Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on this 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall's collapse, I would like to say a few words about the Cold War and the lessons we should take from it. It is often said that President Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, and that is true. Unfortunately, the current administration seems to have forgotten the overarching lesson of President Reagan's legacy. Reagan's predecessor had urged Americans to abandon their inordinate fear of communism, but Reagan was determined to infuse U.S. foreign policy with a sense of moral clarity, which had been lost during the 1970s. The Reagan administration championed the cause of democracy activists in Russia and Eastern Europe, and it did not shy away from highlighting the Soviet Union's complete denial of personal freedom. In 1982, when the United States was mired in its worst recession since World War II, President Reagan defied the pessimism of the day, and he predicted: The march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self- expression of their people. Roughly a year later, he called the Soviet Union what it so obviously was, an ``evil empire.'' The ``evil empire'' speech drew criticism from many of Reagan's domestic political opponents, and it greatly angered the Kremlin. But it also galvanized Soviet dissidents who were encouraged that a U.S. President had been bold enough to denounce the moral bankruptcy of communism. One particular Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky, found Reagan's speech deeply inspiring. Sharansky read about it in the pages of Pravda, the Soviet propaganda newspaper, while he was imprisoned in a gulag prison camp on the Siberian border. Years later, Sharansky described his reaction to the speech and the reaction of his fellow prisoners: Tapping on walls, word of Reagan's provocation quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth--a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us. Mr. President, this past June, when prodemocracy rallies broke out in Iran following a fraudulent election, I hoped the current administration would follow President Reagan's example of American leadership and offer strong support for the Iranians who took to the streets and risked their lives to oppose a tyrannical regime. But the President's statement at the time, expressing ``deep concerns about the election,'' lacked the moral fortitude the world has come to expect from America, the world's standard bearer of freedom and democracy. New antigovernment protests began last week to mark the 30th anniversary of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Still, the White House failed to use the opportunity to make the moral case for freedom over totalitarian oppression. In a message to the White House, demonstrators could be heard chanting: ``Either you're with them, or you're with us.'' The President's decision on how to respond should be easy: the administration should stand with democracy and use this opportunity to underline the moral failings of Iran's dictatorship. Anthony Dolan, chief speechwriter for President Reagan, wrote in the Wall Street Journal today: Reagan spoke formally and repeatedly of deploying against criminal regimes the one weapon they fear more than military or economic sanction: The publicly spoken truth about their moral absurdity, their ontological weakness--their own oppressed people. Moral clarity helped Ronald Reagan bring down Soviet totalitarianism during the 1980s, and it can help us bring freedom to Iran today.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes to continue the discussion Senator Grassley has commenced.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to join in the comments Senator Grassley has offered. I voted for Attorney General Holder, and we had several conversations about being forthcoming in responding to our requests for information. I thought at the time he would be able to work with us and provide those kinds of answers and support. I have been disappointed, as has Senator Grassley. A couple of examples: June 17, we had a hearing at which Attorney General Holder was present. It was an oversight hearing. He was asked a number of questions. He took many of those questions for the record which, of course, is perfectly fine. But his answers were not submitted to us for another 4\1/2\ months. It was October 29 when we received the answers. I wish to cite two examples of questions and answers which demonstrate the unresponsiveness of the Attorney General. I asked him to identify the legal basis the Department of Justice could invoke to prevent a Gitmo detainee from being released into the United States if found not guilty in a Federal court--an important question because the administration apparently intends to bring Gitmo detainees to the United States for trial. Here is the response: Where we have legal detention authority, as the President has stated, we will not release anyone into the United States if doing so would endanger the national security of the American people. There are a number of tools at the government's disposal to ensure that no such detainee is released into the United States, all of which are currently being reviewed by the Special Interagency Task Force on Detention Policy created pursuant to Executive Order 13493. I asked the Attorney General to identify the operative legal authority that could be used to detain acquitted detainees. He responded by saying the administration probably would not release someone ``where we have legal detention authority.'' It is like a cat chasing its tail. What is legal authority? That was the question. Do you have legal authority? Releasing a detainee into the United States obviously could have grave consequences. I think we deserve more than just the Attorney General's vague and rather meaningless reference to tools at our disposal. Similarly, I asked the Attorney General to explain whether the crimes committed by those presently held in U.S. prisons for conviction on terrorism charges are comparable to the terrorist acts of high-value detainees at Gitmo. The reason I asked was, they said we have several convicted terrorists in our prisons here in the United States. My question was, Well, but are those really serious crimes as opposed to the 9/11-related crimes committed by those we are holding at Gitmo? His response was: A number of individuals with a history of, or nexus to, international or domestic terrorism are currently being held in federal prisons, each of whom was tried and convicted in an Article III court. We knew that. The Attorney General considers all crimes of terrorism to be serious. Well, so do I. I am glad the Attorney General considers all crimes of terrorism to be serious. But that does not answer my question: How do these crimes compare to the crimes of those high-value detainees at Gitmo? So these are examples of the kind of nonresponses we get from the Attorney General when we ask questions. Let me close with one final point, and then if Senator Grassley would have anything else to say, I will certainly yield to him. We know for several weeks we have had on the Judiciary Committee agenda a bill called the media shield bill. It is a bill that has a lot of problems with it. Many members of the past administration had written in opposition to the bill, pointing out the problem of convicting people who were engaged in espionage or acts of terror against the United States, in the event this legislation were to be passed. So I was curious about this Attorney General's views on that. He finally got us a views letter last week, and he said ``the result of a series of productive and cooperative discussions with the sponsors and supporters of the legislation'' is how they put this latest draft together. Obviously, absent is any discussion with those of us who have expressed our longstanding