Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Meth Mouth Prevention and Community Recovery Act in the 111th Congress.

In December 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice's National Drug Intelligence Center, NDIC, reported the increasing availability of high-purity methamphetamine throughout the country and the expansion of methamphetamine networks. According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, NSDUH, an estimated 10.4 million Americans aged 12 or older used methamphetamine at least once in their lifetimes for nonmedical reasons, representing 4.3 percent of the U.S. population in that age group. Its use has been destructive to individual people, families and communities in our nation. Lung disease, fatal heart attacks, mental illness and decaying teeth have been implicated with its prevalent use.

Dental problems are common among drug users. Many do not care for their teeth regularly and most do not see a dentist often. But methamphetamine seems to be taking a unique and horrific toll inside its user's mouths.

In those populated areas where its use is highly concentrated, more and more dentists are encountering patients with a distinct, painful and often debilitating pattern of oral decay. The condition, known as ``meth mouth'', is characterized by teeth that are blackened, stained, rotting and crumbling or falling apart. Some believe meth mouth is caused by the drug's acidic nature, its ability to dry the mouth, the tendency of users to grind and clench their teeth and a drug-induced craving for sugary drinks. Often the damage is so severe that extraction is the only viable treatment option.

The Meth Mouth Prevention and Community Recovery Act authorizes funding for local, school-based initiatives to educate primary and elementary school students about the dangers of methamphetamine usage. It will also provide for enhanced research and professional training in substance use disorders, oral health and the provision of dental care.

The bill I am putting forth here today will begin to address our Nation's need to better understand and educate our population along helping the dental health providers treat the oral disease originating from this drug's abuse. The studies funded and treatment offered here will begin to stem the tide on this terrible affliction.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Meth Mouth Prevention and Community Recovery Act in the 111th Congress.

In December 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice's National Drug Intelligence Center, NDIC, reported the increasing availability of high-purity methamphetamine throughout the country and the expansion of methamphetamine networks. According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, NSDUH, an estimated 10.4 million Americans aged 12 or older used methamphetamine at least once in their lifetimes for nonmedical reasons, representing 4.3 percent of the U.S. population in that age group. Its use has been destructive to individual people, families and communities in our nation. Lung disease, fatal heart attacks, mental illness and decaying teeth have been implicated with its prevalent use.

Dental problems are common among drug users. Many do not care for their teeth regularly and most do not see a dentist often. But methamphetamine seems to be taking a unique and horrific toll inside its user's mouths.

In those populated areas where its use is highly concentrated, more and more dentists are encountering patients with a distinct, painful and often debilitating pattern of oral decay. The condition, known as ``meth mouth'', is characterized by teeth that are blackened, stained, rotting and crumbling or falling apart. Some believe meth mouth is caused by the drug's acidic nature, its ability to dry the mouth, the tendency of users to grind and clench their teeth and a drug-induced craving for sugary drinks. Often the damage is so severe that extraction is the only viable treatment option.

The Meth Mouth Prevention and Community Recovery Act authorizes funding for local, school-based initiatives to educate primary and elementary school students about the dangers of methamphetamine usage. It will also provide for enhanced research and professional training in substance use disorders, oral health and the provision of dental care.

The bill I am putting forth here today will begin to address our Nation's need to better understand and educate our population along helping the dental health providers treat the oral disease originating from this drug's abuse. The studies funded and treatment offered here will begin to stem the tide on this terrible affliction.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the conference report for H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, includes provisions that would modernize and expand the trade adjustment assistance program to reflect today's economy. This has been my highest trade priority. It has been the priority of workers and labor unions. And it has been the priority of the business community. We all recognize the importance of passing a TAA bill that helps American workers, firms, farmers and communities.

Earlier this week, I received letters of support from the following groups: AFL-CIO; Change to Win; United Auto Workers; United Steelworkers; Trade and American Competitiveness Coalition with over 50 businesses; and the Information Technology Industry Council. I ask unanimous consent that a few of these letters of support be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, in each of the last 3 months, more than half a million mothers and fathers came home to tell their families that they had lost their jobs.

In each of the last 3 months, more than half a million breadwinners came to terms with the news that they were no longer gainfully employed.

In each of the last 3 months, more than half a million Americans suddenly had to make do with much less.

Bad as that news is, the year ahead looks no better. Job losses have accelerated to a rate not seen in nearly three decades. And economists warn that other shoes are bound to drop.

These are times that frighten even seasoned managers. These are circumstances that concern even bullish economists.

The history of the 1920s and 1930s teaches us that we must act. The history of the Great Depression teaches us the costs of delay.

We must act to replace some of the trillions of dollars in demand that the private sector lacks. We must act to support those who, through no fault of their own, have been thrown onto the rolls of the unemployed. We must act to prevent the economy from spiraling deeper into recession.

The road before us is clear. We must pass the economic recovery and reinvestment legislation before us today. We must speedily resolve our differences with the House of Representatives. And we must get this bill to the President for signature without delay.

The bill before us would create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. The fate of millions of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands depends on what we do here today.

Every generation must face its own challenge. Responding to this economic emergency is ours. Let us not be found wanting.

Let us pass this bill and ensure that millions more mothers and fathers will not have to come home to tell their families that they have lost their jobs.

Let us pass this bill to ensure that millions more breadwinners will not have to come to terms with unemployment.

And let us pass this bill and rise to the economic challenge of our generation.

I don't know who the manager is on the other side, but I assume the Senator from Texas has more than enough authority to speak. I suggest she seek recognition and ask for whatever time she desires.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Madam President, a baker once told Studs Terkel, the great chronicler of the American people:

``Work is an essential part of being alive. Your work is your identity. It tells you who you are . . . There's such a joy in doing work well.''

This body is considering legislation about economic growth and recovery. It is about energy, and it is about healthcare.

But we must never forget that we are also considering what is essential to Americans' lives. In our hands is a part of Americans' identities, and the joy and pride they get from a day's work well done.

And when we consider jobs lost in America, we must never forget that, in our hands, is also the pain of lost identity, lost pride, and lost meaning in Americans' lives.

Last week, Senator Grassley and I--along with Chairman Rangel and Mr. Camp--completed negotiations on provisions to renew and expand our trade adjustment assistance programs.

Our provisions promise American workers who have lost their jobs the chance to get back on their feet. And with that opportunity, it offers Americans another shot at the dignity and joy they get from an honest day's work.

Trade adjustment assistance--or ``TAA''--has been my highest trade priority. For over two years, I have worked with Senator Grassley and Chairman Rangel to realize this priority. It was a long process, and it was not easy.

But I am proud to say that with their help, along with the invaluable support of Congressman Camp, and Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Cantwell, Stabenow, Rockefeller, and others, we have achieved it.

When President Kennedy created trade adjustment assistance in 1962, he crafted it to reflect the needs and conditions of the American economy of his time.

Our new TAA provisions will reform and expand TAA to reflect the needs and conditions of our economy as we know it today. This renewal and expansion is historic. It is the most significant expansion of the program since President Kennedy created it.

And, most importantly, it will help TAA reach more Americans than ever before with the smart and effective services they need, when they need them.

The opportunities of international trade and job-creating exports have never been greater. For much of the past two years, growing American exports were a rare bright spot in our economy.

Yet with these opportunities also come risks. A sudden shift in global trade flows can send an industry reeling, taking its workers with it. In rural communities dependent on a single employer, the effect is even more sharply felt.

In my home State of Montana, the global recession has already hit our mines and our lumber industry. Workers in our aluminum and paper products companies also suffer in this crisis.

Trade adjustment assistance gives American workers caught in the crosscurrents of international trade a chance to get back on their feet with retraining, a healthcare tax credit, and strategic support for firms.

But as important as TAA is to our workers, it has not kept up with our evolving economy. It remains limited in scope, limited in resources, and limited in its ability to deliver effective services.

That is why the TAA expansion that Senator Grassley and I negotiated is so important. It addresses these limitations and makes trade adjustment assistance work better for far more workers.

First, and perhaps most significantly, our new TAA provisions extend TAA to services workers. America remains a manufacturing powerhouse, but our economy has also evolved to create a vibrant and globally- integrated services industry. Services are now nearly 80 percent of our economy, yet TAA's benefits are out of reach for all services workers.

This legislation brings TAA in line with today's economy, extending TAA benefits to America's services industry workers, whether they are transportation workers, software designers, computer programmers, or airline maintenance technicians.

Second, our provisions extend TAA's offshoring provisions to all workers regardless of the country to which that job shifts.

Under current law, workers whose jobs shift abroad may only qualify for TAA if that shift is to countries with which we have a free trade agreement or certain other trade arrangements. But it does not cover eight of our top ten partners, including China, Japan, and Korea.

This legislation does away with that geographic limitation and expands TAA's benefits to cover all trade with all of our partner countries.

Third, our new TAA package increases training funds available to states by 160 percent--from $220 million to $570 million per year.

Job retraining programs are at the heart of TAA, and have proven the quickest and most effective way to give workers the skills they need to get back on the job. Take just two recent examples from Montana.

Wilfred Johnson lost his job after four decades in the lumber industry. He was 58 years old and had never before been unemployed. Mr. Johnson turned to local TAA administrators and with the help of TAA retraining funds, soon learned to operate heavy machinery. He earned his commercial driver's license, and started a new job with the Forest Service last spring.

Daryl Blasing also lost his job at a lumber mill. With the help of TAA, he retrained to learn information technology skills at a community college. Today, Mr. Blasing monitors election software for the State of Montana, a job he does so well that he earned the Governor's Award for Excellence in Performance.

Despite these and many similar successes around the country, workers' retraining needs often outpace TAA retraining resources. States including Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina regularly exhaust their annual allotment of retraining funds before the year is out. Our new provisions remedy that funding shortfall and will make TAA training as effective as it could be.

Fourth, this reform also strengthens programs that offer American companies and farmers strategic assistance to keep them competitive and to keep their workers on the job.

Struggling farmers will be eligible for targeted and intensive technical assistance under the TAA for Farmers

program, leading to a better business plan and the seed money to get that plan off the ground.

We also more than triple the resources to back the successful TAA for Firms program, which partners small businesses with industry experts to improve their efficiency and competitiveness.

Fifth, I have worked with Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Bingaman, and Grassley to devise a program to help communities struggling with the consequences of international trade.

When a large employer shuts down, entire communities feel the shock. This amendment recognizes the community-wide effects of trade and offers community-wide solutions.

Under the new TAA for Communities program, grants to technical colleges and public-private partnerships will help identify and invest in new viable and competitive industries. These small investments will help entire communities grow.

Sixth, our new TAA provisions take steps to ensure trade displaced workers have access to health care through a workable health coverage tax credit program.

Under current law, TAA-eligible workers can receive a 65 percent tax credit to buy certain health insurance. Our legislation will improve the affordability of health coverage for trade displaced workers by increasing the tax credit subsidy to 80 percent.

It will also provide workers retroactive reimbursement for premium costs that are paid while waiting to get enrolled in the health program.

Our legislation also improves coverage for spouses and dependents and establishes new rules to protect workers from being denied coverage based on pre-existing health conditions.

Our proposal also increases transparency around the costs and availability of health benefits and puts stronger mechanisms in placing for ensuring workers have accurate and timely information about their health coverage options.

There are many other aspects to our TAA package. I am introducing into the record a detailed description of our provisions. Senator Grassley and I prepared this document with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel and Ranking Minority Member Camp.

This document is meant to serve as the legislative history of these many provisions, as well as to provide the rationale for the amendments we propose to current law.

Madam President, during this debate my colleagues have talked a lot about the promise of our economy and hope for the future.

I too am hopeful. I am hopeful because I know that with this legislation, we are trying to do what is best for America.

I am also hopeful because I believe, as Studs Terkel wrote, ``Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up.''

It will again spring up from the Americans who work to stay competitive in their current jobs. And hope will spring from those courageous and innovative workers who retrain for new jobs.

Our provisions to renew and expand Trade Adjustment Assistance will help them do that. I urge my colleagues to give it their support.

I ask unanimous consent to have the report language printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye of Hawaii.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time consumed during the quorum calls this morning be charged equally against both sides.

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 wish now to talk about a package of amendments that hasn't been added to the legislation but has merit. I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will be asking unanimous consent that this package be added to the legislation.

On a piece of legislation this large, it is difficult to process every amendment that is filed. In fact, over 600 amendments have been filed to this bill. We have processed 30 of these, but that leaves about 500 not yet voted on.

The same was true in the Finance Committee, before we took up the bill and before it came to the floor. In the committee we had over 200 amendments filed and we couldn't vote on every one of those. On a number of them, I asked Senators to withhold from offering them. For some, we were not sure how much they would cost, and for others we needed more time to analyze the proposal because they came to us pretty quickly and we didn't know what it meant. I asked Senators to hold off for a while to figure out what it means, and maybe we can work it out, but it would be best to take it to the floor. Many Senators did that. I pledged to the Senators I would work with them on the floor.

We were able to work out many of the amendments. Senator Grassley and I reached an agreement on a number of tax and health amendments, and they are reflected in an amendment that has been filed. As our staffs looked at these amendments, we worked out an agreement on a lot of these amendments and they are contained in the managers' amendment I am talking about. Some were technical in nature. We have several, for example, health-related provisions that clarify the legislative language to make sure it reflects what the Finance Committee voted to report to the Senate.

Other provisions are modifications of provisions in the underlying bill. For example, one of the provisions makes sure military personnel can receive the Making Work Pay credit even if their spouse is not a U.S. citizen. Another provision expands on a proposal included in the Finance Committee to help companies deleverage and buy back some of their debt.

