Floor Statements

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. This is one provision we need to pass. There are, however, many other provisions we need to pass. They are in the category of tax extenders.

Clearly, the State and local sales tax deductions should be passed into law. Senator Murray from the State of Washington has been working hard. Washington, obviously, is a State that needs this deduction. There are many States that need it.

Unfortunately, the provision called for by the Senator from Wyoming is not paid for. It is going to add to the deficit. I might add that the other provisions that must get passed which expired at the end of last year, I say with embarrassment, must be passed this year, and State and local sales tax deduction is one of them.

What are some of the others? Research and development tax credit, we have not extended that. It expired in the last year, as did the State and local sales tax deduction. It expired in the last year. There are many others that expired in the last year.

What is the Senate doing? The answer is nothing because the other side of the aisle would not let us bring up the package of extenders. The Senator from Wyoming picked out one little one. The fact is, we have to get them all passed; otherwise, many people are going to be in a very disadvantageous economic position.

I object to the request made by the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4994----

Mr. President, I seek recognition.

What is the parliamentary procedure?

I thought we were going back and forth.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--it is on the same subject-- that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4994, taxpayer assistance; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Baucus substitute amendment, the text of Calendar No. 572, S. 3793, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to.

Madam President, I am sorry. I was distracted. Is there a UC request pending before the Senate at this moment?

Might I ask, who is propounding the unanimous consent request?

I object to the modification.

Mr. President, might I ask, through the Chair, that the Senator yield for a question?

I wanted to ask him--because we have to ask questions around here--isn't it a good idea for us to have more permanence and not pass so many short-term extensions in Congress, just as a general principle?

Is the Senator aware, if my calculation is correct, that there are about 130 extenders that we have to extend at the end of every calendar year--approximately 130? Did the Senator know the number is that great?

One final question: Does the Senator agree it is about time this Congress does something about that; that we pass fewer extenders and more laws that are a little more permanent?

I thank my good friend from South Dakota for mentioning that.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my good friend from South Dakota. I hope we can find some reasonable accommodation, some compromise. There are 100 Senators here. Each has his or her own view as to what the right solution should be. Without sounding too trite and corny, we are a democracy, we have to live together. I hope we could find a way to get these provisions extended in a way with give and take, back and forth. Clearly, if I bring up a bill and it is my way, it is not going to pass. With all due respect to my friend from South Dakota, if he brings up his bill his way, it is not going to pass. The only way to get something to help the people whom we are here to represent is to find a

compromise, working together in accommodation. I know the Senator looks forward to that. I hope we can achieve that result.

I would add a final point to these remarks; that is, the approach I take. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I try not to bring up these extenders bills until they have been worked out. With sufficient work on both sides, I believe that leaves at least 60 votes available, and I hope we can achieve a result quickly.

Mr. President, today marks 6 months since Congress enacted the new health care reform law.

Americans have reason to celebrate.

The new law put America on the road to a more sustainable consumer- friendly health care system.

The new law put America on the road to a healthcare system in which all Americans have access to quality, affordable health insurance.

And the new law put America on the road to a health care system in which patients and their doctors--not insurance companies--control patient care.

These transformative changes will not happen overnight. But we heard the distressed cries from American families and businesses for immediate relief from insurer abuses. Congress included in the new health reform law many consumer protection provisions that take effect today, September 23, 2010.

These provisions--a new Patient's Bill of Rights--put an end to some of the worst insurance company abuses. The new law puts consumers in control of their health care decisions. And the new law extends important new coverage benefits under insurance plans.

Starting today plans cannot discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. No longer will insurance companies be able to deny tens of thousands of families insurance each year for their children because of a preexisting condition.

Starting today insurance companies are banned from canceling your coverage due to an unintentional mistake on your application. No longer will insurance companies be allowed to arbitrarily drop your coverage when you get sick and need it the most.

Starting today insurance companies can no longer place lifetime or restrictive annual limits on coverage. No longer will families need to worry that their coverage will run out when they need it the most.

Starting today when you purchase or join a new insurance plan, you have the right to choose your own doctor in your network. No longer will insurance companies be able to arbitrarily decide which doctor you have to see.

Starting today, if you purchase or join a new insurance policy, you will be guaranteed the right to appeal insurance company decisions to an independent third party. No longer will consumers find themselves with nowhere to turn when insurers deny them coverage or restrict their treatment.

Starting today, providers and suppliers--that is doctors and medical equipment manufacturers--who fail a fraud screening will be denied eligibility for payments under government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. No longer will providers and suppliers be able to defraud the government and taxpayers instead of provide quality health care.

There is more. Starting today, young adults will be allowed to remain on their parents' plan until their 26th birthday, unless they are offered coverage at work. No longer will young adults be without affordable coverage options. Now they will have choices to transition them into their adult lives and protect them from financial ruin.

And starting today, if you purchase or join a new insurance plan, you will be able to receive free recommended preventive care. No longer will Americans have to forgo valuable preventive care until it is too late.

