Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:45 a.m. on Friday, June 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session of the Senate.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this vote is about jobs--plainly and simply about jobs. Fifteen million Americans are out of work. Fifteen million Americans need our help.

We need to continue our efforts to get Americans back to work. Creating jobs has been a top priority. The pending substitute amendment to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act would help achieve that goal.

The amendment would cut taxes for American workers and families by more than $4 billion. The amendment would cut taxes for businesses by $18 billion to help them expand and create jobs.

The amendment would extend Small Business Administration loan programs to help restore the flow of credit. These programs will help small businesses to grow and hire new workers. This extension eliminates fees for certain SBA loans and increases government loan guarantees.

Since their creation in the Recovery Act, these provisions have supported more than $26 billion in small business lending. They have helped to create or retain more than 650,000 jobs.

The amendment would expand community college and career training grants offered through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. These grants provide Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own the opportunity to learn new skills to find good jobs.

The amendment would support more than 350,000 jobs for youth ages 14 to 24 by expanding successful summer jobs programs created in the Recovery Act. This age group has some of the highest unemployment levels. Fully one-quarter of those aged 16 to 19 are unemployed--one- quarter.

The amendment would extend funding for States to provide wage assistance to employers who hire new workers. Wage assistance helps companies that might not otherwise be able to afford the cost of hiring new workers to create jobs.

The amendment would provide targeted, temporary pension relief to help employers who are struggling in this tough economy to continue to fund employee pensions without cutting jobs or restricting new hiring.

This amendment is about creating good jobs.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Let's advance this effort to create jobs.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of debate only until 12:30 p.m., with no amendments or motions in order during this period; that the time be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; and that the order for the recognition of Senator Baucus still be in effect.

Mr. President, I so make that request.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. Recovery act money works. It adds to reducing unemployment. It adds to the economy. It is very productive. It is helpful. It makes no sense to cut back recovery dollars that work, that help our economy. I, therefore, strongly oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment I send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is a new substitute amendment. We voted on an earlier version today. This is a new one. It still addresses many of the same issues as the last substitute, but it is smaller. It has fewer dollars involved and it is more paid for. The majority of this amendment is now offset. Most of the dollars spent in this amendment are offset, not by a lot but still the majority--more than half. All of the amendment is offset except for two matters: the unemployment insurance and the aid to the States under Medicaid; that is, the safety net provisions are not offset--those two. Everything else is offset. That means we do pay for changes to how doctors are compensated under Medicare. That is paid for. We do pay for all the changes to the tax laws. They are paid for as well.

We also made changes to the provisions regarding S corporations and carried interest. I will have more to say about those tomorrow, but suffice it to say that the S corp changes address some of the administrative concerns and burdens some Senators had as we were attempting to stop the abuses of some professional S corps, the abuses they have been conducting. Frankly, they have been paying themselves a very small salary. These are professional corporations primarily. Then they pay themselves dividends. Because dividends are not wages, they avoid payroll taxes. They avoid the FICA tax and avoid paying the Medicare tax. That is something we are trying to stop. The substitute still addresses that abuse but in a way that is less burdensome to bona fide S corporations. The carried interest provisions generally soften some of the provisions that were contained in the substitute.

The bottom line is that we listened. Several Senators had some concerns about the earlier substitute. We heard those Senators, and we have adjusted the amendment accordingly.

We believe this amendment can provide a path forward. We believe this amendment can complete our work on this bill. We believe this amendment can help to enact into law help to people who need help, the unemployed, and States under Medicaid and also help create jobs our constituents are demanding. The tax provisions will have that effect.

I very much hope that when we get to the substitute amendment vote, we will get the necessary votes to pass it. I am looking for something above 60, north of 60, so we can move forward to other measures.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anders Landgren, an intern on the Finance Committee staff, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, George Santayana wrote:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat

it.

Today, we must remember the past. We must learn from past mistakes, and we must do our best to avoid repeating them.

In its response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Federal Government made a serious mistake. It is important to remember this past so we are not condemned to repeat it. The stock market crashed in 1929. By 1933, the unemployment rate reached a high of 25 percent. A few years later--4 years later, to be precise--in 1937, the economy was rebounding. The unemployment rate had fallen to 14 percent, gross domestic product was growing at an average rate, if you can believe it, of 9 percent a year, and the stock market had more than doubled over the past 4 years. That was 1937. The economy was on the road to recovery. But this exceptional economic growth did not just happen. It resulted from strong actions by the Federal Government. From 1933 to 1937, for example, the United States dramatically increased the money supply. Lower interest rates and greater credit availability helped to stimulate spending and economic growth. New Deal programs also helped. Spending was modest but significant compared to the magnitude of the Great Depression. But the response provided a notable boost to the economy, and it helped instill confidence in the Federal Government's ability to tackle the Depression.

But in 1937, after 4 years of growth, the government made a mistake. Concerned about short-term deficits, what did it do? It began to cut spending and it began to raise taxes. A bonus for World War I veterans, which provided a boost in consumer spending, was allowed to expire in 1937. Social security taxes were collected for the first time in 1937. And marginal tax rates increased dramatically. What happened? This premature attempt to reduce deficits pushed the economy back over the edge. It was premature. The jobless rate shot back up to 19 percent. In 1938, gross domestic product fell by 3 percent. Shortsighted policy decisions

caused a double-dip. The mistaken desire to balance the budget too quickly effectively lengthened the Great Depression by 2 more years.

I understand the desire today to reduce deficits. I share that desire. We do need to put in place deficit reduction that will take effect after the recovery has kicked in. But we must also learn from the 1937 history. We must not repeat the mistake that led to the double-dip downturn of the late 1930s. If we were to dramatically cut spending or increase taxes to reduce the deficit in the short run, it would run the risk of causing a double-dip in this great recession.

Today, the economy remains too fragile to begin cutting back. Unemployment stands at 9.7 percent. The May jobs report was disappointing. The private sector created only 41,000 new jobs. In total, 15 million Americans still remain out of work, and half those unemployed have been unemployed for more than 6 months. Gross domestic product grew 3 percent in the first quarter of 2010, but this was down from 5.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Just as in 1937, we are in a recovery period. That is true. And just as in 1937, it is a recovery that is showing signs of weakness. If we act recklessly today, we risk a double-dip recession. If we adopt a constrictive fiscal policy in the short run, we risk prolonging the great recession for years to come. We cannot act without regard to the consequences of our actions.

Make no mistake, we must tackle and should tackle our long-term deficits. That is clear. And that is why one of the goals of the President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is to ``achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run.'' We do need to act aggressively to reduce our long-term deficits as the economy enters a phase of expansion. But first we must pull ourselves out of this great recession.

One of the best things we can do to facilitate the delicate recovery is to pass the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act before us today. This bill extends tax cuts for families and businesses that will help them in these difficult times, and this bill sustains vital social safety net programs that will also help foster economic growth.

We have made the mistake of cutting back too soon once before, and we must not make it again. The Thune amendment, which will be before us in the not to distant future this week, will move in the wrong direction. Instead of helping to create economic demand, the Thune amendment would curtail aggregate demand by more than $50 billion. Instead of continuing the good the Recovery Act has done, the Thune amendment would chop it off.

The Thune amendment would, among other things, cancel unspent and unallocated mandatory spending in the Recovery Act--stop it. That spending is working. The Recovery Act is working. The Federal Reserve and many independent economists have credited the Recovery Act with playing an important role in stabilizing the economy.

