Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate takes the important step of extending the Andean Trade Preferences Act for 10 months. This follows

action in the House yesterday on the same bill. We can now ensure continuation of this important program before it expires tomorrow.

I would have preferred a longer term extension of ATPA. But a 10- month extension is a sound compromise. It is good for America. And it is good for our Andean neighbors.

In recent weeks, we have had a lively debate over the value of this preference program. Opponents point to one-sided benefits. They warn against risky investments.

Proponents say that our Andean preferences complement drug eradication efforts. We say that they create jobs in both developing countries and here at home.

Today, as in the past, I support ATPA. ATPA is an investment in mutual prosperity and regional stability. It is good foreign policy. ATPA is a boon to the developing economies of Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador. It brings economic development where poverty persists. It encourages alternative crops where illegal drugs plague the landscape. It creates jobs where there have long been too few. And it can provide a platform for more comprehensive engagement, such as the free-trade agreements that Peru and Colombia have negotiated with the United States.

The economic benefits of ATPA are mutual. Flower exports from Colombia and Ecuador employ Andean agriculture workers in their countries. And they also create transportation and retail jobs here at home.

The United States sells its cotton to Andean buyers, who make it into fabric and apparel. And that creates jobs for American farmers and skilled Andean labor. It is precisely this mutual prosperity that has earned the Andean Trade Preferences Act the broad support it commands, even from sectors that have traditionally been wary of trade.

But as important, we must recognize that ATPA benefits are neither handouts nor freebies. To benefit from preferences, each ATPA partner must meet strict eligibility criteria. Beneficiaries must afford internationally recognized worker rights. They must protect and enforce intellectual property rights. They must cooperate in counternarcotics efforts. And they must ensure the integrity of U.S. investments by, among other things, honoring contracts with U.S. investors and abiding by investment decisions made by arbitral panels.

These eligibility requirements are not optional. If a country does not comply, it should not receive ATPA benefits. Actions have consequences. The U.S. will notice and take into account actions in ATPA countries that unfairly hurt U.S. interests. Ecuador, in particular, has taken actions in recent years that call into question its intention to abide by the ATPA conditions related to investment. These developments are, at best, discouraging. At worst, they might be disqualifying.

In the next few months, I will work with Senator Grassley and others to closely monitor whether our ATPA beneficiary countries meet these eligibility criteria. And I will work to monitor whether the administration is doing enough to enforce them.

ATPA is good policy. But, as with most policies, hard work can make it better. As in the past, I will continue to work with opponents and supporters to ensure that all of the elements of the program are upheld. I will work to see that not just the trade benefits, but the eligibility requirements as well, are upheld. When everyone is playing by the rules, we will have a comprehensive program that is as good for the United States as it is for Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his comments and for pointing out the budget expenditures and exposure down the road. The only point I wish to make about his presentation is that the increase in entitlements is not so much because of Social Security--that is not the big problem for the next 15 or 20 years. Rather, it is the increases in Medicare and Medicaid that are going to be very expensive for us to accommodate. The real question is, What is the solution? We know what the problem is. The question is, What is the solution?

It is interesting that Peter Orszag of the Congressional Budget Office printed a report just about a month ago saying that the rise in the number of baby boomers is part of the problem, but that is not the big problem. The main reason that Medicare is going up at such a rapid rate and that Medicaid is also going up at a significant rate is because health care costs in this country are rising at such a rapid rate. So I think it is important to address not just the symptoms; that is, the wacky Medicare, but it is much more important to look at the direct causes or what is causing these increases.

Our country today spends about $2 trillion on health care--about $2 trillion. About half of that is in the public sector and half in the private sector. The projections of the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan organization, are that private health care costs are going to increase very significantly over the next 20 years and Medicaid costs are going to also increase significantly but, for Medicare, much more. The rate of increase in the private sector will be a little less because the private sector tends to control costs a little better. For Medicaid, the rate of growth will be not quite as high as Medicare growth because States pay for part of the Medicaid costs and States are going to get a little more control of their State budgets.

The real problem is the increase in health care costs. We in America spend twice as much per capita on health care costs than the next most expensive country, and I don't know that we are twice as healthy as the next most expensive country. We have great health care in America. Our technology is the envy of the world. Our drugs are the envy of the world. But we have a system which basically is unnecessarily expensive and is going to cause us to be anticompetitive in future years.

I was in Bangalore, India, not long ago. I brought about 15 or 20 Montanans. It was a trade trip partly to China and also to India. We went to the John F. Welch Technology Center, which is one of General Electric's three technology centers in the world. Kind of ``gee whiz'' stuff, kind of interesting. During the tour, I walked up to the manager. He was the only non-Indian there. He is a German, Argentine his background.

I walked up to him, and I said: Why are you here in India? Why are you here, right here? Why is your research facility here?

He said: Greatest talent pool.

I said: Well, what country has the next greatest talent pool?

China, he said.

I asked: Where are we as Americans?

He said: You are kind of down here.

What does it take, I asked, to get us up there?

He looked at me without skipping a beat, and he looked me straight in the eye, and he said: Education and health care. He says: You have to educate your people a lot better than you are. Second, you have a health care system that is making you anticompetitive, you Americans.

It is true, our health care costs are so much higher than the costs of companies in other countries. About 18 percent of our total health care costs are administrative; in other countries, it is about 4 or 5 percent. There are a lot of ways to get at this problem. The real question is, What is a solution? How do we get health care costs more under control?

