[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1716-1724]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2010
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the House message with respect to
H.R. 2847, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A House message to accompany H.R. 2847, an Act making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice
and Science, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year ending
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 3310 (to the House amendment to the
Senate amendment), in the nature of a substitute.
Reid amendment No. 3311 (to amendment No. 3310), to change
the enactment date.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
[[Page 1717]]
time until 9:55 will be equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the
remarks from the Senator from New York, I be recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the time will be equally divided, I
presume?
Mr. GREGG. Yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on a more bipartisan note than the speech
from the minority leader, we are now moving toward some legislation
that has two bits of good news for the American people; one, it will
help create jobs and employ those who have been out of work for too
long a time; second, it is bipartisan. For the first time in a long
time, we have a bill that is supported by both Democrats and
Republicans. I would like to salute the five Republicans from the other
side who joined us in moving the bill forward. I am very hopeful there
will be a large number of those from the other side of the aisle who
will join in this bipartisan measure that will show the American people
that, at least when it comes to jobs, we can--and must for their good--
work together.
First, let me discuss the proposal, the part of the proposal authored
by Senator Hatch and myself. It is very simple. It is a holiday from
the payroll tax for any employer that hires a worker who has been out
of work for 60 days.
Let me discuss why I think it will work. First, it is immediate. Most
businesses, particularly small businesses, if you tell them they will
get some kind of tax credit if they hire someone, but they will get
that credit a year from April, are not very interested. This occurs
immediately, the minute the worker is hired.
Second, it is simple. Again, you tell a businessperson, particularly
a small businessperson, they have to fill out 30 pages, maybe hire an
accountant to get a tax credit for a new worker, that is not life. They
are going to tell you to forget it.
But here all the new employee has to show is that he or she was out
of work for 60 days. It is very easy to show 60 days of unemployment
compensation, and it immediately takes effect.
Third, it goes right to small business. So this is not a large
government program. The money goes right to small business and is cost
effective, which is the fourth point. If 3 million people are hired by
this tax credit, it will cost $15 billion. That is a lot of money. But
compared to the stimulus of $880 billion, it is much smaller. The money
is cost effective. It goes right to where it should.
Finally, my last point is, it is bipartisan. The country is asking us
to come and work together. Obviously, there are diverse views, both
within the parties and certainly between the parties. But that does not
mean, on areas that are getting close to emergencies, we cannot work
together.
This proposal, let it be the start. But let this proposal be the
start of a coming together on issues we can agree on. There are some
job proposals my colleagues on this side of the aisle would support and
my colleagues on the other side would not and vice versa. There are
some they would support and we would not.
But there are a large number we can all agree on. We ought to
endeavor to do them because what the American people want is not us
just talking at one another and accomplishing nothing but us getting
something done.
Finally, going back to the merits of this proposal, it should not be
sold as a panacea. This is not a magic wand that is going to be waved
and all our joblessness will decline.
But what it does do is harness the economic growth we have seen in
the last quarter, 5.7 percent, and translates it into the creation of
jobs. Let me explain. In the last quarter, there was economic growth,
5.7 percent, but hardly a job was created. You cannot sustain an
economy and get an economy moving upward unless jobs are created.
But the growth gives us an opportunity--not every employer but a
significant number of employers are getting new orders. They are
thinking to themselves: Should I hire that new worker or should I just
extend overtime or cut back somewhere else?
This job provision, a payroll tax holiday, says to the employer--to
some, not all but to many--I am going to take that gamble and hire that
worker and hire them now so it will help jump-start our economy. It
will work for businesses, not those that see declining sales or flat
sales but those that are beginning to see sales go up and will
translate those increased sales into increased jobs, which will then,
hopefully, create the virtuous cycle of more jobs, more money in the
economy, more jobs still, more money in the economy still, and we can
get out of this awful recession.
In conclusion, I wish to save enough time for my friend from New
Hampshire. I traveled around my State this last Presidents week break.
In every corner of my State, I sat with the unemployed. It was
heartbreaking. Think of those people and those faces, what they had to
say late at night.