This is what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in its most recent report:

CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year

2010, [the Recovery Act's] policies raised the level of real

. . . gross domestic product . . . by between 1.7 percent and

4.2 percent, lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7

percentage points and 1.5 percentage points, increased the

number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8

million, and increased the number of full-time equivalent

jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those

amounts would have been otherwise.

That is what CBO says about the recovery. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that the Recovery Act will continue to create jobs. It projects that the Recovery Act will create the peak number of jobs in the third quarter of this year and then begin to taper off. But we do not want to abruptly cut that job creation off. In this fragile economy, the last thing we should do is to cut back on this proven job creator. It works. It has been working.

We passed the Recovery Act to give a needed boost to our economy. The bill was designed to work over 2 years. That was the intent of it. We have successfully started down the road to recovery, but if we were to withdraw these critical funds, we would risk causing further damage to our fragile economy. Revoking the Recovery Act funds now would send exactly the wrong signal to the American economy and to unemployed Americans.

The Thune amendment would also cut other valuable spending programs. The Thune amendment's spending cuts are arbitrary and they are restrictive. For example, one provision in the Thune substitute amendment would freeze the salaries of all Federal employees except for Members of the armed services. But what about civilian defense workers? What about law enforcement? What about border protection?

Another provision would cap the total number of Federal employees at current levels. If an agency needed to hire a new employee, it would first need to find an existing employee to fire. This would dramatically reduce the flexibility of agencies to make hiring decisions.

The Thune substitute amendment would also cut discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board for all agencies except the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. Apparently, this 5- percent cut would apply to the Department of Homeland Security. It would apply to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Apparently, it would apply to all the intelligence agencies, just to name a few.

The Thune amendment would also, by the way, rescind $80 billion in appropriated but unspent Federal funds. But just because the funds have not yet been obligated does not mean they are superfluous. For example, when money is appropriated to build a battleship, it does not all get obligated in the first year. By cutting funds that have not yet been obligated, it would adversely affect the construction of that battleship.

I support finding ways to make our government more efficient, but these cuts are arbitrary. They are inappropriately restrictive.

The Thune amendment would also make changes to the new health care law that would leave more Americans without insurance. The Thune amendment does this by expanding the affordability exception to the individual mandate for purchasing health insurance. This expansion would eliminate coverage for millions of Americans. It would strike at the heart of health care reform. And the Congressional Budget Office tells us it would also increase premiums for everybody else.

The Thune amendment, just to repeat, would increase premiums for millions of Americans who would have health insurance. The irony of this proposal in the Thune amendment is that it raises money for the government because the government would not provide as much in tax credits to Americans to help them buy insurance. That is the irony. But Congress has just enacted health care reform. Congress just expressed our Nation's commitment to helping all Americans to buy health insurance. We should let the new health care law take effect.

The Thune amendment would also propose changes to our medical liability system that the Senate has rejected many times over the years. The Thune amendment would cap damages and make other changes to State laws. This is not the solution to medical malpractice.

While the Congressional Budget Office says these kinds of ideas would generate savings, we should ask: What is the cost of those savings? What would be the cost to patients? What would be the cost to States?

The same studies upon which CBO relied in calculating its cost estimate point out that certain tort reform policies may also increase the number of risky procedures performed. And these policies may lead to more patient injuries and more patient deaths.

One study upon which CBO relied said that these policies would lead to a 0.2-percent increase in mortality.

That sounds an awfully high price to pay.

Imposing national tort reform standards flies in the face of our Nation's civil liability system. That system has always been forged at the State level. And national damage caps would put patient safety at risk.

The Thune amendment employs some of the offsets that it does because it drops the oilspill liability tax. Imagine that: The proponents of the Thune

amendment would rather put the recovery at risk by cutting back the Recovery Act, they would rather cut health insurance coverage in health reform, and they would rather expose patients to greater risk. They would rather do all these things than raise taxes on big oil, to pay for oilspills.

And the Thune amendment employs some of the offsets that it does, because it drops some of the tax loophole closers in the underlying substitute amendment. The underlying substitute amendment closes loopholes in the Tax Code that unfairly benefit certain individuals.

One such loophole is carried interest. The underlying substitute removes an inequity of the Tax Code that allows investment managers who operate through partnerships to have the income that they earn for their services taxed at half the tax rate of other working individuals.

Here's how the carried interest tax loophole works. An investment manager joins a partnership with some investors. But the investment manager does not provide any capital. The investment manager provides services.

The investment manager contracts to receive compensation not in the form of wage income, but in the form of a share of the partnership. That way, the investment manager gets to pay lower capital gains tax rates on the investment manager's income, rather than the higher wage tax rates that the rest of Americans pay.

The underlying substitute says: No longer should we allow investment managers to have a better tax rate than teachers or doctors or firefighters. Our amendment plugs this tax loophole. But the Thune amendment would strike that provision. The Thune amendment would allow that tax loophole to continue.

The underlying substitute also includes an important provision that closes another serious inequity in the Tax Code.

Lawyers, doctors, and other professionals who operate as partners or sole proprietors are currently subject to Social Security taxes on their service income up to $106,800. And they are subject to Medicare taxes on all their service income. Everybody is. But some doctors and lawyers organize themselves as an S corporation and they can pay themselves an artificially low salary. That way, they can avoid paying Social Security or Medicare taxes on much of the income generated by their services. That is just not fair.

And what is more, it hurts the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

The choice of entity should not affect an individual's tax liability for his or her services.

Unfortunately, Senator Thune's amendment does not close this loophole. The Thune amendment would strike this loophole closer in the underlying substitute.

The underlying substitute would also close several foreign tax loopholes.

The Senate Finance Committee developed these loophole closers jointly with the House Ways and Means Committee, with the assistance of the Treasury Department.

These loophole-closers would shut down highly structured and complex transactions implemented by multinational corporations to avoid paying U.S. tax.

These tax benefits claimed by the multinational corporations were clearly not contemplated when Congress passed the tax law.

Closing these loopholes would preserve and create jobs here in America. Closing these loopholes would discourage U.S. multinational corporations from shipping American jobs overseas.

Permitting the continued exploitation of these loopholes would only encourage U.S. multinationals to invest additional capital overseas, rather than here in America. Allowing these loopholes to continue would result in the loss of American jobs.

The underlying substitute amendment tackles these loopholes. Senator Thune's amendment, on the other hand, ignores them. By not addressing them, the Thune amendment would allow this irresponsibility to continue.

And so, the Thune amendment would put the recovery at risk by curtailing the Recovery Act. It would cut the number of Americans with health insurance and raise premiums. It would nationalize medical malpractice law, putting patients at risk. And it would protect big oil and multinational corporations that ship their jobs overseas.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Thune amendment.

And I urge my colleagues to support the bill before us. Let us protect and strengthen this fragile economic recovery. Let us preserve and create jobs, here in America. And let us enact the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the Vitter amendment.

The Senator from Louisiana is essentially offering an amendment which has the effect of preventing the oilspill liability tax from going into effect. This is a head-scratching amendment. Why in the world would any Senator suggest there be no increase in the oilspill liability tax?

Right now, beginning in about--let's see, what year was it?--1990, Congress, in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oilspill, enacted an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and oilspill liability tax, obviously, to pay for potential or future oilspills. The tax was set at 5 cents a barrel. In the 20 years since that time, the tax has been increased just 3 cents to 8 cents a barrel. At the same time, the price of oil has increased, since 1990, from the neighborhood of $20 a barrel to $72 a barrel today. Within the last 2 years, oil has been as high as $147 a barrel.