I daresay that whoever is elected President is going to be forced to and should be and will have an opportunity to make a major health care proposal to our country. We on the Finance Committee are starting to hold a lot of hearings on health care. There are a lot of provocative questions. We need to not be flat-footed, and we need to work in tandem with whoever is elected President so we can begin to address two main points. One is coverage. We are the only industrialized country in the world where people don't have health insurance that is not universal coverage. We need to have that. Second is to address costs. We need to figure out how we can get a handle on the excessive increase of health care costs in our country.

I commend my friend from New Hampshire for raising the problem, but the real question is, What is the solution? The President's letter is not even a glancing blow to solutions; it kind of touches on some possible solutions. It is critical for us to address the underlying questions. What are the underlying causes of increased health care costs? I don't have the time here to go

into all of what I think we need to look at and will be focusing on in the Finance Committee, but that is a major challenge we face as a country, and it is a great opportunity for all of us to dig deep and help to solve this problem so Americans can be proud of the country we have, with universal coverage, and also get a handle on excessive costs.

(The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 462 are printed in today's Record under ``Submited Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an important resolution I am submitting. It is the asbestos awareness week resolution. This resolution has passed the Senate for 3 years, and I am pleased to submit it again this year.

This is a very deeply personal issue for me. About 8 years ago, I was in Libby, MT, in the living room of Les Skramstad, and there were several people in the room who were suffering from asbestos-related diseases. This was in Libby. Since then, about 200 people have died of asbestos-related diseases.

Les Skramstad, whom I met that day about 8 or 9 years ago, was dying from mesothelioma. He looked at me and said: As a U.S. Senator, I expect you do something to help us in Libby.

I said: You bet.

He looked me straight in the eye, and because he has been around a little bit, he said: Senator, I am going to be watching you to make sure that is not just an idle promise. I will be watching you.

Boy, I got the message loudly and clearly. I decided right then at that moment that I need to do all I can to help make sure that people in Libby, MT, get justice. As I said, over 200 people died since then.

He was an employee of a W.R. Grace mine. W.R. Grace clearly knew it was poisoning people in Libby, MT, in its mine there. It did not admit it. There is a criminal case going on right now against the officers of W.R. Grace claiming that they did know what they were doing.

Asbestos from this mine is called tremolite. It is not the ordinary crystal asbestos. This is tremolite asbestos, which is much more pernicious. It gets more deeply embedded in your lungs, more angles to the dust that gets into your lungs. It is harder to detect. Sometimes the latency period can be from 20 to 30 years.

Les would come home all dusty from the mine, and he would go home and embrace his wife, and his kids would jump into his lap. Guess what. Les is now dead. He died last month from mesothelioma. Les's wife is dying from asbestos-related diseases. Three of his four children are now dying.

It is the dust, the asbestos dust that is in Libby, MT. This stuff was used on playgrounds. It was used on golf courses. It was used for insulation in attics in homes. People have died and are dying. We are doing all we can to address this, and we are trying to get them proper medical care.

There is a clinic called the CARD Clinic in Libby which is doing a really good job in screening people, trying to find out who has it and who doesn't. Again, it is very hard to find. You need special techniques. We had to change the disability laws in America because-- not change but point out to the Social Security Administration that this is a different kind of asbestos, it is not ordinary asbestos, and then decide whether to grant disability payments. They were looking at ordinary asbestos. They didn't know about this asbestos. They didn't know about tremolite asbestos. Finally, people in Montana are getting disability benefits because of the asbestos diseases they have.

So I am very proud to submit this resolution. As I said, I have been doing this for several years, and we are making this National Asbestos Recognition Week in April, the first week in April. I believe it is so important to highlight this dread disease so we can stamp out the scourge and, in my view, finally banish asbestos. If we can accomplish that, then in some small way we have vindicated the people of Libby,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, and possibly closed session, to receive testimony on the current and future worldwide threats to the national security of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell

Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing.

The hearing will focus on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony to consider two nominations: Stanley C. Suboleski, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy), vice Jeffrey D. Jarrett, resigned; and, J. Gregory Copeland, of Texas, to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy, vice David R. Hill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Hearing on the President's Proposed EPA Budget for

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Agenda

S. 579, Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007; S. 1810, Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act; S. 999, Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2007; S. 1760, Healthy Start Reauthorization Act of 2007; H.R. 20, Melanie Blocker- Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act; and S. 1042, Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Act of 2007.

National Board for Education Sciences: Jonathan Baron, Frank Handy, Sally Shaywitz.

National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities: Jamsheed Choksy, Gary Glenn, David Hertz, Marvin Scott, Carol Swain.

National Museum and Library Science Board: Julia Bland, Jan Cellucci, William Hagenah, Mark Herring,

Truman Scholarship Foundation: Javaid Anwar, and Assistant Secretary of Labor ODEP: Neil Romano.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Uneasy Relationship: U.S. Reliance on Private Security Firms in Overseas Operations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing on S. 2232, the Foreign Aid Lessons for Domestic Economic Assistance Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The False Claims Act Correction Act (S. 2041): Strengthening the Government's Most Effective Tool Against Fraud for the 21st Century'' on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List

Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Tina M. Gonter, Jacksonville, FL; The Honorable John E. Clark, Of Counsel, Goode, Casseb, Jones, Riklin, Choate & Watson, P.C., San Antonio, TX; John T. Boese, Partner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Washington, DC; and Pamela H. Bucy, Bainbridge Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in order to hear testimony on Protecting Voters at Home and at the Polls: Limiting Abusive Robocalls and Vote Caging Practices.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's FY2009 Budget Request for the Small Business Administration on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, beginning at 10:00 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, in order to conduct an oversight hearing entitled ``Review of Veterans' Disability Compensation: Expert Reports on PTSD and other issues.'' The Committee will meet in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on active component, reserve component, and civilian personnel programs in review of the defense authorization request for Fiscal Year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. President, the December 24, 2007, ``Year in Pictures'' edition of Sports Illustrated featured a mud-soaked and elated Brandon Day on the cover. Day is a junior linebacker for the Fighting Saints of Carroll College in my hometown of Helena, MT. This amazing image was captured by photographer John Russell following the Fighting Saints fifth National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics football title in the past six seasons on December 15, 2007, in Savannah, TN.

