Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 278, H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions that expired Sunday, February 28; that the Bunning amendment regarding offset, which is at the desk, be the only amendment in order; that there be 60 minutes for debate with respect to the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Reid and Bunning or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the time until 8:30 p.m. be for debate with respect to the bill, with the

time equally divided and controlled between Senators Baucus and Grassley or their designees; that at 8:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Bunning amendment; that no further amendments be in order; that upon disposition of the Bunning amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read the third time; that prior to passage, it be in order to raise an applicable budget point of order against the bill; further, that if the point of order is raised, then a motion to waive the applicable point of order be considered made, with no further debate in order; provided that if the point of order is waived, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; further, that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 4213, the next two Democratic amendments be offered by Senators Murray and Sanders and the next two Republican amendments be Bunning amendments.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff be allowed the privilege of the floor during consideration of the pending bill: Randy Aussenberg, Aislinn Baker, Brittany Durell, Dustin Stevens, Greg Sullivan, Max Updike, and Ashley Zuelke.

Mr. President, I now call up my amendment by number and urge its consideration.

Mr. President, Martin Luther King, Jr., once said:

Life's most urgent question is: What are you doing for

others?

Pretty much all of us came here to the Senate to work on that urgent question. Pretty much all of us came here to help other Americans.

On a number of levels, the legislation before us today is urgent legislation. The legislation before us today is urgent because it would prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net.

The legislation before us is urgent because it would extend vital safety net programs that expired yesterday.

The legislation before us is urgent because it would put cash in the hands of Americans who could spend it quickly, boosting economic demand.

The legislation before us today is urgent because it would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs.

The legislation before us today is urgent because it is important that we here can do this for other Americans.

Since the recession began, more than 7 million Americans have lost their jobs. The unemployment rate remains nearly 10 percent. For Americans without a job, this great recession is a great depression. If you do not have a job, it is a depression.

Last week, with a solid bipartisan vote, we passed legislation to help create jobs. We can and should do more, and by extending this package of vital provisions we can do just that.

The provisions in this bill are important to American families. They are important to communities that have suffered a natural disaster. They are important to businesses competing in the global economy. They are important to furthering America's commitment to energy independence.

The need is urgent. Yesterday many of these important provisions expired. Millions of Americans are being put at risk. The expiration of these provisions has left gaping holes in the safety net.

Among the provisions that expired yesterday are these: expanded unemployment insurance benefits; COBRA subsidies to help people keep their health insurance; a provision that keeps folks right at the poverty line from losing their benefits; the small business loan program; the temporary measure to prevent a 21-percent cut to doctors under Medicare; the Flood Insurance Program; the Satellite Home Viewer Act.

Unless we reinstate the programs in this bill, there will be real world consequences for the people who depend on these programs today.

Take unemployment insurance. This bill would extend the program for expanded unemployment benefits. These benefits expired on Sunday. The bill would extend what is called Federal emergency unemployment compensation. This bill would extend 100 percent Federal extended benefits. That is a program where State governments normally have to pay 50 percent. We would also extend the additional $25 a week for each beneficiary receiving unemployment benefits.

According to the National Employment Law Project, 5.6 million people are currently benefiting from one of the Federal unemployment benefits. Mr. President, 5.6 million people today benefit. Between March and November of last year, we distributed nearly $8.3 billion in additional benefits through the additional $25-a-week supplement.

For example, my office received word about one unemployed Montana worker who had been living in a homeless shelter for more than a month. This Montanan used emergency unemployment compensation benefits to move closer to an out-of-State relative. The relative helped the Montanan through this difficult time. With the help of emergency unemployment compensation benefits and the help of family, this Montanan was able to find work again.

Unemployment benefits also make good economic sense. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in additional gross domestic product. That is $1 to $1.90. This makes unemployment benefits one of the most cost-effective policies for stimulating the economy.

By helping our unemployment workers through this long recession, we help to keep the neighborhood gas station operating. We help to keep a house from foreclosure. And we help to keep our economy from further damage.

We must act immediately to help the more than 1 million people who lost their benefits yesterday. My heart goes out to them and to their families and hope that they can hold on while we work to clear up this mess, in order to clear this bill and bring them the help they deserve and on which they have been depending.

A second vital program in this bill that expired yesterday is a program that provides a tax benefit for COBRA health benefits. What is that? That is the program that helps workers who lose their jobs to keep their health insurance. When workers lose their jobs, they lose more than just their paychecks. Unfortunately, they often lose their ability to afford health care coverage as well.

Today, roughly 60 percent of the nonelderly population receives health insurance through their jobs. In most cases, unemployed workers have the right to keep their work coverage for up to 18 months through the COBRA program. But to receive COBRA health benefits, workers must typically pay all of the premium costs, plus an additional 2 percent for administrative costs; that is, they pay 102 percent. That is not right.