A woman from Rochester had worked for 20 years for Xerox, lost her
position in human services up in Rochester. She has been looking for 2
years, close to 2 years, for a job. She made a very good salary. She
did not have a family. Her job was her life. She has turned things
inside out to try and find comparable work. She cannot.
I met a man who was a blue-collar worker. He had risen to the top of
his craft, tool and die. He thought he had a great life--worked hard,
had six children, a good marriage. A year ago he lost his job and is
still paying the mortgage. His wife cannot work to support him because
of the six kids, one of whom was 2 years old, as I recall.
What is he going to do? You meet people like this again and again.
Young college students get out of college, bright-eyed and bushy-
tailed, and cannot find work. How disillusioning at the beginning of
their career.
So we have an imperative to do something. We have an imperative not
to say: It has to be my way or no way. We have to put those people back
to work.
That is what Senator Hatch and I attempted to do with our proposal.
To our leader, I wish to pay him a tremendous tribute. He was focused
on getting this done. He took brickbats left and right. But the
ultimate wisdom of what he did is now being seen as we move this bill
on the floor today.
Hopefully, it will go through the House and be on the President's
desk shortly. I thank Senator Hatch and all my colleagues who,
hopefully, in a few minutes, will come together in a bipartisan way and
tell the workers who are unemployed: Yes, there is some hope. Tell the
voters from Massachusetts: Yes, we have heard you. We are focusing on
jobs.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe the first obligation of a
government--or one of the obligations, especially of Congress--is to
live by its own words and live by its own rules. With great fanfare a
couple weeks ago, the Democratic leadership and its membership passed a
pay-go piece of legislation which says that when you bring spending
legislation to the floor, it should be paid for. There was great
breast-beating on the other side of the aisle about how this would
discipline the government and make us fiscally responsible.
Now we see, as the first piece of legislation to come forward since
the pay-go resolution passed, a bill which violates that pay-go
resolution. This bill spends $12 billion that is not paid for under the
pay-go rules over the next 5 years. It is in violation of the concepts
and the rules which were put forward by the other side as the way we
would discipline spending.
I understand--and I think most of us understand--the issue of the
economy is critical, getting people back to work is critical, but I
don't think we get people back to work by loading more and more debt
onto the next generation. Probably we create an atmosphere where folks
who are willing to go out
[[Page 1718]]
and invest and create jobs are a little reticent to do so because they
don't know how all that debt the Federal Government is putting on the
books will be paid for. I presume that is one of the reasons the pay-go
legislation was brought forward a couple of weeks ago, to try to give
some certainty to the markets and to the American people who were upset
with all the deficit and debt, that we would discipline ourselves.
Now the first bill that comes forward violates the rules of the
Senate by adding $12 billion of spending which is not paid for, which
will be deficit spending, and which will be added to the debt. I am not
sure how you vote for this bill when it violates that rule which you
just voted for 2 weeks ago. It seems a bit of inconsistency that is
hard even for a political institution to justify.
On top of that, this bill has massive gamesmanship in the outyears.
It is a bill of $15 to $18 billion in spending, but actually, because
of the games played in the highway accounts, it adds $140 billion of
spending that is not paid for which will be added to the debt if this
bill is passed. That is a hard number. That is a big number. That is a
real number.
The simple fact is, this bill, in the classic gamesmanship we see
from the highway committee, spends money we don't have and then claims
we have the money. In the end, all that money has to be borrowed
because there are no revenues to cover it.
If this bill is passed, there will be $140 billion in new debt put on
our kids' backs as a result of this alleged small number. I forgot what
the number is they claim is actually in the bill. How does that happen?
This bit of gamesmanship ought to be explained because it keeps being
undertaken by the highway committee in the most egregious way relative
to proper fiscal management. In fact, if this were done in an
accounting cycle that was subject to accounting rules, the people who
claim this sort of sleight of hand would go to jail. It is that simple.
They would go to jail because this is such a fraud on the American
taxpayer.
What they are claiming is that the highway fund, on which they have
committed to spend much more money than is coming in, and they knew
they would spend more money than was coming in because they wanted to
spend more money than was coming in, what they are claiming is that
highway fund lent the general fund money 10 years ago and that money
should have had interest paid on it. Of course, at the time, they
actually waived the interest, assuming interest should have been paid
on that. That interest has been recouped a couple of times now,
allegedly, even if it were owed. But what they claim is that because
the money is coming out of the general fund to fund the highway fund,
they are calling that an offset so it won't score.