The story of this team and the cover photo on Sports Illustrated has really moved me. With all the negative stories recently in the sports world, it was both heartening and appropriate for the magazine to honor the spirit of intercollegiate athletics by shining the spotlight on such a hard-working and deserving group of student athletes. The young men that make up Carroll's football squad truly embody the best of these ideals and Montana values. They have worked hard both on and off the field and have achieved not only athletic glory, but also success in the classroom and have given much back to the Helena community and their hometowns. Coming from small towns across Montana and the West, these student athletes certainly don't demand or expect this kind of recognition for their achievements, but they certainly are worthy of the praise. This group of young men are great ambassadors for the college they so proudly represent and are terrific role models for their fellow students and the many younger kids who look up to them.

This strength of character is certainly a tribute to their fine and caring coach, Mike Van Diest, who has taught his players that devotion to school, family, and faith come before football. He demands excellence from his players both on and off the field, as does the president of the school, Dr. Thomas Trebon. Dr. Trebon recently wrote a letter to Sports Illustrated that tells the story of the Fighting Saints. I thank Dr. Trebon for all of his hard work and leadership at Carroll College, and I look forward to cheering on the Saints again in 2008. I know that they will continue to make Montana proud.

Mr. President, I ask to have the letter from Dr. Trebon printed in the Record.

The material follows.

Dear Sports Illustrated: All of Montana is thrilled by the

SI ``2007 Pictures of the Year'' front cover featuring

Carroll College junior linebacker Brandon Day's euphoric

reaction to the Fighting Saints' fifth NAIA National Football

Championship win.

The untold story about the Saints found honest reflection

in the SI cover photo, with Day and his victorious teammates

soaked in mud while overcome with joy. It's a story about

humble happiness through hard work, where every standout

member of the Saints who receives recognition promptly points

to his teammates as the real reason for their success. It's

the story of Fighting Saint Luke DenHerder, who returned to

the gridiron after beating a lethal cancer, while his fellow

student-athletes cheered him and even shaved their heads in

solidarity during his chemotherapy. It's the story of a team

comprised of men hailing primarily from rural Western towns,

ranches and farms, from struggling middle-class families, who

know the meaning of hard work and who haven't seen much glory

in return. Until now.

Carroll's story is about two-time NAIA National Coach of

the Year (2003 and 2005) Mike Van Diest, who led the Saints

to all five national championship wins, all while demanding

that our athletes' priorities must be God first, family

second, school third and football last. Indeed, the press

corps following our team to Tennessee took more photos of our

players studying for their final exams and volunteer reading

to school children in Savannah, Tenn., than engaged in pre-

game practice. This fall, seven Fighting Saints were named

national Daktronics-NAIA Football Scholar-Athletes, the team

maintains a grade point average over 3.2, and nearly half of

our football squad is selected yearly as All-Academic

honorees in the Frontier Conference. Yet, the true story

about the Saints was told before the clock ran out during the

championship game. After each play, our Carroll student-

athletes showed their commitment to sportsmanship by helping

their opponents up from tackles and shaking hands with the

University of Sioux Falls players.

In these days when more of us long for a return to civility

and yearn to see our star athletes and athletic programs meet

the high standards of role models, SI's cover photo was

distinctly gratifying. In one shot, photographer John Russell

captured both a moment of athletic triumph and distilled our

dream of bringing back the values of simpler times, when good

men from humble beginnings win out in the end and become

heroes.

Thomas Trebon,

President, Carroll College.

Six or seven minutes.

Madam President, this is a big one. The victory before us is a victory for 20 million seniors who came of age during the Great Depression and World War II. They have been called the Greatest Generation. They fought for their country. They gave a lifetime of labor. They gave a lifetime of service. They paid a lifetime of taxes. They contribute to our economy today. And now they will get stimulus checks, too, like other Americans. Today is another victory for the Greatest Generation.

Today's agreement is a victory for a quarter million disabled veterans. No one can question their sacrifice. No one can question their contribution. They have fought for America. Today is a victory for disabled veterans.

Today's agreement is a victory for the rule of law. That is because the agreement ensures that the stimulus checks will go to Americans. It guards against sending checks to people who have violated our Nation's immigration laws.

Today's agreement is a victory for the Founding Fathers, who created the Senate and who created the Finance Committee. There were those who said we should take what the House of Representatives told us to take. There were those who said we should take what the White House told us to take. But our Founding Fathers created a legislature with two Chambers. The Founding Fathers created a government with checks and balances. Today is a victory for those of us who want the Congress to work as the Founding Fathers intended it.

Today's agreement is a victory for open government. The elements of this agreement came out of the open process of the Senate Finance Committee. Americans need not settle for the products of back-room deals. Legislation gets better when people meet in the open and debate it in the open this way. That is what we did in the Senate Finance Committee, and today's agreement is a victory for open government.

