Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, there is finally some sunshine on the Capitol dome today, and it is a welcome change from all the snow we have had this winter, so it is appropriate that this is Sunshine Week. But that is not a reference to the weather. Sunshine Week is a nonpartisan, open-government initiative led by the American Society of News Editors. It is a good time, then, to talk about congressional oversight and the need for Congress to keep a watchful eye on the executive branch. That is what oversight is all about--checks and balances in government. I would like to refer to the President's inaugural address and use it as a benchmark for measuring sunshine in government. President Obama promised in the inaugural address to bring more sunshine to the Federal Government, and I want to quote him. Those of us who manage the public's dollar will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. So let's just see how what has taken place in the last 15 months measures against this very good standard the President set in the inaugural address. I couldn't agree more with the President on what he said. The government should do its business in the light of day. Unfortunately, in my work, I have noticed no improvement in the openness of the Federal Government. One vital step the President could have taken to ensure greater transparency would have been to order agencies to be more forthcoming in responding to requests from Congress--not just from this Senator but from any Senator. He could have instructed them to review and revise some of the secretive policies that have developed over the years. These policies are not required by law and simply serve to frustrate the ability of Congress to gather information we need in order to act as a check on the power and responsibilities of the executive branch. However, the President has apparently not taken that step because the agencies have been as aggressive as ever in withholding information from Congress. Throughout my career here in the Senate, I have actively conducted oversight of the executive branch, regardless of who controls Congress or the White House. So that means, for me, as a Republican, I feel I have been just as aggressive, or more so, with a Republican President as with a Democratic President because it is our constitutional duty as legislators to do this. These issues are typically about basic good government and accountability. They are not about party politics, and they surely aren't about ideology. The resistance is often fierce--resistance from the bureaucracy, that is--protecting itself in what the bureaucracy does best. It loves to protect itself from scrutiny, and it works overtime to keep embarrassing facts from Congress and, in turn, from public scrutiny. When the agencies I am reviewing get defensive and refuse to respond to my requests, you know what. It makes me simply wonder what they are trying to hide. They act as if documents in government files belong to them. These unelected officials seem to think they alone have the right to decide who gets access to that information--collected, by the way, at taxpayers' expense. Well, I have news for them. These documents in the government files belong to the people, and the elected representatives of the people have a right to see them. That right is essential to carry out our oversight functions under the Constitution. I had hoped President Obama's commitment to a more open government would mean major changes that would enable more effective congressional oversight. As he said in his inaugural address, those who manage public dollars ought to be held to account and do business in the light of day. But actions always speak louder than words. Given my experience in trying to pry information out of the executive branch, I am disappointed to report that the principles the President articulated so well are not being put into practice. The administration seems to act as if government officials ought to be held to account and do business in the light of the day except when they do not want to. There are too many exceptions to count, and I am just going to list a few. Let's contrast the President's words with the agencies' actions. The President's words say that government should do business in the light of day. The agencies' actions say except when it comes to improper payment of Medicare. As a part of my oversight function of Medicare, Congress reviews annual reports that the administration is required to produce. One of these reports is on improper Medicare payments. That was due last November. Congress is still waiting to see the numbers for improper payments made to specific types of health care providers and for specific services. Improper payment rates vary widely among different types of providers and, of course, services. So this information would help us to determine where to focus our efforts. We have not received such breakdowns of improper payments since the year 2007. We need these numbers to evaluate how the Federal Government is addressing fraud, waste, and abuse and to inform our discussions on legislation about health care financing. Let's go to another example because I want to repeat the President's words: Government should do business in the light of day. Their actions say: Except when it comes to potential Medicaid fraud. Overutilization of health services and health care fraud play a significant role in the rising cost of our health care system. I wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 3 months ago about what they are doing about overutilization of health care services. I specifically asked about a Medicaid prescriber in south Florida who--now hear this-- who wrote over 96,000 prescriptions for mental health drugs, nearly twice the number written by the second highest prescriber. It was just a simple question about one Medicare prescriber, and I am still waiting for a response. On another example--his words would say government should do business in the light of day. The actions of the administration say except when it comes to protecting the privacy of an al-Qaida terrorist. Listen to this. In preparation for a hearing on Christmas Day bombing attempts, my Republican colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee requested a copy of something very simple, a copy of the bomber's visa application. We wanted to learn more about why he was given permission to enter the United States in the first place, and why his visa wasn't revoked after his father warned the U.S. officials that he might be planning something. The State Department first tried to withhold the document on grounds that it might be evidence in a criminal proceeding. But after the Justice Department said that was not an issue, you know what. The State Department comes along and tries to not cooperate. The State Department changed its position and claimed that a provision in the immigration law required them to protect the al-Qaida terrorist's privacy by withholding documents about how he was given permission to enter the country. After going through all that, all I can say is--transparency, on a little simple visa application, and it cannot be given to us? On another example, the President says: Government should do business in the light of day. Their actions say: Except when it comes to information about how Treasury officials allowed AIG executives to make off with millions of taxpayer dollars. Since last December, I have exchanged a series of letters with Treasury Secretary Geithner and his staff. I have some detailed questions about exactly which executives received which kind of payments under which contracts, and then why the Treasury Department did not do more to stop those payments. I even addressed the issue directly with Secretary Geithner at a Finance Committee hearing. He promised that I would get the information I was seeking. Yet Treasury Department lawyers are still withholding the documents on the grounds that they have to protect the privacy of AIG executives. Is government doing its business in the light of day? No. They are still refusing to answer questions about why Treasury regulators allowed AIG to make large severance payments, even though the statute provided the authority to stop those payments. On another example, and to repeat the President's words: Government should do business in the light of day. What do the actions show? Except when it comes to allegations of misconduct in the Department of Justice. When Attorney General Eric Holder and I met during his confirmation process, I provided him with a binder that thick full of unanswered letters that I had written regarding the FBI and Justice Department oversight issues in the Bush administration. I was trying to give the Attorney General an opportunity to clear the deck so somehow it was not mixed up with the new administration. I had promises of renewed efforts to accommodate my information requests. The Department has not altered its policies of withholding documents relating to personnel matters and any other matter that might be the subject of internal reviews in the Justice Department. For years I have been seeking internal Justice Department e-mails related to the FBI's use of so-called exigent letters, together with telephone records of Americans, without a subpoena, and even when there is no legitimate emergency. At first the excuse was that the Congress had to wait for the inspector general to finish a review, but that review is complete at long last. Yet the documents that were supposed to be provided are still being withheld. Congress is not the only one from whom the executive branch is withholding information. I asked the Government Accountability Office in September about its difficulties in obtaining access to records and other information from the Federal agencies over the last year. As an investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office investigates how the Federal Government spends taxpayers' dollars, and in order to do that work the GAO requires access to agency documents. So what has been the record of the Government Accountability Office? They have told me that it generally receives good cooperation, but it has and continues to have access issues at certain agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. According to the Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security has ``posed continual access challenges for GAO since the department began operations in 2003.'' The Government Accountability Office also indicated that access to information at the Justice Department and the FBI is also particularly problematic. Despite a bipartisan request--get this--a bipartisan request from both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to audit the FBI's human capital management of its counterterrorism division, the Government Accountability Office has been stonewalled by the Justice Department with new and unprecedented claims that the FBI's intelligence-related functions are off-limits for GAO review. Understand this: This is the top Republican, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and counterparts on the Senate Judiciary Committee. So it is bipartisan and it is bicameral. Even the Government Accountability Office has trouble getting the information. The public has also been stonewalled when making requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act. When he first took office, the President back-issued a memo on the Freedom of Information Act to the heads of executive agencies. Listen as I quote. Who is not going to agree with this? The President is doing what a President who campaigned on openness and transparency in government and accountability should be doing. He is doing what he said he was going to do in the campaign. But having it come out the other end of the pipeline, it doesn't seem to work that way. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because of errors and failures that might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Then he goes on to instruct the executive agencies to: . . . adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in the Freedom of Information Act, and to usher in a new era of open government. I compliment the President of the United States. Such a good statement, and just what government ought to be standing for because the public's business ought to be public. The President may have issued a pledge of openness and transparent government, but this week we had the National Security Archive release findings of its Freedom of Information Act audit and found that the administration ``has not conquered the challenge of communicating and enforcing that message throughout the Executive Branch.'' Particularly, the organization found that requests as old as 18 years still exist in the freedom of information system. Somebody made a request 18 years ago, and it has not been granted? Probably the guy who asked for it, or whoever asked for it, is dead and buried now. Why can't something like that be done? It does not meet the commonsense test that we are interested in bringing to Washington--Washington, an island surrounded by reality. And only in the unreal world could there be a freedom of information request 18 years old that has not yet been granted. This organization also found that five agencies appear to be releasing less and withholding more information, even since this President's Executive order has been in place. How can people thumb their noses at the President of the United States if they are working under his direction? The White House has said it is committed to more open and transparent government. In his memo to the heads of the executive agencies, the President said ``openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government,'' and that ``transparency promotes accountability.'' Again--extreme compliment to the President of the United States for setting a standard. That is absolutely in the spirit of representative government. But somehow the message has clearly not gotten through. It comes back to us and our constitutional responsibilities of checks and balances. It is our job in Congress to ensure that agencies are more transparent and responsive to the people we represent. Congress is not doing its job if we do not hold agencies accountable and ensure that executive policies reflect the interests of our constituents. In other words, the public's business ought to be public. I will continue doing what I can to hold feet to the fire. It would be helpful if the President would use his authority to require agencies to change their actions to be consistent with his words. I do not get a chance to compliment this President very much, but he surely has set the standard here that we ought to have in our Government. It just proves, if he really wants it to happen, even if you are President of the United States, it is difficult to get people down in the bowels of the bureaucracy to carry out what you want. You wonder why people in this country are cynical. That is one reason. But the President can do it. He ought to call all these birds in that are frustrating his principles and look them in the eye and tell them: Either do what I want or get out of government. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, one of the provisions the Democratic leadership decided to put in this HIRE bill is the expansion of Build America Bonds. Build America Bonds is a very rich spending program; however, it is disguised as a tax cut. One Democratic Senator was asked why the Build America Bonds program is viewed differently than appropriations, and she replied: It has a good name. Ironically, the Finance Committee is returning to its roots of doing appropriations bills. When our committee was established in 1816, the Finance Committee handled the major appropriations bills that came before Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a portion of the document outlining the history of the Finance Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Bloomberg News reported that large Wall Street investment banks were charging 37 percent higher underwriting fees on Build America Bond deals than on other tax-exempt bond deals. Therefore, American taxpayers appear to be funding huge underwriting fees for large Wall Street investment banks as part of the Build America Bonds. The Wall Street Journal article, dated March 10, 2010, stated, Wall Street investment banks have made over $1 billion in underwriting fees on Build America Bonds in less than 1 year. The Wall Street Journal article, based on data from Thomson Reuters, stated underwriting fees on Build America Bond deals are higher than those for tax-exempt bond deals. That sounds like a great deal for the high rollers on Wall Street. But how about the taxpayers back on Main Street America who have to pick up this tab? The Democratic leadership has said the Build America Bonds program is about creating jobs. But I wish to know whether it is about lining the pockets of Wall Street executives. Recently, I asked the CEO of a large Wall Street investment bank a number of questions about these larger underwriting fees that are subsidized by the American taxpayers. He confirmed that the underwriting fees for Build America Bond deals are larger than those of tax-exempt bond deals. The Senate and House have recently passed different versions of the bill we are currently debating which includes a provision that expands the Build America Bonds program created in the stimulus bill. One would assume it was just a temporary provision and extend that to four types of tax credit bonds. I will give those four types. Before I do, I remind my colleagues that this is another example that the word ``temporary'' does not apply to very many things in Washington, DC, because it does not take long for a temporary program to become a permanent program. I talked about four types of tax credit bonds. They are the qualified school construction bonds, qualified zone academy bonds, clean renewable energy bonds, and qualified energy conservation bonds. The Build America Bonds program contains an option for the issuer of bonds which is a nontaxpaying entity to receive a check from the Treasury Department based on a percentage of the interest cost incurred by the issuer. Some refer to this option as the direct pay option. The percentage of the interest costs on the four tax credit bonds subsidized by the American taxpayers under the direct pay option in the Senate bill is a whopping 45 percent and is increased to 65 percent for small issuers. ``Small issuers'' are defined as those issuing less than $30 million in bonds per year. The House version increased the direct payment subsidy to 100 percent for qualified school construction bonds and qualified zone academy bonds, and increased the subsidy to 70 percent for clean renewable energy bonds and the qualified energy conservation bonds. Let me put this in context. The Build America Bonds program created in the stimulus bill contains a 35-percent direct pay subsidy, and the President has proposed in his fiscal year 2011 budget that it be lowered to 28 percent. It was reported in the March 11, 2010, Bond Buyer article that a senior House staffer asserted that no issuers would opt to issue direct pay bonds under the lower Senate rates of 45 and 65 percent. When I read that assertion, I asked the Finance Committee Republican staff to reconcile that assertion with the scoring of the Build America Bonds proposal in the Senate-passed bill. The Republican staff of the Finance Committee reviewed the Joint Committee on Taxation's final estimate of the Senate-passed bill and found that the senior House staffer's assertion was directly contradicted by the estimate provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which everybody knows is the nonpartisan official scorekeeper for Congress on any tax matters. In fact, footnote 2 of the estimate of the Senate Build America Bonds provision states that the Joint Tax Committee's estimate of the Senate direct pay bonds option includes an increase in outlays of--let's say $8 billion. This means the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates assumed that a large number of issuers would elect to use the direct pay option, contrary to that House staffer's assertion. The Bond Buyer--that is a publication--the Bond Buyer also reported that the senior House staffer stated: There is nobody that I know who does not view the Build America Bonds program as an enormous success, with the possible exception of one person. I assume that staffer was referring to me. There are many Federal taxpayers who do not view the Build America Bonds program as an enormous success. To understand why, let's see which States benefit the most from the Build America Bonds. In looking at data from Thomson Reuters on the 10 largest Build America Bonds deals, California alone issues 73 percent of those bonds. Between California and New York, those two States alone issue 92 percent of the bonds from the 10 largest Build America Bonds deals. California and New York are the biggest winners under the Build America Bonds, while American taxpayers from the remaining 48 States subsidize these States. As Senator Kyl pointed out in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter on Build America Bonds circulated on March 15, the Build America Bonds program actually rewards States for having a riskier credit rating by giving them more money. Build America Bonds creates a perverse incentive that causes State and local governments to borrow more than they otherwise would borrow. This is especially true regarding the school tax credit bonds. This bill creates incentives where States and local governments should not even care what the interest rate is. The American taxpayers are picking up 100 percent of the interest cost. Actually, the cost borne by the American taxpayers is, in fact, more than 100 percent. At least with tax credit bonds, the taxpayers include the amount of the tax credit in income and the Federal Government collects taxes on that income. The only purchasers of tax credit bonds are those who have tax liabilities; otherwise, it makes no sense to buy tax credit bonds. However, Build America bonds are technically taxable bonds. But most of the investors do not pay tax on these bonds. For example, under our tax rules, if a foreign person or a pension fund or a tax-exempt entity buys a Build America Bond, they do not pay tax on the interest they receive. Thus, the Federal Government not only cuts a check for 100 percent of the bond's interest cost, but it also loses most of the revenue it would have collected from the tax credit bonds. State and local governments can view this Federal money as what it really is--free money--because they do not have to collect it from their residents. Therefore, of course, State and local governments turn out to be very big fans of the Build America Bonds program. They get Federal money that they do not have to pay back. The large Wall Street investment banks love Build America Bonds. Why? Because they are getting richer off those bonds. However, we all know there is no such thing as a free lunch. Washington is an island surrounded by reality. Consequently, everybody in this town thinks there are free lunches, and the common sense of the rest of the country has difficulty getting inside this island. It is our responsibility to point out that in this city, this District--the only real industry is government--you cannot have everybody in the wagon. In this town, everybody is in the wagon. Everybody outside the District is pulling the wagon. That cannot go on very long. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Federal taxpayers are footing the bill for this big spending program, which only gets bigger every time Congress touches it. This legislation before us is just an example. As this program that started out as a little program in the stimulus bill--and presumably the word ``stimulus'' means temporary, doesn't it? But this is not turning out to be temporary and it is not turning out to be small because it has just been enhanced greatly in the other body. The American taxpayers are the ones we ought to be looking out for, and a temporary program ought to be temporary and a stimulus program ought to be stimulus and nothing else. And here we are expanding it. The American taxpayers are the ones who, in the words of the senior House staffer, do ``not view the Build America Bonds program as an enormous success.'' I urge my colleagues to look beyond the fancy, well-funded lobbying campaign for this rich subsidy. Take a look at who wins. The winners are big Wall Street banks. Maybe a small number of governments will issue bonds they otherwise would not. Main Street is not helped very much by this program. The only certainty is that the Federal taxpayers are on the hook for the interest costs. With record budget deficits under this Congress and administration, we cannot casually look away as new, open-ended subsidies are proposed. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with the chairman. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I voted against waving a budget point of order to the Murray/Kerry amendment on the grounds that it is not paid for and contained terrible welfare and Medicare policies. The Congress cannot keep spending money it does not have. It is unconscionable to put forth an amendment that is not being paid for at a time of exploding deficits to an underlying bill that already has another $104 billion not paid for. In addition to adding to the deficit during a fiscal crisis, the underlying Murray/Kerry amendment perpetuates flawed welfare policies that undermine key principles of welfare reform. The Murray/Kerry amendment perpetuates the fund established in the stimulus bill that, for the first time since the landmark 1996 welfare reform act, rewards States for increasing their welfare caseload and does not require these additional eligible adults to participate in work, education or training activities. This in turn adds to the current deplorable situation where, according to the latest data we have from the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. average for eligible adults receiving welfare doing nothing is 56 percent. That is right--on average 56 percent of adults receiving welfare are engaged in zero hours of work, training or education activity. Some States have over 70 percent of eligible adults doing nothing. That is zero hours of job search. Zero hours of education. Zero hours of substance abuse treatment. Zero hours of job training. Zero hours of subsidized work activities. I bet if you asked the American people--how many adults on welfare should be doing something to qualify for their welfare check--I bet the answer would be: all of them! I bet if the American people knew that the majority of adults on welfare were doing nothing, they would be as stunned and appalled as I am. We need to do better by these families. Allowing them to languish in the soul crushing, deep and persistent poverty of welfare is a travesty. The Murray/Kerry amendment does nothing to address the issue that the majority of adults on welfare are not doing anything to get themselves out of poverty. That makes no sense, Mr. President, and I cannot support it. Finally, in addition to the misguided welfare policies, I also had reservations about the use of ``intelligent assignment'' in Part D to pay for this amendment. I fully support efforts to make sure vulnerable populations are in the lowest cost plan that meets their personal health care needs and look forward to continuing to work on this issue in the future. But the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and MedPAC commissioners have raised concerns that ``intelligent assignment'' could lead to increased disruption, higher costs and little overall improvement for beneficiaries. Therefore, I opposed waving the Budget Act that would have allowed the Murray/Kerry amendment to undermine welfare policy, advance misguided Medicare policy and increase the deficit.