concerns. This is one of those matters I had raised with the Attorney General at his confirmation hearing, and his reply was: The concerns you raised are legitimate ones. So I am glad my concerns were legitimate. He also said at his hearing that he would--I am quoting now--``work with both Republicans and Democrats on this Committee on a federal media shield law.'' Further, during my questioning of Attorney General Holder on the media shield bill, he again stated his willingness to ``work to address the concerns raised in'' views letters issued in the 110th Congress. In response to my questions, he testified: I want to talk to you and to people who worked on this bill and who might have a contrary view of it. I never heard from him again. I met with him on May 4 to reaffirm my strong interest in the legislation. I never heard from him after that meeting. This is despite the fact that in response to a question I asked, Attorney General Holder testified: I want to talk to you and to people who worked on this bill and who might have a contrary view of it. As I said before, I guess in my opening statement, you know, knowledge doesn't reside only in the executive branch. The experience that you've had with this, the obvious knowledge that you have of these issues are the kinds of things that I need to be educated about. It may change my mind, frankly. Well, maybe it would have. But by not talking to me, he was able not to change his mind. I heard that a new version of the bill had been written, and I reviewed it. So, finally, on November 2 I called the Attorney General myself to express my concerns about it. I asked if I could get an explanation of why this version satisfied all of the objections that had been previously raised, and I interpreted his response to be that he would testify before the committee if he were called upon to do so. Well, 2 days later, as I said, this views letter was sent to us. To put it charitably, it is extraordinarily light on analysis. I, as I said in the beginning, voted for Attorney General Holder. I thought at the time he would keep the commitments he made to us under oath at his confirmation hearing. He assured us he wanted to work with us and he would be forthcoming and cooperative. Mr. President, I think it is time for the Attorney General to keep the commitments he made in his confirmation hearing.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted: ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to note the 30th anniversary of a very sad day in American history. On this day 30 years ago, an angry mob of so-called students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 66 U.S. citizens hostage there. The original plan of the terrorists was to hold the Embassy for 3 days. In the end, they held 52 American hostages for 444 days. The images of hostages blindfolded, with their hands tied behind their backs, should remain seared in our memories. The ABC News program ``Nightline'' essentially has its beginning in this crisis. The title of the news program at the time was ``The Iran Crisis--America Held Hostage.'' Each night, as Americans went to bed, it would add a day to its count of how long Americans were held hostage. Walter Cronkite would similarly sign off his newscast. I am sure many remember the chants of the hostage takers and those who supported them--``Death to America,'' they would say. The Iranian regime would call us the ``Great Satan.'' The thing is, although the hostages have long been released, not much else has changed. The government still leads its citizens in chants of ``Death to America.'' After Ayatollah Khamenei came to power, a Time magazine article in 1980 described him as the face showing ``the ease with which terrorism can be adopted as government policy.'' Terrorism remains the policy of the Government of Iran today. Earlier this year, the State Department issued its annual report on terrorism, finding that ``Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism.'' The Ayatollah Khamenei blessed this brazen terrorist act of holding Americans hostage. Upon his coming to power, Iran went from being an American ally in the region to our mortal enemy. The hostage crisis was, and remains, the defining symbol of this rupture. In his inaugural address, in keeping with his campaign promises, President Obama stated to countries such as Iran, ``We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.'' On the nuclear weapons issue, the hand has been extended many times to Iran, but Iran has yet to unclench its fist. Sadly, its resistance is nothing new. In October 2003, Iran concluded an agreement with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom known as the EU-3 in which Iran promised to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities. It did not live up to that promise. Iran arranged again, in November 2004, a suspension agreement with the EU-3, only to repudiate it again. This Iranian duplicity continues to this day. In June 2006, the EU-3 was joined by Russia, China, and the United States to become the P5-plus-1. They called on Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities in exchange for a variety of incentives. A revised version of this proposal was presented to Iran in the summer of 2008. The International Atomic Energy Agency issued its most recent report on the matter in August 2009. In paragraph 27, it found that: Iran has not suspended its uranium enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council. The most recent Congressional Research Service report on the matter says: Iranian officials maintain that Iran will not suspend its enrichment program. Yet another deal to bribe Iran to comply with its international obligations is before Iran today. Under this proposal, Iran would transfer stocks of its low-enriched uranium to Russia, Russia would enrich the uranium further and transfer that to France for France to fabricate into fuel assemblies, and then finally France would transfer this enriched uranium back to Iran. This deal came after the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh in September, at which it was revealed that Iran had a covert enrichment facility in defiance of all of its international commitments and requirements. French President Sarkozy said: If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken. Prime Minister Brown stated: I say on behalf of the United Kingdom today, we will not let this matter rest. And we are prepared to implement further and more stringent sanctions. I hope President Obama will join in the Europeans' forceful and clear response to continued Iranian intransigence on the nuclear issue. This current Iranian regime represents the same terrorists who took U.S. citizens hostage 30 years ago today and held them in humiliating captivity for 444 days. That seminal event is still celebrated in Iran. I do not believe it has ever been repudiated or condemned by the Iranian Government. In his book ``Guests of the Ayatollah,'' Mark Bowden describes how the U.S. Embassy has perversely become an anti-American museum to which students are bussed to commemorate the terrorist event. He further describes how ``the takeover is remembered as one of the founding events of the Islamic `republic.' '' Mr. Bowden also writes: The Iran hostage crisis was for most Americans their first encounter with Islamo-fascism and, as such, can be seen as the first battle in that ongoing world conflict. [The hostages] were the first victims of the inaptly named `war on terror.' '' Now Iran continues its nuclear activities in defiance of Security Council resolutions, and it remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. This regime is not negotiating in good faith over its nuclear program, and during the time we have attempted to bring it into compliance with its international obligations, Iran has continued to defiantly develop its nuclear capabilities. Thirty years ago today, Iran directly threatened and harmed the most vital and core U.S. interests. No one in this Chamber should be confused that 30 years later this regime still means to do us harm. Mr. President, I wish to especially thank Michael Stransky for his research on this matter. As a sign of remembrance and respect, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of all of those taken hostage in Iran 30 years ago today, as well as the 8 servicemembers who lost their lives in an attempt to free them.