Today's agreement is a victory for moderates. Today's agreement is a victory for men and women of good will, such as Chuck Grassley, Blanche Lincoln, and Olympia Snowe. Today's agreement is a victory for people who are willing to reach across the aisle and work with other people of good will, even if they belong to another political party.

Today's agreement is a victory for people of courage, who were willing to buck their party's leadership, to buck the administration, for a better America. Today's agreement is a victory for people willing to stand up for what they think is right. Senator Grassley and I will remember who stood with us.

Today's agreement is a victory for a better, more effective economic stimulus. Economists agree that consumer spending, fueled by tax rebates, can boost America's economy. Americans over age 65 spend 92 percent of their incomes in any given year. They will spend their rebate checks quickly, and that will boost the economy quickly.

Most of all, today's agreement is a victory for the American people. Today's agreement will speed rebate checks to the overwhelming majority of Americans, giving them needed tax relief. Today is a victory for the American people.

I thank my colleagues who have supported this package. I thank my colleagues for their help in crafting it along the way, and I urge the Senate to adopt it right away.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Finally, Madam President, I say again how proud I am to work with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley. He, more than any other Senator I can think of, always does what is right for his home State of Iowa and for the country. I know of no Senator with greater courage than the Senator from Iowa, and I say to everyone, anyone listening, that we are here today in large part because this is a bipartisan agreement. We stood together. We did not want to buckle down, we did not want to cave in to the House and the White House, because we wanted something a little better--something a little bit better--and we stood together, worked hard on this Finance Committee package, with our hearings and amendments we adopted, and we did it very quickly. So we are going to finally have an agreement by both bodies and by the White House, and I am quite certain very quickly, so Americans can get those rebate checks they expected and they deserve to receive.

Reserving the right to object, I understand that the Senator's time will be charged to the Republican side.

Madam President, the book of Leviticus teaches: ``Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly, and revere your God.''

Today, the Senate can show respect for America's elderly. Today, the Senate can extend needed stimulus checks to 20 million seniors whom the House left behind.

America's seniors have earned the right to get stimulus checks, every bit as much as other Americans. They worked hard all their lives. They paid a lifetime of taxes. They contribute to the economy.

And seniors can use the money. And because they can use the money, seniors are excellent targets for economic stimulus checks. Because they can use the money, they will spend it quickly.

Americans over age 65 spend 92 percent of their incomes. Households headed by a person over age 75 spend 98 percent. That is higher than any other group over the age of 25. And that means that a check sent to a senior will have a greater bang for the buck in terms of helping the economy.

The Finance Committee amendment would help 20 million seniors who were left out of the House bill. The Finance Committee amendment would provide seniors with rebate checks of $500. The underlying House bill would not help those 20 million seniors.

And the Finance Committee amendment would also provide rebate checks for 250,000 disabled veterans who receive at least $3,000 in nontaxable disability compensation. The Finance Committee amendment would make them eligible to receive the same $500 rebate as wage earners and Social Security recipients. The Veterans Administration would distribute the rebate. The House bill would not provide rebate checks to disabled veterans who don't pay taxes.

And the Finance Committee amendment would provide an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance. And high unemployment states would qualify for an extra 13 weeks. The House bill does not provide an extension of unemployment insurance.

Almost a million more Americans are unemployed today than were a year ago. And 69,000 additional unemployed workers filed claims for unemployment insurance just last week.

CBO found unemployment insurance to have a big bang-for-the-buck. It acts quickly to boost the economy.

I heard my friend from Oklahoma. Frankly, all of the big ideas and great ideas are ideas we cannot address at this point. We have to act now, immediately. The President wants us to act now with the stimulus package. The House wants us to act now. We in the Senate have to act now; that is, we have to get some rebate checks out to the American people so they can spend those checks, those dollars, and prime the economy.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System has done his part by lowering interest rates to help keep our economy from going into recession, to help keep our economy from falling into high unemployment rates, because we are facing a time of slow growth, primarily due to the problems in the housing markets, the subprime problems, which cascade into securitized loans and which, frankly, were peddled in a way that caused a lot of investors in our country to not know, frankly, what they were investing in.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Mr. Bernanke, also wants this package now. He knows what he is talking about because he is, after all, probably the best economist in this country at the moment. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System is saying that, in addition to lowering rates, we should have the stimulus package passed.

We on the Senate Finance Committee did improve upon the House-passed bill. We decided not to replace it but improve upon it, so that any changes we make can be easily folded into the House-passed bill, and get the final product on the President's desk very quickly. Nobody wants to hold up the stimulus checks or hold up stimulating the economy. So I am quite confident we will get this resolved quickly, with improvements.

The research organization economy.com found that each dollar spent on extended unemployment insurance benefits generates $1.64 in increased economic activity.

Don't forget, we passed a bipartisan stimulus bill after 9/11, and that contained an extension of unemployment insurance. The President signed that bill. We should do the same now.

Further, we are adding a provision--it sounds technical, but it is simple--that would extend the carryback period for net operating losses for companies from 2 years to 5 years. Very simply, the bonus depreciation and expensing provisions help companies that make a profit--many companies during this low economic growth time are not making money--it seems fair they be included in the stimulus package, and that is why it is very important that provision be enacted.

