AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009--Continued; Congressional Record Vol. 155, No. 24
(Senate - February 06, 2009)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S1841-S1859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009--Continued

  Mr. REID. Madam President, earlier today, the Labor Department 
announced that the unemployment rate had gone up very high. We now find 
the housing crisis is worse, with lending freezes still upon us, and 
small businesses are shutting down as we speak. Job losses are 
significant this month alone; that is, the month of January, with 
600,000 jobs lost, and the month of February is starting to be even 
worse than January as far as layoffs. In Nevada, the unemployment rate 
has gone well over 9 percent.
  Leading economists are now comparing today's crisis to the early days 
of the Great Depression. We are doing everything we can to make sure 
this severe recession we are in does not become another Great 
Depression, and we are a long ways from a Great Depression. The Great 
Depression saw the stock market drop 89 percent, and 25 percent of all 
Americans were unemployed, with millions of others underemployed. But 
we do not want this recession we are in to march into a depression, and 
that is why we have worked all week to come up with a solution to these 
problems, to try to help jump-start this economy.
  President Obama himself acknowledged that his plan wasn't perfect. I 
have to be very candid with everyone here. I have learned a lot in the 
last few days by people coming in good faith and saying what is in here 
should not be in here and, on a few occasions, listening to what was 
propounded by those who have come up with this bipartisan agreement, we 
had to swallow real hard, but it was all done in good faith. This is a 
very critical juncture in time for our great country. It is an 
important time for the Congress. Faced with this grave and growing 
economic crisis, we are now close--closer--to joining President Obama 
in helping turn the economy around.
  I think the process here has been very good. We have had a large 
number of amendments debated and voted upon. The managers have worked 
very hard. Senators Baucus and Inouye, with their counterparts, have 
moved through a lot of amendments. It has been an open process. Some of 
the votes have been difficult votes to take. But now we are at a point 
where people of good will are going to move forward and complete this 
work. The question of when we do it is certainly something we are 
concerned about, but we are going to do it--if not tonight, in the next 
day or so.
  I express my appreciation to a Senator on our side of the aisle--
Senator Ben Nelson--who took this difficult assignment on our side to 
come up with something we could pass, is the best way to say it. There 
were a number of Senators who worked with him on this side of the 
aisle, a number of Senators who worked with Senator Collins on the 
other side of the aisle. I am not going to run through all the people 
who worked on this, but from my perspective Senator Nelson and Senator 
Collins are the two people who got us to where we are now, with great 
work by others. I hope I don't offend anyone by not mentioning them, 
but from my perspective tonight there are four people who need to talk 
about this. But for them, we would not be in a position where we could 
move forward to try to help the American people: That is Senators Ben 
Nelson, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, and Joe Lieberman.
  So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--and certainly if the 
Republican leader cares to say anything, but I wish to get this consent 
request entered first. If he wants to say something before the time 
begins on these other individuals, he certainly has that right. He can 
do it beforehand, if he wants, but I want to get this out of the way.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ben Nelson be recognized for 10 
minutes; that Senator Susan Collins be recognized for 10 minutes; 
Senator Arlen Specter be recognized for 15 minutes; Senator Lieberman 
be recognized for 10 minutes; and that the Republicans, following these 
statements by these four Senators, have equal time--that is 45 
minutes--to be divided any way they feel appropriate.
  I ask unanimous consent that be approved; and I preface it by saying 
if Senator McConnell has anything to say before the time starts running 
on these four individuals and the other individuals, which is going to 
be about 90 minutes, and I am sure he does, I ask unanimous consent 
that following the statement of the Republican leader that this consent 
be granted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I may 
not object, but I wish to ask the distinguished majority leader if we 
could alternate the speakers over that same period of an hour and a 
half.
  Mr. REID. I would say that we are alternating. We have four people 
who have put this arrangement together. I think it would be appropriate 
for the whole body to listen to what the arrangement is. I think it 
would certainly be more understandable to do it that way, and we have 
two Republicans and two Democrats. So I think that would be fair. If my 
friend would allow us to do that, I think it would be good for the 
body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. That is certainly not alternating speakers in terms of 
position on the amendment, and I would again suggest we do what we 
virtually always do and alternate speakers with regard to the pending 
issue, which is this new amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend, through the Chair, wouldn't it be better 
if people who responded to these four Senators had some idea what the 
agreement was? That would seem to be so much more logical, and I hope 
my friend would allow us to proceed in that manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I also note that I see my friend stood to be recognized, 
Madam President, but we have gone out of our way to protect everybody's 
right. We haven't tried to blindside anyone. We have listened to all 
the amendments. We have been fair with all the time. I can't imagine 
why my friend would want to do this. My Senators need to know what this 
agreement is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will not object. I wish to respond to 
the majority leader through the Chair and say I am very eager to 
understand all of the details of this proposal, and I will be doing 
that by getting a copy of the proposal and digesting it over a 
reasonable period of time over the weekend, since it is a trillion 
dollar proposal. But I will not object to that specific request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise this evening to speak 
about the need for Congress to support substantial and swift-acting 
help for our Nation. These days, all too often when tuning into the 
news, we cringe--layoffs, job losses, poor earnings, business closings, 
State fiscal problems, foreclosures, global financial troubles, and the 
worried faces of so many Americans.

[[Page S1842]]

  Our great Nation is mired in the worst economic downturn since the 
Great Depression. My State of Nebraska, usually late to recessions, has 
been caught by the crisis too. Thousands of Nebraskans have lost their 
jobs or been laid off. Many business owners are worried, and the 
economic downturn is affecting everyone's budget and wallet and 
outlook. One of the strongest Nebraska values is our work ethic. But 
right now, a lot of Nebraskans just want to show up for work tomorrow 
or hope for a better job in the future.
  That is why I have been pleased to work with my good friend, Senator 
Susan Collins, and a bipartisan group of Senators to address this 
crisis now, to find a plan that creates jobs and restores America's 
economic strength. We have reached an agreement on a bipartisan plan 
that does that. With so much at stake, however, and the costs to our 
children and our grandchildren so high, it is important that we get it 
right.
  The economic recovery bill we support today fuels two powerful 
engines: major tax cuts for the middle class and to create jobs, and 
targeted investments in America's infrastructure and job growth. Our 
bipartisan group worked long and hard, going line by line, dollar by 
dollar, to reduce spending from the original bill. We trimmed the fat, 
fried the bacon, and milked the sacred cows. The savings to the 
American people, to taxpayers, is $110 billion--hardly the trillion 
dollars that was just mentioned.
  The total package is $780 billion. The remaining bill consists of tax 
cuts for the middle class and specific job-creating investments, 
providing long-lasting economic benefits.
  I truly thank my colleagues from across the aisle, my good friends 
and partners in this effort, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Arlen 
Specter and my good friend from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, for their 
work. Also, we had the support of a number of our colleagues, including 
the Presiding Officer, on this side of the aisle. I guess I can 
affectionately call all of us the Jobs Squad. They made nonstop efforts 
and held nonstop meetings to do this work this week. They never lost 
hope, no matter whatever the word was on the street or the fact that 
there was maybe one or two or more leaks of information. We would never 
lose hope. Their guidance and their wise counsel were invaluable as we 
continued to work to advance and develop this consensus today.
  Our plan pared back a very substantial amount of money that we 
believed didn't belong in a bill called a stimulus package that was 
designed to fix our economy. If we look at these proposals, many of 
them will work well in a budget or in another bill, but we did not 
think they deserved to be in this particular bill which was about jobs, 
jobs, jobs. If we ask taxpayers to support it, as we are, they deserve 
to get the biggest bang for their buck. The remaining plan will 
generate new jobs, save jobs, and expand job opportunities all across 
America as it also boosts our economy.
  We recognize our plan is not perfect, but I believe it is both 
responsible and realistic. It is stimulative and timely and can help 
deliver economic recovery to the American people soon.
  The tax cuts in the recovery plan will reach 95 percent of all 
Americans, providing direct assistance for struggling middle-class 
American families and to businesses so they can create or preserve 
jobs. The robust $350 billion in tax cuts will put a lot of money in 
people's pockets, money to buy a car, a refrigerator, a student's 
college education, or equipment for better products. Some say we do not 
have enough tax cuts. That $300 billion I just mentioned is the exact 
same amount Congress overwhelmingly approved in 2003, under the 
previous administration, to help the economy at that time.
  Our country cannot wait another day for another approach. The 
American people expect us, their elected representatives, to pull 
together in crisis, to do the best we can, and to take appropriate 
action. We may not have a choice about the need for a major stimulus 
effort, but our bipartisan group has made tough choices, and we have 
improved the economic recovery bill. I believe President Obama and 
colleagues all across Capitol Hill, on both sides of the aisle and both 
sides of this wonderful Capitol, will see this as a serious and 
effective effort to return America to prosperity.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Senator Nelson, Senator Specter, and Senator Lieberman, in offering a 
bipartisan compromise on the stimulus proposal that is before us. This 
proposal is the culmination of much deliberation and debate by so many 
of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I realize some of my 
Republican colleagues who were involved in the deliberations ultimately 
have decided not to support the compromise, but their debate, their 
ideas helped inform the compromise we are presenting tonight.
  Our country faces a grave economic crisis, and the American people 
want us to work together. They do not want to see us dividing along 
partisan lines on the most serious crisis facing our country. That is 
why so many of us have worked night and day to try to come up with a 
stimulus package that would be a considerable improvement over the 
House-passed bill and would help boost our economy and create and 
preserve jobs.
  I could not vote for the House-passed bill. Laden with unnecessary 
expenditures, it was a Christmas tree upon which every Member, 
virtually, had hung his or her favorite project. It was bloated, 
expensive, and ineffective. This compromise greatly improves the bill. 
It will help our economy recover from a dangerous recession. It will 
help Americans throughout this country who are struggling because they 
have lost their jobs.
  Every day we hear more reports of massive job losses. Just today we 
learned our country lost nearly 600,000 jobs in January alone. The 
unemployment rate exceeds 7 percent, its highest level in more than 16 
years. Unemployment in my home State of Maine is now 7 percent--again, 
a 16-year high. Just today in Maine we learned that another paper mill 
has been forced to lay off 140 people for at least a month because they 
do not have enough orders to keep the workers on the job. These are not 
just cold statistics. These are not just jobs. These are hard-working 
American people who need our help, who deserve a stimulus package that 
is targeted, effective, and bipartisan. That is why I have worked so 
hard with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to come up with a 
responsible plan that will jump-start our economy and help improve the 
lives of hard-working people.
  This debate is not about Republicans or about Democrats. It is not 
about our new President winning or losing. It is about helping the 
American people. Surely we ought to be able to come together to advance 
that goal.
  I have maintained since the beginning of this debate that in order to 
be effective, the money included in this package has to be able to be 
spent quickly to put more dollars into the taxpayers' pockets, and it 
has to be targeted and directed to projects that will really help. That 
is what we have done.
  As my colleague from Nebraska has pointed out, we have reduced over 
$110 billion in unnecessary spending from this bill. We have cut that 
away. Is it perfect? No. Every compromise reflects choices that are 
necessary to bring people together. But this bill is an enormous 
improvement over the House bill. It cuts away many projects that are 
worthwhile projects but which do not belong in a stimulus package 
because they have nothing to do with turning our economy around and 
creating and saving jobs.
  There has been a lot of talk from outside groups about our slashing 
the spending in this bill. We took a targeted approach. We did cut 
spending, even for programs we all support because they belong in the 
regular appropriations process. They are good programs, but they are 
not programs that will stimulate the economy.
  So we focused on the following programs:
  We included $45.5 billion for infrastructure projects--roads and 
bridges that are needed throughout our country that are ready to go, 
that will put people to work, and that will leave lasting assets in 
communities across this country. We helped to fund some water and sewer 
projects that are the

[[Page S1843]]

results of unfunded Federal mandates which are needed to improve public 
health but impose a real burden on struggling communities and States.
  We included $4.4 billion to improve our electric transmission through 
a smart grid that will help us to transmit alternative sources of 
energy.
  We included $87 billion in targeted temporary increases in the 
Federal Medicaid matching rate. This will help our States avoid deep 
cutbacks in health care coverage for some of our most vulnerable 
citizens.
  We included $6 billion for special education. If you talk to schools 
throughout this country and you ask them how you can most help them, 
they will say: Start fulfilling the Federal promise to help fund 
special education for children with special needs. It is a promise we 
made back in the 1970s that we have never kept. We put in funding for 
special education. That will help communities across this country, and 
it will help retain teaching jobs as well.
  We also included nearly $4 billion in Pell grants to help our 
neediest students go to college.
  We have included funding for a 1-year fix in the alternative minimum 
tax, which unfairly imposes an increased tax on middle-income families. 
There are tax incentives for small businesses, the true job creators in 
this country. They will be helped by this bill. There is tax relief for 
low-income and middle-income families. That is so important, to help 
those families who are truly struggling right now, and it will help 
boost consumer demand as well.
  We took a careful, thoughtful, comprehensive approach. We got rid of 
funding for such projects as $870 million for pandemic flu 
preparedness. That is something that may be needed but doesn't belong 
in a stimulus package. We made a number of cuts like that, difficult 
cuts but important, so that we could keep to the purpose of this 
package.
  This has been an extremely difficult deliberation, but I believe we 
have an obligation to start solving the problems facing this country. 
The American people do not want to see partisan gridlock. They do not 
want to see us divided and fighting. They want to see us working 
together to solve the most important crisis facing our country. That is 
what we have done. That is why we have presented this compromise.
  Again, I thank not only my colleagues, Senator Nelson, Senator 
Specter, and Senator Lieberman--all of whom have worked so hard--but 
others whose input and insights were invaluable in crafting this 
package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I begin with the enormously serious 
economic problems facing the United States: an unemployment rate which 
is rising, 4,100,000 jobs lost last year, thousands of people losing 
their jobs every day; recognizing the very heavy psychological factor 
which is at work, cited for the destruction of consumer confidence; and 
the eyes and the ears of the world are on the United States, on the 
U.S. Government, and on the Senate tonight to see whether we will be 
able to respond to the magnitude of the problem.
  The psychological impact, if we were to reject some activist 
approach, I think would be devastating, not only on Wall Street and on 
Main Street but all across the face of the globe.
  Based on the telephone calls which I have gotten in my office, this 
is a very unpopular vote. Perhaps the tide will turn. But the calls are 
mounting from one end of the political spectrum saying there are too 
many expenditures, and the calls are mounting on the other end of the 
political spectrum saying there is not enough money being spent on the 
proposal which we are advancing tonight.
  Perhaps the tide will turn on reflection and an analysis of the 
program which we are setting forth. Perhaps the tide will turn as 
exemplified by the letter issued today from the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, principal spokesman for corporate America and principal 
spokesman for conservative America.
  The Chamber says this:

       Therefore, this legislation, because the economy continues 
     to deteriorate, the Chamber is for the bill because it 
     supports pro-growth tax initiatives. The Chamber is for the 
     bill because it applauds the inclusion of tax relief. The 
     Chamber is for the bill because many of the spending-side 
     provisions of the legislation will also provide stimulus to 
     get Americans back to work focusing on infrastructure 
     spending for roads, rails, public transportation, aviation, 
     inland waterways and ports.

