Temporary Extension Act of 2010

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions which expire on Sunday, February 28--unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, Satellite Home Viewer Act, highway funding, SBA business loans and small business provisions of the American Recovery Act, SGR and poverty guidelines--received from the House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, the Senator has objected to extending unemployment benefits across the United States of America which will expire on Sunday night. He has also objected to extending COBRA benefits, which is health insurance for the unemployed people across America. This has been done regularly, now that we are in this recession, because millions of Americans are out of work. We know there are four or five, maybe even six people for every available job. Folks have depleted their savings, they run the risk of losing their homes, they are trying to keep their children in school, they are trying to provide the necessities of life, and the Senator from Kentucky objects to their having unemployment benefit checks.

What does it mean to me? Well, in the State of Illinois, it means that as of Sunday night, 15,000 people in my State will stop receiving unemployment benefits because of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky. It means that every week thereafter another 15,000 will lose their unemployment benefits. It is a harsh reality that many of these families have been looking for work for a long time.

The Senator has also objected to providing assistance to small business. The request I made would extend, for 30 days, provisions of the Small Business Act and the Recovery Act lending programs for small businesses. So what the Senator from Kentucky is doing, as of Sunday night, is shutting down the availability of credit for small businesses across America through this Small Business Administration program. In the midst of a recession, when we are told small businesses are the engine that will bring us out of this recession, when they are desperate for credit to keep their doors open, families who have spent a lifetime building a small business are going to be denied an opportunity to borrow money through the Small Business Administration because of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky.

Let me say a word about COBRA. One of the first casualties of unemployment is health insurance. Sadly, many of these people are in a position where they do not qualify for Medicaid--health insurance for the poorest people. So they find themselves without health insurance for the first time because they are unemployed. We said, under President Obama's Recovery Act, we are going to help you pay for those premiums so you can continue to have health insurance for your family. That expires Sunday night too. The objection of the Senator from Kentucky means thousands of people across America will lose their health insurance. Because of his objection, they will lose it on Sunday night.

Workers who lose their jobs count on COBRA. And COBRA, frankly, is expensive. On average, COBRA coverage consumes 84 percent of unemployment benefits. It is not cheap. The average monthly unemployment benefit in Illinois is just over $1,300. The average monthly family COBRA premium is over $1,100. Through the Recovery Act, we said we would pick up 65 percent of that. Well, because of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky, if these people want to maintain their health insurance through unemployment, they are basically going to have to turn to savings or give it up.

Why? Why would we want to heap this kind of suffering on people who are already going through such misfortune? It isn't just Illinois that suffers, it is virtually every State. As of December, there were 221,000 people in Kentucky unemployed--10.7 percent of the Kentucky workforce--63,000 people in Louisville, 18,000 people in Lexington, 6,000 in Bowling Green, 5,500 in Elizabethtown, 5,000 in Owensboro. As they are desperately looking for work, many of these people are just getting by on unemployment checks. They are just trying to get by.

Last month, the State of Kentucky had the sharpest increase in unemployment claims in the country--in the entire United States--with 2,510 more claims than the month prior due to the automobile industry and manufacturing job cuts. Unfortunately, many of these people will lose their unemployment benefits in Kentucky because of the objection of their Senator. If Senator Bunning has his way, more than 14,000 Kentucky residents will lose their unemployment assistance in March and 60,000 by the end of June.

Why? Why are we doing this to these families in Kentucky and Illinois and every State? Everyone acknowledges there is only one objection. Everyone in this Chamber acknowledges we are a caring and compassionate country, and we will, on an emergency basis, extend a helping hand to those who have lost their jobs.

Most Senators have left for the evening, but some have stayed on the floor. I have asked them if they would like to say a word on this issue. They are going to go home and tell their people back home there are going to be some terrible things happening as of Sunday night because of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky: 15,000 in my State, thousands in his own State and all across the country.

I am staying tonight to talk about this because, frankly, I don't think this ought to be business as usual. I don't think one Senator ought to be able to heap this kind of suffering and misfortune on people who are already struggling in this economy. If you wish to take it out on somebody, take it out on a colleague or a debate, but these are helpless people out of work.

Senator Reid offered to the Senator from Kentucky an amendment--bring to the floor your theory on how to pay for this. He has a theory. He wants to pay for it with unexpended stimulus funds, as I understand it. He would have had his chance on the floor to make his case. He would have had a rollcall at the end of the day. He might have won, he might have lost, but he came to the floor yesterday and said I am not going to fall for that. I may lose this amendment and therefore I am going to object.

That is the nature of things. It is like when you pitch a ball game. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. On the floor, sometimes you win----

I have never pitched a ball game. I never have. I am very proud of what you have done in your baseball career. But let me tell you, this is a wild pitch you are throwing tonight because this is a pitch that is hitting somebody in the stands, it is hitting an unemployed worker in Illinois. That is a wild pitch that should not have been thrown, Senator.

I believe when you look at what this is going to do across America, this is unforgivable that we would do this to these unemployed people.

For the Senator from Michigan, I yield for the purpose of a question.

I would say to the Senator from Michigan, this has been characterized as an emergency because it is an emergency. It has been acknowledged by the Budget Committee. It will be treated as an emergency spending situation. It is an extraordinary situation, just like a drought or flood or hurricane or tornado. These people have had their lives disrupted. We are trying to keep these families together. If there is ever a family value issue, this is it.

At this point I would like, on behalf of the people of Michigan and Illinois and Kentucky, Mr. President, to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions which expire on Sunday, February 28, unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, Satellite Home Viewer Act, highway funding, SBA, business loans and small business provisions of the American Recovery Act, SGR, and poverty guidelines received from the House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for purposes of a question.

I say to the Senator from Rhode Island he is correct. In these extraordinary times when people have lost so many jobs, we set politics aside and we say we are going to help these people, whether it is victims of an economic disaster or a natural disaster. I cannot imagine if I were going home to Rhode Island, facing 12.9 percent. It is 11.1 in my home State of Illinois. You have a larger percentage of your population going through this. I am sure you have examples of friends, of folks who have already contacted your office who are at their wits end to figure out how to keep their families together.

I have seen it. I went to the unemployment offices in Chicago. I hope the Senator from Kentucky has visited with unemployed families in his State and understands how desperate they are. These are people who will do anything to get a job. They will do anything to get an interview.

They are trying desperately. Some of them are taking training courses, trying to figure out anything that might work to get a job.

They are really up against it when it comes to health insurance. It is one of the first casualties. This objection by the Senator from Kentucky will make it next to impossible for these families to have health insurance as a result of his objection.

I don't understand why we would do this. We are a caring people. On a bipartisan basis we step up as an American family when people are in need. I would not ask twice if someone came to me with a disaster in another State, because I know I have needed help in my own State. This is a real disaster. It is one that has affected virtually every State.

When you take a look at some of the provisions in this bill-- incidentally, beyond unemployment--some people, particularly those living in rural areas, are affected by this Satellite Home Viewer Act which will not be extended because of the Senator's objection. It is a minor inconvenience for some, maybe more of an inconvenience for others. But why would we do this? Why would we object to the extension of these basic provisions in the law for 30 days? That is all we are asking for. I would think that is very basic and something we should be doing.

I also think the idea of helping the doctors who are treating Medicare patients is not an unreasonable thing to do. These are people who are taking care of the elderly in America, our parents and grandparents. This so-called SGR, the sustainable growth rate, or doc fix, is also one of the provisions which the Senator from Kentucky is objecting to.

