[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 88 (Monday, June 14, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4876-S4880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          AMERICAN JOBS AND CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES ACT OF 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page S4877]]

Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 
4213, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment to H.R. 4213, an act to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       Baucus motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Baucus 
     amendment No. 4301 (to the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill), in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Franken amendment No. 4311 (to amendment No. 4301), to 
     establish the Office of the Homeowner Advocate for purposes 
     of addressing problems with the Home Affordable Modification 
     Program.
       Sanders amendment No. 4318 (to amendment No. 4301), to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate big oil 
     and gas company tax loopholes, and to use the resulting 
     increase in revenues to reduce the deficit and to invest in 
     energy efficiency and conservation.
       Vitter amendment No. 4312 (to amendment No. 4301), to 
     ensure that any new revenues to the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund will be used for the purposes of the fund and not used 
     as a budget gimmick to offset deficit spending.


                Amendment No. 4344 to Amendment No. 4301

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4344 to Amendment No. 4301.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the time 
   for closing on a principal residence eligible for the first-time 
                           homebuyer credit)

       At the end of part I of subtitle B of title II, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. --. FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 36(h) is amended 
     by striking ``paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting 
     `July 1, 2010' '' and inserting ``and who purchases such 
     residence before October 1, 2010, paragraph (1) shall be 
     applied by substituting `October 1, 2010' ''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
     36(h)(3) is amended by inserting ``and for `October 1, 2010' 
     '' after ``for `July 1, 2010' ''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply to residences purchased after June 30, 
     2010.
       (d) Offset.--
       (1) Disallowance of deduction for punitive damages.--
       (A) In general.--Section 162(g) (relating to treble damage 
     payments under the antitrust laws) is amended--
       (i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively,
       (ii) by striking ``If'' and inserting:
       ``(1) Treble damages.--If'', and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Punitive damages.--No deduction shall be allowed 
     under this chapter for any amount paid or incurred for 
     punitive damages in connection with any judgment in, or 
     settlement of, any action. This paragraph shall not apply to 
     punitive damages described in section 104(c).''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--The heading for section 162(g) 
     is amended by inserting ``Or Punitive Damages'' after 
     ``Laws''.
       (2) Inclusion in income of punitive damages paid by insurer 
     or otherwise.--
       (A) In general.--Part II of subchapter B of chapter 1 
     (relating to items specifically included in gross income) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 91. PUNITIVE DAMAGES COMPENSATED BY INSURANCE OR 
                   OTHERWISE.

       ``Gross income shall include any amount paid to or on 
     behalf of a taxpayer as insurance or otherwise by reason of 
     the taxpayer's liability (or agreement) to pay punitive 
     damages.''.
       (B) Reporting requirements.--Section 6041 (relating to 
     information at source) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Section To Apply to Punitive Damages Compensation.--
     This section shall apply to payments by a person to or on 
     behalf of another person as insurance or otherwise by reason 
     of the other person's liability (or agreement) to pay 
     punitive damages.''.
       (C) Conforming amendment.--The table of sections for part 
     II of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new item:

``Sec. 91. Punitive damages compensated by insurance or otherwise.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to damages paid or incurred after December 31, 
     2011.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will talk briefly on this amendment. It is 
an important amendment. Last year, in November, we passed the Worker, 
Home Ownership and Business Assistance Act containing a number of 
important provisions to support our economy.
  First of all, let me say the idea for this came from the Senator from 
Georgia, John Isakson.
  It is a great idea. He was a businessman before he came here. This 
certainly indicates he must have been a good businessman. This credit 
has been so helpful to our economy, not only in Nevada but around the 
country.
  As part of this bill we passed in November, we expanded and extended 
the home buyer tax credit. We made the credit available to more 
individuals and families who purchase a home.
  We also extended the credit through April 30 of this year and allowed 
anybody who signed a binding contract on a home and makes the purchase 
before July 1 to benefit from that credit.
  When this provision became law last November, the housing market was 
just beginning to recover. But further support was necessary given the 
importance of the housing industry to the overall economy.
  Now we are beginning to see more signs of recovery. Sales have 
increased since January. Median home prices have increased since 
November. Still, in States such as Nevada, the housing market is 
struggling. Across the State a significant percent of mortgages are 
underwater. That means the amount owed on the mortgage is greater than 
the value of the home.
  The home buyer tax credit is helping to alleviate some of that 
pressure. Economists estimate that the home buyer tax credit increased 
demand by about 1 million buyers.
  The stories I have been told about people being able to buy their 
first home are remarkable. Someone who worked for me had a girlfriend 
who wanted to buy a home. She was finally able to do that. She was so 
happy. She tried eight different times before she got one for which she 
qualified.
  I was doing a tour of one of the hotels, the cafeteria in the Paris 
Hotel. It is actually two large rooms where they eat coming off their 
shifts. I was asked by one of the executives taking me around to come 
and talk to this man. He was so happy. He had come to this country. He 
was an immigrant. He had become a citizen. He was so excited because 
his son was able to buy a home because of this first-time home buyer 
tax credit. You could not have seen anyone happier than this man. He 
was proud of his son being able to buy a home.
  This tax credit helps to increase the value of homes and, just as 
important, it adds jobs to the housing industry. This shows the credit 
is doing what it was designed to do--help stimulate the housing market 
in a tough economic climate.
  There are some home buyers who entered into a binding sales contract 
by April 30 of this year expecting to receive a credit but will be 
unable to close by July 1, 2010, through no fault of theirs. There is a 
huge backlog of people wanting to buy these homes. They should not be 
prevented from doing this because of the paperwork.
  These home buyers are doing everything they can to close by the 
deadline, but completion of the sale will take longer than some 
originally expected. One reason is because of the volume of work. The 
other reason is because some of the financial institutions are very 
slow, for administrative reasons, especially on sales of bank-owned 
properties where paperwork can take an inordinate amount of time.
  An extension of the date to close the transaction from July 1 of this 
year to October 1 of this year will give these home buyers who properly 
secured a binding contract for their new home before April 30 the 
ability to receive the credit. This will especially help States still 
struggling to recover from the troubled housing market. These States 
have higher levels of bank-owned properties.
  To remind my colleagues, this extension only applies to those home 
buyers who are already under a binding contract. This amendment is not 
an extension of the time to enter into a contract.

[[Page S4878]]

  To quote my friend, the Senator from Georgia, whose idea this is, 
this whole concept:

       As I tell so many who call me, it is not going to be 
     extended because credits such as that are designed to do what 
     it has done; that is, to bring the marketplace back and 
     hopefully stabilize values and move forward.

  We must make sure those home buyers who are already under a binding 
contract or committed to the purchase of a new home are able to receive 
the home buyer tax credit. This amendment is necessary to ensure we 
follow through on the commitment to help the struggling housing market. 
This extension of time is fully paid for with an offset included in the 
President's tax compliance proposals. The offset would deny a tax 
deduction for payments made for punitive damages.
  Punitive damages are intended to be just that--punitive. The American 
taxpayers should not be subsidizing payments intended to be punitive in 
nature through a tax deduction. These exemplary damages entered should 
not be something they can write off. This offset is good policy and 
will help pay for our Nation's ongoing economic recovery. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, could I ask my friend to yield?
  Mr. THUNE. I will be happy to yield to the leader.
  Mr. REID. He will have the floor right back. I told the Republican 
leader earlier today I would file cloture. I am going to do that right 
now, recognizing this is not in any way going to hinder people offering 
amendments, but I told the Republican leader I would do that and, 
frankly, I want to do it now so I will not have to worry about it 
later.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment on H.R. 
     4213, the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 
     2010, with an amendment No. 4301.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Richard J. Durbin, Roland W. 
           Burris, Benjamin L. Cardin, John D. Rockefeller IV, 
           John F. Kerry, Thomas R. Carper, Jeff Bingaman, Bill 
           Nelson, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Jeanne Shaheen, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Frank R. Lautenberg, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Tom 
           Udall.

  Mr. REID. I express my appreciation to my friend from South Dakota.