  I have already noted certain grave concerns which I have and one is 
the rush to judgment, which we are a part, and perhaps a necessary 
part. When President Obama came to speak to the Republican Caucus 
recently, when my turn came to ask a question, I said: Why are you 
wedded to February 13? That is too fast to digest a bill of this 
magnitude.
  I said we had passed a $700 billion bailout bill, TARP, where we did 
not know what was in the bill. We did not have the regular order of 
hearings, questions, and cross-examination or committee work on the 
markup line by line with the committee report. We did not even have 
floor debate.
  We made a lot of mistakes. They were compounded by the administration 
carrying it out. I voted against the release of the second $350 
billion. I said: Mr. President, let's not do it again. There is nothing 
magical about February 13 before we start the week of recess for 
Presidents Day.
  The President responded, emphasizing the severe nature of the 
problem, and not telling us all, which he has told us privately, about 
the serious problems which he sees or his advisers see for any delay at 
all. So we are responding to his timetable. I do not like it, but I am 
responding to it.
  There are other aspects of this bill which give me heartburn. There 
is a lot in this bill which ought to be part of the regular 
appropriations process. I served for 10 years as chairman of the 
subcommittee funding the Departments of Health and Human Services and 
Education. I have fought hard for many of the items that are in this 
bill but ought not to be in this bill. They ought to be part of the 
regular appropriations process where we set an overall budget and we 
fight them out on priorities.
  But they are here because the administration and the bill proposed by 
the committee has seen fit to include them. There are many who are 
criticizing the amendment which we are offering here this evening. They 
say there are cuts in important programs. Well, that is wrong. There 
are not cuts in important programs. If this bill is not passed, there 
will not be any appropriations. So you start from zero on Head Start, 
and you start from zero on child development.
  It is true we have made some reductions in the size of the 
appropriations, but that is not a cut. For example, on childcare, the 
committee bill has $2 billion, and we have seen fit to put $2 billion 
in. Well, if we do not have 60 votes, childcare does not get any 
additional sum. My preference would be to handle it in regular order.
  Head Start is in the committee bill for $2.1 billion. It is going to 
have $1.05 billion.
  Title I in the committee report has $13 billion and will retain $12.4 
billion. Special education has $13.5 billion, and we left it all in 
because that is a Federal mandate. It is different.
  The National Institutes of Health has $10 billion, including the 
Senate amendment. This is an item that has special significance to 
Senator Harkin and myself as our lead in raising NIH funding since 1994 
from $10 billion to the present number of approximately $30 billion. 
NIH will produce 70,000 jobs, according to the head of the National 
Institutes of Health.
  Now, what have we accomplished in the amendment which is being 
offered now? This bill, in coming to the floor, and these figures are 
pretty close. They are hard to be exact. The bill starts with $885 
billion. There were add-ons on the floor of $53 billion. The bill, as 
it is being reported is $780 billion. So we have reduced the 
expenditures by $105 billion. That is a lot of money.
  That is something which makes everybody angry. But that is a position 
you are in if you are a Senator. People are unhappy because they did 
not get the full amount for the committee report, although absent this 
bill they would get zero additional. People are unhappy on spending too 
much money, but it is imperative, as I see it, that we do something 
very substantial.
  There are reasons to argue that this is a bad bill. I am not saying 
it is a bad bill, I am saying there are reasons to argue it is a bad 
bill. But I do not believe there is any doubt the economy would be 
enormously worse off without

[[Page S1844]]

it. That is the kind of a choice we have to make.
  Personally, I would prefer not to be on the edge of the pin, as so 
frequently is the case in this body. But I do believe we have to act, 
and I believe that under all the circumstances, this is the best we can 
do and we ought to do it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friends, Senator Ben 
Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Arlen 
Specter of Pennsylvania, for their eloquent comments. I thank them for 
their leadership. I thank them for their courage. I am honored to be in 
their presence. All of America is indebted to them for what their 
leadership, on behalf of this unifying amendment, will mean to the 
people of our country.
  Tonight the Senate is passing a test. It is not as hard a test as the 
test millions of Americans are facing every day in this terrible 
economic crisis our country is going through. It is not as hard as the 
test facing the families whose mothers and fathers have lost their jobs 
or whose children cannot afford to go to college or whose employers 
cannot afford to give them the health care benefits they have had.
  I could go on and on. It is the American people who, in the midst of 
this economic crisis, greater than any we have faced since the Great 
Depression, are facing the most serious test every day. But their test 
now confronts the Senate, the House, this Congress, the President, our 
Government with another test.
  Are we able to come together and give the American people, the 
American economy, American businesses, American workers, the help that 
they can get from nowhere else, to get this economy of ours moving 
again, to protect jobs and to create jobs. The help is not going to 
come from the private sector; it is not there. It is not going to come 
from the personal consumption that normally drives 70 percent of our 
gross domestic product; it is not there. You do not need to be an 
economist to understand that.
  People see it in their own lives: lost jobs, fear that their jobs 
will be next, an anxiety so deep they will not buy what they need, 
businesses that are constantly laying off people. It has been referred 
to, but here it is today, 600,000 Americans lost their job last month, 
January of this year.
  So the only place help can come from for this economy now is the 
Federal Government. The question is, Would we rise to the test? I think 
tonight, thanks to some very strong leadership from Senator Nelson, 
Senator Collins, some really courageous work by the two of them, and 
Senator Specter and others in both parties, we are going to show 
tonight that the U.S. Government passes the test.
  As a result, we will then help the American people pass the test, 
restore their hope, protect their jobs, create new jobs, give them more 
money in their pockets as their payroll taxes go down. This journey we 
have been on this week, very intense, very emotional, very difficult, 
was never about winning or losing, it was about governing.
  Would we be able to find common ground to get 60 votes to pass this 
legislation so critically needed by the American people. Tonight we are 
going to do it. It was not easy, but we are going to do it, and it 
should give us all in this Chamber hope as we go on to confront the 
next problems and challenges we will face: health care reform, climate 
change, entitlement reform to secure the retirement of the American 
people in future years.
  The bill that came to the floor, as has been said, was a very strong 
and good-faith effort. But many of us on both sides of the aisle, both 
parties, even a couple of Independents, felt there were some things in 
it that though very well intended, could not be justified as part of an 
economic stimulus package.
  On another level, what was clear as a result is that the proposal, as 
it came to the floor, simply did not have the 60 votes it needs to get 
adopted. You cannot get anything done, I was told a long time ago when 
I went into Connecticut politics, by a wise and seasoned politician: 
You cannot get anything done for the people who were good enough to 
send you to serve unless you pass legislation.
  It is great to give a beautiful speech, but a beautiful speech 
doesn't protect anybody's job. It doesn't put more money into the 
paycheck. It doesn't provide health care or hope.
  In what looked like another moment of failure, inability to lead, 
inability to govern, inability to help the people of our country who 
are suffering now as they haven't suffered for a long time, a gang was 
formed. I must say, as a teenager I never got to join a gang. The 
Senate has given me an unexpected opportunity to join some good gangs. 
It shows if you live long enough, as the old saying goes, you 
experience anything. This wasn't a gang of 14. This was a gang of 
people who wanted to get the economy moving again--Democrats, 
Republicans, and Independents. But it took two people with the guts to 
step forward and form it, lead it: Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and 
Senator Susan Collins of Maine. A lot of others of us came together. We 
worked very hard. We worked openly. We worked honestly. We had a common 
goal, as has been said; $110 billion has been cut out of this program.
  Our Republican colleagues offered an amendment that would have cut 
the original program down to $411 billion. Senator Collins, in our 
meetings with one another, came in with a proposal of $620 billion. The 
bill, as it came to the floor, was $885 billion. We compromised. That 
is always the way anything gets done in an American legislative body 
because we represent this extraordinarily diverse country. We come with 
different philosophies, different backgrounds, different 
constituencies. If you try to get everything you want, you won't get 
anything for anybody who was good enough to send you here to represent 
them.
  So through some steadfast, patient, creative leadership from Senator 
Nelson and Senator Collins, we moved forward and, ultimately, today 
have come up with this agreement. This actually cuts over 20 percent of 
the money recommended for spending by the Appropriations Committee, but 
it comes very close to the $800 billion President Obama has quite 
rightly said this country needs to make this stimulus work. We have a 
$1 trillion gap in our economy this year. This $780 billion will be 
spent over 2 years. Frankly, we need that, and probably more, to get 
the economy going in the way we want it to be going.
  I wish to say a special word of thanks and admiration for Senator 
Collins and Senator Specter. They differed from the majority of the 
members of their party. I have been in that position. It is no fun. It 
is lonely. It is not that anybody is right--we think we are right--it 
is just that people come to a different decision about what the 
national interest requires. Both of our colleagues and others on the 
Republican side have put what they think to be the national interest 
ahead of party interest. I think what we are doing here tonight will be 
a tremendous help to the people of this country.
  A lot of our colleagues on the Democratic side are accepting less 
than they thought was necessary to do the job. They are compromising 
too. They are compromising because they want to get something done, and 
they know, as they watch the economic indicators and the human 
suffering changing every day, getting worse and worse every day, that 
it is urgent we do something now.
  So we come together tonight to prove we are capable of governing, we 
are capable of leading, we are capable of reaching across party lines 
to get things done when the American people need it most. I am proud to 
be here. I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I 
am encouraged that what we have done tonight will set an example for 
what we can do for the rest of this session. The leaders of the gangs 
may change. The Members may come and go. But we only get things done 
here if we build bridges across the aisle. That is what we are 
celebrating tonight.
  Ultimately, as I said, there were no winners or losers. This is not 
about winning or losing. There is a winner tonight. It is the American 
people. They deserve it.
  The leader set up this time for debate. Therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent that this period of time be for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S1845]]

  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, the previous UC, as I 
understand it, allows for activity besides debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak.
  I have spoken to the distinguished Republican leader, and we have a 
number of amendments that he and I wish to dispose of this evening. So 
when this debate is completed, we will move as quickly as we can to 
have votes on the amendments that are pending. I am somewhat taken 
aback by the fact that after all we have been through since the 
Congress started--we have been candid and forthright. Everything has 
been aboveboard. I would hope that no matter how disappointed some 
people may be that we have a way of moving forward on this, that people 
would allow us to do that in a reasonable period of time. We could do 
it tonight. I understand that is not likely. I don't know what my 
friend from Louisiana is trying to do. Remember, what we do tonight 
sets us up for the future. There are going to be other pieces of 
legislation that come to the floor, other opportunities for 
cooperation. I don't know what my friend has in mind, but I would hope 
that it is nothing that throws a monkey wrench into what we have been 
trying to accomplish in this Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Republican 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans have 45 minutes. Senator 
Specter has 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will be the lead-off speaker. Then Senator McCain 
will follow me. I ask unanimous consent that he control the balance of 
our time after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, the question of whether the economy 
needs help is not in debate. I don't think there is a single Member of 
the Senate who believes that no action is the appropriate course for us 
to take. But one of the good things about reading history is, you learn 
a good deal. We know for sure the big spending programs of the New Deal 
did not work. In 1940, unemployment was still 15 percent. It is widely 
agreed among economists that what got us out of the doldrums we were in 
during the Great Depression was the beginning of World War II.
  We have another example, what is called in Japan ``the lost decade of 
the 1990s,'' where stimulus packages similar to the ones we are 
considering tonight were tried again and again and again. And at the 
end of the 1990s, Japan looked very much like it did at the beginning 
of the 1990s, except it had a much larger debt.
  We have not seen the compromise proposal which has been discussed 
tonight. I know there has been a good-faith effort on the part of those 
involved to pare down the size of the underlying Senate measure. But as 
nearly as we can tell, even after those efforts, it is roughly the same 
size as the House bill. According to the figures I have been given, the 
House bill is about $820 billion. The Senate bill, under the 
compromise, we believe would be about $827 billion. Bear in mind, the 
interest costs on either of those proposals would be $348 billion. So 
we are talking about a $1.1 trillion spending measure.
  We are already looking at a $1 trillion deficit for this fiscal year. 
We believe the Secretary of the Treasury and the President are going to 
be suggesting to us, as early as next week, that we need to do a new, 
what has commonly been referred to as, TARP round, some kind of 
additional assistance for the financial system, as early as next week. 
We are talking about an extraordinarily large amount of money and a 
crushing debt for our grandchildren.

