Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee would agree to modify his request so that the earlier amendments be set aside until a time designated by the leaders and this motion then be taken up at a time to be decided by the leaders, which is the customary practice we have been utilizing with previous amendments.

The Senator would withdraw the request and make the request later?

OK.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I regret, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the parliamentary situation at the moment?

Mr. President, who has the floor?

May I ask who has the floor?

I was going to ask the Senator from Tennessee a question.

Is it not true that the Congressional Budget Office stated in a letter, dated March 20, commented on the bill in a letter to the Speaker on page 13, where it states: The title as a whole--that is referring to the education title--states that the title as a whole would reduce budget deficits in both the 10-year projection period and in subsequent years.

Is it not true that the Congressional Budget Office reached that conclusion and so states in their letter of March 20?

Mr. President, I will propose a unanimous consent. Following that, I will state my intention on the order of votes, which I have yet to clear with the leader's office.

I ask unanimous consent that the total time on the bill be divided equally between the majority and minority leaders or their designees and that the offering of amendments not add additional claims to the time.

Mr. President, I wish to finish up that business. It is something, I think, the Senator will appreciate.

It is my intention--I am not asking for a unanimous consent agreement, but it is my intention that the order of amendments would be, beginning with the Gregg amendment, Medicare; McCain, target provisions; then the Crapo amendment on taxes; then the Enzi motion to commit, regarding employer mandates; the Barrasso amendment regarding premiums; and then,

next, the Grassley amendment regarding executive personnel should be in the exchange.

That is correct. I am not asking consent. That is my intention, but there is no unanimous consent request at this time.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from----

Reserving the right to object, I might ask if the understanding be that the motion, as on the earlier amendments, that this motion be set aside until a time to be determined by the leaders.

That would be fine.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, under the motion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Warner, Begich, Burris, Tom Udall, Mark Udall, Shaheen, and Merkley be allowed to engage in a colloquy for up to 25 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to let Senators know that we intend to alternate blocks of time, roughly a half hour on each side. So I ask unanimous consent that the next half hour be under the control of the Republicans and the half hour thereafter be under the control of the majority.

Mr. President, have Republicans used up their time?

I don't mean to be picky, but I assume they will yield back that minute.

I will yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the half hour under the majority's control, at about roughly 11:21, the Republicans control the next half hour and the majority control the half hour after that, starting at about 11:51.

Mr. President, I would like to take a couple moments to speak on two amendments, one offered by, I think, Senator Hatch, with respect to Medicare Advantage. Off the topic, it is important to remember that health care reform will reduce excessive overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, while at the same time rewarding high- quality, efficient plans for providing care to seniors.

Medicare Advantage plans that achieve high-quality rankings under this legislation, let's say, for regular checkups for blood pressure, diabetes, will receive an increase in payments. That is very important because, today, Medicare Advantage plans are paid the same amount regardless of the quality of care they provide.

For the first time, under this legislation, payments to plans would be based on performance. I think that is something all seniors would prefer. That makes this Medicare Advantage plan more fair, more reasonable. This will enable plans to participate everywhere in the country, both urban and rural, while eliminating overpayments that plans receive today.

According to MedPAC--MedPAC is that bipartisan commission that advises Congress on Medicare payments--that organization says Medicare Advantage plans are paid 13 percent more than traditional fee-for- service plans, on average, and in some parts of the country overpayment is as high as 20 percent. They strongly recommend that we reduce that overpayment because it causes great inefficiencies.

I might also say that, today, because of the overpayments, all seniors on

Medicare--I am talking now especially about seniors who take fee for service--all seniors on Medicare pay for these overpayments, even if they are not in Medicare Advantage plans. How? Well, it is basically because every senior pays $3 more per month in Part B premiums, that totals about $80, on average. So seniors in traditional fee for service are paying for the overpayments for Medicare Advantage plans.

Medicare Advantage overpayments drain resources for the Medicare trust fund. If they are overpaid, that means they are draining excessive resources from the Medicare trust fund. In fact, the government estimates that Medicare Advantage overpayments speed up insolvency of the Medicare trust fund by about 18 months.

After that, there is no evidence that overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans--do not forget these are private insurance plans--even though they say Medicare, they are private insurance plans. There is no evidence that overpayments to them lead to better quality for Medicare beneficiaries.

In fact, seniors can end up spending more out-of-pocket dollars under Medicare Advantage plans than under traditional Medicare, even if they have certain conditions. The bill eliminates these overpayments by decreasing the statutory rates in place today and giving quality performance payment increases to high-ranking plans. We are paying more than we do today to high-ranking plans.

No senior in Medicare Advantage will lose access to any of their Medicare benefits under this proposal. We hear all these false claims across the aisle that these cuts, which cause more efficiency, prevent waste, prevent overpayments, are going to cut beneficiaries, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries' payments. That is not true. It is misleading.

Plans will not be allowed to lower or drop their basic Medicare benefits that seniors are entitled to under the Medicare Program. So there are no cuts in basic Medicare benefits. In fact, they are guaranteed. The reforms in this bill will ensure that the dollars for the Medicare trust fund go toward improving the quality of care for seniors, rather than to support the operations of private insurers. I think that is something the vast majority of seniors would prefer. I wish to make that clear because some of the statements made on the other side of the aisle are quite misleading, which leads me to another point.

Americans probably are a little confused about what is in health care reform because they hear all kinds of claims, both sides. Well, now health care reform has passed. The President signed the bill yesterday. This is sort of to help, a fixer-upper around the edges a little bit. Americans can look for themselves as to who is telling the truth. They will want to look more closely than they have in the past because now it is law. Now it affects people.

Some people are going to ask: Gee, how does it affect me? I better find out. When people start to find out, they are going to learn--I say this somewhat presumptuously, but I believe it very strongly--they are going to find out that those who are claiming all the bad things that are going to happen, all the bad things about this bill, are basically not true.

They are also going to start to realize that all the good things in this bill, that a lot of proponents have been mentioning, from the President on down, they are pretty much true, the good things are pretty much true. I think once people start thinking closely, separating the wheat from the chaff, they will start to realize that not only are the Medicare Advantage charges false, but a lot of the other charges that some make about why the bill is so bad are also false. Again, I say, somewhat presumptuously, the prevention provisions, I think are very good and help seniors, are basically accurate.

One small, final point. The Senator from Florida offered an amendment basically requiring all Members of Congress to enroll in Medicaid. Now I ask you, that clearly is not a serious amendment. Medicaid is a very vital program for vulnerable Americans. It should be treated very seriously and should not be used for political games.

I now yield the remainder of our time in this half hour to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I now wish to yield to the Senator from New York.

I have already said we are going to divide the time in half-hour segments back and forth.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. President, I yield to the chairman of the HELP Committee--I yield to another distinguished chairman, this one not of the HELP Committee but the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman.

Mr. President, that is a good introduction to the next speaker, the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Harkin.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about how much this underlying legislation helps small business. We hear a lot of claims to the contrary, and I wish to set the record straight.

Essentially, small business people in America today spend about 18 percent more than the large businesses for the same health care coverage. Why is that? Because of high broker fees--small businesses have to buy insurance through brokers--because administrative costs are higher for them compared to big businesses, and adverse selection hurts them much more than big business. There are a lot of reasons why small businesses pay 18 percent more for health care than big business.

This legislation contains $37 billion in small business tax credits-- $37 billion in small business tax credits--most of which go into effect this year, not later but this year, tax credits for a businessperson who wants to offer health insurance for his or her employees. Add to that insurance reforms, which are very much going to help small business. What are they? Preventing insurance companies from discriminating against small employees based on preexisting conditions, preventing discrimination on the basis of older or sicker employees, discrimination based on the size of the plan or discrimination against those whose employees work in dangerous industries.

All these insurance reforms are going to help small business. I might say the Congressional Budget Office also estimates the Senate bill will lower premium costs by nearly 7 percent for small businesses--lower premium costs, not increase them, as has been suggested, but lower premium costs for small business.

The bill also provides for State-based exchanges. That is going to help small business because that will require more competition among insurance companies. That will help give better rates and better quality insurance to small businesses.

I might say this as well. The legislation exempts small businesses-- that is a business with 50 or fewer employees--from the requirement that employers that do not sponsor health care insurance pay a fee for their employees receiving premium tax credits. That is an exemption for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from paying any penalty if they do not provide insurance.