                Amendment No. 4333 to Amendment No. 4301

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 4333, and 
ask it be made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Bond, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Isakson, and 
     Mr. Roberts, proposes an amendment numbered 4333 to amendment 
     No. 4301.

  The amendment is as follows:
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of June 9, 2010, 
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the amendment I offer is cosponsored by 
Senators McCain, McConnell, Bond, Coburn, Isakson, and Roberts. It is 
an alternative to the legislation that is under consideration by the 
Senate today. That is the tax extenders bill that was the subject of 
some debate last week, that we will continue to do this week, perhaps 
into next week. I am not sure exactly when it will conclude.
  What my amendment does is present an alternative because the 
amendment under consideration that has been offered up by the 
Democratic majority here in the Senate adds almost $80 billion to the 
Federal debt, it raises taxes by $70 billion, and increases spending by 
$126 billion.
  To put that into proper context, it is important to remember that we 
have a current $13 trillion debt. The amount of publicly held debt is 
$8.6 trillion, but if you include the amount of debt owed between 
intergovernmental agencies, intergovernmental debt is $13 trillion that 
our government owes and is in debt.
  What has been proposed by the other side is in direct contradiction 
of some legislation that we passed here a few months ago that suggested 
everything we were going to do around here, or almost everything, was 
going to be paid for. It was called pay-go. We passed the pay-go rules. 
It was highly touted at the time. There was great fanfare associated 
with the passage of pay-go rules that would insist when there is new 
spending or tax cuts that those be offset by some spending cuts or some 
combination of tax increases that would make sure there was no net 
impact on the deficit.
  What is happening here is the exact opposite of that because what we 
are seeing happen with the legislation that is before the Senate today 
is, if in fact this bill were enacted and became law, it ends up being 
about $200 billion in new debt, debt we have added to the public debt 
since pay-go has been enacted.
  I appreciate the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, yielding 
back time so I can continue to speak about this amendment. I understand 
the process for consideration of this legislation will now be somewhat 
truncated if in fact cloture is invoked. I suspect it will not be long 
now we will be having a vote on that. But I hope my colleagues will 
defeat the motion to invoke cloture until such time as we have had an 
opportunity to debate many of these important amendments.
  Clearly I believe the amendment I am discussing right now is one we 
need to vote on. I suspect there will be others of my colleagues who 
will want to offer amendments that I hope we will be able to debate and 
vote on before this legislation moves forward.
  The point I wanted to make is this. Since the enactment of the pay-
as-you-go rules here in the Senate, about $200 billion, if the current 
legislation on the floor today is enacted, will have been added to the 
Federal debt. That is $200 billion which we hand to our children and 
grandchildren to pay, notwithstanding what we have said publicly here 
in the Senate a few months ago, that all these things are going to be 
paid for and we are now going to be serious here in the Senate and in 
the Congress about making sure we are not piling more and more debt on 
future generations. That is completely contradicted by the legislation 
we will be voting on here in the near future on this tax extenders bill 
because it does increase the debt by almost $80 billion and, as I said 
earlier, raises taxes by almost $70 billion.
  What I offer is an alternative to that approach. What this 
alternative does is, rather than increasing and raising taxes, it 
reduces taxes by $26 billion, it cuts spending by $100 billion, and it 
reduces the debt by $55 billion. So instead of more spending, more 
taxes, and more debt in the middle of an economy that is trying to get 
back on its feet and create jobs, my alternative and the one I will 
offer on behalf of my colleagues--who, as I mentioned earlier, are 
cosponsors of this amendment--will in fact reduce spending, reduce 
taxes, and reduce debt.
  I think that is a good deal for the American taxpayer. I think it 
strikes at the very heart of what we ought to be focused on, which is 
job creation. We hear the other side talk a lot about job creation, but 
when it comes time to create jobs, you cannot find many policies coming 
out of Washington, DC, today that actually are additive when it comes 
to job creation. In fact, as I said earlier, it is just the opposite. 
You have a massive new health care entitlement that, when it is fully 
implemented, will cost $2.5 trillion over 10 years, which in my view 
will add enormously to the Federal debt because of all the double 
counting that was used to understate the true cost of that legislation; 
you had a trillion-dollar stimulus bill passed a year ago which was 
totally put on the debt for America's future generations; you have now 
discussion of a new energy tax in the form