  If most Republicans were convinced that this would work, there might 
be a greater willingness to support it. But all the historical evidence 
suggests it is highly unlikely to work. So then you have to balance the 
likelihood of success versus the crushing debt we are levying on the 
backs of our children, grandchildren and, yes, their children and the 
need to finance all of this debt, which many suspect will lead to ever 
higher and higher interest rates, which could create a new round of 
problems for our economy.
  Let me sum it up by saying, no action is not what any Republican 
colleague that I know is advocating. But most of us are deeply 
skeptical this will work. That level of skepticism leads us to believe 
this course of action should not be chosen.
  We had an opportunity to do this on a truly bipartisan basis, and the 
President said originally he had hoped to get 80 votes. It appears the 
way this has developed, there will be some bipartisan support but not a 
lot. It is not likely, in the judgment of most of us, to produce the 
result we all desire.
  I will not be in a position to recommend support for this product, as 
it has developed, in spite of the best efforts of those who worked on 
the compromise. I commend them for their willingness to try to work 
this out. It seems to me it falls far short of the kind of measure we 
should be passing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after I speak, my side will speak 
relatively briefly: Senators Kyl, Thune, Coburn, and Senator Graham. I 
have had some kind of Orwellian experiences in the Senate over the 
years I have been here, but this one ranks up near the top in the word 
``bipartisanship'' that is being thrown around as far as this package 
is concerned, this $1.1 trillion package. Let's have no doubt about 
that. There are 178 Members of the House of Representatives who are 
Republicans. They all voted against the bill, plus 11 Democrats. There 
are 40 Republican Senators here. We now have two--count them, two--who 
have decided behind closed doors, without consultation with the other 
38, to come to an agreement, which you can call a lot of things but 
bipartisan is not one of them, unless you say that two individuals and 
possibly a third, but no more than that, out of 40 are in agreement.
  I have been involved in a lot of bipartisan legislation around here, 
but I guarantee this is not bipartisan. So let's make sure we 
understand that to start with.

  Second of all, let's talk about how much it costs. There has been a 
lot said about reduction in the cost. The fact is, they say it is $780 
billion. If you include the amendments that were already passed and are 
going to be included in this bill, it is now $827 billion. That is $7 
billion more than the House of Representatives passed, the debt service 
being $348 billion, bringing us to a total of $1.175 trillion. Then you 
add that to, on Monday, the new Secretary of Treasury is going to 
announce a new TARP--$500 billion, $1 trillion. Waiting in the House is 
another Omnibus appropriations bill of $400 billion. We just spent $750 
billion--or are in the process of spending another $750 billion--in the 
form of TARP I and II. My goodness, it is a moment in history of 
spending the likes of which this Nation has never seen.
  By the way, let's suppose it is only $827 billion we are going to 
pass here. That only costs around, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office--and I urge every one of my colleagues to read it--on 
February 4 they said the bill, as passed and proposed, would have 
created between 1.3 million and 3.9 million jobs. At $827 billion, if 
you create 1.3 million jobs, that is $636,000 per job. If it creates 
3.9 million jobs, which is the high estimate of the Congressional 
Budget Office, then you now are only paying $212,000 per job.
  So let's have no doubt. As to the elimination of unnecessary, 
wasteful projects, I have already submitted for the Record page after 
page after page of porkbarrel projects which were put in on a partisan 
basis, not a bipartisan basis. Let's make sure we understand that.
  Mr. President, there is $150 million for honey bee insurance. Some 
have said: $150 million, $200 million, that is not much. Mr. President, 
$300 million to bring USDA facilities into workplace safety 
compliance--the list goes on and on. This is a Christmas tree done by 
appropriators. And we proved when we tried to eliminate the earmarks 
that there are three kinds of Senators in the Senate: Republicans, 
Democrats, and appropriators.
  The fact is, we turned down--although we got 44 votes--what would 
have given us at least some shred of confidence that we will be 
addressing

[[Page S1846]]

this terrible deficit we are laying on future generations of Americans, 
and that would have been a trigger that when we have two quarters of 
GDP growth, we would be on the automatic path to reducing spending and 
bringing us a balanced budget. That was rejected by this body. Why? Why 
in the world, once the economy recovers, wouldn't we want to put this 
country on the path to a balanced budget and stop laying--we have 
already done $10 trillion. Now there are more trillions coming, not to 
mention Social Security and Medicare.
  So let's have no doubt--let's have no doubt--this is not bipartisan. 
This is two Republican Senators who decided to join after meetings 
behind doors, in which almost all of the rest of us were not present. 
It is as expensive or more expensive than the legislation passed by the 
House if you count the amendments that have already been passed, which 
we are told would be included in this bill. There is no provision--
there is no provision--whatsoever, once our economy recovers, to 
somehow begin to reduce this multitrillion-dollar debt we have laid on 
future generations of Americans. If this legislation is passed, it will 
be a very bad day for America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, first, everyone understands we need to act to help 
people who are hurting in this country, to try to create jobs and 
stimulate the economy. That is not the issue. The question is whether 
the deal that has been struck here this afternoon is a solution to the 
problem or whether it is still a wasteful and ineffective bill.
  I wish to comment briefly on five quick things. First of all, it is a 
little hard to tell because we do not have text yet, but my staff has 
just reconfirmed the numbers, that as compared with the House-passed 
bill--which was described here this evening as a very bad bill--this 
bill would create a deficit of $827 billion; the House bill, $820 
billion. So it is $7 billion more in deficit spending than the House 
bill.
  My colleague from Maine described this as a targeted approach 
because, of course, much of the spending they have tried to remove from 
the bill is ordinarily handled through the regular appropriations 
process. They wanted that spending to be handled in the regular order 
through the Appropriations Committee, and therefore they are going to 
target things that should not be handled through that process. Then I 
heard described items like Pell grants. Now, we have a lot of Pell 
grants, a lot of students who have benefited from Pell grants. They 
have all benefited from Pell grants because the Appropriations 
Committee has appropriated money for Pell grants, and we voted for that 
here in the Senate. There has never been a stimulus bill to pass Pell 
grants before. So if this is a targeted approach and we are going to 
have $6 billion in there for Pell grants, there seems to be a 
contradiction.
  It was also indicated that this deal is better than the House bill 
because this will really stimulate the economy as opposed to the 
approach in the House bill. Then there was described items such as $6 
billion for special education. Well, once again, everybody is in favor 
of special education, but how does special education--$6 billion--
stimulate the economy? I suppose you could say: Well, it at least 
enables us to hire more special education teachers. How long does it 
take to educate a special education teacher? About 4 or 5 years in 
college? Hopefully, we are out of the recession by then.
  There was a description of $87 billion in ``targeted increases'' in 
Medicaid. Well, it appears to be the very same amount of money that 
came out of the Finance Committee--$87 billion for Medicaid. The CBO 
has said that of this $87 billion, only $10.8 billion is targeted for 
Medicaid. The rest is, in effect, free cash for the States. This is not 
a targeted approach at all.
  Moreover, the committee--and I will see when we understand how this 
bill is actually written--provides a 27-month cliff. In other words, in 
order not to look as if it is spending too much money, it assumes that 
after 27 months everybody will just be removed from the rolls. Well, I 
defy my colleagues in this body, after a lot of people have been added 
to the Medicaid rolls, after 27 months to just inform them they are 
going to have to be removed because we did not provide the funding for 
it. Obviously, the program is going to be continued and the cost to the 
American taxpayer will be much greater.
  Finally, just to comment about working together, we all try to work 
together, and it is true that the American people want us to work 
together. But they do not want us to work together to waste a lot of 
their money. So the question still remains: Is the deal that was struck 
today a better deal in terms of wasting the public's money and being 
effective at stimulating economic growth? Certainly, the case was not 
made in 45 minutes on the floor this evening.
  I will be looking forward to the debate here after we have had a 
chance to read the bill, to understand why the proponents really think 
this will be better, and we will be willing to debate that. In the 
meantime, I remain convinced that we do need a targeted--a really 
targeted--approach and that it needs to be aimed toward stimulating the 
economy and creating jobs, just not spending more money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my colleagues have described it well, but 
we all should remember what this is. This is still an $827 billion debt 
we are handing off to future generations. This is the largest 
intergenerational transfer of debt in human history, and we spent 3 
days now--4 days, I guess, if you count today--debating it. I think the 
managers of the bill have been patient in allowing us to offer some of 
our amendments, but to suggest for a minute that the Republicans are 
slowing this down or that we have had way more than enough time to 
debate this misses the point.
  A trillion dollars--a trillion dollars--is something I think most of 
us have a hard time grasping. In fact, the borrowing amount that is 
included in this bill does represent the equivalent of what America as 
a nation borrowed between the time of the Revolutionary War and the 
Presidency of Jimmy Carter. We borrowed $800 billion between the 
Revolutionary War and the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, and we are going 
to borrow that amount of money in one fell swoop from future 
generations with this bill.
  Much has been said about the discussions in the last few days and how 
this is going to be a ``bipartisan compromise,'' they are going to 
reduce the size of the bill. The irony in all this is that the bill as 
it came over from the House, as has already been noted by my 
colleagues, was about $820 billion. The bill that we now have in front 
of us, the so-called compromise, is $827 billion. So it has not gotten 
smaller coming from the House, it has gotten larger.
  A lot of people have gotten up in the Chamber and complained about 
the House bill and its dimensions and its size, and I think the 
American people have picked up on that theme because everywhere you go, 
they talk about this pork-laden bill that came out of the House, and 
surely the Senate will do something to improve upon it to shrink it in 
size and get rid of some of the wasteful spending, and yet here we are. 
We have a so-called compromise, an agreement that is actually larger in 
size and scope than the bill that came over from the House.
  So make no mistake about it, we are borrowing this money from future 
generations. It is a larger amount of borrowing than was included in 
the bill that left the House of Representatives. Frankly, we do not 
know--because we have not seen it yet--about many of the provisions 
that were included. Many of us have reacted and I think the American 
public has reacted negatively to much of the wasteful spending that is 
included in the bill. We have all highlighted the things we think are 
extraneous and wasteful and do not stimulate the economy, do not grow 
the economy, do not create jobs.
  So we will have an opportunity, hopefully over the weekend, to take a 
look at it and digest it a little bit. But I think it is fair to say, 
if at least you are talking about the overall macronumber, that this 
thing has not gotten any smaller; it has gotten bigger. I would bet by 
the time we have analyzed this legislation closely, many of the new 
programs that were created in the bill that was passed by the House and 
the bill we were debating earlier in the week are continued, and a lot 
of the new programs that create

[[Page S1847]]