So I wished to make it very clear that this bill very much helps small business--and I repeat--with $37 billion in small business tax credits, along with the other reasons I gave.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I don't know if Senator McCaskill is in the Chamber. I doubt she wants to take 1\1/2\ minutes. If not, I will yield back the 1\1/2\ minutes.

I understand Senator McCaskill is here now and wishes to speak, so I will try to find a way to squeeze in as much time as I can.

You are on.

Mr. President, is there an order providing for the next half hour?

I ask unanimous consent that the Republican side control the next half hour and that the majority control the half hour following that.

We won't worry about that yet.

Madam President, I think the half hour has now turned to our side.

I yield to the Senator from Michigan for a request.

Madam President, I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, 10 minutes.

Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb.

Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his very thoughtful endorsement of this legislation. He is one of the more thoughtful Members of this Chamber, and I want to very much compliment him on his process and his conclusion.

Madam President, I do not think I have much time remaining--3 minutes. Thank you very much.

The Senator from Maine raised the issue of Medicare solvency. I want to remind my colleagues that health care reform extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Whether it is 9 years or 10 years, I am not sure exactly, but the Medicare trust fund is extended for at least that period of time, which I am sure gives great comfort to seniors and near seniors. Health care reform is exactly what the doctor ordered for Medicare's long-term health.

The Senator also mentioned a letter from an outside group raising concerns with health care reform. Let me add for the record three of the many letters of endorsement that health care reform has received. The first is from the American Medical Association. I will read one sentence:

After careful review and consideration, the Board of

Trustees of the American Medical Association supports passage

of the health

system reform legislation under consideration . . . as a step

forward in the journey to provide health care for all

Americans.

In addition, I have a letter from the Federation of American Hospitals:

On behalf of the Federation of American Hospitals and our

more than 1,000 hospitals throughout the United States, I

express our strong support for health reform and the

Reconciliation Act of 2010. This legislation is long overdue,

and we urge all Senators to seize this historic opportunity.

. . .

It is signed by Charles Kahn of the Federation of American Hospitals.

I also have a statement here from the AARP, the association of retired folks. Basically it states:

After a thorough analysis of the reform package, we believe

this legislation brings us so much closer to helping millions

of older Americans get quality, affordable health care.

Again, that is from the AARP.

So there are many letters of endorsement, and I ask unanimous consent that these three letters be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I now ask for 1 hour of debate evenly divided, a half hour on the Republican side and a half hour on the majority side. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed in that respect.

I note that the next half hour will be under the control of the Republicans and, as I said earlier, the next half hour is to be controlled by the majority. I note that thereafter the Republicans will be due an amount of time greater than half an hour, and I propose that we balance that out in the next consent.

Madam President, might I ask the Senator from South Dakota if he could identify his two amendments for the sake of clarity?

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, has the time on the Republican side expired?

I assume they do not want to use those 25 seconds, hearing no objection.

Madam President, we have several speakers. We are waiting for Senator Shaheen, Senator Feingold, Senator Sanders, Senator Nelson, and Senator McCaskill. I do not see any of them right now.

While we are waiting, I wish to make a point about CBO's analysis with respect to premiums.

The Congressional Budget Office says that the health care reform bill will lower premiums for all--millions--Americans--all. The Congressional Budget Office said health insurance premiums would fall by 14 to 20 percent for the same plan in the individual market and the small group market, up to 2 percent lower. Let me repeat that. The individual market for the same plan, the Congressional Budget Office says premiums will fall under this legislation. They will be lower, they will be less by 14 to 20 percent than the same plan in the individual market, as people buy insurance individually, and premiums for the small group market--that is roughly small business--would be up to 2 percent lower than currently.

Why is all that? It is basically because there are savings. The savings come from lower administrative costs, increased competition, and from better pooling of risk.

The analogy I like to refer to is Orbitz and Travelocity. Today with Orbitz, you shop online for an airline ticket. You look for fares and you look for times. The same type of operation would occur with respect to insurance--you get on the exchange and shop for insurance.

I see the Senator from New Hampshire is now on the floor. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Madam President, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Florida, a very valued member of the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his very considered and thoughtful conclusion in deciding to vote for this legislation. I deeply appreciate that very much. He is a wonderful member of the committee.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our half hour?

I yield 2 minutes 40 seconds to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. President, I have one unanimous consent request that we continue altering sides of the debate. I ask consent we continuing alternating back and forth, and the next half hour be on the Republican side.

I ask unanimous consent the next half hour be controlled by the Republicans and the half hour thereafter be controlled by the majority, and the half hour after that be controlled by Republicans.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, the final block of time is reserved to be under the control of the chairman for concluding remarks; that is, prior to a series of votes. I make that statement for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from New Jersey. I am reminded how he led the fight years ago to stop cigarette smoking in airlines. I was so pleased when he did that. I know many millions of Americans who are still pleased. It was he who did it.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oregon, a big leader in health care reform. He has been working health care reform as long as I can remember. I thank the Senator from Oregon.

I thank the Senator very much.

Might I inquire, Mr. President, how much time remains on this side for this block?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes--5 minutes--to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey.

Mr. President, the debate on this bill is winding to a close, so let me return to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The Congressional Budget Office is the referee we all turn to as an impartial judge of whether we are accomplishing what we set out to do, so I will take a moment and quote from the Congressional Budget Office. It is very appropriate as it relates to the prior conversation on the other side. Let me read excerpts from the most recent Congressional Budget Office statement on deficits, debt, and coverage and whether this is deficit neutral. This was released Saturday. This is a statement by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. They are our scorekeepers. They determine how much we are spending and how much revenue we are taking in on legislation and what the net result is.

Here are the highlights of the letter:

Enacting both pieces of legislation--H.R. 3590--

That is basically our Senate bill that passed the House and the President signed--

--and the reconciliation proposal--would produce a net

reduction in Federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-

2019 period.

That is a direct quote from the CBO.

Further quoting:

Enacting H.R. 3590 by itself would yield a net reduction in

Federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

Further quoting:

The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation

proposal would be an estimated net reduction in Federal

deficits of $25 billion during the 2010-2019 period over and

above the savings from enacting H.R. 3590 by itself.

Further quoting CBO:

The combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the

reconciliation proposal would be to reduce the number of

nonelderly people who are uninsured by about 32 million

people. The share of legal nonelderly residents with

insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently

to about 94 percent.

CBO said of the new health care law:

Enacting H.R. 3590 would reduce Federal budget deficits

over the ensuing decade--

That is the next decade, the second decade--

with a total effect during that decade in a broad range

between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross

domestic product.

But what is more, CBO further said:

The combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the

reconciliation proposal would also be to reduce Federal

budget deficits over the ensuing decade . . . with a total

effect during that decade of a broad range around one-half

percent of GDP.

I might add parenthetically, that is about $1.3 trillion.

CBO continues:

The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation bill

over and above the effect of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself

would thus be to further reduce Federal budget deficits in

that decade, with an effect in a broad range between zero and

one-quarter percent of GDP.

In other words, the new health care formula would accomplish major deficit reduction. This is the CBO talking, not Senators. Don't take my word for it. Don't take anyone else's word for it. This is the Congressional Budget Office. This reconciliation bill itself would accomplish major deficit reduction, probably the greatest deficit reduction actually we are going to take over a long period of time--the preceding perhaps 8, 9, 10 years and a subsequent period of time. We don't know that, but this is certainly major deficit reduction. Together, these two bills would accomplish deficit reduction of historic proportions.

Let me continue to quote the letter from the Congressional Budget Office.

[T]he reconciliation proposal would probably continue--

Get this--

to reduce deficit budget deficits relative to those under

subsequent decades. . . .

Not just this period, not next decade but subsequent decades. This is my edit now. This means this bill continues to reduce the deficit in year after year after the second decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Finally, CBO says:

In subsequent years, the effects of the provisions of the

two bills combined that would tend to decrease the federal

budgetary commitment to health care would grow faster

than the effects of the provision that would increase it.

Let me get to that statement. It gets to the Federal involvement in health care as a result of the consequences of this bill.

In subsequent years the effect of the provisions of the two

bills combined that would tend to decrease the federal

budgetary commitment to health care would grow faster than

the effects of the provisions that would increase it.

Further quoting:

As a result, CBO expects that enacting both proposals would

generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to

health care during the decade following the 10-year budget

window. . . .