It doesn't make sense. We want to make sure patients across America receive the care they are entitled to, that Medicare patients can go visit their doctors and doctors can receive adequate compensation for doing that. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing for us to ask and I hope my colleagues who are on the floor here, if they have similar situations in their own State with unemployment, or if they are dealing with small businesses needing credit, would join me in this conversation on the floor about how unfair it is to be objecting to this extension of unemployment benefits.

I yield to the Senator from Missouri for purposes of a question.

I would say to the Senator from Missouri that for many people there is almost no place to turn. In my hometown of Springfield, IL, there is something called township assistance, when you have no place to turn. It is a fraction of the money you would receive for unemployment. It would barely provide money for food for these people.

That is correct.

Mr. President, on behalf of unemployed people in Kentucky and Rhode Island and Michigan and Illinois and Missouri, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions which expire on Sunday, February 28; unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, Satellite Home Viewer Act, highway funding, SBA business loans and small business loans and small business provisions of the American Recovery Act, SGR, and poverty guidelines received from the House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Regular order.

I wanted to give the Senator from Kentucky an opportunity to explain his position. I did not assert regular order until he had an opportunity to do so. But I would like to remind him, on November 4 of last year, he issued a press release entitled, ``Bunning Supports Extension of Benefits for Kentucky's Unemployed.'' The legislation includes Senator Bunning's net operating loss amendment. It passed by a vote of 98 to 0. And he said:

Kentucky has been hit hard by the current economic

downturn. This legislation will lend a helping hand to

working families across the Commonwealth who are in search of

a job.

It was not paid for either. The point is, we are in the same recession. It has gotten worse in some areas of the country, particularly in the Senator's area of the country.

As I reported earlier, unemployment figures are growing in Kentucky. The situation is just as dire and just as serious.

I share the Senator's concern about our deficit situation. But virtually every reputable economist you will talk to will tell you, in the midst of a recession you need to insert into the economy economic activity and spending, and the money that flows through the fastest is unemployed benefits to those out of work because they spend it instantly. It goes right back into the economy.

This idea of somehow we are going to hold back on unemployment benefits and balance the budget on the backs of unemployed people in Illinois and Kentucky, you could not pick a worse strategy or a worse time to do it. The stories coming out of Kentucky and the stories coming out from Illinois are as graphic as can be.

Samantha, who lives in Kentucky, writes: I am in desperate need of help. I have been unemployed since January 31, 2007, cannot find work anywhere. I was laid off after 10 years of employment. I was able to get 26 weeks of UI benefits. After these ran out, I thought I needed to take whatever job I could find. I took a job that I was told would be full time at minimum wage. I never got more than 20 hours a week. When I asked my employer, I was told I would get more hours. I was forced to quit due to not being able to afford childcare and transportation. I still cannot find work. I have been forced to sign up for government assistance. This is not enough to live on. I have three children.

Talk about 40 grandchildren. This lady has three children she is trying to support--``and we have already lost our home. Is there anything I can do to try and qualify for unemployment?''

I mean, for goodness' sakes, why would we want to make this deficit battle on the back of Samantha from Kentucky. Let's have this battle out on the budget resolution. Let's have it out on appropriations bills. But on unemployment benefits, for someone in this circumstance? That, to me, is pushing it too far. This is a national emergency. It should be treated as such.

I am supportive of the commission we voted for and only had 53 votes. But I believe it is a step in the right direction toward resolving our deficit difficulties. The majority leader has appointed me as a member of the Presidential Commission on the Deficit and Debt. It is not an easy assignment. I take it seriously. But I will tell you, if the belief is that we can somehow deny enough unemployment benefits to people to balance the budget, I do not want to see what America will look like. I cannot imagine what it will look like with Samantha and her three children if that becomes our national strategy.

I agree with the Senator from Michigan. I will tell you that because the Senator from Kentucky has noted our current national debt, $14 trillion, I think it is worth a moment to explain that debt and how we reached that astronomic figure.

When President George W. Bush became President of the United States, we had a national debt of $5 trillion, and we handed him a surplus--as President Clinton left office, he gave to President George W. Bush a surplus. At the end of the George W. Bush Presidency 8 years later, we were knocking on the door of $12 trillion in debt. We had more than doubled the national debt in 8 years.

How did that happen? Some of it came from circumstances beyond President Bush's control. 9/11 devastated the economy, and that devastation cost us dearly in terms of jobs and services and businesses and revenue lost.

But conscious decisions were made by the George W. Bush administration to enact tax cuts in the midst of a war. That has never happened before in the history of the United States. It is counterintuitive. In addition to your ordinary budget of your country, you have a war budget on top of it. When you desperately need revenue to pay for that war and the ordinary expenses of your government, this administration, the previous administration under George W. Bush said: Let's give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the midst of those two wars. They were voted on by the other side of the aisle, who supported the idea, driving us deeper in debt as a nation. And, of course, we waged the wars under President Bush without paying for them. That, too, added to our national debt.

Another $400 billion was added to the debt with the Medicare prescription drug program, which was not paid for. So when this President came to office, he inherited not only a recession, but $12 trillion in national debt brought on by the previous administration. The recession has taken and added another $1 trillion to that debt in this last year, and we are trying to claw our way out of it.

Now, that is the reality and the history of how we reached this point of $14 trillion in debt. To suggest it is the Democratic side of the aisle that does not take the deficit seriously, I would say, we produced a surplus under President Clinton, a surplus that was handed to President George W. Bush and quickly mushroomed into the biggest debt in the history of the United States of America.

I would be happy to yield for a question.

In response to the Senator from Alabama, there is one element that he has forgotten to include; that is, the majority leader, Senator Reid, offered to the Senator from Kentucky a vote, an up-or- down vote, as to whether these unemployment benefits and COBRA benefits would be paid for out of stimulus funds. He rejected it. He said: I do not want to agree to that because I may lose the vote. And he may.

The Senator from Kentucky would not agree to a vote on that question. He said: I may lose it. Well, he may. He may win it. But the fact is, he would not agree to a vote. He said: You have to put in this unanimous consent request a provision that says this would be paid for.

Now, I would say to the Senator from Alabama, I understand that the remaining stimulus funds, most of which are already committed and obligated, will be spent this year on projects in Alabama, Illinois, and Kentucky to create jobs. So the money we take out of that stimulus fund now unspent is money that will not be spent to create jobs across America.

Now that, to me, would be a misfortune because we want to create jobs. I will concede to you this money for unemployment will add to the deficit, as previous emergency spending for unemployment has as well. What we are asking for tonight has been the ordinary care of business, which the Senator from Kentucky has supported as recently as November.

I yield only for the purposes of a question.

I am hearing from my constituents that they want jobs. They are out of work. Many of them are unemployed. And I would say to the Senator from Alabama, we may have 59 votes, but you know as well as I do that 60 votes is the coin of the realm in this body.

You also know that with very little parliamentary effort, you can drag out this whole question through motions to proceed and cloture and filibusters. It can go on literally for days if not weeks.

I ask the Senator from Alabama, why would we do that in a situation where these people desperately need help for unemployment assistance and for health insurance? Why do we want to heap this misery on them?

We said to the Senator from Kentucky: You can have a vote. You may win. You may lose. You will have your day on the floor of the Senate. He said: No. Unless you accept my way, go to the highway. Did I hear that earlier? As far as I am concerned, that is not a reasonable approach.

I have called up amendments on the floor and lost them. But the point is, you make your best case, and the Senate decides whether to support your position.

I yield for a question.

I will verify that. I was given information it was not. If I am incorrect, I will state so. But we have extended unemployment benefits repeatedly and not paid for them.

I will check on that. If the Senator is correct, I will make that point in the record.