mandatory spending--not one-time spending--that are allegedly designed 
to stimulate the economy on a short-term, temporary basis but will have 
spending that is going to go on and on and on and is going to be a 
liability for generations to come.
  So as we move toward perhaps a final vote on this at some time this 
weekend--and I suspect the votes are there--the other point I would 
make--and make no mistake about this either--you cannot call this a 
bipartisan effort without redefining the word ``bipartisan.'' This came 
out of the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. 
In fact, 11 Democrats in the House voted against it. And here in the 
Senate, there will be two, perhaps at most three, Republicans who will 
vote for this. So out of 535 Members of Congress and some 220 or 
thereabouts Republicans in the Congress, to have 2 hardly qualifies 
this particular effort as a bipartisan effort.
  It went through the House quickly. Republicans were not given an 
opportunity over there to have impact or have amendments considered. We 
have had some amendments here. Most of the amendments we have offered 
that have tried to reduce the size of this thing and change some of the 
substance of it so it is more targeted, more focused, more focused on 
job creation--most of those amendments have been defeated. We are faced 
today with a bill that is actually larger than where we started when 
this whole initiative got underway in the House of Representatives last 
week.
  So, Mr. President, I hope the American people, as they tune in to the 
debate, will look very closely at this so-called compromise and give 
consideration to how this is going to impact them and their family 
budgets. We all know the statistics. We all know there are people who 
are hurting in this country, people who have lost their jobs. The 
people who are going to be hurting the most, however, are the children 
and grandchildren whom we are going to be handing this debt to--a 
trillion dollars in debt that we will be handing to our children and 
our grandchildren--and adding to already what has become a historic 
high level of debt for this country, so historic that it exceeds by 
almost two times the average deficit to GDP of many of our allies in 
the European Union. We are talking about enormous amounts of debt, 
enormous amounts of borrowing.
  As my colleague from Arizona noted, the CBO estimates on job creation 
as few as 1.3 million jobs for over $800 billion in borrowing. What 
does that come down to on a per-job basis? Hundreds of thousands of 
dollars per job.
  We can do this better. We can do it in a way that is responsible to 
the next generation of Americans. I hope when this comes up for a final 
vote we will be able to defeat it. The American people will get engaged 
in this effort and let their Senators know how they feel. I believe 
when that happens, you will start seeing people change their minds 
about the effort that is in front of us this evening.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I can't say I didn't expect that we would 
be where we are tonight. But this country needs to know the way this 
bill we have been talking about, and probably the bill we are going to 
see, is undoubtedly the largest generational theft bill in the history 
of mankind. When I say generational theft, I am not just talking about 
money. I am talking about opportunities and I am talking about futures.
  There is nobody on this side of the aisle who doesn't want to do 
something to fix our economy and stimulate our economy. What this bill 
does--and the families who are listening to this right now, you ought 
to think: If you are one of those who are unemployed right now and 
hurting, $12,000 is going to be added to your debt once you get a job 
again, for your family. If you are struggling out there, but you are 
holding on, we are going to steal $12,000 from you and your kids. Then 
those of us who might be doing well, we are going to take $12,000 from 
you, so maybe that is OK in a time such as this. But what is not OK is 
how this bill is going to spend that money.
  If you like how efficient the post office is that lost $3 billion 
this year, and if you like the way the Federal Government works, wait 
until this money starts going through the Federal Government. If we 
have $450 billion that is going to be in programs, 10 percent of it is 
going to get chewed up before it ever leaves Washington. Then, when it 
gets to your State to supposedly be a stimulus, another 10 percent of 
it is going to get chewed up. So we are going to lose $90 billion 
because we are going to decide to run it through the inefficient 
bureaucracies. I would ask: What does that stimulate? Federal workers 
are great, but they don't produce wealth, and the money ought to go 
into job-creating exercises that create wealth. What is going to happen 
to your family? The question will be, What is going to happen if we 
don't do anything? We are not proposing to do nothing.
  There could be a true bipartisan solution to this, but that hasn't 
been offered. We have seen slow walked all day the inability to get 
amendments. It is highly unlikely any other amendments will be offered.
  I want my colleagues to think how can we best stimulate this economy, 
and how can we do no harm as we do that? This bill--this generational 
theft bill--does tons of harm. Let me tell my colleagues the biggest 
harm it does. There is no guarantee this is going to work, especially 
when we haven't fixed the housing and mortgage system and we haven't 
fixed the liquidity issue. Here is the harm it does. Every State, save 
California and New York, will get more money out of this bill than 
their deficits are today--every State. We are going to transfer, by 
what we are doing here, a lack of fiscal responsibility to every State. 
We have had Governors calling up here from all across this country 
saying, You are going to send us a whole lot more money than we need. I 
have legislators who are trying to spend money. They are slow walking 
me now, so I can't run this State and keep it fiscally sound. That is 
coming from Democratic and Republican Governors alike. We are going to 
transfer the incompetence of the Federal Government in Congress to 
every State house in this country. Think about what we are doing with 
$12,000 per family.
  One final point I will make. Barack Obama is my close personal 
friend. One of the things he said is that we ought to get rid of the 
programs that don't work. We ought to put metrics on the programs so we 
can measure them, and then when we look at them we will know whether we 
are truly investing in an adequate way. We are blindly going to invest 
in things and there is not one iota in this bill or the House bill that 
eliminates any of the $300 billion that we know is being wasted right 
now and can be fully documented--not one attempt to do that. So if we 
cared about stimulating the economy and we cared about the future and 
we cared about those who are having a hard time today, why wouldn't we 
do the hard work to get rid of what doesn't work before we spend more 
money on things that don't work?
  I would end with this. We got in trouble and we are in this mess 
because we spent money that we didn't have on things we didn't need. 
And the answer for Congress is to do more of the same. When we do more 
of the same, what we do is we mortgage--the only thing we are doing on 
mortgages is we are mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's 
future.
  This body works on the power of 60, and it will happen, but the 
precarious nature we find ourselves in today, the responsibility of 
passing this bill when most of it is not going to make a big 
difference--not truly going to stimulate the economy--and claiming it 
is bipartisan when it is not, is going to leave a legacy that nobody 
who votes for this bill is going to embrace.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a couple of observations as we bring this 
night to a close. I don't know what we are going to do after tonight.
  I am asked to talk about an amendment that I have never seen. It has 
been described to me and things have been said about it that I need to 
take exception to. Not the people. I know the people. I have been in a 
position where being the odd guy out is tough. Joe Lieberman, by the 
way, has earned the right to do and say anything he

[[Page S1848]]

ever wants to do as far as I am concerned. When Joe stood up for what 
he believed in Iraq, got in a primary, got beat and ran as an 
Independent, he knew what was coming his way, and I love him to death. 
When Joe said there are no winners and losers tonight, I disagree. I 
think the American people have lost a lot more than $820 billion.
  What we have done is we have lost a young President's promise to 
change things. That is not readily obvious. But that speech last 
night--I am sure you are not, but if you are listening, think twice 
about doing that again. There is a lot to be done in this country. 
Closing GTMO and moving the prisoners, I would like to help you. What 
are we going to do about Social Security and Medicare? I would like to 
help you. I hope you believe it is OK for me to be somewhat concerned 
about the process here and how we wound up spending $1.1 trillion. 
Please don't say this is change I can believe in. And please don't 
underestimate how the public is pulling for you, but they don't like 
this bill. Please don't overestimate your ability to persuade people 
because you are a very gifted orator. People are pulling for you. I am 
pulling for you. But they are watching what you are doing and they are 
watching what I am doing.
  Here is what happened here. This bill started in the House with the 
attitude: We won, we write it. Not one Republican was able to vote for 
the bill. Maybe it is us. Maybe we have so lost our way that we can't 
be reasonable with anybody anymore. You can explain the 11 Democrats 
somehow, but not only did you not get one Republican in the House, you 
lost 11 Democrats, and the more the American people saw what was in the 
bill, you lost them.
  I am not your problem. The American people are not your problem. The 
problem is the system we have been playing around with is broken, and 
our dear friends on the other side, you have reinforced everything bad 
about it. You haven't fixed it. Who are we to criticize? I am not so 
sure we did a whole lot better, but we got a chance to start over. We 
are in the first month of the administration, and I have never been 
more concerned about lost opportunity than I am tonight.
  To my two friends who decided they had to find a compromise: I 
respect you. I like you. But when you say this was the best we could 
do, I disagree with you. This is not remotely close to what we could 
have done if we would have sat down in a true bipartisan fashion and 
found a better way. We could have come out with a bill that spent less, 
that created jobs more efficiently, and would have built the confidence 
of the American people, but instead we have come out in our corners 
more rigid than ever.
  To say this is bipartisan is not quite fair. When Joe voted with us 
it wasn't bipartisan; it was us and Joe. You have two of my dear 
friends believing they had to act. But the one thing I will tell them, 
that is not a very good statement about the confidence you have in me. 
I believe we have to act too. So you must have felt that people like me 
are hopeless; you had to take all this on yourself and none of us would 
have met you in the middle. There are at least a dozen to fifteen 
Republicans who would have voted for a bill that did more than cut 
taxes who would have spent money on infrastructure, who would have 
helped the States, but most of us--all but two--could not tolerate this 
process, and at the end of the day we cannot tolerate the way this ship 
is shaped and how much it spends.

  The second big loss is the future when it comes to acting together 
regarding the banking crisis and the housing crisis. We have in the 
name of a stimulus package spent over $1 trillion and the average cost, 
if there are 1.3 million jobs created, is $636,000 a job, and if we 
somehow can create 4 million jobs, it is $212,051. People complain 
about us being overpaid. I will take it: $212,000 a job. We can do 
better than that.
  But here is what we have lost. Because this bill is not better, it is 
worse; because it is not bipartisan, it is the same old way of doing 
business. Because it has been so politicized by a lot of people--and I 
don't say I am not to blame--we now have lost more confidence. TARP I 
was tough. TARP II was really tough. TARP III is going to be 
impossible, and you are going to need TARP III. The administration is 
probably going to come out Monday with a $500 billion or $600 billion 
request to help get this country through a crisis we haven't seen since 
the Great Depression and they are going to tell us we need more money 
for housing and we need to get credit flowing and $310 billion left in 
TARP is not enough.
  The problem they are going to have and the problem I am going to have 
is that people are bailout weary, and they are so tired of us. They are 
so tired of us sitting up here in a matter of a couple of weeks trying 
to jam something through they don't understand and they don't like and 
then, when it is over, trying to celebrate. There is nothing to 
celebrate here. There are no bad guys, there are no good guys--men or 
women--but what we have lost is a great opportunity to start over. We 
have sunk back into the swamp. We have spent more money than we should. 
History will not judge us well, and the hard part is yet to be done. We 
will wake up tomorrow and we will try to figure out how to straighten 
out this mess. America somehow survives everything. I hope we can 
survive this. I believe we can.
  I want to end on this note. I am not mad at anybody because I have 
been in this spot myself. I am deeply disappointed that we could not do 
better, because there is a big loser tonight, and that is the American 
people.
  I yield back.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I recognize the Senator from Nebraska for 3 minutes.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, if you could give me an alert with about 
a half a minute left, I would appreciate it.
  I rise tonight to speak about the agreement that was announced within 
the last hour or so. We have taken a lot of votes over the last few 
days. In fact, I have had colleagues on both sides of the aisle say to 
me we have voted a lot on this bill. As I pointed out, I am new here, 
but it sure seems as though we have. But the one thing that occurs to 
me is that in all of this debate, we are not going to vote for how to 
pay for this bill. I want people to understand this bill is going to be 
totally, completely financed with borrowed money.
  The other thing we are not going to vote on any time is a plan for 
our future to pay for this bill and the other spending that seems to be 
headed our way like a freight train. We are not going to cast that 
vote. We are asking a tremendous amount of our country to try to figure 
out a way to withstand that. The cost of this bill by any definition--I 
don't care where you land in terms of what the ultimate costs are--is 
mind boggling. And because it is all financed, it will be well over $1 
trillion in spending. I listened to the testimony tonight, and so many 
people I respect on both sides of the aisle got up and said we have to 
do this now.

  I wasn't in this body when TARP was passed, like so many others. I 
was out on the campaign trail. But the same argument was made then: We 
have to act now.
  Mr. President, I have in front of me the bill that was put on my desk 
this morning. It just goes on, page after page. It takes a lot of pages 
to spend $1 trillion. We have not seen the compromise yet. I heard 
tonight from the four speakers that we could get an idea what the 
compromise was all about. We will have it. Somewhere in the next 48 
hours, we are going to get a whole new plan--this compromise--and we 
are going to be asked to make an assessment on it and to go down there 
and cast our vote yes or no on $1 trillion worth of spending.
  Let's slow down and take our time. Few things are going to be as 
important as this.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I know we all understand the seriousness 
of the moment, the seriousness of the situation our country is in. It 
is for that reason many of us, in goodwill, attempted to work together 
to try to improve upon the product that is this bill on the desk. As 
the process went on, I felt as if I could no longer support the effort 
because it was not going in a direction I thought was prudent or useful 
to our effort. The fact is, in this bill we

[[Page S1849]]