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to resolve a dispute that arose on the floor earlier this morning. There were differing opinions on whether the Senate-passed health care reform bill cuts taxes or raises taxes. During the month-long floor debate on health care reform--ending with a final vote on Christmas Eve--I took to the floor on five occasions to address this question. Let me top-line it for my Senate colleagues and my friends in the media. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, only about 7 percent of Americans would actually receive the government subsidy for health insurance under the Senate-passed health care reform bill. The remaining 93 percent of Americans would not be eligible for a tax benefit under the bill. How can a person receive a tax cut if they do not receive a tax benefit? Here is another powerful statistic that every policymaker needs to know: While only about 7 percent of Americans under $200,000 would actually receive the subsidy for health insurance, 25 percent of Americans under $200,000 would see their taxes go up. This is even after taking into account the government subsidy. This means that for every one middle class family that would receive the government subsidy, three middle class families would pay higher taxes. Again, this is all according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan experts. Now, let's get to specifics. JCT tells us that in 2019 a little more than 13 million individuals, families, and single parents would receive the government subsidy for health insurance. JCT also tells us that the total number of tax filers in 2019 would be 176 million. That means that out of 176 million individuals, families, and single parents only 13 million of them would receive a government subsidy for health insurance. That is only about 7 percent of tax filers. Let me repeat that. Only about 7 percent of Americans will benefit from the subsidy for health insurance. I have a pie chart here so my friends can see. You can see here, out of 176 million tax returns, around 13 million of them get the government subsidy for health insurance. This means that 163 million individuals, families, and single parents or 93 percent of all tax returns receive no tax benefit under the Reid bill. So what does this mean? It means that there is a small beneficiary class under the Reid bill--about 7 percent of Americans. And a very large nonbeneficiary class--93 percent of Americans. Is this nonbeneficiary class affected in other ways? Yes. While one group of Americans in this class would be unaffected-- another group of Americans will see their taxes go up. And this group won't have a tax benefit to offset their new tax liability. That means that these Americans will be worse off under the Reid bill. What happened to their ``net tax cut''? What they will see instead is a net tax increase. JCT data backs up this claim. Specifically, based on JCT data, in 2019, 42 million individuals, families, and single parents with income under $200,000 will see their taxes go up. This is even after taking into account the subsidy for health insurance. Again, this is on a net basis. Now, if we were to identify (1) those Americans who are not eligible to receive the tax credit and (2) those whose taxes go up before they see some type of tax reduction from the subsidy, this number climbs to 73 million. I have a chart here that illustrates this: The first bar illustrates what we have already established, but looks at Americans earning less than $200,000. Here, 13 million individuals, families, and single parents would receive the subsidy. The middle bar shows the net tax increase number of 42 million Americans under $200,000. Finally, when we identify those Americans who get no benefit under the bill--and those Americans who see a tax increase--we find there are 73 million individuals, families, and single parents under $200,000 in this category. I want to close by referring to a final chart that illustrates the winners and losers under the Reid bill. What we see here is that there is a group of Americans who clearly benefit under the bill from the government subsidy for health insurance. This group, however, is relatively small--about 7 percent of Americans. There is another much larger group of Americans who are seeing their taxes go up. This group is not benefiting from the government subsidy. Also, there is another group of taxpayers who are generally unaffected. But, JCT tells us that this group may be affected by other tax increases like the cap on FSAs or the individual mandate penalty tax. The bottom-line is this. My Democratic friends (1) cannot say that all taxpayers receive a tax cut and (2) cannot say that the Reid bill does not raise taxes on middle-income Americans. JCT tells us differently. No one can dispute the data. vote explanation

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, are we now on the pending legislation?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent--and I think this has been cleared with the other side--that the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of my offering an amendment and giving short debate on my amendment.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a couple of days ago I stated that I had worked in early February to put together a bipartisan package with my colleague, Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, to address some time- sensitive matters that needed to be considered. So I find it surprising we are taking up a package this week that, as was last week's exercise, is still a partisan product belonging to the Senate Democratic leadership. We are not taking up the bipartisan package I put together with Finance Committee Chairman Baucus. The Senate Democratic leadership arbitrarily 2 weeks ago decided to replace the Baucus-Grassley bipartisan bill with one that is dramatically different. That partisan package is almost three times the size and significantly greater in cost than the bipartisan bill Senator Baucus and I announced on February 11. It is unfortunate that the Democratic leadership failed to ensure that these critically needed Medicare provisions were extended at the end of last year, and then they failed to extend the provisions that had expired in 2009 for over 2 months. So, today, this present situation I just described brings me to the offering of this amendment. This amendment would ensure that Medicare provisions are fully offset, and my amendment would also extend the physicians update through the end of this year. The words ``physician update'' are directly related to the formula used to determine Medicare payments to physicians. On February 28, the extension expired and physician payments were scheduled to be cut by 22 percent under the existing formula, except just recently that was extended so that doesn't actually happen. But this on-again, off-again situation that doctors are put in ought to end, and this amendment I offer will make sure that doesn't happen through all of 2010. I wish to make very clear this isn't just for doctors, even though it affects just doctor payment. These provisions are also essential to the health and well-being of every Medicare beneficiary. This is the fiscally responsible way to extend them. We ought to pay for them. These Medicare provisions have been routinely supported by both sides, fully offset, and passed repeatedly in recent years. Now, of course, it is March 3. Medicare beneficiaries around the country are suffering from the Democratic leader's decision to abandon the Baucus- Grassley bipartisan package my colleagues and I had worked out weeks ago. First, there is the urgently needed physician payment update, and sometimes around this town we refer to this as the doctors fix for short, to fix the formula, to bring the formula up to date so those 22- percent cuts don't go into effect. There was a doctors fix at the end of last year through a 2-month extension that expired, as I said, on February 28. So as of March 1, physicians and nurses and other health care professionals were subject to these severe cuts of 22 percent. Then, because we get a lot of calls--and my office got these calls as well--from doctors concerned about how they are going to keep their offices open, we now have a 30-day extension passed last night so these physician payments that would have been a 22-percent cut now, for 3 days, won't take place until, unless we act, the end of March. That is not a very good way to do business if you have to worry about a doctor, particularly in rural America, keeping their offices open and paying their help, so we ought to do it on a more consistent basis instead of running month to month. These cuts to physician payments cannot be allowed to occur, and as damaging as these would be to beneficiary access to care anywhere, these cuts are even more disastrous for access to care in rural America such as in Iowa where Medicare reimbursement is already at least 30 percent lower than in other areas. I am appalled that seniors' access to physicians and needed medical care has been handled this way because of political games that are being played by the majority leadership. Should these cuts remain in place, they will have a truly devastating effect on the ability of seniors to find doctors who take Medicare patients. Many beneficiaries have already been affected by Medicare provisions that the Senate Democratic leadership allowed to expire even last December. One of the most urgent situations involves limitations that Medicare places on the amount of certain kinds of treatments for beneficiaries. Medicare places annual limits on the amount of outpatient physical therapy, speech language pathology therapy, and occupational therapy that a beneficiary can receive. In other words, the government is saying, regardless of how much health care you need in these areas of therapy, you can only get up to so much dollar amount. Well, laws that have lapsed have allowed special cases to be taken care of contrary to what the law specifically says on dollar limit. In 2005, the law was changed to provide an exception process to these therapy caps for situations when additional therapy is medically needed, and that needed protection for beneficiaries then expired when the doctors fix expired on December 31. Medicare beneficiaries who have suffered strokes or serious debilitating injuries such as a hip fracture have significant rehabilitation needs. So we are in this situation of extending this doctor fix from month to month. Situations where patients need this rehabilitation have already exceeded the caps for 2010. Those with the greatest need for therapy will be the hardest hit. Here, again, with the 30-day extension bill having passed last night, this problem has been only temporarily fixed. This is another case where Congress is playing political games with Medicare. These should have been taken care of at the end of last year, and they could have already been resolved if the Senate had taken up the original Baucus- Grassley bill instead of replacing it with a cutback, partisan piece of legislation that the Senate handled last year or, one might say, being handled right now with this legislation now on the floor of the Senate to which my amendment is being added. Other essential provisions we need to be looking at for extension are additional payments for mental health services. This benefits Medicare beneficiaries in need of mental health counseling, as well as veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress and other disorders since TRICARE is based on Medicare rates. Another issue concerns additional payments for ambulance services that many ambulance providers need to keep their doors open. Those provisions also expired at the end of last year, but they were not extended in the 30-day bill voted on last night. Another important issue affects community pharmacies. Pharmacies that have not gone through the accreditation process will soon be forced to turn away Medicare beneficiaries. A provision in my amendment would ensure that beneficiaries who need vital medical supplies, such as diabetic test strips, canes, nebulizers, and wound care