[[Page S4879]]

of some cap-and-trade legislation that could come before the Senate in 
the next few months--and you just go down the list. At every turn, what 
this Congress has done in the last several months, in the last year and 
a half since the new administration came to office, is to increase 
taxes, to increase spending, to increase debt, and to increase the size 
and the scope of government. We continue to see this effort to expand 
government. When we expand government, obviously it takes more revenues 
to fund that government, create new bureaucracies--which is what we 
will see with regard to the health care legislation--and in the end 
takes more and more of those dollars out of the private economy where 
the real permanent job creation should be occurring.

  Instead, what we should be focused on is creating incentives for 
small businesses to create jobs. Rather than creating more government, 
expanding the size of government here in Washington, DC, we ought to be 
looking at what we can do to provide incentives for the economic engine 
in our economy--and that is our small businesses--to go out there and 
do what they do best, which is create jobs.
  But what you hear from small businesses not only in South Dakota but 
all across the country is there is so much policy uncertainty coming 
out of Washington and there is so much concern about the spending and 
the debt and the taxes, that a lot of the small businesses that might 
be making investments that would create jobs--hire new personnel, hire 
new people, buy a new piece of equipment, make capital investment--are 
sitting on that investment for fear the next policy to come out of 
Washington, DC, could be a new energy tax, it could be higher taxes. We 
all know starting next year you are going to see higher taxes on 
dividends, higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on marginal 
income, unless Congress takes steps to extend some of these expiring 
tax provisions.
  That being said, what we are doing here today is we are going to make 
matters that much worse. If you are a small business person in this 
country, if you are someone who is in this economy and is concerned 
about Federal debt, is concerned about Federal spending, is concerned 
about taxes, then the legislation that is before the Senate right now, 
if adopted, is going to add, as I said earlier, another almost $80 
billion to the Federal debt, will raise taxes by $70 billion, and 
increase spending by $126 billion.
  There is a better way. That is why I offer this amendment. This 
amendment does a number of things. It reduces spending in a number of 
areas. It deals with some of the provisions of expiring tax law that 
everybody here agrees needs to be fixed. There are things both sides 
agree on. Both Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate believe it 
is important that we extend unemployment insurance for those people who 
have lost jobs in the economy. Both Republicans and Democrats think it 
is important that there are certain expiring tax provisions that need 
to be extended--a research and development tax credit, for example, is 
one thing that comes to mind. But there is a whole list of these 
expiring tax provisions that need to be extended that both sides agree 
should be done.
  The difference in how we go about doing that is I think what is going 
to be the difference in the amendment that I offered versus the 
underlying legislation. Again, what I will do is reduce Federal 
spending and address the expiring tax law, the need to extend 
unemployment insurance in a way that does not raise taxes, add to the 
debt, and increase dramatically Federal spending in this country.
  What does the amendment essentially do? Very briefly, it includes all 
the major priorities that both parties want to accomplish but it drops 
the spending that has been rejected by the Senate. It would eliminate 
the $24 billion that is in the Senate bill that was not in the House 
bill that deals with the bailout for States around the country. It does 
offer, by the way, an additional year of the so-called doc fix. There 
has been a lot of discussion here about extending the doc fix into the 
future.
  And the underlying bill the Democratic majority has put forward does 