For a family of four, the average monthly COBRA premium is $1,100. For most people out of work, that is simply unaffordable. How can a family who is out of work pay health benefits at a rate of $1,100 a month? They cannot do it.

The Recovery Act helped unemployed workers and their families to cover the costs. This assistance helped millions of unemployed workers and their families to maintain health insurance while they look for a new job.

Unfortunately, COBRA assistance expired yesterday, and that is the provision that gave a 65-percent subsidy. It expired yesterday. This means workers who lose their jobs today or afterwards will not be eligible for COBRA assistance. They can still buy health insurance through the COBRA program if they can find the dollars to pay full freight. That is 102 percent of their current premium. For many folks, that is simply unaffordable. Unless we act, the ranks of those living in fear without health insurance will grow even more.

Third, without this legislation, physicians who treat our seniors and military families will face an immediate 21-percent pay cut. That is right, an immediate 21-percent cut in pay. That is more than families lost in net worth during the worst of the recession in 2008, and that is nearly twice as much as home prices fell last year.

This cut would force doctors to stop seeing patients. This cut would mean less access to care for our parents and our grandparents. This cut would mean our doctors would be forced to cut their own costs, potentially forcing them to lay off staff.

Thankfully, the administration announced on Friday it will use its existing authority to delay the effect of this cut for the immediate future. But that is not going to last very long. We cannot delay action any longer. Seniors, military families, and physicians deserve better.

In Montana, 2,000 doctors serve 140,000 seniors who depend on Medicare for lifesaving health care. Montana has 32,000 military families who should not be turned away from their doctor's door either. They deserve access to the best health care we can give them. They deserve a Congress willing to put politics aside and put them first.

This bill before us today will avert the 21-percent cut because of the so-called sustainable growth rate. We adopt here another short-term stopgap. Next time, we hope and expect that we will come back to a long-term solution. We must find one.

By exempting part of the SGR from the new statutory pay-go rules, the Senate recently recognized that a long-term solution will require a short-term investment. The House followed suit. I hope this push will aid us in finding a permanent solution for the sake of our seniors' continued access to medical care.

A fourth provision in this bill affects the 2009 poverty guidelines. Why is this important? Let me tell you. Dozens of programs are available to help lower income Americans. We all know the important role these programs play in keeping those less fortunate fed, keeping them healthy and safe. I am talking about programs such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--formerly known as food stamps--the School Lunch Program, and the Low Income Home Emergency Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP.

Eligibility for these and many other programs is based on the Federal poverty guidelines. These guidelines are updated every year for inflation. But the update for this year, 2010, will cause people who are currently eligible for and benefiting from these programs to lose their eligibility. You may wonder why at a time of economic crisis poverty-based program eligibility would decrease. You might think that sounds counterintuitive.

One of the effects of the current economic crisis is that inflation went down. That means the average cost of everyday things, such as clothes, transportation, and rent, is less than it was the year before. However, because the Federal poverty guidelines are based on the average cost of everyday goods, the poverty level for 2010 would be less than it was for 2009. This is the first time in the history of the guidelines that such a decrease would occur. That, clearly, is not the right outcome. We should not make fewer people eligible for poverty- based programs at precisely the time when those safety-net programs are serving the very purpose for which they were created. Safety-net programs are there to help people when times are tough. That is their purpose. But there is a simple solution: we can simply leave the guidelines developed for 2009 in place. That way, people who were eligible can remain eligible. Leaving the 2009 guidelines in place would mean people would not lose their health care by being kicked off of Medicaid. It would mean families would not go hungry because they lost their eligibility for a number of nutrition programs. It would mean low-income folks could still heat their homes this cold and snowy winter thanks to LIHEAP. Keeping the 2009 guidelines in place would not increase eligibility. It would mean we would avoid pulling the safety net out from under the people it is there to protect.

Fifth, for individuals and families, this bill provides much needed tax relief in a time of economic uncertainty. For example, many students don't have the books or supplies they need. Some

teachers have to buy classroom supplies using money from their own pockets, if you can believe it. This bill extends the expense deduction for teachers buying school supplies for their classrooms. It extends the qualified tuition deduction to help with college costs. The bill provides much needed relief to families who have suffered from natural disasters. It extends a package of disaster relief provisions developed to address all federally declared disaster areas with immediate, reliable, and robust tax relief.

It extends important business provisions to help create jobs and make our companies competitive in a global economy. America counts for one- third of the world's investment in scientific research and development. We rank first among all countries, but relative to the size of our economy, America is in sixth place. The trends show that maintaining American leadership in the future depends on an increased commitment to science and research. Yet our R&D tax credit expired at the end of last year. This will put American corporations at a competitive disadvantage. Corporations are unsure if they will be able to obtain the R&D credit next year, and they need to plan for the future.

