Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an outstanding leader from my home State of Montana as he embarks on a new adventure in his life. Since 1990 George Dennison has served as the president of the University of Montana; he is now the longest serving president in the history of the institution. This summer on August 15, 20 years to the day after he began his duties at UM, President Dennison is retiring. I would like to speak today about some of George's achievements and all he has done to better higher education in Montana.

A historian by training, George earned a bachelor's degree with highest honors from the University of Montana in 1962, as well as his master's degree in 1963. After earning his Ph.D. in history from the University of Washington, George went on to serve as a professor and administrator for universities in Arkansas, Washington, and 18 years at Colorado State University in Fort Collins. George eventually returned to Missoula from Kalamazoo, MI, where he served as provost and vice president for academic affairs for Western Michigan University, to become president of the University of Montana in 1990.

I have enjoyed working with George during his tenure as president of the university. We share a strong desire to ensure that Montana's students have access to a high-quality, world class education that prepares them for the careers of the future and to be active members in their communities.

The University of Montana has seen tremendous growth under President Dennison's leadership. Over the past two decades, student enrollment has jumped from 10,000 to over 15,000. In the 20 years that George has served as president, more students have graduated from UM than did in the entire previous century. The number of doctorates awarded has increased from 15 to 75 annually. External research funding has expanded from $7 million in 1990 to over $170 million in 2010. The athletic programs at UM have competed well on a national level and have created a great sense of school and community spirit as the Griz have a faithful following throughout Big Sky country.

Like President Dennison, I strongly believe that an understanding of the world in which we live is essential to a well-rounded education. Under George's leadership, the university has developed strong international and exchange programs. Building on the work done by our dear friend Mike Mansfield, the former Senate majority leader and Ambassador to Japan, UM has relationships with universities across Asia. These partnerships help strengthen our educational, diplomatic, and economic ties with our friends across the Pacific and carry on the legacy and good work of Mike and Maureen Mansfield.

One initiative on which I have been particularly proud to work with President Dennison is the educational and cultural exchange program that the university recently started with Vietnam. I invited the Vietnamese Ambassador to the U.S. to visit Missoula in 2008 to meet with President Dennison about the exchange. President Dennison then traveled to Vietnam last year to meet with several universities and subsequently signed memoranda of understanding with Can Tho University and Vietnamese National University to establish student and faculty exchanges. It is important that we provide our students, the leaders of tomorrow, with the knowledge they will need to thrive in our increasingly global society--this exchange program does just that.

George has received numerous awards and recognition during his time at UM including the Governor's Humanities Award in 2009, the Montana Excellence in Leadership Award in 2007, and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education Region VIII Leadership Award in 1999. President Dennison has received honorary doctorates from universities in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. During his career, George has had a number of historical works published. His 1976 book, ``The Dorr War: Republicanism on Trial, 1831-1861,'' was runner-up in the Frederick Jackson Turner Award Competition. Upon retiring as president, George plans to spend the first years of his retirement writing a history of the University of Montana.

I would like to once again thank President Dennison for all his hard work and commend him for his leadership over the years. I wish him and Jane all the best as they start a new chapter in their life.

Mr. President, I would like to return to the nomination of Dr. Lael Brainard.

Today, at long last, the Senate is considering the nomination of Dr. Lael Brainard to be Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs.

President Obama nominated Dr. Brainard more than a year ago, in March of 2009. After an extensive vetting process, the Finance Committee held a hearing on her nomination in November of last year. And the Finance Committee favorably reported her nomination with a bipartisan majority in December of last year.

The path to her Senate confirmation has been neither short nor easy. But throughout this process, Dr. Brainard has demonstrated persistence and determination.

These vital qualities supported her well as a nominee. And these qualities will support her well as she assumes her responsibilities as Under Secretary of Treasury.

The world economy is emerging from a deep economic recession. America must lead the way to recovery. And we must do so by creating jobs, reducing unemployment, and encouraging smart, balanced growth here at home.

But the health of the global economy does not rest on our shoulders alone. In fact, the recent financial crisis has demonstrated how interconnected our world is.

The world's many national economies have the potential to rise together. And they have the potential to fall together, as well.

To ensure a stable, prosperous economic future, countries must work together to support balanced economic growth. No country can rely solely on export-driven growth, just as no country can rely solely on its domestic consumption.

But this economic rebalancing will not happen overnight. The global economic downturn has been powerful because of its persistence. And we must be just as persistent and determined in our efforts to overcome the effects of this crisis.

As Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs, Dr. Brainard will lead our bilateral and multilateral efforts on these issues. She will work with key trading partners such as China and the European Union. And she must help to guide our country from an economic recovery to economic growth.

Dr. Brainard has demonstrated that she has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to confront the tasks that lie ahead. She is brilliant and hard-working.

She has shown the tenacity and doggedness necessary to be successful as Under Secretary for International Affairs. And she has revealed that she has the persistence and determination to address the vital issues facing America and the global economy today.

I might add, I worked with Dr. Brainard during the Clinton administration. A very key question is, What would the U.S. economic relation be with China? Up to that point, America had annual extensions of MFN for China. They were contentious. They caused more problems than they solved, and I spent some time with the President and others in the Clinton White House and then later worked with Dr. Brainard as we moved away from these annual extensions of MFN and more toward PNTR with China.

It was a hallmark change in United States-China economic relations. I think this worked out very well for our country's best interests. I must say it has also helped China. We pursued that objective, in part, because that meant China could then be a member of the WTO, and once China became a member of the WTO--that is, the World Trade Organization--that would help China live up to world standards that other countries were living up to under WTO.

Again, Dr. Brainard, throughout this confirmation process, has shown her dedication to serving the Treasury Department, the President, and the American people. I am confident--and I am confident because she has had deep experience and she is very talented; she is very good--I am confident she is up to the task for which she has been nominated.

I urge the Senate to approve her nomination.

I now ask unanimous consent that the assistant majority leader, the Senator from Illinois, be recognized to speak on whatever topic he chooses.

Madam President, I rise to reflect on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the special role the United States must play in moving these talks forward.

Peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians have been stalled for nearly a year. To restart these talks it is abundantly clear that it will require great courage amongst the negotiating parties to negotiate in good faith. Efforts to negotiate a lasting peace in the region have been interrupted by violent clashes and mistrust. When it comes to peace, no one should doubt the sincere yearning of the Israeli and Palestinian people. Their dream of peace will be best realized when our countries work together.

Ever since Israel declared independence in 1948, the United States and Israel have enjoyed a close friendship. And our support for Israel remains unwavering. For over a half-century Israel has been a pillar of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. In the face of countless threats and challenges it is this commitment to freedom that has kept our relationship strong. In the past Israel played an integral role in combating Soviet expansionism in the Middle East during the Cold War. Today it stands with the U.S. in confronting Iran in its dangerous pursuit of a nuclear program.

Israel is an important strategic partner of the United States. Our national interests are linked through our ongoing cooperation in trade, diplomacy, intelligence, weapons development and military exercises. Since 1985, the U.S. has provided nearly $3 billion in grants to Israel annually. I am confident that we in Congress will continue to provide the assistance that befits such long-standing strategic allies.

While there are moments of disagreement between Israel and the U.S., they do not affect the mutual interests that we share in the Middle East. The cause of freedom unites our vision for a peaceful future. It is critical that we continue our longstanding relationship of trust and cooperation as we meet the common challenges we face today. During rare moments of disagreement, it is best for two allies to resolve them privately and amicably. We should not allow our occasional differences to be exploited by our adversaries.

Restoration of the peace process is a shared goal because its benefits are shared. For Israel, a lasting peace agreement brings assured peace to a land where peace has for too long been fleeting. For the U.S., the pursuit of a mid-east peace deal illustrates America's commitment to working for peace and security. Comprehensive peace in the Middle East is, and should remain, one of the U.S. highest foreign policy priorities.

Madam President, yesterday, the Senate tabled the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma by a vote of 51 to 46. That motion to table was successful, and shortly I will move to table the two pending Coburn amendments. The Senate should reject these two amendments offered by the good Senator from Oklahoma for the same reasons the Senate rejected the other amendment yesterday.

The Senator makes basically the same argument for each of his three amendments. They appear to be pretty much a set in terms of amendments. The Senator argues this emergency temporary extension of unemployment insurance benefits is the place to draw the line. It is the place to draw the line on which we need to take a stand to balance the budget.

Madam President, I agree with him the Nation should turn to serious budget negotiations. Our high budget deficits are unconscionable and must be addressed. We should balance the budget over the life of the business cycle. We should balance the budget as quickly as we possibly can. But we should not balance the budget while in the grips of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Doing that would only put more people out of work.

I might say, Madam President, that at a hearing held yesterday by the Finance Committee, the well-known economist Mark Zandi, who was an adviser to Presidential candidate John McCain, volunteered that this is not the time to draw that line in terms of deficit reduction. We should not force people who are unemployed to bear the brunt of offsets at this time. This is not the time to balance the budget, now that we are facing this recession.

I might also point out that we should not balance the budget on the backs of unemployed Americans who, through no fault of their own, are struggling to get by in this recession. They need these unemployment benefits, and if we were to adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, first of all, it would be a mistake; and second of all, it would have to go to the House, and the House has said they wouldn't accept it. So for another couple of days people who deserve unemployment insurance benefits would not be getting them.

This Congress failed to act some time ago. As a consequence, unemployment benefits have expired and people who deserve unemployment benefits are not getting those unemployment benefits. Again, if we were to adopt the Coburn amendment and send it to the House and have it come back, then it would be a longer period of time that people who are waiting for their benefits would not be getting them.

It is just wrong for Congress not to have passed this extension a short while ago. It is wrong, but it is something that happened so we are here trying to correct it. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are already going without unemployment insurance benefits because we have not passed this bill. Hundreds of thousands more will go without unemployment insurance benefits if we do not pass the bill this week.

I will repeat myself: If we were to adopt either of the Coburn amendments, the House of Representatives has made it clear they will simply send it back to us again without the Coburn language. So adopting either of these amendments would simply further delay the needed aid to unemployed Americans struggling to get by. So I urge Senators to vote for the motion to table so we can temporarily extend the benefits that so many people justly deserve.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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 unanimous consent that at 12:10 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 3726, to be followed by a vote in relation to amendment No. 3727; that prior to the second vote, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that no amendment be in order to either amendment prior to a vote in relation thereto; further, that the time until 12:10 be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Madam President, I yield such time as she may consume to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Madam President, how much time remains?

Six minutes? I yield six minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

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

Madam President, I might ask my friend from Oklahoma, I think we are----

Madam President, I yield back my time. I think the Senator from Oklahoma wants to yield back his time so we can go straight to the vote.

I move to table Coburn amendment No. 3727, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, for the information of all Senators, I am aware of only one more amendment on this bill. The Senator from Arizona has an amendment on the value-added tax. I am hopeful the Senate can consider that amendment at about 1:30 or so this afternoon and perhaps vote on the amendment shortly thereafter.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the amendment by the Senator from Arizona would state a sense of the Senate that we should not adopt a value-added tax. Personally, I agree with him. I do not favor a value- added tax. I, for one, would be happy to accept the amendment. I don't know if the Senator from Arizona wants a rollcall vote. I don't know if it is provided for. I hope we don't have to have one, but if he wants one, that is fine with me. The order states we will start voting at 5 o'clock, and when we do get to the vote on the McCain amendment, I intend to vote for it.

I yield back my time.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask consent that the next two votes be 10-minute votes.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Legislative Proposals in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's FY 2011 Budget Request''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``ESEA Reauthorization: Teachers and Leaders'' on April 15, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Filing Season Update: Current IRS Issues.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 11 a.m., to hold an East Asian Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled ``US-Japan Relations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized

to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 15, 2010, at 10 a.m. in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Assessing Access: Obstacles and Opportunities for Minority Small Business Owners in Today's Capital Markets.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Contracts for Afghan National Police Training.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 15, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Reserving the right to object, might I inquire, under the current procedure, when is the bill expected to be reported?