So with the increased evidence of the damage oilspills can create, and with the increased price of oil, we thought it was an appropriate time to raise the oilspill liability tax on oil companies to help pay for future spills. That is why we are doing this. In this bill, we propose to raise that tax to 41 cents a barrel. That is a very modest increase, where today oil in the market is roughly $72 a barrel.

You hear this argument--it is not even an argument. It is like Alice in Wonderland stuff. I do not know where this stuff comes from. It is Alice in Wonderland stuff, that somehow we should not do this because it is double counting or something like that. The money that is raised from the oilspill liability tax goes to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Find. And our Federal Government has a cash flow system of accounting, so by definition we will start to lower the budget deficit. That is not double counting. That is just the way it works.

It sounds as though the Senator from Louisiana either does not want to lower the budget deficit or he does not want to increase the tax on oil companies from 8 cents a barrel, which is so small. The fact is, what he is doing is saying this: He is saying that the Budget Office, for budget purposes, cannot count the oilspill liability tax to reduce the budget deficit. So, in effect, what he is saying is, there is no oilspill liability tax. What he is saying is the taxpayers should pay for the cleanup, not the oil companies. That is basically what he is saying. He is basically saying--by putting the kibosh on the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and the revenue coming from it--that he wants to protect the oil companies, protect the oil companies from any increase in the taxes from 8 cents a barrel up to 41 cents a barrel and, rather, have the taxpayers pay for the cleanup, not the oil companies that would pay the increase in the oilspill liability tax but the taxpayers.

I do not think that is what the vast majority of Americans wish to see. I think that is over the top and I, therefore, urge my colleagues to roundly defeat the amendment from the Senator from Louisiana who, in effect, does not want the oilspill liability tax increased and, in effect, is saying, taxpayers, pay for the cleanup, not the oil companies.

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

Mr. President, I believe there is a Senator who might want to speak on this amendment. We are tracking him down right now. So I suggest we do not yield back the remainder of our time.

Madam President, I don't see the proponent of the amendment on the Senate floor.

There he comes.

Madam President, this amendment is sheer sophistry. The effect of his amendment will say that not oil companies but the taxpayers will pay for cleanups.

The effect of this amendment would mean no increase in oilspill liability tax from 8 cents a barrel today up to 41 cents. If there is no increase in the spill liability tax, oil companies aren't going to pay for future cleanups, the taxpayers will. He has this--I said ``sophistry.'' So it is a sophistry kind of argument. It is fog and double counting and bead counting. That is not what is going on here.

The bottom line is this amendment has the effect of taxpayers paying for the cleanup, not the oil companies. This will effectively repeal the increase up to 41 cents per barrel. I urge Senators to not support this amendment.

Mr. President, in a few moments I will speak on the pending business before the Senate--the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act--but before I do, I would like to refer to the comments of the Republican leader, as well as the statement of the Senator from Louisiana that he gave yesterday.

For several months now, Americans have witnessed a massive oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico, Americans have seen the sweeping environmental damage, and Americans have seen the dramatic economic effects. It is something that is overwhelming, it is appalling, and it is incredible how much damage is being created by the BP gulf oilspill. I am sure to the average observer there might seem no better time than now to ask oil companies to contribute more to shoulder the burden of the oilspill. Actually, they have caused the spill--at least one company has--and they should bear the burden.

This, then, would seem to be an appropriate time to raise the oilspill liability tax. The oilspill liability tax is pretty small. It is 8 cents a barrel. That is all it is currently. One would have to come up with a pretty creative argument if one wanted to protect big oil companies from this fee.

Well, the Senator from Louisiana, and just now the Republican leader, have done that. They have come up with a pretty creative argument to protect the oil companies. The Senator from Louisiana, for example, has returned to the last refuge of bean counters, and he has cried double counting. The double counting argument seems to be a favorite among bean counters, Mr. President. It seems to be the argument one falls back on when one cannot argue the substance and one just wants to muddy the waters. In reality, the funds collected by raising the oilspill liability tax will strengthen the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That is simple arithmetic. But opponents of raising the tax on big oil companies want to make it less attractive for doing so. They want to make it so that the funds collected by raising taxes on big oil do not count in the Federal budget. That way it will be less effective and less attractive to raise taxes on big oil.

So don't be misled by the green eyeshades talk. Don't be misled by the bogus charges of double counting. Don't buy into the arguments of those who want to protect big oil. I urge my colleagues that when we get to it later today to vote against the Vitter amendment and to reject the arguments we have been hearing today that raising the per- barrel tax for funds which go into the oilspill liability fund is somehow double counting because, clearly, that money goes into the trust fund, and funds from that trust fund are then used to pay for the cleanup and some damage that has occurred and also counts toward reducing the Federal deficit because it is extra money that goes to government debt and, therefore, is money which is not doubled counted.

I urge my colleagues to reject those arguments.

I will yield to the Senator.

That is correct.

That is correct.

Of the current fee.

That is true.

That is correct.

That is correct. I might also say this fund was created in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill.

I think that is the amount. I am not certain, but it is about that.

Forty-one cents.

The current oil priced at $71 a barrel.

That is correct.

I might say that is my reading of the Budget Act; that is correct.

That is exactly correct.

That is the precise theory of all trust funds in the first place, but now the cap needs to be raised.

That is correct.

If the fund is not large enough, that is exactly correct.

Mr. President, I know my friend wants to speak, but let me just set the lay of the land so my friend from Vermont can speak.

The Senate has returned to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. I want to remind my colleagues this bill is about jobs. It is about helping 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs as well. We are talking about people who have worked, who want to work, and who will work again. These are our neighbors, and they need our help.

The Labor Department just reported that although things are getting better, there are still five unemployed Americans for every job opening available--five. For comparison, throughout 2007 there were fewer than two unemployed workers for every job opening. Again, today there are five. We need to do more to help create jobs. We need to continue to help those who do not have jobs to get by.

Let me also remind my colleagues that hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans need the assistance in this bill just to get by. The Senate needs to pass this bill, and we need to do it soon. As I have noted, this bill is about jobs. This bill is about helping the 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I remind my colleagues about that because, so far, aside from the substitute, none of the amendments offered is about jobs or about helping the 15 million Americans who have lost their jobs.

Many of the pending amendments are worthy efforts, but I encourage my colleagues to stick to the task, to address the subject at hand, and to pass this bill. People need help.

Right now, we have five amendments pending: this Senator's amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Sessions amendment to cap appropriations, the Cardin amendment to provide for dependent coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the Franken amendment to create the homeowner advocate in the Home Affordable Modification Program, and the Cornyn amendment for more reports on government debt.

The majority leader has requested that the Senate address the backlog of pending amendments before we allow more amendments to become pending. That is why I am serving notice that until we have voted on some of the pending amendments, I will be obliged to object to setting aside any of the pending amendments in order to allow further amendments to become pending. Thus, we would like to line up some of the votes, Mr. President.

If possible, we would like to have votes at least by noon or, at the very latest, 2 p.m. We very much hope we can make some progress today-- not just hopefully but make progress. It is our obligation to make progress. That is our job. People elected us to do what is right for America. It is right to help extend these so-called tax extenders, the R&D tax credit, and so on and so forth, but it is also right to make sure unemployment benefits are available for those who are out of work.