Unfortunately, under the present rules with which we budget around
here, it doesn't score because it is built into the baseline. It adds
up to $140 billion over the next 10 years, approximately, that is going
to come out of the general fund to fund the highway fund because the
people who run the highway fund don't have the courage to fund what
they want to spend. So they are going to take it out of the general
fund. Where does the general fund get its money? It borrows it from our
children and grandchildren. It runs up debt. That is why, under any
scenario, no matter what gamesmanship you play around here on naming
this event, it turns out to be the same thing: debt added to our
children's burden.
Our children already have a fair amount of debt coming at them as a
result of this Congress's profligacy. Under the President's budget, the
deficit will double in the next 5 years and triple in the next 10
years. We will add $11 trillion of new debt to the backs of our
children over the next 10 years under the President's initiatives,
every year for the next 10 years. We will average deficits of $1
trillion.
The American people intuitively understand that cannot continue; it
can't keep up. We are on an unsustainable course. We are running this
Nation into a ditch on the fiscal side of the ledger. We are putting
this Nation into financial bankruptcy because of the fact that we are
running up deficits and debt far beyond our capacity to repay. In fact,
if you look at these deficits and debt just in the context of what
other industrialized nations do--for example, the European Union--they
don't allow their states to exceed deficits of 3 percent or a public
debt to GDP ratio of 60 percent. The way this works out, we are going
to run deficits of about 5 percent every year for the next 10 years, we
will have a public debt situation of well over 60 percent next year,
and we will get to 80 percent before the next 10 years are up. Those
are numbers which lead to one conclusion--that we are in deep trouble.
We are in deep, deep trouble. Yet we come here today with a bill which
aggravates that situation relative to the pay-go rules by $12 billion
and relative to the highway fund by $140 billion.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire has
the floor.
Mr. GREGG. I will yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the
remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire, I be recognized for up to 3
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. What we have before us today is a bill which, first,
violates the pay-go rules which we just passed a couple of weeks ago to
the tune of $12 billion and, second, puts in place a glidepath, which
should be called a nosedive, toward $140 billion of new debt being put
on the backs of our children, with the alleged justification that it is
offset when, in fact, the offset is superficial, Pyrrhic, and
nonexistent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. GREGG. We can not keep doing this. We cannot keep doing this to
our children. We cannot keep coming out here and claiming we are being
fiscally disciplined when we are doing just the opposite: spending
money we don't have and passing the bill on to our kids.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when the Senator from New Hampshire talks
about what we can and can't do to our children, I remind my fellow
Senators, I happen to be blessed with 20 kids and grandkids. I am
probably more concerned than anyone else here about future generations.
Let me say, to redeem myself in advance, I am a conservative. I have
been ranked No. 1 by the ACU, Man of the Year by Human Events. Yet I
think we are supposed to be doing something when we come here to
Washington. I have always said, when I run for office, that the two
main things we are supposed to do are defend America and
infrastructure. Yes, I am the ranking member on the Environment and
Public Works Committee. I was the sponsor of the bill in 2005, and I am
proud of it because we had to do something about infrastructure. I
don't know, maybe there aren't any roads in New Hampshire, but I can
tell you, don't buy into the argument that this is all debt. We are
talking about $12 billion.
This bill actually does two things. It has some very good reductions
in taxes. I remember so well that John Kennedy, when he was President,
said we have to raise more revenue. The best way is to reduce marginal
rates. From 1961 to 1968, it went from $94 billion to $153 billion.
That is in this thing. But the main thing here I am concerned about is
we keep doing nothing about roads and highways and infrastructure. That
is what we are supposed to do.
I know the Senator is sincere when he comes up with this, but where
was his concern back when he voted to give an unelected bureaucrat $700
billion? That wasn't offset. We can say that was a loan, but we all
know better.
