republican administration in California has stated that at least 150,000 jobs have been saved or created, and other studies show it is more than that. It is not enough. We have to keep working at it. I am sad to say all we can hope for are two or three Republican votes at that. We are grateful to those brave Republican Senators who helped us. We are grateful. I thank God for them that they have the courage to stand and say yes to the American people, yes to America's families, and no to partisan politics. I am so grateful to them.

When I say that, it probably hurts them on the other side. I don't mean to do that. I am just being honest about how I feel about it. If anyone ever tells you one vote doesn't make a difference, one vote makes a difference. We swore in a new Senator from West Virginia to take the place of a leader, Robert C. Byrd, who lived his life for working people, for the workers in the mines. How appropriate it was that his first vote was to help working people, working people who, through no fault of their own, can't find work.

I will wrap up at this point. I am ready, so ready for this final vote. If we have to stay here through five motions and debate the fact that the wealthiest American billionaires shouldn't have to help us with this recession, I am happy to do that. I am a believer that we all have to do our share. We all have to work together. Hopefully, tonight, whatever time it is, or in the early hours of the morning, my constituents, 200,000-plus in California, will be able to look at their kids and smile a little and say: Honey, we still have a chance. We are going to get out of these tough times. Honey, we are going to do it.

That is what this place should be about at a time such as this, creating the policies that create the jobs, working together to do so but never forgetting there are people who just need that bridge until, when they go for a job, there are not four other people there for the same job. That day will come, if we can work together. I make that commitment.

I yield the floor.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. As Senator Coburn was talking about the need to balance the budget, I was remembering that I voted to do that. With the leadership of Bill Clinton and the Democrats, we not only balanced the budget but we created surpluses. It was a great feeling. We did it, we know how to do it, and we will do it again.

Let's talk about what is before us right now. It is not about the unemployed versus our children. Our long-term unemployed have children, and these children are seeing their dads and moms with their heads in their hands, they see tears, and they don't know why. I have letters from my constituents. They don't know what to tell their kids. They are working so very hard.

So let's talk about what is before us today. We know how to get to the balanced budget. That is why we have budgeting. That is why we have authorizing. That is why we have appropriations. That is why President Obama has said he will cut the deficit in half at the end of his first term, and I am confident that will be the case, and maybe we can even do more. We know how to do that.

Hearing the Senator from Oklahoma say we are being partisan makes no sense at all. I sang the praises of my Republican friends who have joined with us in making sure we can extend unemployment benefits today. I thank God for them, frankly. So this isn't about partisanship. It is about pulling together as a country and recognizing that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression. It is no time for partisanship. It is time to pull together and help our kids and help our families and help those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this predicament.

Why are we treating this like an emergency? That is what we are doing. It is something that has always been done because it is an emergency. President Ronald Reagan signed three extensions of unemployment compensation without paying for it because he believed it was an emergency and because he understood what we understand. He understood that when we, in fact, make sure unemployed people have this insurance--which they paid into, by the way--they will spend it locally, and every dollar of that unemployment compensation brings to the economy either $1.61 under calculations done by John McCain's economic adviser, Mark Zandi, or CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, which said it yields $1.90.

Some of the proposals we have seen from the other side are to cut other jobs in order to pay for extending unemployment benefits. That is not going to help us at this time.

So, yes, I remember the wonderful feeling I had when we balanced the Federal budget when Bill Clinton was President, when we created surpluses as far as the eye could see. The debt was on the way down. The minute the Republicans took over, they put tax cuts to the wealthiest on their credit card. They put two wars on their credit card. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend. All that work we did was, unfortunately, reversed.

What is before us today is a very simple proposition. My friend from Oklahoma says he cares deeply about the unemployed. I have no reason to doubt that. He should join us today in voting to extend these benefits. Ronald Reagan saw it clearly. He extended them three times as emergencies because it is an emergency. He knew it was counterproductive to cut other jobs to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits.

We know how to balance this budget. Pay-go is a part of it. Pay-go: Pay for everything you do except emergencies. That is what we should be doing because to do otherwise is counterproductive.

I am so grateful we are nearing the point where we can extend these benefits. Yes, we have been delayed. We have been delayed for 2 months. I read letters into the Record before. Here is one:

I have kept up a relentless job search. I have applied for

at least 600 jobs. This is discouraging, not receiving any

information back. Days go by when I hardly sleep at all

worrying about the bills. We have had to concentrate all of

our income on paying the rent and buying gas. I can't pay for

other bills.

Another Californian:

I am very scared of what might happen if I lose the

unemployment income. We don't want to lose our home. My

children catch me crying at times and ask me: Why are you

crying, Mom? I can't tell them. Please pass this bill until

this economy strengthens.

So, again, this isn't about the way the Senator from Oklahoma phrases it.