Even less government in the second 10 years relative to current law. In other words, CBO says that after the first decade, health care reform will reduce--yes, reduce--the budgetary role of government in the health care sector.

Whom do we trust? Whom else are we going to listen to? We all have opinions. Those folks at CBO have sharp pencils. They are very good at what they do. They are nonpartisan. Nobody has ever suggested they are partisan. Nobody has ever questioned their professionalism. They are very good. This is what CBO says.

That is it. CBO says health care reform cuts the deficit. Let me pause there and let that sink in. CBO says health care reform will cut the deficit. CBO also says it expands coverage. More people will get health insurance, from 83 percent to 94 percent. Also, this legislation reduces the Government's budgetary role in health care. It reduces it.

That is quite a feat--more coverage, deficit reduction, and less Federal involvement in health care. I think this bill is pretty well designed to accomplish all those purposes--cuts cost, increases coverage, and reforms the health insurance market, most significantly in the individual market and also in the small group market.

On another matter, I think it is relevant and important--this is a letter from AARP, dated March 24 of this year. It says:

Dear Senator,

We have made enormous progress advancing historic, urgently

needed health care reform legislation but we are not done

yet.

This is from the AARP. Continuing:

We now urge you to promptly pass the Health Care an

Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010--without

amendments.

Let me repeat that. AARP, in a letter dated March 24, strongly suggests the Congress, especially Senate, pass this legislation without amendments. Those are their own words, ``without amendments,'' in order ``to help make affordable, high-quality health care available to all Americans.''

The letter is much longer. I just wanted to quote the more salient provisions, where the AARP suggests amendments not be adopted so we can get reconciliation passed so we can implement the law which the President already signed and get health care to Americans who desperately need it and reform of the health care industry, which is desperately needed, and start getting control of health care costs, which is desperately needed.

I ask unanimous consent the full letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, may I ask my colleague a friendly question?

I trust in the good faith of the Senator from New Hampshire not to abuse the situation.

As I understand it, basically the Senator does not question the professionalism of CBO. Clearly, CBO had all the facts. All Senators have them, all Senators, House Members, the whole world has. CBO has all the facts. You are not questioning their professionalism. You do question their conclusions.

Mr. President, that sounds fair.

Let me say to my good friend from Arizona, first of all, clearly this body, the Senate and the Congress, is going to not let the SGR problem expire; that is, doctors are not going to be cut 21 percent, whatever the rate is the first year or more and so on. That is not going to happen. First, from the seniors' point of view, second from the doctors' point of view, that is not going to happen. I do not want to take too much time on the subject, but the long and short of it simply is we are going to have to find a way, this Congress, to address that problem. If I might finish, it is not part of health care reform, and we will find a way. A question is going to be how much will be paid for. That is a judgment this body is going to have to make in the pretty near future.

Mr. President, we are coming to a close, or a beginning, I am not sure which, when we start the vote on amendments. If my calculation is correct, the time for debate on this reconciliation bill will expire around 5:10, about that time, approximately.

At that time, approximately, we will start voting on amendments. By my count we have 21 amendments pending, and if we vote on amendments in the time in which it usually takes to vote on amendments in a series, my experience is it roughly takes around an hour for three amendments. Maybe we can speed that up. With 21 amendments, that is 7 hours. That is the good news. There probably will be some intervening disruptions.

But the good news is, that means the earliest we might be finished is around midnight. But, of course, that is not the case, because there will be other amendments offered.

For the information of my colleagues, we will probably start voting on amendments at approximately around 5:10, thereabouts. We have 21 amendments pending at the present time. It takes about 1 hour to vote on three amendments. I believe we can squeeze that time down. It is my hope that we can. But that is my experience around here, it takes about that long.

Because there are a lot more amendments most likely to be offered, I inform my colleagues that we will be in very late tonight, certainly way past midnight, because of the number of amendments that are currently pending.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I yield half that time to the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, former acting chairman of the HELP Committee, and one of the most valuable and productive Members of this body, the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, who has been so involved in health legislation, education legislation. Might I ask, how much time do we have left?

Mr. President, I yield as much time to the Senator as he wishes to take, including 11 minutes 48 seconds.

I thank the Senator for bringing attention to this issue. He is a true champion for Puerto Rico and a constructive member of the Finance Committee.

I share his concern about the possible under count of fee-for-service costs in areas like Puerto Rico. That is why we included a provision in the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 to have MedPAC study the accuracy of the calculation and report to Congress. As he points out, MedPAC recommends that CMS alter the FFS cost calculation so that such under counts do not exist, particularly in areas like Puerto Rico where Medicare Advantage provides benefits to over 80 percent of its seniors.

I strongly agree with him that CMS should promptly use its authority to correct any and all under counts that might exist in areas like Puerto Rico. The island has unique circumstances that could affect Medicare expenditures and spill over to Medicare Advantage. Moving forward I will continue to work with the Senator closely to monitor and correct this issue as expeditiously as possible.

If the individual providing services to the PEO client organization pursuant to the PEO arrangement continues to be an employee of the PEO client organization, the Senator from Florida is correct.

Mr. President, I want to talk a moment about one of the only retroactive tax provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Section 9016. This one deals with the special deductions given to the many nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield organizations which are no longer exempt from Federal income tax.

Under section 833 of the Internal Revenue Code, these organizations receive a 25 percent deduction for claims and expenses and an exception from the--otherwise applicable--20 percent reduction in the deduction for unearned premium reserves. Effective January 1 of this year, these non-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield organizations must now meet a medical loss ratio of 85 percent or higher in order to take advantage of the tax benefits of section 833. This provision was included to ensure that recipients of this special deduction actually spend out most of their premium income on the people they insure and not on administrative fees or executive compensation.

But I want to clarify two issues here. First, it was our intention that, in calculating the medical loss ratios, these entities could include both the cost of reimbursement for clinical services provided to the individuals they insure and the cost of activities that improve health care quality. Determining the medical loss ratio under this provision using those two types of costs is consistent with the calculation of medical loss ratios elsewhere in the legislation. This determination would be made on an annual basis and would only affect the application of the special deductions for that year.

Second, it was our intention that the only consequence for not meeting the medical loss ratio threshold would be that the 25 percent deduction for claims and expenses and the exception from the 20 percent reduction in the deduction for unearned premium reserves would not be allowed. The entity would still be treated as a stock property and casualty insurance company.

It is my understanding that the Joint Committee on Taxation scored this provision consistent with the policy I just outlined. We intend to clarify these two issues in a technical corrections bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I want to speak concerning the accounting treatment of one of the tax provisions that passed in the Patient Protection and Affordable

Care Act, Section 9008, and that is proposed to be modified in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. This deals with the annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers which, as passed, is to go into effect this year. It is our hope that Congress will delay the implementation of this fee by 1 year, to 2011, by passing the reconciliation bill which we are discussing today on the floor. This will give the government reporting agencies more time to establish systems to report the drug sales to the Secretary of the Treasury as required by health care reform.

As a reminder of how the fee works: our legislation sets an aggregate, annual fee that is to be apportioned among the relevant companies based on their market share of branded U.S. prescription drug sales made to or funded by specified government programs. The U.S. Treasury will allocate this annual fee to each company based on its relative market share for the prior year.

Now, we understand that there have been questions about the nature of this fee that are affecting how the fee should be treated for accounting purposes. It was our intent that the fee is assessed in the year that it is due. A fee is assessed on an entity in any given calendar year only if the entity is engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs and has sales to the specified government programs in that calendar year. The reference in the legislation to sales for the preceding calendar year is for the sole purpose of providing the method of calculating market share. It would be difficult to calculate market share and impose and collect the fee in the same year, so we decided to look back to a completed year as a proxy of market share. But it is not intended that a manufacturer or importer would be assessed an annual fee in a calendar year in which it had no branded prescription drug sales to the government programs. This is regardless of whether the manufacturer or importer had any relevant sales in the preceding year.

As an example, suppose a pharmaceutical company made sales in 2011 but in November 2011 shut down its U.S. operations and had no further sales to the specified government programs. In 2012, that pharmaceutical company would not be subject to the fee. Instead, the 2012 aggregate fee would be allocated among those companies selling drugs in 2012 to the specified government programs.

These same accounting questions may also be raised under the annual fee on health insurance providers--section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended. On these issues, our intent as to the treatment of the fees is the same.