This provision will help the housing industry, especially homebuilders, from going belly up. There were a lot of loans made that should not have been made. The more we can show to the American people that we are thinking about them, that we are trying to add a stimulus to the Nation's economy, the better, including showing to the housing industry that by making a change in the tax laws they can carry back current losses to earlier profitable years so they can make payrolls and not have to go belly up.

I might add, we also in the Senate Finance Committee package--the House does not do this--tighten up provisions that make it extremely difficult for illegal aliens to get these rebate checks. That is very important. It is not in the House bill. We have that provision in the Senate bill.

Finally, this is clearly the right thing to do. It is clearly right that 20 million seniors and about 250,000 disabled veterans be included in the rebate check program. We do that in our bill. There are some other provisions, but that is the core of what we are doing here.

Clearly, the House will accept these changes, there is no doubt about that. The President can sign it, and we can get this rebate program up and going. We can get it passed very quickly.

I yield to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, for 6 minutes.

Madam President, I commend and thank the Senator from New Mexico. He is making a courageous decision. More often than not, when somebody makes a courageous decision, it clearly is the right thing to do. It is easy to not make the courageous decision. Sometimes it is hard to make a courageous decision. He is making a courageous decision. I thank him and I know the people of New Mexico are proud of him for standing up and doing what he is doing.

The Senator from Arizona seeks recognition.

Madam President, I have a number of Senators seeking recognition.

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Ms. Lincoln; 2 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown; 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan; and 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar.

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows, interns, and detailees of the staff of the Finance Committee be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the economic stimulus bill: Mary Baker, Tom Louthan, Elise Stein, Susan Hinck, Suzanne Payne, Hy Hinojosa, Connie Cookson, Mollie Lane, Ben Miller, Emily Schwartz, Tyler Gamble, Blake Thompson, Michael Bagel, and Kayleigh Brown.

Madam President, the Book of Proverbs teaches:

Listen to your father, who gave you life, and do not

despise your mother when she is old.

This afternoon, the Senate will begin to address whether we honor our mothers and fathers, our grandmothers and grandfathers. The Senate will begin to address whether we extend needed stimulus checks to 20 million seniors whom the House of Representatives left behind.

The author Pearl S. Buck said:

Our society must make it . . . possible for old people not

to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a

civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless

members.

This afternoon, the Senate will begin to be tested. The Senate will be tested whether it cares for 20 million seniors or deserts them, as did the House of Representatives.

America's seniors deserve to get stimulus checks every bit as much as other Americans. They worked hard, very hard all their lives. They paid a lifetime of taxes. They contribute to the economy. And with the economy turning down, seniors can use the stimulus checks every bit as much as other Americans. Everyone knows the Social Security check does not pay the bills. The average retiree's Social Security check is about $1,000 a month, and with the current hard times and gas, food, and health care costs all increasing, it makes it even more difficult for them.

Two out of three Social Security beneficiaries get most of their income from Social Security. Two out of three get most of their income from Social Security. Social Security is the only income for nearly one in five seniors, and without Social Security, most older Americans would live in poverty. Without Social Security, more than 50 percent of senior citizens would be living in poverty today.

Because they can use the money, seniors are excellent targets for economic stimulus checks. Because they can use the money, they will spend it quickly.

The chart I have next to me is a reminder that the Senate bill provides rebate checks for 20 million Americans. The House of Representatives excludes rebate checks for these 20 million Americans.

Americans over age 65 spend 92 percent of their incomes. Households headed by a person over age 75 spend 98 percent of their income. That is higher than any other demographic group over the age of 25. Seniors spend their money. That means checks sent to seniors will have a greater bang for the buck in terms of helping the economy. The Finance Committee amendment will help 20 million seniors left out of the House bill. The Finance Committee amendment will provide seniors with rebate checks of $500, and the House bill will not help those 20 million seniors.

The Finance Committee amendment will also provide rebate checks for a quarter of a million disabled veterans who receive at least $3,000 in nontaxable disability income. The Finance Committee amendment would make them eligible to receive the same rebate checks as wage earners and Social Security recipients. It is not right to

exclude 250,000 disabled veterans from getting a rebate check, which is what happened under the House bill. Those folks will get rebate checks under the Senate bill and the Veterans' Administration will distribute the rebates. The House bill, again, does not provide disabled veterans who don't pay taxes with rebate checks.

The Finance Committee amendment would provide an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance, and high unemployment States will qualify for an extra 13 weeks. The House bill does not provide an extension of unemployment insurance, whether it is 13 or the extra.

Almost a million more Americans are unemployed today than there were a year ago. One million more are unemployed today than a year ago, and 69,000 additional unemployed workers filed claims last week.

The Finance Committee amendment has been endorsed by AARP, the Seniors Coalition, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Officers Association of American, Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, the United Spinal Association, and the Disabled American Veterans.

Again, seniors groups and disabled groups strongly endorse the Finance Committee amendment, clearly because they get benefits.

Let us listen to our fathers who gave us life and not despise our mothers. Let us not desert our seniors or disabled veterans or unemployment workers. Let us move to proceed to the stimulus bill.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, a few minutes ago, the minority leader urged the Senate to simply pass the House stimulus bill with no amendments, saying it will be a Christmas tree, so pass it with no amendments.

I don't think the Senate wants to deprive 20 million American seniors of a rebate check. I don't think the Senate wants to deprive a quarter of a million disabled veterans of a rebate check. That is what would happen if we were to follow the advice of the minority leader. He would deprive 20 million American senior citizens from getting a rebate check under the stimulus plan. He would deprive a quarter of a million disabled vets from receiving a rebate check under the plan. I don't think the Senate wants to do that.