At this time?

Mr. President, I suggest the regular order be followed.

That would allow the Senators to speak.

Mr. President, I ask the bill be reported and the Senator then be recognized to speak, Senator Corker first and then Senator LeMieux.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I have a modification to my amendment at the desk, and I so modify my amendment.

Mr. President, shortly, the Senate will vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act for the consideration of my amendment and this important bill to extend unemployment

insurance benefits and other vital safety net programs.

We need to waive the Budget Act to allow this bill to move forward. We need to waive the Budget Act for the people who depend on unemployment insurance benefits.

We need to waive the Budget Act for people like the Montanans from whom I have heard.

We need to waive the Budget Act for Bonnie from Whitefish, MT. Bonnie lost her job in property management last year, and has been scraping by on unemployment benefits ever since. Bonnie has already sacrificed much, but she is still falling behind on her rent. She is unable to afford many necessities. Unemployment benefits help her get by from day to day.

We need to waive the Budget Act for people like Richard from Bozeman. Unemployment insurance has helped keep Richard afloat as he searches for a job. So far, Richard has applied for more than 150--think of it! 150--jobs and has had only 2 temporary part-time positions to show for his effort. Though his financial situation is grim, it would be even more so without unemployment benefits.

We need to waive the Budget Act for people like the single father from Missoula. He has been out of work for weeks. He exhausted his State benefits, and is now receiving Federal extended benefits. He recently called the Montana Unemployment Insurance Claims Processing Center for additional help because he does not know how he can take care of his daughters.

Unemployment benefits help these Montanans to pay the bills. Unemployment benefits help these Montanans and millions of Americans who, through no fault of their own, have fallen victim to this Great Recession.

The average unemployment benefit is $335 a week. These days, $335 only stretches so far.

Benefits have lapsed for 200,000 Americans. Since Authority expired a few days ago. If we do not pass this bill this week, another 200,000 Americans could lose their benefits.

Responding to recessions is the very definition of an emergency. Responding to this kind of need is why the Budget Act built in motions to waive the budget in the first place. The budget needs to have flexibility to address truly unusual circumstances like today's economy.

Extending unemployment insurance benefits is a good investment to make now. It is an investment, in our economy.

Unemployment benefits help our unemployed neighbors. And in helping our neighbors, unemployment benefits also help to keep open the neighborhood grocery store, and the neighborhood gas station.

In helping our unemployed neighbors, unemployment benefits also help the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that extending additional unemployment benefits would have one of the largest effects on economic output and employment per dollar spent compared with any other action we could take. CBO says for each dollar spent, increasing aid to the unemployed could increase the gross domestic product by up to $1.90. That is 2 to 1. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, that could increase gross domestic product by $1.90. Households receiving unemployment benefits spend their benefits right away. That is very important. They don't save it; they spend it. That spurs demand for goods and services. That boosts production and leads businesses to hire more employees.

Some critics insist that emergency spending to address the recession is busting the budget. Some critics blame emergency spending and the Recovery Act for the huge budget deficits we face today.

We do need to address our Nation's fiscal circumstances, of course, we do. We are currently laboring to reach an agreed-upon package of offsets to pay for much of the long-term extension in unemployment insurance and other programs the Senate passed on March 10.

And on a larger level, we also need to balance the Nation's revenues and outlays. The President's fiscal commission will begin its work a week from Tuesday. We will need to think about fundamental tax reform as part of that exercise. And we will need to make sure that we get a dollar's worth of value for every taxpayer dollar the government spends.

But let me set the record straight. Emergency spending like this bill and the Recovery Act is responsible for only a small share of the deficit.

In fact, the cost of the Recovery Act is projected to be less than 10 percent of the total deficit legacy over the next 10 years.

The chart behind me tells the story. The majority of the deficit we will face over the next 10 years stems from inherited policies. The tax cuts enacted under the previous administration, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn itself explain nearly $11 trillion of our deficit over the next 10 years.

These policies were enacted before the current administration and before this Congress. Because these policies were not paid for, we are now facing huge deficits.

Unemployment benefits are not the cause of the deficit. We should not balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed.

Right now, it is essential we pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. It is essential we help Americans put food on the table. It is essential to pay the bills, while they continue to look for work.

So let us waive the Budget Act for Bonnie from Whitefish.

Let us extend unemployment insurance benefits for Richard from Bozeman, MT.

Let us extend this vital lifeline for the single father from Missoula and for his daughters who depend on him.

And in this great recession, let us waive the Budget Act to enact this temporary extension of unemployment insurance for the hundreds of thousands of Americans struggling, through no fault of their own, just to get by.

It is true that very soon we must significantly address the budget deficit. The real test will be the degree to which this country, the President, and the Congress buckle down and start to reduce the budget deficit during times of prosperity; that is, after we get out of this recession and when unemployment levels start to reach sensible, lower levels. That is when we face the true test of whether we reduce the budget deficit. It is our responsibility to do so. We should let unemployment benefits be extended. We should not have to pay for those now. But soon, when the unemployment rate falls, when the country comes out of the recession, then it is up to us to go the extra mile to make sure we, in a responsible way, start to address the huge deficits. When we do, it will keep interest rates low, and other countries will have more confidence in the United States. I daresay they have confidence now, but they will have even more confidence. I very much expect and hope that this body will exercise that effort responsibly to begin to tackle huge deficits.

Now is not the time. Soon we will face the time. It is not now.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum be charged equally against both sides.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, I move to waive all applicable provision of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for consideration of the pending amendment, No. 3721, as modified, and the underlying bill, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I might note that the Senator seeks to take up and pass one of the specific provisions in the underlying bill, section 7 in the underlying bill. Since the Senator seems to be endorsing a part of the underlying bill, and the pending Baucus amendment, I might ask the Senator to amend his request to provide for the passage of all of the underlying bill and pending Baucus amendment.

So the Senator is not willing to amend his request for passage of all of the underlying bill containing the section 7?

Mr. President, I am constrained to object.

Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana supports part of the bill. I would just ask the Senator to broaden his mind to support all of the bill. That way, we can get this done.

Mr. President, there are a number of reasons to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. First, it would reverse the considered judgment of the Congress as expressed through the annual appropriations process. Congress has spoken on appropriations that are authorized and obligated, and his amendment defers that considered judgment. I will defer, frankly, to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to address these concerns in greater detail when he arrives on the floor.

Second, the House of Representatives has made it clear that it views unemployment insurance and the other provisions in this bill as emergency provisions. The House has made clear that it would send the bill back to us again if we adopted the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma. That is clear. I have had conversations with the House. It is clear that it would be sent back, and that would needlessly delay much needed aid to the people receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Let's not forget that there are so many people--200,000 people, in fact--who are not receiving benefits because we let the legislation expire. It has expired. So 200,000 people today who are entitled to unemployment insurance payments are not getting them, and if we send the bill back to the House again, that is further delay. It will not be long before that number of 200,000 is going to double to 400,000. That is just playing games with the lives of unemployed Americans.

Third, and perhaps most dramatically, the amendment would delegate powers to rescind $20 billion to the unelected Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This would be a breathtaking abdication of Congress's power of the purse. In the Federalist Papers, the power of the purse is described as the most singular power to protect the rights of the free people. We should not quickly surrender that power, and the Senator's amendment would surrender that power to the tune of $20 billion. The Senator's amendment would give the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a blank check. It would give him the power to cut whatever unobligated balances he should choose. This is truly a sweeping grant of power, and it is truly a dramatic surrender of that power.

The Senator from Oklahoma talked about budget deficits. He and I agree. We do, as a nation, need to address the budget deficits. As a rhetorical question, he asked: When is the time to make the changes to balance the budget? The Senator asked the question as if the answer were self-evident, but the answer is not self-evident.

A wise person once said: For every difficult question, there is usually a very simple answer and it is usually not true. This is an example of that maxim at work.

The simple answer in this case would be to require the government to balance the budget every year, year-in and year-out. That is pretty simple. That answer, even though it sounds nice, would be wrong. The Nation should balance the budget over the course of a business cycle. We should spend in a recession and exercise more discipline when the country is very prosperous to get the budget under control.

But the Nation should not attempt to balance the budget in the grips of a recession. Why is that? That is because in a recession, business slows down. People actually pay less tax revenue to the government. In a recession, spending on automatic stabilizer programs automatically increases, like unemployment benefits, food stamps, and many others. That is what should happen during a recession. To do otherwise would be economically disastrous.

To try to balance the budget in the grips of a recession would mean raising taxes or cutting spending even more than is automatically occurring. That would reduce the amount of demand in the economy, and that would further slow economic growth and put even more people out of work. So most reputable economists would say you should not try to balance the budget in a recession. There is pretty broad agreement on that point among reputable economists.

So that is why it does not make sense to try to balance the budget this year. Yes, we should balance the budget over the business cycle, but we should not try to raise taxes and cut spending even more to balance the budget right now. And that is why it does make sense to spend money on unemployment insurance benefits as an emergency matter.

As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said, spending on unemployment insurance benefits is one of the most effective things Congress can do to increase economic growth. It is one of the most effective things we can do to save and create jobs. For every dollar we spend on unemployment insurance benefits, the Congressional Budget Office says economic growth is increased by up to $1.90; it is

almost a 2-to-1 return on our investment. That is a pretty sound investment.

That is the economic reason why it makes sense to spend now on unemployment insurance benefits and to balance the budget over a longer period, but even more compelling is the human reason. The human reason is people such as the single dad in Missoula, MT, who depends on the extra unemployment insurance benefits to support his daughters and put food on the table. He called the Montana unemployment office, and we learned that this fellow said he honestly did not know how he was going to make ends meet without these benefits. The Senate should not be playing games with the lives of people like this man and his daughter in Missoula and all of the other men and women around the country who desperately depend on unemployment payments to make ends meet. Congress should not balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed.

Last of all, we must reject amendments like these. That is why we should pass the underlying bill.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45 p.m. today the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Budget Act was not waived be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, and the Senate then proceed to a vote on the Baucus motion to waive all applicable Budget Act points of order.

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

Mr. President, before the Senator yields, in the form of a question, I deeply appreciate the Senator's statement. He is on the right track. I believe the Internet should be free and open, too. I was stunned by the circuit court decision.

I ask the Senator if he could tell us how he thinks the FCC can remedy the situation now without legislation, and if the FCC cannot, we need legislation. But I am asking for the Senator's view again. He already stated it once. Maybe he can expand on it further.

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

Mr. President, the Senate just rejected the previous Coburn amendment by a vote of 51 to 46. The Senate, I might say, rejected an attempt by the Senator from Oklahoma to give the Director of the Office of Management and Budget sweeping powers to cut unobligated balances by billions of dollars.

The Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, explained why that would be unwise. Essentially, there are many contracts which take more than 1 year to be fulfilled--building ships, for example, aircraft carriers, and so on. It takes a good number of years to build them, and it would make no sense to rescind all those unobligated balances.

The Senator from Oklahoma has two more amendments. One in particular is virtually the same amendment. It gives the Director of OMB powers to cut unobligated balances by billions of dollars, so the arguments of the Senator

from Hawaii would apply there as well. So the same reasons given for opposing the Coburn amendment just a short while ago--and the one that was defeated--should be the same reasons that would apply with respect to this next Coburn amendment that we will be voting on in the not-too- distant future.

The Senator from Oklahoma has another amendment which would reverse decisions of the Congress through the appropriations process, and it also would, I might say, affect some tax provisions that would be inappropriate if we were to pass them now.

I would remind my colleagues if the Coburn amendment were to be adopted, there is another problem with it; that is, the delay of the extension of unemployment benefits. Because if it were to pass, it would have to go over to the House, and I am not quite sure how quickly the House would accept the Coburn amendment. They have said many times they would not accept it; that they would send it back, probably as is, without the pay-fors on the extension of unemployment benefits. So we would just be delaying unemployment benefits to people who were cut off a few days ago because of the failure of Congress to act on the extension.

