[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.
____________________