Other provisions are new, but they are good ideas and simply didn't get a vote. Ms. Snowe, for example, has proposed reducing the estimated taxes that small businesses have to pay quarterly, since most of them will have fewer or no profits this year. That provision is also included in the managers' package.

While I believe adding these proposals will improve the bill, it is my understanding there is likely to be an objection to my request. We could not include every amendment in the package. We have done the best we can. I think it would improve upon the bill if this package were adopted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 572, the so-called managers' amendment; that the amendment be adopted, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I also congratulate the Senator from Idaho, my neighbor. It is a wonderful opportunity to hear the Senator from Idaho give his first speech, and it is also great that he is, as I say, my neighbor. I deeply appreciate the shared values we have in our part of the country. I might say to my good friend that although I don't agree with the conclusions he has reached, there will be many opportunities for us to work together on issues that affect our part of the country.

I might also say that--and I think all economists agree with this point--every dollar spent is stimulative--every dollar. Every single dollar in this bill is stimulative--every dollar. All economists would say that--all economists.

Now, it is true that some dollars are more stimulative than other dollars. Basically, economists say that dollars spent on roads and bridges and infrastructure and so forth are more stimulative than dollars spent on tax reductions. They all agree on that. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the CBO sent a letter recently-- actually, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, sent a letter to this Senate recently--making that very point, and they categorized how stimulative each dollar spent is. The more it is taxes, the less stimulative it is. But it does stimulate the economy, no doubt about it. The more it is not taxes, the more it is bridges and roads and infrastructure, the more it stimulates the economy. There is no doubt about that. And then there is a middle category, which focuses on unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and food stamps. That is very stimulative, because those are the lower income people who spend the money. To say the dollars in this bill are not stimulative is flatly not true. Every dollar spent is stimulative.

Second, analysis of CBO and Joint Tax, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Joint Committee on Taxation, shows that 99 percent of all the dollars in the Finance Committee bill are spent in the first 2 years. There is nothing permanent about this. I have heard Senators on the other side say this is permanent. It is not permanent; 79 percent of all the dollars in this bill, according to the CBO and Joint Committee on Tax, are spent in the first 2 years--about four-fifths, 80 percent, in the first 2 years. That is not permanent; that is spent in the first 2 years.

No. 1, every dollar spent is stimulative. Some is more stimulative-- roads and bridges more than taxes. No. 2, this is temporary; 79 percent of the whole bill is spent in the first 2 years. No. 3, again, this is not permanent, but it is all going to be spent, four-fifths, 80 percent in the first 2 years.

I am a little surprised Senators say we should not spend money here. That is exactly what the Government did back in the 1930s. That is the Hoover approach. Don't spend money, don't borrow money because that is going to add to the deficit, add to the debt. That was what was said back then and look what happened. Every economist says that was a mistake, the Government should have gotten involved, we should have done something, we should have spent the money. And that is what we are doing.

Also, what is the alternative to not spending. What is the alternative to not passing this bill? The alternative is conditions are much worse. This bill is going to create or save 3.4 million jobs. No bill, 3 to 4 million jobs, more jobs lost than currently. This is a no- brainer.

Some Senators try to get us sidetracked. Lawyers call it red herrings, one theory or another, which is not the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is people are losing jobs by massive numbers. We have to do something, we have to do something big. I, frankly, think in this Congress not much of anything happens most of the time unless one of two conditions occurs. One is a crisis. Then Congress acts and does something--Pearl Harbor, Sputnik, Depression. Another is if there is extraordinary political leadership.

I say we certainly have a crisis, and we certainly have an extraordinary President. Combined--the President wants this, this is a crisis we have to deal with--let's stand and do what the American people want us to do and not haggle, not bicker, not get partisan. This is pretty simple stuff. It is a big problem and requires a big solution. This solution is a good solution. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, since this recession began, 3.6 million mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands have lost their jobs. On the Senate floor today, we have the power to keep 3 to 4 million more Americans from losing their jobs. We have crafted this bill to accomplish this end. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee's legislation will take effect in the first 2 years and 79 percent of the total bill's fiscal effects will take place in the first 2 years.

The question is merely whether we will act. Our duty is clear. Let us reject half measures. Let us reject delay. Let us not be found on the wrong side of history. Let us rise to the economic challenge of our generation. Let us preserve millions of American jobs and let us pass this bill today.

Madam President, this afternoon the Senate returns to its 7th day of work on this important jobs bill. The case for this bill continues to grow stronger every day. Last week, for example, we learned that 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since this recession began--3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs. The unemployment rate has risen to 7.6 percent and it is rising. Job losses appear to be accelerating.

Last year, more than 3 million families lost their homes to foreclosure--3 million families in 1 year--and many more foreclosures appear to lie ahead.

We face the worst economic disaster in the lifetimes of most Americans alive today. History will judge how we respond and let us not let this Nation down.

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, there were those who questioned vigorous Government response. There were those who fretted about short- term deficit. We were spending too much, they said. History has not judged them kindly.

Rather, the consensus of economists came to agree with the great British economist, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes argued that in times of high and rising unemployment, the Government has an important job to do. The Government must make up for lagging demand in the private sector, he said, and the Keynesian school teaches the best way to increase demand is to get money in the hands of those most likely to spend it quickly.

It is true some economists questioned the Keynesian consensus, but those questioners are very much on the fringe of economic thinking. The mainstream--by far the mainstream is that we have to use public money to help pull us out of recession.

Our time of testing is upon us. The broad consensus of economic analysis informs us what to do. The question before us is now one of political will. Will this generation have the courage to confront the economic storm of our time or will this generation be like that which preceded the New Deal? Will our generation, by its inaction, be found wanting or will our generation rise to the challenge of our times?

The path to address this crisis lies ahead of us today. At about 5:30 p.m. this evening this Senate will conduct a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Collins-Nelson substitute. That substitute is the best clear chance for the Nation to respond to the economic crisis we face.

Under the previous order, if the Senate invokes cloture on the amendment, then the Senate will be able to complete action on this bill with a vote at 12 noon tomorrow. If a Senator raises a budget point of order against the amendment, then the Senate will vote tomorrow on a motion to waive that point of order; otherwise, under the previous order, the adoption of the amendment will still be subject to a 60-vote threshold, and the Senate would then vote on passage of the bill. Either way, the Senate faces two 60-vote hurdles for this important legislation, one this evening at 5:30 and another tomorrow at noon.

That familiar arithmetic dictates the path before us. The amendment before us provides the one clear chance to surmount that 60-vote hurdle. The Collins-Nelson substitute provides an opportunity for Congress to respond and respond quickly, swiftly. Let us take that opportunity.

The Collins-Nelson substitute is a principled compromise. Yes, if I had my way, I would have written it differently. I brought a slightly different bill to the floor on behalf of the Finance Committee. But the substitute makes the change we need so as to allow the broad consensus we need to pass this bill. In the Collins-Nelson substitute, we agreed to trim the underlying bill. But I am pleased the compromise does not sacrifice the main thrust of the bill.

So what is the compromise? The Collins-Nelson substitute would trim the COBRA subsidy--that is the health subsidy for persons who lose their jobs and therefore lose their health insurance. It would provide a 50-percent subsidy for 12 months for the purchase of health insurance for those who have lost their jobs. This saves $5 billion. The agreement trims the health information technology proposal. It would cap the amount of funds that a critical access hospital can receive under the health IT provisions at 1.5 million per hospital. This change saves $5 million per hospital.

The Collins-Nelson substitute also cuts back on some of the tax incentives. The agreement eliminates the general credit carry-back provision, saving about $9 billion.

The agreement trims the recovery zone bonds by providing $10 billion in private activity bonds and $5 billion in refundable credit bonds. The agreement provides a 35-percent tax credit for Build America bonds for 2009 and 2010, with a 40 percent tax credit for small issuers. This change saves $2 billion.

The Collins-Nelson substitute trims the number of people eligible for the make work pay credit by beginning the phase out of the credit at $70,000 in annual income for singles and at $140,000

in annual income for couples. This change saves $2 billion.

And the refundable child tax credit threshold is decreased to $8,100, saving $3 billion.

Other than these changes, the underlying tax provisions are essentially intact. The bill remains a balanced approach to getting our economy back on track.

The bill would continue to provide more than $300 billion in tax cuts for individuals. The bill would help working families with the make work pay. Seniors, disabled vets, and SSI recipients would receive a one-time payment of $300.

Families with children would also get help. The bill would still expand the earned-income tax credit and the refundable child tax credit. Families would still get benefits for college with the American opportunity tax credit and the expansion of 529 college savings plans.

The bill would expand the homeownership tax credit beyond first-time homeowners and double the amount of the credit. For those receiving unemployment benefits, the first $2,400 would not be taxed as income.

There are also tax incentives for commuters and those buying automobiles.

The bill would also provide a 2009 AMT patch, so that people can keep the tax cuts they receive.

The bill contains $18.4 billion for businesses. There are several provisions geared toward small businesses. The bill extends bonus depreciation and 179 expensing. The bill also decreases the S-Corp holding period from 10 years to 7 years for built-in gains.

The bill would allow businesses to take accumulated AMT and R&D credits in cash in lieu of bonus depreciation. The bill provides a delayed recognition of certain cancellation of debt income. Net operating losses can be carried back 5 years instead of 2.

The bill still provides more than $19 billion in energy tax incentives.

These incentives will create green jobs producing the next generation of renewable energy sources, wind, solar, geothermal, spur development of alternatives, and help to combat climate change by reducing our use of carbon-emitting fuels.

The bill would extend and modify the renewable energy production tax credit for qualifying facilities, in order to make the credit more useable in the economic environment.

The bill includes additional funding for clean renewable energy bonds to finance facilities that generate electricity from renewable resources and conservation bonds for States to use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy efficiency is often cited as the low-hanging fruit, the easiest way for us to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

We have included incentives for energy efficiency. The value of the existing credit for energy efficient homes is increased and the limitations on specific energy-efficient property are eliminated. The credits for various types of energy efficient property, for both residential and business, are extended.

The bill has two new tax credits designed to spur our alternative energy and production.

The advanced energy research and development credit provides an enhanced 20 percent R&D credit for research expenditures incurred in the fields of fuel cells, energy storage, renewable energy, energy conservation technology, efficient transmission and distribution of electricity, and carbon capture and sequestration.

The second tax credit is an advanced energy investment credit for facilities engaged in the manufacture of advanced energy property.

These energy tax incentives will help to keep our alternative energy sector moving forward as we confront the growing demand for clean, renewable energy.

The bill would provide recovery provisions totaling $9.6 billion. The bill would provide for several types of bonds to help depressed areas, including recovery zone bonds, tribal economic development bonds, high speed rail bonds, and broadband bonds. The new markets tax credit would be extended. The bill would accelerate the low-income housing tax credit.

The bill would also provide $14.3 billion in help for municipal bond markets. This recovery bill includes changes that will free up this market, unlocking cash for infrastructure investment.

Banks would be able to inject more capital into projects, creating demand for municipal bonds, and driving down interest rates. And increasing the small issuer exception would increase the range of municipalities from whom banks could buy.

The bill would also eliminate tax-exempt interest on private activity bonds as a preference item under the alternative minimum tax. This change would draw new investors and help stabilize the market.

The legislation would also establish parity for tribal governments on $2 billion of tax exempt bonds. This important change would put Tribal governments on equal footing with other government issuers.

The bill would maintain the new tax-credit bond option, giving State and local governments a new tool to finance infrastructure projects.

The bill would also eliminate the 3 percent withholding requirement for Government contractors.

The tax components of the bill are diversified. They would spur our economy from several directions.

On health matters, the Collins-Nelson substitute preserves much of the health IT investment that the original bill proposed. These sound investments will pay dividends in the future. They would reduce health care costs and improve health care quality.

The health IT provisions preserved in this bill will also help patients to make better decisions about their health care. I am pleased that these provisions remain intact. And the provisions have been improved by the amendments offered by Senator Enzi last week.

The Collins-Nelson substitute also maintains the important protections that we provided in the original bill to State Medicaid programs. As we heard in the floor debate, the rise in unemployment has placed significant strain on Medicaid.

Decreased revenue coming in means less money to fund Medicaid. And experts warn that every percentage point increase in unemployment adds 1 million more people to the Medicaid and CHIP rolls.

The substitute before us today would provide much-needed relief to every State through a temporary increase in the Federal share of Medicaid funding. This funding would prevent States from making further cuts to a program that is already in dire circumstances due to the economic downturn.

And the substitute also preserved the critical extension of emergency unemployment benefits. It also maintains the improvements to our unemployment insurance program by increasing and extending benefits to those currently looking for work.

A key component of the economic recovery package helps unemployed workers maintain their health coverage. When workers lose their jobs, they lose more than their paychecks. They often lose their health insurance coverage, as well. Losing job-based health insurance can have tragic consequences.

The initial proposal provided a 65-percent subsidy for COBRA coverage for up to 9 months. The Collins-Nelson substitute shaved that coverage back to a 50-percent subsidy for 12 months. By doing so, we saved $5 billion.

I am concerned that a 50-percent subsidy might not provide enough relief. In the future, I will look for ways to maximize participation in this program for people who want to keep their health coverage.

But the product before us today is the result of principled and bipartisan negotiation. This is a compromise across the aisle in the finest tradition of the Senate.