He makes it sound as though children aren't involved in this situation. They are. They are the children of the unemployed. So it is clear that, yes, we are going to have to tackle the deficit. Of course, we are going to have to tackle the deficit. We don't need to be lectured about that because we are the party that did it. We are the party that created the balanced budget. We are the party that created the surpluses, plus 23 million jobs, and the other side, unfortunately, didn't take very long to turn that whole thing around. This economy went into a ditch, and we are working hard to get it out of that ditch.

So I wish to close with this: Let's take care of this emergency. It is going to help our families. It is going to help our children. It is going to help our local communities when people can go down and buy the gas at the local gas station, buy the food at the local grocery store, and be able to be stable in the community. Then let's get back immediately to working on bills that are going to create jobs.

The small business bill that the Senator from Oregon has worked so hard on and the Senator from Louisiana has worked so hard on, and many of us have worked with them, that is a good bill and it is 100 percent paid for. It even has a plus to it. It is going to create jobs through small business. Small business creates more than 60 percent of the jobs in this Nation. We have a chance to help those who are struggling.

So we need to get this bill behind us and go to the small business bill. We are going to need 60 votes. They are filibustering that as well. So everything we do takes 60 votes.

If I read the list of supporters for the small business bill, it includes the Chamber of Commerce, the regional Chambers of Commerce, and businesses and community banks. They want to see this bill happen because our small businesses need access to credit. Our very good small businesses are being turned away. I visited so many of them. They are thriving even in this climate, but they need to expand and they can't get access to the capital.

So, please, let's not see a filibuster there as well. Please, let's not see delay there as well. Let's do this unemployment compensation, get the assistance to the people who deserve it, those who are actively seeking work, who can't find it through no fault of their own, and who paid into the unemployment compensation fund. Let's get that behind us. That will help our communities. Then let's get to the small business bill. It is a small business jobs bill. Let's do the right thing. We can get this economy back on its feet, but we need to work together.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my high school English teacher always used to say: All right, let's review things. So let's review things just for a moment.

I have listened to some of this debate in the Senate today, and as best as I can tell, we have people standing, saying the deficit is a bad thing. I think there is general agreement about that in the Senate, and we have to do something about it. There is general agreement about that.

They say: We are going to make our last stand here on this deficit with respect to those who are out of work and who need extension of unemployment benefits. We were quick to give help to the wealthiest Americans, to the biggest investment banks that needed help. We gave hundreds of billions of dollars to those interests at the top of the economic ladder, who nearly ran the country right into the ditch. But those at the bottom of the ladder, who are out of work, who are unemployed, and who are having trouble, that is where they say they are making their last stand on deficits.

So let me try to understand this with a review. We are told the deficit is too high; that we cannot give help to the unemployed in the manner we used to give help to the unemployed. We always did that when there was an economic downturn. We have always done that. But, oh, by the way, what we need to do is to repeal the estate tax for the wealthiest individuals in America. I don't know. I took mathematics in a high school senior class of nine students, and I passed it at least. I can understand how things add up now and then. But I don't know how that adds up at all.

There are those coming to the floor of the Senate and having great apoplexy about giving help to the unemployed. By the way, some have even said: You give help to the unemployed, it just discourages them from work. Well, you know something, a guy told me the other day about a young third grader who was asked in his school--it was going to be his birthday--what he would like for his birthday; what kind of birthday present he would like. This little third grader said: A flashlight. The guy said: A flashlight? He said: Yes, so I can read at night. They turned off our electricity.

How many in this room would even understand having your electricity turned off and having a third grade son who can't read at night because there are no lights and asking for a flashlight as a gift? There is nobody in here who is unemployed--not one person in this room. This is a roomful of people who take their showers in the morning, not at night. They get up and put on a blue suit, a pressed white shirt and a tie and come to work--all fully employed--and we talk about the unemployed.

We are short 20 million jobs in this country. There are millions of people out of work. Five million manufacturing employees alone have lost their jobs in the last 9 years. As we ran into this deepest recession since the Great Depression, a whole lot of folks--yes, at the lower end of the economic ladder and in middle-income areas--have lost their jobs and can't find another job. When they worked, from their paychecks they paid a small premium for unemployment insurance. They paid for that insurance, and now they can't get the extension of that unemployment insurance in the Senate. Why? Because the last stand on deficits is to take place with respect to restricting the ability of those who are out of work from getting the funds to extend their unemployment benefits. That is the last stand.

Did my colleagues make that last stand with regard to the big investment banks that ran into trouble? No, not at all. They rushed that aid in on a pillow. Can we help you? How much do you need? But now that it is the folks at the bottom of the ladder, all of a sudden we don't have the capability.