I would like to notify the Senator from Kentucky about Joetta from Ferguson, who wrote:

I have been laid off since October 31, 2008. When I was

laid off, I lost my health insurance coverage. The COBRA plan

offered cost so much, I could not keep the insurance. I

was told if business picks up in the spring, I could get

called back to work. However, since I was laid off from the

concrete company, there have been two other office personnel

laid off this past January, so I doubt I will be called back

to work. I am 58 years old. I have a high school education. I

am finding it extremely difficult to find a job, even though

I apply for work and am registered with the local

unemployment office. I am not one to seek after handouts.

However, I have worked all my adult life and have paid taxes

as most everyone else has. And I do not expect favors from

anyone. I am completely down and out and can hardly pay

bills, buy food, et cetera, let alone medical expenses. My

husband has insurance through his employment but the cost to

add me onto his plan is so high, we simply cannot afford it.

Also, he makes $10 per hour, so it isn't as if we have an

abundance of money to live on. And I am a very economic

person.

It is hard to imagine why we would say no to unemployment benefits for Joetta from Ferguson under the circumstances. If we want to fight this budget and deficit battle, why would we hurt her in the crossfire of the conversation? Why wouldn't we extend these unemployment benefits for her and thousands like her in Illinois and Kentucky and other States?

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon.

If you are talking about the tax cuts under President George W. Bush, no.

No, it did not happen. I don't think it has ever happened. It is an indication that when it comes to giving relief to those who are in a pretty luxurious state, we don't pay for it.

No. As a matter of fact, there are some who are trying to extend estate tax benefits to even the wealthiest of the wealthy and to give them additional assistance and argue that tax cuts should not be paid for.

I agree with the Senator. It is a double standard, and it is one that benefits those who are wealthy as opposed to those who are out of work.

That is exactly what has happened with this objection, this objection to extend unemployment benefits for 30 days. That is all we are asking for, 30 days.

I would say to the Senator from Oregon, that is exactly what has happened. When it came to the tax cuts, they weren't paid for. They went primarily to the wealthiest people in America. Now unemployment benefits not paid for are objected to.

I would say to the Senator from Oregon, here is a comment from Sharon, who is also from Kentucky. She writes:

I have worked since the age of 15. I hold two MA degrees

and have worked a full and part-time job for 15 years. I

entered the private sector until my position was eliminated

approximately 14 months ago. Gas prices almost prevented my

seeking employment very far from home. At 55 years of age, I

never thought I would be without health care. I never

considered that I would have difficulty finding a job. By the

way, my spouse was also employed by a company which was

downsized and sold twice within 1 year. He is also

unemployed. We live in Kentucky which is a more rural part of

America. Our state and county typically have a high

unemployment rate as well. Extension of unemployment

insurance would be a lifeline.

That lifeline has been cut off by the objection of the Senator from Kentucky.

I yield to the Senator from Vermont for purposes of a question.

I would agree with the Senator from Vermont. You have to go back 70 or 80 years to the Great Depression to see this long a period of unemployment.

I would say to the Senator from Vermont, I do not recall, but I think he might recall. Does he?

I would say in response, I do not understand it. It is hard for me to follow the logic that we need to reward those who are the most comfortable in America and punish those who are suffering. That is what this objection does. By denying unemployment benefits and COBRA benefits to those out of work, it literally makes their lives more difficult. Yet many of the same people have argued that these tax breaks for the wealthy should be considered as part of our future, even if they are not paid for. I don't follow the logic behind that position in any way whatsoever.

I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania for a question.

I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, in response to the question, through the Chair, that I have been to these unemployment centers in Chicago and downstate, and I am always heartened by the fact that these people are just not going to give up. They really keep trying. But you can tell that many of them are beaten down. Some of them tell me about how many times they now apply on the Internet for any job openings and they do not even get a response. They consider it a victory just to get an interview or a response, and they just keep trying every single day. Meanwhile, they are trying to keep their families together, and the only lifeline they have is unemployment insurance checks. It is not a lot of money: $1,100 a month. Imagine trying to live on it. It is a very meager amount of money, particularly for someone who is used to a larger paycheck and more comfort in life. Why would we cut off the $1,100 a month to these people at this moment in time when the economy is so weak? I do not understand why we would object to providing unemployment benefits to these people, whether they are in Pennsylvania or Kentucky or Illinois. In my way of thinking, many of these folks are in this situation through no fault of their own, and they are trying their best to turn their lives around and it is not an easy circumstance for any of them.

I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I am aware of that economist, and I am aware the CBO recently reported that the one thing we can do to generate more economic activity in our economy that is better than anything else is unemployment assistance. It is No. 1 on their list. They talked about tax credits for new jobs in small businesses, but No. 1 was unemployment assistance. So as we cut back on unemployment assistance, the economy starts to go into a stall. We are not putting the money back into the economy; we are pulling it out at a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to keep interest rates low to generate more economic activity and move us forward to better employment. We are pushing against it. We are taking unemployment assistance out because of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky-- one Senator who has objected. So from the economist viewpoint, we are doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing to get this economy moving again.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

I yield to the Senator from Alaska for a question.

Currently, on a national basis?

I believe it is now just slightly below 10 percent on a national basis. In my State, it is still over 11 percent.

Yes.

I say to the Senator from Alaska that Rockford in the northern end of my State was as high as 15 percent. You know, it does not tell the whole story because, as they say, some people get discouraged when they are out of work and they do not get counted on these rolls anymore. So the actual unemployment rate is much higher. These people will not be affected by our action tonight because they are not in the program, they are not receiving unemployment assistance. But the actual misery index of people unemployed over a long period of time is even higher.

They have lost faith and they have stopped trying.

I would say to the Senator from Alaska, when I look at the State of Kentucky, here is Allen County with 13.9 percent unemployment; Bath County, 15.7 percent unemployment; Carroll County, 13.8 percent; Clay County, 13.3 percent unemployment; Cumberland County, 13.4 percent; Edmonson County, 14.3 percent; Elliott County, 13.0 percent; Estill County, 12.7 percent; Fleming County, 12.4 percent; Floyd County, 12.3 percent; Fulton County, 14 percent; Gallatin County, 13 percent; Garrard County, 12 percent; Grant County, 11.2 percent; Graves County, 10.6 percent; Grayson County, 16 percent--one of the highest; Green County, 12 percent; Hardin County, 10.1 percent; Harlan County, 12.5 percent; Jackson County--this is even higher--17.8 percent.

On this page, as I look through here, the highest in Kentucky appears to be--I may mispronounce this--Magoffin County, 21.4 percent unemployment in that one county; Marion County, 11.8 percent. The list goes on and on. McCreary County, 14.1 percent; Meade County, 14.3 percent; Menifee County, 17.5 percent; Metcalfe County, 14.4 percent; Morgan County, 15.1 percent; Powell County, 16.9 percent; Trigg County, 16.5 percent; Wolfe County, 15.6 percent.

The Senator from Alaska is right. The average does not tell the story. There will be pockets in Kentucky and Illinois and Alaska with much higher unemployment. So when we cut off the benefits because of the objection from the Senator from Kentucky, as of Sunday night some of these counties will be hit harder than others. There is no question about that.

It is exactly what I have run into. Here is a letter from a man from Yorkville, IL, who wrote me:

On bailout after bailout for businesses, my tax dollars

have been used to save companies that should have planned

better in the first place. Now I am unemployed--not because I

made some poor decisions like AIG or Citigroup, but because

in today's economy, the company I worked for folded. . . .

If the Senate cannot reach an agreement . . . to extend

unemployment, myself, my wife, and our two young children

will have nowhere to live other than our car. How about a

bailout for those of us Americans that have worked all our

lives and now cannot get a decent job?