American financial services companies successfully compete in world financial markets. We need to make sure the U.S. tax rules do not change that. This legislation extends the active financing exception to subpart F. In so doing, it preserves the international competitiveness of American-based financial services companies, while including safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit. This provision will put the American financial services industry on an equal footing with foreign-based competitors that are not taxed on active financial services income.

Several energy tax incentives also expired at the end of last year. This bill extends those incentives to encourage continued investment in technologies that promote energy independence. For example, the bill extends incentives for new hybrid battery technology and the construction of new energy-efficient homes.

Sixth, in addition to these important provisions that provide direct assistance and job creation, the bill includes other proposals that will provide relief for businesses and individuals. One such provision is pension funding relief. These days, American employers are faced with the need to make higher pension contributions. Several factors have combined to require these higher contributions: There is the funding changes of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, there is the slide in the stock market in 2008, and then there is the ensuing great recession. These requirements for higher contributions are coming upon employers just when they are facing lower asset values and lower cash flow. Meeting these requirements could divert resources employers could use to keep workers on the payroll.

We addressed this bind temporarily in the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008, but employers are still facing the prospect of closing plants and stores. Employers are still faced with the possibility of terminating workers in order to make up for lost asset values. The bill contains additional temporary, targeted, and appropriate relief for these employers. At the same time, the bill still maintains the pension and security system.

Seventh, this bill would also extend several important health provisions that expired at the end of 2009. Notable among these is the exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps. Extending this provision will help ensure Medicare beneficiaries will continue to receive access to the therapy services they need. Several rural policies are also extended.

Eighth, these tough economic times have hit the States hard as well. So included in this bill is a 6-month extension of the additional Federal financial assistance for State Medicaid Programs. This will allow States to plan for their next fiscal year with the certainty of continued help from the Federal Government. Additional Federal Medicaid match money--known as FMAP--helps the economy grow. According to economist Mark Zandi, this funding has return on investment of about $1.40 for every dollar invested. The Nation's Governors have repeatedly asked for an extension of this Federal assistance, and this bill answers their pleas.

With so many Americans out of work, our country needs Congress to enact this legislation. This bill continues valuable tax incentives to families and businesses that will help them in these difficult economic times. The bill sustains vital safety-net programs that will also help foster economic growth.

As I said at the outset, this is not just ordinary legislation; this is urgent legislation. It would prevent millions of Americans from falling through the safety net. It would extend vital programs that expired yesterday--expired yesterday. It would put cash in the hands of Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting economic demand. It would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs. It is an important bill that we here can do for other Americans. So let's help America's businesses to create more jobs. Let's join to work across the aisle on this commonsense legislation, and let's enact these tax incentives and safety-net provisions into law.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona argues that unemployment insurance is a disincentive to jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't think anybody who is out of work and receiving unemployment insurance believes that payment is sufficient not to find a job. The payments are so much lower than a salary or wage would be, it is ridiculous. There are five unemployed Americans today for every job opening in the economy--five unemployed Americans who are looking for work but cannot find it. That is the case and has been the case for a long time. People are looking for work. They are not unemployed because they have a choice. It is because of the recession that struck and the economy. It is not because people don't want to work.

An additional point. Many of us asked the CBO to rank what measures would be most effective in helping the economy. The one they came up with was unemployment benefits because unemployment benefits generate about $1.90 in GDP growth for every $1 we paid out in terms of unemployment benefits.

I wished to make the point--and I don't know if the Senator meant this, but he strongly implied it, and I took him to mean that unemployment insurance is a disincentive for people to look for work. I don't think it is because the benefits are so low and so many are looking for work--it is the economy or recession that cost us jobs.

I appreciate that. I have a question. First of all, unemployment benefits in Montana are about $300 a month. That is all. It is $300 a month in Montana. I know doggone well that is not enough to keep anybody going very long. Lots of folks are looking for jobs, and they are not available. Failure to pass the extenders bill could be fairly stated as a job destroyer because there are so many people who have taken advantage of many provisions of the bill--for example, the R&D tax credit, which the Senator mentioned, and there are other provisions in the bill, such as the teachers expense, for example, and there is a deduction for tuition. Take unemployment. Say unemployment insurance was not continued. That would be a huge drag on the economy. If the provisions we are seeking merely to extend were not passed, it would be a job destroyer.

The President's office said, and many commentators have often said, our goal is to save or create so many jobs. It is hard to know what is saved or created sometimes. But we certainly want to save jobs too. We don't want the recession to be worse. Failure to pass this legislation is certainly going to cause tremendous hardship on a lot of Americans, and it would be a disincentive for the economy to turn around. It would be a disincentive for unemployment rates to come down to a lower level that we all find acceptable. Failure to pass this bill is a jobs destroyer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I don't want to prolong this too long, but the

fact is, the President's Council of Economic Advisers has concluded this legislation; that is, the health care reform legislation which is not before us right now, actually would create jobs, new jobs. That is the conclusion of the economic advisers.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Alabama. He is concerned, as we all are, with our current fiscal situation, our debts and our deficits. I might add--this is not an excuse; it is clear we Americans have a problem that has to be addressed--other countries are in the same fix. It is not just America. But again, that is no excuse. Our deficits are high primarily because of the financial crisis, working our way through all that. The real test is whether we as a country, when times get better and incomes increase, live much more within our means. I certainly hope so. I know every Senator in this body hopes so.