But we do not have time to waste. We must act quickly to pass the Collins-Nelson substitute. We must work quickly with the House in conference to reach consensus and put this bill on the President's desk without delay.

Let us not repeat the dithering of the late 1920s and early 1930s. Let us summon the courage to confront the economic challenge of our times. And when the roll is called this evening, let us invoke cloture on the Collins-Nelson substitute.

That would be my intention.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining allocated to this bill be equally divided and that all time in quorum calls be charged equally to each side.

Madam President, it is worth repeating until it is understood: According to CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, 99 percent of all the Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years. If we add the whole bill together, the Finance Committee portion and the Appropriations Committee portion, 79 percent is spent in the first 2 years. This is an approach to get money spent quickly.

Madam President, I just want to remind my good friends on the other side, this bill also cuts taxes by $300 billion. It is a tax cut. My colleagues love tax cuts. This bill cuts taxes by $300 billion.

Very much I like tax cuts.

But I might say, all I hear is complaints. I know the Senators on the other side like tax cuts, but they do not talk about the good stuff in this bill. There is a lot that is good about this bill, and it would just be great if they would talk about some of the good provisions as well because I know all my colleagues like tax cuts, including my dear friends on the other side of the aisle.

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

Madam President, I will yield to the Senator from California such time as she desires.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, an earlier speaker, the Senator from Arizona, made some comments regarding Pell grants which I think should be addressed. He essentially said that spending on Pell grants; that is, helping young Americans go to college, would not help the economy. He was opposed to the increases in the Pell grant.

I am surprised he made that statement, because I think it is inaccurate. Let me explain why. First, money in the hands of low-income families--and Pell grant recipients are low-income families--is money that will be injected into the economy quickly.

Low-income people who receive money spend it. They have to spend it. They have to spend it to make ends meet. They have to pay the bills. They have to pay a mortgage. They have health care. You name it. It is very difficult--very difficult.

So to say that money spent on Pell Grants is not a good idea, implying it is not stimulative, is highly incorrect. Low-income people spend the money they receive. And this legislation does increase Pell grants. Again, Pell grants are the grants that go to low-income students to go to college. That is what Pell grants are.

He was suggesting that is a bad thing, it is not good to increase Pell grants. I am pointing out that the money in the hands of low- income families, such as Pell grant recipients, is money that is spent in the economy very quickly. It is highly stimulative.

Second, what happens to that money when the low-income families receive a Pell grant? What happens to that money? Well, it keeps teachers working, jobs in colleges, it helps the college meet its payroll. It helps the college meet its expenses.

Pell grants are spent. First, they are spent. It is stimulative. And, second, the dollars are spent to help colleges, to help colleges meet their payroll and meet the expenses they have to make. Many State colleges are having a hard time these days because they are cutting back. They are cutting back in their colleges, the expenditures of their colleges. Why? Because we are in a recession. It is tough. Some kids are not going to college as they usually would.

Second, Pell grant dollars are not only stimulative, but they help keep jobs at the colleges where the dollars are spent. Third, and perhaps most important, a dollar spent on Pell grants is a dollar that makes it much more likely for a young woman or young man to go to college.

I think that is a good incentive, to help people go to college. The economists tell us if a person goes to college, they will, over their lifetime, earn $1 million more than someone who does not go to college. We want to encourage kids to go to college, especially help low-income kids go to college, because they otherwise cannot go to college.

When that person goes to college, that young woman, that young man, and earns more money, economists tell us it is $1 million more compared to kids who do not go to college. That is more money that goes into the economy.

Now, granted, it takes a little time for that college graduate to earn that $1 million. Maybe in that sense it is not stimulative. But the main point is, Pell grants are stimulative. It is a good idea, and another reason why this legislation should be adopted.

I am quite surprised, frankly, that the Senator from Arizona criticized Pell grants, saying they should not be in this bill. And clearly they should be in this bill. It is stimulative. There are a lot of other examples I can give. But that is one I thought needed to be addressed.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and under the order, the time will be equally divided.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes immediately prior to the cloture vote today, as well as the 10 minutes prior to the 12 noon vote on Tuesday, February 10, be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority leader controlling the final 5 minutes prior to the vote on each day covered in this agreement.

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

Madam President, I understand the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, wishes to speak. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa. I think he has some time he wishes to use as well.

Madam President, I wish to set the record straight on a few points that speakers on the other side of the aisle have made. I think it would be totally unfair if they go unchallenged and the record is not set straight.

The Senator from Oklahoma said the bill before us is the biggest spending bill ever. That is not true. It is true this is a big bill, and that is because the economy is in such dire shape and because we are in a recession. That is a big problem. It needs to be faced. This is a big bill, and I would suggest the appropriate response to a big problem is a big bill. An inappropriate response would be not a big bill to a very big problem.

I might say that this is a big problem also because economists project that the economy is likely to suffer $2 trillion to $3 trillion less growth because of this recession than would have occurred with full employment. Again, that is $2 trillion to $3 trillion of less growth because of the recession than would have occurred with full employment. We have a lot of lost jobs, as we know. We need to do something pretty significant about that.

The size of the bill is an appropriate level to try to replace some of the activity this recession is robbing from our economy.

The second point is this is not the largest bill that Congress has ever considered. That assertion, made by a Senator on the floor not long ago, was inaccurate; it is not true. The fact is, in past years, we have passed legislation that would cut taxes by trillions of dollars and all in one bill.

Those who call this the largest bill in history are forgetting recent history. The 2001 Bush tax cuts, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, was estimated back then to cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Frankly, I think it turned out to be more than that. It was a larger bill than this. This is a $827 billion bill; that was about $1.3 trillion.

I also think it is important for us to remember that as of October of last year, Congress had approved a total of $864 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and for enhanced security at military bases from 2001 through 2009. About $657 billion of that amount, about 76 percent, was approved for the war in Iraq, and the conflict is not over yet. So an accurate tabulation would conclude that the Afghan and Iraq wars are bigger than the stimulus bill before us. So it is inaccurate that this is the largest spending bill we have ever had.

Next, the Senator from South Dakota asserted that the mandatory spending in the bill is permanent. That is not accurate. The spending in this bill is not permanent. The spending provisions in this bill are nearly all sunsetted, not permanent. We have crafted a bill that has its effects in the first 2 years.

I remind my colleagues that according to CBO and the Joint Committee on Tax, a nonpartisan, bipartisan professional staff, whose job it is to analyze legislation before us, concluded that 79 percent of the effect of the Finance Committee provisions would take effect the first two years. That doesn't sound like it is permanent to me. The Joint Committee on Tax and CBO, in a combined analysis, concludes

that 79 percent of the entire bill's effect will be spent in the first 2 years. That is not my statement. That is CBO, made up of very highly trained professionals who deal with these issues. So it is not true that this spending goes on forever. This bill is very temporary, by definition.

Another colleague on the other side complained that this doesn't do enough for small business. Let's see if that is true. The business provisions in the bill, like the loss carrybacks, help small businesses by providing immediate cash to help them meet payroll and make investments. That can clearly help all businesses. In addition, the bill has something specifically targeted at small businesses that are trying to make ends meet. That is expanded expenses in section 179. That section is a provision in the law that allows businesses to fully expense their expenditures for that year. They don't have to depreciate and apply that depreciation against earnings in subsequent years. Rather, they can fully expense the expenses. I forgot the cutoff, but it is around $700,000 or $800,000. It is significant. That is in this bill.

Also, there are other business provisions, such as the extension of bonus depreciation. We extend that provision in current law, and that is extended next year. That provision says any expenses that any company makes can be fully expensed irrespective of the size and purpose--50 percent can be fully expensed in the first year, and the rest has to be amortized. That is a big boon for small business. There are many other provisions. We picked up some of the big ones.

I mentioned the 5-year carryback of operating loss. That helps business. Section 179 is targeted only to small business. There is delayed recognition of certain cancellations of debt income. There is a small business capital gains provision. That will help small business and also the S-corp holding period. Most small businesses or S-corps-- there is a provision here of half a billion dollars relief over 10 years. Altogether, the tax portion of the bill contains about $28 billion worth of provisions targeted to small business.

This bill certainly contains provisions that are very helpful. So the assertion that there is nothing in this bill to help small business is simply inaccurate.

Fourth, two Senators said this bill spends hundreds of thousands of dollars for every job this bill creates. A lot of Senators are throwing a lot of numbers around. It is kind of wild. That is one of them. That is wildly inflated. Why? First, those who make that assertion simply divide the total cost of the bill by the number of jobs created in any 1 year. This bill spends out over 2 years, not 1 year. The jobs it preserves or creates will extend over 2 years and longer. Thus, the Senators need to cut their estimates per job at least in half. They take 1-year numbers, and we are talking about 2 years. When this bill is passed with the jobs it creates or preserves, the people who would get those jobs will pay taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes. Thus, they bring money back into the Treasury. That also helps cut taxes, the total number of dollars per job. A fair analysis would cut first their assertion in half, and it would add back additional revenues that would go back into the Treasury because of the jobs these people would have would produce payroll taxes and sales taxes--we are talking about payroll tax and income tax.

I wish when Senators speak--and certainly they can have their opinions, and every Senator has come to the conclusion whether he or she is for or against the bill--I wish when the Senators describe the bill, they would describe it in a fair and balanced way and then reach their conclusion--not just take one set of facts only because it is inaccurate and misleading, frankly, to the American public, who want us to do the right thing, to figure out a way to stop the recession. I firmly believe the public should have all the facts, and they would probably reach the conclusion that this is the right thing to do. In statements I have made, I have acknowledged this is a big bill. I have acknowledged it is imperfect. But I also conclude it is far better to pass this legislation than do nothing. If we don't pass this, we ain't seen nothing yet, in terms of the foreclosure of homes underway and jobs lost. We will get close to the Great Depression.

There is no other conclusion than we must pass this legislation quickly so we can get on to the next issues we have to face.

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

Madam President, I object.

Madam President, I might say, I was going to mischievously suggest to my good friend from Alabama, maybe we can work something out if he can make sure the managers' amendment receives no objection.

I knew you would. I must say, I expected that response, but I must also say the Senator from Alabama knows full well there are other Senators who would like their amendments in and agreed to. In all things considered, in fairness to all Senators all the way around, I think it is prudent to object, so the Senator's amendment may not come up at this point.

I yield to the Senator from Nebraska--how much time does the Senator wish to speak?

About 6 minutes.

Madam President, I yield additional time to the Senator-- say, 4 more minutes?

I yield a full minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Madam President, I commend the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who has done a terrific job in helping us reach this point. She has done great work. I commend both Senators from Maine. The Senators from Maine are the key to a solution because they are the ones who created the impetus to get us where we are.

Because of their efforts, I might say, the Senate is within measurable distance of being able to respond to an economic crisis that confronts the Nation. It is the efforts of the Senator from Nebraska, of course, and also Senator Specter, but the Senators from Maine are really the ones who deserve the lion's share of the credit. Because of their work, millions of Americans will keep their jobs or get new jobs.

Again, I thank the Senators from Maine for what they are doing for our country.

The amendment before us is about creating jobs. The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that this bill could create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill would create or save between 1.3 and 3.9 million jobs. This amendment will help us to pass this bill. Literally millions of jobs depend on the adoption of the amendment. Let me restate that. Literally millions of jobs depend on the adoption of this amendment.

We face the worst economic disaster in the lifetimes of most Americans alive today. History will judge how we respond. Let's not let this Nation down. We do not have much time to waste. We must act quickly to pass the Collins-Nelson substitute in conference to reach a consensus and put this bill on the President's desk without delay.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of the late 1920s and 1930s. Let's confront the economic challenge of our times. When the roll is called minutes from now, let's invoke cloture on the Collins-Nelson substitute.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the following Finance Committee interns be allowed the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Chris Eden, Michael London, and Mai Meneissy.

Mr. President, this morning the Senate returns to work on its bill creating and saving millions of jobs. As the leader said, and we all know, our work has rarely been more urgent.

Initial jobless claims have hit a 26-year high. I repeat: Initial jobless claims, 26-year high. Last week, 626,000 people, each of them mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, lost their jobs. That is two-thirds of the entire State of Montana--626,000 people in 1 week. The number of claims by people continuing to apply for unemployment benefits reached a new record. With 4.8 people applying for unemployment benefits, we need to respond. We need to complete this jobs bill.

This past November, our Nation conducted a historic and meaningful election. America voted for a new era. America voted for change. In keeping with the call of our new President, the Senate has, this week, conducted itself with levels of openness and accommodation not seen for years. I would like to underline that. This has been a very open Senate process. We have not seen this in a long time and I hope it continues and even grows. The managers have not filled the amendment tree. We have not sought to blur issues with second-degree amendments. No tree, no second-degree amendments. Senators have gotten votes on their amendments. The Senate has put in a long, full week and worked late nights. Yesterday, the Senate conducted six rollcall votes and adopted five amendments with voice votes and we considered and processed numerous other amendments.

We have now reached the point in this debate, in the adage familiar to most Senators, that everything has been said but not everyone has said it. I might underline that everything has been said many times but not everyone has said it. I now call on my colleagues to show restraint. I urge my colleagues to forgo offering amendments. I urge my colleagues to allow the Senate to bring this matter to a close.

Pending now are seven amendments: The underlying Finance- Appropriations substitute amendment; the Murray amendment, No. 110, to strengthen infrastructure investments; the Dodd amendment, No. 145, mitigating home foreclosures; the Coburn amendment, No. 176, on competitive bidding; the Udall amendment, No. 359, to expand the number of veterans eligible for the employment tax credit; the Coburn amendment, No. 309, on particular spending prohibitions; and the Sanders-Grassley amendment, No. 306, as modified, to require recipients of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring standards.