products, can continue to have access to these products through their community pharmacy. Many eligible professionals, such as physicians, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and others, have been specifically exempted from this accreditation requirement. This provision would also exempt community pharmacies under certain conditions. A number of other expired provisions are extended in this package. They include improved payments for hospitals, especially rural hospitals, that rely on these provisions just to keep their doors open. Like many others, these problems are not fixed in the simple 30-day bill passed last night. These problems remain. The impact of a hospital shutting its doors would be especially hard on rural and underserved areas where hospitals offer the only access to health care. We need to pass this critically needed and fiscally responsible amendment now. I urge my colleagues to support it. That is what I have to say on my amendment. I would like to take a couple minutes to respond to a couple issues that Senator Durbin brought up. I am not here to refute anything he said but to give an addendum to what he said on a couple points. One is the use of reconciliation and the opposition that I think is pretty unified on this side of the aisle that the name of the game should not be changed. He did not say anything inaccurate. But when it comes to reconciliation on a massive 2,700-page bill that we call health care reform--that is a partisan bill--the same bill that passed Christmas Eve in this body, never has reconciliation been used to reorganize one-sixth of the entire economy. In other words, about $2.5 trillion out of a $14 trillion economy is being reorganized by that health care reform bill. I say to Senator Durbin, that is quite a bit different than using reconciliation for a tax bill or for a Medicare reform bill or to save money on certain entitlement programs. It is like peanuts compared to a massive restructuring of one-sixth of the economy. That is why we say reconciliation should not be used. A second point for not using reconciliation is the fact that this bill has been turned down by the vast majority of the American people. There is overwhelming opposition to this 2,700-page bill, albeit not overwhelming opposition to the issue: Is the present health care system adequate and should it be changed. I think a slight portion of the American people would say yes, and I think most of the 100 Senators would say yes to that. But for this 2,700-page bill, 70 percent of the American people have said it needs to be started over again with a clean sheet of paper. Then on the issue he brought up of extending Medicare for 10 years, that is true if you use the double accounting in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that it is using double accounting. That is not the way you can intellectually count money twice. The Congressional Budget Office, in a paper I read to the President at the summit last week, claims it is double accounting. That is not the way to do business. You can extend the viability of any program by a lot if you are going to count money twice, but you cannot do that. Some of the problems with the 2,700-page bill, the American people understand. That is why they rejected it. That is why we say reconciliation should not be used, and that is why we say we should start over and do things incrementally. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Bond and Bennett as cosponsors.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment extends critically needed Medicare provisions for all of 2010, not just part of it. It replaces the provisions that are not fully offset with fully offset provisions, and it adds an additional 3 months for the physician update through the end of 2010. This amendment draws additional funds from the Medicare improvement fund to ensure these provisions are fully offset. My friend from Montana said that is not the place to take the money from, but his substitute amendment takes money from the very same fund. I take a little bit more, yes, but I don't think a few billion in funding needed here will make much of a difference when it comes to the $2.5 trillion cost of health care reform, as was suggested earlier. So I don't see that as a valid argument for not paying for these Medicare provisions. Going back to the situation at hand, the 30-day extension that passed last night only prevents payment cuts until the end of March. Physicians and Medicare beneficiaries need to have certainty and be ensured access to care. This is the fiscally responsible way to pay for these important Medicare provisions. We need to pass this very essential amendment now, so I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I have some time?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Good. I am glad I have 26 seconds. His amendment takes $8 billion away from the Medicare improvement fund, mine takes $10 billion away.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in October of 2008, the Social Security Administration, SSA, announced that beneficiaries would receive a 5.8- percent COLA in 2009, the biggest increase since 1982. This increase was primarily due to record high energy prices. Energy prices have since declined resulting in a 2.1-percent year-over-year decline in the consumer price index, CPI, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Because current law precludes a negative COLA, the SSA announced this past October that there will be no COLA in 2010. It was also announced that there will be no increase in Medicare Part B premiums for current beneficiaries, except for those with incomes greater than $85,000--single--and $170,000--married. I understand the concerns about Medicare Part D and Medigap premiums. Unlike Part B premiums--which cannot go up when there is no COLA--these other premiums are not subject to such a restriction. However, beneficiaries have other options to reduce these premiums. For example, there may be a competing drug plan with lower premiums. I always encourage people to reevaluate their coverage on an annual basis to see if there is another plan that offers the benefits they need at a lower price. Or, there may be a Medicare Advantage plan that covers both prescription drugs and provides coverage similar to a Medigap plan for a lower premium. As an aside, senior citizens at my town hall meetings frequently ask about congressional COLAs. I remind them that Congress did not receive a COLA this year either. I have consistently voted against automatic COLAs for Congress. However, I recognize the financial need of many seniors who rely on Social Security. A $250 check would be roughly equal to a 2 percent COLA for the average beneficiary. Congress enacted the automatic COLA in 1972 in order to provide an objective, nonpartisan way to determine benefit adjustments. The annual COLA has been based on the CPI calculations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics ever since. Any decision to change, or override, the current process needs to be carefully vetted. History shows Congress has often played partisan politics with Social Security without regard to the solvency of the program or the burden placed on future taxpayers. I understand the desire to send $250 checks to current Social Security beneficiaries to compensate for the lack of a COLA. But, we are also facing an annual budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion for the second year in a row. We cannot continue to add to our deficit without any regard to the consequences. The Sanders amendment fails to include an acceptable way of offsetting the $13 billion cost of this proposal. The amendment offered by Senator Burr would offset the cost by reducing unspent stimulus funds. Last year, CBO scored the stimulus bill at $787 billion. But earlier this year CBO revised its estimate to $862 billion. CBO estimates that we have already spent $200 billion in 2009 and we will spend $400 billion in 2010. That leaves more than $250 billion for future years. This amendment would simply reduce the unspent balance by $13 billion. It has been suggested by some on the other side of the aisle that we should not use stimulus money to pay for other things. They insist the stimulus money is needed to create jobs. Given the fact we have lost nearly 4 million private sector jobs since last year, I doubt the stimulus money has created any net new jobs. But for those who choose to believe government spending can create more jobs than it destroys, CBO says payments that can be made quickly are more effective than those that take a long time. By that standard, using less effective stimulus dollars to pay for more effective stimulus dollars is the best alternative. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which is fully paid for, and reject the amendment of my colleague from Vermont that needlessly increases the deficit.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such time as I might consume. Maybe I better ask, are we under a time agreement?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate starts debate on expiring tax and health provisions, for people outside Washington. Around here, those tax provisions are generally referred to with the word ``extenders.'' But before I discuss the bill before us, I would like to make a couple points on the process, before I get into the substance of the substitute before the Senate. What I find surprising is, we are taking up a package that, similar to last week's exercise, absolutely belongs to the Senate Democratic leadership; that is to say, we are not taking up a bipartisan package that I put together with my friend, Finance Committee Chairman Baucus. To be sure, some of the structure reflects the agreement I have with Senator Baucus, but this package is almost three times the size of the package we agreed upon. Virtually all the additional cost is due to proposals I would not have agreed to in representing the people of Iowa or the Republican conference. I was under the impression the Senate Democratic leadership was genuine in its desire to work on a bipartisan basis, but clearly I was mistaken. Although the Senate Democratic leadership was highly involved in the development of that original bipartisan bill, they arbitrarily decided to replace it with a bill that skews toward their liberal wing. So my first comment to my colleagues, also to the media and to the entire Nation, is: Don't let this package be mislabeled as the Baucus- Grassley package. It is not the package my friend, Chairman Baucus, and I negotiated. Again, the package before the Senate dramatically differs in cost, balance, and dramatically is different in intent from the Baucus-Grassley compromise announced on February 12. My second preliminary comment goes to the way in which these expiring tax provisions have been described by many on the other side, including those in the Democratic leadership. If you roll the videotape back a week or so, you would hear a lot of disparaging comments about these routine, bipartisan extenders. From my perspective, those comments were made in an effort to sully the bipartisan agreement reached by Chairman Baucus and this Senator. If you take a look at newspaper accounts of a week or so ago, you come away with the impression that the tax extenders are partisan work of Republicans and only for Republican interests. A representative sample comes from one report which describes the bipartisan bill as: . . . an extension of soon-to-expire tax breaks that are highly beneficial to major corporations, known as tax extenders, as well as other corporate giveaways that had been designed to win GOP support. The Washington Post included this attribution to the Senate Democratic leadership in an article last week: "We're pretty close,'' [the majority leader] said Friday during a television appearance in Nevada, adding that he thought, `fat cats' would have benefited too much from the larger Baucus-Grassley bill.'' That quote happens to be from the majority leader. The portrait that was painted by certain members of the majority and was echoed without critical examination--and in some press reports was outright inaccurate. For one thing, the tax extenders included provisions such as deductions for qualified tuition and related expenses and also the deduction for certain expenses for elementary and secondary schoolteachers. If you are going to college or if you are a grade school teacher, the Senate Democratic leadership apparently views you as a fat cat. If your house was destroyed in a recent natural disaster and you still need any of the temporary disaster relief provisions contained in the extenders package, too bad because helping you would amount to a corporate giveaway in the eyes of some. Such distortion of the extenders--some of them have been on the books for a long period of time; some of them passing this body by consensus-- belittles helping some people who have needs. Again, I wish to say the tax extenders have been routinely passed repeatedly because they are bipartisan and, frankly, very popular. Democrats have consistently voted in favor of extending these tax provisions. Let me tell you what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released recently, a very strong statement when the House passed these very same tax extenders at the end of last year saying this was ``good for business, good for homeowners, and good for our community.'' That was December of 2009, not very long ago. In 2006, the then Democratic leader released a blistering statement ``after Bush Republicans in the Senate blocked passage of critical tax extenders American families and businesses are paying the price because this Do Nothing Republican Congress refuses to extend important tax breaks.'' Recent bipartisan votes in the Senate extending bipartisan tax provisions had come in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. By the way, that passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Then we had the Working Family Tax Relief Act of 2004, which originally passed the Senate by voice vote, although the conference report only received 92 votes in favor and a whopping 3 against it. Let me give what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has to say about the history of these extenders which are now before us, which should have been passed in December. They have been consistently widely supported because they mention the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and one vote against it on the conference report. One Member on the other side said: Our side isn't sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together. Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let's test them. So we are testing each other when we are talking about merely reimposing some policy that has been on the books for a long period of time and just happens to sunset, to force some review by Congress. We had another Member of this large 59-vote majority exclaim: It looks more like a tax bill than a jobs bill to me. What the Democratic caucus is going to put on the floor is something that's more focused on job creation than tax breaks. Reading these comments, I found myself obviously scratching my head. The only explanation for this behavior is, certain Senators decided last week it serves a deeply partisan goal to slander what had been for several years bipartisan and popular tax provisions benefiting many different people. The Washington Post article I quoted from earlier includes a statement from a Democratic Senate leadership aide saying that ``no decisions have been made, but anyone expecting us immediately to go back to a bill that includes tax extenders will be sorely disappointed.'' You can imagine that, today, a little over a week after these comments, I scratch my head, once again. We have before us the expiring tax and health provisions that were disparaged just a short time ago. Have they morphed from corporate tax pork? Have they suddenly reacquired their bipartisan character? Are these time-sensitive items, now expired for more than 2 months, suddenly jobs related? We are beginning another debate, a jobs bill debate. So I wanted to focus on the economy, small business, and jobs after giving you that partisanship that should not have existed a week ago, to explain that it existed and not much has changed since then, but all of a sudden there is some idea of being bipartisan. So we are going to talk about the substance of this bill. We all agree our Nation is currently facing challenging economic times. While there have been some signs of improvement such as the recent growth in our gross domestic product, job losses continue to mount and many hard- working Americans are struggling to make ends meet. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 8 million jobs have been lost since our economy officially slipped into recession in December 2007. The unemployment rate is currently 9.7 percent, which is simply an unacceptable level. The lack of job creation continues despite aggressive action taken at the Federal level in order to stabilize the economy. This includes the enactment of TARP and the $800 billion stimulus bill. However, these bills were all missing a critical ingredient for spurring job creation, and that was substantial tax relief targeted to small business. Everybody knows small business is where the jobs are created in America; 70 percent of the net new jobs. In October 2008, Congress enacted the Troubled Asset Relief Program that we all call TARP around here, T-A-R-P. That was a $700 billion financial bailout bill that we were told had to be enacted immediately in order to deal with the so- called toxic assets to keep credit from drying up, which would have choked off the lifeblood of the American economy. What we actually got--because we sure did not take out these toxic assets. So what we actually got was direct infusion of cash into the largest Wall Street banks, which was 180 degrees different than what we were told by Treasury before that bill was voted on, and the purpose of that bill as well. Later came the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler using TARP money after the Senate had just voted not to bail out GM and Chrysler. This inconsistent policy by Treasury created uncertainty in the financial markets and the business community. Moreover, exorbitant bonuses were paid to executives and the management of firms that would have been out of a job if not for Congress and Treasury and the Federal Reserve intervening. How effective was the bailout in improving the credit markets? In October 2009, the Government Accountability Office released a report reviewing TARP's first-year performance. The GAO report found credit had improved based on certain market indicators. However, they were not able to determine how much, if any, was attributed to TARP as compared to general market forces or other Federal action. While it is unclear the extent credit has been freed up as a result of TARP, it is clear who has reaped the benefits of those programs. This past year, many financial firms, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and others who received TARP funds, posted record or near-record profits. While Wall Street executives have clearly benefitted form TARP, small businesses and their employers have not been that fortunate. Small businesses continue to struggle to obtain credit in order to expand their operations, purchase inventories, and even make payroll. The so- called stimulus bill, enacted almost solely by an overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress last February, has not spurred job creation either. This massive $800 billion spending bill was hastily rushed to the floor of the Senate with little time to deliberate its merit. Lawrence Summers, the Director of President Obama's National Economic Council, said: The test for the stimulus is whether it is timely, targeted, and temporary. This stimulus bill hit the trifecta. It has failed in all three. Through a report issued in January 2009 by the current Chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, Christine Roemer, the administration predicted that the stimulus would save or create 3 million jobs. We were told by the Obama administration that if the bill was not passed quickly we would experience unemployment of 9 percent. At this point we have a chart. The middle line, where it says 9 percent, the White House projected unemployment at 9 percent with no stimulus. However, we were also told by the Obama administration that if the stimulus bill passed, unemployment would not go over 8 percent, and that would be the bottom line. Well, the bill was passed. But what did we get for $800 billion of debt before interest that was laid at the feet of our children and our grandchildren? The unemployment rate jumped from 7.7 percent in January right before the stimulus was enacted, to a high of 10.1 percent in October. While unemployment recently dipped slightly to 9.7 percent--you can see that is the red line at the top--this was not due to job creation but because millions of individuals have literally given up looking for work and obviously do not show up in the unemployment statistics. The Obama administration also stated that ``more than 90 percent of the jobs created are likely to be in the private sector.'' In all, 3.3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus bill was enacted. That is 3.3 million compared to the 3.7 million the President said. Of course, 3.2 million of those jobs were in the private sector. In summary, the Obama administration was terribly inaccurate regarding its stimulus jobs projection. At the time the stimulus bill was passed, I raised concerns that the bill was not targeted enough at small businesses and job creation. However, my point of view lost out and less than one-half of 1 percent of the bill included tax relief for small business. The money in the stimulus bill gave tax credits to people who buy electric plug-in golf carts or to pay for rattle-snake husbandry in Oregon, among other ill-advised provisions, which would have been better allocated to small business tax relief, the place where employment starts. Since the stimulus, small businesses have been bearing the brunt of job losses in our economy. However, the words of those on the other side regarding the importance of small business job creation do not match their action when looking at the paltry amount of small business tax relief being provided. Again, in the jobs bill, or stimulus bill, or whatever you want to call it that passed the Senate last week, there was only one provision directed solely to small business tax relief. That was a provision I supported which increased expensing of equipment purchased by small businesses. But it is a very small provision. It only gave small businesses what they have already been getting for the last couple of years, just extending it; in other words, just extending that figure. That provision was only $35 million out of $62 billion, the $15 billion that everyone talks about, plus the $47 billion for the highway trust fund that is typically not mentioned. Last year, I introduced S. 1381, the Small Business Tax Relief Act. My bill would double the amount of equipment that small businesses could expense and would make those higher levels permanent instead of just for 1 year, as the Reid bill did. In my negotiations on the jobs bill, I sought to include provisions for my small business tax relief bill. But there was no agreement to put small business tax relief provisions for my bill in the bipartisan compromise that we reached. Instead, we were asked to defer those provisions to a future tax bill. According to ADP, national employment data from January 2009 through January 2010, small businesses with fewer than 500 employees saw employment decline by 2.67 million jobs, while large businesses with 500 or more employees saw employment decline by 694,000. While I am sure many of us disagree about the effectiveness of the financial bailout and stimulus spending in getting our economy back on track, I know for sure that we all agree there has been a lack of job creation and too many people continue to be unemployed. Because the stimulus bill has so clearly failed in what it was supposed to do, which was to create jobs, and the administration and the congressional Democratic leadership are running away from the word ``stimulus'' faster than the Triple Crown winning horse Secretariat. Everything proposed now is called a ``jobs bill'' even if it includes proposals that were always labeled ``stimulus'' in the past. Only 6 percent of Americans believe the stimulus bill created jobs. That is less than the 7 percent of Americans who believe that Elvis is still alive. Last week, the Senate passed a bill that included provisions designed to increase hiring. This includes a payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire unemployed workers and a tax credit for the retention of newly hired individuals throughout all of 2010. The payroll tax holiday part of this proposal is likely to spark some modest hiring at businesses at the margins among those who have seen some improvement in their business but are on the fence about whether to hire somebody now or wait a while. However, many businesses continue to struggle and will not hire new employees just because it is the stated policy goal of Congress. Before a business can hire a new employee, they need to know that new employee will generate additional revenue that exceeds the cost of the employee. The latest survey of the Small Business Economic Trends--and that is produced by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, or NFIB, as we know it--shows that many small businesses may not be in a place that they can afford to hire new employees even with the provisions of that bill passing the Senate last week called the Payroll Tax Holiday. I have a chart from the National Federation of Independent Businesses to which I now want to refer. That chart has selected components from the Small Business Optimism Index. While many components of this index improved slightly from December, it is clear that small businesses continue to struggle. You will see from the chart a net negative 1 percent of owners who plan to create new jobs in the next 3 months. You will see on the chart a net positive of only 1 percent of business owners expect the economy to improve. Only 4 percent of business owners said it was a good time to expand, and a net negative 42 percent of owners reported higher earnings. This last component is especially important for businesses when it comes to hiring new employees. If earnings are declining, there is little a payroll holiday will do to spark hiring since businesses need to know that the revenue generated by the additional