I urge us to come together and do our work in these next couple of days. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are hoping to reach an agreement soon on a procedure during which we can cast votes on various amendments. The first would be an amendment by Mr. Cardin; the next, Mr. Roberts; and then the Sessions amendment. At the conclusion of the Sessions amendment, I think we will then have 40 minutes of debate, and then the Baucus amendment and then the Cornyn amendment, but that will be outlined much more specifically in a unanimous consent request which I think should be coming fairly quickly.

I wish to say a word or two about the Roberts side-by-side amendment with respect to medical devices. I think it is important to remind ourselves that we are a democracy. Sometimes I think that is forgotten. That is, we are a country of laws. This is a country where we live by the will of the majority, as enacted into law.

It used to be that we here in the Senate would air our differences, vote, and then move on. I must say that lately, and especially with regard to health care reform, many on the other side of the aisle appear to be unable to move on. Many on the other side of the aisle appear unwilling to accept the results of our legislative process as enacted into law and signed by the President. Many on the other side of the aisle appear simply unwilling to accept the new health care law. Some come to the floor daily to complain about it and, in a sense, relitigate it. It is already passed. It is the law. For the life of me, I don't understand why Senators don't realize that now is the time, since the law has been enacted, to offer constructive remarks to help make sure it works even better. We are here to serve the American people. We are not here to score partisan political points. I think most people at home want the Senate to work to offer ideas to help make the recently enacted health care reform law work even better.

So today, unfortunately, we have again an amendment to carve out an exception to the medical device fee that helps pay for health care reform. This amendment would pay for the loss of revenue by leaving more Americans without health insurance. We are in a situation where if we cut out this medical device provision, then we have to make it up in some way, so this amendment would pay for the lost revenue by leaving more Americans without health insurance.

Senator Roberts offered this amendment a few minutes ago, and it would again seek to make changes to the medical device excise tax that is set to go into effect in the year 2013. The Senate rejected an amendment earlier in the year very much like this one. It rejected it during consideration of the

Health Reconciliation Act on March 24. We have already been there. We voted on this, not only in the health care reform bill that passed, but we also already voted on this amendment, and the Senate rejected an amendment very similar to this and rejected it soundly by a vote of 57 to 40. Here we are again.

But, still, some on the other side of the aisle appear unwilling to move on. So for the same reasons we rejected this amendment in March, we should reject it again today. We should not exempt one set of medical device manufacturers from contributing their fair share toward health care reform. We should not decrease the number of Americans with health insurance, which this amendment would do--decrease the number of Americans with health insurance. We should, therefore, reject the Roberts amendment.

Let me describe the amendment in a little bit more detail. First, the amendment tries to exclude certain medical device sales from assessment. As my colleagues will recall, a fee was placed on various providers to help pay for health care reform, and in virtually every case, the providers agreed to the fee. They would rather not have to pay a fee, but they agreed to it. They didn't cause a big fuss. Why? Because, as a result, more people would have health insurance, and with more health insurance, providers generally make a little more money. What they may lose on markup they could make up in volume as more people would have health insurance.

Products that consumers will buy at retail are already excluded. Further attempts to exclude devices are attempts to undermine the entire medical device policy.

The health care reform bill included shared responsibility for all health care industries. I would remind my colleagues, that was the basic premise of health care reform. We are all in this together. Shared responsibility. All Americans help share responsibility-- individuals, companies, insurance companies, manufacturers, doctors, hospitals. It is shared. All Americans share. It is about the only way we could make health care reform work in this country, and reform we must because of all the waste that otherwise occurs in our system. There are some estimates that there is up to 29 percent waste in the American health care system. That is a lot of money. We spend about $2.5 trillion a year on health care reform and waste in the American health care system. That is a lot of money. We spend about $2.5 trillion a year on health care reform, and 29 percent comes out to around over $800 billion of waste. I am not saying we can get all of that waste out of the system, but I am saying the passage of this legislation will go a long way, in many respects because of its very strong provisions to attack fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare.

The health care reform bill included shared responsibility for all health care industries. Medical device companies pledged to do their part. They pledged to do their part, and they must do their part. This is particularly true since that industry will see at least 32 million more customers as a result of reform, leading to substantial new profits. The device industry and many other industries in health care will see 32 million more customers as a result of this health care reform law we passed, leading to substantial new profits for them.

This amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas also seeks to weaken the individual responsibility requirement in health reform-- weaken it. Remember, this is a shared responsibility. He wants us to weaken a large part. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the requirement is one of the most critical pieces of reform; that is, that requirement that the Senator wishes to weaken. CBO, again, states this requirement is one of the most critical pieces of reform. Without it, we lose coverage for millions of Americans. Without it--without that reform--premiums could spike by up to 15 to 20 percent in the nongroup market. Premiums were likely to go up 15 to 20 percent in the nongroup market if this health care reform bill had not passed. That is the analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

So, clearly, we must resist efforts to weaken the individual responsibility policy in the health care reform bill. I, therefore, do not support this amendment.

I have a couple of other matters. I have not had much opportunity to speak today, so I wish to speak on those matters. I see my good friend from Utah wishes to speak and I will try to speak quickly so he can make his remarks.

The Senator from Arizona came to the floor a few moments ago to attack a number of laws we have enacted this Congress. First, he attacked the Recovery Act. The Senator from Arizona ridiculed the Recovery Act's effects. But we here turn to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for the straight facts. What are the facts? I think it was the late Senator Moynihan from New York who once said, you know, you can argue the policy, but you can't argue facts. Facts are facts. Facts are very tenacious things that are there that you can't wish away. So what are the facts, according to the Congressional Budget Office? The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, the Recovery Act's policies raised the level of real gross domestic product--that is adjusted for inflation--raised the level of gross domestic product by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent--not zero, not decreased but raised--raised the gross domestic product in the United States between 1.7 percent and 2.4 percent. Also, CBO says the Recovery Act lowered the unemployment rate by between .7 percentage point and 1.5 percentage points. That is the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office.

What else did the Congressional Budget Office say? That the Recovery Act increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million--increased the number of people employed. That is the consequence of the act. The Congressional Budget Office further states that it increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. I think that is pretty clear.

I respect the ability of the Senator from Arizona to state his own thoughts. That is why we are here in the Senate, in many respects. But we can't dispute the facts as stated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the facts which I just recited.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed and that no intervening amendment be in order prior to the votes, with 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the sequence, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each: Cardin amendment No. 4304; Roberts amendment No. 4325; Sessions amendment No. 4303, with a modification which is at the desk, and that the amendment be modified.

That depends on how long the remarks are going to be.

I am sure they are going to be wonderful. That wasn't the question.

We will work it out. We can always delay the first vote until, say, 5 minutes after 4 to accommodate the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, prior to enactment of health care reform, there was no law that required insurers to extend coverage for young adults to remain on their parents' plans.

For years, getting a diploma also meant losing your health insurance. And whether you went on to college or not, it was often hard as a young person to find affordable coverage.

Overall, Americans in their twenties were twice as likely to go without health insurance as older Americans.

For too many young Americans over the years, the answer to these questions was simply to go without health insurance and hope that you stayed healthy.

Under the new health reform law, insurers will be required to allow all Americans under the age of 26 who do not get health insurance through their job to stay on their parents' plan.

And beginning in 2014, children up to age 26 can stay on their parent's employer plan even if they have another offer of coverage through an employer.

This provision is scheduled to go into effect in September. But every major insurance company--more than 65 in total--and several major self- insured organizations have said they will provide continuous coverage for young adults this summer.