We anticipate that the Secretary of the Treasury will provide guidance on how to determine the fees in situations involving mergers, acquisitions, business divisions, bankruptcy, or other situations where it may be difficult to account for sales taken into account in determining market share. We intend to work with the IRS and the affected groups to further clarify the law consistent with the policy I have just outlined.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

First, I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This has been a very civil discussion, very heartfelt feelings on both sides, and I appreciate that.

Let me also say it is interesting that this is the first time in recent memory that a reconciliation bill has all amendments on one side only. These are clearly amendments designed to kill the reconciliation and therefore kill health care reform. So I very much hope that all of these amendments are defeated.

I note there are 23 amendments pending. It is going to take 7 or 8 hours, hopefully less. There will be many more amendments offered tonight. It is our expectation that we will continue voting on all amendments until we finally vote on all amendments and we can get reconciliation passed, and therefore all of the measures surrounding health care reform will be enacted and we can proceed.

Mr. President, make no mistake----

Mr. President, make no mistake, the intent of every single one of the amendments offered on the other side of the aisle is to kill health care reform. That is the sole purpose of each of those amendments. That was the sole purpose of the amendments in the Finance Committee last year--to kill health care reform. It was the sole purpose in the HELP Committee, except for a few benign amendments--to kill health care reform. It was the sole purpose on the floor of the Senate when we took it up. Every amendment was to kill health care reform.

A Senator on the other side of the aisle stood up and said that this is hopefully the President's Waterloo. They want to kill health care reform. It is clear they want to kill health care reform.

The other side has said repeatedly in campaign statements in the other body that they want to repeal health care reform. They have orchestrated legislatures to repeal health care reform.

Each amendment offered here is intended to kill health care reform, and that is why each amendment should fail.

Mr. President, without being dramatic, this is a killer amendment, pure and simple. Why? Because it is basically designed to prevent spending. That means it will take away tax credits to middle Americans to help them buy insurance. This amendment would take it away. It would kill the assistance to seniors for prescription drugs. It would take that away. It would take away assistance to States. That is why it is a killer amendment.

I proudly support this bill. Why? This bill reduces insurance costs for working-class and middle-class Americans, expands Medicare prescription drug coverage to more than 3 million seniors, provides immediate tax credits for nearly 4 million small businesses, stops $6 billion in annual government subsidies for banks, and puts money into college grants for students and their families.

In contrast, our friends on the other side do not want to do that. They want to kill this bill. I think that is patently against the wishes of the American people.

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

Mr. President, I think it is important to recognize this amendment for what it is. It is basically a political stunt at the expense of a lot of victimized people. One is victims of Hurricane Katrina, another is victims of asbestos in Libby, MT; it is at the expense of rural Americans; it is an attempt to derail the bill and force the House to have to vote again, therefore force, probably, the Senate to go through another vote-arama, go back and forth. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Let's not forget the underlying legislation passed recently and signed by the President yesterday reduces insurance costs for working and middle-class Americans. This amendment would have the effect of taking that away if passed. If passed, it would take away Medicare prescription drug coverage for more than 3 million seniors. If passed, it would have the effect of taking away immediate tax credits for small businesses, and I could go on and on.

I urge Members to support my motion to table. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I don't want to be dramatic about this, but it is a fact that this amendment is a killer amendment. That is why we cannot adopt it. I remind colleagues that the underlying bill the President signed yesterday is a very large tax cut. It has tax credits in the neighborhood of about $400-some billion. That is a big tax cut for Americans who today are having a hard time buying insurance, a tax credit that enables middle and lower income Americans to buy insurance. I think we should keep that in mind. A vote for this amendment would, in fact, prevent all the benefits this bill provides for forming a health insurance market, stopping preexisting conditions. It would prevent about $17 billion in tax credits that otherwise would go to small business.

I strongly urge colleagues to support my motion to table this motion.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, sending the bill to committee sounds like killing the bill to me. I have never heard of a motion to commit that is not, in effect, a motion to kill the bill.

We are all in this together in America in enacting health care reform--all groups: business groups, consumers, labor, and so forth. We have consulted with business groups. They are an integral part of this. Business groups want to work with us and have worked with us to get health care reform passed.

I might also remind my colleagues there are tax credits in here for small business to the tune of--I think it is $17 billion. Firms with fewer than 50 employees are totally exempt from any penalty.

This clearly is a motion to kill the bill. Therefore, it would result in taking away all these provisions enacted.

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

Mr. President, all things being equal, I choose to believe the President. Second, I choose to believe the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that premiums under this legislation will, all things equal, be reduced for big business as much as 3 percent. Small businesses will see a decrease of 11 percent if you factor in the small business tax credits for coverage. Individuals who receive tax credits in the exchange will find a 57-percent reduction in premiums; again, all things being equal.

Will someone find an increase in premium? Somebody might buy a very expensive health insurance policy. Maybe that person's premiums might go up.

Obviously, this is designed to kill the bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues not to support it. It prevents passage of the bill. It undermines the bill. It repeals the bill, in effect, that has already been signed by the President.

So I move that this amendment be tabled, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I could be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the underlying amendment, which also includes Members of Congress in the exchange, is language that was drafted on a bipartisan basis in the HELP Committee. I don't see Senator Dodd here. It is an amendment Senator Coburn worked on and was agreed to in the HELP Committee. It covered Members of Congress and who all should be included.

Frankly, I don't think it is wise at this point to try to negotiate who should additionally be covered in the exchanges and who should not. It was agreed to before. I say to my good friend from Iowa--he has been my very good friend--I don't think it is intended to embarrass the President and the executive branch people, but I think it is inappropriate.

I say to my friend, he can be happy when Northern Iowa beats Michigan State this Friday. It will make him happy.

I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I don't think this is really a serious amendment that requires all Members of Congress to withdraw from their Federal health insurance plan, and it requires all Members of Congress to be in Medicaid. Medicaid is a safety net for vulnerable Americans. It should not be the subject for political gamesmanship like this amendment. It is a slap in the face of vulnerable, poor Americans.

Ironically, this killer amendment will have the effect of reducing payments to States which are in the underlying bill. It would take that away. I don't think that is the intent of the author of the amendment.

Mr. President, I make a point of order the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, as a motion to commit, this clearly is designed to kill the bill. All motions to commit have that intent and effect. Let's remind ourselves, the underlying bill protects all Medicare beneficiaries. All statutory benefits are guaranteed in the underlying legislation. Second, the underlying bill reforms Medicare Advantage which rewards high performance Medicare Advantage programs, those providing value, whereas under current law that is not the case. In addition, if this amendment passes, fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay a $90-a-year penalty to pay for the excess subsidy of Medicare Advantage plans. For lots of reasons, this motion should not prevail.

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

Mr. President, this legislation is about filling the doughnut hole for seniors. It is about providing health care for working families, for children. It is about reducing our national debt. It is a serious bill. It deserves serious debate.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma makes a mockery of this Senate, the debate, and the American people. It is not a serious amendment. It is a crass political stunt aimed at making 30-second commercials, not public policy.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, this is another in a long series of killer amendments. Clearly, allowing States to opt out of any or all provisions of the underlying health care reform bill would have that result. States could decide not to abide by health care market reforms, preexisting conditions, provisions against rescissions, et cetera. States could decide not to provide health care coverage to their citizens. One State versus the national program. States could decide they are not going to pay the fees, enact the fees that are required on State pharmaceuticals or insurance industries. States could make all kinds of decisions which basically would have the effect of killing this bill.

So I urge my colleagues to not support the amendment of the Senator from Texas.

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

Mr. President, this amendment basically has the intent of creating a group of second-class employees. It is very similar to the issue of subminimum wage. It makes all the sense in the world to distinguish the two, between the HIRE Act and this amendment.

The HIRE Act gave incentives for firms to hire new employees. This amendment creates a group of second-class employees. It says you can hire employees so long as they do not have health insurance. I think that is wrong. I do not think we should have a second class of employees, which is the effect of the amendment. I urge it be defeated.

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

Mr. President, this is an honest, straightforward amendment which is concerned about people making more than $200,000. The effect of some amendments prior to this moment have been trying to protect people making less than $200,000. This amendment is the exact opposite; it is only concerned about people making more than $200,000 in income.