So I would suggest to my colleagues that the other two amendments the Senator from Oklahoma has offered are very similar to the first amendment he offered. The Senate defeated that first amendment by a vote of 51 to 46, and I suggest that these other two amendments be defeated when they are brought up because then we can give needed unemployment benefits to people who need it during this time of recession.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, not to belabor the point, but at a hearing I held in the Finance Committee this morning, we heard from Mark Zandi, who is the chief economist and cofounder of Moody's Analytics, and he was talking about unemployment benefits.

In fact, part of the hearing was to determine ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of unemployment benefits. Actually, the panel came up with a lot of very interesting ideas. Different States are, frankly, using the unemployment program to help create jobs as well as make payments.

Anyway, at this hearing, Mr. Zandi volunteered, frankly, that now is not the time for extension of unemployment benefits to be paid for. He said that is self-defeating. It is unproductive. He said, now that we are in a recession, frankly, unemployment compensation benefits should not be paid for.

Who is Mark Zandi? Mark Zandi is a moderate economist, very well respected by Senators on both sides of the aisle. He also was the adviser for Presidential candidate John McCain--Mark Zandi was. The point is, clearly, he is not a liberal, leftwing economist. I don't know even now if he is a moderate economist. But whatever he is-- moderate, leftwing or liberal--he is an economist, and he has worked for Presidential candidate John McCain. He volunteered today on the record at the Finance Committee hearing that it would not be wise to pay for unemployment benefits at this time because that would be self- defeating.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of the pending bill: Randy Aussenberg, Claire Green, and Dustin Stevens.

Mr. President, we are now on the temporary extension of unemployment insurance benefits. This bill will help millions of Americans who are struggling to feed their families, struggling to pay the bills.

Take, for example, a single father from Missoula, MT. He has been out of work for weeks. He exhausted his State benefits, and he is now receiving Federal extended benefits. He called the Montana Unemployment Insurance Claims Processing Center, and he said if his unemployment insurance benefits are not extended, he does not know how in the world he is going to take care of his daughters. He continues to search for a job. But for now, unemployment insurance benefits are the lifeline for him and for his family.

Unemployment benefits help him to pay the bills for his daughters. Unemployment benefits help the single dad from Missoula and also help millions of Americans who, through no fault of their own, have fallen victim to this Great Recession.

As we meet today, benefits have lapsed for 200,000 Americans. Another 200,000 Americans could lose their benefits, too, if we do not pass this bill this week.

Unemployment benefits help our unemployed neighbors. In helping our neighbors, we also help to keep open the neighborhood grocery store and the neighborhood gas station. In helping our unemployed neighbors, we also help to keep houses out of foreclosure. In helping our unemployed neighbors, we also help the economy.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that extending additional unemployment benefits would have one of the largest effects on economic output and unemployment per dollar spent of any option. The CBO chart behind me tells us how effective increasing aid to the unemployed can be.

The CBO analyzed the effectiveness of a number of job creation proposals. For each policy, the CBO estimated the number of jobs created for each dollar of budgetary cost. You will see on the chart behind me, there are 11 policies the CBO analyzed. Increasing aid to the unemployed is ranked first. It is No. 1, at the top of the chart. You can see it with the blue line. Among all these policies, increasing aid to the unemployed is the most effective. The Congressional Budget Office says it will create the most jobs per dollar of budgetary cost. It is the most efficient and creates more jobs. Other policy options are much less cost effective.

CBO also says each dollar spent increasing aid to the unemployed could increase the gross domestic product by up to $1.90. That is almost double per dollar spent. Why is increasing aid to the unemployed so effective? Let's ask ourselves that question. Well, households receiving unemployment benefits spend their benefits right away. They have to. They are spent. That spurs demand for goods, demand for services. That boosts production, and that leads businesses to hire more employees.

Unemployment benefits are essential to bridging the gap between losing one job and finding another, and it has become increasingly difficult to find that next job. In February, there were 2.7 million job openings. In the same month, there were 15 million Americans out of work. That means there are about five and one-half job seekers for every job opening--over five.

It is no wonder it is hard for people who are unemployed to find jobs. This chart behind me tells the story. Prior to the Great Recession, there were fewer than two job seekers for every open position. Now there are five and one-half. Let me repeat that. Prior to the Great Recession--you can see it on this chart with the red line over to the left--there were fewer than two job seekers for every job that was open, every position that was open. That was back in December 2007. Now, if you look at the red line that goes to the right, there are five and one-half.

It is important we extend unemployment benefits. We need to bridge that

gap between jobs. Getting unemployment benefits is not living high on the hog by any stretch of the imagination. The average unemployment benefit is $335 a week. The average cost of a loaf of bread is $2.97. The average cost of a gallon of milk is $2.72. Diapers for just one baby can cost up to $85 a month. These days, $335 only stretches so far.

We need to keep our unemployed neighbors from falling into poverty. We need to figure out how best to create new jobs for unemployed workers. One way we could do that is to help foster job growth, and that is by using the unemployment insurance program to create the right conditions for job creation. In that vein, I am holding a hearing in the Finance Committee tomorrow to explore ways to use the unemployment insurance system to help Americans get back to work. Let's reform this system. Let's modernize it. Let's make it work better.

States and experts have great ideas for how we can improve the unemployment insurance system. They have ideas about how it can save and create more jobs. For example, some States are creating new jobs through subsidy programs. Montana has a job subsidy program and has put hundreds of people back to work. Using funds from the Recovery Act, this program helps employers to pay for the cost of creating new jobs. Across the country, thousands of people are benefiting from job subsidy programs.

But right now, it is essential we pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. It is essential we help Americans put food on the table. It is essential to pay the bills while they continue to look for work. It is essential for people such as Jeremy from Flathead County, MT.

Jeremy is a wildland firefighter. He is receiving unemployment benefits for the first time in his life. Fighting wildfires is seasonal work. Typically, Jeremy can find another job during the off-season, but this year he has been unable to find employment. Jeremy's benefits lapsed on February 28. That is when Congress failed to extend unemployment benefits. Jeremy has been left hanging. It is not right to leave Americans in this position.