now have before us, we will have a bill that is larger than the House-
passed bill. There is a point to be made that the stimulus ought to be 
sufficiently large to stimulate. My concern is it doesn't stimulate, 
and too much of what is contained in this bill--and now the substitute 
which will be even more expensive than the original bill or than the 
House bill--I am concerned we still do not do the kinds of expenditures 
that are not part of an appropriations process but part of a stimulus 
process.
  I wonder just how much of this bill will spend out in the next 2 
years and how much will spend out after that. The State of Florida is 
in dire need. We are going through the most difficult time I can 
remember in my adult life. Unemployment is almost double digits. Every 
corner of the State is suffering from the foreclosure crisis. We do 
precious little in that arena, which I understand to be something that 
is so desperately needed.
  At the end of the day, we are going to be spending a lot of the 
taxpayers' money with not too many other opportunities to get it right. 
We cannot continue to spend at this level. So it is incumbent upon us 
to get it right. That is why I believed it was more important we get it 
right than we get it right now. Let's get it right. We got this today, 
and we will have the weekend or overnight to make our decisions on it.
  I, frankly, commend those who worked together in a bipartisan 
fashion. I think we should try to do that. I just don't think there was 
a good bipartisan construction of this bill that was done by the 
majority, and it was too difficult for us to try to fix it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Ten minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator McCain for his leadership. Actually, I 
felt strongly that his combination of substantial infrastructure and 
targeted tax relief would have injected more strength into this economy 
than the present bill, and with a cost of half of that. As we know, 
this bill cost over $1.1 trillion. The bill itself is $827 billion, but 
when you add the $300 billion plus in interest, which the Congressional 
Budget Office adds to it for the 10-year budget window, you end up with 
an unprecedented amount of money--with far too little impact.
  In fact, if you look at what our own Congressional Budget Office 
tells us--and who else can we rely on--hired by the Democratic 
majority, they conclude that over a 10-year period--shouldn't we be 
thinking at least 10 years ahead? Senator Coburn says it will be on our 
children and grandchildren. But they conclude that the bill will have a 
negative impact on the economy. Yes, it will help some in the short 
term. Over the 10-year period, the drain of the interest and capital 
taken out of the economy to fund this effort will actually weaken the 
economy, and the total gross domestic product over that period of time 
will be less than if we had no bill at all. That doesn't mean we should 
not have a bill. What we should have is a bill from which we can get 
some results.
  I hope and I do believe the American people will continue to talk to 
their Congressmen and Senators; they will be sharing their thoughts 
with them. My phones are ringing off the hook. They know you cannot get 
something for nothing and that debts have to be repaid. There is 
nothing mysterious about these fundamental principles. We act like they 
are not a reality. The CBO score points out what happens is when you 
take money out of the future to put into today--or when you borrow it 
and put it into the economy today, it crowds out about a third of a 
dollar's worth of private domestic capital. That is the kind of thing 
that weakens our potential to bounce back from this problem we are in. 
It is real and it is serious and I certainly favor taking action.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair. I am grieving tonight. Hopefully, 
there will be an opportunity to do better than the bill before us now. 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as we complete this part of the ongoing 
effort to address a truly terrible time in America's history, full of 
economic difficulties and woes and sadness, we also face enormous 
challenges abroad. Every time we see a news report, we see some new 
challenge around the world.
  I hope we also have learned from this experience that maybe it is 
best to begin our discussions in addressing the challenges that face 
America on a truly bipartisan basis, and that everybody be allowed to 
participate; that it be the input of both sides and all points of view, 
and that we can then reach consensus and go to the American people in a 
united fashion.
  The President of the United States, just a few days ago, said he 
believed we would pass this bill through the Senate with 80 votes or 
more. That, obviously, is not going to happen. I argue it is because of 
the way it began. People are saying: We won the election, so we will 
write the bill. They can do that, but I can assure my friends and 
colleagues the American people want us to work together. They are tired 
of the bitter partisanship. That is one of the major reasons we have 
such low approval ratings from the American people.
  So I hope we can, the next time--and there will be a next time 
because TARP III will be coming up, and we will be addressing national 
security challenges, the Omnibus appropriations bill, and we will be 
addressing other issues. My urgent request to my colleagues is, let's 
not say: We won so we wrote the bill. I am not saying that wasn't true 
on this side of the aisle when we were victorious. Unfortunately, from 
time to time, we were guilty of the hubris that goes with victory. But 
I hope all of us understand that, in the view of many, including this 
Member, the challenges we face are enormous, and the American people 
and the world deserve an approach where all of us are included in the 
takeoff so that all of us will be included in the landing.
  I have been on the Senate floor and I have not been in the 
``negotiations'' that went on. I think it has been a good debate on the 
floor. There have been contributions from virtually every Member of 
this body. I think the American people who have observed that probably 
learned a lot from it. I hope next time we can show the American people 
we have come together at the beginning and have a truly bipartisan 
approach to the challenges we face.
  I wish to say also that I believe the majority leader has allowed a 
large number of amendments and vigorous debate. Also, I think the 
Senator from Montana has managed the bill in a respectful fashion. I 
hope we do better next time, Madam President.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Nelson has a few minutes left, but 
he is not here. Before the Senator leaves the floor, I want to say that 
John McCain and I came to Washington together going on 27 years ago. He 
and I have done a number of things together, and we have had a number 
of things that we didn't do together. I know the strength of his 
feelings. He has expressed them on this floor. I want everyone to 
understand how much I appreciate his leadership. The statement he gave 
today was a very positive statement. He talked about how we have had 
robust debate and about how he didn't like the product we are coming up 
with and that we can do better next time. So I just want my friend from 
Arizona to know I appreciate his projection of authority and 
leadership, which I have watched for 27 years. Sometimes when he 
projects that leadership, you don't want to be on the other end of it.
  Tonight, I say I appreciate that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my old friend, the majority 
leader, from our neighboring State. Sometimes, from time to time, all 
of us don't know how difficult his job is, but we appreciate it. I know 
that comes from all of us.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1850]]

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the pending amendments in the order 
specified in this agreement; that prior to each vote, there be 2 
minutes of debate prior to each vote; that the previous order regarding 
intervening amendments remain in effect; that the debate time be 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first 
vote, the succeeding votes be 10 minutes in duration: Conrad-Graham No. 
501, as modified; Dodd No. 145, with a modification which is at the 
desk; Grassley, 297; Enzi No. 293, as modified; Cantwell No. 274, as 
further modified; Vitter No. 107; Feinfold No. 485; Bunning No. 531; 
Wyden No. 468; Thune No. 538; and Murray No. 110; that upon disposition 
of these amendments, the majority leader be recognized.
  I would tell all members here, we are hopeful and confident that we 
will not have to have recorded votes on all of those. We hope everybody 
will be understanding. And if we have to have a vote, we will have one. 
We would rather that we could work some of these out. The managers are 
willing to accept a number of them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, there is one amendment on 
there, and I do see the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, 
on the floor. I would object to a time agreement such as this, I would 
object to any time agreement on it as it now stands. With the 
modification, there is a major change in the privacy aspects of the 
modification that comes under the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. It is different than what we have proposed.
  I would have no objection to the list, with the exception of the Enzi 
amendment. I would wonder if it would be possible for the leader to get 
the whole list and allow the Senator from Wyoming and I some time to 
talk about his amendment. I say this only because the Senator from 
Wyoming is on the floor. I would not have said this if he were not here 
and not able to respond.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, it was my understanding it had been worked 
out between the Senators, through the staffs, and that is the only 
reason we put that modification in. These are technical corrections, 
hoping to be able to have a usable Health IT bill when we finish.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend, why do we not take 
this one out of this tranche and see if this can be worked out while we 
are working through these other amendments.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I waited for 3 days to be able to make a 
technical correction amendment. Yes, I will agree to do that. I hope it 
does not get left out. I think without that amendment, the Health IT 
portion will not work. It is not anything about money, it is about 
having a portion that will or will not work.
  Mr. REID. During these votes I say to my friend from Wyoming, the two 
managers and you and Senator Leahy can meet and get some staff to meet 
and work this out.
  I would ask that the agreement I have suggested be approved, with the 
exception of 293; we will work on that during the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I hope 
I did not miss something, but I asked earlier several times today about 
an amendment, I believe 239, the E-Verify amendment that I think has 
broad support.
  But it keeps not getting on the list. So I am wondering what kind of 
assurance the leader could have, that if we are not on this list, what 
opportunity there will be to get a vote, and if there is a decided 
intention to deny a vote on this, it is something I feel very strongly 
about and would have to resist, if I could.
  Mr. REID. I would say to my friend from Alabama, there are a number 
of Senators who have amendments they would like to offer. The 
Republican leader and I felt it was appropriate to get rid of these 
that have been brought before the body. I have a number on this side 
that are in the same standing as you, and we will have to work on 
those. That is the best I can say.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I thank the majority leader. I am very uneasy 
about it. I am afraid this amendment, which I am confident would have 
an overwhelming vote, there may be some objections somewhere from 
having a chance to vote on it. So I withdraw my objection at this time 
and hope we can work on it.
  Mr. REID. We do not know what it is. We have to take a look at it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It has to do with the people who get money, contracts 
under this agreement who would have to use the E-Verify system to make 
minimal checks that the persons they hire are legally in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ENZI. Reserving the right to object, I have to ask one additional 
question. My amendment would still be pending then?
  Mr. REID. The answer is yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. But, Madam President, not in this batch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment No. 145, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 263, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


           general provisions--hope for homeowners amendments

       Sec. 1201.  Section 257 of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-23), as amended by the Emergency Economic 
     Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(1)(B), by inserting after ``being 
     reset,'' the following: ``or has, due to a decrease in 
     income,'';
       (2) in subsection (k)(2), by striking ``and the mortgagor'' 
     and all that follows through the end and inserting ``shall, 
     upon any sale or disposition of the property to which the 
     mortgage relates, be entitled to 25 percent of appreciation, 
     up to the appraised value of the home at the time when the 
     mortgage being refinanced under this section was originally 
     made. The Secretary may share any amounts received under this 
     paragraph with the holder of the eligible mortgage refinanced 
     under this section.'';
       (3) in subsection (i)--
       (A) by inserting ``, after weighing maximization of 
     participation with consideration for the solvency of the 
     program,'' after ``Secretary shall'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``equal to 3 percent'' 
     and inserting ``not more than 2 percent''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``equal to 1.5 percent'' 
     and inserting ``not more than 1 percent''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(x) Auctions.--The Board shall, if feasible, establish a 
     structure and organize procedures for an auction to refinance 
     eligible mortgages on a wholesale or bulk basis.
       ``(y) Compensation of Servicers.--To provide incentive for 
     participation in the program under this section, each 
     servicer of an eligible mortgage insured under this section 
     shall be paid $1,000 for performing services associated with 
     refinancing such mortgage, or such other amount as the Board 
     determines is warranted. Funding for such compensation shall 
     be provided by funds realized through the HOPE bond under 
     subsection (w).''.
       At the end of division B, add the following:

                    TITLE VI--FORECLOSURE PREVENTION

     SEC. 6001. MANDATORY LOAN MODIFICATIONS.

       Section 109(a) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
     of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5219) is amended--
       (1) by striking the last sentence;
       (2) by striking ``To the extent'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--To the extent''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Loan modifications required.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to actions required under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, not later than 15 days 
     after the date of enactment of this paragraph, develop and 
     implement a plan to facilitate loan modifications to prevent 
     avoidable mortgage loan foreclosures.
       ``(B) Funding.--Of amounts made available under section 115 
     and not otherwise obligated, not less than $50,000,000,000, 
     shall be made available to the Secretary for purposes of 
     carrying out the mortgage loan modification plan required to 
     be developed and implemented under this paragraph.
       ``(C) Criteria.--The loan modification plan required by 
     this paragraph may incorporate the use of--
       ``(i) loan guarantees and credit enhancements;
       ``(ii) the reduction of loan principal amounts and interest 
     rates;
       ``(iii) extension of mortgage loan terms; and
       ``(iv) any other similar mechanisms or combinations 
     thereof, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(D) Designation authority.--
       ``(i) FDIC.--The Secretary may designate the Corporation, 
     on a reimbursable basis, to carry out the loan modification 
     plan developed under this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Contracting authority.--If designated under clause 
     (i), the Corporation may use its contracting authority under 
     section 9 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       ``(E) Consultation required.--In developing the loan 
     modification plan under this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     consult with

[[Page S1851]]

     the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, 
     the Board, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development.
       ``(F) Reports to congress.--The Secretary shall provide to 
     the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House 
     of Representatives--
       ``(i) upon development of the plan required by this 
     paragraph, a report describing such plan; and
       ``(ii) a monthly report on the number and types of loan 
     modifications occurring during the reporting period, and the 
     performance of the loan modification plan overall.''.
       At the end of division B, add the following:

                    TITLE VI--FORECLOSURE MITIGATION

     SEC. 7001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Help Families Keep Their 
     Homes Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 7002. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``securitized mortgages'' means residential 
     mortgages that have been pooled by a securitization vehicle;
       (2) the term ``securitization vehicle'' means a trust, 
     corporation, partnership, limited liability entity, special 
     purpose entity, or other structure that--
       (A) is the issuer, or is created by the issuer, of mortgage 
     pass-through certificates, participation certificates, 
     mortgage-backed securities, or other similar securities 
     backed by a pool of assets that includes residential mortgage 
     loans;
       (B) holds all of the mortgage loans which are the basis for 
     any vehicle described in subparagraph (A); and
       (C) has not issued securities that are guaranteed by the 
     Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation, or the Government National Mortgage 
     Association;
       (3) the term ``servicer'' means a servicer of securitized 
     mortgages;
       (4) the term ``eligible servicer'' means a servicer of 
     pooled and securitized residential mortgages;
       (5) the term ``eligible mortgage'' means a residential 
     mortgage, the principal amount of which did not exceed the 
     conforming loan size limit that was in existence at the time 
     of origination for a comparable dwelling, as established by 
     the Federal National Mortgage Association;
       (6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Treasury;
       (7) the term ``effective term of the Act'' means the period 
     beginning on the effective date of this title and ending on 
     December 31, 2011;
       (8) the term ``incentive fee'' means the monthly payment to 
     eligible servicers, as determined under section 7003; and
       (9) the term ``prepayment fee'' means the payment to 
     eligible servicers, as determined under section 7003(b).