I am begging you to stand up in front of the Senate . . .

and demand that congress work harder for those of us who put

all of you in office. The next time you need our votes,

hopefully the 10% of unemployed Americans will not have had

their cars repossessed so that we may make it to our local

polling places.

Well, he kept a sense of humor in his misfortune. But this is an example of a man who thought he had a good job and a good future who now is contemplating living in his car. And now we are saying, because of the objection of one Senator, that we are not going to provide unemployment benefits to thousands of people in similar situations as of Sunday night. Why we are doing this to these poor people at this moment in time is impossible to explain.

I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for a question.

The Senator from Rhode Island is correct. The Senator from Kentucky has talked about the Nation's deficit and debt, and he should realize that when President Clinton left office in January of 2001, the national budget was in better shape than it had been in a generation.

In fiscal year 2000, the final year in which President Clinton had full responsibility for the national budget, our Nation's budget surplus was $236 billion--budget surplus. That year, the debt held by the public declined for the third consecutive year. As President Clinton left office, budget surpluses were projected to continue throughout the next 10 years. CBO, in its January 2001 budget outlook, projected surpluses of $5 trillion for 2001 through 2010, including nearly $800 billion in 2010 alone. Those surpluses were so large, as the Senator from Rhode Island indicated, that the Congressional Budget Office told us the debt held by the public would be entirely paid off by 2006.

Fast forward 8 years, at the end of George W. Bush's Presidency, that administration, and the national debt had climbed from $5 trillion that he inherited to more than double that amount.

The Senator from Rhode Island is correct.

I don't know how the Senator from Kentucky voted when it came to the tax cuts for the wealthy. I don't know, so I can't presume to state it on the floor. I don't know if he voted for the annual budgets to prolong the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying for them. I don't know how he voted on the Medicare prescription drug benefit that was not paid for, at least the $400 billion cost. I will acknowledge he was correct that the unemployment I referred to in November was paid for. I want that clear on the Record and I stand corrected and acknowledge it to the Senator from Kentucky. But I would say that his-- --

I will yield after one more question from the Senator from Rhode Island. But I would say, when it came to his party position, tonight we hear this idea of fiscal conservatism, strict spending, punish those who are unemployed, take money away from those who have been out of work in order to bring down this budget deficit. But for 8 years, under President George W. Bush, we certainly didn't hear this sentiment expressed when it came to people who were so well off across our country.

I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for a question.

I would say in response to the Senator, for those who have not been following the debate from the beginning, tonight we are speaking to the fact that the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, is objecting to extending unemployment benefits for 30 days in the United States to those who are out of work and extending COBRA benefits which help to pay for health insurance for 30 days, in addition to several other items, and has stated his reason is because of his concern about the budget deficit.

I don't know how the Senator from Kentucky voted on this commission, but I do remember it well because Senator Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, came to me and said he had worked out an agreement with Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican, that they would try to create a commission which would take a look at our national deficit and make recommendations to Congress which we would then have to vote on. It was controversial, that is for sure.

When it was called for a vote, it ended up with, I believe, 53 votes and fell short of passage because 7 Republican Senators who had cosponsored the measure initially voted against it, cosponsors who voted against it, and it included the Republican minority leader. Their determination to deal with the deficit and the debt withered away and disappeared when they had a chance to vote for it on the floor. I don't know how the Senator from Kentucky voted.

So here is a chance for the Republicans to join the Democrats to deal with the deficit and debt, and they walked away. Seven of them turned their back on a bill they had cosponsored and walked away from it.

I would say to the Senator from Rhode Island, there is no explanation because it doesn't make sense. You certainly couldn't explain to this woman who has worked so hard throughout her entire life and now faces this misfortune that we are heaping additional misfortune on her because of this objection to extending unemployment benefits. In the State of Rhode Island--I know it is small in comparison to so many others--the Senator from Rhode Island is likely to meet some of these 309 people or hear from them when their unemployment benefits are cut off. I am sure my office will hear too. I will not know how to explain to them that the Senator from Kentucky has objected to a 30-day extension of unemployment benefits. If we are going to fight this war on the deficit and debt, why fight it on the backs of unemployed people such as the one we have just heard described in the State of Rhode Island?

I would be happy to yield for a question from the Senator.

I would be happy to. The Senator from Kentucky has not stated it 100 percent accurately.

Because in the original proposal from the Finance Committee, the unemployment benefits were extended for 3 months, as I understand it. The tax extenders----

Let me explain. There was a source of revenue for the bill, but it wasn't enough to pay for the entire bill. The source of revenue was enough for those who wanted to say: Well, this will pay for unemployment, to point to it; and those who wanted to say: No, it pays for another part of the bill. So it did not pay for the entire bill.

I yielded for a question and I answered the question, but I will yield for another question.

No, I don't know that to be false.

I would say to the Senator from Kentucky I was serving in the Senate.

I will tell my colleague what has been said on the floor and which I stand behind; that is, the fact that when President William Clinton left office, he left a budget in balance and in surplus.

I yield for a further question.

If that is a question--

If that was a question, it is clear that there was bipartisanship, and we can use a little bit more of that around here.

No, I am not. I yield further for a question.

In response to the Senator from Kentucky, this is a great debate. I think we ought to continue it. But can we remove from the audience the millions of Americans who will not have unemployment checks as of Sunday night because of the Senator's interest in this issue? When you think about this, we ought to be engaged in this, and you and I ought to stay up late to talk it over and talk about what we should do. But why are we leaving these unemployed people in Kentucky and in Illinois in the middle of this debate? These people have nothing to do with what happened with John Kasich, of Columbus, OH, or what happened with President William Jefferson Clinton. They are trying to provide food for their families in the morning. Instead, we have dragged them into the middle of this deficit and debt debate.

For those who have just tuned into this conversation, the Senator from Kentucky has objected to extending unemployment benefits for 30 days, and COBRA benefits, which pay for health insurance for the unemployed for 30 days.

Because of his objection--he is the only Senator to object--I will find 15,000 people in my State of Illinois, as of Sunday night, losing their unemployment benefits. If you wonder why I am still on the floor at 10:20 p.m. in Washington, on Thursday night, after a pretty long day, it is because I thought to myself: How in the world can I walk away from this Chamber, go home and relax, realizing that 15,000 people, come Sunday night, in Illinois are going to get cut off from unemployment benefits?

I do not.

No, I do not.

The Senator is correct. It was their belief that they would make a lot of money.

Those of us who supported some kind of competitive bidding and government buying in bulk to reduce costs were defeated because pharma objected.

This cost over $400 billion, and many Republican Senators, including the Senator who has objected to unemployment benefits for millions of people in America who are out of work, voted for this program that was unpaid for. Now they tell us we cannot extend unemployment benefits to people in Kentucky and Illinois and Missouri because we have not paid for them. Clearly, it is a double standard.

I might add that when it came to the estate tax, aka the ``death tax,'' according to some, on June 7, 2006, the Senator from Kentucky took the floor and said:

Mr. President, I rise today in strong favor of abolishing

one of the most unjustified taxes we have in America today,

the death tax. Americans should not have to talk to their

undertaker and their tax man on the same day. Small

businesses and family farms should not be forced to close

down in order to pay the government money because a loved one

has passed away.

Then when the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act was called for a vote, the Senator from Kentucky voted to repeal this tax, costing the government $300 billion; that is over $300 billion added to our national debt. This tax affects less than one-half of 1 percent of all the people in America, the wealthiest people in our country. To provide $300 billion in tax relief to them--the Senator from Kentucky said we can add that to the deficit and that is OK. But when it comes to providing a $1,100 monthly unemployment check to someone in Illinois who is struggling to find a job, he says no, that adds to the deficit. So for the wealthiest in America on the estate tax, there is no accountability, no reckoning, but for the poorest in America, the most struggling families in America, we are going to hold them to the hardest economic standard. To me, that is at least inconsistent, if not inexplicable.