I hope that in short order the Senate will be able to come to an arrangement that will allow us to process the remaining Coburn, Udall and Grassley-Sanders amendments. After that, I hope the Senate will be able to address amendments by Senators Feingold and Conrad as well as the pending Dodd amendment on our side, as well as equal numbers of amendments on the Republican side. Then I hope the Senate will be able to address amendments by Senators Wyden and Menendez, as well as an equal number of amendments on the Republican side.

After that, we will seek, as much as possible, to allow a fair system for the consideration of other Senators' amendments. We will address, first, amendments of Senators who are here and willing to offer their amendments. But I renew my call for Senators to resist the temptation to offer their amendments. We are getting to that point where it is becoming a point of diminishing returns. The amendments are coming to the point where they do not need to be offered on this bill at this time. This is just February. There will be plenty of other opportunities for Senators to offer amendments on other bills. We have to get this bill finished today. There will be a conference committee. The managers will work with Senators in the conference to address their concerns. Not everything needs to be said by everyone on the Senate floor today. I urge Senators to forbear offering their amendments as much as possible.

We will continue to try to give Senators notice of what will be coming up. Abraham Lincoln appealed to the ``better angels of our nature.'' I renew that appeal today. Let us work together today in the spirit of comity and cooperation that reflects the better angels of the Senate. Let us finish this bill today. I thank all Senators for their cooperation.

So we can work out an orderly procedure, I now 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 time between now and 11:30 be for debate only, to be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, the idea is then to have votes on pending amendments.

Well, obviously Senators can speak on those amendments, which includes the underlying bill. But I would hope we process those amendments and then do the next set of amendments after that.

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

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

I renew my request and ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 11:30 be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, I object. We are under an agreement where we speak on both sides and offer amendments later. So I respectfully object.

I object.

Under the agreement, we are going to alternate sides for speakers. I want to ask the Senator from New Hampshire how much time she wishes to speak.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 528

I object.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator 30 seconds.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate equally divided be extended until 12 noon and add in the other time to be equally divided, so on that basis, there is more on this side.

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

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we may have to put off votes until 1 o'clock. That is not determined yet, but there is a high probability of that. Around noon, we will ask for an agreement to speak for another hour.

That will be the case.

I object.

Mr. President, I want everybody to remember these two numbers: 99 percent, 79 percent; 99 percent, 79 percent. What are those two numbers? If you take the Finance Committee bill, the bill that is in this stimulus bill that the Senate Finance Committee wrote--the Senate Finance Committee wrote the tax portion of the underlying bill and also the aid to States portion.

Ninety-nine percent of the spending and the taxes combined in the Finance Committee portion of the bill will be spent out in the first 2 years. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee bill will be spent in the first 2 years.

For those who didn't quite get it, it didn't quite compute, I will say it again. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years--99 percent. Actually, if you want to break it down, it is a little more than that for taxes only because some reach to future years. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years.

What is my authority on that? Some economists? It is the Joint Committee on Tax and CBO, if you look at their numbers and combine them, the Joint Committee on Tax and the Congressional Budget Office, that is what it calculates to: 99 percent of the Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years, according to the Joint Committee on Tax and according to the CBO, combining the two.

That is my first figure, 99 percent. What is my second figure? Does anybody remember it? What was my second figure? It was 79 percent. What does 79 percent represent? Seventy-nine percent represents the total spending of this bill in the first 2 years. The total spending, if you take the Appropriations Committee and the Finance Committee and add them together--79 percent of the total spending--in this bill is in the first 2 years, 79 percent. Now, what is my authority? The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. So I ask Senators to go look at the Joint Committee on Taxation data, go to the Congressional Budget Office data. It is right there.

There are a lot of allegations and a lot of statements that are made on the Senate floor by lots of Senators on both sides, and one of our goals, clearly, is to try to get the facts. One of our goals is to listen to the music as well as the words, to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to get to what is really going on. What are the right numbers?

Now, of course, no numbers are perfect, but what is close to being right or as close as we can tell as we seek the truth? I will tell you, the Joint Committee on Taxation is probably one of the most unbiased, most reputable bodies here. Now, some don't like their numbers. They wish their calculations would be different. But, clearly, they try their best. They do their best. It is a bipartisan organization that works for both bodies of Congress, and they work for both political parties. They work for the Congress. It is not biased.

The Congressional Budget Office is not biased, and the Joint Committee on Taxation is not biased. For those who are not familiar with Washington speak, the Joint Committee on Taxation is an independent professional group which advises the Congress on tax matters and does tax calculations for the Congress on tax matters. The Congressional Budget Office basically issues lots of reports and advises the Congress on spending items that are nontax items and calculations and so forth. Again, it is bipartisan. It serves both bodies--the Congressional Budget Office. It is a very reputable body, as is the Joint Committee on Taxation.

So, again, I want to repeat those numbers so it sinks in a little more. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Tax, add the figures together, 99 percent of the Finance Committee bill, which is a large portion of the bill--I think it is about 60 percent of the bill--is spent in the first 2 years. That is 99 percent--almost all in the first 2 years. If you take it all together, the Finance Committee bill and add in the appropriations portion of the bill, 79 percent--almost 80 percent or almost four-fifths--is spent in the first 2 years.

Now, Mr. President, we have to get moving. Our country is in deep, deep, deep trouble. The American people want us to do something responsible about all of this. We all know there are three parts to the problem. One is the credit crisis--that is, credit is all frozen; banks aren't lending--and there are lots of ways to address that. The second part of the problem is housing. We are struggling to get even more stimulus to housing. But a third major part of the problem is demand and spending. There is about a $1 trillion gap between our potential economy in America and the real economy--$1 trillion. If we don't address that gap between spending and demand, we are going to find ourselves in such deep difficulty, with so many jobs lost, it may be equal to the Great Depression. We are not there yet, clearly, but we could get pretty close if we don't take some pretty important actions here.

Now, I have heard all kinds of speeches on this matter, whether the roughly $800 billion stimulus package is right or not right. I have been in rooms with conservative economists and liberal economists and middle-of-the-road economists, and they all agree $800 billion is about right, and it is needed--and it is needed. Some may quibble about some parts, and there have been a lot of Senators on the floor, respectfully, Mr. President, who have been quibbling. They have not been seeing

the forest for the trees. But I submit, if we keep our eye on the ball and keep our eye on the forest, we can get this bill passed and get it passed pretty quickly.

I just want to urge those Senators who say not very much is being spent out in the first years to go look at the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office and do the calculations. Again, 99 percent of the Finance Committee package is spent in the first 2 years, and 79 percent of the total underlying bill is spent in the first 2 years. I think that is pretty good. It is not perfect, but it is pretty good.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call, if there is a quorum call, be equally divided.

Frankly, I see the Senator from Tennessee is seeking recognition.

Mr. President, I wonder if anybody on our side is seeking time?

The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, seeks 5 minutes.

Would the Senator be OK with 2?

It is compromising toward the intentions of the other side.

Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Michigan, 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, I apologize, I think Senator Lincoln was here earlier. I didn't turn around far enough.

Mr. President, 5 minutes to the Senator from----

Unless Senator Alexander seeks recognition. We want to go back and forth to even things out.

I yield to the Senator on his time, on Republican time.

I understand Senator Enzi has comments regarding the provisions for comparative clinical effectiveness research included in The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which is being considered in the Senate this week.

I thank the Senator for his support of these principles. I agree with the Senator's summary of S. 3408, the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008, which would create a permanent institute to prioritize and provide for comparative clinical effectiveness research for the U.S. I support including short-term funds for such research in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I applaud the Appropriations Committee for clarifying that research should evaluate comparative clinical effectiveness, not cost- effectiveness. And I agree that the $1.1 billion should be used consistently with the principles in S. 3408 from the 110th Congress. Senator Conrad and I plan to reintroduce our bill because we still need a long-term framework for this type of research in the U.S.

I thank Senator Feinstein for pointing that out. I agree. The coordinating council should look across agencies to coordinate resources and activities of the federal government with respect to comparative effectiveness research. Its charge should not go beyond that. The language of the bill could be clarified to make that point clear. And I will support clarification of it in conference.

Workforce training

I agree with my distinguished colleagues that as we work to reform our health care system it is important to consider how the health care workforce fits into these efforts. Creating a strong, well- trained workforce is a critical part of adequately addressing the needs of older adults and individuals with disabilities. An estimated 69 percent of people turning 65 years old will need some form of long-term assistance as they age. Most individuals that need long-term care services and supports prefer to receive assistance in their homes or communities. This demand and the need for direct care professionals will only grow as the baby boom population turns 65.

Various studies suggest present and future shortages of paraprofessionals and health care professionals. Effective recruitment and retention strategies are needed. Training programs should be designed that address the competencies required of a 21st century

workforce. As part of this effort we also should look at the skills of those currently delivering long term care services.

The purpose of health reform is to achieve a high-performing health system. Achieving this goal requires an investment in our health professional and paraprofessional workforce.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed; that no amendments

be in order to these amendments prior to the vote; with 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, equally divided and controlled; with 10- minute vote limitations after the first vote in the sequence: Sanders amendment No. 330, as modified; Coburn amendment No. 309; Udall amendment No. 359; Coburn amendment No. 176.

Further, that upon disposition of the above-listed amendments, the Senate then consider the following amendments and that they be considered in rotating fashion back and forth to each side; that no amendments be in order to these amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendments: Conrad-Graham No. 501; Dodd No. 145, and that when a vote is scheduled in relation to amendments Nos. 501 and 145, the vote would occur first on 501; Cantwell amendment No. 274, with the modification which is at the desk; Feingold amendment No. 485; Grassley amendment No. 297; Enzi amendment No. 293; Vitter amendment No. 107; Bunning amendment No. 531; Wyden amendment No. 468; and Thune amendment No. 538.

I thank my good friend from Mississippi for that kind statement.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, I suggest that we agree to 5 minutes in rotating fashion for each side and that Senator Kerry be first recognized after the votes.

I will say 10 minutes. I want to hold it to four speakers until we get a better handle on what is going on.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, in order to clarify some confusion that may exist as to what the proceedings are after the first group of votes, let me ask unanimous consent that the request I further propounded with respect to that period be vitiated. Instead, I ask unanimous consent that following the next group of votes, there be 20 minutes available, equally divided in the usual form, for debate only.

Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa questioned State aid provisions in our substitute so I wish to take a few moments to explain them. When our country was founded, there was a great debate about the roles of the Federal and State governments, and our Founding Fathers debated which should be more powerful. Should it be the States or the Federal Government? Which should retain what privileges and how to ensure an effective union of the States? Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, advocated for the Federal Government to buy the States' Revolutionary War debt. The idea was controversial, but the merits of the proposal have proven sound.

In the year 1790, there were two main reasons he suggested the Federal Government assume State debt. First, the Federal Government was in a better position to issue and sell bonds to satisfy the debt. Second, the assumption of State debt would serve to rally local economic interests to promote broader national goals.

Many things have changed since 1790, but some things remain the same. During recessionary periods, State revenue suffers. Unlike the Federal Government, States must balance their budgets. Just as in 1790, the Federal Government was still in a better position to assume the debt.

These difficult times also call for unity among the States. Every State is suffering, but we must band together to help those among us who are worse off. We need to hold back our personal interests and focus instead on our national interests.

In addition to the arguments set forth by Hamilton over 200 years ago, modern economists tell us that State fiscal relief is an effective means to stimulate the economy. Economists also advise that targeted relief to those most in need--not based on circumstances of States' own making but based on true measures of distress--is the best measure of distribution. The bill before us today provides much-needed relief to every State with a temporary increase in the Federal match rate for Medicaid expenses. The bill also provides additional aid targeted to States facing the most precarious fiscal situations, measured by an increase in unemployment. This temporary assistance will help States avoid having to make tough choices, like whether to make significant budget cuts or raise taxes, both of which could make this economic crisis worse.

It is important we strike a balance in this bill between spending too little and too much. Some of my colleagues are worried that we are spending beyond what is needed and will end up passing along too much debt to future generations. This package is significant, but the risk of doing too little has been overlooked. In fact, I think the risk of too little is worse than the risk of too much. During times of economic distress, Medicaid suffers from the blows of a one-two punch; that is, when State revenues are lowest, the demand for Medicaid is the highest. If we do not give States enough money, States won't be able to protect their Medicaid programs against the blows thrown by the economy. That means fewer services will be available to fewer people at a time when the need is increasing. We are talking about low-income health care. This is about people who are thrown off Medicaid because States are finding that is the best way to balance their budgets. That is not right.

Giving States more money than they need won't stimulate the economy. In order to stimulate the economy, this money must be spent quickly, and it must go toward job creation or protection of vulnerable populations. To be stimulative and get the economy moving again, State fiscal relief must prevent any exacerbation of an already bad situation. By preventing Medicaid cuts, this bill does that.

This bill makes sure we will not see a big increase in the number of Americans without health insurance. We must remember that having so many uninsured Americans is not without cost, let alone the personal tragedy. Instead, the cost of caring for the uninsured has shifted to the insured. It is in all our best interests to prevent more Americans from losing their health insurance. This package, I believe, has the right balance--it is not perfect, but it is pretty close--giving States enough support without giving them too much.

The State fiscal relief provisions will not eliminate State budgetary difficulties. That is for sure. But they will provide a cushion, not a full cushion but a partial cushion. This package will not fix everything, but it is a big step in the right direction.