All of the benefits that begin today are in addition to the benefits that families and businesses already enjoy as a result of the new health reform law.

Already because of the new law, across the Nation, federally subsidized preexisting condition insurance plans are available for Americans with preexisting conditions who have been denied coverage by insurance companies.

Already because of the new law up to 4,000 small businesses are eligible for tax credits this year if they provide health insurance for their employees.

Already because of the new law, more than 2,000 businesses have qualified to receive reimbursement for the retiree coverage that they provide.

And already because of the new law, more than a million seniors have received rebate checks to reduce their prescription drug out-of-pocket costs in the donut hole.

Today, with this 6-month mark, we pass a key milestone on our road to providing quality, affordable health care to all Americans.

This milestone is just one of many along the road. But this milestone is one that signals an end to the insurance companies' worst abuses. This milestone signals the beginning to patient-controlled health care, and that is something to celebrate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, what is the present parliamentary situation?

I ask to speak as in morning business, and I also ask unanimous consent the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, be recognized immediately after my remarks and she be recognized to speak for 15 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 636 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution honoring Walter Breuning, the oldest living man in the world. Walter is celebrating his 114th birthday today.

He was born in Melrose, MN on September 21, 1896, and moved to Great Falls, MT, in 1918 while working for the Great Northern Railway. Walter is still a proud resident of Great Falls and delights fellow residents, staff, and visitors at The Rainbow Senior Living home.

Despite all the honor and attention bestowed upon him for being the oldest living man in the world, Walter is very humble. He has worked hard all his life and advises others to do the same. When I called him last year to wish him a happy birthday, that is exactly what he said to me. Walter began working for the Great Northern Railway at the age of 16 and gave 50 years of service to the railway. When he retired in 1963, Walter didn't stop working; he began a second career, one that would last until he was 99, as the manager and secretary of the Great Falls Shriner's Club.

Community service has been a big part of Walter's life and when he visits with young people he always encourages them to give back to their communities. Walter is a 33rd degree Mason, the most advanced level for that fraternal organization.

Walter has practiced healthy habits all his life, and those have contributed greatly to his longevity. He has eaten only two meals a day for the past 30 years and says he is most grateful for his good health over the years. These healthy habits have helped Walter live life to the fullest. He enjoys visiting with the many folks that come from all over to hear the insights of the oldest living man in the world.

I am proud to join today with folks from around Montana and across the world in wishing Walter a very happy birthday. He is a great ambassador for our State and I thank him for all his community involvement and service over the years. He truly represents the best of Big Sky Country.

Mr. President, Theodore Roosevelt once said:

Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance

to work hard at work worth doing.

Americans prize hard work. We value a day's pay earned at honest labor, and that is one reason the great recession that started in 2008 has been particularly hard on Americans. The great recession robbed 8 million Americans of one of the best prizes that life offers--their work.

That is why for 2 years now we have been working hard to create jobs. We worked to create jobs by passing the Recovery Act at the beginning of last year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that the Recovery Act ``increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 2 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred.''

We worked to create jobs by passing the HIRE Act in March of this year. The Treasury Department found ``an estimated 4.5 million workers who have been unemployed for 8 weeks or longer were hired by employers who are eligible for the HIRE Act payroll tax exemption.''

We have been working to create jobs with this small business bill before us. We have been working to pass this bill since June. That is right, since June. Here it is September. Finally we are going to get this bill passed--I hope.

The economists tell us that this small business jobs bill could help small businesses create as many as half a million new jobs.

This small business jobs bill would provide small businesses with access to capital. It would create incentives for investment. It would support innovation and entrepreneurship. This small business jobs bill would give small businesses $12 billion in tax cuts. It would increase small business lending. It would help small business owners get private capital to finance expansion and hire new workers. It would reward entrepreneurs for investing in new small businesses. It would help Main Street businesses compete with big companies. All these things would help small businesses to create as many as half a million more jobs.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has prepared a technical explanation of the bill which expresses the Finance Committee's legislative intent behind the tax provisions. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site.

This small business jobs bill has been hard work. For something this common sense, it has been harder work than we thought it would be. Some folks on the other side of the aisle have thrown obstacles in the way. Some have thrown in our way pretty much everything but the kitchen sink. Today they are throwing the kitchen sink in our way as well.

Today, before we can vote on this targeted small business jobs bill, some on the other side have resorted to the last refuge of delay. They are proposing motions to suspend the rules of the Senate. They are throwing two more votes in the way.

But in case anyone is taking these last-minute antics at face value, let me set the record straight. These motions to suspend the rules are not serious legislating. These motions are not the way the Senate enacts law. We do not enact law by suspending the rules.

Rather, these motions are the way that folks score points. These motions are the way folks try to embarrass other people. These motions, quite frankly, are stunts.

If you take them at face value, these motions address two tax provisions that expired at the end of last year. They are two examples of what folks around here call tax extenders.