I have yielded to the Senator from Missouri for a question.

I would have to check my notes.

I believe the Senator from Missouri is correct. It is interesting that those who are critical of the stimulus, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, on the Republican side virtually never acknowledge the fact that one-third of that whole package is tax cuts, which is the Holy Grail on the Republican side of the aisle--tax cuts for working families.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on the issue of health care. Right now the leaders of this body, as well as the House of Representatives, are meeting with the President of the United States and members of his Cabinet at the Blair House to discuss the current health care reform proposal and where we should go forward to improve the health care of the people of this country.

I come to the floor today to talk about a specific portion of their discussion concerning health care fraud prevention.

Today, my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, brought up with the President of the United States the issue of health care fraud prevention. As a Senator from Florida, this is something I have great concern about because, unfortunately, we are the capital of health care fraud for this country. I have put forward a proposal--S. 2128, the Health Care Fraud Prevention Act--to go after this very problem. Today, Senator Coburn brought up the fact that we believe that $1 out of every $3 spent on health care through Medicare or Medicaid or other public programs--$1 out of $3--is fraud, waste, or abuse--a shocking number. In fact, the belief is that $60 billion a year in the Medicare system alone--health care for seniors--is waste, fraud, and abuse.

Unfortunately, we don't have systems in place to go after and prevent that waste, fraud, and abuse. What we do in the Federal system when we think there is fraud is we send prosecutors and law enforcement folks out to

combat the fraud. These folks are doing a very good job, and there has been a lot of good work done in my home State of Florida. But the truth is, that is going after the fraud after it has already happened, and oftentimes there is no money left to collect. What we need to do is what I have proposed, and what the Health Care Fraud Prevention Act, S. 2128, accomplishes is it stops the fraud before it starts.

I was happy today that the President agreed we need to prevent health care fraud. He said we have already incorporated all of the good ideas on this. I hope that means we are going to pass S. 2128. It is a bipartisan supported bill. It is a bill that will stop the fraud before it starts. It is not, however, in the Senate bill we passed in December. When I tried to bring this measure to the floor as an amendment, it was objected to. Since that time, I have worked with my colleagues on both the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle to move this measure forward. Senator Baucus and I have spoken about it. In the 11-page memo the President put forward, it references doing in part what S. 2128 would accomplish. So I hope that in the new proposal, we will put forward S. 2128 and pass it.

Quickly, what does the bill do? It does three things:

One, it creates a chief health care fraud prevention officer of the United States. That person, appointed by the President, would work at the agency for health and human services, and their only job would be ferreting out fraud. When there is $60 billion in Medicare alone and potentially that much in Medicaid and across the health care system--we think $\1/4\ trillion a year in fraud, waste, or abuse--it is worth having one person whose whole job is to try to prevent that fraud. Remember, if this money is recovered, we can use it to provide health care, we can improve the quality of care because there will be more money going into actually helping our seniors, helping the poor, helping our veterans.

The second thing the bill does is it takes a model from the private sector--it borrows a page, if you will--because we have an industry in this country that does an excellent job of preventing fraud, and it is the credit card business. We have all had this experience. You go somewhere and use your credit card, and you get a phone call or an e- mail from your credit card company. They tell you some transaction has just occurred and ask: Did you really mean to have that transaction? Did you authorize that purchase? And you call them up and say either yes or no.

I have a young family, Mr. President, as you know. When I got appointed to the Senate, I brought my kids and my wife up here so we could be close. I have three children 6 and under and a baby coming in a month, so we are here in Washington, DC, most of the time. I had to do what any good dad would have to do: I had to go out and buy a television.

I went to Best Buy and bought a television. I live in Tallahassee, so before I left the store, my credit card sent me an e-mail. You live in Florida, is what this system is doing and thinking, and you are buying a television, which is a highly suspicious purchase, and you are doing it in Washington, DC. So I tell them yes, and the transaction goes through. If I tell them no, they do not pay Best Buy. They do not pay unless there is a verification on the front end.

We can use that same technology in health care to set up a predictive modeling system to prevent the fraud before it starts. I called the worldwide head of fraud prevention for MasterCard and asked him: Can we do what you do in health care? He said: Sure you can, and I will help you.

There is no reason we can't stop billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. President, before we go on to all the other issues in health care that we can't agree upon, we should call up this bill and we should pass it. We would get 100 votes, I bet, in the Senate, and we could save what one group here in Washington thinks is $20 billion a year. That is $20 billion we could use to maybe pay down the debt and the deficit or put it back into Medicare, which is hurting and is going to run out of money in a few years. We could do good things with that money.

The third thing this bill does is it requires a background check for every health care provider. Can you believe we don't check the criminal records of people who claim they are providing health care to our seniors? We don't check to see if they are felons. We had a guy in Miami who was a convicted murderer who claimed to be a health care provider. This would require we do a background check. And if you are a criminal, guess what. You don't get to provide health care. You don't get to dupe the system.

So I hope we will take up this bill. I am appreciative of Senator Coburn. I am glad the President recognizes we can all agree on this. If we can all agree, let's get something done. Let's call the bill up and let's pass it.

Haiti

Mr. President, I had the opportunity to go on a congressional visit to Haiti a couple of weeks ago--actually, 2 weeks from tomorrow. We were there on the 1-month anniversary of the tragic earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people. Two hundred thousand people died in Haiti. Myself and the other Members of the Senate and the House who went there were able to see some of the tragedy.

We visited the cathedral in Haiti. You often hear President Clinton talk about this wonderful Catholic cathedral in Haiti that stood the test of time but could not stand the test of this earthquake. In fact, really the only prominent part of this cathedral that still stood, unbelievably, was the cross.

We talked to the people who were there. They are a wonderful and resilient people, and it is amazing that they could go on with the tragedy they had experienced.

I had the great honor to visit the Gesco Ford Operating Hospital, staffed mostly by American doctors and nurses, some of them from Miami, some of them from Orlando, in my home State of Florida. They are doing wonderful work.

We met with the President of the country and the Prime Minister and Ministers of the President's Cabinet, and we talked about what are the next steps.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I authored to the President of the United States, to which I will be referring.

Mr. President, this letter is cosigned by myself, Senator Nelson, my colleague from Florida, Senator Klobuchar, as well as Senator Lautenberg, all of whom were on the trip with me. The letter basically asks the President to do four things in trying to focus our help and relief for this country.

We have been involved in trying to help the Haitian people for decades, and the American people have opened their hearts and their wallets to help the situation in Haiti, but the situation is dire. I cannot think of a more complicated, difficult problem than trying to bring Haiti forward to a sustainable place.

Haiti was already in bad shape, but it had a path forward and progress was being made. Now, as you drive the streets of Port-au- Prince, it looks like a bombed area. It looks like a war zone. You will randomly see three buildings standing as if nothing had happened and then a building that is completely and utterly destroyed. Right now, thousands of people are huddled together in these makeshift camps in low-lying areas. My great fear for the short-term is that when the rains come, which they will in the next weeks in Haiti, there will be another great tragedy. So we have to be focused in our help.

So I, along with my colleagues, sent this letter to the President and asked the President to do four things:

First, create a long-term sustainable plan for Haiti and put in charge of that plan, on behalf of our relief efforts, a trustee, along with an inspector general, along with a board of advisers, to work in partnership with the Haitian Government to make sure the money is spent wisely. We cannot just send billions of dollars into Haiti and let the money evaporate in short-term solutions. There needs to be a long-term sustainable plan.