employees will exceed the cost, not just today but in the future. Before I go on to this NFIB survey, at the grassroots of my State, I had the opportunity the previous weekend to spend part of a Friday and part of a Sunday afternoon in what is called the Des Moines Home and Garden Show which has probably been around for 30 years or so, that one weekend a year. On the Saturday in between, I had an opportunity to attend a like show called the Home Improvement Show in Waterloo. You walk around and talk to vendors, small business people. You kind of look at what do they expect Congress to do about creating jobs. I never got anything positive about something we might do, but I got a lot of ideas that they want us to do that said: You have to give us some certainty. Do you know what they quoted. They quoted the big tax increase coming up at the end of this year as some of that uncertainty. They quoted the cap-and-trade tax that possibly could pass the Senate. Then they quoted the potential cost to small business because of the health care reform bill. They said: Take all of those potential things out of the picture, and we will start hiring. But it is the uncertainty that is out there of what Congress is going to do to us that is keeping us from hiring people. I want to go back to the NFIB survey. When businesses are asked what the single most important problem facing their business is, the answer is lack of sales. That is in addition to the uncertainty I related. But this is closely followed by what I did say, taxes, and then government regulation, and redtape. I am glad my colleagues on the other side have recognized that true job creation comes through the private sector and have thus sought hiring incentives through payroll tax relief. However, this minor tax relief is a drop in the bucket considering the challenges small businesses face due to the economy and proposed increased taxes and redtape included in the President's budget. Whether we are speaking about cap and trade that will drastically increase energy costs, health care reform that would mandate small businesses offer health benefits that will increase the cost of labor, or the call for tax increases on so-called wealthy taxpayers earning over $200,000 that will largely fall on the backs of small businesses, if our intention is to increase long-term employment, the last thing we should be doing at this time of economic uncertainty is to increase taxes and place additional burdens on those who are responsible for creating 70 percent of the jobs in our economy; namely, small business. Providing small businesses a payroll tax holiday while intending to impose increased taxes, regulations, and mandates amounts to throwing them a few peanuts while taking away their supper. In recent months, I have spoken at length about the impact of tax increases set to kick in 10 months from today. I have examined the impact of these tax increases on small businesses. I think Members ought to take a closer look at it before we actually enact big tax hikes. The President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed increasing the two marginal tax rates from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively; increasing the tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent, fully reinstating the personal exemption phaseout for those making over $200,000, and fully reinstating the limitation on itemized deductions for those making more than $200,000. With these two provisions fully reinstated, the individuals in the top two rates could see their marginal tax rates increase over 15 percent or more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle respond that these proposals will only hit ``wealthy individuals'' and only a small percentage of small businesses fall into this category. I have been trying to tell them for 3 or 4 years that what they want to talk about, the small percentage of small businesses falling into that category--I will not convince them, because I don't know what they are reading--is wrong. Because small business is going to be hit very definitely by these increases. What my colleagues fail to understand is that the small businesses that fit into this group are not static but consist of different businesses over time that go in and out of the top two tax brackets depending on the market. Data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a nonpartisan official congressional scorekeeper on tax issues, shows that 44 percent of the flowthrough business income will be hit with the increase in the top two tax rates proposed by the President. This hits small businesses particularly hard since most small businesses are organized as flowthrough entities. It will increase taxes on single small business owners who make more than $200,000 per year, even if they plow all of their income back into their small business to keep paying their workers and hire additional workers. Increasing taxes on this group punishes their success and limits their ability to reinvest in their company. It prevents them from putting away funds for tough economic times to keep their business afloat. Government is currently creating a climate of uncertainty where the private sector does not know what we will do next, what taxes will be raised, and what regulatory barriers will be put in their way. We can start to put some certainty back into the business world by declaring we will not increase taxes on businesses 1 dime, by making the 2001 and 2003 bipartisan tax measures permanent. Let me be clear: Businesses do not want to be certain that the government is going to raise their taxes and make them go up through more redtape. They want to be certain that it is not going to happen. Until then, many will simply sit on the sidelines and not hire more workers, as I reported from my weekend before last at a couple affairs in the State of Iowa. Moreover, we can directly provide targeted relief to small businesses. Last June, I proposed legislation to do that. I introduced the Small Business Tax Relief Act to lower taxes on job-creating small businesses. Since the Democratic leadership barred any amendments last week, I am hopeful we will debate and vote on an amendment offered by Senator Thune. Many provisions in my bill are contained in the Thune bill. My bill contains a number of provisions that will leave more money in the hands of small businesses so they can hire more, continue to pay the salaries of their current employees, and make additional investments. This includes allowing flowthrough small businesses, partnerships, S corporations, LLCs, and sole partnerships to deduct 20 percent of their income, effectively reducing their taxes by 20 percent. My bill also includes tax relief for small business owners from the unfair alternative minimum tax. It takes general business credits, such as the employer-provided childcare credit, out of the alternative minimum tax. This would allow a mom-and-pop retail store that provides childcare for its employees to get the same tax relief a Fortune 500 company gets when it provides childcare for its employees. My bill would also allow more than nearly 2 million small C corporations to benefit from the lower tax rates for the smallest C corporations. There are so many small C corporations because they were formed as C corporations before other entities such as LLCs became more widely used. Among other provisions, my bill would also lower the potential tax burden on small C corporations that convert to S corporations. The NFIB has written a letter supporting my small business tax relief bill, stating: To get the small business economy moving again, small businesses need the tools and incentives to expand and grow their businesses. S. 1381 provides the kind of tools and incentives that small business needs. I want to talk about an opportunity for true bipartisanship that was killed by the Democratic leadership. The same day Chairman Baucus and I released a bipartisan bill that contained significant compromises, behind closed doors the Democratic leadership cherry-picked four provisions out of the larger bill Chairman Baucus and I agreed to. Those provisions had been agreed to in a meeting of senior Members of the other side only while Chairman Baucus and I were negotiating. I was extremely disappointed to see the Democratic leadership blow up the bipartisan deal Chairman Baucus and I reached. To pour a little salt into the wound, the Democratic leadership then prohibited any Senator on either side of the aisle from even offering an amendment to improve a bill that he hijacked. One of the four provisions the Democratic leaders cherry-picked is Build America Bonds. If it had been just me drafting the bill, I wouldn't have included this provision. However, for the sake of bipartisanship and compromise in the context of a much larger bill, I reluctantly agreed that putting this provision in the bill would not cause the overall bill to lose my support. Build America Bonds is a very rich spending program disguised as tax cuts. Bloomberg reported that large Wall Street investment banks have been charging 37 percent higher underwriting fees on Build America Bonds deals than on other deals. Therefore, American taxpayers appear to be funding huge underwriting fees for large Wall Street investment banks as part of the Build America Bonds program. Democratic leadership has said the Build America Bonds program is about creating jobs. I wanted to know whether it is about lining the pockets of Wall Street executives. So last week I asked the Goldman Sachs CEO a number of questions about these much larger underwriting fees subsidized by American taxpayers. I expect to have that discussion shortly. Turning back to the bill being debated this week, the Thune amendment, which incorporates many of the provisions from my small business tax relief bill, provides substantial small business tax relief and should be adopted. In this bill, I hope we can all work toward improving our economy, not through more government but by letting the engine of job creation, meaning small business, keep more of its own money in the form of substantial small business tax relief. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1997 then-Senator Biden and I sponsored legislation to create the Drug Free Communities, DFC, grant program. At the time, I believed, as I still do today, that one of the most effective ways the Federal Government can prevent drug abuse from flourishing is by supporting local community efforts to identify, prevent and eradicate the sources of abuse. Since the passage of the Drug Free Communities Act, hundreds of community anti-drug coalitions have received Federal grants to further their efforts to halt the spread of drug abuse in their communities. Despite the successes of the DFC program, drug abuse continues to challenge our communities. More often than not, a community can rise up to meet this challenge head on and confront the abuse before it spreads. However, drug abuse is one challenge that can emerge in rapid fashion. In difficult economic times when States and communities struggle to stay within their budgets without eliminating vital services, it is important that community anti-drug coalitions do not suffer from a lack of resources. This is why I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Leahy, in introducing the Drug Free Communities Enhancement Act, DFCEA, of 2010. This legislation builds off the successful DFC grant program by allowing community coalitions to form a strategy that best fits their community to confront a sudden or emerging drug threat without Federal interference. The DFCEA authorizes $5 million to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to award supplemental grants of up to $75,000 to current and past DFC grantees to address an emerging drug issue or crisis. The grantee would be eligible to receive these supplemental grants for up to a 4 year period if they document, using local data, rates of drug abuse higher than the national average. In my home State of Iowa, communities face unique challenges in confronting drug abuse. In Polk County, the home of the State capitol of Des Moines, 37 percent of 11th graders admitted to using marijuana in the 2008 Iowa Youth Survey. This is significantly higher than the statewide average of 27 percent from the same survey. This number is also 4 percent higher than the national average according to the 2009 Monitoring the Future survey of 12th graders. In Black Hawk County, the home of Waterloo and Cedar Falls, 8 percent of 11th graders admitted to using over-the-counter cold medicines to get high according to the Iowa Youth Survey. This is higher than the 6 percent of the Nation's 12th graders who admitted to cold medicine abuse in the Monitoring the Future survey. Communities like these would benefit under the DFCEA, because they would be able to apply for a supplemental grant to put a strategy into action to reduce these use rates. Community coalitions represent the front lines in the fight against drug abuse. The DFCEA will help to ensure that community coalitions will remain strong and vibrant no matter the economic or drug trend situation in the community. Drug abuse flourishes when the problem is ignored. If we are to overcome the challenges of drug abuse we must stand untied in the effort. I urge my colleagues to join us as we continue this fight to keep our communities drug free.