I think the Senate wants to make some very modest changes to the House-passed bill, if 20 million seniors is modest. We can argue if it is modest. I think it is very important. I think the American public would very much prefer that the Senate make some modest changes to the House-passed bill so those stimulus checks can be sent out very quickly.

We on this side do want speedy passage of the stimulus package. The majority leader has indicated we will take this up on Monday, a few days from today. My hope and expectation is that it will be passed on Monday. Remember, not too long ago, the President and the leadership in Washington, DC, were saying: Gee, let's get those stimulus checks out by February 15. This is January 31. We can get this done very quickly, in a matter of several days, maybe sometime near the end of next week, well before February 15.

We want to move quickly. We want to not load up the stimulus package. Loading it up too much will cause delays, but we on this side of the aisle strongly believe that 20 million seniors should get rebate checks and a quarter of a million veterans get rebate checks. They will not get those checks under the House-passed bill. That is why I do not think we should willy-nilly accept the House bill which will deprive 20 million seniors and a quarter million disabled veterans of those rebate checks.

They came of age in the Great Depression and during World War II. Of them, Tom Brokaw wrote:

At the end of the twentieth century, the contributions of

this generation would be in bold print . . . it is a

generation that, by and large, made no demands of homage

from those who followed and prospered . . . because of its

sacrifices. It is a generation of towering achievement and

modest demeanor, a legacy of their formative years, when

they were participants and witness to sacrifices of the

highest order.

That is what Tom Brokaw wrote in his book ``The Greatest Generation.'' The men and women of that generation and the one that followed are now America's seniors. These are the seniors the Finance Committee is fighting for and trying to help with the economic stimulus bill reported yesterday.

America's seniors are acquainted with sacrifice. As Brokaw wrote:

They know how many of the best of their generation didn't

make it to their early twenties, how many brilliant

scientists, teachers, spiritual and business leaders,

politicians and artists were lost in the ravages of the

greatest war the world has seen.

They fought for their country, our American seniors. They gave a lifetime of labor, they gave a lifetime of service, they paid a lifetime of taxes, and they contribute to the economy today. But 20 million of these seniors would not get a check in the House-passed stimulus bill. Twenty million American seniors would get a check in the Finance Committee substitute.

These 20 million seniors would be left out of the House-passed tax rebate. Why? Because they do not have at least $3,000 in earned income, as in wages, or enough taxable income to meet the test set up by the House bill. In contrast, the Finance Committee plan would allow almost all seniors to receive at least $500. They would have to show they received at least $3,000 in Social Security income on their 2007 tax return.

Many American seniors live on fixed incomes. Some earn some wages, some make some money, but many American seniors live only on fixed incomes--their Social Security benefits. Many struggle to pay their medical bills. Many struggle to pay their heating bills, especially as energy costs are going up so high. Drug prices are going up too. Seniors deserve to be included in any rebate program.

When we are contemplating distributing stimulus checks broadly across most American families, it would be wrong not to include 20 million seniors of the greatest generation. A rebate to seniors works for America's economy too. It is not just the right thing to do, but it works for our economy and here is why. Economists agree consumer spending fueled by tax rebates can boost America's economy, and Americans over age 65 are responsible for 14 percent of all consumer spending. Let me repeat that. Americans over age 65 are responsible for 14 percent of all consumer spending.

Look at this chart to my right. It indicates something very simple, very basic, and very important--and not simply from an economic standpoint but also doing what is morally right for our seniors as well as from an economic perspective. Americans over age 65 spend 92 percent of their income in any given year. That is represented by this horizontal bar on the top in the blue. I will say it again. Americans over age 65--that is what this line represents--spend almost all their income in any given year. They spend 92 percent of their income in any given year.

Now, contrast that with a household headed by a person a little older, over age 75. They spend an even higher percentage of their income--98 percent. That is higher than any other demographic group over the age of 25. Seniors spend the money they receive; much more than any other demographic group over the age of 25.

Other Social Security recipients can benefit too. In 2006, 18 million Americans received Social Security disability benefits, or survivor benefits. Widows, widowers, and disabled veterans--disabled Americans-- can qualify for an equal tax rebate, too, under the Finance Committee plan. Millions of them would get nothing under the House plan.

The Finance Committee bill also provides benefits to another group of Americans who have sacrificed for their country: disabled veterans. Once again, the House left them out. The House said no to a quarter of a million disabled veterans. They said no rebate checks if you are a disabled vet and if you don't have significant earned income. Under the House bill, more than a quarter million disabled vets would receive no rebate. Why? Because they have no obligation to file a tax return.

The Finance Committee bill would provide rebate checks for these quarter of a million disabled veterans. The Finance Committee bill would get rebates to disabled veterans receiving at least $3,000 in nontaxable disability compensation. That is it. The House forgot about that. They forgot about a quarter of a million disabled vets. The Senate plan makes them eligible to earn the same $500 rebate as wage earners and Social Security recipients--the same. The Department of Veterans Affairs would distribute the rebate.

My colleagues know America is once again at war. Many of my colleagues have visited with wounded soldiers who have come home from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, my colleague from Kentucky a few minutes ago made a very moving tribute to several fallen soldiers from his State of Kentucky. Many of my colleagues have, as

I have, gone to Walter Reed and visited with their wounded warriors. More than 21,000 service men and service women have now been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan--21,000.