The bill itself also provides that people whose investment income is above $200,000 should contribute to the Medicare trust fund. Currently, they do not. Only taxes on wages contribute to the Medicare trust fund. The thought is that people with unearned income should also contribute. This tax only applies to those who make above $200,000. There is a passthrough exemption, subchapter S. Other passthroughs are exempted. Retirement income is exempted. It doesn't make sense that people making over $200,000 should be exempt.

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

Mr. President, how have Kansas and Kansas State done lately?

This is a very simple amendment. This health care bill is premised on the assumption that all groups should participate in finding the correct health care solution for our health care system. That includes hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and it also includes device manufacturers. This amendment would exclude one section: device manufacturers.

How is it paid for? It is paid for by reducing the number of people who would otherwise get tax credits to help pay for their health insurance. I do not think that is what we want to do. We do not want to reduce the number of people who have health insurance. This amendment would reduce coverage for people who need help buying insurance.

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

Mr. President, two subjects. First, I wish to correct the record. I mistakenly stated that the Kansas Wildcats were not in the Sweet 16. That was an error. The Kansas State Wildcats are very much in the Sweet 16, and my apologies to coach Frank Martin of the Wildcats. I wish them very well in the tournament.

Well, I don't have much time, but I will do my very best.

I would say to my good friend, he isn't nearly as sorry as I am.

Basically, this is like the last amendment--two flaws. It exempts a certain group from the shared responsibility in helping to finance health care reform. The second flaw is that it reduces coverage by changing the income threshold. This is not a way to do business.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is very similar to the past two amendments we voted on. It seeks to exempt a sympathetic group of individuals from the excise tax on medical device manufacturers. The amendment is misplaced. We already exempt retail purchases of medical devices, such as Band-Aids, glasses--all those kinds of items. The tax only applies to large manufacturers. The government negotiates with the large manufacturers. The government is large enough to exact a better price. It does not pass that on to individuals, not on our military, not on our vets who already receive prescribed health care coverage.

Second, this amendment is paid for by increasing the number of uninsured. I do not think we want to increase the number of uninsured. We want to decrease the number of uninsured.

I reserve the remainder of my 15 seconds so the Senator from Utah can finish.

Mr. President, very simply, this will not be passed on. The government is a large payer. They will be able to negotiate for better prices.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire and I kid each other about this. The fact is, this is another killer amendment, and it is apparent it is designed to kill this bill. Why do I say that? Because on October 21 of last year, the sponsor of this amendment, and every other Senator on the other side of the aisle, voted against invoking cloture on a bill to accomplish the very same thing they profess to desire at this point.

Also, we have been advised by the Congressional Budget Office that it is not paid for. According to CBO--they recently sent us a note--the Gregg amendment would increase the deficit by $65 billion over the next 5 years.

We will solve the SGR problem at the appropriate time. This body will then decide at that time the degree to which we want to pay for the SGR. This is not the time or the place. This is a killer amendment.

According to CBO, it increases the deficit by $65 billion over the next 5 years; therefore, I raise a point of order that the Gregg amendment violates section 310(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, I give a prize to the Senator from Louisiana. This is very transparent. It is very straightforward. It is totally honest. It is not dressed up. It is not camouflaged. It is straight repeal of health care reform.

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

Mr. President, I agree--Kansas, Montana, anywhere-- critical access hospitals should be treated the same way as other hospitals. And when we get to that point, I say to my good friend from Kansas, I will work with him, and I know he will with me, so we can exempt critical access hospitals from this commission.

However, the Parliamentarian tells us it is not permissible to amend programs subject to fast-track rules such as this commission in a reconciliation bill. Critical access hospitals are not in. It is a technical error, oversight--there are all kinds of reasons why it should be in, but they are not, and I cannot, at this point, agree with my friend to take them out now. I will at a later date, but we cannot now.

Mr. President, surely I have to do the right thing. The right thing is to raise a point of order. I raise a point of order that the Roberts amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act.

We are, and the Senator can make his motion.

Mr. President, saying it doesn't make it so. It is not at all as it has been described.

We very much in this country have to work to control health care costs. Doctors and hospitals--especially doctors--want to practice evidence-based medicine, even more than they do now. They want the evidence. They want the information. They want to know which procedures and medicine, et cetera, work better than others. These commissions will help them get that information. Then, they make the decisions alone, independently, with their patients as to what to do. But they want more evidence so they can make more evidence-based decisions.

Second, I am not going to sugarcoat it. This independent advisory board is very important to help improve quality of care and to control costs. It does have some teeth in it. But I say to my colleagues, if we really want to do something about health care costs in this country, this is a start. CBO says this does score positively. I, therefore, move to table the motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, since 1965, Medicare has provided security and health to millions of seniors. Along with Social Security, it is one of the two most successful and best social programs this country has adopted. Now, after 45 years of success, what does this amendment seek to do? It seeks to undermine the foundation of our social insurance program.

It is a two-tiered system. The wealthy can take care of themselves. Then, when they leave Medicare, it leaves a second-class seniors health care system remaining in Medicare. It is unthinkable, frankly, that we would have a two-tiered system for our seniors under Medicare. I therefore move to table the Bunning amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I object. I object.

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

Mr. President, there is discussion in progress on how to deal with extenders that is ongoing with the majority leader and minority leader. In fact, the minority leader referred to it when he spoke just about a half hour ago. I think it is best to continue that process. More important, I think, this amendment is a killer amendment designed to send the reconciliation bill back to the House and let it go all over again. It is paid for by repealing some stimulus dollars. It is paid for by cutting back on the fundability of the EITC--clearly nonstarters. I might say, too, there are other pay-fors in here that are not going to fly, frankly.

I raise a point of order the Grassley amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.

I raise the point of order that the Grassley amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, no matter where you are on the issue of marriage, no matter where you are on the issue of DC home rule, we ought to be able to agree that neither issue has anything to do with this bill, neither one. Therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane and thus violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, the goal of health care reform is to increase coverage so more people have health insurance. That is the goal of health care reform. What does this amendment do? It goes in the opposite direction. Compared with the bill that was just signed by the President, this amendment will cause many more people to lose health insurance. Why? Because it lowers the income threshold from 8 percent down to 5 percent. That is going to mean fewer Americans get tax credits to pay for health insurance. That means fewer Americans are going to have health insurance compared with current law. That is the main reason we should vote against this amendment, because it expands the number of people who are uninsured rather than expand the number of people who would be insured.

The provision the Senator talks about, frankly, was changed under current law because with health insurance people have less need for that deduction and less need for catastrophic coverage because health insurance will not pay for it.

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

Mr. President, I would remind my colleagues that the Hutchison amendment uses as its offset rolling back the Recovery Act; that is, rolling back stimulus funds. That is taking stimulus funds to permanently pay for the marriage penalty relief as well as sales tax relief.

With unemployment as high as it is, hovering around 10 percent, it makes no sense to cut back stimulus dollars. Stimulus dollars are a proven job creator. All mainstream economists and the CBO tell us that.

I think we should continue to create jobs by using the stimulus dollars. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to not support the Hutchison amendment.

In addition to that, there are funds not within the jurisdiction of reconciled committees. For that reason, I raise a point of order that the Hutchison amendment violates section 313(B)1(C) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, I strongly support--I think every Member in this Chamber does--prevention and treatment of breast cancer and women's health generally. And the bill the President signed Tuesday makes great strides to that end. For example, it prohibits gender rating and eliminates the ability of insurers to limit coverage based on preexisting conditions. In addition to the preventive services available to everyone in the exchange, the health reform bill ensures that women have access to the unique preventive services they need, such as wellness exams.

I might also add that the amendment further drains dollars from the highway trust fund. We don't want to go in that direction. Therefore, Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 24, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on Taxation document entitled ``Estimated Revenue Effects of the Revenue Provisions contained in the `American Workers, State and Business Relief Act of 2010,' as passed by the Senate on March 10, 2010'' be printed in the Record.

In addition, please let the Record reflect that the document entitled ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions Contained in the `American Workers, State and Business Relief Act of 2010,' as passed by the Senate on March 10, 2010'' can be found on the Joint Committee on Taxation Web site at http://jct.gov/publications .html?func=startdown&id=3664. This document is a contemporary explanation of the legislation that reflects the intentions of the Senate and its understanding of the legislative text.