While not all States have responded to the economic downturn in the same way, no State is immune to the impact of a national recession. Looking back on past recessionary periods, we can see that some States, often those with large commerce-based economies, feel the blow faster and earlier than others. The impact on States with commodity-based economies, on the other hand, is often delayed. The difference between commerce-based States and commodity-based States is more delay in commodity-based States. Because no two States will experience the impact of the recession at precisely the same time or to exactly the same extent, it is important the relief be targeted to those States that are most in need and when they need it.

In 1790, some States had already paid off their Revolutionary War debt. But it was important to the Nation as a whole that all States be relieved. On top of a generous across-the-board increase for all States, this package provides additional aid to those States with high unemployment. The basic formula is based upon the wealth of the State, but the bonus on top of it is based on unemployment.

If a State's unemployment continues to increase, the State may qualify for even more relief. Unemployment is an effective measure of a State's fiscal condition. Often when people lose their jobs, they also lose their health insurance. This places a higher demand on Medicaid. It is estimated that a 1-percent increase in unemployment increases enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by 1 million people. Let me repeat that. A 1-percent increase in unemployment increases enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by 1 million people. Increasing the FMAP percentages--that is the Federal share--is the quickest way to get relief to the States. In addition to preventing cuts to Medicaid, this aid will provide for much-needed economic activity. People will be more productive. Jobs will be saved. Industries that rely on and contribute to the strength of our health care system will remain sound. This provision will not only improve the health of Medicaid beneficiaries, but it will also improve the fiscal health of each State. This is a key element of any attempt to pull the national economy out of its recession.

We have done this before, and we know it is effective. In the year 2003, we provided $20 billion in State fiscal relief, evenly split between grants and an FMAP increase. That is the Federal Medicaid share. The FMAP increase proved successful in preventing planned Medicaid cuts and restoring some previous cutbacks. However, an analysis by the Urban Institute found we could have done a better job back in the year 2003.

I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 2 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes, evenly divided.

However, an analysis by the Urban Institute found we could have done a better job back in the year 2003. Despite the immediacy and complexity of the situation, the fiscal relief was delayed and uniform. Some States were forced to take action before relief was available. Because the economic downturn of each State varied, some States didn't get enough assistance, and some States got assistance at the wrong time.

Let's learn from our mistakes. The partially targeted approach of this package will be better. It will give all States some assistance, a method that is effective and simple. But it will also give more money to States with the greatest need, which will help ensure we get the biggest bang for our buck.

These are difficult times, but our country is resilient. We are proud as Americans of our resiliency. We must draw on the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and stick together. We are more than a country. We are a union of States. Let us remember the good judgment of Alexander Hamilton and come together as a nation to help each of our States.

Over the Presiding Officer is our national motto, ``e pluribus unum.'' It could not be more appropriate than at this moment.

Mr. President, I do not see any speakers here. I will yield back that time, unless the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak.

I yield back that time so we can get to the vote.

I yield back the time.

Amendment No. 306, as Modified

Mr. President, I urge Senators to accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Mr. President, we have looked at this amendment and think it is a good one. We are prepared to accept it.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, the next Senator to speak is on his way here, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. Is there someone on the other side who wishes to speak? We have 10 minutes equally divided.

After the 20 minutes, there then is a period during which Senators can call up their amendments, but they are only amendments that have been agreed to by an earlier UC.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts. Actually, I prefer they use the remaining 5 minutes on the other side.

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

Objection.

Objection. That is not allowed in this agreement. I am sorry.

I misunderstood. I thought you wanted a queue for a vote.

You can call up your amendment and it will be made pending.

Mr. President, there are a series of amendments under the order under which Senators can call up specified amendments. I would like to go back and forth, Republican and Democrat and so forth. I also urge Senators to enter into time agreements for their speeches when they call up their amendments. I urge us now to move to amendment No. 501, called up by Senators Conrad and Graham.

Let me ask Senator Conrad what kind of time agreement might be reasonable for him.

Mr. President, I make that request.

I ask unanimous consent the time on the Conrad-Graham amendment be limited to 10 minutes.

I might say to my good friend from Vermont, there is a previous order entered into which listed amendments under which Senators could call up their amendments. I think it is about 10 or 12, roughly. I do not see the name of the Senator on this list.

Following disposition of this list, we will then enter a different period when different action can be taken by the Senate. I would have to consult with the leader to see what he wants to do following disposition of this list.

I say to my friend, there are many Senators who approached me, asking if we could take up their amendment following this list of amendments now. I cannot give a specific answer to any Senator at this point except to say that we will go through this list we are on right now under which Senators can call up amendments, and I will be consulting with the leader to try to figure out what is the next order of business. I will make it as fair as possible. I think the Senator will acknowledge that all day long--yesterday--we have gone back and forth to try to make it fair for both sides. But I cannot say what the exact procedure will be following the disposition of these amendments. I will try my very best to accommodate the Senator, as I will every other Senator, but I have to consult with the leader first to know what that is.

I appreciate that very much.

I renew my request that the time on the Conrad-Graham amendment be limited to 10 minutes.

I misunderstood. Ten each. That is the request.

That is a good question.

Five minutes to the Senator from Connecticut to speak in opposition to the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that 10 more minutes be allocated to the Conrad-Graham amendment, equally divided, because there are some who still want to speak in opposition to the amendment.

We are limited, Mr. President.

I am sorry. The Senator is managing the time.

Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is absolutely correct. It has been a good debate we have had on the Dodd-Conrad- Graham issue.

The next amendment that can be called up on the list would be on the Republican side of the aisle. I don't know who wants to call up his amendment next, but someone on the Republican side of the aisle should do so, and I am hoping perhaps we could enter into some kind of time agreement.

Say 10 minutes equally divided; is that all right?

Grassley No. 297. There would be a time limit for debate only, no vote on the amendment.

Ten minutes equally divided has been the suggestion.

We could, equally divided.

I appreciate that, but unfortunately there are Senators on this side of the aisle who want to speak in opposition, and the total time they want to use is more than 4 minutes. I will hold it to 20 minutes equally divided.

I appreciate that, but if we don't get an agreement, it is going to be longer. So discretion being the better part of valor, I suggest 20 minutes equally divided.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

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

The Presiding officer. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.

Mr. President, in the spirit of agreement, there will now be an amendment on the Democratic side. I suggest Senator Cantwell be recognized for the purpose of calling up her amendment. I ask the Senator to agree to a time agreement of 10 minutes equally divided. I think it is going to be accepted.

Ten minutes equally divided.

Mr. President, I support the Cantwell amendment. Frankly, in the regular order, somebody who opposes the Cantwell amendment should be speaking. I will take a little of her time. It is a good amendment, and I hope it gets adopted. I don't think anybody wants to speak in opposition.

Fine.

Does the Senator from Washington have time remaining?

Mr. President, I urge the Chair to recognize Senator Bunning to call up his amendment.

Ten minutes equally divided.

Ten minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has an interesting idea, an interesting proposition, and we did discuss it in committee. I did say in the committee that I think it is an issue that should appropriately be addressed, and I again thank the Senator for bringing up this issue.

I suggest that we now go to Senator Feingold for the purposes of offering an amendment.

Mr. President, I suggest that Senator Thune be recognized for the purpose of offering his amendment.

Mr. President, I am reminded of the great Baltimore Sun journalist H.L. Menken who said for every complicated problem there is a simple solution--and it is usually wrong.

We have a complicated problem: how to get our country going again. With all due respect, this is a very simple solution and, with all due respect, it has deep problems.

What are they? First of all, there are 49 million Americans who will not get any tax break from this proposal. Who are they? They are the Americans who are working, but they do not earn enough income to pay income taxes. Therefore, they get no deduction. They are not paying taxes. They are not in the 5-percent bracket. They are not in the 10- percent bracket. They just do not earn enough to pay income taxes. So when you talk about reducing taxes, giving rebates to those Americans who pay taxes, those 49 million Americans who are working, who pay payroll taxes, will get no break. Their taxes are not reduced.

I say that because the amendment strikes the whole bill. As I understand the amendment, it takes the amount of the bill and adds it back to taxpayers. The rebate goes to the taxpayers?

I am happy to.

I might say, Mr. President, reclaiming my time, this amendment strikes the underlying bill. What about States taking people off Medicaid, called FMAP? This bill gives about $86 billion to States so they can keep people on Medicaid, so they are not thrown off Medicaid. What about all the dollars in here that go to help build roads and highways and bridges?

Earlier, I asked my colleagues to remember two figures. What were they again--99 and 79. What is that? Just to repeat, 99 is the percent of dollars in the Finance Committee portion of this bill that are spent in the first 2 years; 99 percent of the whole Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 years. That is CBO, and it is Joint Tax. It is their figures. Just do the math.

The other figure I mentioned was 79--79 percent. What does 79 percent represent? All of the dollars in the whole bill, the Finance Committee bill and the Appropriations bill, total it all up--99 percent of the total bill will be spent in the first 2 years; 99 percent of the Finance Committee bill, 79 percent of the whole bill.

Next question: how efficiently are those dollars spent? I have just established that most of the dollars, by far, are going to be spent in the first 2 years--by far. The next question: How efficiently? To what degree will those dollars create jobs? A day or two ago the Congressional Budget Office released a letter that discusses the effects of this bill on jobs, on job creation. The letter says:

For all of the categories that would be affected by the

Senate legislation, the resulting budgetary changes are

estimated to raise output [and jobs] . . . albeit by

different amounts . . . [as follows.]

What does that say? Without taking too much time, it makes it very clear more jobs are created when we spend dollars for the purchase of goods and services. According to CBO--that is a quote:

Direct purchases of goods and services . . . tend to have

large effects on GDP.

What tends to have less of an effect? I know it is a mantra, I know it is ideology, but the fact is, what has less effect, to be honest about it, is tax cuts. And the higher the income bracket, according to CBO, the less stimulative effect on the economy.

For example, let's take AMT: 1-year tax cuts for people who pay the alternative minimum tax. What is the stimulative effect? There is a range. CBO does not know the exact amount, but it is a range between 10 cents on the dollar and 50 cents on the dollar. That is how much goes out into the economy. Not very much.

What is the range for purchase of goods and services by Uncle Sam, between $1 and $2.50; for transfers to State and local governments for infrastructure, between $1 and $2.50; for transfers to State and local governments not for infrastructure, between 70 cents to $1.90 on the dollar.

Get this: unemployment benefits, between 80 cents on the dollar and $2.20 on the dollar. Payments to persons for unemployment benefits has a much greater stimulative effect, by far, than does reduction in taxes. I mentioned already the effect of AMT.

My only point, it is interesting to hear what the Senator from South Dakota is saying, and I appreciate him correcting me by saying that 49 million Americans who otherwise do not pay income tax would also get a rebate. I am not sure the size of the rebate. I guess everybody gets the same amount, whether you are an individual or you are married. But we can create a lot more jobs by structuring the payment as it is in this legislation.

A lot of time and thought has gone into it. Virtually every--I will not say every. The bulk of economists, mainstream economists, will say clearly that the job creation effect is much greater with infrastructure than it is for tax cuts. You like to have tax cuts. People like to have dollars in their pockets. But the goal is infrastructure. It is job creation. Spend it early. I might add, I don't know the exact percentage, but a large portion of this bill is already tax cuts. It is large. I think it is 40 percent--40 percent of this bill is tax cuts. I don't think all the bill should be tax cuts. Rather, it should be spread out in a little more complicated way, following the advice of the Baltimore Sun journalist, H.L. Menken.

There is no time agreement, I say to my friend.

I think we are finished on this one unless the Senator from South Dakota wants to make some remarks.

Mr. President, it is time to go to the next Senator. I might say, the language of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota, the language says an eligible individual is one who has filed a tax return. Many people who work don't file tax returns because they don't make enough money, so a lot of people are getting left off.

Next, I suggest the Chair recognize Senator Dodd from Connecticut.

I don't see Senator Enzi. He was next entitled to offer his amendment, so I urge the Chair to recognize Senator Wyden to offer an amendment.

Senator Enzi is on.

I ask Senator Enzi if he is agreeable to, say, a 5-minute limitation on his amendment.

I ask the Chair now to recognize Senator Wyden.

Mr. President, I think that concludes all the amendments on the list. We are now awaiting an attempt to drop a unanimous consent request so we can start voting on those amendments. That is in the process right now. Pending the completion of that list, it is probably advisable that we keep the Senate open for debate equally divided until the hour of 5 o'clock.

If we get the consent agreed to before then, we can ask to vitiate that agreement where debate be allocated equally so we can propound the other consent.

I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5 o'clock be time available for debate only, equally divided.

We will try to.

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

Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Kansas, how long do you wish to speak?

OK. Thank you. Fine.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

I would like 30 seconds on this amendment.

There are about $20 billion in this amendment of cuts which complicate the package that has been agreed to. For that reason alone, in addition to the reasons already mentioned, I think it is going to be highly imprudent to adopt this amendment. It would throw a monkey wrench into the agreement that has been reached earlier today.

For that reason, I also urge that the amendment not be agreed to.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I suggest we vote on this amendment by voice.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 297

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this be a 10-minute vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Murray amendment No. 110 be withdrawn and the Feingold amendment No. 485 be withdrawn.

For the Senators who did not hear, I ask unanimous consent that the Murray amendment No. 110 be withdrawn and the Feingold amendment No. 485 be withdrawn.