Here is the irony: We have been trying to extend these and other expiring tax provisions for months. Yes, literally for months. We took up the extenders bill in March, and we have been trying again and again to pass a package of all the expiring provisions pretty much all year since then.

To make it entirely clear, I will try again today. Before the vote on the motions to suspend the rules, I will ask unanimous consent to take up and pass the full set of expiring provisions. In a few minutes, I will ask unanimous consent to take up and pass a paid-for, responsible set of expiring provisions. One way or another, Congress will address these expiring provisions. We always do. We will do so again this year.

But no one should be misled. These motions to suspend the rules today are not serious legislating. They are merely two more in a series of delays thrown up in front of this bill. We should reject these delaying tactics. We should get on with passing this bill to create small business jobs.

Creating jobs is what people sent us here to do, and now is the time to do it.

Thanks to Tuesday's vote, we are finally bringing this debate to a close. It is certainly time. It is time to get this work done. It is time to help small businesses. It is time to help create up to half a million new jobs. This bill has been hard work, but this bill is work worth doing. So let's bring this debate to a close. Let's reject the transparent efforts to delay some have thrown in the way, and let's target this targeted tax relief to small businesses today.

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

Madam President, I think allocated time is about to expire.

My good friend, the Senator from Iowa, talked about how good it would be if we removed uncertainty from the law. The unanimous consent I am about to propound would give Senators the opportunity to remove much uncertainty. This unanimous consent request, if agreed to, would extend the biodiesel tax credit the Senator from Iowa spoke about. It would also extend the R&D tax credit the Senator from Utah talked about. This consent request would do so completely paid for. The Senator from Iowa spoke about his wanting to move the tax extenders for 8 months. The unanimous consent request I am about to propound will provide for extending all of the tax extenders.

The consent request will allow Members on the other side of the aisle to get what they say they want; that is, to remove uncertainty in the law and get these provisions passed.

Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 4849

As I mentioned a few moments ago, I now intend to ask unanimous consent to take up and pass the full set of expiring provisions. So I ask unanimous

consent that H.R. 4849, the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010, be discharged from the Finance Committee; that the Senate proceed to the bill; that the Baucus substitute amendment extending expiring provisions that is at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, as if read; and that this all occur with no further intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I don't see the Senator from Iowa here. It is his amendment to suspend the rules.

Let me say once again this motion to suspend the rules of the Senate is not serious legislating. It is simply an attempt to delay the passage of the small business bill.

The biodiesel tax credit is another tax extender. We will address these expiring provisions. We will also do so in a fiscally responsible manner. This motion today is another delay to passage of the underlying small business bill which is before us at this moment. So we reject this delay and we reject this motion so we can get on with passing this bill to create small business jobs.

Madam President, I deeply appreciate the remarks of my good friend from Utah. The fact is, any motion to suspend the rules in this context is not fair and, without being disparaging, it is not serious legislating. This is an attempt to throw another roadblock to delay passage of the small business bill.

In addition, the extenders bill, which I tried to get up by UC, would extend the R&D tax credit. We will find our way there later this year. We cannot suspend the rules at this point to delay passage of the small business bill. Rather, let's not accept this motion so we can get on to passing the small business bill and take up the R&D tax credit later on this year. We will definitely take it up. It will be passed later this year.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct. Since the 108th Congress, he has introduced legislation to correct this inequity in the Tax Code. I would like to congratulate and thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership in championing this provision.

Mr. President, are we still in morning business?

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I yield back our time so we can get to the bill.

Mr. President, the Book of Ecclesiastes says: ``A worker's sleep is sweet.'' Because of the great recession that started in 2008, millions of Americans have lost sleep. Why? Because they lost their work. That is why, throughout this Congress, we have been working to create jobs. That is why today, with this small business jobs bill, we are continuing to work to create jobs.

One of the first things this Congress did was to pass the Recovery Act in February of 2009. The Recovery Act cut taxes for Americans by $326 billion. That is right. The Recovery Act cut taxes for Americans by $326 billion. In their latest report on the Recovery Act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office once again reports that the Recovery Act is working.

That office, CBO, says in the second quarter of this calendar year; that is, in 2010, the Recovery Act ``raised real . . . gross domestic product by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent''--raised gross domestic product by between those amounts. CBO also says--and I am quoting from them--the Recovery

Act ``lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points.'' That is right: The Recovery Act lowered the unemployment rate. CBO also says the Recovery Act ``increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million'' people. Continuing, CBO says the Recovery Act ``increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred.''

Just think of that. That is CBO's estimates of the effect of the Recovery Act--all positive in all those respects.

In March, Congress passed the HIRE Act; that is, the Recovery Act last year, the HIRE Act this year. The HIRE Act includes a payroll tax exemption for new hires. The HIRE Act cut taxes by a further $15.5 billion. That law has also helped to bolster job creation.

I might add that this summer the Treasury Department found:

From February to May of 2010, an estimated 4.5 million

workers who had been unemployed for eight weeks or longer

were hired by employers who are eligible for the HIRE Act

payroll tax exemption.