Mr. President, today I recognize the achievements of an outstanding college basketball team from my home State of Montana. High school and college sports are a way of life across Big Sky country. On cold winter nights in towns across the state from Libby to Lewistown and from Fort Benton to Fairview folks fill up gymnasiums to cheer on their favorite teams. The University of Montana Grizzlies have legions of devoted fans around Montana, and pack thousands into the Adams Center on the UM campus in Missoula for home games.

This season's edition of the Griz has thrilled fans throughout, and the team is now headed for the NCAA Tournament after a thrilling come from behind win to capture the Big Sky Conference Championship on March 10. The Grizzlies showed the heart, determination, and hustle Montana athletes are known for, in clawing their way back from a 22-point deficit to defeat Weber State University on the Wildcats' home court. Anthony Johnson turned in a performance for the ages and one that will be remembered for decades across Montana. The senior guard poured in a school and Big Sky tournament record 42 points including the winning shot. To illustrate how amazing this performance was Johnson by himself outscored Weber State 34 to 25 in the second half.

In the end it all came down to teamwork as guard Will Cherry made a stellar defensive play to stop Weber State on their last possession, and big men Derek Selvig and Brian Qvale contributed with big blocks and rebounds throughout. This was yet another illustration of how the team has pulled together all year to get big wins no matter the adversity they faced.

The Griz now move on to face the University of New Mexico Lobos in the NCAA Tournament. The Griz have had tournament success in the past, winning a first round game in 2006 despite being a heavy underdog and having a memorable run in the 1975 tournament as well. In 1975 another tremendous performance was turned in by a Grizzly as guard Eric Hays nearly led the team to an upset of defending national champion UCLA in the second round. Hays played the game of his life--he

scored 32 points to keep the Griz in the game, although they ultimately lost 67-64. Griz fans still remember Hays' amazing performance 35 years later. Eric went on to coach basketball at Hellgate High School in Missoula where he won over 350 games.

I would like to commend Wayne Tinkle, the coach of the team, athletic director Jim O'Day, and University of Montana president George Dennison for their leadership and vision in making the Grizzly athletic programs successful and teaching many dedicated student athletes life lessons as well as those on the playing fields and courts. These student athletes deserve our recognition for all the hard work they put in throughout the year.

I know that the Griz will represent the state of Montana well in the NCAA tournament and give it their all. I along with many other Griz fans across the country will be watching and cheering a famous line from the school's fight song--``Up with Montana, boys, down with the foe!''

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

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

Mr. President, the Senate returns today to creating jobs. Today, we return to the HIRE Act.

This bill provides incentives for businesses to hire new employees, and it encourages businesses to invest in building their operations.

It has a payroll tax exemption for newly hired employees. It provides continued funding for the vital Federal highway program. It expands the successful Build America Bonds program. And it extends the tax incentive in section 179 of the Tax Code, which allows small businesses to expense capital expenditures, instead of depreciating them over time.

These proposals will help to get Americans back to work.

The Senate passed the HIRE Act last month, with strong bipartisan support.

Since then, the House of Representatives considered the legislation and returned it to the Senate with some modifications.

The HIRE Act includes the Schumer-Hatch payroll tax exemption for newly hired employees. This is a straightforward tax cut: If you hire a person who has been unemployed for 60 days, you don't have to pay your share of the Social Security payroll taxes for that person for the rest of the year.

And if you keep the newly hired person employed for 1 year, you get an additional income tax credit.

The House modified the Schumer-Hatch payroll tax exemption to allow employers to receive the exemption if they pay the railroad retirement tax instead of the Social Security payroll tax.

The House also included modifications to ease implementation of the payroll tax exemption.

This payroll tax exemption provides a simple and immediate tax incentive for businesses to employ new workers, right away. A business can use the cash that it saves from the payroll tax cut to help pay the wages of the new employee. Or it can invest in equipment. Either way, the incentive will help boost hiring and help businesses.

The HIRE Act will also create jobs in the transportation sector, by extending the 2009 highway funding level through the end of 2010.

Highway construction plays a vital role in our economy. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in Federal highway spending--when coupled with the State or local matching share-- creates or sustains 34,500 jobs. These are jobs in construction, engineering, manufacturing and other sectors hard-hit by the recession.

The HIRE Act keeps the program working.

The HIRE Act also expands the successful Build America Bonds program. Last month, Treasury Secretary Geithner testified before the Finance Committee that the Build America Bonds program is the most successful

stimulus program based on jobs per dollar.

And the HIRE Act extends the enhanced expensing provision in section 179 of the Tax Code. This valuable tax incentive allows small business taxpayers to write off up to $250,000 of certain capital expenditures in 2010, instead of depreciating those costs over time.

This helps small businesses to pay less in taxes now, and thus meet their needs for cash in this difficult time.

The American economy has lost more than 7 million jobs. And the unemployment rate is near 10 percent.

We need to help people to get jobs. We need to do more to help businesses to hire more workers. The HIRE Act does just that.

And so, let us help America's businesses to create more jobs. Let us complete our work on this commonsense legislation. And let us send the HIRE Act to the President, so that this law can start creating jobs right away.

PEOs

The Senator from Florida is correct.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Community Flood Protection Act of 2010.

We have all seen, and many of us have experienced firsthand, the devastation that a flood can bring to any community. This devastation is experienced equally, whether your home is in an area that is high or low hazard, rural or urban, wealthy or poor. Flood control is a multi- pronged effort involving structural and non-structural flood control measures, hazard mitigation, emergency planning, and insurance. Our Nation has a myriad of programs designed to address flood hazards. FEMA produces flood maps to define the risk and operates hazard mitigation programs to reduce risk. The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, provides flood insurance to property owners in a mapped risk area. The Army Corps of Engineers designs and constructs flood control projects. This hodgepodge of responsibilities has always been a challenge for the U.S., and it continues to be one today.

Nowhere is this challenge more evident than in the process of FEMA's map modernization program, the Corps' levee certification responsibilities, and NFIP program requirements. This issue has lingered around the edges for years, and its impact is now being felt in an enormous way in Montana where communities struggling to navigate the maze of what seems to be an overwhelming Federal bureaucracy are incredibly frustrated.

Let me begin by saying that it is important that we recognize the risks we face before we make snap judgments about whether preventive action should or shouldn't be taken. Specifically, it is a good idea for FEMA to update our Nation's flood maps so that we can be honest with ourselves about the risks we face. However, that process, must be transparent and it must recognize the differences between Sacramento, CA, and Saco, MT. It can be overwhelming for a small community in Montana to participate in this process. That is why I have written to FEMA Director Craig Fugate asking him to consider the needs of small, rural communities as the Agency progresses with its map modernization program.

Once flood hazards are accurately mapped, communities must work to ensure that their flood control structures, if they have them, are up to par and can actually provide protection for the hazards they face. Without a levee ``certification'' by a professional engineer, those portions of a community located behind the levee, believing for years that they had adequate flood protection, are suddenly faced with a map that depicts them as in the floodplain, unprotected, required to purchase flood insurance.

It seems like it would be a simple process to get a levee certification. Traditionally, the Army Corps has performed this work. However, in 2008 the Army Corps of Engineers established a policy that it would no longer perform levee certifications on non-Federally operated levees. This policy has left communities like Great Falls, Montana high and dry when it comes to a certification process. I wrote to the Corps of Engineers on February 18, 2010, asking the Agency to re-evaluate this policy.

I hope that the Corps will change their policy. But, Montana cannot wait for that to happen. Great Falls, Vaughn, Miles City, Glendive, Saco, Havre, Forsyth, Malta, Glasgow and others cannot wait for the Corps deliberations. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will give the Corps direct authority to perform levee certifications. In addition, my bill includes special provisions for small communities and for those levee districts that are operated by a volunteer staff, allowing the Corps to perform these certifications at 100 percent Federal cost.

This bill is one step in what will be a long process for all of us as we update and upgrade our knowledge of the risks posed by flooding, our current level of protection, and additional steps we need to take to ensure that lives and property are not unnecessarily lost. In the process of that upgrade, we cannot lose sight of the impact of this process and these decisions on our local communities.

We don't want the cost of staying in the NFIP to rise above the point where small communities can participate. We don't want a burdensome Federal bureaucracy to make it impossible for people to make good decisions about their own safety and that of their community. In these economic times, rural communities are struggling to come up with enough money just to keep afloat, and a hefty certification fee can be an undue burden.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the aviation trust fund reauthorization. I support the bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it as well.