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly to the issue of the unemployment extension, the benefits that would be provided to those who find themselves unemployed today. I note that as we speak, the rate now stands at 9.8 percent and climbing toward 10 percent or double digits. Those are the latest numbers we have in September, and it is pretty clear there have been more people laid off since the end of September. There were about 15.1 million unemployed persons in September, and that number has risen by 7.6 million since the start of the recession. In Arizona, my own State, 77,300 jobs have been lost just since the so-called stimulus package was passed. Overall about 2.7 million jobs have been lost in the United States since the stimulus bill. Yet Dr. Christina Romer, the Chair of the President's Council on Economic Advisers, predicted with the stimulus bill unemployment would never exceed 8.1 percent; and, further, that without the stimulus bill unemployment would reach a peak high of 9.1 percent in the first quarter of 2010. Obviously, unfortunately, both predictions were far too rosy. As Robert Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post: The rap on stimulus one is that it hasn't yet, as promised, reduced unemployment. I found it interesting that President Clinton's Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, recently wrote: Obama's focus on health care, when the economy is still so fragile and unemployment is moving toward double digits, could make it appear that the administration has its priorities confused. That is precisely what public opinion surveys show, as the majority of Americans wish that we would address the problem of joblessness and the economy first and worry about doing something about health care after that is fixed. It is interesting that one of the President's economic advisers, Jared Bernstein, was asked recently on ``The Early Show'' on CBS by Harry Smith: When does this country start to create jobs on its own? Here is what he replied: As far as the overall economy is concerned, private sector forecasters tell us that by the second half of next year, net job growth should be positive. Unemployment should be coming down. I hope this is ``expectations management'' because the beginning of the second half of next year is still 8 months away. So this is one of the reasons I support the extension of unemployment benefits. We are going to continue to see unemployment increase, as I said, undoubtedly to get above the single digits up into the double-digit atmosphere. There is a problem that makes this worse, and it is one of the reasons Republicans have been seeking to have the authority, the ability to offer an amendment to this legislation. So far, even though this is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, a body in which members of both parties get to offer amendments to legislation, not one Republican amendment has been allowed on this legislation. The majority leader makes the call. He says no, I guess; I do not want to hear any Republican ideas on how to deal with the problem. The reason this bothers me is because I think at least one of those amendments is a very good Republican idea on how to deal with the problem. The problem is doing something about unemployment. How could we best deal with the problem of unemployment? Obviously, put people back to work. What are some of the reasons it is hard for businesses to put people back to work? One of them is that we have a tax on an employer putting people back to work. It is the unemployment tax itself. How do we pay for the extension of benefits in this legislation? We extend that tax. So what we are doing is, in order to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits, we tax the very employers when they hire someone and tax them for keeping on their rolls the workers they currently have. We continue that tax in existence in order to pay for the extension of benefits. Republicans had a better idea. Let's find another mechanism to pay for an extension of benefits. But no, the majority leader says, you cannot offer that amendment. This hurts workers in a variety of ways. Let me explain briefly how the FUTA surtax actually works. This is a $2.6 billion extension that is used to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits. It is a tax amounting to 0.8 percent of payroll that applies to the first $7,000 of a worker's wages. It is a direct payroll tax. The revenues are then deposited into the Federal unemployment trust fund. It is composed of two parts: a 0.6-percent permanent tax rate and a 0.2-percent temporary tax rate. FUTA only hurts unemployment and job creation since it taxes employers for each employee they hire. According to Mark Wilson of the Heritage Foundation: Legally mandated benefits like unemployment insurance are not ``free'' to workers. He goes on: Studies indicate that, on average, over 80 percent of the cost of all employer-paid payroll taxes is shifted to workers in the form of lower real paychecks. So who is going to pay for the cost of extending the unemployment benefits? The workers themselves. Republicans had a better idea, but we have been prevented from offering that idea in the form of an amendment. When we take into account the other mandated requirements on employers, the other private sector mandates such as increasing the minimum wage, the resulting higher labor costs will affect an employer's decision about whether and when to hire workers, which worker to hire, how much cash to pay the worker, and how long to keep that worker on the payroll. This rise in mandated labor costs paid by employers is one of the most important forces leading companies to lay off workers or use part-time or temporary workers or contract labor instead of full-time employees. As I said, while I support extending the benefits, I believe it is essential that we address the underlying problems of job creation and unemployment. The FUTA tax only makes those problems worse, especially for small businesses. This is why Republicans wanted to offer an amendment that paid for the benefits extension without the FUTA tax on job creation. Why would the majority leader be frightened of this? Why would he not want to even debate this obviously legitimate question? That is one of the reasons action on this bill has been delayed. This bill could have been completed 2 weeks ago. I have heard some of my colleagues from the other side come down and say: Why are Republicans holding up the extension of unemployment benefits? I voted for cloture to proceed. I voted for cloture to proceed to the substitute. I am not holding up anything. But the majority leader is not holding up his part of the bargain, which is to at least allow some amendments--three or four--that Republicans have offered. We can't even offer this amendment to offer an alternative way to pay for what almost all of us want to do and will end up voting to do. I find it disappointing that a very good Republican idea, an obviously legitimate debate to have, whether workers themselves should have to pay for the extension of these benefits and whether that puts more people on the unemployment rolls, to have to pay for the extension of benefits as time goes on here--I am very disappointed that not only have we not had the opportunity to offer that amendment but colleagues from the other side have actually come to the floor and complained that Republicans are somehow to blame for the extension of unemployment benefits not being permitted. When Republicans are not allowed to offer these kinds of amendments, then, yes, we will insist upon a debate which points out a better idea for solving a problem that every one of us wants to solve, the fact that we are not even being allowed to offer the amendment in order to have that debate and challenge our colleagues from the other side to see whether they want to continue to support this program with a tax on workers or they would like to find a better way, the way the Republican Party has proposed.