These actions that Congress has taken, therefore, are working.

August was the eighth consecutive month of private sector job growth--the eighth consecutive month. Coming out of the 2001 recession, it took 28 months before we had 8 straight months of private job growth.

Since last December, the American private sector has created 763,000 net new jobs. Contrast that with the previous 8 years under the previous administration. During that 8 years, America's private sector lost 673,000 jobs.

This chart I have in the Chamber shows that. If you look at the chart, beginning in January of 2008, the red bars show the job loss. The job loss got greater from January of 2008, April 2008, July 2008. As you see the longer red bars, that shows the greater job loss.

Then, beginning with the Recovery Act in 2009, what happened? Look at this chart. This chart shows it. The black bars show action since the Recovery Act. The red bars to the left are job loss before the Recovery Act. Once the Recovery Act passed, according to the black bars on the chart, job loss decreased, steadily decreased in April 2009, July 2009, and October 2009. Then, guess what. We start getting positive numbers where job creation exceeded job loss. Those are the blue bars in January 2010, April 2010, and July 2010.

So just to repeat broadly, beginning in January 2008, job loss grew dramatically, unfortunately, for all those folks. The Recovery Act passed in the beginning of 2009, and then job loss got less and less and less and less until about October, January of this year, and now we have a net increase of private jobs. The Recovery Act and the HIRE Act worked.

We still have more to do. We still need to do more to help create new jobs, and we will not rest until every American who wants to work can find it.

We are doing more today. The small business jobs bill we are working on right now is about helping Americans get back to work. This bill helps by helping small businesses especially hire more workers.

Small businesses are the backbone of America's economy. We say that many times because it is true. They are the principal engine of job growth. Over the past 15 years, small businesses have created two- thirds of all new jobs. It is not big business that creates most of the new jobs. Two-thirds of new jobs are created by small businesses. That has been the case for a long time, and I daresay it will continue to be.

But the great recession hit small businesses especially hard. Since December 2007, small businesses lost more than 6 million jobs.

This small business jobs bill would help create the right economic conditions for job growth. This small business jobs bill on the floor now could help small businesses create as many as 500,000 new jobs.

The great recession's credit crunch starved America's small businesses' access to the capital they need. We hear that all the time. I say to the Presiding Officer, I know you do back home in your State. In response, this small business jobs bill will provide small businesses with access to capital, robust incentives for investment, and support for innovation and entrepreneurship.

How? Well, this small business jobs bill would give small businesses $12 billion in tax cuts--$12 billion in tax cuts aimed at small businesses. It would increase small business lending. It would help small business owners get private capital to finance expansion and hire new workers. It would reward entrepreneurs for investing in new small businesses. It would help Main Street businesses compete with large corporations, and all these things would help small businesses create as many as half a million new jobs.

Creating jobs is what people want us to do. I might say, I have a hard time understanding why some on the other side of the aisle have been holding this bill up for weeks and weeks. That is their business. I do not understand it, but that is their business. This is the kind of commonsense legislation we have before us today that Americans sent us here to do.

At last, the end is in sight, thanks to the courageous votes of Senator George Voinovich and Senator George LeMieux. I thank them. I thank Senator Voinovich and I thank Senator LeMieux on behalf of Americans and on behalf of all the folks, especially small businesses, who want to find jobs.

I thank, as well, every other Senator on this side of the aisle for their votes. I thank those two Republican Senators and the Democratic Senators who voted for this bill. Because of all of you, we are finally bringing this debate to a close, and it is certainly time to.

It is time to pass this bill. It time to help small businesses. It is time to help create up to half a million new jobs. So let us bring this debate to a close. Let us send this targeted tax relief to small businesses without further delay, and let us pass this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff be allowed floor privileges during consideration of the small business jobs bill: William Kellogg, Danielle Dellerson, Manishi Rodrigo, Jack McGillis, Brychan Manry, James Baker, Nicole Lemire, Deborah Ma, Julie Scott.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

That is the Small Business Act.

Am I correct in saying the time is equally divided before the votes?

Mr. President, I see my colleague. I have a statement to make on the bill.

Mr. President, the Book of Ecclesiastes teaches: ``The end of a matter is better than its beginning.''

In other words, getting something done is better than starting something new. That is what a lot of folks are telling us these days. They are telling us to get some things done. They are telling us to do something to create jobs. They are telling us to enact legislation such as the small business jobs bill before us today.

In America, the private sector creates the vast majority of jobs, and in the private sector, small businesses are the principal engine of job creation. Over the past 15 years, small businesses generated two-thirds of new jobs. That is about 12 million new jobs. That is even more true in my home State of Montana. In Montana, we have the largest share of workers employed by small businesses of any State in the Nation. Nearly 4 out of 5 employees in Montana work in businesses with fewer than 10 workers, and 3 out of 5 employees in Montana work in businesses with fewer than 5 workers.