There are some things we are supposed to be doing in America, and the
second most important thing, in my view--I know others don't share this
[[Page 1719]]
view--is to do something about infrastructure. This bill does it. This
carries it on to the end of the fiscal year, about 11 more months. If
we don't do it, it is costing about $1 billion a month by inaction. If
we try to do this by extending it month by month, each one of us in
this body is going to lose a lot of money that goes to roads and
highways and infrastructure.
Last week had a crumbling bridge in Oklahoma where no one was killed,
but it came very close to that. We saw what happened up in Minnesota.
We have to do something, instead of spending all of our money, as this
administration is doing, on social engineering. We need to start
building bridges and roads and repairing them.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint
Committee on Taxation document entitled ``Estimated Revenue Effects of
the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, The `Hiring
Incentives to Restore Employment Act,' under consideration by the
Senate'' be printed in the Record.
In addition, the Record should reflect that the document entitled
``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate
Amendment 3310, The `Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act,'
under consideration by the Senate'' can be found on the Joint Committee
on Taxation website at http://jct.gov/
publications.html?func=startdown&id= 3648. This document is a
contemporary explanation of the legislation that reflects the
intentions of the Senate and its understanding of the legislative text.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page 1720]]
[[Page 1721]]
[[Page 1722]]
Several of my Finance Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle
put a lot of time and effort into creating a compromise jobs bill that
Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were trying to move forward.
Indeed, I had high hopes that we might help thaw the partisan freeze
that has gridlocked this chamber for far too long. Unfortunately, our
efforts and hopes have been dashed by the majority leader's
inexplicable decision to gut our bill and replace it with a piece of
legislation that replaces cooperation with contention.
Further exacerbating matters, the Democratic leadership has filled
the amendment tree, thus preventing anyone from being able to offer
amendments that would improve the underlying bill. So much for
compromise.
As a longtime public servant of this great deliberative body, I can't
recall a decision that exhibited as much raw political gamesmanship as
this one does. The Democratic leadership is stifling the first genuine
attempt at cooperation on a major issue--a move that bodes ill for
bipartisanship for the remainder of this Congress.
Given what is happening with this jobs bill, how can we in the
minority have faith that we won't be excluded from debate on future
legislation such as health care and energy legislation? It is easy to
label the Republicans as the ``Party of No'' when you completely
exclude them from the legislative process. Unfortunately, the majority
leaves us with little other option than to say ``no.''
But what puzzles me the most is what the majority has to gain from
this partisan maneuver. In my experience, the Senate operates best when
there is trust that agreements will be honored, but regrettably now
even that is in question.
Just a few weeks ago, I sat in the House Chamber while the President
gave his State of the Union Address in which he raised the importance
of bipartisan cooperation, especially in the area of job creation. The
fact that the President hit a nerve with this plea is evident by the
effort to build such a bipartisan bill in the Finance Committee in the
weeks that followed. However, it is obvious that many on the other side
cannot stand the thought of working with our side when there might be
political points to be scored by trying to embarrass us.
Here are a few of the things the President said about the need for
bipartisanship in his State of the Union Address:
And what the American people hope--what they deserve--is
for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our
differences.
[Americans] are tired of the partisanship and the shouting
and the pettiness.
These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that
they're living by; business values or labor values. They're
American values.
The President went on to address the need to promote job growth by
saying:
Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will
always be America's businesses.
We should start where most new jobs do--in small
businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a
chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became
her own boss.
And finally:
[We should] Provide a tax incentive for all large
businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants
and equipment.
While these challenges and standards were set by the President, the
leader of the Democratic Party, I believe most Republicans would agree
with him. The American people are suffering. Our unemployment rate is
near double digits. We owe it to the unemployed and underemployed to
put aside partisan politics so that we can create jobs and make our
economy stronger.
Soon after President Obama addressed the Nation, Senate Democratic
and Republican leaders went to work on a bipartisan solution to create
a jobs-growth bill. I worked with Senator Schumer to come up with a
payroll tax holiday for companies that hired more employees. Under this
incentive, the sooner a company hired an unemployed worker the more tax
incentive the company would receive. I believe that this initiative is
a perfect example of the kind of bipartisanship the President talked
about during his State of the Union Address.