Some of my colleagues just complained about speakers who wanted to talk about the past. You know, if you don't understand the past, you are destined to repeat it. I understand that neither side is much of a bargain--Republicans and Democrats. This country deserves more from both sides. I understand that. But I also understand what has caused this problem. I was on the floor of the Senate in February of 2001. By the way, when President Clinton left office 2 months prior to that we had the first budget surplus in 30 years--over $200 billion in surplus. President Bush said: You know, we have these projected surpluses now for 10 years. Let's get rid of them. Let's give big tax cuts, with the biggest by far going to the wealthiest Americans.

I stood on the floor and said: Let's be a little conservative. What if something happens? They said: You know what, we are going to give these tax cuts, and the biggest cuts are going to the wealthiest Americans. If you made $1 million a year, that bill gave you, I think, $80,000 a year in tax cuts. So everyone on that side voted for it. Absolutely. Happy to vote for it, to reduce this country's income. What happened? Very quickly, we ran into a recession. Then we had a terrorist attack against our country on 9/11. Then we were at war in Afghanistan, then at war in Iraq, and this Congress appropriated massive amounts of money as it sent young men and women to war and did not pay for one penny of it--not a penny. All of it went right onto the debt.

Those who cry the loudest on the floor of the Senate these days, right now, are the very ones who voted to reduce this country's income with the biggest benefits going to the wealthiest Americans. Yet now they come to us and say: Well, you know, now we are making our last stand for the unemployed--to prevent the unemployed from getting what they should get. By the way, while we are on the floor, they say: Why can't we repeal the estate tax that will help the wealthiest Americans?

Let me mention the estate tax for a moment. First of all, my colleague said death tax. He knows, and I know, there is no such thing as a death tax. If my colleague should die, his estate is not

taxed. His entire estate goes tax free, under current law, to his spouse. It is true this year there is zero estate tax for anybody, and my colleague didn't mention that was created in an architecture of tax cuts in 2001 that many of us voted against.

By the way, that turns out to have been just fundamentally goofy. They created estate tax relief that goes down, down, down, and down to zero in this year and then springs way back up in 2011. We didn't do that. That wasn't us. That was the other side. Now what they say is that they would like to repeal the estate tax altogether because they think it is a tax on death. It is not. It is a tax on inherited wealth and they know that.

But this year, because there is zero estate tax, about four billionaires have died and not one penny of their estate will be taxed and most of their estates were never taxed. They were growth appreciation of stocks and various assets never subject to a tax. Most people have an income and it is subject to a tax. They help send kids to school with that tax, pay to build roads, pay for police, pay for defense. But that runup in tax for the billionaires or that runup in income, I should say, has never borne a tax to support anything. My colleagues say: You know what, I want to make sure it doesn't ever bear a tax. Let's have the little folks pay a tax. Let's have the rest of the folks pay a tax but not the people at the top.

What an unbelievable irony that on the very day that we have people digging in the heels of their cowboy boots and saying we are making our last stand to prevent the unemployed from getting unemployment compensation they deserve--on the very day that they say we can't do that--they come to the floor of the Senate saying: But what we have to do as a priority is to relieve the richest Americans, the wealthiest Americans, of the obligation to pay estate tax. If there is any narrative that tells the American people whose side they are on, this little vignette describes it completely, in my judgment.

Let me mention that the reason it is important to understand how we got to this point is, we will never get out of it unless we understand that. A lot of my colleagues have been perfectly content for most of the decade standing on this floor deciding that we will ship men and women to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight, but we will not pay for the cost of a penny of it. They have been perfectly content to do that. I have come to the floor of the Senate to say: You know what, sacrifice works a number of ways in this country. If we are going to ask young men and women to sacrifice their lives, to go 12,000 miles away and strap on body armor in the morning and risk their lives by going in harm's way, perhaps we could ask the American people to provide the money to pay for it.

I have proposed that in the Senate. President Bush, at one point, said: You all do that, and I will veto the bill. My colleagues were content to say: Let's spend the money and put it all on the deficit. We will send kids to war and they can come back and pay the bill. That is how we got here. The second portion of how we got here is about 10 years ago we passed what was then called financial reform. I voted against that as well. That said to the biggest financial institutions in this country: Katy bar the door. Do whatever you want. We will not watch. We are taking away the protections that existed since the Great Depression. We will not look and we will not care.

As a result, we saw in recent years unbelievable speculation and gambling. It was not business, it was just flatout gambling. We saw the creation of exotic instruments--CDOs, derivatives, credit default swaps, naked credit default swaps, and the like--and we saw unbelievable, rampant gaming going on as opposed to thoughtful investing in this country's future. As a result, this country nearly had an economic collapse.