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, once again this weekend I got an earful when I went home and heard from my constituents. Arizonians have told me repeatedly they don't want government-run insurance and they deserve to have their concerns taken seriously. The Democratic leaders in both Chambers of Congress have decided to include government-run insurance, the so-called public option, in their healthcare bills anyway. Supporters of government-run insurance say it would be one choice of many and that it would promote competition. In reality, the government- run insurance would soon be the only option. Its artificially low prices, government backing, and ability to run at a huge loss would quickly put private insurers out of business, forcing millions of Americans onto the government-run plan. That is why the Lewin Group estimates that 88 million Americans with employer-sponsored insurance would wind up on the government-run plan. The Lewin Group is a well respected firm that consults in the area of health care. It concludes that once the architecture for a huge government-run plan is in place, future Congresses need only take small steps to get to a single-payer system. We have seen what happens in countries with government-run health care--rationing, delays, and denials. No country, not even the most prosperous on Earth, has unlimited resources to spend on health care. So when a government takes over health care--as it has in countries such as Britain, Canada, and many European countries--care ends up being rationed. People in Canada and the United Kingdom routinely wait months for procedures Americans can get in a matter of days, if not hours. The stories you hear about monthly, in fact years-long, waiting lists are not cherry-picked scare stories. They are commonplace. Patients often wait in pain for an MRI or a hip replacement or dental care. According to a study by the Fraser Institute, which is a Canadian- based think tank, the average wait time for treatment from a specialist is 18.3 weeks in Canada. The $1.055 trillion Pelosi health care bill unveiled last week sets us on course to experience that kind of government rationing. Under the Pelosi plan, a new health care choices commissioner--by the way, that sounds a little Orwellian to me--will decide what counts as essential benefits for Americans. Simply put, Washington bureaucrats at 111 new Federal boards, commissions, and programs will dictate your health insurance. The Government will order all insurance plans to offer a one-size- fits-all benefits package, and the same array of plan options. Rather than having the freedom to compete, insurers would in essence become prepaid health utilities. The new Federal mandates and requirements will quickly raise health care costs. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Chief Actuary at the Department of Health and Human Services, and other independent actuaries all agree: The Democrats' plan will drive up premiums and overall health care spending faster than in the absence of such so-called reforms. As premiums rise, politicians will search for ways to control spiraling costs without relinquishing their control. The most obvious path would be more tax increases and payment cuts for doctors and hospitals, but when those options are exhausted--and they will be--the government's only remaining cost containment tool is to control how much health care everyone receives; that is, to ration care. The Pelosi bill shows Democratic leaders have not listened to the American people at all. Americans have been clear. They do not want a government takeover of health care. Americans want high-quality health care that is more affordable. Instead, they are getting a 2000-page, $1.055 trillion bill that leads to a near Washington takeover of health care with rationing and increased premiums and new taxes along the way. Republicans will insist on protection for our constituents from the harmful effects of this bill. We believe Americans have rights in this process. We want to see commonsense reforms that empower patients and families, not government bureaucrats. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, dated November 1, called ``The Worst Bill Ever'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Let me quote four sentences from this editorial. In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics. The editorial goes on to say: The result will be destructive on every level--for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity. The editorial goes on to detail the myriad of ways this is true. I believe the conclusion is correct and mirrors the comments I made at the beginning here. The final thing I wish to do is to comment on a letter which Republicans wrote to the majority leader and the response which we received. Out of fairness to the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, his letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, what we wrote was to ask him if he would be willing to share with us the bill that the media reported he had sent to the Congressional Budget Office to have scored. That is congressional talk for to have the cost facts, costs of and savings from the bill, or taxes generated by the legislation provided to us. Every bill that comes to the Senate floor has to be scored. The news had reported that the majority leader had sent a bill to CBO to be scored. He held a press conference in which he talked about the government option or government-run health care part of that, what I spoke about earlier. But what the majority leader said in this letter is that there is no bill. He talked about the part he had referred to the CBO, relating to the so-called public option, but he then said that is all he had sent to them, and I will quote his conclusion here: ``In other words, there is no bill to release publicly--it does not exist.'' Apparently there is no bill yet from the majority leader, only this concept of a public option which he has presented to CBO to be scored. He then concluded by asking where the ``comprehensive Republican alternative is,'' and he said he would like to get a copy of that. This is something Republicans have been saying for months now. You are not going to see the same size bill out of Republicans you have seen out of the Democratic majority. You are not going to see a 2,000- page bill. I exaggerate by 10 pages; I am sorry, it is 1,990 pages. We are not going to propose a comprehensive reform of the entire health care system and insurance industry as the Pelosi bill has done. Nor are you going to see an over-a-thousand-page bill such as the bills that came out of the Senate committees. You are not going to see $1 trillion come out of Republicans. We do not believe that is the way to deal with the discrete problems that exist in our system. Yes, we have problems. Those problems have specific solutions. But they do not have to cost $1 trillion or consume 2,000 pages of text and take over our health care system. That is the whole point of the debate. You have two different philosophies: one which says we have to do it in a comprehensive way that takes over everything we currently have; the other says, no, we don't have to do that, that is too much taxes, too much loss of freedom, an