The great recession has hit small businesses hard. Over the course of the recession, small firms have incurred two-thirds of the net job losses. We need to focus on small businesses as we seek to create jobs. When we help small businesses, we help get Americans back to work, and that is exactly what this small business jobs bill would do. This bill would help small businesses get capital. This bill would make it easier for small businesses to invest. This bill would promote entrepreneurship. This bill would improve equity in the law. This is exactly the kind of targeted job-creating legislation folks are telling us to enact, and we ought to get it done. But before we can pass this bill, we have to address the pending Johanns and Nelson amendments on information reporting.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Johanns amendment and support the Nelson amendment, and let me explain why. The Johanns amendment would repeal a tax-reporting provision enacted in the new health care law. No matter what you think of the reporting requirement in the new health care law, the offset in the Johanns amendment is a killer.

The Johanns amendment would go in the wrong direction. It would expand the exemption from the responsibility to buy health insurance. Fewer people would be responsible to buy health insurance. The amendment would raise revenue because it would thus decrease the number of people who receive Federal tax credits. Fewer Americans would get insurance and fewer people would get tax credits to buy the insurance.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Johanns amendment would increase premiums by up to 4 percent in the individual market; that is, in the market for those who individually buy health insurance. Their premiums would go up 4 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, under the Johanns amendment.

The Johanns amendment would increase the number of uninsured by 2 million people--increase by 2 million the number of people who are uninsured. Under the Johanns amendment, much of the cost of caring for the uninsured would therefore continue to be shifted to people with insurance, as it is today, and the premiums would continue to go up for all the rest of us to pay for that.

By reducing the requirement for folks to buy insurance, the Johanns amendment would make it so that the share of folks who buy insurance who are sick would also increase, and that would make insurance premiums go up as well.

We need to resist misguided efforts such as these to weaken the new health care law. What is more, the amendment would also cut money set aside for prevention in the new health care law, and that is a bad idea. The Johanns amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is dressed up as an attempt to help small businesses, but in reality it is just another partisan effort to undermine the new health care law.

Let me take a few moments to address the information reporting requirement which the Johanns amendment purports to address. Current law, even before health care reform, requires all businesses to send a form 1099 information return to all unincorporated service providers to whom businesses pay $600 or more during the year. This information also goes to the IRS. That is current law. That is before the health care reform law. The new health care law expands this requirement to include payments to corporations--not just service providers but to unincorporated companies--as well as payments for goods and property beginning in 2012. So this goes into effect, the provision in the health care law, in 2012--not this year, not next year, but 2012. I know it takes time and money for small businesses to comply with information reporting requirements. I am very sympathetic to the record-keeping burdens of small businesses. But the research demonstrates that voluntary compliance doubles when information reporting is in place. The rate rises from 46 percent compliance to 98 percent compliance. Information reporting does not increase taxes. Let me say that again. It does not increase taxes. Rather, it keeps tax rates lower. Why? Because more people pay the taxes they already owe.

Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration included corporate information reporting among their tax compliance proposals. But we do need to address this requirement, and the Nelson amendment is an excellent start. The Nelson amendment directly addresses the concerns small businesses are raising. First, the Nelson amendment would completely exempt businesses with 25 or fewer employees from the new reporting requirements for goods and property--a complete exemption for a small business that has 25 or fewer employees. For businesses with more than 25 employees, the Nelson amendment would raise the threshold to report purchases of goods and property from $600 to $5,000. The Nelson amendment would also take other steps to reduce the burdens on small businesses.

The bottom line is this: We have heard the concerns of small businesses. We hear it. I hear it. During the last month, I heard it two or three times, and on this particular provision. But when I asked about the Nelson solution, the people I talked to, the small businessmen I talked to, and the accountants I talked to at home said: Well, gee, maybe that might be OK.

We intend to work diligently to address and mitigate the concerns of small businesses, and we are doing so with the Nelson amendment. The Nelson amendment is the first step in that process. So I urge my colleagues to support the Nelson amendment in response to the concerns of small businesses. Those concerns are real, and the Nelson amendment addresses them. But the offset in the Johanns amendment is a killer. The Johanns amendment would raise health insurance premiums--raise them. The Johanns amendment would result in fewer people having health insurance--fewer. And the Johanns amendment would cut funding for prevention--cut it. Those are results no one should want. I therefore urge that the Johanns amendment be opposed, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Let's address these amendments and get something done, as Ecclesiastes, in the Scriptures, suggests to us, let's do something to create jobs, and let's enact this small business jobs bill today.

Mr. President, I will yield 8 minutes to my good friend from Florida, who has come up with a very good idea to resolve this question.

Amendment No. 4595, As Modified, and Amendment No. 4596, As Modified

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 5 minutes 45 seconds to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Montz of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the small business jobs bill.

Madam President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate on Monday, September 13, 2010, because I was holding the Montana Economic Development Summit in Butte, MT. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on the nomination of Jane Stranch, of Tennessee, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.