In addition to discussing the bill's specifics, however, I would like to give some perspective about our current aviation system. Our current system relies on the use of radio detection and ranging--more commonly known as radar. Radar was once a tremendous leap forward; that is, it was a tremendous leap forward right before World War II. Let me take a couple moments to retrace the history of air traffic control, starting before radar.

Before radar, pilots followed prominent landmarks, such as rivers or railway lines, to navigate their routes. Naturally, bad weather and darkness made flying especially hazardous. In the 1920s, commercial night flights relied on something called the transcontinental lighted airway. That is an impressive-sounding name. What was it? It was just a series of bonfires. Local farmers maintained those bonfires across many parts of America. More developed areas could use gas-fueled beacons.

In 1922, the first civil aviation midair collision happened in France. That collision created awareness of the need for some sort of air traffic control. I use the word ``control'' loosely. It took more than another 10 years before this country's air traffic control center opened up in Newark, NJ, in 1935. The following year, additional centers went up in Chicago and Cleveland. Elsewhere, the system still consisted of flagmen standing on the airfield, waving flags to communicate with pilots.

But all that changed with the establishment of radar shortly before World War II. During the war, radar gave the British an extraordinarily positive tool--a defensive tool--for repelling Luftwaffe attacks. Soon, the Allied Powers were using it for offensive purposes.

Radar provided air cover at Anzio and Normandy. It enabled air raids deep into Germany, despite overcast skies, and it helped us disrupt Axis Power shipping routes and attack the Japanese Navy. We spent more during the war on radar than on the atomic bomb.

No less an authority than German Grand Admiral Doenitz, when captured at the end of the war, said this:

We fell behind technically. We were unable to build

shortwave RADAR to compete with Anglo-American improved radio

location equipment.

Following the war, radar was adapted for civil aviation. Ultimately, it spawned the tremendous rise of the commercial air travel industry. Incidentally, this led Congress to properly fund aviation. In 1970, we established the airport and airways trust fund--commonly referred to as the aviation trust fund--and that is what we seek to reauthorize today.

The aviation trust fund built on the success of the highway trust fund. The idea behind the aviation trust fund was for the system's users to pay for its upkeep. Generally speaking, the aviation trust fund has managed to do that, to finance the needs of the air-traveling public.

The aviation trust fund receives about $12 billion a year in user- based taxes. Much of this funding goes into the Airport Improvement Program. The airports in my State of Montana rely heavily on it. The Department of Transportation has estimated that every billion dollars spent in Airport Improvement Program funding creates or sustains more than 20,000 jobs throughout the U.S. economy.

But now we need to do more. Our system needs modernization. We need to improve safety and efficiency. We need to enable direct routes, rather than flying along zigzag flight corridors, as we have since the transcontinental lighted airway, and we need to keep up with air traffic growth. Look at how bogged down our New York-New Jersey airspace already is.

We need Continuous Descent Arrival to reduce the amount of fuel that aircraft burn. This reduces both cost and air emissions. During a recent test in Atlanta, Delta Airlines saved as many as 60 gallons of fuel and cut carbon emissions by up to 1,250 pounds for every flight.

The Senate bill would fund the aviation trust fund for a little more than 3 years. Importantly, the bill would provide needed funds for the establishment of NextGen. NextGen is the Federal Aviation Administration's plan to use satellite-based technology in order to modernize the Nation's air traffic system. We need to invest in it now. Our 2010 trust fund, established in the early 1970s, is still funding radar. That is a technology that predates the Second World War. Some radar beacons are still located on the same sites as those early bonfire beacons.

NextGen, however, will enable planes to use global positioning systems to continuously transmit location, speed, and altitude to other planes, pilots, and controllers within 150 miles. That will improve efficiency and safety. This is a sea change. A number of other countries have already invested in satellite tracking technology. The United States is behind the curve, and we can change that with the passage of this bill.

How do we pay for NextGen? The Finance Committee proposes the following:

First, we set the tax for general aviation jet fuel at 36 cents a gallon. That is up from the current 21.9 cents a gallon. The general aviation community agreed to this proposal.

Second, we treat fractional aircraft; that is, partially owned planes; as general aviation rather than commercial carriers. Owners of fractional aircraft believe this change will preserve their ability to fly and land in Europe.

All told, we raise nearly an additional $180 million to get NextGen started. More will be needed, especially given the rapid state of technological change. I know that both the Finance Committee and the Commerce Committee plan to monitor NextGen's implementation.

We will have a pretty good debate this week. I look forward to it. But first I wish to thank my colleagues, especially Senator Rockefeller, for his willingness to seek common ground. We have worked together on this for a long time--actually, for several years. In fact, we had an agreement a couple years ago, but due to an extraneous event, it was unable to be realized.

Senator Rockefeller has written a very strong FAA reauthorization. I especially appreciate his continued support for the Essential Air Service Program, a program that matters a great deal to my constituents in eastern Montana.

So let us adopt NextGen to improve safety and improve efficiency. Let us reauthorize the aviation trust fund. It is time to bring American air travel into the 21st century.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, on behalf of the chairmen of the Rules and Budget committees, I call up my amendment No. 3429.

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

The first amendment is a simple attempt to improve the availability of budgetary information on what Congress does. This amendment would require the Secretary of the Senate to create a new Web site that clearly provides information from the Congressional Budget Office on the legislative actions of the Senate. This is a side-by-side amendment to the Coburn amendment on the same subject.

I believe Senator Coburn has the same purpose in mind, but we have drafted this side-by-side amendment to avoid new burdens on the Congressional Budget Office. The Rules Committee and Budget Committee worked together with us on the drafting of this amendment to assure that it would work.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I think we can vote on this. I yield the remainder of my time, but before I do, I think it is a step toward transparency, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for it.

How much time does the Senator from Washington have?

Mr. President, shortly we will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on this urgent legislation to create jobs and extend vital safety net and tax provisions. We have had a good debate. The Senate considered this bill on 7 separate days over the course of 2 workweeks. We have considered more than 30 amendments. We conducted a dozen rollcall votes. It is now time to bring this debate to a close.

This is not just some technical bill; this measure helps real people. Failure to enact this bill would cause real hardship. Failure to enact this bill would cost jobs.

Within weeks, this bill would help half a million workers who lose their jobs nationwide, including nearly 1,600 in my State of Montana, to remain eligible for help paying for their health insurance under the COBRA health insurance program. Unless we act, within weeks the average doctor in America will stand to lose more than $16,600 in payments from Medicare. The average doctor in Montana would lose $13,000. This bill would help nearly 40 million Medicare beneficiaries and nearly 9 million TRICARE beneficiaries nationwide to continue to have access to their doctors. That includes nearly 144,000 Montanans with Medicare and nearly 33,000 Montanans with TRICARE. Within weeks, this bill would help 400,000 Americans to be eligible for expanded unemployment insurance benefits. Thus, this important legislation would prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net. It would extend vital programs we have only temporarily extended. It would put cash into the hands of Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting the economy. It would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs.

I urge my colleagues to vote to help Americans hurt by this great depression. I urge my colleagues to vote to preserve and create jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following amendments to be considered agreed to en bloc; and in the instance where the amendment is modified, that the amendments, where applicable, be modified with the changes at the desk, and as modified the amendments be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; further, that in the instance where the amendment is not pending, where appropriate, the amendment be recorded by number: Lincoln amendment No. 3401 pending, to be modified; Reid amendment No. 3417, pending; Isakson-Cardin amendment No. 3430, pending and as modified; Merkley amendment No. 3372, to be modified; Warner amendment No. 3442, to be modified; Whitehouse amendment No. 3365, to be modified; Rockefeller amendment No. 3371, to be modified; and a Baucus technical amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, we are now on our sixth day of consideration of this important legislation to create jobs and extend vital safety net and tax provisions.

This legislation would prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net. It would put cash into the hands of Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting the economy. And it would extend critical programs and tax incentives that help create jobs.

Now, we had a productive week on the bill last week. By my count, the Senate has considered 29 amendments on this bill. We have conducted 10 rollcall votes.

As I count it, there are nine amendments pending. Those amendments are:

The underlying substitute amendment, the Murray-Kerry amendment on the TANF emergency fund and summer employment for youth, the Coburn amendment on transparency, the Webb amendment on executive bonuses, the Feingold-Coburn amendment rescinding unused transportation earmarks, the amendment by Senator Reid of Nevada on geothermal receipts, the McCain amendment on the use of reconciliation to change Medicare, the Lincoln amendment on disaster assistance, and the Isakson amendment on pension funding.