increase in premiums, too much government control, and too much debt. We don't need to do that. What we need to do is focus on the specific problems and solve them. We have talked repeatedly about the ideas we have to do that. You can save maybe $100 billion to $200 billion a year in unnecessary health care expenditures that result from the practice of defensive medicine. That is, medical malpractice reform could save that much money without costing a dime. You could also provide for more competition among the insurance companies--not through a government-run insurance company but allowing them to compete with each other across State lines, by allowing small businesses and others to join together and expand their risk pools into something called association health plans, so they would have more bargaining power when they negotiate with the insurance companies, as big business does, and a variety of other things. My point is the Republican solutions to the specific problems are targeted solutions that don't cost a lot of money, don't ration health care, don't take away your freedom, and don't require 2,000 pages to wade through what you are doing. When the majority leader tries to entice Republicans into sharing with him our comprehensive bill that is like the Democrat comprehensive bill, my answer to him is I am sorry, Mr. Leader, you are going to be disappointed because that is not our approach, as we have been saying all along. But at the time you have your 1,000-page or 2,000-page bill, whatever it is, obviously we wish to see it. I think the American people deserve to see it because, as I heard from my constituents this weekend, they are very afraid about what they are hearing. They are hearing about this massive government takeover, massive expense, new taxes, premium increases, increase in the debt, and rationing of health care. They are scared to death and they have a reason to be frightened about this. As soon as the majority bill is ready, obviously Republicans are going to want to examine it and share it with our constituents. In the meantime, what we have to talk about, I guess, is the bill that will be debated and voted on in the House of Representatives this week, the so-called Pelosi bill which, as I said, the Wall Street Journal has editorialized about today in a way that I think should continue to frighten people. As I said, it is called ``The Worst Bill Ever,'' and after you read the editorial I think you can see the reasons why. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, November 2, 2009. Dear Colleague: Thank you for your recent letter on health care reform. I agree with you about the importance of ensuring that the Senate debate health care reform in an open and transparent way, and assure you that the process for considering this critical legislation will continue to meet that standard. As you know, both the HELP and Finance Committees conducted lengthy public markups at which Republican and Democratic Senators offered numerous amendments and proposals by members of both parties were approved. This legislation has been fully available on the Internet for many weeks. As you also know, we are now working to take these publicly-available provisions and meld them together into a single bill. Apart from my decision to include a public option from which states may opt out, no final decisions have been made--and none can be made until we get more information about how CBO would score different combinations. In other words, there is no bill to release publicly--it does not exist. Once we receive the necessary information from CBO, we can begin to make decisions about what to include in a merged bill. I assure you that I will make the legislation available to the full Senate and the American people prior to its consideration. There will be ample opportunity to examine and evaluate its provisions. Furthermore, if we are able to overcome your opposition to permitting the Senate to even debate this important legislation, all members will have the opportunity to offer amendments. I have no intention of rushing this process or blocking Senators from offering alternatives. While the two health care reform plans that are serving as the main building blocks for the merged bill have been publicly available for quite some time, I would note that the Republican Leadership's health care plan remains a secret, unless perhaps it does not exist. Needless to say, I fully understand if your plan is still under development, and would not presume to suggest that you publicly share draft legislative text for even an individual element of your plan, let alone an entire bill, before it is finalized. However, as soon as a comprehensive Republican alternative is complete, I hope you will be willing to immediately make it public. I am sure you agree that the American people deserve the opportunity to fully review both parties' health reform plans before we begin this important debate. Sincerely, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of the H.R. 3548, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. When the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released jobless figures for September, they showed an estimated 287,300 people unemployed in my home State of Arizona. The State's unemployment rate now stands at 9.1 percent--the highest since 1983. And as if that weren't bad enough, the Bureau reports that Arizona's unemployment rate approaches 17.2 percent when the number of people who are underemployed are taken into account, along with those who are so discouraged that they have given up on their job search. The construction industry in Arizona has been particularly hard hit. A report in the East Valley Tribune earlier this week noted that while there were nearly 248,000 people employed in construction in June of 2006, that number had declined to just 137,700 by September. That is a decline of 44 percent. The State's trade and transportation sector is off 15 percent from its peak, and manufacturing is down nearly as much. The unemployed need the support that this benefit extension will provide. It is a shame, though, that we couldn't have passed this legislation sooner to speed the delivery of these benefits to those who need them. The House of Representatives passed its version of the unemployment benefits extension bill on September 22, but it was not until 2\1/2\ weeks later, on October 8, that the majority leader finally brought a different version before the Senate for consideration. Senators were then given just an hour and a half to review the bill and vote, with no opportunity to consider amendments. In other words, the majority leader proposed that Senators either pass his bill or no bill at all. And that is a problem because there are changes that should be made to the bill, yet there is no opportunity for Senators of either party to offer amendments. Acting in my capacity as minority whip, I objected on behalf of other Senators to the leader's short-circuited procedure, fully expecting that we could promptly come to an agreement to allow votes on a limited number of amendments and then vote on final passage. Had the leader agreed, we could have disposed of the bill nearly 3 weeks ago, and it would probably be law by now. Instead, the majority leader continued to insist that Senators vote on his bill and only his bill, without amendment. Only within the last few days has there been some willingness to work with us on the important amendments Senators wanted to address. For example, both Republican and Democratic Senators want to include an extension of the homebuyer tax credit, which some credit with reviving the homebuilding industry. Another colleague would like to offer an amendment to better use E- Verify to prevent fraudulent claims of unemployment benefits. This amendment would help ensure that people who claim benefits are who they say they are. In addition, colleagues