The amendment by the Senator from Maryland would make it possible for the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program to follow the lead of private insurance companies and make this coverage available sooner, as well.

This is a worthy goal. And the amendment would have negligible effects on the budget. And so I support the motion by the Senator from Maryland and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Amendment No. 4325

Mr. President, the Roberts amendment would address almost exactly the same matter the Senate voted on March 24. We rejected it then and we should reject it now.

The amendment would carve out an exemption for certain medical device manufacturers from paying their fair share of costs for health care reform and it will be paid for by reducing the number of people to be covered by health insurance. The last thing we should do is cut back on health insurance coverage, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. President, this is the Sessions-McCaskill amendment. We have voted at least four times on this amendment. The Senator from Alabama has offered pretty much the same amendment.

For now, four times the Senator from Alabama has sought to fix caps on the work of the appropriations process. Three times the Senate has rejected this amendment. I think we should do so today. The amendment by the Senators from Alabama and Missouri robs the Appropriations Committee and the Congress of flexibility to respond to changed circumstances in years to come. It would set budget caps, binding years into the future, no matter what happens between now and then.

So for all of the reasons the Senate rejected this amendment three times before, I believe we should reject it again today. The Sessions amendment seeks to change the budget process; therefore, it violates the Congressional Budget Act. I thus raise a point of order that the Sessions amendment

violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 20 minutes of debate, with the time equally divided, with respect to the Cornyn amendment No. 4302, and that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk; that Senator Baucus then be recognized to offer an amendment on the same subject as the Cornyn amendment; that the two amendments be debated concurrently for the total time as specified above, with no intervening amendment in order to either amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote with respect to the Baucus amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Cornyn amendment, as modified; that prior to any succeeding votes in this sequence, there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and that any succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes; that the next amendment to be offered be from the majority and then an amendment from the Republican side.

Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I call up my amendment No. 4326 and ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with once it is reported.

Mr. President, I support transparency. I think most of us do, certainly in concept. I support the transparency and deficit reduction goals of the Cornyn-Kyl amendment. But that amendment is unworkable. Why? Because it requires Treasury to speculate about the intent behind foreign purchases of U.S. Treasuries. How in the world is Treasury going to be able to know the intent behind foreign purchases of U.S. treasuries?

The Cornyn-Kyl amendment also sends the wrong message that the United States is deeply suspicious of foreign holders of U.S. debt, and it potentially could chill foreign purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. I do not think we want to do that now.

Purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds have held interest rates very low. We are very lucky. We are very lucky. I do not think many appreciate this: With the budget deficits we have, and even with unemployment way too high, things could be much worse; that is, if interest rates were much higher. But investors like the safe haven of U.S. Treasuries--and that is domestic and foreign purchases of U.S. Treasuries--and that is helping to keep interest rates down at very low rates, and that is keeping inflation down at very low rates. We are lucky that is a condition we are experiencing in the United States today.

With America just beginning to recover from the financial crisis, we cannot risk our ability to finance the debt. We cannot risk it. For those reasons, I must oppose the Cornyn amendment.

However, I urge Senators to support my side-by-side amendment, which meets the transparency objectives of the Cornyn-Kyl amendment, but could actually be implemented and will avoid roiling financial markets in this time of uncertainty.

Think a bit about what is happening in Europe. This is an uncertain time. This is not a time to be taking big risks. Rather, it is a time to be steady as she goes and be smart and be steady.

My amendment would require the President to submit an assessment to Congress on the risks posed by foreign holdings of U.S. debt, but without unnecessarily singling out individual countries. I do not think we want to single out individual countries because that has too great a risk of unintended consequences.

My amendment would require the GAO to assess the risk associated with Federal debt, but it would not impose an unconstitutional requirement on the President.

I am joined in this amendment by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry, and the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd. I urge Senators to support the Baucus-Kerry side-by-side amendment and oppose the Cornyn-Kyl amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the rest of my time, and I wonder if the Senator from Texas is prepared to yield back his.

I yield back our time as well, and I move to table the Cornyn amendment. Wait. Which amendment is up first?

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

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

Mr. President, as I understand it, although the Senator from Texas personally is, the other side is not prepared to yield back the rest of their time. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time and Senator Cornyn's time as well.

That is correct. I understand you are OK, but your side is--now they are OK. So now that we have that settled, all time is yielded back.

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

Mr. President, the Cornyn amendment is a dangerous one. It would send the wrong message to people who are buying America's debt. It would send a message that we are suspicious of people who buy our debt and would require the Treasury to opine the intent of purchasers of U.S. debt. It would thus discourage people from buying American debt. This would cause us to have to pay higher interest rates on our debt, and that would mean higher rates of inflation. It would roil the bond markets at a sensitive time. Look at what has happened in Europe and the softness there.

For lots of reasons I think it is unwise to undertake this risky adventure.

Yes.

Mr. President, I move to table the Cornyn amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the things that I love most about Montana--the North Fork of the Flathead River. Everyone who experiences the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana is awed by its pristine waters, larger than life landscapes, and breathtaking views. With its headwaters in British Columbia, the North Fork of the Flathead River forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park--it is one of the last untouched places on our continent.

For decades, the North Fork has been threatened by oil and gas and mining proposals in British Columbia. For the last 35 years, I have battled these proposals, one by one. After 35 years of work, we are beginning a new chapter of international cooperation in our efforts to protect the North Fork. I am very pleased that Conoco Phillips is a part of this.

In February of this year, British Columbia and Montana announced their intent to prevent mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development in the North Fork on the lands they control. Senator Tester and I pledged to do our part to establish extra protections south of the border, where 90 percent of the North Fork watershed is already federally owned.

So, on March 4, we introduced the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, S. 3075, which bans future mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development on Federal lands in the watershed. The bill enjoys support from business and conservation interests alike from all over the State, including the Kalispell Chamber, Whitefish Mountain Resort, the Billings Rod and Gun Club, and a long list of others. This breadth of support shows the importance of the North Fork for Montana's economy as well as our State's outdoor heritage.

There are some current leases in the area that have been dormant since the late 1980s, when a court decision found that they were improperly issued. Senator Tester and I have been engaged in active discussions with the current owners to retire these old leases. On April 28, I was proud to announce that ConocoPhillips, the primary leaseholder in the North Fork watershed, elected to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 108 Federal oil and gas leases covering approximately 169,000 acres, representing 71 percent of the leased area in the North Fork watershed.

ConocoPhillips should be commended for this decision and their stewardship of this very unique, special place. Their action is further evidence of the consensus that exists between the United States and Canada and among businesses and conservationists, that the withdrawal of these Federal lands from leasing is the only path forward.

In 1975, during my first term in the House of Representatives, I introduced a bill to designate the Flathead River as a Wild and Scenic River. It was designated in 1976. For me, that began a lifelong effort to protect the North Fork. At that time I said:

A hundred years from now, and perhaps much sooner, those

who follow us will survey what we have left behind.

This action brings us one step closer to ensuring that that every Montanan, every American, and every Canadian who follows us will have the opportunity to share our feeling of awestruck wonder that such a place still exists, almost untouched by the modern world.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House with respect to H.R. 4213.

The Acting President pro tempore laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the House agrees to the amendment of the

Senate to the bill (H.R. 4213) entitled ``An Act to amend the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring

provisions, and for other purposes,'' with the House

amendment to the Senate amendment.

Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 4301

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Madam President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House bill with an amendment which I send to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Madam President, a few moments ago, the Republican leader sought once again to throw mud at the new health care law that Congress enacted earlier this year. Let me take a moment to set the record straight.