Now, thank God, not all of them will become disabled veterans, but many will. No one can question their sacrifice, no one can question their contribution, and no one can question that they have earned the right to participate in this rebate program every bit as much as any other American. So let us honor the Americans who came of age in the Great Depression and during World War II. Let us honor the Americans who have fought for our country in its wars only to come home disabled. And let us ensure that these greatest Americans receive their fair share of any economic stimulus.

That is what is at stake. That is why the Senate should not rubberstamp the House-passed bill. That is why the Senate should pass the Finance Committee's stimulus bill. To do anything less would be to shortchange millions of seniors and veterans who have earned the right to be called the greatest Americans.

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

Mr. President, very sadly, Robert M. Ball, Bob Ball, passed away on January 29, 2008, at the age of 93. Bob Ball had a truly exceptional record of public service and his passing is a loss to this nation. Bob Ball served as the longest serving Commissioner of the Social Security Administration from 1962 to 1973 and played a critical role in all changes to the Social Security programs for the last half century. He was a champion of social insurance programs, and through his leadership, the Social Security Administration tackled many challenges and served millions of Americans in need. Few individuals have had as direct and profound an effect on the lives of our fellow citizens. And I would like to express my personal gratitude for Bob Ball's dedicated service.

Bob Ball began his career with Social Security in a New Jersey field office in 1939. At SSA's headquarters, he served in various positions with the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance. He left the agency briefly in 1945 to serve as staff director for the Advisory Council on Social Security to the Senate Committee on Finance, and returned 4 years later serving as assistant director of the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance, and eventually, deputy director and acting director.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy appointed Bob Ball Commissioner of Social Security, a position he held under both Democratic and Republican Presidents--retiring in 1973. During his time at SSA, he helped establish the Disability Insurance Program, the Medicare Program, and the Supplemental Security Income Program. These programs now protect millions of Americans from what President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the hazards and vicissitudes of life--disability that prevents work, and extended old age, both of which can cause severe poverty.

Following his retirement, Bob Ball went on to be one of the most active and prolific advocates for Social Security and social insurance programs. He was an influential member of the Greenspan Commission, which in 1983 reestablished Social Security on a sound financial footing, and has written and spoken on every proposal to improve Social Security's current financing difficulties, including the grossly flawed proposals to privatize Social Security. Bob Ball founded the National Academy of Social Insurance in 1986 to promote understanding and informed policymaking on Social Security and other social insurance programs through research, training, and public events for the exchange of unbiased information.

Bob Ball was a great American who dedicated his life to serving others. His passing is a great loss to this body and to all policymakers. I am sure my colleagues will join me in offering our deepest condolences to his family and to his friends and colleagues. I hope that we can keep his dedication in mind as we continue his life's work and secure our retirement and disability programs for the millions of Americans who benefit and will benefit from his service.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Madam President, the psalmist prayed:

Do not cast me off when I am old. Do not forsake me when my

strength fails.

That is really the question before us as we get to the economic stimulus bill, which is the bill that is going to send out rebate checks to Americans: Will the Senate cast off 20 million seniors? Will the Senate forsake 20 million of the neediest Americans?

A vote for the Finance Committee substitute is a vote for 20 million American senior citizens who have worked hard all their lives, who have paid taxes for a lifetime. They contribute to the economy today. But the underlying House-passed bill would not give them a rebate check.

The House-passed bill says no to 20 million American seniors. The House bill gives checks only to the more affluent seniors whose incomes are high enough that they pay taxes now. The House-passed bill would not give a stimulus check to seniors who are scraping by on Social Security income alone and have no tax liability. To state it differently, the House-passed bill says no to the most neediest seniors, not only 20 million American seniors, but the House bill says no to the 20 million American seniors who happen to be the most needy. These 20 million seniors have given a lifetime of labor. They have given a lifetime of service, and they have paid a lifetime of taxes. The House-passed bill would not give them a stimulus check.

Think of a grandmother who needs money for food, medicine. America's economy is slowing down. Times are

getting tough for her. Prices for food, gasoline, and home heating oil have skyrocketed right before our eyes. She has a harder time making ends meet. For many of our Nation's senior citizens, their only source of funds for these necessities is a once-a-month envelope from Social Security. Any Social Security beneficiary will tell that you she has not seen the amount of her check increased enough to cover today's rising costs. I am sure the benefits may be going up a little bit, but they clearly do not cover the increase in rising costs. Again, the Finance Committee package says yes to those 20 million American seniors who we believe should be included. They should also get a rebate check. The House-passed bill says no to those 20 million American seniors. It says to seniors who happen to be the most needy, no, we are not going to give you a rebate check. That is the basic reason why I believe the Senate Finance Committee package passed today is by far the better alternative.

Just think, when Congress acts on an economic stimulus package this week, tomorrow, whenever it is, we should insist on that tax rebate for the 20 million low-income seniors who can use that money right now. A rebate for seniors is no feel-good measure. Obviously, it is the right thing to do. Rebates for 20 million more seniors will help the economic stimulus package work better. Why is that? Because seniors are among America's most likely to spend a refund right away and pump cash back into the economy.

This chart basically demonstrates that. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans over age 65 are responsible for over 14 percent of all consumer spending. People over 65 spend 92 percent of the their yearly incomes. That is represented by the horizontal bar in blue, a little bit of purple over on the right. So people over 65 spend 92 percent of their yearly income. People over age 75 spend 98 percent of their incomes. That is higher than any other demographic group over the age of 25.