It is important for us to understand how that happened because we had regulators come to town who were supposed to regulate, and they boasted about being business friendly: Don't worry, we will not look. There is a new sheriff in town and this sheriff doesn't have a weapon. So don't worry about it. Then we saw a decade go by in which this country's economy nearly collapsed. So that is how we got where we are. It is important for people to understand that.

They say: Let's not review the past, but let me review one final point. When President Obama walked through the White House door, had he gone to sleep for 12 months, had he done nothing at all, he would have had a $1.3 trillion budget deficit because that is what the previous President left him--$1.3 trillion on autopilot.

Having said all that, let me say this. This deficit, in my judgment, is unsustainable. It cannot continue. We have to diffuse it. This is a timebomb that will destroy this country's economy inevitably at some point. We can't have a government the size and cost of which is such that the American people are either unable or unwilling to pay for it. You can't do that. So we have to fix it, and we have to fix it together. But if we don't learn from what happened, if we don't understand the past decade of what happened--going from a $200 billion- a-year budget surplus to the largest deficits in history and to a near economic collapse--we are destined to repeat it.

Again, it seems to me that everybody here are people of good faith. I don't come here suggesting that there are people of bad faith here, but there are some people with bad judgment here, for sure. All you have to do is look at the record. Those who say: Let's don't look at the record, I guess they do not want the record to be understood. I think the only way we get out of this unbelievable deficit and debt trap is to understand what has caused it. I will tell you this for sure. We are not going to get out of this mess by having people come to the floor of the Senate and say that one of the biggest problems in the country is the death tax, when no such tax exists. What an unbelievable spoof. Death tax my eye. We have a tax on inherited wealth and the only people who have been paying it are the people at the upper income levels.

We have had a $3\1/2\ million-a-year exemption for the husband, and a $3\1/2\ million exemption for the wife. That was last year's exemption. That means you don't pay a penny unless you have $7 million clear, husband and wife. How many families have that? But that is not enough, my colleagues say. In the middle of all this economic trouble we face, in the middle of wars and a near economic collapse, what is their priority? Get rid of the so-called death tax, which doesn't exist, or perhaps I can rephrase it for them: Get rid of the tax on inherited wealth for the wealthiest of Americans.

These are billionaires' best friends, I guess. I have nothing against billionaires. I guess I wish I was one. But when billionaires die, they, I think, ought to expect to be able to contribute something to this country. It is unbelievable to me. I hope people have listened to this discussion today and understand that their priority is to eliminate the estate tax, the tax on inherited wealth, which would only apply to the wealthiest Americans. It is unbelievable to me.

I have seen other unbelievable things, some of which have led to this current economic trouble. I hope perhaps in calmer times and perhaps more sober times we can discuss the best of what both parties have to offer this country because I think both parties do make a contribution.

We cannot wait much longer. This is not something we can delay, it is not something we can decide to postpone. This country is in trouble. We have a deep Federal budget deficit. It comes from the steepest decline in the economy since the 1930s. As a result of that decline, we have victims at the bottom of this economic ladder who have not had work, in some cases for 2 years. They wake up in the morning feeling helpless and hopeless, wondering, How on Earth can I find a job? What do I tell my family today?

This Congress, in my judgment, ought to at least pay as much attention to those folks at the bottom of the economic ladder as it has paid in the last 2 years to the interests at the top of the economic ladder. We shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars toward those at the top--the most comfortable pillows to make them rest, the medicine to calm their nerves. But when it comes to the people at the bottom, Will Rogers had it best. Here is what Will Rogers said 80 years ago and it applies today in this Chamber. Will Rogers said: ``The unemployed here ain't eating regular but we'll get around to

them as soon as everybody else gets fixed up OK.''

Let me say this. A whole lot of other folks got fixed up at the top of the economic ladder, at the top of this country's economy. A whole lot of folks got fixed up and it is the case that the unemployed here ``ain't eating regular,'' and this Congress, this Senate ought to care about that. It is part of our responsibility. Then let's get about the business of having a real debate, a thoughtful rather than thoughtless debate about all of the issues that affect us, such as spending and taxing, and let's use real terms, not things like ``death taxes'' that come from a pollster who decides they want to fool people. Let's use real terms in serious discussions between adults and try to figure out how we fix what is wrong with this country to put this country back on track.

This country deserves better. It is the first generation of Americans, I think, that believes its kids are not going to do as well as they did. We have to change that. This country has a lot to offer with a good future if we make some good decisions going forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, my understanding is that all time has now been used.

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

I yield back our time.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to talk about what is currently happening in the Senate, in my judgement, representing a State with now the second highest unemployment rate in the country--Michigan. We are glad not to be No. 1, but we sure would like to be No. 50. We have an awful lot of people right now who are waiting for us to complete action on extending unemployment insurance benefits.