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to address the jobs issue and the bill before the Senate. Part of it is to show to my fellow Senators and the American people that the Democratic leadership has a different view on this bill before us that is a partisan bill, particularly in regard to the absence of tax extenders being in that bill, compared to what they have over several of the recent years, which was very supportive of these tax provisions that are left out of this bill. I will explain it this way. Although the Senate Democratic leader was highly involved in the development of the bipartisan bill, he arbitrarily decided to replace it with a bill now being jammed through the Senate. From the start, this was something Senator Baucus and I were working on with both leaders of the Senate. Somehow, that didn't seem to work in the end, as we thought it was working very well as we were moving along. As much as I was surprised by the Democratic leader's disregard for bipartisanship, I am even more surprised by the explanation given by him and his people who speak for him. Perhaps the most significant change between the bipartisan package Chairman Baucus and I helped put together and the package we voted to move to is the package of expired tax provisions has been removed. These expired tax provisions are the ones I referred to as tax extenders. These generally very popular and certainly bipartisan tax extender provisions have, in fact, been extended several times over the past few years. What is surprising is that hyperpartisan members of the majority have suddenly somehow decided tax extenders are what they refer to as ``partisan pork for Republicans.'' A representative sample comes from one report which describes the bipartisan bill as ``an extension of soon-to-expire tax breaks that are highly beneficial to major corporations, known as tax extenders, as well as other corporate giveaways that have been designed to win GOP support.'' Like this is something that only Republicans have ever been for or it is just for major corporations. There is another quote in the Washington Post which includes this attribution to the Senate Democratic leadership: ``We're pretty close,'' [the majority leader] said Friday during a television appearance in Nevada, adding that he thought ``fat cats'' would have benefitted too much from the larger Baucus-Grassley bill. Understand, Senator Baucus is a Democrat, I am a Republican. The portrait being painted, then, by certain members of the majority, echoed without critical examination by people in our press, is wildly inaccurate. For one thing, the tax extenders include provisions such as the deduction for qualified tuition for college and related expenses and also the deduction for certain expenses for elementary and secondary schoolteachers. That ended December 31. It is going to mean tax increases for these families if we don't reinstitute it. If you are going to college or if you are a grade school teacher, the Senate Democratic leadership thinks you are a fat cat, so you are on your own. If your house was destroyed in a recent natural disaster and you still need any of the temporary disaster relief provisions contained in this extenders package, too bad, because helping you would amount to corporate giveaways in the eyes of some around here. The bipartisan package that was shelved included an extension of unemployment insurance and also a COBRA health insurance extension. Do these provisions benefit corporate fat cats? The answer is obviously no. Therefore, the common, ordinary person, Main Street America, smalltown America or big city America, the working people of this country, that is who will benefit from those provisions that are left out of this bill. The tax extenders have also been routinely passed and repeatedly passed because, in fact, they are and have been bipartisan and have been very popular and have been very beneficial to the economy. Democrats have consistently voted in favor of extending these tax provisions. Let me as an example refer to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who released a very strong statement upon the House package of tax extenders in December 2009. Just 6 weeks ago, the other body passed these tax extenders. This is what the leader of the Democratic Party in the House had to say in December 2009, not very long ago: that it is ``good for business, good for homeowners, and good for our communities.'' In 2006, the then-Democratic leader released a blistering statement: After Bush Republicans in the Senate blocked passage of critical tax extenders [because] American families and businesses are paying the price because this Do Nothing Republican Congress refuses to extend important tax breaks. Recent bipartisan votes in the Senate on extending expiring tax provisions have come in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which passed the Senate by unanimous vote, and the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, which was originally passed in the Senate by a simple voice vote, although the conference report received 92 votes in favor and a whopping 3 against. That doesn't sound, to me, like these tax extenders are just for GOP corporate fat cats. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, extension of several of these provisions goes back even further, including the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and lost just one Senator voting against it coming out of conference. Why have Democrats in the last few weeks or maybe in just the last few days turned against the extenders, particularly considering it passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives with Democratic support? The only explanation to this behavior is that certain Senators have decided it serves deeply partisan goals to slander what have been, for several years, very bipartisan and very popular tax provisions benefiting many different people. Yesterday's Washington Post article, from which I quoted, includes a statement from a Democratic leadership aide saying that: No decisions have been made, but anyone expecting us immediately to go back to a bill that includes tax extenders will be sorely disappointed. Having put their heads into the sand, this Chamber's leaders seem intent on keeping them there, based on that previous quote. The bill, as currently written, would allow employers of illegal workers to benefit from the payroll tax holiday. For sure, we should correct that mistake with an amendment. But under this parliamentary setup, you can only offer an amendment if not a single Senator objects to setting aside the existing business and replacing it with a new idea. The leadership's posture on this bill now prohibits this correction of giving illegal workers the benefit of a payroll tax holiday or the employer that employs them. Either the Democratic leaders are playing partisan politics with tax extenders or they don't understand the worth of the provisions to the economy as a whole and, most importantly, job retention and job creation. I wish to speak about a very specific industry where 23,000 jobs are at risk and, in some instances, people actually without a job since December 31 because the biodiesel tax credit has been allowed to expire on December 31. That is one of the many tax extenders. These workers are not GOP corporate fat cats, and in case anybody thinks biodiesel--because it is connected to agriculture--is related just to Iowans, let me make it very clear that these green jobs are in 44 of the 50 States, with thousands of people unemployed. There are 24 facilities in Texas, 15 in my State of Iowa, 6 in Illinois, 6 in Missouri, and 4 facilities in Washington State. Ohio has 11 facilities, there are 5 facilities in Indiana, 3 each in Mississippi and South Carolina, 7 in Pennsylvania, and 4 in Arkansas. New Jersey has 2 facilities, there is 1 facility in North Dakota. Only 6 States out of 50 do not have some biodiesel production layoffs because Congress did not act by December 31 of last year. You know what. We just had to stay in session on Christmas Eve-- because we had not met on Christmas Eve since 1895--to pass a health care reform bill that does not take effect until 2014. Think of that. Let people in the biodiesel industry be laid off because Congress cannot act because we had to work on a bill that does not take effect until the year 2014. So we need to turn away from talk about GOP corporate fat cats. We have to start thinking about those teachers having income tax provisions to be able to deduct expenses they have for their classrooms. We ought to think about these biodiesel workers being laid off. We ought to be thinking about the people who are harmed by the floods and have an extension of the temporary tax relief for them and quit bad-mouthing popular bipartisan proposals that we need to pass and should have passed yet last year, as the House of Representatives did. So we need to get back to work on a bipartisan package that was in the works until the Democratic leadership dramatically changed directions and went partisan. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as I stated earlier today, I had worked to put together a bipartisan package with my colleague, Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, to address some time-sensitive matters that need to be considered. I was under the impression that the Senate Democratic leadership genuinely wanted to work on a bipartisan basis but, unfortunately, I was mistaken. Although the majority leader was deeply involved in the development of our bipartisan bill, as soon as it was released he announced that he would not take it up, and he arbitrarily decided to replace it with a bill he plans to jam through the Senate. I addressed my concerns earlier about the removal of the tax extender provisions. Now I want to discuss another significant change between the bipartisan package Chairman Baucus and I put together and the Senate Democratic leadership's bill that we will be voting on this week. A package of expired and expiring Medicare health provisions has been removed without any explanation. These bipartisan provisions are essential to the health and well-being of Medicare beneficiaries. They have been routinely supported by both sides and passed repeatedly in recent years. So where does that leave us? We are now less than a week away from the end of February, and Medicare beneficiaries around the country will suffer from the Senate Democratic leader's decision to remove these provisions without any explanation. Medicare beneficiaries should not be held hostage to whatever partisan goals the Senate Democratic leadership envisions. To make matters worse, they have decided to ``fill the tree,'' as the procedure is called, so there will be no opportunity to offer these essential health provisions known as ``Medicare extenders'' as amendments to his bill. The decision to abandon a bipartisan approach is especially ironic considering the fact that later this week President Obama is hosting a bipartisan meeting with Senators and Members of the House to discuss health care reform. It is too early to tell if that meeting will lead to a true bipartisan effort to address health care reform issues, at least in some areas where there is broad agreement on both sides. But I commend the President for his bipartisan outreach and invitation to meet and discuss these important issues. It is an approach that the Senate Democratic leadership abandoned last year. Apparently, political games have become more important than ensuring that critical legislation is passed to protect Medicare beneficiaries' access to health care. Many individuals, in fact, are already in jeopardy of suffering adverse consequences to their health because of the failure by the Senate Democratic leadership to ensure that these critically needed Medicare provisions would be enacted by the end of last year. These are the same provisions that had broad, bipartisan support when they were considered by the Finance Committee and included in the health care bill the committee reported last fall. I am going to review some of these provisions and the impact they have on Medicare beneficiaries and their access to health care. First, there is the need for a physician payment update, what we commonly refer to as the ``SGR'' or the ``doc fix.'' A 2-month extension that was passed in December is scheduled to expire on February 28, just 5 days from now. Unless a physician update is enacted by March 1, physicians, nurses, and other health care practitioners will experience severe payment cuts of 21 percent as of that date. These payment cuts would be even more disastrous for physicians in rural States, such as Iowa, where Medicare reimbursement is already about 30 percent lower than in other areas. But payment cuts of this magnitude will severely impact physicians and health care practitioners throughout the country, and they will significantly threaten beneficiary access to care. Should these cuts occur and continue for any length of time, they will have a truly disastrous effect on the ability of seniors to find, or keep, physicians who take Medicare patients. I am appalled that Medicare beneficiaries' access to physicians and other needed medical care is being jeopardized because of the political games that are being played by the Senate Democratic leadership. Let's look at beneficiaries who are already being affected