     SEC. 7003. PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE SERVICERS AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to make 
     payments to eligible servicers, subject to the terms and 
     conditions established under this title.
       (b) Fees Paid to Eligible Servicers.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible servicer may collect 
     reasonable incentive fee payments, as established by the 
     Secretary, not to exceed $2,000 per loan.
       (2) Consultation.--The fees permitted under this section 
     shall be subject to standards established by the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which standards 
     shall--
       (A) include an evaluation of whether an eligible mortgage 
     is affordable for the remainder of its term; and
       (B) identify a reasonable fee to be paid to the servicer in 
     the event that an eligible mortgage is prepaid.
       (3) Form of payment.--Fees permitted under this section may 
     be paid in a lump sum or on a monthly basis. If paid on a 
     monthly basis, the fee may only be remitted as long as the 
     loan performs.
       (c) Safe Harbor.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, and notwithstanding any investment contract between a 
     servicer and a securitization vehicle, a servicer--
       (1) owes any duty to maximize the net present value of the 
     pooled mortgages in the securitization vehicle to all 
     investors and parties having a direct or indirect interest in 
     such vehicle, and not to any individual party or group of 
     parties; and
       (2) shall be deemed to act in the best interests of all 
     such investors and parties if the servicer agrees to or 
     implements a modification, workout, or other loss mitigation 
     plan for a residential mortgage or a class of residential 
     mortgages that constitutes a part or all of the pooled 
     mortgages in such securitization vehicle, if--
       (A) default on the payment of such mortgage has occurred or 
     is reasonably foreseeable;
       (B) the property securing such mortgage is occupied by the 
     mortgagor of such mortgage or the homeowner; and
       (C) the servicer reasonably and in good faith believes that 
     the anticipated recovery on the principal outstanding 
     obligation of the mortgage under the modification or workout 
     plan exceeds, on a net present value basis, the anticipated 
     recovery on the principal outstanding obligation of the 
     mortgage through foreclosure;
       (3) shall not be obligated to repurchase loans from, or 
     otherwise make payments to, the securitization vehicle on 
     account of a modification, workout, or other loss mitigation 
     plan that satisfies the conditions of paragraph (2); and
       (4) if it acts in a manner consistent with the duties set 
     forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), shall not be liable for 
     entering into a modification or workout plan to any person--
       (A) based on ownership by that person of a residential 
     mortgage loan or any interest in a pool of residential 
     mortgage loans, or in securities that distribute payments out 
     of the principal, interest, and other payments in loans in 
     the pool;
       (B) who is obligated pursuant to a derivative instrument to 
     make payments determined in reference to any loan or any 
     interest referred to in subparagraph (A); or
       (C) that insures any loan or any interest referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) under any provision of law or regulation of 
     the United States or any State or political subdivision 
     thereof.
       (d) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Each servicer shall report regularly, not 
     less frequently than monthly, to the Secretary on the extent 
     and scope of the loss mitigation activities of the mortgage 
     owner.
       (2) Content.--Each report required by this subsection shall 
     include--
       (A) the number and percent of residential mortgage loans 
     receiving loss mitigation that have become performing loans;
       (B) the number and percent of residential mortgage loans 
     receiving loss mitigation that have proceeded to foreclosure;
       (C) the total number of foreclosures initiated during the 
     reporting period;
       (D) data on loss mitigation activities, including the 
     performance of mitigated loans, disagreggated for each form 
     of loss mitigation, which forms may include--
       (i) a waiver of any late payment charge, penalty interest, 
     or any other fees or charges, or any combination thereof;
       (ii) the establishment of a repayment plan under which the 
     homeowner resumes regularly scheduled payments and pays 
     additional amounts at scheduled intervals to cure the 
     delinquency;
       (iii) forbearance under the loan that provides for a 
     temporary reduction in or cessation of monthly payments, 
     followed by a reamortization of the amounts due under the 
     loan, including arrearage, and a new schedule of repayment 
     amounts;
       (iv) waiver, modification, or variation of any material 
     term of the loan, including short-term, long-term, or life-
     of-loan modifications that change the interest rate, forgive 
     or forbear with respect to the payment of principal or 
     interest, or extend the final maturity date of the loan;
       (v) short refinancing of the loan consisting of acceptance 
     of payment from or on behalf of the homeowner of an amount 
     less than the amount alleged to be due and owing under the 
     loan, including principal, interest, and fees, in full 
     satisfaction of the obligation under such loan and as part of 
     a refinance transaction in which the property is intended to 
     remain the principal residence of the homeowner;
       (vi) acquisition of the property by the owner or servicer 
     by deed in lieu of foreclosure;
       (vii) short sale of the principal residence that is subject 
     to the lien securing the loan;
       (viii) assumption of the obligation of the homeowner under 
     the loan by a third party;
       (ix) cancellation or postponement of a foreclosure sale to 
     allow the homeowner additional time to sell the property; or
       (x) any other loss mitigation activity not covered; and
       (E) such other information as the Secretary determines to 
     be relevant.
       (3) Public availability of reports.--After removing 
     information that would compromise the privacy interests of 
     mortgagors, the Secretary shall make public the reports 
     required by this subsection and summary data.

     SEC. 7004. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title.

     SEC. 7005. SUNSET OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under 
     this title shall terminate on December 31, 2011.


          Amendment No. 501, as Modified, to Amendment No. 98

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
501 offered by the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. CONRAD. I will take the time, since I do not see the Senator from 
South Carolina. I will say very simply, colleagues, this amendment is 
designed to help address the housing crisis by reallocating money from 
lesser priority areas to the FDIC mortgage foreclosure mitigation plan.
  Sheila Bair, the head of the FDIC, has written us and said to us, if 
this amendment is passed, it will prevent 1.5 million American homes 
from being foreclosed on. It is paid for. This is critically important 
to economic recovery. Virtually every economist has told us if this is 
not dealt with, the housing crisis, and dealt with effectively, we 
cannot expect economic recovery.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.

[[Page S1852]]

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
for one very simple reason. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, the 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, have the identical amendment coming 
up next, but instead of taking the money out of this proposal, it takes 
the money out of the TARP where it belongs.
  This is a proposal related to housing, related to the economic 
crisis. This week the President will announce a TARP proposal, where he 
will send to us a letter, where $50 to $100 billion will be used for 
housing. The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut will do that.
  I ask my colleagues, if this is a worthy cause, which it is, would we 
rather take the money out of this proposal--where we are fighting for 
every nickel? We have different views. Some want more tax cuts, some 
want more spending--when we can take it out of the TARP where the money 
otherwise would go to the large banks and others. And we are not happy 
with where the money went.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would like 30 seconds on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. There are about $20 billion in this amendment of cuts 
which complicate the package that has been agreed to. For that reason 
alone, in addition to the reasons already mentioned, I think it is 
going to be highly imprudent to adopt this amendment. It would throw a 
monkey wrench into the agreement that has been reached earlier today.
  For that reason, I also urge that the amendment not be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. 
Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 501), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 145, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
145, as modified, offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will take part of the 1 minute and then 
offer time to my colleague from Florida, who is my cosponsor on this 
amendment, Senator Martinez, to quickly address the amendment.
  This amendment is the response to how we ought to deal with the 
foreclosure mitigation issue. We require in this amendment that $50 
billion of the second tranche of the TARP money be dedicated to 
foreclosure mitigation as well as some modifications of the HOPE for 
Homeowners Act.
  The third part--I want to commend my colleague from Florida--is a 
very solid and wise suggestion he made dealing with services, and I 
yield to him to explain his part of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, this part of the amendment simply goes 
at the servicers, the private servicers who are now part of the GSEs. 
They hold about 15 percent of the mortgages, but they are about 50 
percent of the foreclosures. These folks will now be incentivized to 
make workouts with the homeowners to keep them in their homes; further, 
they will also be given a safe harbor so they are not subject to 
litigation. With that incentive, we believe the private servicers will 
begin to do the kinds of workouts that are necessary to keep people in 
their homes and avoid foreclosures.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I commend my colleague for his very wise 
suggestion to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I suggest we vote on this amendment by 
voice.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, did the Chair say ``in opposition''?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut: It was my understanding that all TARP funding was to be 
used for things the taxpayer would get back. In other words, these were 
supposed to be investments for which the taxpayers knew they would get 
100 percent of their money back and more. So to use this money, is this 
not taking away from the very essence of what TARP was to be used for 
and now spending money we know the taxpayers will never get back?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, if I could have 30 seconds to respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Taxpayers not losing their homes is preserving something--
not getting something back, No. 1. No. 2, when we wrote the original 
legislation in September, there were four requirements that we expected 
of the TARP funds, one of which was foreclosure mitigation. 
Regrettably, nothing was done at all about it. Not a nickel was spent 
on foreclosure mitigation. We are merely fulfilling the obligation we 
agreed to when the TARP legislation was adopted on October 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will accept a voice vote at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 145), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 297

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on amendment No. 297, offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Grassley.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this amendment is a very simple vote. 
The complex funding formula for spending the $87 billion in Medicare in 
this bill is not fair. It should be a flat increase to all States. That 
is the way we have done it in the past, and that is what my amendment 
does now. Thirty-four States do better with the formula

[[Page S1853]]

under my amendment. So this is a vote to give your State its fair share 
or not, as you choose. I believe there are 65 Members in the Senate 
here today whose States do better under my amendment, and if you do not 
know how your State does--although I put it in the Record this 
afternoon--come to me before you cast your vote and I will show you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I strongly oppose this amendment 
and hope it will be defeated. Yes, the State of West Virginia would do 
117 percent better because of the across-the-board funding under 
Medicaid, but that means in the future, if we have some kind of a 
further recession, we get no special help. We want to have special 
money set aside that is used for States that have special needs, 
special poverty, special unemployment, and special hurt. That is the 
point of Medicaid, to be flexible and to react to the needs of the 
people.
  I hope this amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. 
Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 297) was rejected.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 274, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
274, as modified, offered by the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank my cosponsors of this 
amendment, Senator Hatch, Senator Bingaman, Senator Stabenow, Senator 
Alexander, Senator Snowe, Senator Kerry, Senator Carper, and Senator 
Schumer. What this amendment does is make an investment in not only 
stimulative activity for construction, engineering, and manufacturing 
jobs now, but it also makes an investment in our future in electric 
plug-in vehicles by making sure we create the right incentives for 
investment in that kind of manufacturing.
  The United States right now leads in R&D on battery technology and 
components, but we have zero manufacturing--zero. The Chinese have 
250,000 people in manufacturing and battery technology and over 150 
partners. If we are going to create economic opportunity now, this is 
the amendment to do that and create jobs for the future in getting us 
off of our foreign dependence on oil.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the amendment No. 274 would reduce the 
efficiency credit by $1.8 billion--that is almost half the tax benefit 
for these energy efficient home improvements.
  The principal defect of this change will be felt in the emerging 
high-energy efficiency market. As anyone with conventional windows in 
this cold winter knows, inefficient windows suck a lot of heat out of a 
home.
  Moreover, the tax benefit shifts, in part, to electric plug-in 
motorcycles, three wheelers, and golf carts.
  Does this make sense?
  However, there are a couple provisions I am glad to see are included. 
For instance, I am glad to see that the depreciation schedule for smart 
meters was cut from 10 to 5 years. Also, I am glad to see that 
businesses that make real plug-in electric cars--I don't support it for 
those that make golf carts, three wheelers, or motorcycles--can expense 
manufacturing facilities that make these cars.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington 
who is committed to improving our environment and our energy 
efficiency. I have great hopes for hybrid automobiles. However, I urge 
my colleagues on this day when we are passing so much on this bill and 
going around our committees to not support the amendment.
  I note that I wrote earlier in the year and hope to receive a 
response soon from the Department of Energy to do a study on hybrids, 
diesel, ethanol, and other methods for both environment and efficiency. 
Our committees have been having hearings. This would choose one 
technology. It would have a cost of about $8 billion for the subsidies 
which are 10 percent of a vehicle's cost. I would say I favor moving 
forward, but I think it is premature. So I raise a point of order that 
the pending amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, the amendment is paid for, but 
pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move 
to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the 
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this be a 
10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. 
Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch

[[Page S1854]]


     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Barrasso
     Bunning
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Kyl
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). On this vote the yeas are 80, the 
nays are 16. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 274, as further 
modified.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, what amendment is that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Cantwell amendment No. 274, as further 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 274), as further modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Murray 
amendment No. 110 be withdrawn and the Feingold amendment No. 485 be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. For the Senators who did not hear, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Murray amendment No. 110 be withdrawn and the Feingold 
amendment No. 485 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object simply for this reason: Can we go in 
the order we agreed to? People are confused when we bounce around. If 
we can go in the order on the list, then I don't think we will be 
confused.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                           Amendment No. 107

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, am I correct that the Vitter amendment No. 
107 is the next amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Under the previous order, 
there is 2 minutes equally divided on amendment No. 107 offered by the 
Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. It would prohibit ACORN from receiving funds under 
this bill, including the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. We did 
that in the housing bill last year. We made that change, as we should 
have. We should do that in this bill in light of two things: No. 1, a 
lot of ACORN's activities in this area are to encourage things such as 
subprime mortgages which have led to problems. No. 2, ACORN has been 
guilty of massive voter registration fraud and politicization of their 
activities.
  I encourage everyone to support this commonsense amendment which 
mirrors what we did in the housing bill last year.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
This Senator from Louisiana is asking us to prohibit funding for one 
organization in America, ACORN. It exists in 110 different cities.
  What kind of work does it do? Mortgage counseling, weatherization, 
earned-income tax credit, and volunteer work. In fact, after Hurricane 
Katrina in Louisiana, hundreds of ACORN volunteers went to the home 
State of the Senator offering this amendment and literally helped 
rehabilitate 3,500 homes. This is the show of gratitude they receive 
for helping him in his home State.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is unnecessary. Any 
work they do they will have to compete for under an amendment 
previously offered and accepted. Please vote no on the Vitter 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. VITTER. I yield back my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask this be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They are 10-minute votes.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 107.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. 
Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 107) was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CARPER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wanted to give everyone an idea of the 
schedule. We are having a difficult time finishing this business before 
midnight. That being the case, we will file cloture likely after 
midnight. And that being the case, in case anyone has forgotten, 
tomorrow is Saturday, which would mean we would have a cloture vote 
Monday morning sometime.
  Now, we will be happy to work with the Republicans to determine what 
time we get to an end game on this legislation, but at this stage it 
appears that we will not have anything here on Sunday. And tomorrow, if 
people want--and I have spoken to a number of my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle--there will be some time for debate. So tomorrow, 
tentatively what we will do is, we will be in session from 11 a.m. to 3 
p.m.--2 hours for the majority, 2 hours for the minority. The one side 
will talk about how good the bill is, and the other will be talking 
about how close to being good the bill is.
  So we will do that tomorrow, and I will work with Senator McConnell 
to find out how we get toward the end process. I remind everyone that 
we will want to get this done as early as we can next week so that we 
can have the Presidents Day recess. Each time we run into a procedural 
roadblock, it makes it very difficult.
  I think tonight we only have a couple more amendments. We have two or 
three more votes tonight, but no one needs to take any extra time or 
stop us from doing some of the withdrawals, because I have acknowledged 
it will be past midnight, so there is no need to worry about that.
  I think I have explained things about as well as I can. As to what we 
are going to do Monday and a time for that, I will work with Senator 
McConnell during the next couple of votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

[[Page S1855]]

                      Amendment No. 485, Withdrawn

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Feingold 
amendment No. 485 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 531

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to the vote in relation to amendment No. 
531 offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, over 30 years ago, in 1976, Russell Long 
stood right here where we are today and voted for legislation that set 
the capital loss limit at $3,000. President Gerald Ford signed the bill 
into law. That was a long time ago, and Senator Long and President Ford 
are both gone.
  What is the legacy we will leave for future generations? The bill we 
are considering today will pile a staggering amount of debt on their 
shoulders--more than $1 trillion. But let's at least do some good here. 
At a time when the stock market is down 40 percent from its highs, when 
$7.5 trillion in paper wealth has been destroyed, there is a crying 
need to update the 30-year capital loss limit. We have a rare 
opportunity to fix a longstanding problem with the Tax Code at a time 
when economists say the change is also good policy.
  It will stimulate the economy by encouraging private risk taking. 
When investors take risks, the economy expands, and the fear we are 
experiencing will be dispelled.
  I urge you to vote for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment increases the amount of 
capital losses that could be used to offset ordinary income from $3,000 
to $15,000 at a cost of probably about $11 billion over 10 years. I do 
think perhaps the capital loss provision applied to income should be 
increased at some point, but this is too much of an increase. From 
$3,000 to $15,000 is too much of a leap. I think, therefore, we should 
not support this amendment. I urge we vote against this amendment.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. 
Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 531) was rejected.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I voted for Bunning amendment No. 531 
because the $3,000 of capital losses that people can use to offset 
their ordinary income hasn't been indexed for inflation, and has been 
at that $3,000 level since 1976. The $15,000 level is only $4,500 
higher than the level it would be--$10,500--if it had been indexed for 
inflation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.