I continue to be appalled at the lengths to which the Republican minority will go to stop people who are out of work from getting some help. We are in a situation where we finally, after eight different votes and weeks and weeks of trying, had enough votes to overcome a filibuster. As we all know, that takes 60 votes. I am very grateful to our Republican colleagues from Maine for joining with us to make that happen. We had a vote yesterday that was a supermajority vote. We

know extending unemployment benefits is going to pass because we had 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and the vote on the actual bill only takes 51.

We know we have the votes, but under the procedures of the Senate, technically, unless there is a bipartisan agreement, we have to wait 30 hours before we can actually vote. It used to be that once we secured the votes of a supermajority, then everyone would agree: OK, the votes are there, and they would agree to yield back time so we would not have to wait; we could go on to something else.

That is not what is happening now. While people in Michigan and around the country are waiting, trying to figure out: OK, can I pay the rent tomorrow, can I get gas for my car to look for another job tomorrow, can I put food on the table tomorrow, what is going to happen on Monday, what is going to happen on Tuesday--while people are waiting, we have nothing happening on the floor of the Senate. We are just burning time, 30 hours of time. In my judgment, it is just mean, because when we look at what has to happen yet--we will pass the bill. We know we are going to pass the bill. It has to go back to the House and then to the President for signature. This, at least, is the difference between families getting some help on Friday so they can feed the kids for the weekend or whether they are going to have to wait until Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday. For a lot of folks, for a lot of us--we have a salary, we have a job--that may not seem like much. For over 2.5 million people in this country who have lost their insurance benefits--and these are insurance benefits. You pay in when you are working to get some temporary help if you lose your job through no fault of your own. Mr. President, 2.5 million people think waiting from Friday to Monday is a big deal. They, in fact, think Thursday and Friday is a big deal. We have a situation that, frankly, I cannot characterize any other way than saying it is just plain mean.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I say to our distinguished leader in the Senate--and I thank him for his advocacy--he is exactly right. We have waited--I am not sure now if it is 10 or 11 weeks--trying to extend unemployment benefits. We have had multiple votes. We finally get the votes through all kinds of different means. We finally get the votes yesterday, and it is unheard of that we would be in this spot, after getting a supermajority of 60 people and after having this go on as long as it has. It is unheard of. Never before with a Democratic or Republican President have we ever seen this, but now we are stuck again, and I don't understand why. I cannot fathom the motivation of why the folks on the other side of the aisle, the leadership on the other side of the aisle, would say: Let's wait another 30 hours, which for most people means it is on into next week, and most people have already been without that little bit of $250 or $300 a week. We are not talking about a lot of money.

But it is a difference between having a roof over your family's head, food on the table, and not. So now we are pushing into next week.

That is right.

Well, you are exactly right. I also hear, on top of that, about people who have done what we have told them they should do--they should go back to school and get retraining. So they go back, and the only reason they can actually afford to go back to school to go through one of the job training programs is that small check that has allowed them to have a little income for their family while they do what we have told them to do, which is to get a different skill to go into a different career and then hope there will be a job there.

I have had so many e-mails from people not only about losing their homes and what is happening to their families but that they have had to drop out of school. Well, how does it make any sense, when we are trying to make sure people are productive in the workforce and are able to find a job that people are dropping out of school because of this as well?

Well, people in Michigan are extremely offended by this, and I am very offended on their behalf. The people we are talking about have never been out of work in their lives. They are mortified. The idea of having to go get food assistance is unbelievable to them. These are people who built America. They built the middle class. It is not their fault Wall Street had the crisis.

We had the good fortune to be with the President signing a bill that will change that, but it is not their fault what happened. It is not their fault there was recklessness on Wall Street and then the financial system collapsed so small businesses can't get loans and manufacturers can't get loans.

It is not their fault we went through a decade of policies where the previous administration was not enforcing trade laws so our jobs went overseas. It is not their fault they find themselves in this economy. So they are saying to me: I want to work. Hey, I want a job. I don't want to extend my unemployment benefits. Give me a job.

That is what we are focusing on too. I say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, one of the things I find doubly insulting about wasting this time is that the legislation we are trying to get to is a small business bill so small businesses can get loans to hire people. So we are trying to create jobs and, instead, all this time is being wasted on an effort just to try to help people get by.

Well, the Senator is absolutely correct. That is the fundamental question. It goes to a question of values and priorities. We will never get out of deficit with over 15 million people out of work, and that doesn't count people working two or three or four part- time jobs or who are underemployed. If people aren't back to work, aren't able to purchase as consumers, aren't able to contribute, we will never get out of deficit, which is why we start with jobs in the beginning.