More precisely, the Senator from Alabama seeks to place caps on the appropriated accounts. That is pretty much the same amendment the Senate rejected about a month ago; I think it was January 28.

I believe the pending Sessions amendment addresses matters within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. It therefore violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. I will not raise that point of order at this time, but I believe the amendment does violate the Budget Act.

Furthermore, this subject is really more within the purview of the Appropriations Committee. I defer to the chairman of the Budget Committee to address this amendment in due course.

I also note that the Senator from Minnesota has been waiting very patiently to speak. We are all anxious to hear from the Senator from Minnesota, so I yield the floor.

No, I did not.

Madam President, is the Senator asking unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment?

You wish to set aside the pending amendment?

Madam President, we are here to do the people's business. The folks in our home States elected us to do what is right. Most folks don't care too much about the process, as long as we get our job done and as long as it is reasonable, within the boundaries of reasonableness, and as long as they think we give the subject considerable thought. I think we agree that is true. I think it is largely true that most of the people would think: Well, gee, why don't you go ahead and pass that extenders thing you are talking about back there because it is the right thing to do.

People need to collect their unemployment checks. They need their health insurance. Some of these tax provisions need to be continued; otherwise, this is a job-killer action the other side is taking. It is a job destroyer. To not continue these provisions actually destroys jobs. That is not what we want to do.

On another matter: The Senator from South Dakota proposes an amendment to make a series of tax cuts for small business. I might say that some of these tax cuts, the ones he proposes, actually have merit. We in the Finance Committee hope to address small business tax cuts in a markup perhaps as early as this month. This is a jobs agenda. It is additional legislation to help create jobs, preserve jobs, and help the recovery come along a little more quickly.

The offset, however, that the Senator from South Dakota proposes is another matter. The Senator from South Dakota seeks to pay for his amendment by cutting funding from the Recovery Act, and that idea does not have much merit, at least not in this Senator's judgment. Pretty much the last thing we should do is to be seeking to cut the Recovery Act.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the independent organization we rely upon around here--both sides of the aisle in both bodies--says the Recovery Act is working. The Congressional Budget Act says that in the third quarter of last year, for example, the Recovery Act caused between 600,000 and 1.6 million people to have jobs. That sounds as though it is working to me. The CBO also said these people had jobs who would not otherwise have had jobs. I, therefore, think we should not be cutting back on the Recovery Act; rather, we should let it work its will.

The investments the Senator from South Dakota seeks to cut in addition are largely within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee and, thus, I will defer to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee who I think at the appropriate time will have quite a bit to say about this Thune amendment and will speak to it at greater length. I suggest that is an appropriate time to have a more lengthy discussion on this matter.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Tuesday, March 2; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Barbara Keenan, as provided for under the previous order.

Madam President, under a previous order, the time following morning business until 12:15 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees. At 12:15 p.m., the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Barbara Keenan to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on Taxation document entitled ``Estimated Revenue Effects of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, The `Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act,' under consideration by the Senate'' be printed in the Record.

In addition, the Record should reflect that the document entitled ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, The `Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act,' under consideration by the Senate'' can be found on the Joint Committee on Taxation website at http://jct.gov/ publications.html?func=startdown&id= 3648. 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, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, jobs. We are here today to help create jobs. Everyone is thinking about jobs and ways to create more of them.

Business owners, workers, community leaders across the country, especially in my home State of Montana, are asking what Congress is doing to create jobs. I might say when I was home last week, Mr. President, I had some job forums. At one of them, we had lots of different ways to create jobs and a lot of ideas.

At the end, I said: OK, everybody. What does this all boil down to? Give me one or two or three things that we can do to create more jobs. There was a big chorus of: more jobs, more jobs, better-paying jobs. So it is there, and it should be there because unemployment is so high and there is a huge need.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said: ``Jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010.'' Here in the Senate, a group of us have been working on finding the best way to create new jobs. I am pleased to have worked together across the aisle with a thoughtful bipartisan group of Senators to craft legislation to create tax incentives for job creation. I applaud my colleagues, Senators Schumer and Hatch, for working together to bring good ideas to the table. I thank my very good friend, Chuck Grassley, for

working with us once again, and I appreciate the tremendous help from Senators Dorgan, Casey, and Durbin who have been spearheading the broader jobs effort.