Second, we have to provide funds to the Haitian people directly. Small businesses need microloans so they can provide jobs for the people of Haiti. We can't just give the money to third-party contractors.

Third, we have to be focused on this orphan issue. We have to make sure it is done legally, and where it is done legally, we have to make sure we get those children to their adoptive parents as quickly as possible.

Fourth, we have to make sure Port-au-Prince is not the center of the entire population for the country of Haiti. We are putting too many people in one place when tragedy strikes. We need to encourage development throughout the country.

I had the honor of having the President of Royal Caribbean cruise lines in my office yesterday--a Floridian, Adam Goldstein--and we talked about tourism to Haiti. There is a beautiful citadel in Haiti that would be a wonderful attraction for cruise ship tourists. There have been all sorts of difficulties building a road to it and making sure it is safe and secure.

We need to find ways to create jobs outside of Port-au-Prince, outside that city, so that fragile humanity is not all focused in one place.

Finally, we need to make sure the Diaspora of Haiti, the Haitian- American people--for example, we have about 250,000 Haitian Americans in Florida--are involved in the rebuilding of Haiti. They need to be welcomed. They are dying to get involved. They are hungry to get involved in this process of rebuilding their home country.

So I hope the President will put together this commission, appoint a strong leader--a Colin Powell or someone of that magnitude--as the trustee to work with the Haitian people to rebuild the island of Haiti, and I hope we can get effort and energy behind that proposal quickly so we don't have any other significant challenges in the coming months ahead for the Haitian people.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today because our economy is struggling. Unemployment remains high, and the recession's hold on cities across America is as strong as ever. My home State of Nevada has been one of the hardest hit, and our tourism-dependent economy is barely hanging on. Unfortunately, this is true for tourism-dependent cities across our country.

During these difficult economic times, it simply isn't enough to try to stimulate domestic spending by passing one massive spending bill after another. We need to incentivize tourists from across the world to visit the truly unique destinations across America. From one coast of this country to the other, there are endless opportunities to tour historic sights, take advantage of recreational opportunities, observe great architecture, visit theme parks, dine in some of the finest restaurants in the world, view natural and manmade miracles, and soak up everything that is so uniquely found in America. We all know we live in the best country in the world. Now is the time for people across the world to enjoy all we have to offer while repairing our economy at the same time.

My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, understands the importance of reasserting our tourism industry on the world stage. Together, he and I have sponsored the Travel Promotion Act, which is before us today. This bipartisan piece of legislation would help to make our travel and tourism industry more successful and more competitive internationally. So I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for his great leadership on this important issue.

Tourism is our country's truest form of economic stimulus. The average overseas visitor to the United States spends roughly $4,500 per trip to pay for hotels, transportation, dining, shopping, and other things. Unfortunately, tourism took a massive hit on 9/11, and it has not yet recovered. This lost decade has only been made worse by last year's recession.

If the United States had managed to keep pace with global travel trends, 68 million more travelers would have visited the United States between 2000 and 2009. These travelers would have generated an estimated 250,000 new U.S. jobs in 2008 alone.

At a time when unemployment is at record-high numbers in this country, we cannot afford to throw away anymore tourism-related job creation. We could take a cue from Canada on successful ways to spur this tourism that we need so badly. If you have been watching the Olympics, you have seen these ads about British Columbia. I don't know about the rest of you, but it has made me actually want to go up and visit. But it is not just watching the Olympics. It is the ads that have been the most successful part of making me want to go to that part of the world. They have beautiful things to advertise, to show you: Doesn't that look like an incredible place to go visit?

Think about all we have in America that we can advertise to the rest of the world that may not have thought about it. I didn't think about going up to Vancouver and British Columbia, but those ads spurred my interest in it, and I am sure they have for many Americans and other people around the world. Tourism-related jobs can be created simply by spreading the word about the wonderful destinations that are literally scattered across the United States of America, and we can do it without raising taxes on hard-working American families or by digging ourselves even further into debt.

Unfortunately, the United States has dropped the ball when it comes to tourism and the industry has been virtually left behind. Declines in visits to the United States since 2000 have cost our country an estimated $500 billion in lost spending and at least $30 billion in lost tax receipts.

My speech today is not all gloom and doom, however. Instead, I stand here to offer a solution, a solution that can help get our hard-hit tourism industry back on its feet. What we need is a comprehensive strategy coordinated by public-private partnerships between the Government and the expert leaders

from our travel and tourism industry. This effort needs to center on a major initiative that will make the wonderful destinations throughout our great country known to foreign audiences. Actually, we do not want them to just be aware of these magnificent places. We want them to feel compelled to visit them.

September 11, 2001, forever changed our country and the security measures along with it. But we need to teach potential visitors about the new security policies of today so they can travel to and from our country with ease.

The bottom line is, the United States stands to make great gains economically and diplomatically if we strengthen our travel and tourism industry. So how do we go about doing this? The Travel Promotion Act which is before us today would create a public-private corporation for travel promotion to promote the United States as a travel destination to overseas travelers. This corporation would develop and execute a plan to do the following: It would promote the United States to foreign travelers by using coordinated advertising campaigns and other promotional activities, similar to what we see in the Olympics with Canada; the corporation would identify and correct misperceptions about U.S. travel policies; it would also help provide travel information to foreign visitors to the United States such as information about entry requirements, fees, and documents; and last, the corporation would focus its efforts to ensure that all 50 States benefit from overseas tourism, including areas not traditionally visited by international travelers.

Understand this, no taxpayer funds would be used to finance the corporation for travel promotion. Let me repeat that. No taxpayer funds would be used to finance the corporation for travel promotion. All the funding would come from private industry and from user fees paid by some international visitors. This would finally put the United States on equal footing with many other developed countries.

This legislation would be a true lifeline to my home State of Nevada, which depends so heavily on travel and tourism. I mentioned earlier my State was one of the hardest hit. But I do not think that description does the situation in Nevada justice. The tourism industry in Nevada, especially Las Vegas, has truly been crippled by the economy. Nevadans who were already struggling through home foreclosures have been forced to carry the burden of the downturned economy. Taxicab drivers, valets, housekeepers, waiters and waitresses and construction workers are drowning in this recession because Americans are not traveling like they used to. These workers are barely keeping their heads above water and some are not even able to do that. They are losing their homes, which has truly annihilated the housing market in my State.

Boosting overseas travel will provide for growth in an otherwise shrinking segment of our economy, and it will help heal local economies around our country. This will, in turn, greatly advance our overall economy at a time when we cannot afford to turn away the potential of hundreds of billions of dollars.

With domestic travel and convention travel down, overseas travel could be the silver lining we all need. At a time when our country faces record deficit and spending levels, I know this money may seem like a lot. Believe me when I say to you that I take my pledge of fiscal responsibility very seriously. I vote against spending bills that come across this floor all the time because they simply are an irresponsible waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. However, this bill is a responsible use of dollars. It does not apply a government spending bandaid to tough economic situations. It creates a solution that will greatly benefit our economy, and it does it without taxpayer dollars.

The Travel Promotion Act, which has the overwhelming support of Democrats and Republicans alike, is a relatively small investment that will significantly boost our economy, create jobs, and make us more competitive in the world. The bill will not increase the deficit. This bill does not increase the deficit. But it could spur billions in additional economic activity, benefiting Americans all around the country.