But to add insult to injury, we hear that giving another round of tax cuts to the only part of the American public that has dramatically increased its income--those who are at the very top; the top 1 and 2 percent--doesn't matter if it adds to the debt. Adding to the debt for tax cuts for wealthy people doesn't count, but changing the rules, such as we have never done before, and focusing on helping out-of-work people does count. That counts. We can't do that, if it is somebody who is out of work. But we don't worry at all about deficits when it is helping the privileged few.

I can't imagine that. That is not the America I know and the majority of Americans care about right now.

Well, I absolutely agree. I wish to thank the Senator for his continuing leadership and passion on this issue.

I would simply say, if over 15 million people out of work in this country isn't an emergency, I don't know what is. Those are the folks we are fighting for right now--the people who want to work, the people who have been part of this great middle class in our country and who now find that slipping through their fingers because of a global economy, where we have not understood the rules should be fair, where we have had policies put into place that affect only the privileged few, with the theory that it will trickle down to everybody else.

You know what. I wish it had. I wish the policies of the former President and my friends on the other side had worked. I don't want people to be out of work. If trickle-down economics would work, I would celebrate it. But my folks are still waiting for the trickle down. They are still waiting. Instead, what is happening to them is they have lost their jobs or they are finding themselves with fewer hours or they are finding themselves in a situation where they are working two jobs, three jobs just trying to hold it together. I mean I have seen numbers that show almost half the families in Michigan have somebody in their immediate family who has lost their job.

The idea of saying that somehow that is all because people are lazy, well, I would not say the words I would truly like to say, but I would just say that is a bunch of bunk--the idea that somehow Americans who have worked all their lives and are caught up in this are somehow just lazy. But this goes to a broader pattern that is extremely concerning to me, and it is the difference in world view and how we view what should happen and what is important in our country.

When we had a bill in front of us--the President just signed it today--to put back some commonsense regulations on Wall Street so there are no more big bailouts and consumers can get good information to be able to protect themselves and their 401(k)s and their savings and to be able to address all the jobs--the 8 million jobs lost since the financial crisis started over a year ago--and when we have a bill on the floor that takes on the big banks, the big bonuses, the recklessness of some on Wall Street, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle vote no. Almost every single one of them sided with the big banks and the big bonuses.

We are going to have a big debate about whether to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, whether we should give even bigger tax cuts to the top couple hundred families with huge estates in this country--to do even more than President Bush did on tax cuts for the wealthy and the wealthy estates that are literally only 200 or 300 families in the country. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue for that. They will argue that is the right thing to do. That is a different

view. It is a different view than we have about what is happening in this country and where the priorities ought to be.

Middle-class families in my State are saying: What about us? What about us? The big banks got their bailout, what about us? That is why we have been focused on jobs and on innovation. While we aren't out of the hole--we are nowhere near out of the hole--we are at least digging our way out. There were 750,000 a jobs a month being lost when President Obama took office. We changed the focus to working families, to middle-class families, and by the end of the year that was zero. Now we are gaining 100,000 or 200,000 a month, but we are at least gaining.

I am not happy at all about the unemployment levels in Michigan. But when President Obama took office we were looking at 15.7 percent-- unbelievable--and that is just the people being counted. Now it has come down a little bit, a little bit, a little bit, and now it is 13.2. That is still way, way too high, but at least it is moving in the right direction. We had 8 years of it moving in the wrong direction and we have turned the ship and it is beginning to turn around.

The problem we have is that while it is slow in terms of job creation, too many families are caught in the middle on this, waiting for that next job, wanting that next job that is going to pay enough so they can care for their family. They are caught in a situation they never thought they would be in, in their life and they are embarrassed and they are mortified and they are angry. They are looking at the Senate and saying: What is going on here? You can't even get it together to do what every other President, Democrat and Republican, has done in the history of our country to come together and to understand this is an emergency--15 million people plus is an emergency--and that we ought to be extending the small unemployment insurance benefits to families who are caught in this.

That is what this is all about. We find ourselves in a situation where we are wasting time right now on the floor of the Senate that we could be using after voting to extend unemployment benefits to go on to small business, which is also absolutely critical for us. The No. 1 concern from businesses is the inability to get a loan, to get the capital they need to extend their line of credit to do business or be able to expand, to get the loans they need. That is the bill we have waiting in the wings. That is the one we are trying to get done.

Instead of focusing on that, which is jobs and small business, which is the growth engine of the country, we wait. We watch the clock--30 hours. For whatever reason I do not know. But I think it is a shame.

I want to close reading a letter. I get thousands of e-mails. I am sure my colleague does too. I find them very heartbreaking. I want to read a little bit to put it in the Record, from Philip, from Belding,

Mr. President, I wish to thank our colleague from South Carolina for giving us the opportunity tonight to decide whose side we are really on. We are talking about upward of $1 trillion in spending to help a few hundred of our wealthiest Americans. We would not be helping small businesses or family farmers, all of whom we support helping, but the wealthiest Americans--close to $1 trillion--or helping 2.5 million people who lost their jobs, are out of work through no fault of their own.