Seniors spend the money they receive. They have to, in most cases, spend the money they receive. It is the right thing to do, to give senior citizens access to that rebate check. Why exclude them? Why cut seniors out as the House does? That is not right. In addition, seniors spend the money they receive. Seniors over age 65 spend 92 percent of the money they receive, and seniors over 75 years of age spend 98 percent of the income they receive. So seniors will spend that rebate check right away. That will make the rebate check all the more effective in helping the economy.

The Senate needs to do the right thing by America's seniors and by the American economy. We should extend the tax rebate to 20 million American senior citizens living on Social Security. The Finance Committee substitute will help 20 million seniors who were left out of the House bill. The Finance Committee amendment will provide seniors with a rebate check of $500 and $1,000, if they are married.

What is more, the Finance Committee amendment helps a quarter of a million disabled veterans with rebate checks. So far I have talked only about senior citizens. The House-passed bill does not give rebate checks to disabled American veterans. The House bill does not provide low-income disabled veterans rebate checks. That is, the House bill does not give rebate checks to a quarter of a million, and that is because they do not provide low-income disabled vets with rebate checks.

The House discriminates against lower income seniors, 20 million American seniors. It discriminates against lower income disabled vets. It says no to a quarter of a million disabled veterans. We in the Finance Committee say, no, we should say yes to seniors. We should say yes also to disabled veterans who will get the same rebate check as an upper income disabled vet.

What is more, the Finance Committee amendment helps people who have lost their jobs. Don't you think that is the right thing to do, help people who have lost their jobs, particularly as we are either in a recession or close to a recession? The Finance Committee amendment provides an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance, and high unemployment States will qualify for an extra 13 weeks. The House bill does not provide an extension for unemployment insurance. It says no. It says, no, I am sorry, too bad. If you have lost your job and your 26 weeks is already up, which is the case for a higher proportion of America's unemployed today than at any other time in recent history, the House says, no, sorry. Even though you need the money, even though you would have clearly spent the rebate check, they say, no. The House bill doesn't provide that extension.

There are almost a million more unemployed Americans than there were unemployed a year ago. The Congressional Budget Office found that unemployment insurance has a great bang for the buck. That is, people who are unemployed who receive their unemployment insurance spend it. In fact, economy.com, a company which analyzes these things--their person testified today or yesterday before the Budget Committee--found that each dollar spent on extended unemployment insurance benefits would generate $1.64 in increased economic activity. That is a good one. In straight economic terms, for every $1 spent, $1.64 is the result in increased economic activity.

The bipartisan stimulus bill enacted after 9/11 included an unemployment insurance extension. President Bush signed that extension. Why don't we do it now? We all know what dire straits the economy is in. The Federal Reserve system cut the Fed funds rate another half percent. When you add it up in the last 4 or 5 months, 1 percent plus three-quarters plus another half, what does that amount to? That is a 2\1/4\-percentage points reduction in the last several months. They are worried. But those rate cuts take time to work their way through the economy. An economic stimulus package has an effect right away. That is why we believe we should have components in the economic stimulus package which improve upon the House bill and give 20 million seniors rebate checks and a quarter of a million disabled vets rebate checks and also extended unemployment benefits.

The Finance Committee amendment helps American businesses that need help. The Finance Committee amendment would extend what is called the carryback period for net operating losses from 2 years to 5 years. Why is that important? Generally, a cyclical business has some profitable years followed by loss years. During loss periods, the company will carry back the net operating losses for the lost years to the prior profitable years. They will file a quick refund claim. The quick refund claim acts as a cash infusion and allows the company to survive the loss period. The House bill doesn't take care of that. The housing industry would greatly benefit from an increased carryback period.

This whole economic downturn was sparked by a so-called subprime problem, the housing problem, a glut of houses. And the expanded period would allow builders to avoid selling land and houses at distressed prices.

Additionally, it would enable less costly financing, improving business conditions for an eventual return of the housing market. The expanded period would give the housing industry cash to meet payroll. That is not a bad thing to do when we are in an economic downturn. That would stop additional job losses. The National Association of Manufacturers has written us in the committee in support of the Finance Committee's net operating loss proposal because they know it is the right thing to do to help maintain jobs.

These are all good reasons to vote for the Finance Committee substitute. It would help disabled veterans. It would help unemployed Americans. It would help businesses struggling with the business cycle. It would help 20, I think the figure is 20 million American senior citizens. I start where I began. I repeat this point because it is so important. The biggest difference between the Finance Committee substitute and the underlying House bill is 20 million seniors. A vote for the Finance Committee substitute is a vote for those seniors. Keep this in mind: 20 million, right here. That is the number of seniors to whom we would give rebate checks because it is the right thing to do, to add 20 million to the House-passed bill, which does not give rebate checks, which is clearly the wrong thing to do.

Senators should not cast off seniors. Senators should not forsake them. Rather, let us recognize their lifetimes

of labor, recognize their key role in stimulating the economy. Look at our senior citizens. They are the real salt, the rock of America. Our mothers and fathers and grandfathers, most of them passed through the Depression era. Some are a little old for the Depression era, but they have values that are so important for our country. They are the people who paid taxes all their lives. They worked all their lives. They provided service to so many of us and our families and to other neighbors in the community. Let us recognize their key role in stimulating the economy, and let us pass the Finance Committee substitute for those 20 million American seniors.

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

Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record the revised rules of the Committee on Finance for the 110th Congress, adopted by the committee on January 30, 2008. I ask unanimous consent to have the rules printed in the Record.