                      Amendment No. 110 Withdrawn

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Murray 
amendment, No. 110, be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 468

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes equally divided 
on amendment No. 468 offered by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senators of both parties have worked hard 
to limit the costs of the economic recovery legislation. This 
bipartisan amendment that I offer with Senator Snowe and Senator 
Lincoln will, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, reduce the 
cost of this bill by $3.2 billion.
  This amendment provides a way to quickly return to taxpayers a 
substantial portion of the money that was recently paid out in 
excessive bonuses to companies under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 
Our people were horrified to learn that Citigroup and others that had 
received extensive Federal support had paid out billions of dollars in 
excessive bonuses. This amendment makes it clear that it is not enough 
to say the excessive bonuses are wrong; it requires that companies pay 
those bonuses back to our taxpayers. The amendment gives the companies 
a choice: Pay back the cash portion of any bonus paid in excess of 
$120,000 or pay an excise tax of 35 percent.
  This is a bipartisan amendment. I urge my colleagues to accept it on 
a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate in opposition? Is all time 
yielded back?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. All time 
is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 468) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 538

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
538, offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there are two ways to stimulate the economy 
with a trillion dollars. One is to have the Government do it. The other 
is to have the American people do it. We are going to spend $1 
trillion. Seventy percent of our gross domestic product is in the form 
of consumer spending. What better way than to give consumers' dollars 
back into their hands and allow them to stimulate the economy. If we 
are going to borrow a trillion dollars from our children and 
grandchildren, let's at least do it in a way that helps American 
families.
  Under my amendment, if you are someone who makes under $250,000 a 
year, you are going to be eligible for a check in the amount of $5,143. 
If you are a married couple filing jointly, you are going to be 
eligible for a check for $10,286. Anybody who files a tax return is 
going to be eligible for a rebate in that amount. I think this is a way 
to provide real stimulus to the American economy, and I urge my 
colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is now a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge Members not to adopt this 
amendment. It strikes the entire underlying bill, and it replaces it 
with a tax cut for all Americans, except at least 8 million Americans 
who do not file. This rebate will go to filers. There are about 8 
million Americans, at least, who do not file income tax returns; they 
pay payroll taxes, many of them.

[[Page S1856]]

  Under the underlying bill, the rebate goes to people who work and pay 
payroll taxes. Under the Thune amendment, it only goes to people who 
pay income taxes, not payroll taxes. At least 8 million people would 
not get the benefit of this rebate. It strikes the whole underlying 
bill. So I urge it not be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while we have everyone's attention, we all 
recognize this has been a long, rough week. We have had 46 amendments 
that have been offered. We have had 19 amendments that have been agreed 
to; 25 or so have been voted on. So we have done a lot of work.
  We are going to come in tomorrow, from noon until 3 o'clock. The time 
will be evenly divided for people to talk about the legislation that is 
before us. We had more time than that, but some of the people who were 
wanting to speak have fallen off.
  I am working now with the Republican leader. I think what we are 
going to do is come in about 1 o'clock on Monday. We do not have this 
firmed up. We will do a consent before the evening is over. We will 
come in Monday at 1 o'clock, have debate until 5:30, have a cloture 
vote at 5:30.
  At noon on Tuesday, we will have, the way things now are, we will 
have a budget point of order. If we get 60 votes on that, that will be 
the end of this matter, and we can start going to conference 
immediately.
  The House is coming in Monday to start the conference process. And I 
say to everyone here, we are going to do our utmost to have a 
conference. It is something we have not done very often here in recent 
years. But we are going to try to get in the habit of doing 
conferences. I hope I have answered at least the broad outline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask a question of the majority leader. 
I had an amendment that would simply require those who get contracts to 
build infrastructure, that they would use the E-Verify system to 
determine whether a person is using a valid Social Security number. It 
is a proven system; 2,000 businesses are voluntarily signing up each 
week.
  So I would hope we get a vote on that. Am I now being told we will 
not be able to vote on that amendment? I hate to object.
  Mr. REID. I have not asked for any unanimous consent. I would 
suggest, during this vote, you could talk to the manager of this bill. 
I did not ask for any consent.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the majority leader. I know he has a million 
things to worry about. But it is an important matter. I would be very 
disappointed if we did not get a chance to vote on this.
  Mr. REID. We had, as I indicated, 450 amendments filed. We are trying 
to be as fair to everyone as we can.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a pay-go budget point of order 
against the Thune amendment.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would ask to waive the applicable point 
of order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. 
Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 35, the nays are 
61. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Wyoming.


                 Amendment No. 293, As Further Modified

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I believe the pending amendment is the Enzi 
amendment No. 293, as modified, and I ask unanimous consent that it be 
further modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 293), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 265, line 2, add at the end the following: 
     ``community mental health center (as defined in section 
     1913(b)), renal dialysis facility, blood center, ambulatory 
     surgical center described in section 1833(i) of the Social 
     Security Act,''.
       On page 265, line 23, strike ``means'' and insert 
     ``includes''.
       On page 266, line 2, insert ``access,'' after 
     ``maintenance,''.
       On page 270, strike lines 1 through 11, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) Standards.--The National Coordinator shall--
       ``(A) review and determine whether to endorse each 
     standard, implementation specification, and certification 
     criterion for the electronic exchange and use of health 
     information that is recommended by the HIT Standards 
     Committee under section 3003 for purposes of adoption under 
     section 3004;
       ``(B) make such determinations under subparagraph (A), and 
     report to the Secretary such determinations, not later than 
     45 days after the date the recommendation is received by the 
     Coordinator;
       ``(C) review Federal health information technology 
     investments to ensure that Federal health information 
     technology programs are meeting the objectives of the 
     strategic plan published under paragraph (3); and
       ``(D) provide comments and advice regarding specific 
     Federal health information technology programs, at the 
     request of the Office of Management and Budget.''.
       Beginning on page 273, strike line 21, and all that follows 
     through line 8 on page 274, and insert the following:
       ``(5) Harmonization.--The Secretary may recognize an entity 
     or entities for the purpose of harmonizing or updating 
     standards and implementation specifications in order to 
     achieve uniform and consistent implementation of the 
     standards and implementation specifications.
       ``(6) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--The National Coordinator, in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, shall recognize a program or 
     programs for the voluntary certification of health 
     information technology as being in compliance with applicable 
     certification criteria adopted under this subtitle. Such 
     program shall include, as appropriate, testing of the 
     technology in accordance with section 14201(b) of the Health 
     Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health 
     Act.''.
       On page 276, strike lines 15 through 24, and insert the 
     following:
       (E) Resource requirements.--The National Coordinator shall 
     estimate and publish resources required annually to reach the 
     goal of utilization of an electronic health record for each 
     person in the United States by 2014, including--
       (i) the required level of Federal funding;
       (ii) expectations for regional, State, and private 
     investment;
       (iii) the expected contributions by volunteers to 
     activities for the utilization of such records; and
       (iv) the resources needed to establish or expand education 
     programs in medical and health informatics and health 
     information management to train health care and information 
     technology students and provide a health information 
     technology workforce sufficient to ensure the rapid and 
     effective deployment and utilization of health information 
     technologies.
       On page 282, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       ``(vi) The use of electronic systems to ensure the 
     comprehensive collection of patient demographic data, 
     including, at a minimum, race, ethnicity, primary language, 
     and gender information.

[[Page S1857]]

       ``(vii) Technologies and design features that address the 
     needs of children and other vulnerable populations.''.
       On page 283, strike lines 10 through 12, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(ix) Methods to facilitate secure access by an individual 
     to such individual's protected health information.
       ``(x) Methods, guidelines, and safeguards to facilitate 
     secure access to patient information by a family member, 
     caregiver, or guardian acting on behalf of a patient due to 
     age-related and other disability, cognitive impairment, or 
     dementia that prevents a patient from accessing the patient's 
     individually identifiable health information.''.
       On page 283, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(4) Consistency with evaluation conducted under mippa.--
       ``(A) Requirement for consistency.--The HIT Policy 
     Committee shall ensure that recommendations made under 
     paragraph (2)(B)(vi) are consistent with the evaluation 
     conducted under section 1809(a) of the Social Security Act.
       ``(B) Scope.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     construed to limit the recommendations under paragraph 
     (2)(B)(vi) to the elements described in section 1809(a)(3) of 
     the Social Security Act.
       ``(C) Timing.--The requirement under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be applicable to the extent that evaluations have been 
     conducted under section 1809(a) of the Social Security Act, 
     regardless of whether the report described in subsection (b) 
     of such section has been submitted.''.
       On page 284, strike lines 1 through 13, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) Membership.--The HIT Policy Committee shall be 
     composed of members to be appointed as follows:
       ``(A) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary.
       ``(B) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs who shall represent the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       ``(C) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Defense who shall represent the Department of Defense.
       ``(D) One member shall be appointed by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate.
       ``(E) One member shall be appointed by the Minority Leader 
     of the Senate.
       ``(F) One member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives.
       ``(G) One member shall be appointed by the Minority Leader 
     of the House of Representatives.
       ``(H) Eleven members shall be appointed by the Comptroller 
     General of the United States, of whom--
       ``(i) three members shall represent patients or consumers;
       ``(ii) one member shall represent health care providers;
       ``(iii) one member shall be from a labor organization 
     representing health care workers;
       ``(iv) one member shall have expertise in privacy and 
     security;
       ``(v) one member shall have expertise in improving the 
     health of vulnerable populations;
       ``(vi) one member shall represent health plans or other 
     third party payers;
       ``(vii) one member shall represent information technology 
     vendors;
       ``(viii) one member shall represent purchasers or 
     employers; and
       ``(ix) one member shall have expertise in health care 
     quality measurement and reporting.
       ``(3) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The HIT Policy 
     Committee shall designate one member to serve as the 
     chairperson and one member to serve as the vice chairperson 
     of the Policy Committee.
       ``(4) National coordinator.--The National Coordinator shall 
     serve as a member of the HIT Policy Committee and act as a 
     liaison among the HIT Policy Committee, the HIT Standards 
     Committee, and the Federal Government.
       ``(5) Participation.--The members of the HIT Policy 
     Committee appointed under paragraph (2) shall represent a 
     balance among various sectors of the health care system so 
     that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations 
     of the Policy Committee.
       ``(6) Terms.--
       ``(A) In general.--The terms of the members of the HIT 
     Policy Committee shall be for 3 years, except that the 
     Comptroller General shall designate staggered terms for the 
     members first appointed.
       ``(B) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy in 
     the membership of the HIT Policy Committee that occurs prior 
     to the expiration of the term for which the member's 
     predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the 
     remainder of that term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of that member's term until a successor has been 
     appointed. A vacancy in the HIT Policy Committee shall be 
     filled in the manner in which the original appointment was 
     made.
       ``(7) Outside involvement.--The HIT Policy Committee shall 
     ensure an adequate opportunity for the participation of 
     outside advisors, including individuals with expertise in--
       ``(A) health information privacy and security;
       ``(B) improving the health of vulnerable populations;
       ``(C) health care quality and patient safety, including 
     individuals with expertise in the measurement and use of 
     health information technology to capture data to improve 
     health care quality and patient safety;
       ``(D) long-term care and aging services;
       ``(E) medical and clinical research; and
       ``(F) data exchange and developing health information 
     technology standards and new health information technology.
       ``(8) Quorum.--Ten members of the HIT Policy Committee 
     shall constitute a quorum for purposes of voting, but a 
     lesser number of members may meet and hold hearings.
       ``(9) Failure of initial appointment.--If, on the date that 
     is 45 days after the date of enactment of this title, an 
     official authorized under paragraph (2) to appoint one or 
     more members of the HIT Policy Committee has not appointed 
     the full number of members that such paragraph authorizes 
     such official to appoint--
       ``(A) the number of members that such official is 
     authorized to appoint shall be reduced to the number that 
     such official has appointed as of that date; and
       ``(B) the number prescribed in paragraph (8) as the quorum 
     shall be reduced to the smallest whole number that is greater 
     than one-half of the total number of members who have been 
     appointed as of that date.
       ``(10) Consideration.--The National Coordinator shall 
     ensure that the relevant recommendations and comments from 
     the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics are 
     considered in the development of policies.''.
       On page 287, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(5) Consideration.--The National Coordinator shall ensure 
     that the relevant recommendations and comments from the 
     National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics are 
     considered in the development of standards.''.
       On page 288, strike lines 4 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) Broad participation.--There is broad participation in 
     the HIT Standards Committee by a variety of public and 
     private stakeholders, either through membership in the 
     Committee or through another means.
       ``(4) Chairperson; vice chairperson.--The HIT Standards 
     Committee may designate one member to serve as the 
     chairperson and one member to serve as the vice chairperson.
       ``(5) Department membership.--The Secretary shall be a 
     member of the HIT Standards Committee. The National 
     Coordinator shall act as a liaison among the HIT Standards 
     Committee, the HIT Policy Committee, and the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(6) Balance among sectors.--In developing the procedures 
     for conducting the activities of the HIT Standards Committee, 
     the HIT Standards Committee shall act to ensure a balance 
     among various sectors of the health care system so that no 
     single sector unduly influences the actions of the HIT 
     Standards Committee.
       ``(7) Assistance.--For the purposes of carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary may provide or ensure that financial 
     assistance is provided by the HIT Standards Committee to 
     defray in whole or in part any membership fees or dues 
     charged by such Committee to those consumer advocacy groups 
     and not for profit entities that work in the public interest 
     as a part of their mission.
       ``(d) Open and Public Process.--In providing for the 
     establishment of the HIT Standards Committee pursuant to 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure the following:
       ``(1) Consensus approach; open process.--The HIT Standards 
     Committee shall use a consensus approach and a fair and open 
     process to support the development, harmonization, and 
     recognition of standards described in subsection (a)(1).
       ``(2) Participation of outside advisers.--The HIT Standards 
     Committee shall ensure an adequate opportunity for the 
     participation of outside advisors, including individuals with 
     expertise in--
       ``(A) health information privacy;
       ``(B) health information security;
       ``(C) health care quality and patient safety, including 
     individuals with expertise in utilizing health information 
     technology to improve healthcare quality and patient safety;
       ``(D) long-term care and aging services; and
       ``(E) data exchange and developing health information 
     technology standards and new health information technology.
       ``(3) Open meetings.--Plenary and other regularly scheduled 
     formal meetings of the HIT Standards Committee (or 
     established subgroups thereof) shall be open to the public.
       ``(4) Publication of meeting notices and materials prior to 
     meetings.--The HIT Standards Committee shall develop and 
     maintain an Internet website on which it publishes, prior to 
     each meeting, a meeting notice, a meeting agenda, and meeting 
     materials.
       ``(5) Opportunity for public comment.--The HIT Standards 
     Committee shall develop a process that allows for public 
     comment during the process by which the Entity develops, 
     harmonizes, or recognizes standards and implementation 
     specifications.
       ``(e) Voluntary Consensus Standard Body.--The provisions of 
     section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
     Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) and the Office 
     of Management and Budget circular 119 shall apply to the HIT 
     Standards Committee.''.
       On page 290, line 14, strike ``Initial Set of''.
       On page 291, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