Some of the provisions on which these Senators have worked are before us today. The provisions before us today would address the immediate needs of businesses on many different levels. For example, it would allow smaller businesses faster depreciation of equipment purchases. This provision helps create jobs, clearly. As the demand for services and products increase, so does the demand for workers.

But the amendment before us would do more. The amendment would go to the heart of the matter to provide simple and immediate tax incentives for businesses to employ new workers. The amendment answers the challenge of doing something that would make a difference for the unemployed right now. Let me explain the tax incentive for hiring in the amendment.

This year any business that hires someone who has been out of work for 60 days or more would qualify for the credit. The business would not have to pay its share of Social Security payroll taxes on that employee for the remainder of the year. It is that simple.

This incentive would be available for every new worker hired no matter the size of the business. Moreover, if that business retains the new employee for a full year, then the business would be able to take an additional $1,000 income tax credit against next year's taxes.

So, for example, the mom-and-pop grocery store owner in Billings, MT, that employs a previously unemployed store clerk and pays him $25,000 for the rest of the year would save $1,550 on payroll taxes. The medium-sized trucking company that can employ 10 new workers at $35,000 each for the rest of the year would save $21,700 on payroll taxes.

The large manufacturer that employs 100 new assembly-line workers at $45,000 each for the rest of the year would save almost $300,000 in payroll taxes. All of these businesses would get another $1,000 for each new employee they retained for a full year.

Let me explain why this is a good package. First of all, the incentive is simple. We want all businesses to be able to take the incentive, not just those that can afford an attorney to explain it or an accountant to prepare the necessary paperwork. All private businesses that create jobs and employ the currently unemployed would be entitled to a payroll tax holiday; and because it is simple to understand, we hope the program will enjoy broad news coverage. That way more employers would hear about the incentive and opt in.

Second, the amendment would provide an immediate benefit. Employers need help now, and we want to create jobs now. As soon as a business hires a new employee, the business would receive the benefit as a payroll tax holiday on that new employee. The business would get the benefit of every payroll tax deposit it would make. The business would not have to wait until it filed its tax return next year, and the cash that the business would save from the payroll tax cut could be used to help pay the wages of the new employee or the cash could be invested in the business. That is right now. The amendment would not hurt the Social Security trust fund. The government would make the trust fund whole in the full amount of the payroll tax holiday.

The third reason this is a good provision is the amendment would encourage faster hiring. An employee with a salary of $50,000 hired on July 1 would save the business about $1,500 in taxes. But the same worker hired earlier, say, on March 1, would save the business about $2,600 in taxes. The faster a business hires, the more benefit the business would receive. The incentive would boost the economy today, and it would create an additional demand for workers sooner.

What is the fourth reason this is a good idea? Just this one provision I have been talking about--and that is the payroll tax holiday. The amendment would encourage jobs that pay good wages. The higher the wage, the higher the credit. That is because the incentive is directly tied to the wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

Fifth, the amendment targets the unemployed. The incentive would reward businesses that hire those who are currently out of work. It would reward those businesses that create employment, not those that shift workers from another job. Yet it would not require the employee be collecting unemployment insurance benefits. For all sorts of reasons, not all persons take unemployment benefits. The incentive would be as broad as possible. It would help all those currently not working who want to be.

What is the sixth reason for this payroll tax holiday provision? It is fair. The incentive sets no limits on the size of the business that can utilize it. Job creation happens with all sizes and types of businesses--from the sole proprietor seeking to expand, to the largest manufacturer recovering from downsizing. Because the credit would be on payroll taxes rather than income taxes, the incentive would also help tax-exempt organizations and businesses currently operating at a loss. Those businesses have no income tax to offset with an income tax credit.

Seventh, the amendment would provide ease of hiring. The employer would only have to get a signed affidavit from a new employee that the employee had been out of work for the previous 60 days. That is pretty simple--no lengthy certification process through State agencies, as some current wage credits require.

Eighth, the amendment would encourage employee retention. Employers that retain their new employees for a year would get an added bonus.

Ninth, and most importantly, the amendment would increase employment. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office studied a number of options for job creation in the year 2010. After receiving many ideas, CBO stated that the payroll tax deduction for firms that increase their payroll is the most cost-effective policy for creating jobs. Economists suggest the same thing. While all thoughtful observers are careful to point out no company would hire unneeded workers just for a tax credit, many economists believe that a hiring incentive may be the push that many companies waiting on the sidelines need to hire those extra people.

Business owners have flexibility in hiring. They can work longer hours themselves, substitute machines for labor, or pay overtime to current employees. But those employers on the fence may believe this package of tax cuts and hiring incentives are enough of a boost for them to hire new employees now.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses indicated in December that there are many companies starting and growing businesses during this recession. In the past, the NFIB has supported a fixed- length payroll tax holiday. Economist Mark Zandi reported that ``various business surveys suggest firms are more open to expanding their payrolls.''