Madam President, this is a stunt. It is a gimmick. It is not serious, and it is very sad. We are in very difficult times. The economy is in recession, going out of recession. We are

facing the prospect of what to do about the so-called Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2003. Those are massive tax cuts that were put in place in 2001 and 2003. They expire at the end of this year. It is a big question: What should the Congress do, what should the country do about those tax cuts?

At the same time, we are facing terrific, unfortunately high deficits, very high deficits, almost as high as they were at the end of World War II--not quite but almost. The national debt now is approaching, as a percent of GDP, the levels that it was near the end of World War II--not quite. In fact, they were much higher at the end of World War II than they are today.

But the main point is, these are very serious questions. They require deliberate thought. They require Senators to work together to find solutions that help our country, help us decide: To what degree should these tax cuts be extended? Which ones make sense? Which ones do not?

We have several goals here. Clearly, people do not like paying taxes. But, clearly, Americans who are responsible know they must pay some taxes in order for our country to function. There are two extremes here. One is anarchy and the other States' outright total socialism. There is some balance in the middle for a civil society to function.

These questions are very big: How are we, as a society, going to properly function? To what degree should we begin and to what rate reduce the deficits and the debt? That is a very serious question. Other countries worldwide are facing these same questions, and we are interrelated, the United States, with other countries. That is a very serious question.

In addition, how much should the Bush tax cuts be extended? At what rate, what amount, et cetera? Should all rates be extended? Should some? Clearly, most Members of this body feel at least the so-called middle-income tax cuts should be extended permanently; that is, those whose incomes are $200,000 or lower or families with $250,000--at least. Then, there are other questions about what to do with the rest.

The motion offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina has this effect: He says all the tax cuts should be extended. First of all, we do not know what that means. Is that just individual rates? If it is, that is about $1.1 trillion it is going to cost over 10 years. Does he also want to include the alternative minimum tax for 10 years or does he also want to include dividend cap gains extended? I don't know. He doesn't say. But I assume he does. That is going to be about a $3 trillion cost--a $3 trillion cost--over 10 years. He wants that all replaced with spending cuts. I ask you, is that serious? That is not serious. I ask, is that a stunt? Yes, that is a stunt. Is it a gimmick? Yes, it is a gimmick. Is it serious? No, it is not serious.

These are serious times--very serious times--and we should not be engaged or even give comment to this kind of a stunt. I hate saying that. I don't like saying that. But I have to be candid. I have to be honest. If I am faulted for anything--and I am faulted for a lot--it is for being honest and candid. This is a stunt. I urge my colleagues not to fall for this.

Now, the $3 trillion--I asked: Where are we going to cut $3 trillion? Our total receipts, Federal receipts for the year, are about $2 trillion, a little over $2 trillion. That is pretty good. Well, OK, he wants to cut $3 trillion over 10. Now, where in the world? It can't be done. It cannot be done. Impossible. He knows that, but still he stands on the floor making this grand political statement. Does he say anything about small business? He doesn't say anything about small business. What is small business? I have no idea. It is kind of veiled a little bit under the cover of the top rates. He doesn't define it. We don't know what it is. I mean, it is just sad.

We don't have much time left to deal with these tax cuts. We don't have many legislative days left. We have to just do what Senators are supposed to do, do what most people in our States want us to do--be reasonable, be thoughtful, take on the hard issues. And they will give us a lot of slack if they think we are basically doing the right thing, if we are doing our best--it may not be perfect but doing our best, and that is what we should do. This amendment is not our best. It should be resoundingly defeated.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield my 4 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Madam President, I would just like to correct the statement made by the Senator from South Carolina. He is saying this side has not

wanted to extend tax cuts. That is totally inaccurate. This side does want to extend tax cuts, and we will. Come September, the Senator from South Carolina is going to see that this side of the aisle very definitely wants to extend those Bush tax cuts, including the 2001 cuts, the 2003 cuts. The only question is how much to do on AMT and how much to do on Federal estate tax. But we do want to extend them.

I see he is walking off the floor because I think he knows I am right and he doesn't want to have to hear it, but the fact is, we are going to extend. We will do our level best. The real question is whether we will have 60 votes to get that passed. That remains to be seen. I hope that happens. I don't see any Senators on that side of the aisle right now, but I hope there are a few--at least one--so hopefully we will get 60 votes in September. But we will make very strong recommendations to extend these tax cuts--maybe not all, entirely, but the vast bulk of them--in an effort to help the American people.

Madam President, I ask for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I do not know anybody who can responsibly vote for this amendment because we do not know what it is. What is the definition of ``small business''? It could be anything. I think it is a thinly veiled attempt to address the top rates. We are only talking about the top rates in effect.

The other amendment was totally irresponsible. It required a $3 trillion cut in spending over 10 years; $3 trillion--not a ``b,'' a ``t.'' This one is in the same vein.