So let us extend unemployment insurance benefits for Jeremy the firefighter. Let us extend this vital lifeline for this single dad from Missoula and for his daughters who depend on him. Let us enact this temporary extension of unemployment insurance without delay.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, on March 10, the Senate passed a bill to extend unemployment insurance and a number of other provisions through the end of this year. We are currently working with the House of Representatives to agree on a package of offsets for a portion of that bill.

In the meantime, Congress needs to act on the pending bill to ensure that Americans can receive their much needed unemployment benefits. This bill would extend benefits to the end of this month.

My amendment, which I just offered, will extend the programs in the bill before us today for one more month, until the end of May. Why? What is the purpose of this? The answer is that this further short-term extension would ensure that Congress has enough time to resolve its differences over the long-term extension.

It is now April 13. The end of the month is not too long away. It is not sufficient time to work out an agreement with the relevant Senators on both sides of the aisle as to how to pay for this and what portions of the unemployment/COBRA bill. It is going to take a little more time than 2 weeks. This amendment will extend the unemployment benefits and all the provisions in the current bill for one more month to give us time to work out a solid understanding so that in the end we can pass the bigger, longer term extenders bill, which would extend the tax provisions, as well as the SGR, COBRA, UI, FMAP, and other provisions until the end of the calendar year.

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

Mr. President, we are starting to come out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

A little more than a year ago, in the fourth quarter of 2008, the economy declined at an annual rate of more than 5 percent. A year later, in the fourth quarter of 2009, the gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of nearly 6 percent.

Last month, manufacturing activity increased at the fastest rate in 5\1/2\ years. Last month, the service sector expanded at the fastest rate in more than 2 years. And last month, the economy added 162,000 jobs.

The economy has taken its first steps toward recovery.

The economists say that part of the reason why the economy is starting to come back is what we did here. One of the first things that President Obama did in office was to press for bold action to prevent another Great Depression. And one of the first bills that Congress enacted in the new administration was the Recovery Act.

The economists say that it's working. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that in the fourth quarter of 2009, the Recovery Act increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by between 1.4 million and 3 million. And CBO also estimates that real gross domestic product was 1\1/2\ percent to 3\1/2\ percent higher in the

fourth quarter than it would have been without the Recovery Act.

So there are some encouraging signs.

But we still face major challenges in the economy. There is still work to do creating jobs.

The unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. Almost a tenth of the labor force is unemployed. More than 15 million Americans are out of work.

First-time claims for unemployment benefits rose the week before last. Businesses are still laying off workers. And companies remain tentative in hiring new employees.

The economists call unemployment ``a lagging indicator.'' Employers can be slow to rehire, when business begins to pick up.

The Congressional Budget Office expects the unemployment rate to remain above 8 percent until 2012. CBO does not expect unemployment to reach what they call its ``natural state'' of 5 percent until 2016.

CBO does not expect that the gap between actual output and potential output will close until the end of 2014.

That is why we need to pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits.

Jobless benefits are a powerful way to bolster demand during times of high unemployment.

Households receiving unemployment benefits spend their additional benefits right away. That spurs demand for goods and services. That boosts production. And that leads businesses to hire more employees.

The Congressional Budget Office looked at the different ways that we can help the economy to grow, and CBO says that extending additional unemployment benefits would have one of the largest effects on economic output and employment per dollar spent.

Because benefits are often spent quickly, extending unemployment benefits will provide a timely boost to the economy.

A temporary extension will also provide immediate assistance to millions of Americans struggling to feed their families and pay the bills.

According to officials in my home State of Montana, if we do not pass this extension, then thousands of Montanans could lose their unemployment benefits and will have significant difficulties. That is a significant number when you consider the population of my State.

An extension of unemployment benefits is essential, but it is not enough. We must also consider unemployment insurance reforms that could help to create more jobs.

That is why I plan to hold a hearing in the Finance Committee on Wednesday to explore ways to use unemployment insurance to help Americans to get back to work.

States and experts have ideas for how we can improve the unemployment insurance system. They have ideas about how it can save and create more jobs.

Wednesday, the Finance Committee will discuss possible commonsense innovations with a panel of experts, while also addressing the challenge of State solvency.

But right now, it is essential that we pass a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. An extension will help workers to get by as they search or retrain for a new job. And an extension will also provide a much-needed boost to the economy.

So, let us help the families who are struggling in this difficult economic time. Let us help to spur demand and economic growth. Let us vote to invoke cloture on this vital legislation.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want colleagues and those who read the Record to know that the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the revenue provisions of the Health and Education Reconciliation Act, as amended, in combination with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This technical explanation provides information on the committees' understanding and legislative intent behind those provisions. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov under the title ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the `Reconciliation Act of 2010,' as Amended, in Combination with the `Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,' '' and is listed as document number JCX--18--10.

Madam President, we just now saw this amendment. We have to look at it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, as I said, we were just handed this amendment. We have now examined it. This is an amendment that is related to medical malpractice and tort reform. There are a lot of provisions already in the bill which cover this subject. However, the main point of this amendment is not the jurisdiction of the relevant committees.

I raise a point of order that the Ensign amendment would violate section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Madam President, this is a health care reform----

This is a health care reform bill, and we should keep all amendments to that subject. When we were sworn in as Senators, we took an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, which clearly includes the second amendment. All of us have a strong belief in the second amendment to our Constitution. But whatever you think about second amendment rights and the application of the second amendment, whatever you think about veterans and the relationship to questions of competency, I think we all should agree that neither what anybody thinks about second amendment rights or what veterans' relations should be to that should be in this bill. This is a health care bill.

I note this bill already explicitly protects the rights of gun owners. Therefore, because this amendment is nearly entirely composed of matter outside the jurisdiction of the reconciled committees, I raise a point of order that the Coburn amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Madam President, this amendment is a thinly disguised attempt to kill health care reform. Let me explain why. I remind my colleagues that the Congressional Budget Office has told us that in the first 10 years the bill actually will reduce the deficit by a significant amount. CBO also informs us that health care reform will lower premiums for 97 percent of Americans, improve benefits for many who are underinsured, and health care reform will bend the growth curve of health care spending. The CMS Actuary also says that national health care spending will be lower under the law than it will be without reform. In 2019, health spending will be 6.7 percent, compared to 7.2 without reform.