He added:

A tax break for hiring could be particularly effective this

summer. By then, businesses will have had more time to come

to terms with the Great Recession, and banks should be

extending credit somewhat more freely by then.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has suggested a new jobs tax credit for every new job created by small businesses this year. Although he thinks that a job credit does not do much under normal circumstances, he says that these are not normal circumstances, and businesses need a boost.

David Greenlaw and Ted Wieseman of Morgan Stanley Research have said that a new job credit, designed correctly, could represent an important source of effective stimulus.

And Ted Gayer of the nonpartisan Brookings Institution said that timing of an employment tax credit matters. He warned:

The more you dither, then people will wait on the sidelines

and not hire now. You want it to be immediate and you want it

to go a set length.

Let us not delay. Let us answer the call from Americans to help and let us enact this package to get more people to work.

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

Madam President, I urge the Senate to pass by unanimous consent H.R. 4532, the Social Security Disability Applicants' Access to Professional Representation Act of 2010, which was recently passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 412 to 6.

Claimants of Social Security disability benefits who want to appeal decisions on their cases face many complexities. Therefore, many wish to hire professionals to represent them in these appeals. These representatives can request to have their fees withheld by SSA from the retroactive benefits owed to the claimant. The withheld fees are forwarded directly to the representatives by SSA. This fee arrangement makes it much more attractive for these representatives to take on these cases, which will provide claimants with easier access to professionals willing to represent them before SSA. Prior to enactment of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004, this direct payment of fees was only available to attorneys, not to nonattorneys, and only applied to Social Security claims, not to supplemental security income, SSI, claims.

The Social Security Protection Act authorized two nationwide demonstration projects for a period of 5 years each. One project extended the attorney fee withholding and payment procedures that existed for Social Security claims to supplemental security income claims. A second project allowed nonattorney representatives the option of fee withholding for both Social Security and supplemental security income claims. This second project also required that nonattorney representatives who wish to apply for the direct fee payment program must have passed an examination written and administered by the Commissioner of Social Security, have met certain educational and professional liability insurance requirements, and have passed a criminal background check.

The demonstration projects have been successful, but both sunset on March 1, 2010. H.R. 4532 eliminates the sunsets of both of the demonstration projects. This bill unifies the attorney and nonattorney fee withholding process for both Social Security and supplemental security income. The bill is a commonsense reform to the Social Security Act and should be enacted.

I would like to thank my colleagues in the House of Representatives for the work they put into this bill. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support H.R. 4532.

Madam President, the day before yesterday, the Senate voted on the amendment offered by the chairman and ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee to create a budget commission. The Senate rejected that amendment. The proponents fell 7 votes short of the 60 votes they needed.

I opposed that amendment because it would have forced the Senate to consider the commission's recommendations using a fasttrack process. It would have outsourced our job to the commission.

The Senator from Kansas proposes a commission that also would create a fasttrack process. It would also put vital programs like Medicare, farm programs, and veterans' programs in the crosshairs. Thus, all who opposed the Conrad-Gregg commission on process grounds should oppose this amendment for the same reasons.

As well, the Brownback commission would address only the spending side of the budget. So those who wanted a broader commission should have that reason to oppose this commission, as well.

I have been advised that the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, joins me in opposing this commission.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, the next amendment is about whether the United States will pay its bills. It is about whether the United States will continue to pay the interest it owes on the money it has borrowed. The spending laws that created the debt are behind us. The only question remaining is whether the government will honor its obligation to pay the bill. We have gone to the restaurant, we have eaten the meal, and now the only question is whether we will pay the check. It is that simple.

If Congress does not enact this legislation, the Treasury will default on its debt for the first time in American history, which means lower Social Security payments for a portion of those beneficiaries, and we would fail to pay full pay benefits to a portion of the beneficiaries of all other Federal programs.

But that would pale in comparison to the cataclysmic result in the financial markets if we don't honor our obligation. The value of Treasuries would plummet, leaving 401(k) plans and investors holding much less value. The value of the dollar would decline significantly. Ultimately, the question of America's sovereignty and the degree to which we are controlling our future would be in doubt and other countries would be dictating the results and telling us what to do.

We must pay our bills; we must pay our debts; we must vote for this legislation.

Madam President, I think we all know where we are. I do not think anything else needs to be said. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28 at 9 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Haiti: From Rescue to Recovery and Reconstruction.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.

Madam President, I understand there has been a time allocation amongst several of us, but I would like to yield 5 minutes of the time reserved to me to the Senator from Illinois.

Madam President, I do not think there is any disagreement among Senators that it is important to reduce our deficit and debt. That is not the issue at all. So that should be off the table. The question is how.

Madam President, the journalist Brooks Atkinson once said:

The perfect bureaucrat . . . is the [person] who manages to

make no decisions and escape all responsibility.