I ask this be a 10-minute vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Feingold amendment No. 485 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, this amendment increases the amount of capital losses that could be used to offset ordinary income from $3,000 to $15,000 at a cost of probably about $11 billion over 10 years. I do think perhaps the capital loss provision applied to income should be increased at some point, but this is too much of an increase. From $3,000 to $15,000 is too much of a leap. I think, therefore, we should not support this amendment. I urge we vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Murray amendment, No. 110, be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I urge Members not to adopt this amendment. It strikes the entire underlying bill, and it replaces it with a tax cut for all Americans, except at least 8 million Americans who do not file. This rebate will go to filers. There are about 8 million Americans, at least, who do not file income tax returns; they pay payroll taxes, many of them.

Under the underlying bill, the rebate goes to people who work and pay payroll taxes. Under the Thune amendment, it only goes to people who pay income taxes, not payroll taxes. At least 8 million people would not get the benefit of this rebate. It strikes the whole underlying bill. So I urge it not be adopted.

Mr. President, I raise a pay-go budget point of order against the Thune amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, February 6, 2009 at 10 a.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bruce Fergusson be allowed the privilege of the floor during consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Miki Hanada of my staff be afforded floor privileges for the purposes of the consideration of this legislation.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Arizona is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to offer his amendment. I only have a couple of words.

Mr. President, to set the stage a little for today, to give Senators an opportunity to know the lay of the land, yesterday the Senate put in quite a long day, as we all know. By my count, we considered 28 amendments, we conducted 8 rollcall votes, and we accepted a number of amendments by voice vote.

I want to highlight one amendment adopted, the Isakson-Lieberman amendment, which provides Federal income tax credit for home purchases. This amendment addresses one of the central points that Senators on the other side of the aisle have been raising, namely that we need to address the housing market.

I might say, Senators on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the degree to which we are addressing the housing market. We adopted the Isakson-Lieberman amendment that does just that, and I am proud we accepted their idea.

I want to clear up the record on the Cornyn amendment. Yesterday I raised a pay-go point of order against the Cornyn amendment. After the Senate failed to waive the budget provisions, the Chair ruled the amendment violated the budget.

The budget rules require both the Presiding Officer and myself to rely on the Budget Committee to determine whether an amendment violates the budget. Budget Committee staff advised my staff and the Parliamentarian that there was a pay-go point of order against the Cornyn amendment. But in reality the amendment did not violate the pay- go rules.

I apologize to the Senator from Texas for raising that point of order. But as the vote to waive the budget was 37 in favor, 60 opposed, raising the point of order did not change the result and I hope my statement now will clear up the record.

Looking forward, we expect another busy day today. I expect we will process a number of amendments. We may have rollcall votes throughout the day. We may well work late into the evening. But I have good reason to hope we might finish this bill this evening, and that is a goal toward which we are working.

For the information of Senators, 14 amendments are now pending. Those amendments are: the underlying Finance-Appropriations Committee substitute amendment, No. 98; the Murray amendment No. 110; the Feingold amendment No. 140, regarding earmarks--I might add, the Murray amendment No. 110 is with respect to infrastructure--again, the Feingold amendment No. 140 is with respect to earmarks; Thune amendment 197, that is a House Republican alternative; Dorgan amendment No. 200, runaway plants; Ensign amendment No. 353, substitute housing; Dodd amendment No. 354, executive pay; Barrasso amendment No. 326, environmental laws; DeMint amendment No. 189, religious freedom; Boxer amendment No. 363, environmental laws; Harkin amendment No. 338, auto trade-in; Dodd amendment No. 145, foreclosure mitigation; McCaskill amendment No. 125, CEO pay; McCaskill amendment No. 236, as modified--I think that is with respect to the inspector general.

That is it so far. This morning we expect to hear from Senator McCain on his substitute amendment. Thereafter, we expect to hear from Senators Ensign, Wyden, and Cantwell about amendments they intend to offer. Once again, I ask Senators to let the managers know about amendments they intend to offer. The more we know, the more quickly and expeditiously we can proceed. A little notice helps a lot here.

We had a great day yesterday. I expect another one today. Mind you, we must move quickly because the recession is so deep. Americans are depending on Congress to act. Let's act, let's get the job done. Other problems that are very important can be pushed off to later dates, but today let's get this bill passed and in conference with the House so the President can sign it and people can get some relief.

Senator, offer your amendment.

Mr. President, in an effort to get some order and move things along, I would like to lock in the order of speakers, continuing our practice of alternating back and forth. I ask unanimous consent that the next speakers recognized be the following Senators in the following order: Senator Kyl, Senator Sanders, Senator Thune, Senator Baucus, then Senator Graham--actually, Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, I will withdraw the request, and we will work that out while Senator Kyl is speaking.

Mr. President, I feel constrained to object because there was an understanding, an agreement, that the Ensign amendment would be the amendment that would come up after the McCain amendment.

I say to the Senator, let me work this out with you privately. I will find a way to accommodate the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following speakers be recognized in the following order, honoring our time- honored tradition of going back and forth: first, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye; second, Senator Graham; third, myself; fourth, Senator Alexander; fifth, Senator Schumer; next is Senator Coburn; next is Senator Cantwell; next is Senator Inhofe; followed by a Democratic Senator; followed by Senator Hutchison from Texas.

Mr. President, first I want to correct--I know it is a very minor mistake the Senator made--the markup of the Finance Committee took over 11\1/2\ hours, not 1\1/2\ hours, as the Senator represented.

But, frankly, the main question is, how do we get people back to work?

How do we get our economy moving? That is the question.

There are lots of ideas. A lot of people have spent a lot of time working, trying to find the best solutions--a lot of economists, a lot of experts. It is true we are in, probably, the deepest recession this country has faced since the Great Depression. That is true. It is also true the economy is much different now than it was back in the 1930s. That is also true. The banking system is different. We now have an international dimension. It is greater today than was the case back in the Great Depression. So, therefore, it is true to some degree we are kind of learning as we are doing. Nobody has all the answers--nobody does. Most of us working on this recognize that. All of us are doing the best we can, on both sides of the aisle. We are trying to figure this out and do the best we can with the resources we have and with the Government we have.

Different people, of course, have different estimates. Let me tell you what the basic estimates are from the people I have talked to. They say there is about a $1 trillion gap between the potential American economy and the actual economy--about a $1 trillion gap. The real question is, how do we fill in that gap? What do we do to make sure the real economy matches up to the potential economy?

There are three basic components, most people agree: One is to do what we can to unfreeze the credit markets. Banks are not loaning. It is an issue that has been discussed at length in the last many months. The question is, what do we do to unfreeze the credit markets in this country so banks start to loan money, start to loan money to creditworthy borrowers? That is one challenge, and that is the reason for all these programs, such as TARP.

We can debate whether they are perfect. They are probably not perfect. But that is a part of the solution, do what we can to get banks to unfreeze the credit markets.

Another component is housing. What do we do about all these houses where the mortgage is much greater than the actual market value of the house? The common term, it is called ``underwater.'' Estimates are between one in four, maybe one in five American houses is underwater. What do we do to help address housing? We are working on that.

There are many features in this bill that address housing. For example, the $15,000 tax credit offered by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, adopted by the Senate--that is going to help. It is a $15,000 tax credit for the purchase of a home. There are many other housing provisions enacted by the Banking Committee. Some are in this bill. Others are in other bills. Of course we have to go further.

The third component is consumer demand. What can we do in this country to help people feel a little better about things so they can start spending--people can start spending some money? First, they have to have money, and that gets to jobs. We also want to encourage people to spend money so the economy starts to loosen up, and that also creates jobs. That is the problem to which the bill is addressed. That is the third component, which is basically on the demand side, to help people spend money.

How do we do that? One way is to get measures passed to create jobs. It is bridges, it is roads and infrastructure, and so forth.

Without being too simplistic, what has happened in this country in the last several years is, we have become way over leveraged. Banks have borrowed way too much. Hedge funds, private equity funds have borrowed way too much--leveraged maybe 30, 40 times. American credit card debt has gone up. Individuals have become overleveraged. Businesses have become overleveraged. When you borrow much more than your assets, clearly when times start to constrict a little, it is a huge problem to pay off your loans, to pay off your debt, especially when you are leveraged in an amount that is 40 times your assets. That is really a problem.

That is what has happened in this country. So in a certain sense, while the private sector is deleveraging, the public sector is starting to leverage to fill the gap, to keep things going. That is the reason for the borrowing.

We are all concerned about how far this is going to go, how much debt it will be. Will we be able to pay off the debt? Is it going to work or is it not going to work? The answer to that is, first, we have to spend to make things happen. I do believe, frankly, it is better to spend more than less because if we spend more, there is a psychology, in addition to an actual multiplier dollar effect, that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and we are going to find a solution--compared with being tepid, being timid, just putting our toe in the water a little bit. I think that is not a good idea.

So the $800 billion--this bill is close to $900 billion right now. Some suggest maybe $800 billion is where we should end up. I think that would be fine. But will this help create jobs, this $800 billion? That is the basic question. And how do we fill the $1 trillion gap between the potential economy and the real economy? Most people I think, and most economists who are reputable, I think, will say that if we do nothing, that $1 trillion gap will double to about $2 trillion. These are rightwing economists, leftwing economists--there is a basic agreement among almost all economists that we have to spend some money to get things back on track again.

I have a summary of a letter from the Congressional Budget Office-- released yesterday--trying to determine the effects of this bill on jobs. What is the effect of the bill we are considering on gross domestic product? Let me just give you some highlights. This is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office. It is a nonpartisan organization.

Let me say, a lot of economists have their incomes paid for by people on one side of an issue or the other. That is one reason things get slanted sometimes. But this is the Congressional Budget Office. They don't make a lot of money, but these guys and women are very good, and they are public servants. They want to do this job. What do they say?

They say between now and the fourth quarter of 2010, the number of jobs created under the underlying bill, plus the number of jobs saved, is in a range between 1.3 to 3.9; basically between 1.3 million to 4 million jobs created and saved between now and the fourth quarter of 2010. That is CBO's best estimate. Granted, there is a range. We don't have a precise number, but it is a range.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona cuts that in half. So let's cut it in half; the resulting range is 0.6 million jobs to about 2 million jobs, roughly. That is not close to beginning to fill the $1 to $2 trillion gap between the real economy and the potential economy.

CBO also says that under the Senate bill, GDP would increase by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent by the end of 2010. The unemployment rate will decline between 0.7 percentage points and 2.1 percentage points. Let's take a midpoint. That is roughly a 1.5-percentage point reduction in the unemployment rate. The midpoint for the increase in GDP is about 2.4 percent. And the midpoint for the number of jobs created or saved is about 2.6 million. It is 2.6 million jobs created or saved under this bill.

Let me just read a sentence from the letter. The letter says:

For all of the categories [of spending or taxes] that would

be affected by the Senate legislation, resulting budgetary

changes are estimated to raise output in the short run,

albeit by different amounts.

That gets to my next point. Different dollars spent differently have different effects. They all are stimulative, some more stimulative than others. The letter goes on to say:

. . . direct purchases of goods and services [by Uncle Sam]

tend to have large effects on GDP.

The letter then lists the numerical stimulative effect of each category of new spending and tax cuts. For purchases of goods and services by the Federal Government, the multiplier effect is between $1 and $2.50. The midpoint is $1.75. For transfers to State and local government used for infrastructure, the effect is about the same: between $1.00 and $2.50. For transfers to State and local governments for programs other than infrastructure, it is less, from 70 cents to $1.90 on the dollar.

For transfers to persons who are receiving unemployment benefits the return on a dollar is higher. Transfers to

people who are unemployed are most likely to be spent, not saved. The return on a dollar is between 80 cents and $2.20.

For Making Work Pay--that tax cut is a key feature of this bill--the multiplier effect is between 50 cents and $1.70 on the dollar. The midpoint of the return on the dollar is $1.10

I might say, the effect for the 1-year patch to the AMT, the return on a dollar is between 10 cents and 50 cents. There is not a lot of multiplier effect for the AMT. And for the loss carryback business provisions, the multiplier effect is between zero and 40 cents.

Basically, what CBO is saying is what a lot of us intuitively believe: a dollar spent on roads and bridges and infrastructure will have a pretty high effect. Dollars transferred to low-income people, such as dollars for unemployment benefits, also have a very large effect.

Why do I say all this? I say this in part because I think it is helpful for us to know what the Congressional Budget Office believes. There are so many opinions here in Washington, it is just up to us to separate the wheat from the chaff, to listen to the music as well as the words, to try to read between the lines, to try to figure out what is really going on, and I think the Congressional Budget Office's estimates are a pretty good indicator.

We are concerned about the long-term debt--clearly, we are. There is not a Senator here who is not concerned about the long-term budget effects of what we do. We don't know exactly what the long-term effects are going to be, but we are concerned about them.

The President is going to have a fiscal summit on this very issue. He is inviting a good number of people; it will probably last 3 or 4 or 5 weeks. It is obviously a concern to the President, and it is obviously a concern to all of us.

Let's also remember the President is going to submit a budget sometime this month. It is going to be a blueprint for the President's programs and plans. Clearly, he is going to have to be thinking about the long-term debt too. Obviously, I think it will be very important for us to see what the President's budget is, and then to work with the Budget Committees, in this body and in the other body, to put together a blueprint and to try to get a handle on long-term debt.

This amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, tries to get at this long-run debt problem by setting up two entitlement commissions. One is to address Social Security and the other is to address Medicare and Medicaid. I think on the surface that is interesting, but let's look at the facts. These entitlement commissions could make recommendations which Congress could amend but on which debate could be limited. The limit on debate greatly concerns me.