extend the doc fix. The reimbursement physicians receive under Medicare 
would drop dramatically if nothing is done by Congress to address that, 
and both sides agree that needs to be addressed. Frankly, it should 
have been done during the health care debate, but it was not. So the 
underlying bill, the majority Democratic bill before the Senate, would 
extend the doc fix through the end of 2011.
  What my alternative amendment would do is extend the doc fix through 
the end of the year 2012. So you get an additional year for the doc 
fix. That is something physicians around the country are interested in, 
and I know for a fact that it is because my physicians in South 
Dakota--and I am sure most of my colleagues hear on a regular basis 
from their physicians around the country.
  It drops all the tax increases in the bill, including carried 
interest, the tax on professional service S corps, the international 
provisions, and the increase in the per-barrel tax that funds the Oil 
Spill Liability Trust Fund that will raise gas prices for consumers 
around the country.
  The alternative amendment I filed is fully paid for with spending 
cuts. It offers more than $100 billion in savings by actually doing 
what the American people want; that is, reducing spending. Every 
American is dealing with a tough economy. A lot of Americans have lost 
jobs. A lot of Americans certainly have lost income. A lot of Americans 
have seen their net worth plummet as a result of the economic 
circumstances in which the country finds itself. So they are all making 
hard decisions. They are sitting around the kitchen table and they are 
having these discussions with their family about what part of their 
budget to cut or what they are going to have to do without. The only 
place where that hasn't been true is here in Washington, DC. Why 
shouldn't we, as the leaders of this country, be willing to make the 
hard decisions that every American family is having to make?
  Well, this legislation does that. It takes $37.5 billion of the $50 
billion in unobligated stimulus funds and uses that to extend existing 
tax and benefit provisions. It cuts money from the government by 
reducing congressional budgets right here close to home. We ought to 
have to do what every American family and what every American business 
is having to do right now; that is, make some hard decisions and reduce 
our own spending. So it does reduce congressional budgets.
  It rescinds unspent Federal funds, those funds that have been 
appropriated but not spent. It requires the government to sell unused 
land and auction off unused equipment. So it generates some additional 
revenue that way.
  It imposes a 1-year freeze on the salaries of Federal employees and 
eliminates their bonuses, and it caps the total number of Federal 
employees at current levels. In other words, the Federal Government 
can't continue to grow and expand at a time when we see a lot of our 
businesses around this country having to lay workers off or cut back 
their hours. It collects $3 billion in unpaid taxes from Federal 
employees.
  It encourages responsibility and prioritizing by requiring a 5-
percent across-the-board discretionary spending cut for all agencies 
except the VA and the Department of Defense. So 5 percent across the 
board for all agencies except VA and DOD. And we think, again, that is 
an important step to take if we are serious about getting our own 
spending under control and addressing what is a very serious problem 
for the future of this country; that is, the ballooning Federal debt, 
the continual growth of government and spending and taxes.
  It saves $5 billion by eliminating nonessential government travel, 
and it eliminates bonuses for poor-performing government contractors.
  Finally, it adds a new deficit-reduction trust fund where rescinded 
balances and money saved through this amendment will be deposited for 
the purposes of paying down the Federal debt.
  This amendment ought to be a no-brainer for all of our colleagues in 
the Senate because it reduces the deficit by over $50 billion; it cuts 
spending by over $100 billion; it extends the existing tax law, the 
provisions we have all talked about that both sides think are 
important; and it provides 6 more