The Republican leader said the premiums would go up for some Americans. What the Republican leader did not say is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that health care reform would lower premiums for the overwhelming majority of Americans. After taking into account the tax credits to help buy insurance, health insurance will cost less for 9 out of 10 Americans--no small amount.

The Republican leader mocked the new payments to seniors the President is highlighting today; that is, the $250 for drug benefits. The President made the point that that is important for seniors. The truth is, seniors will welcome the help they will soon be receiving to pay for prescription drugs in their coverage gap, the so-called doughnut hole. Starting very soon seniors will receive $250 to help pay for their prescriptions. By the time health care reform is fully phased in, we will have completely eliminated the doughnut hole. This is something seniors care about very much.

No longer will seniors have to choose between their rent and the prescriptions they need. No longer will seniors have to cut their pills in half just to get by. No longer will seniors live in unnecessary pain just because of drug costs. So the fact is, health care reform will help to control the costs in health care. Health care reform will reduce costs for the taxpayer over the decades to come. That is not my assertion, it is that of the Congressional Budget Office. Health care reform will increase access to lifesaving medical treatments for millions of Americans who all too often now must do without.

Madam President, on the matter before us today, 15 million Americans have lost their jobs during this great recession. Although the unemployment rate came down some last month, it remains near 10 percent. At the depth of the great recession, during the first months of last year, the economy lost an average of 750,000 jobs a month. That is practically the population of my State. We have come a long way since then. Even if we exclude temporary census jobs, in the first 5 months of this year the economy has created nearly half a million new jobs. But we still have a lot more to do. We have to get more Americans back to work.

We began doing just that with the Recovery Act. We enacted that as one

of the first things the new Congress did in February of last year. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery Act increased by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million the number of Americans employed.

We continued getting more Americans back to work with the Hiring Incentives Act that we enacted in March of this year. The HIRE Act should help to bolster job creation in coming months.

We are continuing again today with the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. This bill would create jobs by improving our Nation's infrastructure. It would reduce the cost to local governments to build roads, bridges, and water treatment facilities that would create jobs.

This bill would also extend provisions that expire at the end of May. These provisions would provide important relief for many Americans.

Americans who are out of work are depending on our job creation efforts. This bill extends the needed lifeline of unemployment benefits to more than 5 million Americans who would not be able to support themselves or their families without this help.

We are talking about people who have worked, want to work, and will work again. These are our neighbors. And they need our help.

In my home State of Montana, we have seen some promising signs of recovery. In Yellowstone County, unemployment is down from 6 percent in March to 5.2 pesent in April. That is good news. But there still remain people who need our help.

Some counties in Montana have unemployment as high as 16.8 percent. In Montana, as with the rest of country, we have seen an increase in people looking for work.

Unemployment rates will continue to hover around 10 percent even as the economy improves. As the economy adds jobs, many unemployed people grow more hopeful and resume their search for work. That is one reason why economists call unemployment a lagging economic indicator.

The bill that we are considering today includes improvements to the unemployment insurance program. This bill would eliminate the penalty in unemployment insurance for getting part-time or temporary work. Under current law, if people who are unemployed take part-time or temporary jobs, and then lose that job, they receive lower benefits than people who did not take short-term work. This bill corrects that inequity.

This bill also expands the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Program. The bill would broaden the program to include workers who are eligible for unemployment insurance. This will help more Americans who are looking for work to get the education and looking career training that they need.

If we do not pass this bill, doctors who see Medicare and TRICARE patients will take a 21 percent pay cut. More and more physicians are threatening to leave the Medicare and TRICARE programs if this happens. Seniors and military families could lose access to their doctors.

We cannot keep postponing this issue every month or two. Seniors worry they will lose their doctors. And physicians cannot run a business with this much uncertainty.

We need to pass a long-term reform. I would life to fix the problem permanently. But the votes are not there today. We will permanently reform Medicare's system to compensate doctors as soon as we can.

In the meantime, this bill provides security to doctors and the patients they see for the next year and a half through 2011. It provides a modest payment increase to physicians for the rest of this year and next year.

This multi-year provision would prevent the untenable cut in physician payments. And this bill would provide a pathway to a permanent change in how doctors are paid.

The budget rules have to score a permanent reform as a cost. But we all know that this is something that we have to do for America's seniors, military families, and doctors.

This bill would also provide tax relief for American families and businesses. This bill would help communities that have suffered a natural disaster. And this bill includes important tax incentives to improve America's energy independence.

For individuals and families, this bill provides much-needed tax relief in a time of economic uncertainty.

This bill would extend the teacher expense deduction for teachers who buy school supplies for their classrooms. And it would extend the qualified tuition deduction to help with college costs.

This bill would extend much-needed relief for communities that have suffered from natural disasters.

And it would extend important business tax provisions to help create jobs and make our companies competitive in a global economy.

The bill would extend the research and development credit to help businesses to continue to be on the cutting edge.

The bill would also extend important energy tax incentives. For example, the bill would extend the dollar-per-gallon credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel. And the bill would extend the manufacturer's credit for the construction of new energy-efficient homes.

In addition to these important provisions that provide direct assistance in job creation, the bill includes other proposals that will provide relief for businesses and individuals.

One such provision is pension funding relief.

With the weak economy, American employers are faced with the need to make higher pension contributions. Several factors have combined to require these higher contributions.

There is the funding changes of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

There is the slide in the stock market in 2008.

And then there is the ensuing great recession.

These requirements for higher contributions are coming upon employers just when they are facing lower asset values and lower cash flow. Meeting the new funding rules could divert resources that employers could use to keep workers on the payroll.

We addressed this bind temporarily in 2008. But employers are still facing the prospect of closing plants and stores. Employers are still faced with the possibility of letting workers go in order to make up for lost asset values.

This bill contains additional temporary, targeted, and appropriate relief for these employers. And at the same time, the bill still maintains the pension security system.

These tough economic times have hit the States hard, as well. In last month's employment report, for example, State and local governments cut 22,000 jobs.

So, included in the substitute amendment is a 6-month extension of the additional Federal financial assistance for State Medicaid programs. This would allow States to plan for their next fiscal year with the greater certainty.

Additional Federal Medicaid match money, known as FMAP, helps the economy grow. According to the economist Mark Zandi, this funding has a return on investment of about $1.40 for every dollar invested.

The nation's governors have repeatedly asked for an extension of this Federal assistance. And this bill answers their pleas.

With so many Americans out of work, our country needs Congress to enact this legislation.

This bill continues valuable tax incentives to families and businesses that will help them in these difficult economic times. And the bill sustains vital safety-net programs that will also help foster economic growth.

This legislation is important to the American people. It would prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net. It would extend vital programs that are set to expire. It would put cash in the hands of Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting economic demand. And it would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs.

And so, let us help America's businesses to create more jobs. Let us join together to work across the aisle on this common-sense legislation. Let us enact these tax incentives and safety-net provisions into law.

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

Madam President, it is with interest that I listened to my colleague from Tennessee for several reasons. One, he is debating a law that has already passed. It is strange to me that he wants to relitigate health care reform. But it is not so strange because I know that that is the tack the other side is going to be taking for the rest of this year. At every opportunity, Senators on the other side of the aisle, all of whom voted against health care reform, will sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of the American people. They don't come up with constructive ideas on how to improve the work of something that has already passed into law. Rather, they stand on the law and tear down something that has passed, sowing the seeds of doubt with misinformation.