The Congressional Budget Office--nonpartisan, the official scorekeeper around here--confirms it will not place any additional burden on the taxpayer. People across my State and across the country have had to make difficult decisions when it comes to their own families' budgets. In fact, the legislature in my home State of Nevada is coming to terms with steep spending cuts and slashing services across the board as we speak, in a special session, because it is too far in the hole to sustain the current spending spree. So Americans are looking to us to boost the economy and so far we have not been able to do that.

Yes, we have spent money--and a lot of money at that, in fact--but our economic situation remains the same. I am asking that we look to the tourism industry as a lifeline for our economy, as I know it will be for my State and for so many others. The Travel Promotion Act will be that lifeline. It will create jobs, create opportunity, and show the world the beauty and the diversity of America.

Each one of us, who together represent all 50 States, knows we have incredible places to show the rest of the world. My home State of Nevada is actually the gateway to the Grand Canyon, which is located in Arizona. We have Lake Tahoe. We have, obviously, Las Vegas. We have so many other places to visit around our great State. But every single Senator could tell those stories. What we need to do is tell them in a way that makes foreign travelers want to come to America. The Travel Promotion Act is going to help us do that.

Let me remind folks, if you watch the Olympics, ask yourself these questions when those commercials about British Colombia come on: Does that make you more or less likely to go, especially if you can afford it? I think the answer is pretty obvious. They make an attractive case to visit their country.

This is the United States of America, with some of the most beautiful, incredible places to see. Are you telling me we cannot advertise this in a way that makes people want to come here? Of course we can. We can have tourism boosted like never before in this country and all Americans will benefit by doing that because when foreign travelers come here, they spend money, boost the economy, and boost every single State in this country.

I encourage this Senate to pass this bill as quickly as possible and get it over to the President for signature so we can get on with boosting the economy.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, Nevada's tourism has been hit hard by the slowing worldwide economy. And when tourism in Nevada hurts, the entire State suffers.

Hardworking people have lost their jobs. The State's budget has taken a major hit. Because that budget is largely funded by tourism, funding for vital programs in our State are at risk.

But Nevada is not alone. Its problem is not unique. Tourism is one of the top industries in nearly every State in the country and one of the largest employers in America.

That is why this bill is so important. This is an opportunity not only to give American tourism a boost, but it is one of the many ways we are working to create jobs and help our economy recover.

The concept behind it is simple: It says, let's create jobs and reduce the deficit. It is a win-win for the economy of every State and our national economy alike.

And it is a bipartisan bill that take the strategies that have made Las Vegas such a success and brings them to our entire Nation's tourism industry.

This week, the U.S. Travel Association called the last 10 years a ``lost decade'' for tourism. It cost us half a million jobs and half a billion dollars in lost spending. This bill will turn that around.

The travel promotion bill is a jobs bill. It is about creating jobs, it is about growing our economy and it is about keeping the United States competitive in the world travel business.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4691

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4691, which is a 30-day extension of provisions which expire on Sunday, February 28--they are an unemployment insurance extension; COBRA, health insurance for the unemployed; flood insurance; the Satellite Home Viewer Act; highway funding; SBA business loans and small business provisions of the American Recovery Act; SGR, which is the so-called doctor fix; and poverty guidelines--received from the House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table.

This matter passed the House unanimously today. The reason it passed the House unanimously today, if we don't do something about this, all around America, about 1\1/2\ million people who will be watching TV will no longer watch TV. This is mostly in rural areas of America, rural areas of Nevada. I guess we could be hard-hearted and say they don't need to watch TV, but in Nevada we have very harsh winters in many parts of the State. For many of these people, the only way they can get information is through television. It could lead to some very serious problems. If we talk about flood insurance, even though Nevada is a very dry State, this is something we need to do for States where we have all kinds of problems with floods all the time. We, in northern Nevada and in southern Nevada, have had some devastating floods, not often but we have them. Highway funding, this costs nothing, what we are doing here, the extension costs zero. SBA business loans, this costs $60 million to allow the SBA to continue processing programs to allow people who want to have a business to get a few dollars so they can continue or start a new business. We are not going to be able to do this because it expires at the end of this month; small business provisions of the Recovery Act, the same thing; poverty guidelines, these things cost nothing basically nothing; the SGR, it is my understanding about $1 billion is being asked for here. I think it is such a shame that we don't get this done. The big ones, though, from my perspective, are the poor. We have people who weren't poor who are now poor because they have been unemployed for so long. This will terminate on Monday. I talked to the Presiding Officer. In just a matter of weeks, 65,000 people in Illinois will no longer be able to draw these benefits. In the State of Nevada, which is not as heavily populated as Illinois, thousands of people who have been unemployed for long periods of time--and I repeat, they started out in this business not being poor; they are poor now--it would be a shame not to give them those moneys.

My friend, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, is going to say: Pay for all this. As I have gone through everything we have talked about, it doesn't cost much money. Unemployment compensation does. It costs a lot of money. We have millions of people who are unemployed. In years past, when we wanted to extend unemployment benefits, it was an emergency, a declared emergency historically in this body. Why? Because it is an emergency. We have rules in effect, pay-go rules we have passed. Of course, we can look to that as a step forward. But that doesn't mean we don't have emergencies.

I would also say that COBRA--what is COBRA? It is a program to help people who are out of work or who lose their jobs get insurance.

Anyway, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I would hope that for the people I have described who are just wanting us to do our work, we can get that done. I hope my friend would not object to this.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to H.R. 4691 and that the Reid of Nevada substitute amendment which is the desk be considered read; that the Republican leader or his designee be recognized to offer a substitute amendment, and

there be 60 minutes of debate with respect to that amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, and if a budget point of order is made against the amendment, a motion to waive the relevant point of order be considered made, and the Senate then vote on the motion to waive the point of order; that if the waiver is successful, the amendment be agreed to and the Reid substitute, as amended, be agreed to; that if the waiver fails, the amendment be withdrawn; further, that there be 30 minutes for debate with respect to the Reid substitute amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, and if a budget point of order is made against the amendment, a motion to waive the relevant point of order be considered made, and the Senate then vote on the motion to waive the point of order; that if the waiver is successful, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the Reid substitute amendment; further, that no further amendments, motions, except a motion to reconsider a vote, or debate be in order; that upon disposition of the Reid substitute amendment, the bill, as amended, be read a third time; and following the reading by the clerk of the budgetary effects of the pay-go legislation with respect to H.R. 1586, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that upon passage, the title amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to.

Before my friend from Kentucky makes his feelings known, let me say this. This is something we worked out yesterday. When I say ``we,'' that means Democrats and Republicans, all except one Senator. What this agreement allows is for all the provisions in this, these extensions be paid for out of the stimulus or the economic recovery money. That is a fair vote. Some people want to do that. Let's vote on it. We know what the rules are. We are sent here to vote. We are not sent here to object. When 99 Senators want something done, it is not right for one Senator to hold it up. My friend has that right. But it is a real problem for so many different people. I would hope we could have a vote. We can do it tonight and move on to other things.

Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky is right. I have it written here.

That was my mistake. I appreciate the Senator catching that.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there probably has never been a time in the history of our country when we had economic conditions that are like they are today--unemployment all over this country averaging some 10 percent; some States as high as 14 percent. If there were ever an emergency with our economy, it is tonight, it is today. And to think we are not going to declare this an emergency?

Millions of people are unemployed, millions of people have been unemployed for long periods of time and their unemployment benefits are running out. They are not able to buy their health insurance because the program is going to expire on Monday.