[[Page S4880]]

months of stimulus unemployment benefits for those who have lost jobs 
in our economy.
  As I said earlier, that is the exact opposite of the approach taken 
by the Democratic majority, which is, as I said before, the way they 
finance all of these things is through $70 billion in new taxes. Again, 
many of those taxes are going to hit squarely on our small businesses, 
which are the economic engine and the job creators in our economy and 
are going to hopefully lead us out of this economic malaise and get us 
on to times where we are growing and expanding and creating more and 
more jobs. And it adds $80 billion to the Federal debt, which, as I 
mentioned earlier, is at $13 trillion. If you include all of the 
Federal debt--that amount held by the public, held by foreign 
countries, held by people here in this country--and then you add in the 
government, the intergovernmental debt that is owed to various agencies 
of government, we are at $13 trillion and counting.
  In fact, if you look at the trajectory going into the future, we are 
talking about doubling and tripling that debt, doubling it in 5 years 
and tripling it in 10. And we are going to get to the point where over 
4 percent of our entire economy is spent just paying interest on the 
debt.
  Think about that. Over 4 percent of our entire economy--we have a $14 
trillion economy--would be spent just paying for interest on our 
Federal debt. There is going to come a point, 10 years out from now, 
when the amount of money we have to spend to finance our debt, to pay 
for the interest on the debt, exceeds the amount we spend on our 
military. Think about that. We would spend more financing the debt we 
owe, spend more on interest payments on the debt we owe, than we 
actually spend on our national security. That is a staggering thought, 
if you think about it. That is what we have to try to avoid. The only 
way we do that is by getting serious and starting here and starting 
now.
  My colleagues on the Democratic majority side have said that because 
they passed pay-go, now we are on a different path; it is a different 
set of rules, a new sheriff in town; we are going to deal with these 
issues differently. But unfortunately what we are seeing is the same 
pattern, the same old way of doing things, which is to declare 
everything an emergency, borrow the money from China, and hand the bill 
to our children and grandchildren. It is time that stopped. This 
amendment gives us an opportunity to do that.
  To put things into perspective because I think sometimes these 
numbers get to be very abstract, and you listen to politicians get up 
and talk about debt and spending and deficits and that sort of thing, 
and it is hard to kind of comprehend, if you will, the dimensions we 
are talking about--I mean, $13 trillion. It is hard to even contemplate 
what $1 trillion is. So just to put that into proper perspective, if 
you were to equate a dollar to a second, how much is 1 trillion 
seconds?
  I spoke at Boys State a week ago or a little over a week ago now, and 
I asked the Boys Staters to sit down and do the arithmetic and to 
figure out how much 1 trillion seconds is because I think it helps put 
into perspective how much $1 trillion is. It is hard to even wrap your 
mind around what $1 trillion represents. But if you equate that to 1 
trillion seconds, 1 trillion seconds is 31,746 years--31,746 years. 
That is what 1 trillion seconds represents.
  Well, we are not $1 trillion in debt; we are $13 trillion in debt. 
How much is 13 trillion seconds? Over 412,000 years. Over 412,000 
years. If you were to help people understand and put it in a certain 
perspective, that is the amount of money--the $13 trillion that we now 
owe, that is today. As I said before, if you look at the publicly held 
portion of that, we are expected to double that in 5 and triple it in 
10 years.
  It took us 200 years of American history to get to $1 trillion, and 
we have exploded that. If you look at the trendlines and where we are 
headed as a nation, it is a very, very scary thought. It should be 
scary to all Americans, and I know it is. It certainly should be scary 
to the Members of this Chamber. That is why, every time we deal with a 
major piece of legislation, foremost in our mind ought to be, how is 
this going to impact the fiscal balance sheet of this country? How is 
this going to make the next generation--how is it going to improve 
their standard of living, their quality of life? What is it going to do 
to them? Are we going to be the first generation to bequeath to the 
next generation a lower standard of living and a lower quality of life 
because we haven't been willing to make the hard choices and to make 
the hard decisions that are so essential if we are going to get our 
country on a fiscal path?

  This amendment does address the issues on which both sides agree. It 
addresses the issue of extending expiring tax provisions that many 
people on both sides care about. It extends unemployment insurance 
until the end of the year. It does extend the doc fix beyond what the 
base bill does. The base bill extends it through the end of the year 
2011. What this amendment would do would be to extend it to end of the 
year 2012.
  So we have an opportunity for Senators to take a vote and to let 
everybody know, let their constituents know whether they are serious 
about getting spending under control; about making sure we are doing 
everything we can to create the right economic conditions for job 
creation, and by that I mean keeping taxes low on small businesses, not 
raising taxes by $70 billion, which is what this bill does; and whether 
we are serious here in Washington, DC, about listening to the American 
people and what they are saying with regard to spending. They want us 
to cut federal spending. They want us to do what they are having to do 
in their family budgets and in their small business budgets. What every 
American is now having to deal with is becoming more fiscally 
responsible, dealing with austere measures that will keep them from 
having to go deeply into hock or into bankruptcy. We are doing that 
here--we are going into bankruptcy. We just have the luxury here in 
Washington, DC, of being able to continue to borrow and borrow and put 
it on the credit card and hand the bill to our children and 
grandchildren. It is time for that to stop. It can stop with this 
amendment.
  I hope that as we continue debate on the underlying bill and get 
votes on those amendments, my colleagues in the Senate will do the 
right thing for the future of this country and start to get spending 
under control and start to pay for what we continue to borrow for so 
that we are not piling more and more debt on future generations.
  I yield the floor, and 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________