want to offer amendments on net operating loss as a stimulus to struggling companies. Others would sunset the TARP program, provide nongovernment management of the TARP, and prevent TARP recipients from providing funds to ACORN. Another amendment proposes an alternative offset for the $2.4 billion cost of extending unemployment benefits. The majority's version offsets the cost by extending the Federal unemployment surtax, but imposing a direct tax on job creation is perhaps one of the worst things we could do when the economy continues to lose jobs. The alternative that some Senators would like to offer would offset the cost of the bill with unspent funds from the so-called stimulus package instead. How these amendments will be addressed is not yet clear; we do not have the right to offer any of them under the majority leader's closed process. We should also recognize that we are engaged in this exercise of extending unemployment benefits for one simple reason: Our economy continues to lose more jobs than it is producing. That is because the President's stimulus program is simply not working as intended. According to an October 29 Associated Press report, the Obama administration is overstating the impact of the stimulus and the number of jobs the program has created. According to the AP report, ``the review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs were credited to stimulus spending when, in fact, none were produced.'' AP went on to note that ``there's no evidence the White House sought to inflate job numbers in the report, but the administration embraced the flawed figures the moment they were released.'' An October 21 report in the Phoenix Business Journal recalled that while President Obama projected that the stimulus bill would create 70,000 new jobs in Arizona, the State has actually lost 77,300 jobs since the stimulus was signed into law. If the stimulus isn't working, we ought to consider alternatives or at least try to put some of the remaining unspent funds to better use. After all, we can and should extend unemployment benefits, but unless new jobs are being created, the unemployed will be no better off once the additional benefits we are providing run out. Mr. President, I wish the majority leader had allowed this bill to move forward sooner under an open process. We could have passed it weeks ago. But I intend to vote for it today.

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I regret that I must vote in opposition to the fiscal year 2010 Interior Appropriations conference report. There are too many objectionable provisions--and spending levels are too high--for me to vote yes. The Interior appropriations in this bill total 17 percent more than last year's level. That compares to an increase of 5 percent for Homeland Security functions and approximately 3.7 percent for Defense. At that level, the military will not even be able to recapitalize equipment used during the wars, or procure new modern equipment. Consider some of the other spending increases provided in this bill: the Environmental Protection Agency will receive a 35 percent increase for fiscal year 2010. The National Gallery of Art will receive a 36 percent increase, for a total funding level for fiscal year 2010 of $167 million. Another concern I have involves wildland fire funding. During consideration of the fiscal year 2010 Interior bill, Senator Barrasso and I offered an amendment to prohibit $2.8 million in wildland fire funds from being spent in the District of Columbia for festivals and the Mayor's Green Job Corps program. Clearly, neither of these programs is fire related. The amendment was adopted, yet the Interior Appropriations conference report does not include the amendment. Instead, it allows these much needed fire dollars to go to a city that has never experienced a wildfire and does not have any national forest land. While sensible provisions like the Barrasso/Kyl wildland fire amendment were struck from this conference report, other problematic provisions, that were not part of either the House or the Senate bill, were airdropped in. The Interior conference report now includes Davis- Bacon requirements for projects funded through the Clean Water Act and the Drinking Water Act Revolving Fund. EPA has not applied Davis-Bacon requirements to infrastructure projects funded through the State revolving funds since its authorization expired in 1995. In addition, the Act made it clear that Davis Bacon was limited in its application to water infrastructure projects constructed in whole or in part before October 1, 1994 with funds ``directly made available by'' capitalization grants. Davis-Bacon requirements have been found to increase the cost of these projects dramatically. This is a major policy issue that should be fully debated on the floor instead of being added to an appropriations bill behind closed doors. Another provision of concern is the newly added exemption from Clean Air standards for steamships operating on Great Lakes. Whether or not it is a good idea to exempt the steamships, it is just another example of provisions being added in conference even though no similar provisions were included in either the House or the Senate bill. I do support the continuing resolution that is included. For my part, I would have extended the CR beyond December 18. It would hold spending to fiscal year 2009 levels. The bill also allows the limit on loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to remain as high as $729,750 in high cost markets through 2010. While the intent is to ensure that homebuyers can get government-backed financing, there are unintended consequences that we have to consider. By increasing the number of homebuyers who can qualify for government loans, we are in effect exposing these government entities and taxpayers to more liabilities. The FHA's loss reserve fund, for instance, is estimated to cover only 3 percent of all FHA loans. If delinquencies continue at the current rate and cause the reserve fund to fall below the 2-percent threshold set by Congress, another government bail-out may be on the horizon. This bill also contains a provision that purports to prohibit the use of funds for the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States or its territories. The problem with the restriction is that it contains a rather significant loophole: It would permit the use of funds appropriated by this bill to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States for the purposes of trial. We do not need to bring detainees to the United States for trial. Congress has established military commissions for the express purpose of prosecuting these detainees, and these military commissions can be convened in the place of detention. There are very good reasons why this bill should deny funding for pre-trial transfer and require instead that detainees be tried in military commissions outside the country. First, if detainees are brought to the United States, even for detention and trial, it increases the chance they may be released into the country. Officials from the Obama administration have acknowledged that detainees present in the United States likely have more rights including constitutional rights than those held outside the country. Second, past public criminal trials of terrorists, namely the Blind Sheikh and Ramzi Yousef trials, have compromised U.S. intelligence information on al-Qaida. Third, importing al Qaeda terrorists into U.S. domestic prison facilities would provide them access to a prisoner population that FBI Director Mueller has identified as particularly vulnerable to extremist recruitment. And finally, the logistics of the Zacarias Moussaoui criminal trial are not something we should foist upon local officials numerous times over. During his trial in Alexandria, VA, the Washington Post described the city as a ``virtual encampment.'' Military