The Senators from North Dakota and New Hampshire have come up with the perfect process to transform all Senators into bureaucrats. They have come up with a process that saves all Senators from making decisions.

They have come up with a process to escape Congress's central responsibility.

At the core of the Conrad-Gregg proposal is the idea that Senators could not amend this new commission's recommendations. Senators could not change the commission's product. Senators could not exercise their central responsibility as legislators.

Two things most define a Senator. Senators can amend legislation, even with different subjects. And Senators can debate legislation, sometimes at length. The Conrad-Gregg proposal curtails both of those defining powers.

The Conrad-Gregg proposal completely eliminates the ability to amend. And the Conrad-Gregg proposal sharply limits the ability to debate.

And that is why the first amendment that this Senator offered would protect Social Security. The Conrad-Gregg proposal would not allow Senators to offer amendments to protect Social Security later. So that is why we have to vote to protect Social Security now, while we still can.

The Conrad-Gregg proposal would allow Senators to escape responsibility for cutting Social Security later. So that is why we have to vote now, while we still can, to ensure that this new commission cannot cut Social Security later.

Social Security is a solemn contract that we as a Nation made with our seniors. They were the Greatest Generation. They fought World War II. They fought in Korea. They worked a lifetime. They paid their taxes. And now, we owe them the benefits that they earned.

Social Security is one of the greatest poverty-fighting machines ever invented. If Social Security did not exist, 44 percent of America's seniors would live in poverty today. Social Security lifts 13 million American seniors out of poverty.

America's seniors rely on Social Security. For two-thirds of America's seniors, Social Security provides most of their income. For one-third of America's seniors, Social Security provides almost all of their income.

The chairman and ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee have painted a big red bull's-eye on Social Security. Their commission is a Social Security-cutting machine.

This morning, we will put that proposition to the test. If Senators want to put Social Security on the cutting table, then they should vote against my amendment. But if they truly want to protect Social Security, if they do not want this new commission to cut Social Security, then they should vote for my amendment.

At least with regard to Social Security, let us not stand by like bureaucrats. Let us take responsibility. And let us protect this vital lifeline.

I regret that I have only one other amendment slot available to me. Because I also want offer an amendment to protect veterans programs. We owe a solemn duty to America's veterans, as well.

I also want to offer an amendment to protect America's ranchers and farmers from this commission's cuts.

I also want to offer an amendment to protect America's poorest citizens from this commission's cuts to Medicaid.

The point is: We don't know where this commission will cut. All we know is that if we adopt this new Conrad-Gregg commission, we will not be able to offer amendments to stop it from cutting Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, farm price supports, or the safety net for the poorest among us.

Yes, we should address the fiscal challenges before us.

But that does not mean that we have to become bureaucrats. That does not mean that we have to stop making decisions for ourselves. That does not mean that we have to give up all responsibility.

For those who favor creating a fiscal commission, there is an alternative. Pending before the Senate, in addition to the Conrad-Gregg commission, is this Senator's amendment to create a fiscal commission.

My amendment would create the exact same commission as the Conrad- Gregg amendment. But my amendment would not create new fast-track procedures for the commission's product.

Thus, my amendment would allow Members of Congress from both parties to come together to formulate policies to address our fiscal challenges.

But my amendment would protect the rights of Senators to offer amendments to the commission's recommendations. My alternative would allow Senators the best of both worlds--a bipartisan statutory commission, without the damage to the Senate's process.

Some who advocate the Conrad-Gregg amendment have asserted that we have employed special procedures like the Andrews Air Force Base summit to enact prior budget agreements. They cite these budget agreements as a reason to adopt the Conrad-Gregg amendment.

But let's look at two recent budget agreements, those of 1990 and 1997. Both of these agreements led to substantial deficit reduction.

Congress enacted both of these budget agreements using the existing budget process. Both in 1990 and in 1997, Congress employed the budget reconciliation process to enact these agreements.

And as a result, the Senate considered numerous amendments to each of these amendments.

The 1990 budget agreement had the support of the first President Bush as well as the Democratic leadership of Congress. Even so, the Senate considered 23 amendments. The Senate voted on 21 amendments to that legislation. That was a broad, bipartisan agreement. But the Senate still allowed amendment. And then, the Senate passed that landmark legislation, using the existing budget process.

Again, in 1997, the President and the congressional leadership came together in a bipartisan budget agreement. That time, in 1997, it was President Clinton and the Republican leadership in Congress. And even though it was a bipartisan agreement, the Senate considered 77 amendments. And the Senate voted on 47 amendments to that legislation. And then, the Senate enacted that landmark legislation.

Thus, in the two most successful recent bipartisan efforts to enact substantial deficit reduction, the Senate employed the existing budget process. And the Senate allowed Senators to amend those agreements.

That is the process that Congress employed in 1990 and 1997. And that is the process that Congress should employ to implement any bipartisan agreement today.