It is unfortunate, because it has caused the American people to wonder who they can trust, especially when one side only speaks ill of a major program such as health care rather than trying to come up with constructive ideas. That is what is happening right now. We heard a statement from a Senator who is trying to basically score points in the November elections by sowing the seeds of doubt and confusion over health care reform.

The truth is not what the Senator just said. The Senator from Tennessee takes issue with efforts of the government to explain the new health care law. He is implying that it is disingenuous, that it is not fair, that it is one-sided. I remind all my colleagues that when the drug benefit came out, proposed by the administration of a different political philosophy, they didn't pay for it--all unpaid for, every red cent. They put all kinds of literature out, all kinds of brochures to tout the drug benefit. There were some who thought it wasn't fair. There were some who thought it was biased. I will not litigate that issue, but I do know that charge was made many times when the administration of a different political persuasion was touting the drug benefit legislation that passed not too long ago.

I have spoken with this administration several times about getting the proper information out; that is, not to tilt, gild the lily, bias. At hearings I have made that clear to administration officials. I for one do not want this administration or any administration to be unfair in explaining the program to the American people. I think the brochure the Senator talks about is fair and straightforward. I just happened to pull up the Web site yesterday and looked at it to see what it said. I was impressed. There is a lot of information there I didn't know about. It didn't at all come across to me, trying to be objective and fair, as one-sided. It was an honest effort to explain to the American people what health care reform is.

The new law takes steps to improve the quality of health care. Let me go back to what the Senator said. No. 1, he took issue with the paragraph that said the new law increases the quality of health care. Of course, the new law increases the quality of health care. The Senator from Tennessee is sowing the seeds of doubt as to whether this new law actually does increase the quality of health care. Let me explain how it does. First, there is delivery system reform. We get rid of a lot of the waste in the American health care system. It is paid on the basis of quality, not on the basis of quantity and volume. Every expert who has looked at the American health care system knows we have to move in this direction. This bill does that. It is going to reimburse doctors, hospitals, and health care providers more on the basis of quality outcomes than on the basis of the number of services provided or the quantity of services.

The doughnut hole will be filled. That will increase the quality of health care for seniors. The statement that the Senator refers to from the HHS Actuary actually says that health care reform will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for another decade. I think that improves the quality of health care. Anyone who objectively has looked at the health care reform legislation and attempted to determine one issue; that is, the life of the Medicare trust fund, has concluded that the passage of health care reform will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for 8 to 10 years. That clearly gives seniors a little peace of mind. It is going to be there. It gives peace of mind to people who are about to be seniors, that it is going to be there. That is a major improvement in quality.

It is true what the brochure says. It does increase the quality of health care. There is no doubt about it. Anyone who thinks otherwise should think through the entire legislation and be objective about it.

No. 2, he refers to the assertion that it keeps Medicare strong and solvent and claims that is not true. The Actuary says that health care reform will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for another decade. That is 100 percent refuted.

Third, the Senator from Tennessee quibbles with the assertion that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will continue to receive their guaranteed benefits. The Senator at first admits this is true, but the larger point is that health care reform reduces overpayment to Medicare Advantage plans. And why should other beneficiaries pay extra for the overpayments made to some people who are beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans? I have talked to a lot of executives who work for Medicare Advantage plans in the last week or so. They are interested, and they like it. They like the change in the law. Why? Because they know they are going to be reimbursed now more on the basis of quality.

Medicare Advantage plans will be paid more if they can show better outcomes, higher quality, not just the standard ``you get the same rate'' benchmark compared with fee for service and so forth. A CEO of a major Medicare Advantage plan said: Senator, we think that is good policy. We like that. We are ready. We are anxious. We want to do a real good job. We think that is a good change in the law. That is going to, frankly, help seniors--higher quality, better benefits under Medicare Advantage plans. That will help.

Essentially, I want to make it clear, the Senator from Tennessee complains the health care law did not correct for payment of doctors. Here is his opportunity. He could vote for this bill today. If he doesn't want doctors to take a 21-percent cut, if he doesn't want that, he should vote for this bill. This bill before us today would prevent that cut from taking place.

I very much look forward to seeing the Senator from Tennessee voting for this bill so that doctors do not get a cut in their payment. That would be the right thing to do, support this bill so doctors don't get cut.

Again, the Senator takes issue with the assertion that health care reform would help keep Medicare solvent. The fact is, the nonpartisan Medicare Actuary said health care reform will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for a decade longer.

I return to my first point: The health care reform law has passed. The President signed it. My gosh, why don't we work together constructively, both sides, with good points, praise, criticism, both sides of the aisle, all constructively to help the American people? Why are we here? We are here to help the American people. We are not here to score political points. We are the hired hands. We are the employees. We work for the American people. The American people want good health care reform. They want costs lower, and they want higher quality care. So let us work together to help the American people get that. That is what we should be doing here, not trying to score political points and cause disruptions for the American people for the upcoming elections in November.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama took issue with the use of an emergency designation in the substitute before us. Let me take a moment to explain why that use of the emergency designation is entirely appropriate.

First, the concluding section of the amendment designates two items as emergency items. Those items are unemployment insurance and additional payments to States under Medicaid. Both of these items are directly related to the economic emergency that we find ourselves in; namely, the great recession.

From the beginning of emergency designations, with the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, Congress has recognized periods of recession as true emergencies, and that makes good economic sense as well. It makes good sense to allow automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance and Medicaid to spend more when the economy is in rough shape. Programs such as unemployment insurance and Medicaid help to cushion the blow for those hurt by bad economic times. Programs such as unemployment insurance and Medicaid help to increase economic demand, and that helps to keep the recession shorter than it otherwise would be.

That is why the old Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law provided for exceptions to budget discipline in periods of recession. It is why the Budget Enforcement Act carried on that policy by allowing exceptions for budget emergencies, and budget resolutions have carried that policy further to the current day.

The Senator from Alabama also took issue with the budgetary treatment of payments to doctors under Medicare. That provision is in our amendment, paying doctors at the end of next year. In our amendment, the provision on doctors' payments simply says this provision will be accounted for as Congress provided in the Pay-As-You-Go Act. This provision does not evade the budget law. This provision merely provides for this bill's treatment in accordance with the budget law. So the budgetary treatment of this bill is consistent with the budget law and it is entirely appropriate.

The Senator from Alabama has once again offered his amendment to put caps on appropriated spending. That is basically the same amendment the Senate has repeatedly rejected. The Senator from Hawaii, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, will no doubt have more to say about this in due course. At this point let me note the Sessions amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act and I expect a point of order to be raised against the Sessions amendment later today.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Sessions amendment be temporarily laid aside so the Senator from Maryland may offer an amendment.

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

Madam President, we are on the jobs and tax bill, but we seem not to be making a lot of progress tonight. Senators are under no constraint to come to the floor and say what is on their minds about any subject under the Sun.

I wish to address a couple remarks given by Senators recently.

Most recently, I share the concerns of the Senator from Texas about the debt that is owned by lots of different folks, not just Americans but owned by foreigners. He made special reference to China. I think it would be better if the United States could avoid borrowing so much. It is unfortunate the United States has borrowed a lot to run its affairs.

So have other countries, I might add. It is not just the United States. There are many countries, regrettably, that have overborrowed. Greece comes to mind, as do other European countries: Spain, Portugal, perhaps even Hungary. It is becoming quite a concern worldwide. It is one reason we have the Deficit Reduction Commission set up to figure out the proper way to reduce our deficits, which by definition would mean that other countries would be borrowing less from other countries.