[[Page S1858]]

       ``(3) Subsequent standards activity.--The Secretary shall 
     adopt additional standards, implementation specifications, 
     and certification criteria as necessary and consistent with 
     the schedule published under section 3003(b)(2).''.
       Beginning on page 293, strike line 7 and all that follows 
     through line 2 on page 295, and insert the following:

     SEC. 3008. TRANSITIONS.

       ``(a) ONCHIT.--Nothing in section 3001 shall be construed 
     as requiring the creation of a new entity to the extent that 
     the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
     Technology established pursuant to Executive Order 13335 is 
     consistent with the provisions of section 3001.
       ``(b) National EHealth Collaborative.--Nothing in sections 
     3002 or 3003 or this subsection shall be construed as 
     prohibiting the National eHealth Collaborative from modifying 
     its charter, duties, membership, and any other structure or 
     function required to be consistent with the requirements of a 
     voluntary consensus standards body so as to allow the 
     Secretary to recognize the National eHealth Collaborative as 
     the HIT Standards Committee.
       ``(c) Consistency of Recommendations.--In carrying out 
     section 3003(b)(1)(A), until recommendations are made by the 
     HIT Policy Committee, recommendations of the HIT Standards 
     Committee shall be consistent with the most recent 
     recommendations made by such AHIC Successor, Inc.''.
       On page 292, strike lines 6 through 12, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--The National Coordinator shall support 
     the development and routine updating of qualified electronic 
     health record technology (as defined in section 3000) 
     consistent with subsections (b) and (c) and make available 
     such qualified electronic health record technology unless the 
     Secretary and the HIT Policy Committee determine through an 
     assessment that the needs and demands of providers are being 
     substantially and adequately met through the marketplace.''.
       On page 305, strike line 5, strike ``shall coordinate'' and 
     insert ``may review''.
       On page 320, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       ``(10) establishing and supporting health record banking 
     models to further consumer-based consent models that promote 
     lifetime access to qualified health records, if such 
     activities are included in the plan described in subsection 
     (e), and may contain smart card functionality; and''.
       On page 355, line 25, insert before the period the 
     following: ``and the information necessary to improve patient 
     outcomes and to detect, prevent, and manage chronic 
     disease''.
       Beginning on page 357, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through line 12 on page 359, and insert the following:
       ``(1) In general.--In applying section 164.528 of title 45, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, in the case that a covered 
     entity uses or maintains an electronic health record with 
     respect to protected health information--
       ``(A) the exception under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of such 
     section shall not apply to disclosures through an electronic 
     health record made by such entity of such information; and
       ``(B) an individual shall have a right to receive an 
     accounting of disclosures described in such paragraph of such 
     information made by such covered entity during only the three 
     years prior to the date on which the accounting is requested.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations on what disclosures must be included in an 
     accounting referred to in paragraph (1)(A) and what 
     information must be collected about each such disclosure not 
     later than 18 months after the date on which the Secretary 
     adopts standards on accounting for disclosure described in 
     the section 3002(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the Public Health Service 
     Act, as added by section 13101. Such regulations shall only 
     require such information to be collected through an 
     electronic health record in a manner that takes into account 
     the interests of individuals in learning when their protected 
     health information was disclosed and to whom it was 
     disclosed, and the usefulness of such information to the 
     individual, and takes into account the administrative and 
     cost burden of accounting for such disclosures.
       ``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed as--
       ``(A) requiring a covered entity to account for disclosures 
     of protected health information that are not made by such 
     covered entity; or
       ``(B) requiring a business associate of a covered entity to 
     account for disclosures of protected health information that 
     are not made by such business associate.
       ``(4) Reasonable fee.--A covered entity may impose a 
     reasonable fee on an individual for an accounting performed 
     under paragraph (1)(B). Any such fee shall not be greater 
     than the entity's labor costs in responding to the request.
       ``(5) Effective date.--
       ``(A) Current users of electronic records.--In the case of 
     a covered entity insofar as it acquired an electronic health 
     record as of January 1, 2009, paragraph (1) shall apply to 
     disclosures, with respect to protected health information, 
     made by the covered entity from such a record on and after 
     January 1, 2014.
       ``(B) Others.--In the case of a covered entity insofar as 
     it acquires an electronic health record after January 1, 
     2009, paragraph (1) shall apply to disclosures, with respect 
     to protected health information, made by the covered entity 
     from such record on and after the later of the following:
       ``(i) January 1, 2011; or
       ``(ii) the date that it acquires an electronic health 
     record.
       ``(C) Later date.--The Secretary may set an effective date 
     that is later that the date specified under subparagraph (A) 
     or (B) if the Secretary determines that such later date it 
     necessary, but in no case may the date specified under--
       ``(i) subparagraph (A) be later than 2018; or
       ``(ii) subparagraph (B) be later than 2014.''.
       On page 359, line 15, strike ``shall'' and all that follows 
     through ``those'' on line 18, and insert the following: 
     ``shall review and evaluate the definition of health care 
     operations under section 164.501 of title 45, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, and to the extent appropriate, eliminate by 
     regulation''.
       On page 359, line 22, insert ``In promulgating such 
     regulations, the Secretary shall not require that data be de-
     identified or require valid authorization for use or 
     disclosure for activities within a covered entity described 
     in paragraph (1) of the definition of health care operations 
     under such section 164.501.'' after ``disclosure.''.
       On page 360, line 6, insert at the end the following: 
     ``Nothing in this subsection may be construed to supersede 
     any provision under subsection (e) or section 13406(a).''.
       On page 361, line 2, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through ``pose'' on line 5.
       On page 361, line 7, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through line 10, and insert the following: ``, subject to any 
     regulation that the Secretary may promulgate to prevent 
     protected health information from inappropriate access, use, 
     or disclosure.''.
       On page 362, strike lines 9 through 13, and insert the 
     following:
       (3) Regulations.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this subsection. In promulgating 
     such regulations, the Secretary--
       (A) shall evaluate the impact of restricting the exception 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) to require that the price 
     charged for the purposes described in such paragraph reflects 
     the costs of the preparation and transmittal of the data for 
     such purpose, on research or public health activities, 
     including those conducted by or for the use of the Food and 
     Drug Administration; and
       (B) may further restrict the exception described in 
     paragraph (2)(A) to require that the price charged for the 
     purposes described in such paragraph reflects the costs of 
     the preparation and transmittal of the data for such purpose, 
     if the Secretary finds that such further restriction will not 
     impede such research or public health activities.
       Beginning on page 364, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through line 3 on page 365, and insert the following:
       (2) Payment for certain communications.--A communication by 
     a covered entity or business associate that is described in 
     subparagraph (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1) of the 
     definition of marketing in section 164.501 of title 45, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, shall not be considered a health care 
     operation for purposes of subpart E of part 164 of title 45, 
     Code of Federal Regulations if the covered entity receives or 
     has received direct or indirect payment in exchange for 
     making such communication, except where--
       (A) such communication describes only a health care item or 
     service that has previously been prescribed for or 
     administered to the recipient of the communication, or a 
     family member of such recipient;
       (B) each of the following conditions apply--
       (i) the communication is made by the covered entity; and
       (ii) the covered entity making such communication obtains 
     from the recipient of the communication, in accordance with 
     section 164.508 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, a 
     valid authorization (as described in paragraph (b) of such 
     section) with respect to such communication; or
       (C) each of the following conditions apply--
       (i) the communication is made on behalf of the covered 
     entity;
       (ii) the communication is consistent with the written 
     contract (or other written arrangement described in section 
     164.502(e)(2) of such title) between such business associate 
     and covered entity; and
       (iii) the business associate making such communication, or 
     the covered entity on behalf of which the communication is 
     made, obtains from the recipient of the communication, in 
     accordance with section 164.508 of title 45, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, a valid authorization (as described in paragraph 
     (b) of such section) with respect to such communication.
       On page 365, strike lines 4 through 7.
       On page 369, lines 10 and 11, strike ``Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall'' and insert ``the Federal Trade 
     Commission shall, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code,''.
       On page 390, after line 21, insert the following:
       (e) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Government Accountability 
     Office shall submit to Congress and the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services a report on the impact of any of the 
     provisions of, or

[[Page S1859]]

     amendments made by, this division or division B that are 
     related to the Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act of 1996 and section 552a of title 5, 
     United States Code, on health insurance premiums and overall 
     health care costs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the amendment, as 
further modified.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the forbearance of my friend from 
Wyoming, I am pleased to tell the managers of the bill and all that we 
have reached agreement with Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Snowe, and 
Klobuchar to preserve the important privacy protections of electronic 
health records in the bill. I think these changes will help ensure 
there are meaningful privacy protections for America's electronic 
health records in place. I know that is something both the Senator from 
Wyoming and I are interested in. This helps. I support the amendment, 
and I urge its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his 
consideration, and I particularly thank the Senator from Minnesota, who 
is the subcommittee chair for information technology, who has played a 
very interesting role in this and has made some very good emphasis, and 
who understands what we are trying to do. So I thank her for all of her 
efforts too.
  Mr. President, I ask for an immediate vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as further modified.
  The amendment (No. 293), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Amendment No. 98 Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 98.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
convenes on Saturday, February 7, the following be the order: that the 
Collins and Nelson of Nebraska amendment be called up, the reading be 
waived; that cloture be filed on the amendment, and that the mandatory 
quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further 
amendments or motions be in order for the duration of the consideration 
of H.R. 1; and that on Saturday, February 7, the time from 12 noon to 3 
p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their 
designees; that there be debate only with no amendments or motions in 
order; provided further that when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, 
February 9, the time from 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. be divided and controlled 
in the same manner and that at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on 
the motion to invoke cloture on the Reid for Collins and Nelson of 
Nebraska, among others, amendment; that if cloture is invoked on the 
amendment, then postcloture time run during any recess or adjournment 
of the Senate on Monday; and that all postcloture time be considered 
expired at 12 noon on Tuesday; that on Tuesday, February 10, after the 
Senate reconvenes, the time until 12 noon be equally divided and 
controlled as provided above; and that if a budget point of order is 
made against the amendment, then a motion to waive the applicable point 
of order be considered made; that if the waiver is successful, the 
amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table; that if there is no point of order against the amendment, then 
adoption of the amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold; the bill, 
as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to a vote 
on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes 
of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, 
with the ratio agreed upon by the leaders, with the above all without 
further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________