On Friday, we reached a unanimous consent agreement that, after the Senate resumes consideration of the bill tomorrow, we will conduct up to four rollcall votes in relation to the following amendments: the side-by-side amendment to the Coburn amendment on transparency, the Coburn amendment, the Murray amendment on youth jobs, and the side-by- side amendment to the Murray amendment.

And so Senators should be aware that we will have up to four rollcall votes at about 10:15 tomorrow morning.

We further agreed that at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment. And we hope that we might conclude action on the bill thereafter.

Today, we will continue to process cleared amendments throughout the day.

I thank all Senators for their cooperation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Virginia.

I applaud the chairman of the Select Committee on Aging for raising this important issue. I look forward to working with him and the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on addressing the shortcomings he has highlighted.

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

Mr. President, we are now on our fifth day of consideration of this important legislation to create jobs and extend vital safety net and tax provisions.

As a reminder, this legislation would prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net. It would put cash into the hands of Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting economic demand. It would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs.

We had another productive day on the bill yesterday. We conducted three rollcall votes on amendments. We adopted four amendments. As I count it, there are nine amendments pending.

Those amendments are the underlying substitute amendment, Senator Landrieu's amendment on the Go-Zones, Senator Murray's amendment on summer employment for youth, Senator Coburn's amendment on transparency, Senator Webb's amendment on executive bonuses, a Feingold-Coburn amendment to rescind unused transportation earmarks, an amendment by Senator Reid of Nevada on geothermal receipts, a McCain amendment on the use of budget reconciliation, and a Lincoln amendment on emergency disaster assistance.

A piece of legislation such as this is like a long-distance run. It starts out with a lot of energy and a lot of activity. After a while it reaches its stride, plateaus, and moderates its pace. But then the pace picks up again near the finish; that is, if we have much energy left.

For this bill, most of the activity is behind us. This bill reached its stride. We see the finish line ahead on Tuesday or so, and we expect a final push then.

We will work today to clear as many of the pending amendments as we can. If Senators have other noncontroversial amendments, we are happy to try to clear those today as well. The Senate will conduct no rollcall votes today.

The majority leader indicated that we would see a cloture vote on this bill on Tuesday, and we hope to conclude action on this bill on Tuesday as well.

I thank all Senators for their cooperation.

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, I rise in mourning and remembrance on the first anniversary of a devastating natural gas explosion in downtown Bozeman, MT.

At 8:11 in the morning, 1 year ago, downtown Bozeman was quiet, under a thick blanket of snow. One minute later, a blast ripped through the silence, killing a young woman named Tara Reistad Bowman and devastating most of the 200 block of East Main Street.

Windows were shattered as far as four blocks away. A passing cyclist commuting to work was thrown off his bike by the blast, and 911 calls showed that the explosion was felt miles away. The firefighters and rescue crews responding to the blast later found that a natural gas line behind Montana Trails Gallery was cracked and that a gas leak had caused the explosion.

Ten businesses and several apartment units were leveled by the blast or engulfed in the flames that followed. Boodles and Starky's, the Rocking R Bar, and the American Legion--all destroyed. Assistant City Manager Chuck Winn described it as the worst catastrophe he had ever seen in the city.

Firefighters from Bozeman, from Big Sky, and from Three Forks--nearby communities--all came to the rescue to put out the blaze. These brave men and women stopped the fire from spreading to nearby stores. The Montana National Guard was called upon to help provide security.

One year after this tragedy, we pause to recognize today as a day of mourning and remembrance. We join the men and women of Bozeman who will observe a moment of silence this morning.

Today, Montanans will mourn the loss of Tara Bowman. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her friends and her family and all who knew her. I never met Tara, but I understand she was a very special woman. She was a talented artist and a mentor to other artists in Bozeman. Tara liked to paint in the quiet morning. She had come into work early to the Montana Trails Art Gallery the morning of the blast. Her family and many friends around Bozeman miss her dearly.

Today, as we mourn, we also remember the actions of the people of Bozeman after the blast. Oftentimes, in the routine of everyday life, we forget we may be called upon at any moment to act heroically. There were many heroes that day in Bozeman. More than 70 firefighters from departments throughout Gallatin County answered the call for help. Although it took hours to shut off the natural gas that had caused the initial blast, the volunteers continued to fight the blaze.

Many had left their day jobs to perform this dangerous duty. The calls to help continued long after the blaze was extinguished. Residents had lost their homes and small business owners had lost their livelihoods. In the truest expression of what it is to be a Montanan, the people of Bozeman pulled together to help the victims of the blast and rebuild downtown.

Local businesses donated food to emergency workers. They donated lumber to cover shattered windows. A community relief fund provided $200,000 for those left homeless to find shelter and replace paychecks for those left jobless.

The story of a man named Chris Cundy fully illustrates this generous spirit. Chris was left homeless after the explosion and the subsequent fire destroyed almost everything he owned. Chris even lost the tools of his trade: his musical instruments--several electronic keyboards and a grand piano. But then the community stepped in. The Red Cross met his immediate needs--toothbrushes, soap, towels, and debit cards. Musicians around Bozeman raised funds to help replace his instruments. A fellow renter borrowed a saxophone from a local music store so he could keep playing to pay the bills.

After the explosion, Chris started playing music full time and even performed to raise funds for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti. Chris has proven that good can come from tragedy. He told the Bozeman Chronicle:

The scope and depth of the community's support depicts

values that exist only with people who truly care about one

another.

A year later, I am glad to report that downtown Bozeman has made great strides. The American Legion has already begun to rebuild, and plans have been submitted to reconstruct many of the other destroyed businesses as well. I am working to make sure Federal dollars help fund the reconstruction.

At this time next year, city officials expect every business impacted by the blast to be back on its feet and in operation. That is the resiliency of Bozeman and the spirit of Montana.

Today, we pause to remember last year's blast in mourning of our loss. We remember the actions taken by the great people of Bozeman, and we proceed with renewed hope for the future.

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, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following amendments to be called up and reported by number, en bloc; further, that the Landrieu amendment No. 3335, which is pending, be further modified with the changes at the desk; that the remaining amendments listed here, except amendment No. 3416, be modified with the changes at the desk: Wicker amendment No. 3383; Bayh- Vitter amendment No. 3374; Rockefeller amendment No. 3397; Roberts amendment No. 3411; Lincoln amendment No. 3416; that the amendments, as modified or as further modified, be considered and agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that amendment No. 3430 then be called up.

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

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

Madam President, we are now on our fourth day of consideration of this important legislation to create jobs and extend vital safety net and tax provisions. This legislation would prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net. It would extend vital programs that were extended on a short-term basis earlier this year. It would put cash into the hands of Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting economic demand. It would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs.

This is the legislation that will help half a million workers who lose their jobs nationwide to get help paying for their health insurance under COBRA. This is the legislation that will help nearly 40 million Medicare beneficiaries and nearly 9 million TRICARE beneficiaries keep access to their doctors. This is the legislation that will help 400,000 Americans get unemployment insurance benefits.

This is urgent legislation. We must enact it soon.

We had a productive day yesterday. We disposed of six amendments and rejected a point of order against the bill. As I count it, there are about 10 amendments pending. Those amendments are the underlying substitute amendment, Senator Sessions' amendment to impose discretionary spending caps, Senator Landrieu's amendment on the GO Zones, Senator Murray's amendment on summer employment for youth, Senator Coburn's amendment on transparency, Senator Webb's amendment on executive bonuses, Senator Stabenow's amendment on AMT credits, a Feingold-Coburn amendment to rescind unused transportation earmarks, an amendment by Senator Brown of Massachusetts on a payroll tax holiday, and Senator Burr's amendment on a sales tax holiday.

Before Senators offer additional amendments, we need to start processing the pending amendments. I have been advised there will be objection to setting aside the pending amendments for Senators to offer additional amendments until we have addressed some of the pending amendments.

Some of the amendments appear to me to be the sort of thing we could adopt by voice vote, and we are exploring that possibility in connection with at least two of them. On amendments that require a rollcall vote, I am hopeful we can schedule a number of votes starting at 2 p.m. this afternoon to dispose of several amendments. Then we will continue to process the pending amendments throughout the day.

I thank all Senators for their cooperation.