But I also think we need to act responsibly. The Senator from Texas sent a resolution--I think it is a resolution--which was pretty strongly worded in its implied criticism of China. It somewhat reminds me of the Pogo cartoon: We have met the enemy, and he is us. But, in any regard, we need to avoid taking actions that might unsettle bond markets in these very uncertain times. The markets are jittery right now. So I look forward to working with the Senator from Texas to improve his amendment. We have to be very responsible on this subject and not cause a greater problem by acting too precipitously.

On another matter, Madam President, just prior to the Senator from Texas speaking, the Senator from Wyoming addressed the Senate, and he delivered a full-throated diatribe against health care reform. He called his attack ``a second opinion.'' But instead of offering a second opinion, which he did not do at all, he delivered, frankly, the same old negative criticisms that many on his side of the aisle have been delivering since enactment of health care reform. Not one Republican voted for health care reform--not one--and that bill passed. We do live in a democracy. The majority vote rules. The President signed the bill. I would think that issue has been settled. Health care reform has been enacted into law, signed by the President. So I am a little confused as to why he still wants to criticize this bill so much, except he does say: Well, gee, it should be repealed.

The Senator from Wyoming, for example, derided the antifraud provisions in the health care reform bill. He called them ``miniscule.'' But I might say, as a matter of fact, we advanced every antifraud provision we could possibly find. In the meantime, working with the Senator from Florida, Mr. LeMieux, we are also looking to find other antifraud provisions to cut back waste and get rid of the waste in our health care system.

But we needed the health care reform law to pass so we can weed out that waste, get rid of that waste, and to pass these antifraud provisions. If the Senator has another health care fraud measure, I sure would like to hear it. It reminds me of that phrase: Where's the beef. He keeps criticizing, but I hear no solutions. I hear no alternatives. I am a little surprised at that because he is my neighbor. We in Montana know a lot of folks in Wyoming, and we like to think we are people who do not just bellyache and complain but we are, rather, people who come up with positive solutions, constructive solutions, as good neighbors do.

The Senator from Wyoming goes on further to say that the President's nominee to head CMS ``plans to ration care.'' This is simply a libel, Madam President. If the Senator were not protected by the speech and debate clause,

he would be subject to a suit for slander. Certainly truth would not be a defense. The Senator from Wyoming uttered a slanderous statement. He is protected by the speech and debate clause of the Constitution of the United States, and that is about the only place he could make slanderous statements like that with impunity.

The Senator from Wyoming says his ``second opinion'' is that Congress should repeal the new health care law--just repeal it. But by calling for repeal of health care reform, the Senator from Wyoming apparently seeks to repeal one of the biggest budget reduction measures in the decade. I say that because the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells us that health care reform will reduce the Federal deficit by one-half of 1 percent of GDP in its second decade. It will reduce the deficit.

I would think the Senator from Wyoming would like to reduce the Federal budget deficit. I am quite certain he wants to reduce the Federal budget deficit. But if he asks for repeal of health care reform, I guess he no longer cares about reducing our Federal budget deficit.

By calling for repeal of health care reform, the Senator from Wyoming seeks to repeal the law that reins in insurance companies. Boy, in the private market there is just so much abuse of individuals by insurance companies. By calling for the repeal of health care reform, apparently the Senator from Wyoming wants to bring back the ability of insurance companies to discriminate against people who have preexisting conditions, to discriminate against Americans who are denied insurance based upon some health care status or to go back and deal with the rating provisions of States where the States, unfortunately, allowed insurance companies to take advantage of certain groups of people.

By calling for repeal of health care reform, apparently he seeks to bring back the doughnut hole and preserve it in the future. He seeks to continue hardships for seniors who need help paying for their prescriptions.

Madam President, this health care reform bill closes the doughnut hole. What is the doughnut hole? That is the dollar amounts above which and under which people have to pay all their prescription drug benefits. When they get up to the doughnut hole, they get a certain break. When they get above the doughnut hole, I guess 90 percent of their drugs are paid for--something like that.

But within the doughnut hole, if you are a senior, you do not get any help. Apparently, the Senator from Wyoming says: Oh, that is fine. Those people don't deserve to get any breaks in their prescription drug benefits. He wants to repeal health care reform, so the effect of that would be: Seniors, you are not going to get any help. Sorry. No help in the doughnut hole.

By calling for repeal of health care reform, the Senator from Wyoming seeks to eliminate the tax credits that the new law will give Americans to help them buy insurance. I guess he does not care about that, the Senator from Wyoming. He does not want to give people tax credits. He does not want to give people tax credits to help them buy insurance.

And by calling for repeal of health care reform, the Senator seeks nothing less than the continuation of a system where millions of Americans struggle, struggle by, struggle without health insurance, struggle without quality health care. They struggle because of greater pain and discomfort and greater risk of early death.

I could go on and on and on and on as to the reasons the Senator from Wyoming's so-called second opinion is defective, to say the least. I know some on the other side oppose health care reform. But this is, as I mentioned earlier, a democracy. In our country, the majority generally determines whether a law passes. Congress and the President enacted health care reform, and I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would just stop fighting the last war--stop fighting the last war. Rather, let us try to find opportunities to work together to improve the law together. Let's leave behind the politics of destruction. Let's work together to build a better health care system for America because, after all, we are here to help the people who sent us here. The people who sent us here want a better health care system than they now have.

So let's work together to find that better solution. Let's not forget that health care is basically indiscriminate. Poor people, wealthy people get cancer. Women, men get cancer. Cancer strikes anybody. It does not make a difference whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. The same thing is true with any other health discomfort or condition.

So I am just beside myself in trying to figure out why it is that the other side of the aisle just keeps attacking health care reform. The only conclusion I can come up with is they just want to stir up things. They want to cast all kinds of doubt and confusion in the minds of Americans, with respect to perhaps these elections coming up this next November. That is a conclusion I do not like to reach but, logically, it is the only one I can possibly come up with.

I will say something else. This health care reform is going to be relitigated again when we in the Finance Committee take up the nomination of Don Berwick to be the new CMS Director. I know, as sure as I am standing here, those who voted against health care reform--and they all happen to be Republicans--are going to be just relitigating health care reform. They are going to accuse this administration of about anything under the Sun, including Don Berwick. It is going to be very unfortunate. It is my job--it is going to have to be as chairman of the committee--to try to keep the debate, if you will--it will not even be a debate; in part, it will be a diatribe in certain circumstances--to just keep the discussion, the debate on a constructive level so we can serve our country and serve our people. But I felt compelled to speak in the wake of the remarks by the Senator from Wyoming because they deserved a response.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we have had an interesting start today on the jobs-tax bill, but it has been fruitful and productive. We have four amendments pending. That is progress. Tomorrow, I want to move ahead and clear out the underbrush, if you will, to get those amendments disposed of. I have spoken with the leader, and we have agreed that it makes good sense to get those four amendments processed tomorrow morning before we do much else and that we go to other amendments subsequent to that. I hope we can get those amendments processed so that we can proceed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff from the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the tax extenders legislation: Logan Timmerhoff, Kathryn Spika, Logan Baker, Benjamin Furnas, John Merrick, Andrew Fishburn, Mary Baker, Emily Freeman, Drew Colling, Ellen Montz, Randy Aussenberg, and Jenn Rigger.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the tax extenders legislation: Greg Sullivan, Nicole Marchman, Chris Goble, and Claire Green.