commissions are fair to the accused and they are the appropriate forum for prosecuting detainees who are being held at Guantanamo. Indeed, in the defense authorization bill, the Senate went on record that the appropriate forum for bringing to justice combatants is military commissions, not civilian courts. By permitting the transfer of detainees to the United States for trial, this bill ignores not only the clear import of legislative enactments, but also the significant practical problems of prosecuting terrorists in the United States. Finally, I would caution that including $382 million for climate change-related activities seems premature, given that the Senate has not yet even taken up climate legislation. There are some good items in the bill that I should mention. First, the forest provisions. The bill includes $2 million for the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes, with $1.5 million going to the Ecological Restoration Institute, ERI, as is authorized by law and included in the President's budget. The Institute's program is important to providing the best available science to restore western forests and protect communities from unnaturally severe wildfires on a landscape scale. In addition, the bill tries to address the Forest Service and Department of the Interior wildfire cost overruns that have lead to borrowing from their other programs to cover wildfire costs. Of note is the instruction to the agencies to develop new methods that consider actual prior year expenditures for formulating fire suppression funding estimates as part of their fiscal 2011 budget request, instead of just using the agency 10-year average. It also includes $474 million for two funds that will cover the costs of the largest and most expensive wildfires. Second, the bill includes language that begins to address environmental concerns raised about the administration's push for renewable energy development on public lands. Specifically, the bill language expresses concern about the effect renewable energy projects will have on water resources. In addition, the language requires a report from the Department of Interior and the Forest Service outlining a strategic plan for renewable energy project development, and requires in that plan that impact on water resources be a part of any recommendation for specific project areas. These provisions are particularly important in western states where there are large amounts of public land and water supplies are limited. It is unfortunate that I must cast a ``no'' vote today. As many know, Interior-related funds are critical to Arizona. But, too much spending, and too many ill-considered authorizing provisions, as I have outlined, forces me to vote no.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask to be informed when I have spoken for 9 minutes.

Mr. KYL. Let me say, the Senator from New Hampshire has it right on target. I asked a bunch of my constituents how many believe, if we create a new $1 trillion health care program, it is not going to run up the public debt. Not one hand went up. I think the American people realize what the Senator from New Hampshire said is absolutely right. You cannot create this kind of a new government takeover of health care in this country and health insurance and not have it cost a lot of money, No. 1, and not have it run up the debt, No. 2. In fact, one of two things is true. You know, half of this is paid for allegedly by cutting Medicare $500 billion, although we do not know what the final bill will be. Maybe it is $450 billion, but let's say $\1/2\ trillion to round it off. One of two things is true: Either Congress will end up not making all the cuts in Medicare because we have never had the ability to do that in the past because we know it will cut benefits for seniors, in which case we are going to run up another $500 billion debt--the American people know that--or, for the first time, we are going to make the cuts and seniors are going to see their Medicare benefits cut. One of those two things is true. Yet our friends on the other side say: Oh, no, no, no. We are not going to have any new debt. Besides that, we are not going to lose any benefits. Well, one of those two things is going to happen. Either we are going to be more in debt or we are going to lose a lot of benefits for seniors. This week, of course, all the talk is about a new government-run insurance plan. It has lots of different names. It is called opt-out or opt-in or trigger or co-op or consumer or public option. The Speaker of the House this morning was talking about this. She said: I do not think we should call it public option. I think we should call it consumer option. Well, let's dwell on this for a second. Is this being paid for or run by consumers? No. It is being run by the U.S. Government here in Washington. Is it being run by the public? No, it is not being run by the public. It is being run by the government here in Washington. This is government-run insurance. That is what it is. It is a government insurance company that they want to compete with the private companies. The supporters of this are very honest about this. They say they want them to compete. After all, why shouldn't the private insurance companies have some competition from a government-run insurance company? So let's stop the phony characterization of it in some way that sounds a little better, that sounds like it is not government-run insurance. It is government-run insurance. Let's call it by what it is. Strangely, when it comes to Medicare, these same people who are all for competition suddenly go silent. They are not so much for competition in Medicare. That is what we created with a program called Medicare Advantage. We have the government-run part of Medicare, and you can have that if you want it or you can buy one of these private insurance plans called Medicare Advantage. Well, people on the other side of the aisle do not like Medicare Advantage because it is private. It is a private insurance company. Usually, they are health maintenance organizations or HMOs. They provide a lot of extra benefits to their enrollees and the enrollees love it. I get all kinds of letters from Arizonians who are on Medicare Advantage and they do not want us to eliminate it. Of course, that is what is going to happen under this legislation. They cut $120 billion out of Medicare Advantage because they do not want the private insurance companies that provide Medicare Advantage to be competing with Medicare, the government-run entity. So we are all for competition in the private sector today. We need to have a new government insurance company competing. But we are not for competition when it comes to Medicare, we want to keep that government run. The bottom line is this: The left, in this body and in the other body and in the country at large, wants a single-payer government system. They know they cannot get there in one jump. So they are going to do it in two jumps. First will be with all the government involvement in this bill, including a government-run insurance company. Then, when everybody gets covered under that, they can move to a single-payer system and, voila, you no longer have a viable private sector. This is not just me talking. The Lewin Group, probably the most respected health care consulting firm, had a study earlier this year in which they said 119 million Americans would be signed up within, I believe it is, 2 or 3 years, under this legislation, with the government-run insurance company. But here is the interesting figure: 88 million of those people already have insurance. They do not need a new government-run program. They have insurance provided by their employer. The dirty little secret is, when the President and others say: If you like your insurance, you get to keep it, that is not right. Because all the incentive is for your employer to shift you to the government-run