And let's look at the basic entitlements people talk about. What are they?

One is Social Security. Back in 1983, I think it was, the Social Security trust fund was about to go belly up. It was going kaput. I think there were enough funds in the Trust Fund that when added to new taxes coming in, full benefits could be paid for only 6 months. There was that little in the Social Security trust fund. The idea of a commission was raised. President Reagan called it together, it had both Republicans and Democrats on it. At the end, they agreed to do about the only thing they could do, and that was to cut benefits and raise taxes. That was put together based on a handshake between Tip O'Neill and Jim Baker.

There was a famous telephone conversation--hey, Mr. Speaker, if you agree to lower benefits, we will agree to raise taxes. We will greet each other, shake hands on it, and neither will attack each other. That was the deal. They didn't attack each other. That is what happened: benefits were cut a little and taxes were raised a little. Again, there was the gun at the head of everybody, especially seniors, because Social Security was about to go belly up in 6 months.

What is the situation today? Is the Social Security Trust Fund in dire jeopardy? No.

The Social Security trust fund is solvent, all of the actuaries say, to the year--I do not know the exact date--2041, 2042, something like that. So I wonder. Sure, we should start early on things. But there are only two ways to make the Trust Fund solvent beyond 2041, to say 2090 or 2100, and that is by cutting benefits and raising taxes.

Now, when times are tough--we are in a recession right now--I do not know how wise it is to talk about raising taxes and cutting benefits for a problem that is not real, not now. Maybe in a couple of 3 years when the economy is doing better, then we could tackle the Social Security trust fund. I do not think it is wise to have an entitlements commission tackling Social Security at this point.

What is the bigger problem? Medicare. That is the big problem. The Medicare trust fund is not going to last much longer, 6, 8, 9, 10 years, something like that. And what is causing such a problem? We have such a problem because health care costs in this country are rising at such a rapid rate, close to two times the rate of inflation. And, as you know, we spend about twice as much per capita in health care in America than do people in other countries.

So does an entitlements commission cutting Medicare make a lot of sense? Well, on the surface, yes. The costs have gone up, so the commission would cut Medicare. But the only way to cut Medicare is to cut benefits. I do not know if that is wise because health care costs are already such a problem for seniors and others today. Similarly, I don't know if it is wise to do a myriad of other things to the Medicare program that one might be able to do.

My point is, an entitlement commission is not qualified to address health care reform. Health care reform is an incredibly important, incredibly complicated matter. If we get health care reform on track, that is, legislation to start to reform our health care system, that will include getting significant reductions in cost. That is the way to address Medicare. Health care reform includes coverage of 46 million Americans who do not have health insurance, it includes health care delivery reform, it includes a lot of reimbursement reform. There are lots and lots of ways we should embark upon to address health care reform.

In fact, I asked the President yesterday about his agenda. After, this bill before us, we will probably get involved in some financial regulatory reform. The health care reform is one of his top priorities. He wants it done this year. And it has to be done this year, because part of economic recovery is health reform.

Look how much in costs this health system is adding to the problems of individuals in our economy, because their costs are going up. And there are costs to companies that have to lay off people, not hiring people, to some degree because of health care costs, and certainly not increasing health benefits for employees. There also are costs to budgets for the States, localities, and the Federal Government.

I suggest it is not wise, the provision in the McCain amendment, to set up a Medicare commission but, rather to tackle head-on health care reform. I do believe the President is going to announce a health care summit in the not too distant future as a way to get this going. Senator Daschle is all lined up and keyed up to get health care reform going. He wrote a book on it. I know the administration is dedicated to making sure that health care reform does not slip, that it is very much front and center.

Another provision I want to touch upon in the McCain amendment which I think Senators should know about, because it has a real effect, is this provision: essentially, the McCain amendment lowers the tax in the 10- and 15-percent brackets. So as a consequence of this McCain amendment, were it to be enacted, then people who pay income taxes today would pay less in incomes taxes. All Americans would--all Americans who pay income taxes, that is. Americans who pay income taxes would not necessarily in all brackets pay less because of the way our system is set up. Well, that sounds good. But what is of concern here?

The concern here is about 49 million Americans who would get no reduction in their taxes, none. Who are they? Well, they are people who do not pay income taxes, who tend to be low-income people. The underlying bill before us reduces taxes for those people who

work. It is payroll tax related. If you work, under the underlying bill, you are going to get a reduction in your taxes, your income taxes. You will get a check basically, if you do not pay income taxes. And if you work, you get a reduction in your income taxes.

There are 49 million Americans who will not receive a tax break under the McCain amendment but who do receive a tax break in the underlying bill. And those 49 million Americans are lower income people basically, because they are not earning enough to pay income taxes. They pay payroll taxes, because they are working, but they do not pay income taxes.

I do not think that is fair. CBO and others point out lower income people, middle-income people who get a rebate or break will spend the money to stimulate the economy. Again, we are trying to address the demand side here in this bill, getting people to spend the money.

Credit markets are one issue; housing is another issue. But this bill basically addresses the demand side. I think we do not want to shift dollars away from those 49 million people over to the higher income people as is accomplished in this amendment.

The underlying bill has what is called an alternative minimum tax patch; that is, your alternative minimum taxes will not increase in 2009 compared with what they may have been earlier. Basically it is a deflationary factor so you do not pay more.

The underlying McCain amendment does not have that. In the McCain amendment, millions of people are going to end up paying more taxes because he does not have the so-called AMT patch or fix in it.

My main point is this bill, according to economists, will help. We are, down the road, going to find ways--in the President's budget, fiscal summit, et cetera--to address the long-term debt questions. So we can only do things one step at a time. We cannot solve all of the world's problems in one bill. But we can take one bite of the elephant here, a pretty good bite, a good bite of the elephant here, that is going to help stimulate demand and help create jobs as we work our way through the economic recovery.

Madam President, the Senator from New York was called away. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Alexander speaks, the next Senator to speak will be Senator Cantwell.

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

The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.

Mr. President, I was distracted. Is the Senator making a request?

I object.

I might say there is already an order. It is all worked out, but I appreciate the Senator's statement. My understanding is that was the case. That was already agreed to.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the demeanor and the manner and the cooperation of the Senator from Arizona. He has an amendment he believes in strongly. Many Senators have spoken on behalf of his amendment; many have spoken in opposition to his amendment.

But he has been very helpful in trying to work out a manner and a way and a time agreement where we can deal very expeditiously and fairly with the Senator from Arizona. My intent is to get a vote on the McCain amendment as soon as we possibly can. The Senator said there are a couple more speakers on his side who wish to speak. I imagine there are a couple on this side too.

I cannot tell the Senator we will definitely have a vote as soon as those four speakers speak. It is my intention to have that vote. I do not know if I can arrange that at this point yet. But plan B would be a series of amendments beginning a little later in the day--not much later, approximately 3:30. And the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona will be the first amendment. His amendment would come up first. Then votes on other amendments would come up later.

My first preference is to vote earlier. If we cannot do that, then the whole package begins at 3:30 with the Senator first.

Mr. President, I do not see the Democratic Senator. She is not here to speak. I will go down the list. I think the Senator from Mississippi should be recognized.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy.) Under the previous order, the Senator from Mississippi is recognized.

If Senators wish to speak, they can come to me and we will set up an order. The Senator from Nevada is next, then Senator Kohl, then Senator Chambliss, then Senator Dodd. We are down that far already. Hopefully, we can get an agreement to start voting very quickly.

There is no time.

Frankly, Mr. President, I think the next speaker should be you.

You are on. The Senator from Georgia.

That will be fine.

I yield 6 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Hawaii.

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, it goes without saying we are now living in extraordinary times. This country has not seen a recession as bad as this--there are many people who have lost their jobs, as we have seen-- since the Great Depression. Extraordinary times require extraordinary actions.

It is true no one knows exactly the precise prescription, how to get the economy back going again. But this underlying bill is certainly the best efforts of some of the brightest people to try to find that solution. Economists all say--all say--we need to do something like this to get us going.

With the gap between the real economy and the potential economy always about $1 trillion, if we do not pass this legislation, we will probably lose another $1 trillion. The underlying bill is much better than the alternative. The alternative is basically: Don't do it. If we do not do it, gosh, the jobs lost--what you see now, as bad as it is, is just going to pale in comparison to what otherwise is going to happen.

So I urge us to stick with the underlying bill, not adopt a substitute which has not been thought through, not aired, but, rather, let's stick with the program we think is going to work.

Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dorgan amendment be temporarily set aside so the next vote will be on the Feingold-McCain amendment and Dorgan will be following that amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. President, I understand all time has expired.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 200

I believe under the previous order the Dorgan amendment recurs.

Mr. President, the Senator is correct. We accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I have no opposition to the amendment and again recommend its adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 189

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Dodd wants his amendment to go in the next group of amendments.

Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

I would rather the proponent go first.

I yield my time to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. President, I understand there is a further modification at the desk.

Mr. President, the Senator is correct. It is more for less--more tax breaks for upper income Americans, less tax breaks, in fact, no tax breaks for low-income Americans; 49 million Americans will get no tax benefit under this amendment, and 49 million Americans do get some tax benefits from the underlying bill. It eliminates the rest of the substitute--nothing for energy, nothing for education and the other parts of the bill. I urge rejection of the amendment.

I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 363, as Further Modified

Mr. President, just for the information of all Senators, these are two amendments that are paired: the Boxer amendment, which the Chair just stated, and also the Barrasso amendment No. 326. It is our understanding those two amendments will both be voice-voted. Senator Boxer will speak about her amendment, and Senator Barrasso will speak about his. But the thought is, these are two paired amendments on roughly the same subject. We hope to have a voice vote on each.

It is Senator Coburn's time or another Republican amendment. Senator Coburn should be recognized; then Senator Sanders after that.

Mr. President, I forgot what the question was.

Mr. President, I am trying to find a fair way to go back and forth here.

There has been a general understanding, after Senator Coburn spoke on his amendment, Senator Sanders would be able to call up his amendment. After Senator Sanders, Senator Cornyn will call up his amendment. Then Senator Feingold is after that, and then a Republican amendment after that.

I would like to, frankly, get a consent agreement fairly soon to at least vote on a small number of amendments--say, four, five amendments--get that out of the way, and while we are voting on those, we can figure out how we get the rest of the amendments processed.

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

I was wondering if we could voice vote this amendment.

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 following amendments be called up for consideration: Coburn No. 176 and 309; Sanders No. 306, as modified; Cornyn No. 268; Feingold No. 486; Baucus- Grassley 404; Grassley 297; and Harkin 397; that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation thereto; that the time until 8 p.m. be for debate with respect to these amendments; that at 8 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with 2 minutes equally divided for each side.

Mr. President, that is very unfortunate. The reason for the objection is unfortunate because of the amendment Senator Grassley and I

are offering. We are going to have to work this out because I am not going to allow the quorum call to be called off until it is worked out.

This is about the Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits. Basically, at this time in our history, with a recession going on, with unemployment, it is extremely important that American workers who lose jobs on account of trade be given a break and they get some benefits, including health benefits.

The objection, I have been told, is basically because there are some Senators who want to tie this amendment--the Trade Adjustment Assistance amendment--to either passage of or a date certain on which we would take up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I think that is not a good thing to do, and the reason is, the more the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is tied to Trade Adjustment Assistance, the more it will engender opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

I personally favor the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and I also very respectfully suggest that the circumstances under which that agreement could be brought up are a lot better if Trade Adjustment Assistance is already passed and into law because that will enable more people in the country, particularly folks who are concerned about being potentially laid off, to have some comfort here with the Trade Adjustment Assistance. Then it is easier for this Congress to bring up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I suspect the President is going to be bringing up free trade agreements. I respectfully say that he almost has to. Perhaps some of these may need to be negotiated, but clearly the United States of America is going to enter into free trade agreements, and the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, in my judgment, is one that should be agreed to and adopted.

So I say to my very good friend from Arizona, who I think is the one primarily objecting to this provision, that if he would withdraw his objection so we could at least get the Trade Adjustment Assistance passed, then I will work with him to find a way at an appropriate time, when the time is right, to bring up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. But to tie it to a date or to make a connection is going to, with all due respect, make it more difficult for the Senator to accomplish his objectives.

Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I ask if the Senator from Arizona has a question--but without losing my right to the floor.

Eight amendments, including this one.

Right, four and four.

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

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

Mr. President, I move to table Coburn amendment, No. 176. I ask that be the pending amendment, and I move to table that amendment, the Coburn amendment, No. 176.

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

Yes. That provision specifically addresses the unique circumstances of Rhode Island. It should not matter when CMS is able to make a change in a waiver. What matters here is that Rhode Island had clearly determined that it would make the eligibility change on July 1, 2008. The decision to do so was made well in advance of congressional consideration of an FMAP increase, so Rhode Island has not been trying to game the system. Under this provision, Rhode Island will certainly be eligible for the FMAP increase.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow for raising this issue with me. It is not our intent to exclude those early EMR champions from HIT incentives in the Stimulus bill. My staff and I will work with you to clarify our intent, which is to reward early adopters of HIT like integrated health systems.

I thank the Senator. I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Wisconsin on this subject.