The crash on Wall Street, the crisis on Wall Street, which, unfortunately, colleagues chose not to vote to repair and to fix, has caused a situation where families are hurting.

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

Mr. President, every day it becomes harder and harder for me to listen to my Republican friends who race down to the Senate breathlessly telling the American people how concerned they are about the $13 trillion national debt we have and how ``we have to get our financial house in order.'' That is what they tell us every single day. But a funny thing happened: under the leadership of President George W. Bush, these very same Republicans turned a recordbreaking Federal surplus left by President Clinton into recordbreaking deficits. Back then, as we all recall, not so many years ago, their rallying cry was ``deficits don't matter.'' That was articulated by Vice President Dick Cheney. This ``deficits don't matter'' philosophy gave us two wars that were not paid for, including the war in Iraq, which may end up costing us $3 trillion. It gave us $700 billion in tax breaks--no worry about paying for those tax breaks that went to the very wealthiest people in our country. It gave us $400 billion in an unpaid-for prescription drug Medicare Part D bill. And, of course, it gave us a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street developed by President Bush and his Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson. No worry; in those days, we did not have to pay for any of that. It is OK, just add it onto the debt of our kids and our grandchildren.

But it seems our Republican friends recently, about a year and three- quarters ago, had a change of heart. Coincidentally, that was when President

Obama came into office. I am sure it was just a coincidence, but now it appears that deficits do matter. For 8 years, deficits didn't matter. Now they do matter. Now they are telling us we cannot afford to extend unemployment benefits to over 2 million Americans who lost their jobs in the worst recession in modern history. They tell us we just cannot afford to invest in our economy to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure or transform our energy system, which would create, over a period of years, millions of good-paying jobs. We can't do that. We don't have the money to do that.

The Republican hypocrisy is about to reach a whole new level, literally, today. In the name of fiscal responsibility, while they oppose every effort to help the middle-class and working families of our country, today an amendment is going to come onto the floor which is specifically designed to provide huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. In other words, there is no money available to help desperate families who have lost their jobs, but there is all kinds of money to provide huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

Finally, last night, as a result of the appointment of a new Senator from West Virginia, we got the 60 votes we needed to end the Republican filibuster so that we can extend unemployment benefits. But instead of allowing this bill to pass yesterday, as common decency would allow, so we can begin to get the money out to those families who are wondering right now how they are going to buy the food they need, pay the rent, pay the mortgage, the Republicans are forcing the Senate to wait another 30 hours before final passage.

Adding insult to injury, my good friend from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, wants to suspend the rules so the Senate can take up legislation to permanently repeal the estate tax. This, even for the Senate, is really weird and really extraordinary. In the midst of telling us how serious the deficit is, how serious the national debt is, these folks want to give tax breaks to billionaires by permanently repealing the estate tax and, as this chart shows, adding more than $1 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. That is a very unusual way to deal with our deficit crisis, by adding $1 trillion to the national debt over a 10-year period. Furthermore, as this chart shows--and maybe this is the most important point I want to make in my brief remarks-- only a tiny fraction of estates from death in 2009 owed any estate tax. In fact, 99.7 percent of Americans would not receive a nickel from Senator DeMint's legislation.

Four years ago, every Republican except two voted to completely eliminate the estate tax, a tax that has been in existence since 1916 and impacts only the very richest families in America, the top three- tenths of 1 percent. Let me tell you who the major beneficiaries of this huge tax break would be. Would it be the average middle-class worker who during the Bush years saw a $2,200 decline in his income, people who really need the money? No, they are not being helped by Mr. DeMint or the repeal of the estate tax. Would it be a small businessperson, the people who are creating almost all of the new jobs in our economy? Would small business be helped when we repeal the estate tax? No, not those guys. Would it be a single mom who wants to send her kid to college for the first time in their family's lifetime? No, that single mom is not going to be helped, not anybody on Social Security, not the people who need the help the most. They don't get one penny from the repeal of the estate tax, as Senator DeMint is proposing.

Who benefits? Who are the beneficiaries of the estate tax or, as my Republican friends and their pollsters like to refer to it, the death tax? If we pass what Senator DeMint wants us to do today, completely repeal the estate tax, it would provide an estimated $32.7 billion tax break for the Walton family, the founders and owners of Walmart--a $32.7 billion tax break for a family that is worth almost $87 billion. Some people here may think the Walton family--worth almost $100 billion--is in desperate need of a tax break at a time when we have a $13 trillion national debt. I am not one of those people. I do not think they do.