plan. That is a lot cheaper for the employer to do that. So you may like your plan, you may want to keep it, but you do not get to keep it if your employer says: Sorry, it is cheaper for me to put you on the government plan. I am not going to offer you coverage anymore. Lewin says that will happen to 88 million Americans. This is not a small matter. Of course, it is also true on Medicare Advantage. If you like your Medicare Advantage plan, as my constituents do, Arizona has one of the highest percentages of seniors signed up with Medicare Advantage, well, that is tough. We are going to cut $120 billion out of Medicare Advantage and the value of that plan is going to be cut by about--from roughly $140- something in value down to roughly $40-some dollars in value, meaning you are going to be losing just under $100 in actuarial value off your Medicare Advantage plan because of what we are doing here. All this because those on the left do not like the private sector providing insurance and want it eventually to go all government. The first step to that is this government-run insurance. On Monday, the majority leader announced a new tweak on this, a new variation. In order to try to placate some who do not like the government-run concept, he will say: Well, we will let the States opt out. What exactly does that mean? Nobody knows. Somebody has written a bill or at least has written a concept. Nobody that I know of has seen it. Certainly Republicans have not seen it. This was cooked up in the majority leader's office with people from the administration and some other Democratic Senators, and they came up with the idea that maybe it would not sound so bad if they let States opt out. What exactly does that mean? Well, first of all, I do not know. But does it mean everybody has to pay for it, but if you do not want to accept the benefits, you can opt out of the benefits? How many States are going to go for that? Who knows what it means? Somebody said: Well, how about an opt-in? I said: Well, you ought to ask the Democrats that. It would seem to make more sense than an opt- out if you are going to have the program. Of course, you should not have it in the first place, but at least, if you have it, shouldn't you give people the option of deciding whether they want it and whether they have to pay for it? If they do not want to pay for it and do not want the benefits, well, maybe then it is a little different proposition. But that is not a good idea either, because you are still creating the basic government-run insurance company, and that is also what is wrong with the so-called trigger. The idea of the trigger is, well, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides in her opinion that not enough people can get insurance at the right cost, then we are going to have the government- run insurance company take over. National, paid for by the Federal Government, created by the Federal Government--this is government-run insurance. A co-op. That idea seems to have pretty well fallen off. But all of these ideas--whether it is a co-op or consumer or public or opt-in or opt-out, it all amounts to the same thing: It is government-run insurance. We do not need it. It is bad. It is a problem--or a solution looking for a problem. There are times where there is not that much competition. Why? Because they are generally small States without very much population. The last thing they need is one more insurance company coming in splitting up the pie. They need a large risk pool to provide the basis for them to be able to write insurance. And you split the risk pool up even more with yet another insurer, and you are not solving any kind of a problem. The final thing they said: Well, we need the government-run insurance to keep the insurance companies honest. That is what the State insurance commissioners are for. We have several former State insurance commissioners--the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins; the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson; the other Senator Nelson--all former insurance commissioners, and they know their job was to keep the insurance companies honest. I have not heard anybody say the insurance companies are not honest. I heard them say: Well, they make way too much money. Well, obviously, that to some extent can be controlled by the individual States. But it is also the case----

Mr. KYL. I appreciate that, Mr. President. I will conclude with this point: A study that came out in the papers earlier this week demonstrated that insurance companies ranked 35th on the list of the most profitable companies, making a profit of something like 2 percent. So the bottom line is, people say: Well, we either want to punish the insurance companies or give them more competition or keep them honest. All of these are excuses for offering government-run insurance that, at the end of the day, is simply a step toward a single-payer system in this country. That is not the kind of reform Americans want.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, could I just interrupt?

Mr. KYL. Thank you. To answer my colleague quickly, I think the vote was 87 to 13, or in that general range. Almost all Republicans voted to conclude the unemployment compensation legislation by getting to the process where we could offer amendments and then have a vote on the final passage. But I would ask my colleague from Tennessee, have Republicans been afforded the opportunity to offer five amendments? How about four amendments, three, two, one? Obviously not. Have Republicans been afforded the opportunity to offer any amendments, I would ask my colleague? Then I have a follow-up question.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could further inquire of my colleague, is it not the Senator's understanding that of all of the issues the American people are concerned about today, the No. 1 issue is jobs and economic recovery--how do they get back to work? When our friends from the Democratic side say: We need to hurry up and extend unemployment compensation, my guess is the vote on that will be overwhelming. I will support it. I am sure my colleague will support it. That is not the question. The question is, Instead of just continuing to extend unemployment compensation for all of the increased number of Americans who are out of work, what are we going to do to put people back to work? Then I have one other question to ask my colleague. I may not be correct that it is the No. 1 issue in public opinion surveys, but I recall it is pretty high on the list.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could further inquire, the first thing we want to do is find out how much this unemployment extension is going to cost. I think the number is about $2.4 billion. The second thing we want to find out is, how is it going to be paid for? I understand it is proposed to be paid for by a continuation of a tax on payroll; that is to say, employers and employees will have to pay a certain percentage of the employee's wage to the Federal Government in order to provide funds to those who are unemployed. Some of us are concerned if our goal is to put people back to work, to allow companies to hire more people, that the worst thing we would want to do is impose another tax on hiring, another tax on employees or, to be totally accurate, to extend the existing tax on workers, on payroll, as a way of paying for the extension of unemployment benefits. Perhaps a better way to pay for that would be, for example, to take the $2.4 billion out of unspent and unobligated stimulus funds, which was $780- some billion, half of which is not going to be spent for the next 8 years--or over the period of the next 8 years. One of the amendments we wanted to offer was not just to extend unemployment benefits but to pay for it in a way that would not harm job creation, as is contemplated under the bill. Am I correct in that?