In addition, Senators Baucus and Grassley joined in this effort by
including several other provisions aimed at job growth and to address
the symptoms of a failing economy. This was a compromise that included
an extension of unemployment insurance, Build America Bonds, and
expired tax provisions.
Let me be clear. There is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of many
of my colleagues that passing a jobs bill is crucial. We have seen our
unemployment rate remain at about 10 percent since September. The
American people sent us here to do a job, and it is way past time we
did it.
This is why it was so disheartening on February 11, when the Senate
majority leader announced that he would scrap the compromise proposal
only hours after its unveiling and proceed instead with a stripped-down
bill that would not extend any of the expiring tax proposals that are
so vitally important to job growth. This decision not only pulled the
rug out from Republicans, but it floored those Democrats who had been
working for weeks on a bipartisan solution.
Regrettably, because of this decision, it looks as though President
Obama's hope for a bipartisan solution to job creation only lasted 2
weeks. What a shame!
To illustrate the abruptness of and surprise caused by the majority
leader's unexpected action, just look at the next-day's headlines:
``Key Dem: Reid scrapped jobs bill because he did not trust
Republicans''--The Hill
``Reid kills Baucus-Grassley jobs bill''--The Politico
``Senate leader slashes jobs bill; Despite new support''--
LA Times
But it doesn't end there. The majority leader sent a pretty strong
message when he said that he--and I quote--``dared Republicans to vote
against his bill.''
Many Democratic Senators were quick to stand behind the majority
leader's reversal, just seconds after supporting the bipartisan jobs
bill. Some even stated that we Republicans were not interested in a
bipartisan deal because we were more inclined to ``play rope-a-dope
again.'' They went on to characterize the tax extenders as only ``going
to people who are making money, and they generally keep it.'' They even
went so far as to say that what the Democratic Caucus is taking to the
floor is something that is more focused on job creation than on tax
breaks.
What most surprised me is just how quickly many Democratic Senators
were to abandon these tax extenders, even though most of them support
extending these very expiring tax provisions. In fact, the Democratic
leadership has erroneously labeled the tax extenders as solely a
Republican-supported initiative. This is hardly the case, considering
the Democratic-led House has already passed nearly all of these tax
extenders and the President called for them to be passed in his speech
before Congress.
There is an array of expiring tax provisions contained in the tax
extenders package. Here are a few that are included:
Also, many Democrats, including the majority leader, are cosponsors
of legislation that would extend many of the expiring tax provisions.
Look at the bill to extend the research tax credit, or the alternative
fuels vehicle credit, or even the new markets tax credit. These are by
no means solely Republican initiatives.
In fact, there are many business tax incentives included in the tax
extenders package that are primarily supported by some of the Senators
who have been the most vocal against including the expired provisions
in the jobs bill. These Democratic-supported business incentives
include a mine rescue team training credit and special expensing rules
for certain film and television productions.
Therefore, to label the support of extending these expiring tax
provisions
[[Page 1723]]
as part of a solely Republican agenda is misleading, unfair, and
unwarranted. I believe that these statements were made only to support
the majority leader, who appeared to have made a hasty and ill-
considered decision.
Some have questioned how extending these expired tax provisions
relate to job creation. It is a fair question, but one with easy
answers. The extension of these expired tax provisions would support
proven growth of companies that are slowly beginning to see the light
at the end of the tunnel. Conversely, government funding would only
provide a false sense of job growth because once the government funding
is gone so will the jobs.
If we need proof that government spending isn't as effective as tax
relief, we only have to look to what the Congressional Budget Office
said last year about the effects of the year-old economic stimulus
package:
The legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to
2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to
3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to
1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining
numbers in later years.
The reason for this drop in employment is because government spending
does not create permanent jobs; only the private sector can. In
contrast to government spending, tax incentives would give the private
sector a much-needed boost. If we had included more tax incentives for
businesses in last year's stimulus bill, we would have created jobs
that will last far longer than the ones government spending has
created.
Originally projected to cost $787 billion, the stimulus bill is now
expected to total $862 billion over 10 years, according to the
Congressional Budget Office. This does not include interest owed, which
would put the total cost in the trillions of dollars.