I thank the Senator for the question. My State is making an investment in home- and community-based services for individuals 60 years and older, and I applaud these efforts. In 2007, the legislature established the Older Montanans Trust Fund that will enable more individuals to access these services in the long run. As the population ages, there will be greater pressure on the long term care system, and States like Montana face additional challenges responding to the needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities in rural and frontier areas. I join the senior Senator from Wisconsin in urging my colleagues, along with State programs, to carefully monitor HCBS services and spending, not to reduce the commitment to these very valuable and needed services.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 5, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 5, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 5, 2009, after the first rollcall vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 5, 2009, at 4:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,

and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Implementing Best Patient Care Practices'' on Thursday, February 5, 2009. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 2 p.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 5, 2009, at 11 a.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``the nomination of David W. Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice'' on Thursday, February 5, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 5, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Madam President, I first want to congratulate the Senator from Nebraska. I have known him as Agriculture Secretary. He served the people of his State as Governor and also as mayor. I compliment Senator Johanns for his service to his State and to his country. I very much look forward to working with him in the Senate. Again, I extend my congratulations.

Amendment No. 200 to Amendment No. 98

On behalf of Senator Dorgan I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside so we can call up Senator Dorgan's amendment No. 200 on runaway plants.

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

Madam President, for the benefit of Senators, I would like to take a moment to talk about where we are in consideration of the bill. Today is the third day of Senate consideration. Yesterday was quite productive. We had a full debate and very little downtime, which I especially appreciate.

The Senate considered nine amendments and had rollcall votes on four. One was adopted by voice vote. The Senate adopted a Republican amendment by Senator Coburn to strike a tax amendment related to film production.

And with an overwhelming bipartisan 71-to-26 vote, the Senate adopted a Mikulski-Brownback amendment to allow a deduction for interest on the purchase of motor vehicles.

By voice vote, the Senate adopted a Harkin amendment on which Senator Specter played a very important role, who worked very hard, Senator Specter did, on the Harkin amendment, to provide additional funding for the National Institutes of Health.

So where are we now? Pending are a Murray amendment to strengthen infrastructure investments--these are all pending--a Vitter amendment to strike several spending items; an Isakson-Lieberman amendment to provide a tax credit for home purchases; a Feingold-McCain amendment to provide greater accountability of congressional earmarks; a Cardin small business bonds amendment; a DeMint amendment making a series of tax cuts in lieu of the pending substitute; a Thune amendment in the nature of a substitute; a Thune amendment on new programs in the bill; and a Dorgan amendment on runaway plants.

I might add that the Democratic caucus is conducting an issues conference today, but the floor is open for business. We expect a number of Republican amendments and also Democratic amendments. We hope to have several votes on amendments this afternoon and evening after the Democratic issues conference concludes, perhaps starting about 5:30 today, although I cannot say that that is going to be an exact time. That is for the leaders to determine.

For the information of Senators, let me say I expect that we hope to have as many as 12 amendments pending today, and we hope to stack votes on these at the end of the afternoon and into the evening. In addition to the Republican amendments that we expect to be offered, we also expect Senator Bingaman, who has expressed an interest in offering an amendment, as well as I mentioned Senator Dorgan's runaway plants. Senator Wyden also spoke to me about his amendment on bonuses that he intends to offer with Senator Snowe.

Once again, I urge Senators, let the managers know of their intentions to offer amendments. We want to give Senators as much notice as possible. I reemphasize notice is efficient. It helps us get our amendments passed here.

I thank all Senators for their cooperation.

Amendment No. 168

I wish to say a word or two on the DeMint amendment. I remind Senators that the DeMint amendment strikes the whole underlying bill and replaces that language with his amendment, which reduces the corporate rate to 25 percent, and it makes permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, including capital gains. That is a big item, as we all know.

It further repeals, permanently repeals the alternative minimum tax provisions in the Code today. It changes the estate tax treatments by creating an exception up to $5 million per person. I do not know what he does with the rates, but it is an estate tax reduction below what estate taxes are today.

I remind all Senators that next year, in the year 2010, the Federal estate tax is zero. If Congress does nothing, it reverts to quite a higher level. The DeMint amendment takes the current 2009 level and lowers it even further. I do not know this, but I suspect it also is permanent.

The DeMint amendment further makes the child tax permanent. It repeals all itemized deductions currently in the Code which itemizers often take, except for the mortgage interest deduction and the charitable deduction; otherwise, all other deductions, if you itemize, are repealed; for example, State and local taxes, everything else in the bill before us.

What is the effect of that? There are several effects. First, we are trying to begin to address our health care system, and the DeMint amendment strikes all the health information technology provisions in the bill. We are trying to get health information technology up and running. I think it is a bad idea to strike health information technology. We have to get that started if we are going to begin to lower health care costs in this country.

It strikes the Medicaid provisions through aid to the States. It does not take a rocket scientist to know what effect that would have on the States. The States are in a recession. I think it was the Government Accountability Office that estimated about $230 billion is being cut by States because they are in recession, and that basically comes out of Medicaid and other low-income programs.

The DeMint amendment says, oh, sorry, States, you do not get any assistance, which means all of those people getting cut are not going to have health care.

It strikes the changes to TANF. That is the program we put in place years ago to reform the welfare program. It is a great program. It works very well. It gets people off of welfare in a very solid way.

It also strikes provisions that extend unemployment insurance to people who have lost their jobs. I cannot believe it would do something like that, but that is what the DeMint amendment does.

It also strikes the COBRA provisions. That is very important. I can't believe that is what he wants to do. In current law, when somebody works for a company and is laid off for reasons not of his or her own making, they are laid off and there are more than 20 people in that firm, that person is entitled to keep health insurance offered by that firm if that firm does offer health insurance, I think it is for 18 months.

But that person who is laid off can keep that health insurance only if the person laid off pays 102 percent of premiums, that is, the person laid off has to pay for all of that health insurance, plus 2 percent administrative costs.

Now, clearly not many people who are laid off, not working, can afford to pay 102 percent of the health insurance premiums, especially when the premiums these days are going up at such a rapid rate.

We, in the underlying bill, say a person laid off in that situation gets a 65-percent subsidy so that person can keep health insurance for 18 months. I think that is the right thing to do, given the current circumstances. But, no, the DeMint amendment says you have to pay 102 percent, because we are not going to help you in these dire times.

I also say, these are permanent tax cuts in the DeMint amendment. The 1-year deficit effects of this amendment are staggering. They are ugly, because basically this is a huge, big tax cut amendment is what it is.

Last night, Senator Coburn spoke eloquently about growing deficits in the future, how fast they are growing. It begins to maybe put our currency in danger. Other countries might be not as interested in holding dollars, might not be interested in buying Treasuries.

Countries such as China come to mind, other countries come to mind.

Obviously the DeMint amendment would make the concerns of Senator Coburn balloon. I mean, if Senator Coburn is concerned about the deficits today, Senator Coburn, I am sure, would be dramatically concerned about the effects of this amendment, which would balloon the deficits to an even greater amount.

So I think the underlying bill is important, it is crucial. The estimates are, between either passing the underlying amendments or not passing them, a difference of about 3 to 4 million jobs, 3 to 4 million jobs in this country. We could choose not to pass this underlying bill. That would mean no economic stimulus recovery package. That would also mean about 3 to 4 million further jobs lost. If we pass this legislation, it would begin to create and bring some jobs back into this economy.

Let's face it, banks are not lending for lots of reasons today. But one reason is because they are having a hard time finding creditworthy borrowers. It is hard to get creditworthy borrowers, when the borrower is having a hard time finding demand, because people are not buying the borrower's products.

There are many parts to the overall solution. But one of them is helping create some demand, and this underlying bill does create demand. If, on the other hand, we do not pass the bill and pass these big tax cuts, it further balloons the deficit to a staggering amount. It is not going to have nearly the stimulative effect that the proponents might say. It will not.

Our goal here, in representing our constituents in our State, is to take this kind of bad situation we find ourselves in--we kind of inherited this. This is where we are, these are the cards that were played, that is the hand we have right now. So let's do the best we can with what we have got. My judgment is, and I think it is the judgment of most Members of this body, this economic stimulus package may not be perfect, but it is pretty good. It will help create some jobs. It is certainly better than the alternative, which is nothing. Let's get on with it and keep improving upon it as we proceed.

I strongly urge my colleagues not to adopt the DeMint amendment, which is a full repeal of the program and replaces it with a massive increase in debt.

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

Mr. President, we try to be evenhanded and fair and balanced here. We have had a gentleman's agreement that we alternate sides on speakers. Since the Senator from Illinois last spoke, I think it is only fair and appropriate that we rotate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think the pending amendments would have to be set aside.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

We already have 16 amendments lined up in the queue. It is going to be a very late night tonight because of that great number of amendments.

I was wondering, I would be more than willing to work out an arrangement where the Senator's amendment can be the next one available after our votes tonight, the first Republican amendment tomorrow. I have to draw the line somewhere here; otherwise, we would keep going. I renew my offer to make it the first amendment tomorrow.

Mr. President, I would prefer that you offer the amendment after we dispose of the 16 tonight.

Then we can agree by unanimous consent that it would be the first one up.

That would be fine.

So far, I have to object, and I have to figure out why. I might say to my good friend, in order to get order here, they are telling me we are coming in at 9:30 tomorrow morning. I know the Senator, a former military man, is used to early hours.

Thank you very much.

Or whenever we come into session tomorrow morning. We expect to be in about 9:30. There may be some leader time.

I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks by the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, be recognized.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have been going back and forth, so if someone from this side of the aisle does appear by the time the Senator finishes his remarks, we could either have a gentlemen's agreement or I could ask unanimous consent that the next speaker be a Democrat. Everyone is an honorable Senator here, so if a Democrat is here, after you finish, I say to the Senator--

I thank the Senator.

I have no objection.

We are now going to vote on the Isakson-Lieberman amendment, No. 106, the housing tax credit. I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. President, next is the Cardin amendment, No. 237. I understand the chairman and ranking member of the Small Business Committee agree to this. I don't see the chairman. I see Senator Cardin on the Senate floor. I urge him to speak to the amendment. Otherwise, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I understand the next amendment is DeMint amendment No. 168, the tax cut substitute.

This amendment is very simple. It strikes the entire bill. Then it replaces the entire bill with a $2.5 trillion increase in the national debt, according to the Joint Committee on Tax. With debt service and added tax provisions, it increases the national debt over 10 years by $3 trillion because it is a massive tax cut.

Again, it replaces the underlying bill, which means no aid to States, no energy provisions, no infrastructure provisions, nothing that is in the bill, replaced by a tax cut which takes effect in 2011. Joint Tax scores this, adding interest on the debt, about a $3 trillion increase in the national debt over 3 years.

I strongly urge this amendment not be adopted.

Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the next amendment is Bond amendment No. 161. I have checked with our side. Our side is willing to accept this amendment. I understand it is also acceptable by the other side, but I will let Senator Bond speak to that.

Mr. President, we are ready to vote.

Mr. President, this amendment adds $5.2 billion for defense. It pays for it by cutting a long list of programs out of the bill: energy-efficient motor vehicle fleet--that is one I see right here--grants for the National Passenger Rail Corporation, among others.

On behalf of Senator Inouye, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. President, the amendment is very simple. Let me explain the consequence of the amendment.

Those who pay income taxes will get a tax reduction. Those who work but do not pay income taxes--they pay payroll taxes--will not get any benefit from this amendment. That is the portion that is cut out. That is about 50 million Americans. So this amendment would give a tax cut to those who pay income taxes--a modest amount--and to pay for it, it disenfranchises those 49 million, 50 million Americans who will get a tax break under this bill because they work; that is, they pay payroll tax. Those who work but who are not wealthy will spend the money more than people who are wealthier and get a tax cut. So I suggest very strongly that we do not support this amendment.

I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21.

Mr. President, this amendment effectively undoes part of the budget agreement that was agreed to in 1993. We effectively balanced the budget and ended up with a $10 billion, $11 trillion surplus. The fact is, the amendment reduces taxes only on the top 24 percent, the highest income-earning seniors. Twenty-four percent of the most wealthy seniors--that is highest income--will get a break in taxes. Other seniors will not. The other 76 percent will get no break.

The Senator from Kentucky pays for it by reducing parts of the bill which create jobs. This is highways, this is roads, this is energy, and so forth. Frankly, I don't think that is a wise course of action to take.

Accordingly, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21.

The next amendment is the Dorgan amendment, No. 300, which we are prepared to take.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside, and Senator Landrieu's amendment No. 102 be called up and agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be temporarily laid on the table.

Mr. President, I have checked with Senator Cochran.

Mr. President, on the Landrieu amendment, I withdraw my request.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that with the amendment just offered by the Senator from Nevada, tomorrow morning the first amendment to be considered will be the amendment offered by Senator McCain from Arizona. The second amendment will be the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, at this point, I appreciate that the Senator from Wyoming has an amendment. I wondered if perhaps he could hold off and offer his amendment tomorrow and work out with Senator Boxer the appropriate accommodations for both Senators. That would be my hope. In the meantime, Senator Harkin has an amendment he would like to offer.

I thank the Senator for his accommodation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and the following Senators be permitted to call up amendments at the desk as follows: DeMint, No. 189; Boxer, an amendment regarding environmental laws; Barrasso, an amendment regarding environmental laws; Harkin, amendment No. 338; Dodd, amendment No. 145; McCaskill, amendments Nos. 125 and 236, with a modification; that the Landrieu amendment No. 102 be called up, and once that is reported this evening, it be considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Dodd and Harkin, I call up amendments, one for each Senator, and on behalf of Senator McCaskill, I call up two amendments as under the previous order.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.