The Senate has a history of treating unemployment benefits as an emergency. No one, I repeat, can argue that the current economic downturn does not represent a grave emergency. So, Mr. President, I am forced to object.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1299 occur at 7:50 p.m. tonight--3 minutes from now--that if cloture is invoked, then all postcloture time be considered yielded back, Senator DeMint then be recognized for up to 10 minutes to move to suspend the rules; that upon the use of that time, the Senate then proceed to vote on the DeMint motion; that if the DeMint motion is successful, then the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to concur with the amendment be agreed to; that if the DeMint motion fails, then no other motions or debate be in order; that the motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn, and the Senate then proceed to vote on the Reid of Nevada motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1299.

Mr. President, we expect to have three votes here tonight. As soon as those are done, we will not have another vote until Tuesday, but it will be in the morning.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator DeMint, his vote and the next vote be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

This bill would increase Federal spending by $10 billion, or $125 per family of four in the U.S. None of which would be paid for. And that's just a fraction of $1,000 per family of four it will cost to extend these programs through the end of the year, as is already in the works. That, too, will get added to our children's already enormous tab of government debt. They deserve far better.

Ironically, just two weeks ago the President signed Democrats' ``paygo'' bill into law. He said ``the PAYGO bill . . . says very simply that the United States of America should pay as we go and live within our means again--just like responsible families and businesses do.''

Yet today, with this bill, we're not living within our means, yet again.

A second flaw of this bill has to do with jobs. This legislation simply won't create any.

Some say that extending unemployment benefits stimulates job creation. If that were so, we would be at full employment already. Today record numbers of Americans--over 11 million--collect unemployment checks instead of paychecks. They collect record weeks of benefits--up to 99 weeks per person. And Congress added another $100 per month to those checks, for the first time ever. Yet since these programs started in 2008, the unemployment rate has jumped from 5.5 percent to over 10 percent as almost 8 million jobs disappeared.

So if these unemployment benefits are creating jobs, they are sure hard to see. But what we can see are mammoth payroll tax hikes this year in most States, as they struggle to pay for these benefits. As employer after employer has said, those tax hikes will further harm job creation when businesses and workers are already hurting.

In fact, some respected scholars argue these record unemployment benefit expansions actually are resulting in more unemployment, not less. That seems more than plausible.

At this time I would request ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an article from the November 17, 2009 New York Post, which states:

As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for

economic policy, noted in July, ``the unemployment rate over

the recession has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more

than would normally be attributable to the contraction in

GDP''. . . Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He

explained it well in a 1995 paper co-authored with James

Poterba of MIT: ``Unemployment insurance lengthens

unemployment spells.'' . . . (T)he evidence is overwhelming

that the February stimulus bill has added at least two

percentage points to the unemployment rate. If Congress and

the White House hadn't tried so hard to stimulate long-term

unemployment, the US unemployment rate would now be about 8

percent and falling rather than more than 10 percent and--

rising.

Mr. Chairman, we have tried extending unemployment benefits again and again. And we have only gotten more unemployment. Yet what unemployed workers really want are jobs and paychecks. We need to start over and do the things that really help create jobs for unemployed workers. That means eliminating uncertainty by scrapping Democrats' government health care takeover and cap and tax energy plans, extending expiring tax cuts on businesses and individuals, repealing wasteful stimulus spending, and committing to not increasing any tax until the economy has fully recovered.

Until we do that, additional extensions of unemployment benefits will simply spend even more money we don't have without truly helping unemployed workers find jobs, which must be our real goal.

[From the New York Post, Nov. 17, 2009]

The `Stimulus' for Unemployment

(By Alan Reynolds)

Why did the unemployment rate rise so rapidly--from 7.2 per

cent in January to 10.2 percent in October? It was clearly

the administration's ``stimulus'' bill--which in February

provided $40 billion to greatly extend jobless benefits at no

cost to the states.

As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for

economic policy, noted in July, ``the unemployment rate over

the recession

has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more than would

normally be attributable to the contraction in GDP.'' And the

rate has moved nearly a percentage point higher since then,

even though GDP increased. Countries with much deeper

declines in GDP, such as Germany and Sweden, have

unemployment rates far below ours.

Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He explained it

well in a 1995 paper coauthored with James Poterba of MIT:

``Unemployment insurance lengthens unemployment spells.''

That is: When the government pays people 50 to 60 percent

of their previous wage to stay home for a year or more, many

of them do just that.

And the stimulus bribed states to extend benefits--which

have now been stretched to an unprecedented 79 weeks in 28

states and to 46 to 72 weeks in the rest. Before mid-2008, by

contrast, only a few states paid jobless benefits for even a

month beyond the standard 26 weeks.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Extending

unemployment benefits from 26 to 79 weeks was guaranteed to

leave many more people unemployed for many more months.

And longer unemployment translates to higher unemployment

rates--because the relatively small numbers of newly

unemployed are added to stubbornly large numbers of those who

lost their jobs more than six months ago.

Until benefits are about to run out, many of the long-term

unemployed are in no rush to make serious efforts to find

another job--or to accept job offers that may involve a long

commute, relocation or disappointing salary and benefits.

(Incidentally, the ``mercy'' of longer benefits does no

long-term favors: The literature is quite clear that a

prolonged period on unemployment tends to depress income for

years after you finally go back to work.)

The median length of unemployment hovered around 10 weeks

for six months before February's ``stimulus'' plan. Since

half the unemployed found jobs within 10 weeks, more than

half of those counted among the unemployed in one month would

no longer be included three months later. In other words,

more frequent turnover among the unemployed held down monthly

unemployment.

But after February, with jobless benefits stretched out to

46 to 79 weeks, the median duration of unemployment nearly

doubled, reaching 18.7 weeks by October.

The unemployment rate has not been rising because of

growing numbers of newly jobless people. Indeed, initial

claims for unemployment benefits are way down. And the number

of unfilled private job openings increased by 9.3 percent

from the end of April to the end of September.

The unemployment rate has been rising because unprecedented

numbers of those who became unemployed six to 19 months ago

are remaining ``on the dole'' until their benefits are nearly

exhausted.

Summers isn't the only administration economist who

understands this very well. Assistant Secretary of the

Treasury for Economic Policy Alan Krueger co-authored a 2002

survey of the topic with Bruce Meyer of the University of

Chicago. They found that ``unemployment insurance and

worker's compensation insurance . . . tend to increase the

length of time employees spend out of work.'' Last August,

Krueger and Andreus Miller of Princeton also found that ``job

search increases sharply [from 20 minutes a week to 70] in

the weeks prior to benefit exhaustion.''

Similarly, Meyer found ``the probability of leaving

unemployment rises dramatically just prior to when benefits

lapse.'' In other words: If you extend benefits to 79 weeks,

many people won't find an acceptable job offer until the 76th

or 78th week.

Meyer and Lawrence Katz of Harvard estimated that ``a one-

week increase in potential benefit duration increases the

average duration of the unemployment spells . . . by 0.16 to

0.20 weeks.'' Apply that formula to the 20-to-53-week

extension we've seen, and you get an average of three to ten

more weeks spent on unemployment. And, sure enough, the

average unemployment spell has risen by seven weeks this

year--to nearly 27 weeks by October.

Katz also found that extended benefits, by making it easier

for workers to wait and see whether they get their old jobs

back, also makes it easier for employers to delay recalling

laid-off workers. Just before unemployment benefits run out,

Katz found ``large positive jumps in both the recall rate and

new job finding rate.''

The White House recently made the mysterious claim of

having ``saved'' 640,329 jobs, at a cost of only $531,250 per

job ($340 billion).

In reality, the evidence is overwhelming that the February

stimulus bill has added at least two percentage points to the

unemployment rate. If Congress and the White House hadn't

tried so hard to stimulate long-term unemployment, the US

unemployment rate would now be about 8 percent and falling

rather than more than 10 percent and--rising.