To prohibit implementation unless all these projections bear out is just another attempt to kill the bill. For that reason, I urge colleagues to resist this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I have the highest regard for my good friend from Iowa. We work very closely together. We want to make sure our States are fully incorporated, involved in the national health care delivery system; that is, rural States. We also want a balance between urban and rural. It is the only fair solution. This bill has that balance.

I might say, there are some--I chuckle a little bit--I have talked to some of my friends in the East who talk about rural America--rural New York or rural Illinois or rural Indiana--and I appreciate that very much. But we are talking here, with frontier States, with what is really rural: only about six people per square mile.

So I say to my friend from Iowa, we have the balance in the bill. We should maintain that current balance. I think this amendment is inadvisable, and I urge us to not support it.

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

Madam President, I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment. We don't want to get into an AMT situation. The AMT was not indexed when the AMT was enacted. We are now paying the price today. It is very possible that if this level is not indexed, we may be paying the price later on, in several years' time, but this is not the time or place.

I might also say there are other provisions in the bill that are not indexed, such as the affordability provisions. That is not indexed. I don't think it is fair to index only for upper income and others whose incomes are below $20,000. But it is an issue, and we will address this at a subsequent date because it must be.

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

Madam President, we have had all sorts of amendments this morning. We have had amendments on malpractice, we have had amendments on guns, we have had amendments on immigration. Even last night we had amendments on some very interesting subjects, but this is the return of the killer amendment. We had a few killer amendments yesterday, and this is the return of the killer amendment.

Why is it a killer amendment? Basically because this would suspend health care reform if certain arbitrary budget targets are not met. It is on again, off again, wondering about the other. It is clearly designed to kill the bill. Therefore, Madam President, I raise a point of order that the Vitter amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(c) of the Congressional Budget Act.

This is a motion to commit to the Finance Committee obviously designed to kill the bill. Clearly, there is inadequate competition among insurance companies in most of our States. In fact, in most States I think there are maybe just two major companies. We want to encourage much more competition.

Allowing them to sell across State lines is in concept a good idea, but it must be done responsibly. The underlying bill--the bill that passed, actually--does allow for interstate compacts. States can compact to sell across State lines. Once the exchange is open in 2014, insurance companies will automatically be able to sell across State lines. But to allow sales now would be irresponsible because it would encourage a race to the bottom. By that, I mean that irresponsible companies will be inclined to go to States with the lowest standards and then sell health insurance to other parts of the country, so people in other States will have virtually no remedies.

It makes sense to have health care reform provisions in place, and then we can sell across State lines with compacts through the exchanges.

I move to table the DeMint motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, the whole premise, the theory of health care reform is that it is a shared responsibility--employers, employees, American citizens, companies, a shared solution here.

The bill already waives any criminal penalties. That is taken out of the bill. No criminal penalties. A person cannot go to jail. That is provided for in the bill that was signed a couple of days ago. The bill also limits collection activities. It is very sensitive to the points made by the Senator from Nevada. It has a good balance of responsibility and accountability. But there must be some consequence of somebody not living up to his or her shared responsibility. It is very sensitive to doing this in the right way. I think it is a good balance. Their amendment goes way too far by eliminating any consequences.

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

Madam President, as I said on the Brownback amendment, there is much to be said for indexing this provision. It is true we don't want to get back into the situation we now face with the AMT because the AMT was not originally indexed. Unfortunately, the current amendment will be offset with unspent, unallocated mandatory spending of stimulus funds. Unemployment is still hovering close to 10 percent. There is growing evidence the recovery package is working. I don't think we want to stifle the stimulus now. Over the last 6 months of 2009, the economy grew at an annual rate of 4 percent. The fourth quarter grew at a higher rate, but that was due to an inventory situation. By and large, it is not proper to offset this with stimulus dollars. We will find some time at a later date to deal with this issue. I do think it is a serious issue.

I raise a point of order that the Murkowski amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(c) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, in an effort to help small business, there are many provisions in this bill to accomplish that result. One is $37 billion in tax credits that are in this bill already for small business.

I do agree with the Senator from Texas, though, that it would be better if the credit, which is available for 2 years beginning in 2014 when the exchange is up and running, was extended. That would be my preference. But right now, in 2010, we are short on money, frankly, and we can't find all the money that is necessary to make that permanent to accomplish the wishes of the Senator from Texas. But I do say I am sympathetic with extending that 2 years, and we will work to try to find ways in the future to accomplish that.

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

Mr. President, we all want to fight fraud, waste, and abuse. In fact, there are many provisions in this bill which so provide. To add to that, when we negotiated the bill, the White House came up with even stronger provisions. They have the screening, time to check for payments, and so forth.

I talked with the Senator from Florida, Mr. LeMieux, who also has good ideas. I pledge to him to do what we can to get some of that passed this year. However, the amendment before us is much too punitive. It is arbitrary in its numbers. I think it would be counterproductive, especially at a time when States are already struggling with their Medicaid Programs. I think it would be inappropriate for us to lay this arbitrary punitive measure on them.

And other measures.

I might reconfirm, this is the last amendment. There will be points of order raised and other business will transpire before we get to the points of order, which I understand will begin about quarter of 2. We are going to finish at 2 o'clock. We are right there. It is going to work.

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

Mr. President, that was the last vote on amendments. I wish to repeat that statement: That was the last vote on amendments.

That is right. Due to the Senator's leadership and hard work, we were able to make sure those here legally had a place to find affordable health coverage.

The Senator is exactly right. The health reform legislation that was signed into law allows immigrants who are here lawfully, who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid to receive tax credits in the exchange. However, the size of those tax credits should be based on the families' actual income, not an artificial level of 100 percent of the poverty line. I expect this provision will be implemented as such. I look forward to working with Senator Menendez to ensure that these families receive access to affordable health insurance coverage.