This Senator knows something about bipartisan agreements. This Senator knows something about legislating.

Moving major legislation is not easy. But it is not impossible, either.

This Senate has, in recent memory, passed legislation to reform health care. We have enacted legislation to expand coverage for children. We have enacted legislation to provide life-saving prescription drugs to America's seniors. We have enacted legislation to cut taxes broadly for middle-income Americans.

And this Senate has, within the memory of this Senator and many of our colleagues, enacted major deficit reduction legislation in 1990, in 1993, and again in 1997.

None of those efforts came easily. But then, few good things in life do.

That does not mean that they were impossible. That means that they took skill. That means that they took effort. That means that they took courage.

Bureaucrats do not enact great legislation. Senators do.

I call upon my colleagues. The people of our States elected us to do this work. Let us not shirk our responsibility.

Let us make decisions for ourselves. Let us accept the responsibility that

our constituents gave us. And let us reject this commission.

Amendment No. 3300, as Modified

I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 3300 be modified with the modification I send to the desk.

This modification, which I make on behalf of Senator Grassley and myself, would make clear that changes to Social Security taxes would be off the table, as well.

The Parliamentarian's Office has advised us that this is how the Chair would have interpreted my original language. This modification makes that entirely clear.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.

There is a real reason why it is important to protect Social Security. Social Security is probably the most successful social program this Congress, this country, has ever adopted. Look

how many people it has helped. If we did not have Social Security today, 44-some percent of American seniors would be living in poverty-- that many. At one time, it was 50 percent. It is close to 50 percent of America's seniors who would be living in poverty today without Social Security.

These are mostly people who have worked hard during their lives: the World War II generation, the product of the Great Depression, the Korean war. These are hard-working Americans, the real soul of America, by and large, and they deserve Social Security.

About one-third of America's seniors today get almost all their income from Social Security. About one-third get almost all their income from Social Security. So why in the world would we even contemplate cutting Social Security? It makes no sense. That is why I offer this amendment, to make it clear we do not cut Social Security.

Social Security, also, is not a big problem in our American fiscal situation. Social Security does not go ``belly up'' until about the year 2043. It is not a big problem in our fiscal situation. It is not. There are also reasons why we protect Social Security. Other reasons are recognized by this Congress. In 1985, for example, Senator Hawkins from Florida offered an amendment that passed that Social Security be exempt from the reconciliation process. That is in the law today. In 1990, we took Social Security out of the unified budget. That is in the law today.

This body, this Congress, over the years, has recognized the importance--not the importance, the critical importance--of Social Security. It is so important that it should not be part of reconciliation, and it should not be part of the unified budget. We should protect Social Security. So I say to my colleagues, vote for this amendment I am offering to protect Social Security. Show to American seniors we hear their needs, we are taking action to protect them.

I hope very much this amendment passes because then it will take one item off this budget commission, if it passes; and it should not pass, in my judgment. I will have more to say about that later because the regular order has worked here. We have cut the budget three times in the regular order since 1990. It works. That is what we, as Senators, should do. We should use the regular order to make sure we do get our fiscal situation back in order. But first let's vote for the amendment to protect Social Security.

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

Mr. President, I am happy to learn from the Senator from North Dakota he favors my amendment or at least he says it would not cause any injustice to his central mission.

My main point is, the regular order does work here. In 1990, 1993, 1997, Congress passed reconciliation budget resolutions that worked, and I believe, frankly, we have it within ourselves as Senators to do the same again, to pass a budget resolution through reconciliation to get the deficit under control, working with the President. I very much hope the President, in his State of the Union Message and his budget that is placed in the Congress, starts to get the budget under control. Very much of this depends upon the President and working with the Congress. It is not just Congress. I urge all of us to remember the regular order has worked in the past. It has worked several times.

The Andrews Air Force Base agreement was put through regular order. Regular order does work, and that is what we as Senators should do. We are not bureaucrats. We are Senators.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, there is no doubt that we have to get our fiscal house in order. That is not an issue before us right now. So let's take that off the table. All Senators agree we have to address our fiscal situation.

Second is the question of what is the best way to do it. I remind our colleagues that we have used the regular order to cut budget deficits in 1990, 1993, and 1997. The Andrews Air Force Base summit agreement was passed through regular order, through reconciliation. We have done it. We have used reconciliation, regular order to get budget deficits under control.

In addition, I have an alternative commission amendment. It is the same as the Conrad commission but with one exception, and that is it is amendable on the floor of the Senate. So if you want to have some sense of Senators--we are not going to be bureaucrats, we are going to be Senators--my amendment allows a commission where we as Senators can amend the commission's recommendations.

Regular order has worked in this body--new Members do not know that-- in 1990, 1993, and 1997.

Mr. President, I ask Senator LeMieux be recognized to speak for 10 minutes, and immediately following his remarks the Senate stand in recess.