But it is not just the Walton family, obviously, who will benefit. Other very wealthy families will. Do you remember those hedge fund managers on Wall Street who made $1 billion a year or several billion a year? They are going to benefit. Those are the guys--the people who drove us into the recession, who made huge amounts of money gambling on Wall Street. They will be very happy if that amendment passes. They benefit. The Mars candy family will get an $11 billion tax break; the Cox cable family, $9 billion tax breaks.

Remember, this law has been in existence since 1916. And remember again, it only benefits the top three-tenths of 1 percent, and 99.7 percent of the American people, working people, middle-class, lower income people, upper middle-class people, don't benefit one nickel from this tax break which costs us $1 trillion over a 10-year period.

At a time when our country has a $13 trillion national debt, the highest level of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, a crumbling infrastructure, a desperate need to transform our energy system--I see Senator Boxer, who has been a leader in that effort--it is beyond comprehension to me that anyone at this moment in American history would advocate huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

This concept of the estate tax was developed by Teddy Roosevelt. He was concerned about two things. He was obviously concerned about raising revenue for the Federal Government, but he was also concerned about making sure we did not maintain an oligarchy in the United States where billionaire families--people worth tens of billions of dollars now--are able to give away their fortunes to their own heirs. He believed in a meritocracy and that it was appropriate that those people pay a fair share of taxes.

This is what he said:

The absence of effective state and especially national

restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a

small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful

men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power .

. . Therefore I [Teddy Roosevelt] believe in a . . .

graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly

safeguarded against evasion and increasing in amount with the

size of the estate.

Teddy Roosevelt, 1910. I think our Republican friends have kind of disowned Teddy Roosevelt, and we don't hear him quoted terribly much anymore.

In order to sell this concept of repealing the estate tax to the American people, Republican pollsters--I have to admit, we have to be honest about this--have done a very good job. They framed this tax break for billionaires into a death tax. So people on the street in Burlington, VT, come up to me and say: Bernie, I want to leave my kids $20,000. Why are they going to tax me? The Republican pollsters have done a very good job and their lobbyists have done a very good job in misleading the public. As usual, Republicans are using the old tactic of pretending to worry about the needs of ordinary people as a smokescreen to serve the wealthy special interests.

That is what they do very well. If you are in the middle class and you want to leave your family $1 million or $2 million or $100,000, this doesn't apply to you; you don't benefit one nickel. This is for millionaires and billionaires.

The other thing they talk about is, we have to preserve the family farm and the estate tax is wiping out family farms. I am a strong advocate of family-based agriculture, and in terms of the preservation of family farms, the American Farm Bureau was asked to come up with an example of one single family farm being lost as a result of the estate tax. They could not find one farm that had to be sold as a result of the estate tax. This is not legislation to help family farmers. This is legislation to help provide tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Let me quote from an article that appeared in the New York Times July 8, 2001:

Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax

advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers,

said he had searched far and wide but had never found a case

in which a farm was lost because of estate taxes. ``It's a

myth,'' Mr. Harl said.

As it happens, I called up Professor Harl this afternoon, just a few hours ago. Interestingly, he told me he has conducted over 3,000 seminars on the

estate tax and agriculture. This guy is an expert on the issue. I just wanted to get an update from him. What he told me 2 hours ago is that after studying this issue for decades, he has not heard of one family farm that had to be sold because of the estate tax--not one.

When my Republican friends talk about preserving the family farm-- something we have to do--this estate tax issue has nothing to do with that.

In terms of small business, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, as this chart indicates, has estimated that only 80 small businesses and farm estates throughout the country paid an estate tax in 2009, representing 0.003 percent of all estates.

This legislation is not for the family farmer. This legislation is not for small business. This legislation is specifically designed to provide huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, millionaires and billionaires, at the same time as we have a $13 trillion national debt.

Let me conclude by saying this.

We have heard our Republican friends week after week, month after month, coming down to the floor of the Senate and saying, no, we cannot extend unemployment benefits to desperate Americans all over this country who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. We cannot afford to do that.

Finally yesterday we got the votes to go forward. But having said that, that they cannot help working families and people who have lost their jobs, they are now coming down to the floor and saying, we desperately need to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

You know, Woody Guthrie had a song some years ago. The title was: ``Whose Side Are You On?'' The Republicans have answered that loudly and clearly. But when it comes to the needs of the unemployed and uninsured, when it comes to protect the interests of the struggling middle class, the Republicans are deficit hawks. We know they are going to go after them. But if you are a billionaire family who needs a huge tax break that will cost $1 trillion over 10 years, they are on your side.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is an absurd amendment. This amendment would provide $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top three- tenths of 1 percent, and 99.7 percent of the American people do not get a nickel. Despite all the rhetoric we hear around here about fiscal responsibility, this isn't paid for. It is another $1 trillion over 10 years to our national debt.

I yield to the Senator from Michigan.