Thus far, only a third of the $862 billion stimulus package has been
spent. Another third is expected to be spent in 2010, and the remaining
third after this year. Whatever happened to spending money on projects
deemed to be ``shovel ready?''
The administration has claimed the stimulus bill is responsible for
creating or saving 1 million jobs--a very misleading claim.
For example, it was reported that a construction company in Nevada
created 20 jobs on a project that has yet to receive money. A school
district reported saving 665 jobs, even though it only employs roughly
600 people. A town in Oregon reported creating eight jobs on a contract
for ``rattlesnake stewardship.''
In January 2009, President Obama's economic advisors predicted in a
report that with an $800 billion stimulus, the unemployment rate would
never go above 8 percent. As I stated previously, unemployment has been
near 10 percent since last September.
Moreover, the stimulus package was sold to the American people as an
immediate fix--a ``jolt'' to the economy. The President's chief
economic advisor, Larry Summers, said: ``You'll see effects
immediately.'' Christina Romer, the President's chair of Economic
Advisers, said: ``We'll start adding jobs rather than losing them.''
And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``This will begin creating
jobs immediately.''
When pitching the stimulus bill, then-President-elect Obama said ``90
percent of these jobs will be created in the private sector--the
remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs.'' However, the Wall
Street Journal reported in a February 17 article that government data
indicate most jobs supported by stimulus dollars belonged to government
employees at the State and local level. In fact, only 2 percent of the
entire stimulus bill was dedicated toward tax relief for businesses.
We need to provide a foundation to allow the private sector to
nourish and create better paying jobs. That is why many support
including these tax extenders in a jobs bill.
For instance, it is estimated that that approximately 70 percent or
more of the research tax credit benefits are attributable to salaries
of performing U.S.-based research. How can some Senators disregard the
effectiveness of some of these tax extenders on job growth? And keep in
mind that the research credit has traditionally received more
Democratic than Republican support in this body. In fact, there is a
bill to extend the expiring research tax credit. Of the 18 cosponsors
of this bill, 11 are Democrats. Furthermore, this bill was introduced
by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
As I stated earlier, the President set the tone at the beginning of
the year by calling on Congress to put forth a bipartisan solution to
create jobs. In response, both Democrats and Republicans brought
innovative ideas to the table. Then, in a sudden change of events, many
Republican ideas were excluded from the jobs bill the majority leader
has brought to the floor. Finally, the majority leader is not allowing
our side to offer any amendments.
If this is not an arrogance of power, then I do not know what is. I
only hope the majority leader heeds President Obama's plea for a
bipartisan solution.
I think one Democrat, learning of the majority leader's action, said
it best:
Most Americans don't honestly believe that a single
political party has all the good ideas. I hope the majority
leader will reconsider.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma for 2 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have to object because the vote was set
for 9:55.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we have had so much partisan gridlock.
Today we have a real opportunity to show that this new legislative year
can break through that with something meaningful to the American
people, a jobs bill. I am hopeful that many colleagues on the other
side of the aisle will join us. There has been great input from Senator
Inhofe and Senator Hatch. These are people who are conservative, have
different voting records than I, but they say we have to do something.
I thank the new Senator from Massachusetts for leading the way and
breaking through the miasma. This is a good, focused bill. It is a
modest bill, but it will do some good for the hundreds of thousands and
perhaps millions who are looking desperately for work. When they find
jobs, our economy begins to move forward. That is long overdue.
Both sides of the aisle can show the American people we have heard
them by overwhelmingly passing this well-crafted, well-honed, modest
piece of legislation aimed at issue No. 1: jobs and the economy.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
question is on agreeing to the motion offered by the Senator from
Maryland, Mr. Cardin, to waive the Budget Act and budget resolutions
with respect to the motion offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr.
Reid, to concur with an amendment in the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2847.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]
YEAS--62
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
[[Page 1724]]
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--34
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--4
Hutchison
Lautenberg
Levin
McCain
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote the yeas are 62, the
nays are 34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Under the previous order, amendment No. 3311 is withdrawn.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur with an amendment
to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]
YEAS--70
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--28
Barrasso
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
NOT VOTING--2
Hutchison
Lautenberg
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. KAUFMAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The bill, H.R. 2847, as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
____________________