I now ask unanimous consent that Senators Grassley and Conrad be permitted to engage in a colloquy and inquiries of the Chair for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, there are a flood of emotions going through all of us today as we pass this reconciliation bill which improves upon the bill the President signed 2 days ago. I would like to focus only on one part--a very important part but only one part--and that is to thank the people who have worked so hard, especially in this body, to help accomplish this result.

I thank especially my friends Senator Dodd, the chairman of the Banking Committee, who many times acted in the capacity as chairman of the HELP Committee, and Senator Harkin, chairman of the HELP Committee, working so hard with their staffs. As well, I thank Senator Conrad, especially for his acumen, his budgetary acumen. I don't know anybody who knows this stuff better than Senator Conrad. We all rely on him very much.

I thank Leader Reid for his strategic vision--he helped put the Finance Committee bill together; he saw a path forward--and his staff, who are so competent--Kate Leone, Bob Greenawalt, Randy DeValk--his top three staff.

I also thank my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, for his courtesy in managing this bill. He was very decent and a very good person to work with.

We all want to thank so many people. Once we start mentioning a couple or three names, we run the danger of offending people whose names are not mentioned. We all know that. There will be an appropriate time for us to make all the thanks, and I will make mine so sincerely because I am so grateful for all the hard work my staff has put into this.

I wish to single out one person, and that one person is sitting next to me. Her name is Liz Fowler. Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel. Liz Fowler has put my health care team together. Liz Fowler worked for me many years ago, left for the private sector, and then came back when she realized she could be there at the creation of health care reform because she wanted that to be, in a certain sense, her profession lifetime goal. She put together the White Paper last November--2008-- the 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came. She is an amazing person. She is a lawyer; she is a Ph.D. She is just so decent. She is always smiling, she is always working, always available to help any Senator, any staff. I thank Liz from the bottom of my heart. In many ways, she typifies, she represents all of the people who have worked so hard to make this bill such a great accomplishment.

I will have printed in the Record the names of all my professional staff. There are more than I realized, so I can't name them all. I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in the Record and just regret that I cannot thank everybody personally.

Mr. President, is it appropriate to ask for the yeas and nays?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I would like to follow up a little bit and address the same subject addressed by my good friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed.

Just a little reminder first. On March 10, the Senate passed legislation to extend both tax provisions and safety net programs through to the end of 2010. That legislation included $34 billion worth of tax cuts, an extension of unemployment benefits, an extension of COBRA health benefits for laid-off workers, and several other items. That legislation was also partially paid for. The Senate bill differs from similar legislation passed by the House, and we have not yet had a chance to reconcile these differences--one bill in each body.

In the next couple weeks, however, several of these programs will expire. Beginning April 5, some laid-off workers will begin losing their unemployment benefits. That is not long from now. Workers laid off after March 31 will lose the 65-percent tax credit currently available to purchase temporary health insurance. After March 31, doctors will see 20 percent reductions in their reimbursements under Medicare.

We should not let these programs expire. Today, we should extend them for a month, at least, while we try to meld the Senate and the House versions into one bill that the President can sign.

I think all of us can recall 2 days at the beginning of this month when Congress did let these programs temporarily expire. It was not our finest hour. I hope we will not do the same this month.

So I ask, what is holding us up from keeping these programs in place? There is no controversy about whether to extend the programs for 1 month. Both Republicans and Democrats have proposed doing that. Both propose extending the programs for at least 1 month until we get the yearlong bill resolved. There is only an honest disagreement over whether to provide offsets for this bill.

Most Republicans believe the package should be fully offset. My good friend from Iowa offered an amendment to do just that. Most Democrats believe unemployment benefits during a recession when we have seen unemployment rates rise to double digits signify an emergency and need not be offset.

We are still in a very dire situation. In a moment, I will propound a unanimous consent request that seeks to resolve these differences. We should do that. Clearly, we should for the benefit of thousands of Americans who are struggling as a result of the downsizing that has occurred across our Nation in this recession.

They are the ones bearing the brunt of our failure. They are the ones bearing the brunt of our inaction and of our--to be honest--partisan differences. It is astounding to me we just cannot get together for the sake of people who otherwise will lose their unemployment checks, who will not have the benefit of COBRA health insurance, and seniors who are in jeopardy because their doctors are not going to get paid for Medicare. There is no one to blame but us.

The COBRA tax credit has helped millions of unemployed workers and their families afford health care while looking for a job. Without this assistance, the average family would need to pay $1,100 per month to keep their health insurance, which is simply unaffordable for most unemployed workers. This provision would extend the COBRA tax credit through April 30 to ensure newly unemployed workers can also receive assistance in affording their health insurance.

Unemployment insurance benefits have helped millions of Americans stay afloat after they have lost their job. We want them to keep those benefits, at least for awhile. Folks who lose a job then face an economy that has few and sometimes no options for returning to work in their community and in their chosen field. In fact, I read recently that there are five people looking for every single job opening--five, at least five--in America.

Approximately 1 million workers--that is about 200,000 per week--will lose their benefits in April alone. Not only will this cause them and their families untold hardship--just think of it, no job, no unemployment insurance--it will also cause important money to stop flowing through their communities, and that could very well lead to an immediate application for food stamps.

Unlike last month, when the program lapsed for just 2 days because of the upcoming recess, the programs will lapse this time for at least a week. The State

agencies will have absolutely no ability to keep their programs up and running. They will have to terminate benefits.

Over 6 million workers are depending on extended benefits and they are distraught. Yet again, this debate is going down to the wire, causing them unnecessary stress, unnecessary anxiety. They have already been through enough. They deserve better. They deserve our support.

Unemployment benefits are used for basic necessities--food and shelter--while the laid-off worker seeks a new job. These benefits are critical to a worker and his or her family and to the economies of the community. I hope we do what is right and find a solution to help the people whom we work for.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 323, H.R. 4851, to provide a temporary extension of certain programs; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I yield.

This is a bill which requires urgent attention. It is not paid for.