Also, I think it is irresponsible because these are problems we must address seriously when we come back, not take this lightly with message amendments but seriously address when we come back in September what we do with the tax cuts and what we do on the deficits.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this motion.

Mr. President, I celebrate and honor the venerable life, not of a person, but of the most important and successful domestic program in our Nation's history. On August 14, Social Security will turn 75.

In a special Message to Congress in June 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated the promise of Social Security, saying:

If, as our Constitution tells us, our Federal Government

was established among other things, to promote the general

welfare,' it is our plain duty to provide for that security

upon which welfare depends.

President Roosevelt outlined his intention to ``undertake the great task of

furthering the security of the citizen and his family through social insurance.'' Executive Order 6757 created the committee on Economic Security, putting his plan into action. The committee included 5 Cabinet-level officials and 21 government experts from several Federal agencies.

At the committee's 25th birthday celebration, Francis Perkins, who was Secretary of Labor and member of the Committee on Economic Security, recounted the work of that committee. And she remembered an embarrassing oversight in the rush to create it--the committee had not been funded. But that was not going to stop its members. Relying on a small personal loan from one committee member, the committee hired unemployed stenographers and typists and recruited professionals and experts to help out. They sent a telegram that stated:

We have no money. We can pay your railroad fare and your

expenses if you really need expenses while you are in

Washington, but there is no salary.

The response was huge. A team of great minds converged on Washington, DC, in the heat of August, long before air conditioning. They worked tirelessly. And about 6 months later, in early January 1935, they presented their committee report to the President. He, in turn, brought it to Congress.

Congress heard the call. Or perhaps Congress heard the voices of its constituents. Or perhaps Members of Congress carried with them the pictures of closed factories, desolate farms, and breadlines that weaved around city blocks. Unemployment topped 20 percent, and the homeless population was growing.

In a 1962 speech, Francis Perkins described the backdrop of the creation of Social Security:

People were so alarmed the specter of unemployment--of

starvation, of hunger, of the wandering boys, of the broken

homes, of the families separated while somebody went out to

look for work--stalked everywhere. The unpaid rent, the

eviction notices, the furniture and bedding on the sidewalk,

the old lady weeping over it, the children crying, the father

out looking for a truck to move their belongings himself to

his sister's flat or some relative's already overcrowded

tenement, or just sitting there bewilderedly waiting for some

charity officer to come and move him somewhere. I saw goods

stay on the sidewalk in front of the same house with the same

children weeping on top of the blankets for 3 days before

anybody came to relieve the situation!

Congress went to work. Committees held hearings, and a long list of individuals and groups, charities, hospitals, industries, actuaries, historians, and interested citizens testified. There were debates and arguments, compromises and drafts, more drafts and then more meetings and compromises. And then, 7 months later, on Wednesday, August 14, 1935, at about 3:30 in the afternoon, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law.

Upon the law's enactment, the President appointed a three-person Social Security Board to run the new program. One of the Board's first daunting tasks was to register employers and workers by January 1, 1937, when workers would begin earning credits toward old-age insurance benefits. The Board contracted with the Post Office to distribute applications, and numbers were assigned in local post offices. Long before computers, typists created each card in typing centers and delivered it to Social Security's headquarters in Baltimore. Between November 1936 and June 1937, Social Security issued more than 30 million Social Security numbers through this manual process. By June 30, 1937, Social Security had established 151 field offices, and these field offices took over the task of assigning Social Security numbers.

Over the course of the next several decades, Social Security expanded to help more people secure themselves, as President Roosevelt said, ``against the hazards and vicissitudes of life.'' In 1939, Congress broadened the program to include payments to dependents and survivors of retirees. In 1956, Congress created the disability program and later expanded the program to include benefits for dependents of disabled workers.

The Social Security Act of 1965 created a new social insurance program called Medicare that extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older or receiving disability benefits.

In 1969, under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, Social Security began processing claims for disabled coal miners suffering from black lung disease and to their dependents or survivors.

Legislation passed in 1972 provided for automatic annual cost-of- living allowances and created the Supplemental Security Income program. SSI, funded from general revenues, provides a small benefit to people with limited income who have reached age 65 or are blind or disabled.

The Social Security Amendments of 1980 made many changes in the disability program. Most focused on various work incentive provisions for disability beneficiaries.

In the early 1980s, the Social Security program faced a financial crisis. President Ronald Reagan appointed the Greenspan Commission to study the issues and make recommendations on how to sustain Social Security. In 1983, Congress enacted comprehensive changes in Social Security coverage, financing, and benefit structure.

On December 17, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed the ``Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act,'' which placed greater emphasis on assisting beneficiaries in efforts to return to work.

In 2003, Congress enacted the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act to give seniors extra help in paying for prescription medications.

Throughout the years, Congress passed amendments, added programs, and addressed issues with Social Security. Presidents from both parties repeatedly acknowledged Social Security's importance.

President Richard Nixon said, ``This Nation must not break faith with those Americans who have a right to expect that Social Security payments will protect them and their families.''