by other Medicare provisions that should have been extended, as they have been in the past, but that were allowed to expire at the end of last year. One of the most pressing is an extension of the exceptions process for therapy caps. The law puts annual payment limits or financial caps on therapy services. There are annual dollar limits on outpatient physical therapy and speech-language pathology therapy combined and on occupational therapy. While the law provided for an exceptions process to these caps when additional therapy was medically necessary, that provision expired at the end of 2009. Medicare beneficiaries who have suffered strokes or serious debilitating injuries, such as a hip fracture, have significant rehabilitation needs. Some of these beneficiaries have already exceeded their therapy limits for 2010. Since the exceptions process that would have allowed these patients to receive more needed therapy has expired, beneficiaries with the greatest need for therapy will be the hardest hit. Congress must address this issue immediately. A second issue of major concern is the need for additional payment for mental health services. A provision that expired at the end of last year provided an additional 5-percent payment for Medicare mental health services provided by psychologists and mental health counselors. This provision has been key to improving access to mental health care services for veterans and other military personnel suffering from post- traumatic stress and other disorders since TRICARE coverage is based on Medicare rates. Significant shortages of mental health personnel have made it exceedingly difficult for Medicare beneficiaries and some of our military returning from overseas to find this critically needed help. The expiration of this provision has made it even more difficult for them to obtain these services. Congress needs to act immediately to help Medicare beneficiaries and members of the Armed Forces in need of mental health services. A third issue concerns additional payments for ambulance services that are routinely extended, year after year. Many ambulance providers need them to survive. But those provisions also expired at the end of last year. Another provision would ensure that Medicare beneficiaries can continue to get vital medical supplies such as diabetic test strips, canes, nebulizers, and wound care products from their local community pharmacies. Under current law, suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and other supplies must get accredited to prove they comply with quality standards. Many eligible professionals, such as physicians, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and others are specifically exempted from this requirement. This provision would exempt pharmacies from being accredited under certain circumstances. Pharmacies must have been enrolled as a Medicare supplier with a provider number for at least 2 years, have DME billings that are less than 5 percent of their total sales, be in good standing with Medicare, and meet other criteria. Medicare beneficiaries living in rural and underserved areas are particularly at risk of losing access to these critical medical products. This provision is essential to ensure they do not. There are also a number of expired provisions in this package that improve payment for hospitals, especially rural hospitals. These hospitals rely on these provisions to keep their doors open. The impact of a hospital shutting its doors would be especially hard on rural and underserved areas where hospitals are the only point of access for health care. Our country is facing record unemployment and Americans are struggling to make ends meet. The failure to extend these essential Medicare provisions immediately will make access to health care or needed medical services simply unavailable for many beneficiaries. The impact will be even worse for those in rural areas already facing health care access problems. These examples show some of the damage that failing to extend these Medicare provisions will do to our seniors' health care. We need to get back to work on the bipartisan package that was in the works until the Senate Democratic leadership's dramatic change in direction. Medicare beneficiaries are counting on us to work together and get this done. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to engage in a cloture vote on the Senate Democratic leadership's third stimulus bill. What I find surprising is that what we are about to vote on indisputably and absolutely belongs to the majority leader. That is to say we are not going to vote on a bipartisan package that I put together with Finance Committee Chairman Baucus. I was under the impression that the Senate Democratic leadership was genuine in its desire to work on a bipartisan basis, but clearly I was mistaken. Although the Senate Democratic leader was highly involved in the development of a bipartisan bill, he arbitrarily decided to replace it with a bill he hopes to jam through the Senate. As much as I was surprised by the Senate Democratic leader's disregard for bipartisanship, I am even more surprised by the explanations given by him and his cohorts. Perhaps the most significant change between the bipartisan package Chairman Baucus and I helped put together and the package we will be voting to move to is that a package of expired tax provisions has been removed. Normally referred to as extenders, these generally very popular and certainly bipartisan provisions have been extended several times over the past few years. What is surprising is that hyperpartisan members of the majority have suddenly decided that the tax extenders are partisan pork for Republicans. A representative sample comes from one report, which describes the bipartisan bill as ``an extension of soon-to-expire tax breaks that are highly beneficial to major corporations, known as tax extenders, as well as other corporate giveaways that had been designed to win GOP support.'' Just today the Washington Post includes this attribution to the Senate Democratic Leadership. From the Post: ``We're pretty close,'' {the majority leader} said Friday during a television appearance in Nevada, adding that he thought ``fat cats'' would have benefitted too much from the larger Baucus-Grassley bill. The portrait being painted by certain members of the majority, echoed without critical examination in some press reports, is wildly inaccurate. For one thing, the tax extenders include provisions such as the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses and also the deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers. If you are going to school or if you are a grade school teacher, the Senate Democratic leadership thinks you are a fat cat so you are on your own. If your house was destroyed in a recent natural disaster and you still need any of the temporary disaster relief provisions contained in the extenders package, too bad, because helping you would amount to a corporate giveaway in the eyes of some. The tax extenders have been routinely passed repeatedly because they are bipartisan and very popular. Democrats have consistently voted in favor of extending these tax provisions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a very strong statement upon House passage of tax extenders in December of 2009, saying this was, ``good for businesses, good for homeowners, and good for our communities.'' December of 2009 was not very long ago. In 2006, the then-Democratic leader released a blistering statement: ``After Bush Republicans in the Senate blocked passage of critical tax extenders, . . . American families and businesses are paying the price because this Do Nothing Republican Congress refuses to extend important tax breaks.'' I ask unanimous consent that both of these statements be printed in the Record in their entirety.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Recent bipartisan votes in the Senate on extending expiring tax provisions have come in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent; and the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, which originally passed the Senate by voice vote although the conference report received 92 votes in favor and a whopping 3 against. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, extension of several of these provisions go back even further, including the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999, which again passed the Senate by unanimous consent but lost one vote on the conference report. Blinded and dazed by the power of their now not-so-super majority, certain Democrats have in the last few weeks turned against the extenders. One Democrat said: Our side isn't sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together. Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let's test them. Another member of this large 59-vote majority exclaimed: It looks more like a tax bill than a jobs bill to me. What the Democratic Caucus is going to put on the floor is something that's more focused on job creation than on tax breaks. The only explanation for this behavior is that certain Senators have decided that it serves a deeply partisan goal to slander what have been for several years bipartisan and popular tax provisions benefitting many different people. Today's Washington Post article I quoted from earlier includes a statement from a Senate Democratic leadership aide saying: No decisions have been made, but anyone expecting us immediately to go back to a bill that includes tax extenders will be sorely disappointed. Having put their heads into the sand, this chamber's Democratic leaders seem intent on keeping them there. I appeal to all of you to vote against the Democratic Leadership's effort today to jam the Senate. A vote for the Senate Democratic Leadership's cloture motion is a vote to foreclose an opportunity to improve the bill. It also is a vote to forbid any corrections to mistakes in the bill. And there is a significant mistake in the Senate Democratic Leadership's bill. The bill as currently written would allow employers of illegal workers to benefit from the payroll tax holiday. We should correct that mistake with an amendment. The Senate Democratic Leadership's posture prohibits this correction. Either the Democratic leaders are playing partisan politics with tax extenders, or they don't understand the worth of the provisions to the economy, including job retention and creation. The biodiesel industry alone says 23,000 jobs are at risk due to the biodiesel tax credit being allowed to expire. Those workers are not fat cats. And in case anyone thinks biodiesel is something only Iowans worry about, these green jobs are in 44 of the 50 states. There are 24 facilities in Texas. There are 15 facilities in Iowa. There are 6 facilities in Illinois and 6 in Missouri. There are 4 facilities in Washington. Ohio has 11 facilities. There are 5 facilities in Indiana. There are 3 facilities each in Mississippi and South Carolina. There are 7 facilities in Pennsylvania and 4 in Arkansas. New Jersey has 2 facilities. There is one facility in North Dakota. Only 6 of the 50 States do not have some biodiesel production. They are Alaska, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wyoming. The other 44 States have some biodiesel presence. I have an article from the Erie, PA, newspaper, describing the struggles of a local biodiesel plant. So we need to turn away from talk of fat cats. We need to get back to work on the bipartisan package that was in the works until the Senate Democratic Leadership's dramatic change in direction. Many people who are not fat cats or a part of large corporations are counting on these provisions being extended, and they are counting on their elected representatives to work together, as we were doing, to get the job done. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I stand before you today with a somber task. I extend my most sincere gratitude to fallen soldier, CAPT Daniel Whitten, and his family. Captain Whitten was a decorated officer who served valiantly with Company C, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division out of Fort Bragg, NC, before he was killed by an improvised explosive device in the Zabul province, Afghanistan, on February 2, 2010. When people described CAPT Daniel Whitten, comments such as, ``always doing the right thing,'' ``stood by his values,'' ``true to his family and himself,'' ``trusted his character'' were common responses. It is a true testament to the character of Captain Whitten that those who knew him held him in such high regard. Captain Whitten is a graduate of Johnston High School, class of 1999, and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, class of 2004. He was a very motivated individual, always striving to be the best he could be. The men who served under him had only good things to say about him. People who knew him said that he was the exact type of person they would want defending this country. My deepest sympathies go out to Captain Whitten's wife Starr, his mother Jill, his father Dan, and his sister CAPT Sarah Whitten who is currently serving her country in Afghanistan. It is men like CAPT Daniel Whitten who guarantee our Nation's security and our people's liberty. We all owe Captain Whitten and his family our profound gratitude for their tremendous sacrifice. I ask that they be in your thoughts and prayers, as they are in mine.