A few years later, President Jimmy Carter said, ``The Social Security program represents our commitment as a society to the belief that workers should not live in dread that a disability, death or old age could leave them or their families destitute.''

Today, Social Security benefits are essential to the economic security of millions of Americans. An estimated 159 million workers, or about 94 percent of all workers, are covered under Social Security. Social Security is critical, as 52 percent of the workforce has no private pension coverage, and 31 percent has no savings set aside for retirement.

In 2009, nearly 51 million Americans received a total of $672 billion in Social Security benefits. In Montana, 181,000 of our 975,000 residents or about 19 percent of all Montanans receive Social Security benefits. The payments were modest, with the average retiree receiving about $14,000 annually. The average monthly benefit for a disabled beneficiary was about $1,060.

Virginia Reno, vice president for Income Security from the National Academy of Social Insurance testified before the Subcommittee on Social Security: ``If seniors had to count on only their income other than Social Security, almost one out of two would be living in poverty.''

Social Security is anchored by a promise between generations. But its success has been due in large part to the vision and sincerity of its creators and the ongoing commitment of its stewards, the public trustees, Advisory Board members, Members of Congress and the approximately 70,000 employees who work for Social Security. As well, we owe a debt to the thousands of dedicated employees who have worked for Social Security since its inception. For those that have embodied the agency's mission, ``to promote the economic security of the nation's people through compassionate and vigilant leadership in shaping and managing America's Social Security programs,'' we owe a big thank you.

Social Security's success was not built with the stroke of a pen. Social Security did not simply survive for 75 years. Rather, Social Security was built by embracing the promise of assisting people through life's hazards.

In a campaign speech in 1944, President Roosevelt said, ``The future of America, like its past, must be made by deeds--not words.'' Social Security is the embodiment of many good deeds. In times of crisis, over and over again, Social Security has risen to the challenge.

Fifteen years ago, a bomb in Oklahoma City took the life of fifteen Social Security employees, one office volunteer, and 21 office visitors. Social Security employees across the country responded to help survivors and the families of victims. Employees from around the country converged on Oklahoma to assist taking claims, answering questions, and providing comfort to the hundreds of victims and their families.

Following the devastation of September 11, 2001, employees in the New York region immediately came to the assistance of families of those killed in the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and at the plane crash site in Pennsylvania, so that claims could be taken and paid as quickly as possible. Social Security allowed payment of survivors' claims with airline manifests or employer records rather than death certificates. Within days, Social Security launched a full-scale outreach effort to find families of victims and help them apply for benefits. A special Web page was set up. Public information spots aired on television. And Social Security contacted about 60 consulates to ensure that foreign survivors who might be eligible for benefits were reached.

By December 2001, Social Security had taken more than 5,000 disaster- related claims. Social Security set up Family Assistance Centers at Pier 94 in Manhattan and Liberty State Park in New Jersey. The New York Regional Commissioner continued to work with the Bureau of Vital Statistics to post death certificates for the survivors of victims whose bodies had not been recovered.

Social Security was also one of the first agencies at the Pentagon Family Assistance Center in Virginia offering assistance to victims and their families. In Pennsylvania, Social Security staff assisted family members of victims on applying for benefits.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Social Security moved quickly to ensure that monthly payments to beneficiaries continued uninterrupted. Immediate payment procedures allowed for on-the-spot payments if beneficiaries could not get their benefit check. Social Security opened a temporary office in the Houston Astrodome, and provided service 7 days a week. Social Security employees were on site at FEMA's Family Assistance Centers, and many offices offered extended hours of service through Labor Day weekend to help evacuees.

Just recently, in my home State of Montana, in the old city hall building next to the Libby Police Department in Lincoln County, eight employees from Social Security arrived. They quickly set up a processing center to assist the victims of the Environmental Protection Agency's first-ever public health emergency. The Social Security employees tirelessly answered questions and handled a steady stream of claims from applicants diagnosed with asbestos-related disease. Social Security's work helping the good people in and around Libby Montana was deeply important to me.

Social Security has been described as the bedrock of our industrial society. It has been called the beacon of light for those on life's stormy seas. It has been called a pillar of our democracy. Social Security offers Americans peace of mind.

Social Security has lived up to its message. It has stood as a silent partner to those in need. It has done all this by sending about 99 percent of its annual budget back to the people as benefit payments. Only about 1 percent of Social Security's budget goes toward administrative expenses. The rest fulfills the promise of its mission.

Social Security can and should work for the next 75 years, and for generations beyond that. Now that Social Security is here, now that Social Security has proven itself, it is up to all of us to protect and maintain it. It is up to us to assure the millions of Americans that currently rely on Social Security and the millions more who pay into it that Social Security is a promise that we can and will keep.

In the words of Carl Sandburg, ``In these times you have to be an optimist to open your eyes when you awake in the morning.'' Our optimism can be found in the accomplishments of Social Security. I celebrate its 75th birthday.